Sitting of 15 November 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Poverty (Statistics)
    Mr. Anderw F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now estimate the number of people living in poverty.
    The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): There is no generally accepted definition of poverty on which such an estimate could be made.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there seems to be no end to the Government's enthusiasm to extend poverty? Not only are they failing to uprate benefits in line with inflation by about 1 to 1·5 per cent., but they are extending the number of people who are having to draw social security because they are unemployed, and in addition they are proposing to put up fuel charges next spring by 5 per cent., which is an extra 2 per cent. on the amount allowed for in the uprating.
    Dr. Boyson: The uprating that will take place next Monday is in line with inflation, where it is not in advance of inflation. The uprating in child benefit, unemployment benefit and other benefits is in advance of inflation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the higher we raise supplementary benefits, the more people can claim to be in poverty.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that young people without permanent accommodation in London, who, according to recent reports in the press, are receiving over £100 a week in social security benefits, are not living in poverty?
    Dr. Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the cheap sneer of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), is the Minister aware that those living on small incomes will be seriously harmed by the proposed increases in gas and electricity prices? Is he further aware that those who do not receive supplementary benefit but are eligible for rent or rate rebates do not receive a penny piece to assist them with their fuel bills in the winter months?
    Dr. Boyson: Fuel costs paid as part of supplementary benefits have over the years increased at a rate higher than
    706
    the increase in the cost of fuel. Those who are not on supplementary benefit receive the pension in the round and are responsible for the expenditure of that money. One cannot adjust 100 different inputs to every expenditure.
    Mr. Winnick: That is a disgraceful answer.
    Mr. John: When the star chamber reached the decision to raise gas and fuel prices, was the Minister asked to estimate the effect on the budget of a social security beneficiary? If so, what was his estimate? If not, does that not show the contempt in which the aptly named star chamber holds the poor?
    Dr. Boyson: I was not present at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and today would be the wrong time to refer to public spending, as a statement will be made on Thursday.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister failed to mention housing benefit in his run round the benefits that may be changed. Is that because this week there will be a further imposition on those receiving housing benefit and that that will increase poverty?
    Dr. Boyson: As I said, a statement on public expenditure will be made on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman is present, he will find out what is to happen.
    Mr. Frank Field: The Minister may not accept that there is a common definition for poverty, but does he accept that everybody else does? The recently released figures from the family expenditure survey show a 40 per cent. increase in the numbers on low incomes. Does the Minister accept that that is a direct result of the Government's policy? If not, who or what is responsible for kicking down towards the bottom end of our society an extra 4·5 million people in the first two years of Tory rule?
    Dr. Boyson: In 1976, under the Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the then Minister for Social Security, said:
    "Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 255.]
    Similarly, in 1978 the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
    "The Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 766.]
    The hon. Gentleman referred to 4·5 million unemployed. There has been an increase in long-term unemployment, which is wanted by no one on either side of the Chamber, and that has led to an increase in supplementary benefit. I know that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely worried about this matter. The value of supplementary benefit is higher in real terms than when we came into power.

    National Health Service (Staff)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much have staff numbers in the National Health Service changed since 1978; and if he will make a statement relating this to his Department's current manpower policy.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The number of directly employed staff in the National Health Service in England increased by

    707
    about 69,000 between September 1978 and September 1982 to a total of 828,000. The increase was predominantly among those directly involved in patient care, particularly doctors, nurses and professional and technical staff. Following talks with regional health authorities I have asked for a reduction of 4,800 posts by March 1984—that is a reduction of 0·5 per cent.
    Mr. Adley: In the light of that spectacular increase in job numbers, will my right hon. Friend accept that the only criticism of him that is perhaps justified is that he has allowed himself to be painted as a butcher when his record on jobs shows that he is more like a Santa Claus? Do not these figures show that the Opposition's argument on jobs reductions is a hollow sham? Does not my right hon. Friend have a duty to the taxpayer to attempt to control the growth of his huge empire?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his discerning description of me. It is probably better to be portrayed as a cutter than as a trimmer. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that resources for the National Health Service have increased substantially under this Government. In our period in office, front-line staff numbers, especially nurses, have increased substantially.
    Mr. Ashley: In the light of the spectacular cuts that have been announced by a ministerial butcher who dresses up as a Santa Claus with no beard, will the Secretary of State recognise that the cuts are a gross interference in the rights of health authorities to manage their own affairs? Will he take steps to ensure that deprived districts, such as north Staffordshire, suffer no cuts, because they cannot afford any more?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not believe that anyone can reasonably portray a reduction of 4,800 posts—0·5 per cent.—as spectacular. This reduction does not add up to that description. The Government had to intervene because health authorities were planning not to reduce or to stabilise manpower, but to increase numbers by 7,000, predominantly among administrative or ancillary staff, not nurses and doctors. In those circumstances, it was right for the Government to intervene.
    Mrs. Currie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saving £64 million in administrative costs by the abolition of the area health authorities, as reported in Hansard yesterday. Does he agree that the 100,000-plus administrators in the Health Service, which works out at one administrator to every seven other staff, is too high, especially in the Trent region, which covers my constituency?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend, who has long experience in the Health Service and as a health authority chairman, is correct. I hope that health authorities will have noted that the Government would like the reduction in posts to be geared more towards the administrative tail of the Health Service than to nurses and doctors.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that these manpower cuts are manifestly arbitrary and damaging to clinical care when there are already more than 3,000 doctors and 8,000 nurses and midwives on the dole? Will he tell the House what legal powers he has to enforce these cuts where health authorities are not breaking their cash limits? Is it not shameful that many
    708
    authorities should be required to dismiss regular nursing staff and then be allowed to take on the same number of agency nurses the next day?
    Mr. Fowler: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as Opposition spokesman on social services. All his statements are factually incorrect. First, there is no evidence of doctor or nurse redundancies. Secondly, there is evidence that the regional chairmen have accepted the targets and will work towards them. Therefore, there is no question of their being forced to break their cash limits. Thirdly, the reductions are not arbitrary. They have been carefully worked out to reduce manpower by 0·5 per cent. after careful talks with every regional health authority.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter supplementary questions and answers.

    One-parent Benefit
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of those entitled to receive one-parent benefit are receiving it.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The latest estimate available shows that about 70 per cent. of those who stand to gain by claiming one-parent benefit are receiving it.
    Mr. Knox: This figure represents a considerable improvement since the Government came into office, but it is still not completely satisfactory. Has my hon. Friend any plans for further steps to improve the take-up of one-parent benefit?
    Mr. Newton: I accept that the number is not as high as we would like, and we are continuing to look for ways to increase it. Recently, we introduced a new poster for display in each of the relevant areas. This year we are experimenting with different ways of promoting take-up in different parts of the country—television, radio and magazines—with a view to assessing the most effective way of making further progress.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister consider making an early statement on the outstanding recommendations of the Finer committee in a report that was produced almost 10 years ago?
    Mr. Newton: A large number of the recommendations in the Finer report were for Departments other than the DHSS. I note the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

    Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to encourage management recognition of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel for industrial relations purposes.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Individual health authorities are free to recognise the association locally, and I have encouraged several to do so. We have also authorised a number of authorities, where the association has a significant membership to grant the facility under which members' contributions to the association are deducted at source.
    Mr. Atkins: In the light of my hon. and learned Friend's advice to health authorities to recognise the

    709
    Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel and Lancashire's refusal to do so, even though more than 50 per cent. of ambulance personnel are members of APAP, what will he do to rectify this disgraceful anomaly in Lancashire?
    Mr. Clarke: I have given the advice to the district chairmen. The chairman in question is one of those to whom I have written. I hope that he will reflect on the fact that the Government's view is that the ambulance men should determine by which union or association they wish to be represented. We expect health authorities to recognise the associations that plainly have the support of their employees.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recognise that legitimate trade unions in my area are fighting against cuts in ambulance services? The Secretary of State has talked about 0·5 per cent. cuts. In view of those cuts, will the Minister examine the proposals of the Northumbria ambulance service where there are proposed cuts of 20 per cent.? Such cuts will leave patients in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about recognition, not cuts.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recognise that legitimate trade unions are reducing the emergency cover for my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), but I will not allow the people I represent to suffer — [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout as much as they like.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is sufficient.
    Mr. Clarke: We have asked health authorities to cut spending only on unnecessary services, to release resources for priority patient care. We expect local health authorities to recognise those unions and associations chosen by the employees to represent them.

    Pension Schemes (Equity Benefits)
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he now proposes to encourage those responsible for pension schemes to improve the equity of benefits between participants in their schemes.
    Sir Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is proposing to ease the problems for early leavers in occupational pension schemes.
    Mr. Fowler: Following the report of the Occupational Pensions Board on the problems of the early leaver from pension schemes, I consulted closely all major interests and in September held a one-day conference on this subject. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
    Mr. Viggers: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on identifying the problems in this area and on the initiatives that he took to promote discussion. Does he agree that the early leaver is only part of the issue and that we should seek to provide portability of pensions, which would carry many substantial benefits?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Action on early leavers does not in any way preclude action being taken on personal portable pensions. There is
    710
    a great attraction in principle in personal portable pensions, and I shall have something further to say about that.
    Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem has a severe effect on employees and does not help flexibility of employment or the economy? I know that he has made progress, but will he redouble his efforts to further this cause which is so important to employees?
    Mr. Fowler: I have no doubt that many staff feel strongly about this problem. Voluntary action has not been sufficient, and I believe that the Government have a duty to remedy this injustice.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: When can we expect a Government response to the Select Committee report on equality of retirement age for men and women, as it will have an effect on the future of occupational pensions?
    Mr. Fowler: It will plainly have some effect. I am not sure that it arises from this question, but there w ill be a response shortly.
    Mr. Meacher: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the only proper answer to the problem of the early leaver is full indexation of a frozen pension, which should not be at the expense of cutting other members' benefits? If that cannot be done, does it not illustrate that private occupational pension schemes, as opposed to the state scheme, suffer from the overwhelming defect that they cannot cope properly during a period of inflation?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall shortly be making a statement on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman felt so strongly about this subject, I am surprised that he did not do something about it when he was a Minister at the DHSS.

    Hospital Closures (London)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals in the London area have been closed during the last four years; and how many are currently under threat of closure.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Since May 1979, 29 hospitals in Greater London have been approved for closure. Formal closure proposals have been made, but not yet approved, in respect of a further 14. These figures do not include temporary closures.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that his recent decision to close the south London hospital for women is bitterly resented in my constituency and adjoining areas? Is not the only conclusion to be drawn from the answer that he has just given that there will be further hospital closures in London and that we may well be left with only one teaching hospital in each London district health authority area?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept that the south London hospital for women decision was difficult because of the unique service being provided there by women to women patients. The closure will release £5 million, which will pave the way for the next phase of the new St. George's teaching hospital, Tooting. In the short-term, it will allow much needed improvements to be made in the care of the mentally ill in that district, particularly at the Springfield hospital.
    Mr. Jessel: Where greatly valued local community hospitals are under threat, such as those at Teddington and

    711
    Twickenham in my constituency, following the recommendations in the Griffiths report, if a district health authority owns valuable under-used tracts of land, could they not be sold or leased to raise funds so that closures could be reconsidered?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is important that we release surplus land at the proper value because it can provide money for health authorities to devote to patient services. We believe that the new management will give high priority to the disposal of surplus land and the better management of estates in use.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: How many temporarily closed hospitals are there in London in addition to the closures that the Minister has mentioned? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that none of the temporary closures will prejudice the ultimate decision as to whether the hospitals remain open?
    Mr. Clarke: I require notice to give an exact figure of how many hospitals are temporarily closed. Temporary closure means just that. If people wish to make permanent decisions, they have to go through the consultation procedure. If there is any controversy, they then come to Ministers for decisions. Ministers will approve closures only where they are satisfied that they are in the interests of the authority and patient services and are the best way to make necessary economies to provide better health services elsewhere.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that those who represent districts which are underfunded on the RAWP formula and in regions which are overfunded, including parts of London, believe that a fairer distribution of resources is important?
    Mr. Clarke: No doubt my right hon. Friend's constituents and many others in areas surrounding London regard some of the campaigns going on in London to try to preserve surplus out-of-date hospitals as contrary to the interests of patients in areas such as his, which are underprovided, because the population has increased or because they are historically deprived.
    Ms. Richardson: Does the Minister realise that the south London hospital for women occupies a special place in London and is not rundown and outdated? Does he recognise that women throughout London are enraged at the proposal to close the hospital? They see it as a reduction in their right to be treated in that hospital which, as has been pointed out, is run by women for women.
    Mr. Clarke: The south London hospital for women was potentially surplus because it is in an already well provided area which is to have a new teaching hospital at Tooting. Some of those campaigning for the south London hospital for women put it to me that the logical alternative was not to proceed with the next phase of St. George's. That would be unpopular in Tooting, Clapham and Wandsworth, which are the areas affected. We have received an assurance from the authority that women patients who wish to have treatment from other women will, in all cases where it is possible, be offered such treatment, particularly in gynaecology, obstetrics and so on, about which many women feel strongly.

    North-East Thames Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the North-East Thames regional health authority concerning manpower cuts.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): The North-East Thames regional health authority wrote to the Department on 31 August setting out its response to the indicative figures issued at the end of July. I met the chairman of the authority on 27 September to discuss the final target for the region.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Minister confirm that in the Dagenham health district the cuts amount to more than three times 0·5 per cent.? Will he also confirm that the district health authority could have met his financial targets without the imposed manpower cuts? Is he aware that the imposed cuts will mean closed wards, fewer nurses, the impossibility of pursuing specialist subjects in Oldchurch hospital and a lower level of patient care?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. The responsibility for the distribution of manpower targets within the North-East Thames regional health authority is a matter for that health authority. There is no evidence that patient services will suffer as a result of the manpower indicative figures that have been given.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the implementation of the Griffiths proposals, coupled with the contracting out of services, will make it relatively easy for that authority to comply with the manpower targets?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is correct. We want health authorities to address themselves first and foremost to tackling difficult manpower problems rather than turning, as is all too easy, to cutting services, slackening estate maintenance and not re-ordering new equipment as they should.

    Seasonal Workers (Benefit)
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why seasonal workers who cannot obtain employment in their off-season are not entitled to supplementary benefit.
    Dr. Boyson: A seasonal worker is not specifically barred from receiving supplementary benefit during his off-season, but the level of his earnings in the on-season, if they are sufficiently high, may exclude him from supplementary benefit in the off-season.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that seasonal workers who are paid only during the season are unable to obtain unemployment benefit when they sign on? They also receive inadequate supplementary benefit. When a seasonal worker applies for supplementary benefit, why is he unable to receive adequate financial resources to give him a living wage?
    Dr. Boyson: If in the on-season the worker is allowed to earn two and a half times the level of supplementary benefit or three times that of the single householder, that figure is not taken into account when assessing his off-season entitlement. Anything above that figure is carried forward and then divided by the number of weeks in the off-season, including the £4 that the claimant is allowed

    713
    to earn. I am sure that my hon. Friend follows my argument. Provided that the claimant has not earned a lot of money in the on-season, he will be entitled to supplementary benefit in the off-season.
    Mr. Ashton: Why does the definition of off-season vary from area to area?
    Dr. Boyson: The definition varies from area to area because it depends upon whether, for example, agricultural fisheries or tourist workers are involved. The season is different for each.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that some of those affected work for Government agencies?
    Dr. Boyson: I am not sure what the hon. Member means. If he will write to me, my Department will check the details.

    Griffiths Report
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has held with interested parties on the implementation of the recommendations proposed in the Griffiths report.
    Mr. Galleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific steps he is planning to take to implement the recommendations of the Griffiths report.
    Mr. Fowler: As I told the House on 25 October, I am committed to improving management in the NHS and I believe that the Griffiths report has made important proposals to achieve this. I am about to consult health authorities, professional staff and other bodies on the report. In the meantime, I intend to take action within the Department to implement the report's proposals.
    I am pleased that Mr. Griffiths has agreed to join the supervisory board as a non-executive member.
    Mr. Favell: Is the Secretary of State confident that interested parties will accept the implementation of the Griffiths report, thus releasing funds patient care, which is what the NHS is all about?
    Mr. Fowler: The objectives of the Griffiths report have been widely accepted, not only in the National Health Service but outside. The aim of the consultation period is to get the exact views of the NHS on how the proposals should be implemented.
    Mr. Galley: Although my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his positive response to the Griffiths report, does he accept that the establishment of management and supervisory bodies will not, by themselves, improve the quality of management within the NHS? Has my right hon. Friend any further proposals to establish management by objective, individual management responsibilities and personnel appraisement policies in the near future? To what time scale is he working? Is he prepared to develop the ideas as soon as possible?
    Mr. Fowler: We are prepared to develop as quickly as possible all ideas that improve the management of the NHS. We wish to establish the supervisory board and the management board within the Department. At the same time, we intend appointing general managers at regional, district and unit levels. The other points raised by my hon. Friend must also be considered.
    Mrs. Renée Short: I can tell those hon. Members who have not read the Griffiths report that it is a good blueprint
    714
    for running a grocery chain, but not the marvellous network of hospitals within the NHS. I understand that the Secretary of State intends consulting the medical profession about the Griffiths report. Does he intend giving the House an opportunity to express its views on the report?
    Mr. Fowler: The last matter raised by the hon. Lady was fair, and I shall consider it. Her first point has no validity whatsoever. The differences between running a business and the NHS are great, but there are also great similarities. Above all, both are trying to provide the best possible service to the public at the least cost. I should have thought that the hon. Lady, who is committed to the NHS, would welcome a report that aims at better management of the service.
    Mr. Crouch: I welcome the move from consensus management to the introduction of managers in the health authorities, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the continuing importance of consultation by managers with the specialists involved in the Health Service, be they medical specialists or those in more junior posts?
    Mr. Fowler: There is no question about that. At all levels, that will be the case.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given the deep concern exemplified by the NHS and by the response that Mr. Griffiths received recently from the Royal College of Nursing, will the Secretary of State, before proceeding with the recommendations in the report, reconsider the possibility of regional pilot schemes to examine whether the recommendations will work at a practical level?
    Mr. Fowler: There are some pilot schemes concerned with management budgets. I shall give the hon. Gentleman details about them. The case for going forward and seeking a better management structure in the Health Service without undergoing the extensive reorganisation that has taken place in the past is, however, overwhelming.
    Mr. Meacher: Are not the Griffiths proposals aimed not at improving efficiency but at facilitating further cuts in the Health Service? Is not that the reason why the Government changed their earlier view that the chief executive idea would be incompatible with the professional independence of hospital staff? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the outrageous decision to exclude the chief nursing officer from the advisory board, as nurses constitute half of the staff employed in the NHS?
    Mr. Fowler: No final decision has been made about the last matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, unlike his predecessor, will accept that the Griffiths report, like Mr. Roy Griffiths himself, is entirely dedicated to trying to improve the NHS. I urge the Opposition to try to aim for a modern Health Service, which is what the Government are trying to achieve.

    Private Hospital Beds
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of private hospital beds in 1979, in comparison with the last available figures for 1983.
    Mr. John Patten: I regret that no information is available for 1979. There are approximately 34,500 beds in the independent sector now, more than three quarters of which are in nursing homes.
    Mr. Fatchett: To what extent are those private beds subsidised by the taxpayer? Is it not a moral outrage that, at a time when Leeds eastern and Leeds western health districts are being forced to cut jobs and services, the proposed private hospital at Methley near Leeds should be subsidised by the Government's business expansion scheme?
    Mr. Patten: No subsidy is paid by the taxpayer to support private medicine. The funding of one of the two new hospitals in Leeds to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in private beds reflect the fact that many more people are joining health insurance schemes and that a further contributory factor is the fact that many trade unionists are joining private health schemes?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure he will agree that we wish to see throughout the country more examples of co-operation between health authorities in the private sector in providing joint developments for the benefit of patients in both schemes.
    Mr. Barron: Bearing in mind the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), is the Minister aware that private hospitals are used to carry out operations and patients are then transferred to NHS hospitals for post-operative care? Is not that an area in which the NHS is subsidising private medicine?
    Mr. Patten: No—far from it. More than £50 million comes to the NHS through that system.
    Mr. Dobson: Now that private hospitals and private health insurance companies are finding it difficult to make profits, will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer resist the importuning and bleating of the private sector for more subsidies from the taxpayer, in addition to the tax concessions that it has already received, the business start-up scheme that it has exploited, the changes in consultants' contracts, the way in which private hospitals are parasites on neighbouring NHS hospitals and the scandalous changes introduced by the Government in the disposal of surplus NHS land to private hospitals?
    Mr. Patten: There seem to be about seven separate questions there. In the past four years there has been an increase of some 3,000 beds in the private sector and a further 800 are being built. Those beds increase the availability of health care in this country. They do not decrease it. We welcome the co-operation between the public and private sectors in this context.

    New Hospital Beds
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many new hospital beds are currently unused.
    Mr. John Patten: The information requested is not collected routinely but a special inquiry in March 1982 identified 934 beds awaiting opening at seven hospitals through lack of funds. The latest available information, in April 1983, shows that the number of unopened beds has been reduced to 791 at six of those hospitals.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is it not a disgrace that so many beds in new wards remain unused when hundreds of thousands of patients are waiting in distress and dying in agony on the waiting list? Would it not be more sensible to take action to match those new beds with the unemployed nurses and doctors to reduce the waiting list and the waiting time rather than increasing them by imposing further cuts on the Health Service as the Government propose?
    Mr. Patten: Some of the problems result from bad decisions on capital and revenue planning. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was determined to put that right so that those problems would no longer arise. The hon. Gentleman should consider the triumphant way in which the NHS in recent years has increased its productivity by treating 500,000 more patients per year in roughly the same number of beds. The waiting lists would be much shorter if there had not been industrial action in 1982.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that there was nothing wrong with the planning of the Glenfield district hospital in my constituency, but that everything wrong with the Government's policy, which is preventing that hospital from opening and resulting in a great deal of expenditure on mothballing? When will that hospital open? How long must my constituents wait for the hospital beds they so desperately need?
    Mr. Patten: That is a matter for the regional health authority, but waiting lists throughout the country are becoming shorter and it will not be long before they return to the level before last year's industrial action.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that thousands of middle-aged and elderly people with detached retinas are waiting to use those hospital beds? Why will he not allow them to do so?
    Mr. Patten: The disposition of resources for the treatment of individual specialties such as the optical matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are matters for the regional health authorities and their constituent district health authorities.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that in some district general hospitals, including those in Leeds, different wards are closed from week to week, thus obscuring the real number of unused beds? Will he draw attention to that in his next statement?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should consider more closely the performance indicators that we are developing to examine those problems. Some ward closures represent sensible planning by the hospital authorities in the interests of conserving resources and increasing the throughput of patients in the very beds that we wish to see used to best effect.
    Mr. Loyden: How can the Minister say that the closing of hospitals and reductions in the number of beds have no effect when a constituent of mine in her seventies has to wait more than two years for orthopaedic surgery? Is that how safe the Health Service is in the hands of the Government?
    Mr. Patten: We are treating more patients this year than ever before—[HON. MEMBERS: "You make more people sick."] I cannot answer the specific point raised by

    717
    the hon. Gentleman as I do not know the circumstances of his constituent or the clinical judgment of the consultant involved, but we are treating more, not fewer, patients.

    London Health Authorities (Manpower Cuts)
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why 78 per cent. of the total manpower cuts for England are expected of district and special health authorities in Greater London.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The manpower targets reflect the revenue position and individual circumstances of each region. London's health services remain funded at well above the national average level of spending. The lower manpower target for London reflects the general policy of making economies in better provided parts of London to provide extra resources for less well provided areas of the country.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that the figures propounded by the Government for job losses in London due to Government measures are only a quarter or a fifth of the true figures? Does he accept that in the Greenwich district, in which the Government estimate is 145 job losses, the actual figure is likely to be 600 and that in Haringey, for which the official figure is 53, the actual figure is likely to be 298?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the figures. Our target figures reflect a balance between the jobs which are, and always will be, required for new developments to improve the service and the number of posts that can be saved through more efficient use of manpower. The hon. Gentleman takes only one side of the equation. If the savings are made, the health authorities will release resources which would otherwise be wasted on unnecessary staffing and thus be able to improve their services. There has already been a growth of expenditure in London since the Government came to power. That area will therefore be able to press on with worthwhile developments despite the redistribution of growth money throughout the whole country.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the high commissioner for Papua New Guinea.
    Mr. Adley: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's announcement that she will be going to Hungary, may I ask whether she is aware that she will find there a fiercely proud nation, a nation deprived of self-determination in which protest at its subjugation is forbidden but which yearns to maintain contact with western Europe? Will she do all that she can to let the people there know that we appreciate their difficulties and are concerned about their future?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the time is now right to make strenuous
    718
    efforts to have a sensible dialogue between East and West to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. The Deputy Prime Minister of Hungary paid a very successful visit to this country earlier this year. I hope to make a return visit shortly.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that all the cruise missiles have now arrived at Greenham common? Will she now tell us in what circumstances she would be prepared, if President Reagan bothered to ask her, to sanction the use of those missiles?
    The Prime Minister: Cruise missiles will be coming in over quite a long period. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence promised to inform the House when the first ones arrived and he has done so. As for the right hon. Gentleman's second question, it would clearly be of the greatest possible use to the Soviet Union to know the precise circumstances or details of the arrangements. One does not normally help a potential aggressor in that way. The Labour Government never did so and I do not intend to have a worse record than theirs.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the light of recent events, why is the Prime Minister still prepared to accept an utterly inferior status in what we thought was an alliance,? Can she not tell the difference between dependence and alliance, between the status of a partner in NATO and a lackey to the Americans?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I can. I also know the difference between unilateral disarmament, which the right hon. Gentleman espouses, and multilateral disarmament, which we support.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that although there were times in the past when we could accept her credentials on multilateral disarmament, in the light of recent events those are now past and we do not believe that she is genuine?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. Arrangements with regard to American nuclear weapons on our soil remain precisely the same as those that existed during the time of the Labour Government. They satisfied all Labour Prime Ministers. Those arrangements have been applied to cruise missiles. As President Reagan said, there will be a joint decision before they are ever used. He also said that that is tantamount to a British veto on their use.
    Mr. Kinnock rose——
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is normal to allow the Front Bench some latitude. I shall allow the Leader of the Opposition one more question.
    Mr. Kinnock: I do not want to abuse your kindness, Mr. Speaker. These questions are so fundamental that they demand to be asked. I shall make this my last question. Is the right hon. Lady aware that nobody, be it President Reagan, his chiefs of staff, the Opposition or the British people, believes that there is joint determination over cruise missiles?
    The Prime Minister: There is joint determination. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has doubts, but Labour Prime Ministers have been prepared to rest upon what I have described. I notice that neither the Leader of the

    719
    Opposition nor his colleagues were forthright or forward in their protest against the constant stationing of SS20s by the Soviet Union throughout the disarmament talks.
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen the private Member's Bill dealing with the disabled, which is to be debated later this week? Will she take this opportunity to remind the House of the Government's outstanding record on helping the disabled?
    The Prime Minister: The Bill has been published and the Government's view will be given on the appropriate day. As my hon. Friend said, the Government's record on helping the disabled is outstanding. The mobility allowance is 90 per cent. higher than it was during the Labour Government and it is now tax-free. Expenditure on the long-term invalidity and disability benefits is 21 per cent. above the level of increase in inflation. We deliver the goods and the Opposition do the talking.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who are in favour of the dual key for cruise missiles will not allow it to become a source of anti-Americanism? Is she further aware that we shall also not allow advocacy of that argument to undermine the bargaining position of NATO in its attempt to achieve a reduction of SS20s? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that negotiations will continue until the end of December and that the Government will consult the United States about reducing the number of Pershings that are to be deployed? Does she agree that one way in which to show restraint in the deployment of cruise missiles would be to recognise the strength of Soviet feeling about Pershing?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that negotiations in Geneva continued this morning. We hope that they will continue and that, if satisfactory agreement is not reached by the end of December, they will continue into next year. There are many proposals on the table that require serious consideration. With regard to some of the proposals on the proportion to be struck between cruise and Pershing, should the total number of nuclear missiles be diminished because we have reached agreement on a lower number, the same proportion between Pershing and cruise will be retained.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Prime Minister—who will have been grieved by the most recent murders of full-time and part-time members of the security forces in Northern Ireland — recognise how much the morale of those security forces has been sustained by her firm refusal to engage in or condone any attempts to weaken the constitutional status of Northern Ireland? Will she do all that is within her power to ensure that the security forces are not hampered in any way by inappropriate economic measures or considerations?
    The Prime Minister: None of us can speak too highly of the bravery and courage of the police, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the armed forces in Northern Ireland. They do a great job trying to protect the weak and to uphold the law in a part of the United Kingdom. It will remain part of the United Kingdom unless the people there
    720
    wish otherwise. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have protected the forces of law and order and increased expenditure on them.
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister aware of the delays to traffic over the Severn bridge, which results from the complacency and lethargic attitude of her Secretary of State for Transport? Will she ensure that the Welsh economy's lifeline is protected and compel her Minister to make a statement to the House before the end of the week?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the exchanges about the Severn bridge that have taken place in the House and that the Minister is awaiting a report before reaching a final decision on how best to cope with the problem. We are fully aware of the importance of that road bridge as an efficient means of transport to south Wales. We are also aware of its importance to present and future investment in that area.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to another matter? Will she today consult her Secretary of State for Energy and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the cost of energy? How can she explain the proposed increases in the price of electricity and gas for next year — [Interruption.] Would the Opposition shut up?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I am the person who should say that.
    Mr. Winterton: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. Will my right hon. Friend explain how she justifies these proposed price increases in the light of the huge profits that the gas and electricity industries have announced? Is she aware that those price increases will make British industry less competitive? Will she veto them?
    The Prime Minister: Our policy is to set energy prices that relate to the trends and costs, and the costs of investment, in the industries concerned. With regard to electricity, the return on capital—the "huge profits" as my hon. Friend called them—is 1·5 per cent. I doubt whether many people would like to invest their savings for a return of 1·5 per cent. when the expected return on new investment is 5 per cent.
    Some gas comes from the southern basin of the North sea and costs 6p a therm. However, because of exhaustion of the southern basin, an increasing quantity must come from the Frigg field and other imported sources. That gas costs 23p per therm. An increasing proportion of gas will come from more expensive fields. If gas prices were kept low, the cheap gas would be used up more quickly, to the detriment of future generations.
    Mr. Needhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Needham: Notwithstanding the reduction in the level of home improvement grants, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real level of spending on such grants is much higher than it was under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's record on home improvement grants is outstanding. The Labour Government spent £90 million a year on home improvement grants. That expenditure is expected to reach about £650 million this year. That is an excellent record.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why has crime increased so much since the right hon. Lady came to office?
    The Prime Minister: For the answer to that, the hon. Gentleman should go to the many reports that have been written. In fact, crime has increased in all countries of the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "No']—and as the reports
    722
    show, it is not directly related to unemployment. Crime increased during periods when unemployment was decreasing.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports in the newspapers today of the suppression and outlawing of all peace movements in the satellite countries that attempt to object to the deployment of Russian missiles in their nations? Will she notice that in this country, where that does not happen, three forces are now aiming at the same purpose—the Labour party, CND, and the Communist party? All are attempting to achieve the same aim as Soviet Russia?
    The Prime Minister: I understand what my hon. and learned Friend is saying. Many brave and courageous lives have been lost defending the right of those people to say what they do. I wish that more people realised that.

Cyprus (Turkish Community)
3.31 pm
Mr. Denis Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision of the Turkish community in Cyprus to opt for a unilateral declaration of independence.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The position is that this morning the body calling itself the Assembly in northern Cyprus passed a resolution approving the establishment of a Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and a declaration of independence. Her Majesty's Government deplore this action by the Turkish Cypriot community, which amounts to a declaration of secession. We have issued a statement which makes it clear that it is incompatible with the 1960 treaties.
Our position has always been that we recognise only one Republic of Cyprus. That remains the position today. In our view, this latest move cannot be seen as altering the status of the Turkish Cypriot community. We would deeply regret it if, as seems all too likely, this action provokes the breakdown of the inter-communal talks and the consultations carried out by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Both have had our full support.
There have for some time been reports that a move of this sort was being contemplated by the Turkish Cypriot authorities. We have throughout made it clear, most recently, both to Mr. Denktash personally and at a high level at Ankara, that we would strongly disapprove such a move. It must be a matter for deep regret that those representations have apparently been disregarded. Our ambassador at Ankara has this morning, on my instructions, called on the Turkish Government not to associate themselves with this move by the Turkish Cypriot authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a similar message to President Evren urging him to help secure a reversal of the declaration.
In accordance with British responsibilities under the 1960 treaty of guarantee, I shall be proposing urgent consultations to both the Turkish and the Greek Governments. We are also in direct contact with the Government of Cyprus. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke this morning to President Kyprianou, and I have just seen the Cyprus high commissioner in London.
We shall consult urgently other interested Governments and also the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has been playing a key role in the search for a peaceful solution to the longstanding Cyprus problem. In addition, we are approaching the President of the Security Council with a view to securing an early meeting.
Mr. Healey: I should like to associate the Labour Opposition with Her Majesty's Government's position on this matter, as explained by the Foreign Secretary and set out in the statement issued by the Foreign Office this morning, and, in particular, with the statement that Cyprus is a single state with a single President, Mr. Kyprianou. I also want to associate the Opposition with the condemnation of the act of the Turkish Cypriot Assembly, an act which is bound to have a damaging effect on the interests of its own people and on all people on the island of Cyprus, particularly the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees from the areas that are now under Turkish control.
724
I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has approached the Turkish Government on the matter. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government have any evidence that the action taken by the Assembly was instigated or approved by either the Turkish army or the Prime Minister-elect of Turkey? Second, in his approach to NATO and the European Community, will he ask them to warn the Turkish Government that any support they might give to the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot Assembly would be contrary to the interests of the Alliance and the Community, and would be bound to have a damaging effect on Turkish relations with both those bodies? Finally, will he tell us whether the United States Administration are taking the same position as Her Majesty's Government take on this matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for his support of the position that we have adopted. I entirely agree with what he said about the potentially damaging effects of the action, as he described them. Evidence of instigation is plainly not a matter on which I can have any certainty, but the latest evidence suggests that the Turkish Government have been taken by surprise. Of course, there have been rumours and suggestions that something of this kind would happen, and that is why we made representations to the Turkish Government.
I entirely accept the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Community to give the warning that he suggests to the Turkish Government. We do not yet fully understand the position of the United States Government, but preliminary indications show that they are likely to take a similar view.
Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the 1960 treaty of guarantee, which I helped to negotiate, placed an obligation on the British Government to intervene to maintain the constitution of Cyprus, then agreed? Does he also agree that subsequently the Government of the day, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), made a historic mistake when they declined the invitation of the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, to intervene alongside the Turks to restore the constitution? In view of that mistake — probably an irretrievable mistake, which led to the widening gap between the two parties in Cyprus—will my right hon. and learned Friend be very cautious about taking sides in the dispute, remembering the importance of the sovereign base areas and the importance of Turkey, as well as Greece, as one of our allies?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I recall, of course, my right hon. Friend's role in the original 1960 treaties. If I remember correctly, it was recalled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) when he was questioned about this matter in a not dissimilar situation in 1974. Although the treaty gives the guarantors the right to take certain action, and obliges us to consult one another, it does not oblige us to take action of the kind that my right hon. Friend may have in mind. It is clear that this is not a military problem. The guarantor powers should be drawn together in consultation to see what further action can be taken with a view to reversing the Turkish Cypriot

725
decision. It is also clear, as my right hon. Friend points out, that we shall certainly not seek to take sides in the matter.
Mr. James Callaghan: Without trying to refight old battles, is not the situation now a little different from what it was in 1974, when the Turkish Government asked us to help them to invade the island to overthrow a gangster called Nicos Sampson, who had taken control of the island and deposed Archbishop Makarios, and who was supported by the Greek colonels — a dictatorship, fortunately later replaced by Prime Minister Karamanlis?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is, of course, very different from that which the right hon. Gentleman had to face, but the treaty obligations and the rights of the powers are precisely the same as they were then.
Sir Frederic Bennett: I do not dissent from anything that my right hon. and learned Friend said in his statement, hut, on the suggestion that the Turkish Government in some way instigated this action, is it not true that not only the existing although outgoing military Government but the new prospective Government have made it clear on all occasions that they want, not territorial aggrandisement in Cyprus to the benefit of Turkey—the last thing they want is to take on that responsibility—but to achieve the only conceivable solution to the problem, a genuine federal single state within Cyprus itself? That has always been the position of the Turkish Government and it remains so today.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the position of the Turkish Government as he sees it. The objective roust be to secure the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of what may well be a federal state.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is it not a fact of life that Mr. Denktash must have sought permission from General Evren before daring to make such a statement? Is it not true that Mr. Ozal, the Prime Minister-elect of Turkey, said last week and repeated earlier this week that, should Mr. Denktash declare independence unilaterally for the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus, he would give full support to that declaration, and it would certainly have the backing of the Turkish occupying troops?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the two press reports of Mr. Ozal's views. One of those reports was a correction of the other, and they are both slightly confusing. Regardless of the outcome of the recent elections in Turkey, we have been making our views absolutely plain to the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Government for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was in Ankara last month, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Young, saw Mr. Denktash in Nicosia recently. I myself have seen Mr. Turkmen twice since the late summer, and have discussed the matter at the United Nations. We have taken every opportunity to make our view plain.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend's firm statement will be warmly welcomed on this side of the House. Does he appreciate that the declaration of independence could lead to further violence in Cyprus and further destabilisation of the eastern Mediterranean and that, over the years, many
726
Turkish Cypriots have been strongly opposed to such a declaration? Will he continue to take the lead in the international community in working for a peaceful and unified Cyprus?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this subject, which he made plain in initiating the Adjournment debate on 27 July., and I entirely agree with him about the necessity for warning about the possible consequences of this unwise action.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to put the strongest possible pressure on Turkey, and does he recognise the crucial importance of the United States of America in this matter? The United States may carry more weight with Turkey than the whole of the rest of the Western Alliance.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bear in mind the important role that the United States could play.
Sir Ian Gilmour: The position as it existed in Cyprus until today suited too many people in both halves of the island and too many foreign Governments as well, though not Her Majesty's Government. Should we not, therefore, avoid trying to return to the status quo of yesterday, but rather work towards a comprehensive settlement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend is right to stress the need to work towards a comprehensive settlement. It was to that end that the United Nations Secretary-General resumed his initiative, and to that end that I have discussed the matter twice with President Kyprianou and twice with the Secretary-General.
Mr. Robin Corbett: While condemning this impudent and dangerous action, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will confirm that it remains Government policy to work for the restoration of the territorial independence and sovereignty of the island of Cyprus?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes indeed—the independence, sovereignty and integrity of that state.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Does not today's deplorable event mean an end to the intercommunal talks? Will there not therefore be a greater need than at anytime since 1974 for active participation by Her Majesty's Government in seeking a just solution?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to take all possible steps to promote a more effective search for a solution. However, as I have made plain in my statement and my answers this afternoon, we have already been extremely active in promoting moves in that direction.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: The Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus is not economically viable. It is totally dependent upon economic support from Turkey. Must not the responsibility for the unilateral declaration of independence rest to a large extent upon our NATO partners in Ankara? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore take appropriate action to ensure that a Government who condone military invasion do not remain part of NATO?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not be disposed to take the hon. Gentleman's advice in that respect. I remind the House again that the Prime Minister has already sent an

727
urgent message to President Evren, urging him to secure a reversal of the declaration. I understand that the Turkish national security council was convened at about noon today and is still meeting. We shall have to await the result of our representations.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Has not what has taken place arisen out of sheer frustration that the attempt to solve the problem by the United Nations and by other powers has dragged on over a number of years with no apparent result?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, frustration is likely to be increased if the search for a peaceful solution is prolonged. Everyone would wish that a solution could have been found earlier. The true foundation for a peaceful solution, however, must depend on the attitude of the communities concerned.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that there is no question of the Government recognising the new regime in the northern part of Cyprus? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman communicates with the Government of Turkey, will he deplore their support for the UDI? Will he also consider whether it is appropriate for the British Government to have any relationship with the repressive military junta in Ankara which has imprisoned thousands of people, including, very recently, the president of the Turkish Peace Association and 17 of his colleagues? Is it not possible that the support given by the British Government to the junta has led to take the foolish course of supporting UDI?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have taken every opportunity to express to the Turkish Government our firm opposition to any step of this kind. I therefore repudiate the suggestion implied in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Since we are in a treaty relationship with the Government of Turkey as well as with that of Greece, it is important for us to take steps jointly as guarantor powers
728
to find a solution. We deplore what has taken place, and there can be no question of the recognition of more than one Government for Cyprus.
Mr. John Corrie: For the last nine years there have been, de facto, two states in Cyprus and the intercommunal talks between the two ethnic groups have got nowhere. In order to bring some sense to both sides, do not the British Government need to exert more influence, and should not British diplomacy be brought in to work out an agreement for that sad island?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would be highly desirable, if it were possible, to end the division of the island. It must be remembered that in such an intercommunal conflict the power of the British Government, with all our diplomacy, must be limited, but we shall continue to do everything that we can.
Mr. Healey: What has emerged from this exchange is that, at the moment, the prime responsibility lies with the Government in Ankara. If they wish, they can be responsible for a major move forward to a general solution on the island. If they take the other course of recognising an independent Turkish state in the north of Cyprus, they will gravely damage their relations with their friends and allies and their partners in the Community, and will embark on a course that will progressively estrange them from all their Western friends. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make that clear to the Prime Minister-elect of Turkey.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right to conclude that the prime responsibility for what has happened so far rests on the Turkish Government. I do not believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant to imply. The responsibility rests upon the shoulders of Mr. Denktash and his colleagues. Plainly, however, the attitude of the Turkish Government could be crucial to the prospect of moving in a sensible, or unwise, direction. That was why I acted as soon as I could this morning to make our view clear to the Turkish Government, and why the Prime Minister has urged President Evren to try to secure a reversal of the declaration.

House of Commons Stationery (Members' Use)
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a matter that is of importance and concern to all hon. Members. It involves the use of stationery and official-paid envelopes and, in particular, the effect of the guidance contained in the 1975–76 and 1977–78 reports of the Services Committee on the use of stationery for party-political purposes.
A near resident in my borough drew my attention to a letter that had been sent out by my neighbour the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) at the end of October. It seems to have been one of a number of letters entitled
"Meeting of All Peckham Labour Party School Governors at Camden Tenants' Hall, Camden Estate, London SE15, on Wednesday, 23rd November 1983, at 7.30 pm."
It states:
"Once again the Tory Government is attacking the Inner London Education Authority. First, they aim to cut ILEA's spending which would result in sacking teachers and poorer education. Second, they plan to break up ILEA altogether. Previous attempts to undermine ILEA have floundered because of a united campaign by all those who care about our children's future and adult education. The campaign to fend off this latest attack is on the way.
In conjunction with the Peckham Labour Governors' Convener (John Maurice), and Southwark's Socialist Education Association (Steve Burt), I am calling a meeting which I hope all Peckham Governors will attend. We will be joined by Ruth Gee, ILEA's Deputy Leader"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not read out the letter; he has sent me a copy.
Mr. Hughes: The letter was sent out in a House of Commons pre-paid envelope and on notepaper with the portcullis on it. There was a pre-paid card for reply. All of us need to know to what extent we are governed by the Select Committee's guidance as to where political purposes begin and end, and whether we can use material that has been provided, or purchased by hon. Members and which has the House of Commons insignia, for political, as opposed to parliamentary purposes.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should welcome any guidance that you may wish to give me or the House. However, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was referring to a meeting of local governors to protect our
730
children's education. I offered to discuss the matter with your Office, Mr. Speaker, in order not to detain the House, but the hon. Gentleman insisted on raising a point of order. [Interruption.] Clearly he and I have a different interpretation of protecting our constituents' interests. Mine is to call a meeting of local school governors, while his is to abuse the procedures of the House by raising a point of order as a publicity stunt.
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the case. I remind all hon. Members of the recommendation of the Services Committee on the use of House of Commons stationery and post-paid envelopes. Extracts of it are available in a leaflet entitled, "House of Commons Stationery and Post-Paid Envelopes", which is issued by the Serjeant at Arms.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was that a legitimate point of order? We could all raise all sorts of issues by saying "On a point of order" and then complaining about another hon. Member. Was the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) legitimate?
Mr. Speaker: I heard it as a legitimate point of order. We do not want to make too much of the issue, but the guidelines are plain and clear. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will abide by them.
Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you draw the attention of the Select Committee dealing with accommodation to the fact that a silly taxi is invariably parked in the car park every morning when I arrive at the House? It has got stickers on it. Is it not time that that monstrosity was moved?
Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether that is a matter for me.

House of Commons Stationery (Members' Use)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 3) Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Working Conditions of Government Trainees
3.54 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend enactments relating to health, safety and other working conditions of employees to the trainees on Government schemes; and for connected purposes.
The Government plan to incarcerate 500,000 young people in the "educational dustbins" of the youth training scheme. So far, 250,000 youngsters are in placements. The House will be well aware of Labour Members' opposition to the job substitution, the artificial reduction of the dole figures, the cheapening of youth wages and the inadequate provision for proper health and safety cover that have so far characterised in such schemes.
My Bill intends to remedy such problems. Its central aim is to change the status of trainees to that of employees. Since the inception of the general training schemes for unemployed school leavers, 79 fatalities have been recorded. Several of those deaths occurred in places of work that had not received any prior inspection by qualified health and safety or factory inspectors.
Trainees on the Government's youth training scheme, and its forerunner the youth opportunities programme, are at a greater risk of being killed or of suffering a major injury than workers in all but four of the most dangerous occupations: mining, shipbuilding, construction and metal manufacture. A major injury consists of a fracture of the skull, spine, or pelvis, the main bone of an arm or leg, amputation of a hand or foot, the loss of sight in an eye, or any injury that requires hospital treatment for more than 24 hours.
I believe that the most crucial task facing the Conservative Government, and the one that they have most spectacularly failed to accomplish, is the provision of genuine work for the unemployed. The youth training scheme was inaugurated as a cosmetic exercise to massage the dole figures, generally lower the level of young workers' wages and to introduce a year of social control in an attempt to forestall a repetition of the events of the summer of 1981. That statement on the reduction of youth wages is borne out by the remarks made by the Minister for unemployment in last Thursday's debate, to the effect that since 1979 the ratio of youth to adult wages had fallen by 10 per cent. for boys and more than 10 per cent. for girls. That fulfils the predictions made by the former Secretary of State for Employment the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he said that the task was to "price youngsters into jobs."
Despite the well-intentioned efforts of those workers charged at local level with making the scheme work, 1·2 million people aged under 25 are already out of work. Two out of every three graduating from the youth training scheme can expect to join them. Creating the best-trained dole queue in Europe is no real achievement. The jobs just do not exist in which to use those skills. Attempting to hide the real lack of jobs is playing at "Elastoplast politics"
For the 250,000 16 and 17-year-olds in placement on the youth training scheme, the conditions of the scheme leave loopholes through which unscrupulous employers can organise exploitation. The vast majority of trainees on the youth training scheme are employed neither by the
732
company providing the training nor by the Manpower Services Commission. In consequence, the trainees do not have the full protection of all the legislation designed to protect the health, safety and other working conditions of employees generally. They are not employed, unemployed or students. All the punitive trappings of employment are there without legislative protection.
The trainees are paid an allowance of £25 for a 40-hour week, which can be docked for bad behaviour or poor time-keeping. They can be suspended or sacked without redress and at the end of the year two thirds of them are unceremoniously put back in the dole queue. The central aim of the Bill will be to change the status of working trainees to that of employees, and, by so doing, to extend existing protection given to employed workers to those on youth training schemes.
The Government recently partially extended to trainees some of the provisions affecting employed workers. Sadly, that was not done through the Government's initiative. It has taken pressure from bodies within the trade union movement, youth campaign groups and the families of trainees to produce the changes. A ruling of the employment appeals tribunal on 22 October 1982 confirmed the lack of employee status under the Race Relations Act 1976. Trainees were judged not to have the protection against discrimination given by that Act to employees. Nine months later, in July 1983, the Minister of State, Department of Employment recognised the anomaly by issuing designation orders under section 13 of the Race Relations Act 1976, as well as under section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. He thus extended to trainees the full protection given by those Acts.
It appears that moves have at last been made to introduce a similar procedure for safety, but it is too little and too late. Having nine part-time safety advisers to keep watch over YTS will not prevent deaths, such as that of a young boy in Sheffield who was caught in the blades of a paper shredder, or the death of a young boy in Coatbridge who was given paraffin to clean a machine and was burned to death. In Blaenau Gwent, a young lad was caught in a machine that was about to flatten insulation material.
Sections 52 and 53 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, by their definition of the terms "work", "at work", and "employee", specifically exclude those under a contract of training with the youth training schemes. Following considerable public disquiet at the rate of fatalities on training schemes in major industries, the Health and Safety Commission only today published a consultative document containing draft proposals for regulations to give trainees on YTS the same coverage as employees under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Those regulations should be in force at the beginning of 1984. My Bill, however, would remove the necessity for the Government to respond periodically in such a piecemeal fashion by automatically giving trainees the same protection as the current legislation for employees. In addition, the number of deaths and serious accidents clearly demonstrates a need for mandatory inspection of any work place by trained safety personnel before a trainee is to be set on.
In my correspondence this morning, I received a letter from a former training instructor who described his training school as follows:
"The roof leaked, a spray painting booth operated without an extraction system. There were no trained first aid staff, and there was a first aid box without plasters. The electric trunking was

733
bare and uncovered, and there was no heating. Sanitary conditions consisted of two wash-basins and one WC for 36 trainees and three staff."
Labour Members will continue to pursue the Government over conditions on youth training schemes. We shall campaign for youth trainees not to be placed by the Manpower Services Commission at factories that are not registered under the Factories Act 1971. All employers will be required to produce an effective safety policy before they are allowed to take on youth trainees.
Youth trainees suffering injury or sickness should be legally entitled to state sickness benefit and industrial disablement benefits. Special attention should be paid to youth trainees in the accident statistics collected under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. MSC link officers should have improved training in health and safety, and should have direct contact with factory inspectors before approving schemes. They should give priority to visiting premises where youth trainees have been placed. Youth trainees should not be required to accept places under threat of loss of unemployment benefit when they consider that there is an unacceptable risk to their health and safety.
Finally, experience has demonstrated that fines against employers responsible for conditions leading to major accidents are too low to be seriously effective as a deterrent. Solid trade union organisation at the workplace is the only guarantee of daily, successful monitoring of workers' health and safety, and will in many cases provide a necessary starting point for effective application of safety laws.
I welcome, therefore, the initiatives of the trade union movement to recruit trainees from the ranks of organised labour. Their intervention will be necessary to persuade employers to convert YTS places into permanent jobs at the end of the scheme, and to achieve topping up of allowances to the rate for apprentices and prevent the exploitation at which unscrupulous employers prove so adept.
Despite Government protestations to the contrary, YTS cannot create jobs for youngsters, except in so far as it reduces the level of youth wages and splits wages for apprenticeships into two or more low-paid jobs. It is not a solution to youth unemployment. For that, we need a change of Government and a change of the ownership and control of wealth and production.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. John Evans, Ms Jo Richardson and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Working Conditions of Government Trainees
  WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES
  Mr. Dave Nellist accordingly presented a Bill to extend enactments relating to health, safety and other working conditions of employees to the trainees on Government schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed.—[Bill 55.]
Orders of the Day

  Coal Industry Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is an important debate because we are talking about a substantial extension of the financial requirements of the National Coal Board. The external financing limit of the NCB will be well over £1 billion for the year 1983–84. In that year both the deficit and social grants of the NCB will be about £650 million—on average, £50 per week for every person employed in the coal industry. Even after those grants, it is expected that there w ill be a loss of almost £200 million by the NCB. Therefore, it is important that we review the present situation and take the action that is necessary so that the finances of the NCB are provided for and its activities continued. We should also make judgments on the need for improvements in productivity and performance and review the scope of the industry.
  In 1973 I introduced the Coal Industry Act of that year, which the National Union of Mineworkers described as the most important and beneficial Act for the coal industry since the original Act resulting in nationalisation. When I did that I was optimistic about the future of the coal industry and its importance to our energy resources. Ten years later I am again responsible for energy, and I emphasise the immense importance of the coal industry for long-term energy supplies in this country and western Europe. We have important and good coal reserves. Our coal mining machinery industry is as good, technologically, as any in the western world. Therefore, that area of energy provision is of considerable importance to us.
  I am sure that on reflection hon. Members on both sides of the House and those who represent mining constituencies will be concerned about the dramatic adverse features of the NCB's finances, reflected in the necessity for the Bill to be introduced. When the Labour Government came into power in 1974, they produced "Plan for Coal" after a dialogue with the NCB and the NUM. They envisaged that that important plan would ensure that the mining industry had a strong, successful and viable future. If one reads the debates that took place in the House at that time and those that took place when the strategy was reviewed in 1977, one sees that there was on both sides of the House an expression of hope and confidence.
  Basically there were three major provisions in "Plan for Coal". One was a substantial investment programme of considerable proportions. The second was that there would be a reduction in the capacity produced by the least economic pits. The third was that there would be a substantial improvement in productivity as a result of the enormous investment programme that was to take place. Anyone reviewing the scene 10 years later will find that of the three basic ingredients — the investment programme, the reduction in economic capacity and the improvement in productivity — the only one that has

  735
  been completely fulfilled—indeed, more than fulfilled—is that for which the Government have responsibility: the investment programme.
  The investment programme has been substantial by any standards. To give the House the figures, during the immediate period 1974 to 1979, following the publication of "Plan for Coal" by the Labour Government £1,472 million was invested in the coal industry—a substantial sum, and up to what had been promised in "Plan for Coal". In the period since then, 1979 to 1983, when the Conservative Government have been in power, investment in the coal industry has been £3,511 million. During the whole period of the Conservative Government the investment has run at more than £2 million a day.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Chicken-feed.
  Mr. Walker: It means that the totality is more than was advocated.
  Mr. Skinner: Chicken-feed.
  Mr. Walker: To use a phrase, some chicken. The totality is considerable. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may be under the same wrong impression as the National Union of Mineworkers has been under. The NUM pointed out in a letter to me that in its judgment we had not fulfilled the investment programme outlined in "Plan for Coal". The NUM stated that we had invested £4,600 million when, adjusted for inflation, we would have needed to invest £6,500 million. That was the view held by the National Union of Mineworkers. I was able to correct that view, because obviously someone had done the sums incorrectly. When adjusted for inflation the figure that has been invested is not £6,500 million, which was envisaged in the Labour party's "Plan for Coal", but £7,150 million. Therefore, by any criteria and any standards, and adjusted for inflation, the investment programme has been more than was envisaged in the original "Plan for Coal". During the entire period of the Conservative Government it has been at the rate of £2 million per day.
  Mr. Roy Mason: As the Minister is praising the Government's efforts in maintaining the investment programme in "Plan for Coal", surely he also recognises that within "Plan for Coal" there was a desire for increased output per man-shift, which has been achieved, and an agreement that there should be a reduction in absenteeism, which has also been achieved. This has been achieved with the British coalmining industry producing deep-mined coal with fewer subsidies than its western European counterparts.
  Mr. Walker: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman I shall examine the next two areas. I have mentioned investment which, by any measurement, has been higher than envisaged in "Plan for Coal". That has gone on under this Government to a greater extent than under their predecessors.
  In productivity, the right hon. Gentleman points out that improvements have taken place per man-shift. Indeed, in the last 12 to 18 months, prior to the ban on overtime, improvements were taking place. "Plan for Coal", laid down by the Labour Government and revised in 1977, envisaged an improvement in productivity of 4 per cent. per annum. In the first 10 years, 1972–73 to 1982–83, the
  736
  total increase in productivity was 4·7 per cent. Instead of 4 per cent. per annum over a 10-year period, there was an improvement in productivity of 4·7 per cent. Therefore, the second main criterion in "Plan for Coal" has by any standards been disappointing.
  Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman must make it clear whether he is talking about and overall increase in productivity or the output per man-shift at the coal face, where there has been an acceptance of coal-face machinery, no Luddism and remarkable progress on coal-face production.
  Mr. Walker: I am using the criteria that the Labour Government used in "Plan for Coal". I am using the figures that they used which envisaged an overall improvement in productivity of 4 per cent. per annum. What has been achieved is 4·7 per cent. over a decade. That is the difference.
  The second area where a major difference takes place is that "Plan for Coal" envisaged that there would be a reduction in existing capacity of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year. Obviously investment would bring on new capacity, which it has done and is continuing to do. In practice, during the 10 years of "Plan for Coal" the reduction in capacity has not been achieved, the rate of reduction has been about half what was proposed.
  The "Plan for Coal" was put forward enthusiastically by the Labour Government, with their close association with the mining industry. The Labour Government were willing to invest considerable sums, and they genuinely expected reductions of the most ineffective capacity, as well as improvements in productivity. Of the three major factors in "Plan for Coal", only the investment factor has been more than achieved. Progress in the other two areas has been disappointing.
  As to the future of the coal industry, it could not be expressed better than in the comments of the then Secretary of State for Energy when the whole position was reviewed in 1977. When the coal industry and the National Union of Mineworkers asked the Labour Government to guarantee a market of 170 million or even 200 million tonnes a year the comment of the Labour Government was:
  "The coal industry has in its own hands the opportunity to shape its long-term future. It has the reserves and the technology to make a major contribution to meeting our long-term energy needs. How much reliance we shall be able to place on coal in future will depend on the industry's success in deploying those assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels."
  That was the refusal of the Labour Government to accept a specific target and a decision that, having made the investment and having agreed the potential for productivity, that is what could be achieved.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The original "Plan for Coal" was published against a different economic climate than we are facing today. What about the collapse of demand? What about what has happened to the steel industry which matches knock for knock what has happened to the coal industry?
  Mr. Walker: That is right; and the coal industry with other industries has suffered from the problems connected with the world recession. However, one could argue that in such an adjustment of world demand for energy and coal, there was every justification for a substantial reduction in the investment programme. That is the only

  737
  element of "Plan for Coal" that has been maintained, while improvements in productivity and the closure of the least economic pits simply did not happen. One could also argue that during a world recession there is more justification for reducing the number of least economic pits.
  That is the background that has created severe financial problems for the National Coal Board. On 11 July I had to tell the House that, on the basis of its 1982–83 accounts, the board's accumulated losses were greater than its reserves, and that it was technically insolvent. The board had stated its intention of remedying the serious financial position and achieving a return to viability, and I made it clear that advances to the board would continue to be made out of the NLF and that the Government would continue to make avaiable adequate funds to enable the board to meet its obligations.
  Beyond the end of 1983–84 new powers are required if our support for the board is to continue. That is the purpose of the Bill, which makes provision for the powers that are needed to support the industry for a further two years. Thereafter, new provisions will be needed. I do not envisage the board's need for support ending after two years, but it will be timely when new provisions are laid before the House in two years' time for the Government and the House to review the board's progress up to that point.
  Mr. Skinner: I hope that the Secretary of State is not going to make great play of the insolvency, as he calls it, of the National Coal Board, because for most of the period during which he says there was a lack of productivity he, along with Jim Slater, was organising Slater Walker trusts all round the world. That company went bankrupt, and the Labour Government, while trying to deal with "Plan for Coal" and many other matters, had to bail out that bankrupt firm which he had milked so successfully many years before — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The Government used taxpayers' money to bail out that property skeleton. The Minister should be ashamed of himself for attacking both the miners and the Labour Government for providing investment to the British coal industry.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman becomes more pathetic and stupid as time goes on. He mentioned a company with which I was connected, but, as he knows, I had no connection with that company for many years before it was in difficulty. His attitude towards miners is one of the most damaging that any Member of the House could have, because he continually fails to tell them about the reality of the position. He tries to use them as a political instrument for his Left-wing views. I know of few hon. Members who do more damage to the miners' cause than does the hon. Gentleman.
  Clause 1 provides for loans to the board from the National Loans Fund to continue to a new limit of £6 billion. At the end of September 1983 the board's borrowing stood at £4,122 million. Clause 1 provides for an interim limit on loans of £5·5 billion, which may be increased by order to £6 billion. Therefore, the House will have a further opportunity to review the industry's progress before the higher figure becomes effective.
  Clause 2 provides for a limit of £1·2 billion on the amount of deficit grant which may be paid to the board in the financial years 1983–84 to 1985–86. That limit may be increased by order to £2 billion. It also provides for the
  738
  repeal of some sections of the Coal Industry Acts 1973 and 1977 which are no longer needed. The grants made under those sections were completed in the 1982–83 financial year. All future payments of revenue grant support to the board other than social grants will take the form of payments made to reduce or to remove the group deficit of the board on its revenue account.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the relationship between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the National Coal Board, especially with regard to the contract that was announced last week which substantially reduces the coal won and imperils many mining jobs in my constituency?
  Mr. Walker: I have not discussed that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland since last week, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
  Clauses 3 and 4 extend for a further two years the powers to make social grants to the board and payments under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme. Those grants and payments have been made for many years, as have grants for pit closures—a rather alarming title for grants which provide reimbursement of half of the board's expenditure on a variety of payments for redundancy and transfer—and support for concessionary coal provisions, which were first introduced in 1965. The redundant mineworkers payment scheme was introduced in 1967 and was extended to include concessionary coal under powers taken in the Coal Industry Act 1973—an Act which I was proud to take through the House. In the debate on both the Coal Industry Acts brought before the House by this Administration, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, made it clear that the powers to make those grants and payments would be continued after their expiry date of 31 March 1984. This Bill continues for two years in line with the other financial powers.
  The present position on expenditure under section 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977, which I must bring to the attention of the House, demonstrates all too clearly why the higher limit on such expenditure is needed. The present limit of £300 million covers payments under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme and payments to the board in support of the provision of concessionary coal, as introduced in 1973 and as extended earlier this year. The limit of £300 million covers payments made between April 1978 and March 1984. The limit was set by the Coal Industry Act 1982. At the time it was expected to suffice, but since then there have been improvements in the terms of the scheme embodied in the amended order debated in the House on 22 March, and redundancies have increased. During the first half of the financial year 1983–84 there were more than 10,000 redundancies of men on colliery books, compared with 8,100 in 1982–83 and 9,300 in 1981–82. For those reasons I now expect that payments under section 7 will reach the £300 million limit in early December. It is not likely that the Bill will have received Royal Assent by that time, but I am sure that no hon. Member would wish payments to redundant mineworkers to be halted or curtailed until the Bill becomes law. Accordingly, I propose to continue payments under the scheme using money already provided within the Vote

  739
  upon which the scheme's expenditure is carried. Higher provision for the Vote will be sought by means of a Supplementary Estimate in the spring.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that, even after the March uprating, some miners who have worked in the industry all their lives, but who have unfortunately become severely disabled, have not received their full entitlement of redundancy payments, although that was the will of the House in March?
  Mr. Walker: We are considering the matter now, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that there will be a careful examination of it.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the money that is provided for concessionary coal. May I draw his attention to a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have mentioned from time to time—the many men, and the widows of some men who have died, who left the coal industry because they suspected that they had pneumoconiosis. They were not certified as suffering from it at the time. They left the industry and worked sometimes only for a short time in other jobs. If the company for which they worked had a scheme for examining the health of its workers, or if they were so ill that they were sent to the doctor, those men eventually came before the pneumoconiosis medical board and were awarded compensation. I have met some widows, and I recently met a constituent who was certified as 100 per cent. disabled because of pneumoconiosis. He had spent all his working life in the coal industry and had left it for only two years before he was found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, but he receives no concessionary coal. Will the Minister try to make some small concession for those people, because it would be appreciated by many widows of men who gave a lifetime to the industry and by many miners who are now suffering from pneumoconiosis?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that interventions will not develop into speeches.
  Mr. Walker: I note what the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) says, but a vast amount of money is spent on concessionary coal schemes. Perhaps we should consider a redistribution of the money to meet the problems involved. The overall scheme is generous. The redundancy scheme is not related to the aspect that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
  Mr. Alec Woodall: Clause 4 on payments to redundant workers increases the
  "limit on the amount of such payments from £300 million to £1,200 million."
  By how many more do the Government expect to increase the number of redundant miners from 1984 onwards?
  Mr. Walker: The number of redundancies that have taken place so far is higher than was originally expected and estimated. The terms of the scheme have been substantially improved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is done by a pit by pit examination. It is done in full consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers. Younger miners have had alternative jobs made available
  740
  to them, and some of the older miners have had redundancy payments which, by any standards in this country, are generous and reasonable.
  Mr. Woodall rose——
  Mr. Walker: I repeat what I said earlier. The "Plan for Coal" of the Labour Government envisaged that the reduction of existing capacity would be twice as fast as the reduction that has taken place. I deplore those who suggest that it is monstrous to have pit closures and that closures should be opposed, when the record of pit closures since the war shows that pit closures have taken place at a faster rate under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. In the past 10 years when Labour Governments have been in power the average number of pit closures has been about 27 a year. In the past eight years of Conservative Governments pit closures have taken place at the rate of 10 a year. I recognise that great problems are connected with any pit closure, but it is absurd for the Labour party to pretend that if it was in power there would not be pit closures when all the time it has been in power there have been substantial pit closures.
  Mr. William O'Brien: May I remind the Minister that pit closures have taken place where there has been seam exhaustion and where it has not been possible to work a pit? That has been accepted by the National Union of Mineworkers. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no compulsory redundancies for younger men in the industry? We have had assurances in the past, and even MacGregor has suggested that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the mining industry?
  Mr. Walker: That depends on the success of the coal industry in the coming period. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the time for pit closure is when a seam is exhausted. The plan agreed by the Labour Government in 1974 and 1977 of closures at the rate of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year of existing capacity was based not on pits where seams were completely exhausted, but on the least economic pits being closed and the new investment programme opening pits. The future of the industry is dependent on the time when plenty of young miners can be recruited on good pay and conditions, but that depends on the industry being economic and efficient, as was envisaged by the Labour Government in the "Plan for Coal". While I am responsible for the industry, my objective will be to achieve that purpose. It will be achieved only with a recognition that it is not in the interests of future young miners to keep inefficient and uneconomic pits open. It is very much against their interests.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Does that mean that there are likely to be more redundancies at modern productive pits such as Monktonhall in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? What consultations took place before those redundancies were declared?
  Mr. Walker: The procedures for pit closure are agreed with the National Union of Mineworkers. When I met the miners' leaders, they asked me to guarantee that the board will continue the existing procedure on pit closures. It is the view of the board that that should take place.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be better briefed if he is to suggest that the redundancies at the Monktonhall colliery in my constituency took place after consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers. I must tell him that there was no consultation, which was one of the causes of an eight-week strike.
  Mr. Skinner: Answer that.
  Mr. Walker: That was a matter not of closure, but of achieving productivity that had been agreed and negotiated previously. That was the issue, and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) knows it well.
  Clauses 5 and 6 deal necessarily with the interpretation, citation and extent of the Bill.
  We are debating a massive further injection of money into the coal industry. Any suggestions, cheap propaganda, gibes or phrases about the Government wishing to destroy the coal industry or to make miners redundant on a large scale for the joy of doing so are nonsense. The facts and the figures that I have given to the House this afternoon prove that. In the history of this country no other Government have invested anything like £2 million a day in capital investment in the coal industry or, indeed, any other industry. We have seen to it that the most up-to-date equipment is installed. I gave approval for developing the Selby coalfield, which will be one of the most successful major coal seams in the country.
  I judge now from my position as Secretary of State for Energy that the coal industry has a considerable and important future. Young miners must be able to earn good wages. I am pleased to say that, during the Government's period of office, miners' earnings, compared with average earnings in manufacturing industry have improved, not declined. We have recognised the important and difficult job that miners carry out. Therefore, I urge the House to accept the Bill and to give it a Second Reading. I also hope that, when we next discuss the finances of the National Coal Board, we will have made the progress that such massive investment requires and deserves.
  Mr. Mason: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: We shall want to examine in some detail the points made by the Minister about the coal industry, not least his attitude to "Plan for Coal" and the long-term future of the industry. While the Bill deals specifically with the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board — and for obvious reasons therefore, the Labour party will not oppose the Bill tonight—we shall in Committee want to debate the problems of the industry and raise major matters affecting future energy policy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) winds up, he will have further points to make about the Bill and our attitude to it.
  At the outset I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) who hopes to speak later in the debate. For the past 14 years he has played a prominent part in the Labour party, both in government and in opposition. He is well respected by his colleagues in the House and the National Union of
  742
  Mineworkers. I pay tribute on behalf of the Labour party to the work that he has done; and may he long continue to play a part.
  There is a crisis in the coal industry today and, in our view, that crisis is completely unjustified. The relationship between the miners and the Government has deteriorated since 1979. The Secretary of State spoke of actions that he took in 1973, but he must realise that there is a world of difference between then and now. The then Government did not have to deal with 4 million unemployed. Manufacturing industry had not been destroyed to the degree that it has been in the past four years of Conservative rule. We were then living in an entirely different era, and in our view the present conflict is completely unnecessary. "Plan for Coal" is still the soundest policy. It should be pursued again and we should return to a tripartite approach to the industry.
  As the Minister said, the purpose of the Bill in clause 1 is to provide the Government with the opportunity of increasing the borrowing powers of the board; in clause 2 to increase the deficit grant limit; in clause 3 to increase grants in connection with pit closures; and in clause 4 to increase the scope for payments to be made by the Government to redundant workers.
  I deal first with clause 4, which deals with the redundant miners' payment scheme. It is like increasing the death grant so that the coal industry can have a decent funeral. Instead, we need money to keep the coal industry alive. It is a Government, not a board, scheme, although it is administered under central Government control by an agency operated by the NCB on behalf of the Department of Energy. As the sum includes payments to those made redundant during the financial year, may we be told how the Department made the assessment and what redundancy figure has been used for that exercise?
  We must discuss the Bill in the context of the Conservatives' overall policy since 1979. In the two previous Coal Industry Acts, for 1980 and 1982, along with the targets of external financing limits, their policy has had two objectives. The first has been to reduce the number of schemes under which the coal industry received grants from the Government to facilitate increased pit closures. The second has been to reduce the payments over the years to make the NCB ultimately self-financing.
  As the House knows, that policy has been in trouble since February 1981 because of the depressed state of the economy and the run-down of the manufacturing sector of industry against a background of increased fuel costs. We have the detailed figures of losses and Government grants, and recently we have had the hostile report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission saying:
  "On the information available to us, there is little possibility that the NCB will be able to operate without a deficit grant, let alone generate sufficient funds to finance any significant part of its own capital investment, before the end of this decade."
  Yet the Government expect the NCB to stop receiving deficit grants by 1986. This inconsistency must mean further closures and cutbacks. Or is it just one more promise that cannot be kept?
  The Government do not say why the NCB figures look so bad. A major factor is that the NCB has had to make enormous interest payments to the Government. In 1982–83 the NCB paid £366 million in interest; in 1981–82, £341 million; and in 1980–81, £256 million.

  743
  Therefore a high proportion of the grants paid to the NCB are repaid in the form of interest payments for previous borrowing.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman mindful of the fact that the NCB has not paid interest on £865 million because that was written off?
  Mr. Orme: The burden of interest payments could be removed by introducing legislation on capital reconstruction, which could be of great benefit to the industry and the nation. After all, the debts of British Airways will be written off as soon as it suits the Government to sell that industry to their friends; capital reconstruction can then take place. Why, then, can it not take place now in the mining industry?
  It can be strongly argued that the strategy of which the Bill is part will result in more pit closures. The way in which the grants have been organised strengthens that view; the time period is extended for grants in connection with pit closures and for payments to redundant workers.
  However, the main reason for fears about closures is the fact that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission provided details of the enormous losses of many pits. The report pointed out that high-cost pits imposed a heavy burden on the industry's finances, but it failed to attribute that to the falling demand from industry. In particular, the disastrous state of the steel industry has made the coal industry so depressed. We are now paying the concealed price for closures in the steel industry. Tomorrow we shall pay the concealed price for closures in the coal industry. Where will it end?
  The depressed state of the economy—the direct result of Government policy—is making more and more pits vulnerable, and therefore to define an uneconomic pit becomes increasingly difficult. That is because the level keeps changing; as there is less demand for coal, so—as we have seen at Monktonhall, a profitable pit—people are made redundant, not because the coal has run out but because of the scale of the economies.
  The subsidies per tonne to the British coal industry are the lowest in western Europe, and production costs are also the lowest. I therefore urge the Government to move away from their policy of confrontation. In particular I urge Mr. Ian MacGregor not to take action in the coalfields that could damage the industry. I hope that he will not follow at the NCB the path he followed at the British Steel Corporation, which resulted in 100,000 steel workers being put in the dole queue.
  In other words, I hope that Mr. MacGregor will not try any practice of having ballots—[Interruption.] I put it to Conservative Members that this is a matter for the union concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] It is not a matter for Mr. MacGregor, and if he wants to have real conflict in the coalfields, that is the way to go about it. I urge him to be extremely cautious.
  Another major factor causing uncertainty in the industry is the lack of a long-term energy strategy. Recent reports from the Sizewell B inquiry highlight that. There does not seem to have been any assessment made by the Government as to whether extra capacity is needed. The electricity industry appears to be pre-empting the results of the inquiry. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will not allow orders for hardware to be
  744
  placed in advance of the outcome of the inquiry, which we hope will be to reject the building of the pressurised water reactor.
  A further example of the lack of Government strategy is the scale-down of the development of the liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr, which is particularly disappointing. Will the Minister put more investment into that development, because that is where investment is needed? The industry is taking seriously the long-term interests of the nation. It is a shame that the Government do not do the same. When the Secretary of State spoke of "Plan for Coal" and the investment programme, he did not point out that the three factors that he took are not even. The investment is a long-lead programme, because, as the Minister knows, it takes years to develop. Therefore, we cannot equate each factor with the other on an equal basis. Therefore, the investment programme and its development are crucial, not for this decade but for the next.
  Lack of planning is evident in the recent different announcements on privatisation by members of the Government. It is significant that the Secretary of State had nothing to say about this today. It is unbelievable that privatisation of the coal industry could be contemplated. In a parliamentary reply on 4 July 1983, the Secretary of State for Energy appeared to rule this out. Since then, we have had a major speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 1 November, which said that the privatisation of the coal industry is a serious option. Does the Secretary of State endorse the views of the Financial Secretary or will he again assure the House that the Government will take no such steps? Does he endorse his reply of 4 July or does he accept the Financial Secretary's statement of 1 November? We are entitled to a reply because the right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State, not the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. Peter Walker: When I last spoke, I said that if the National Union of Mineworkers or any other such group of workers approached me as to the possibility of privatisation, I should carefully consider it.
  Mr. Orme: That is no answer—that is an evasion. The Secretary of State is obviously not prepared to take a stand on this issue. Privatisation would be disastrous for the industry, allowing uncontrollable market forces to govern an already fragmented energy policy. It would threaten health and safety in the industry, and threaten jobs and the unions. We are always being told how good the private capital market is at financing industry. However, the City will not even finance Inmos, the firm that makes silicon chips and is Britain's best chance of a winner since the jet engine—we all know what happened to that. What chance is there that the City would bother to take an interest in the coal industry? It is more interested in lending its money abroad to countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
  The Labour party will oppose any such policies at every stage. We support the stand of the National Union of Mineworkers against such proposals. Coal is vital to the British economy and must remain in public ownership in the national interest.
  Mr. Woodall: Would my right hon. Friend care to point out that the traditional enemies of the miners before 1947 were the colliery owners, and even after 1947 it took two or three decades to wear away that continual irritation between the miner and the boss? Even now, when we have

  745
  unanimity in the industry, with the unions and Coal Board trying to work together, there is the threat from the Conservative party, which wants to go back to the good old days when miners were scared to death of colliery bosses.
  Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend, and he will recollect that the interest charges on compensation were a heavy burden, and have remained so for a long time.
  Another important factor to consider when debating the coal industry and its future is the fact that the United Kingdom is virtually at its peak production of North sea oil. From now on, it is downhill all the way. The balance of payments is collapsing already because we import too many manufactured goods. We shall need all the coal we can dig if we are to avoid more deflation and more unemployment. The coal industry will become central to our energy needs.
  Mr. Woodall: For the next 300 years.
  Mr. Orme: Marketing and imports are also vital to the future and should be considered as part of any future energy strategy. By far the most important market for the NCB is the Central Electricity Generating Board. In 1982–83—these figures illustrate the point clearly—the NCB produced 105 million tonnes while the CEGB consumed 81 million tonnes. Recently the agreement has been renegotiated to cover a minimum of only 17 million tonnes a year. Therefore, the NCB is trying to widen its market, but moves to convert to coal are proving to be a fiasco. The arrangements for the boiler conversion grants finish at the end of the year, as the Secretary of State is aware. While the Bill does not deal specifically with this matter, it is important for the industry to know whether the Secretary of State is considering an extension of this scheme.
  Concern has been expressed to me by my hon. Friends, and not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the import of special coals. Can the Secretary of State confirm that 340,000 tonnes of anthracite was imported in the year 1982–83 to meet the domestic shortages? Will he further confirm that the British Steel Corporation last year imported 2 million tonnes of coking coal? What is he doing to ensure that such levels of imports are reduced, and that the products of British mines are used, especially by the nationalised industries? This is central to the demand for coal, and, not least, it is linked to the rundown in the steel industry.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact, reported in the annual report of the NCB, that the two types of coal to which he has referred, high grade metallurgical coking coal and various types of anthracite, are imported because they are not produced here?
  Mr. Orme: My information from the Coal Board is that if it had the finance and the facilities, the coal and the anthracite are there and could be mined.
  We need clarification on all these points. I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned from China to take part in the debate on the Cabinet's decision on gas and electricity prices, which will affect the cost of energy and the demand for coal. From what we are told in Cabinet leaks, electricity prices are still negotiable. Increases in both gas and electricity prices are unnecessary and are a brutal cut in public expenditure that will cause tremendous
  746
  hardship to the least well-off in our society. The Secretary of State might be able to provide some clarification, because last year electricity profits, after interest had been paid, were £332 million. Neither the electricity industry nor the gas industry wants any price increase. However, the Government are proceeding with this policy because their public expenditure cuts are necessary to make way for tax cuts. This is completely unacceptable.
  We are deeply worried about the industry, with its precious national assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) referred to our 300 years supply of coal. This is something that many nations do not have. A country with the physical resources of oil, gas and coal should have an energy policy that will create wealth for all the people, and a successful coal industry is central to that demand. Unfortunately, the Government appear to be working to weaken, rather than strengthen, their energy policy. We shall fight to defend the industry and for an energy policy that is acceptable to the British people. We shall continue to put that case in the House.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: It is my privilege and honour to be the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Sherwood. It is, without doubt, one of the few constituencies that do not need to be placed geographically. On a few occasions I have had to say that it is not in Scotland, and I cannot imagine why. Sherwood forest is the home of Robin Hood, an original Conservative, who protected people from excessive State taxation and who was helped in times of stress by his lovely lady, Maid Marian. It must be an advantage to mention an eternal maid in one's maiden speech. I am almost the last of the new Members to address the House, and I remind those who have already spoken about the story of the race between the hare and the tortoise.
  The Sherwood constituency was formed from the former constituencies of Newark, Carlton and Ashfield, whose Members are in the House today. I thank them. on behalf of their previous constituents. They are my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) who is master of the quango hunt, with numerous kills to his credit, and we wish him many more; my old Nottinghamshire county council colleague, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who is renowned for his convictions, political philosophy and compassion that come straight from the heart; and lastly, but not least, my Member of Parliament and Friend, the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) to whom the new Back- Bench Members will be eternally grateful for highlighting their plight to the House when he found them working from the cloakroom floor. The esteem in which these hon. Members were held by their constituents was duly reflected in their majorities at the June election.
  My constituency starts north of Nottingham, being equally divided by the A614. The rolling bunter-sand lands are farmed by some of the country's most expert farmers. A week's drought is a crisis that is overcome by skilful cropping and irrigation. The population, with the exception of the 22,000 inhabitants of Hucknall, live in small towns and villages. One name that is synonymous with Hucknall is Rolls-Royce, where one of that company's many famous inventions, the "flying bedstead", was designed and built. This, in turn, has given us the world-famous Harrier fighter aircraft.

  747
  Sherwood is a constituency that is steeped in history and is visited by thousands of tourists every year when they go the ancestral homes of Lord Byron of Newstead Abbey and the Savilles of Rufford. Standing in the middle of the constituency is Sherwood forest and the legendary major oak.
  It is appropriate during the debate on the Coal Industry Bill that I should speak as the Member for the largest mining constituency in the United Kingdom with 10 collieries, two major workshops and two area headquarters with a total of about 15,000 employees. The output from this part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield is 8,400,000 tonnes representing 8 per cent. of the national coal output. This highlights the record of efficiently produced coal and a profit that gives the rest of the industry an example to follow.
  Efficiency must be judged against a yardstick. Two pits —Monktonhall near Edinburgh and Bilsthorpe near my home—are each producing over 1 million tonnes under almost the same geological and working conditions. The similarities stop there. The operation at Monktonhall requires 2,800 men; Bilsthorpe has 50 per cent. fewer workers, with 1,400 men, making production costs, at £28 a tonne, the same as for open-cast mining.
  Hon. Members may be excused if they think that the difference between the two is the work force—that is not so; they are almost one and the same, but 68 per cent. of the men in Nottinghamshire are transferees, the majority being Scots and Geordies. Where does the difference lie? I suggest that it is an attitude of mind. Men who, like many of us, reach to new horizons, came from worked-out pits that were often difficult and dangerous. They came looking for new prosperity for themselves and their families, without prejudice from the past. This new wealth from their efforts has enabled them to become home owners—almost 52 per cent. —in their villages and in commuter villages in the neighbourhood. This welcome social mix has made many people in Nottinghamshire aware of the needs and complexities of the coal industry.
  With the difficulty about wages, unsolicited advice by people with no knowledge of the industry does more harm than good, and I ask the chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. MacGregor, to be patient and not to depart from the usual procedures on wages negotiations. At the weekend, I received information from the coalfields and the clubs that the men will demand a ballot on the wage offer sooner rather than later. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, in answer to a question on Thursday, made it clear that the Government's position is that the industry is not for privatising. This reduced the scaremongering by people who should have known better to the level of nothing more than "another secret document revealed".
  Private investment in the support industries is taking place in Nottinghamshire. The small proportion of work being done by private contractors is beneficial to the industry. The Government's record on investment in new capacity exceeds the targets in "Plan for Coal" that was introduced in 1974 by the Labour Government and supported by the Conservatives with a proposed investment of £6,500 million by 1985. This target has already been exceeded by £600 million. These new pits, that are worked by the young technocrats who are now
  748
  being recruited with qualifications that are fit to take them on to higher education, will ensure production records and will follow the examples set by the miners of Sherwood. These men know that our and their prosperity, including the prospects of the unemployed, start with coal at a price that produces low-cost energy, giving this country's manufacturers the edge over their foreign competitors.
  On my fact-finding and educational visits to the collieries in my constituency, I found that mining is a young man's job. I ask my right hon. Friend to reduce the official retirement age for underground workers further at the earliest moment and to ensure that those whose services are no longer required receive adequate severance payments.
  Many who might come into this category have not shared in the industry's recent prosperity or the right to home ownership because of their age, but they were the backbone of the work force when the industry was being written off as unnecessary during the 1960s.
  Yesterday I visited the "black diamond" of Sherwood —Thoresby colliery—the most efficient pit in Europe. It produces 2 million tonnes per year with an operational profit of £28 million. It is my view that our coal industry has a great future. It will have an even greater one if it is manned by men of vision such as the men of Sherwood, who returned a Conservative candidate as their first Member of Parliament.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on his maiden speech. Although he is a member of the National Farmers Union, he has certainly started to get a grasp of mining. He had some idea of the problems faced by the industry, but I cannot say that for the Secretary of State.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—mentioned Slater Walker. That was an episode not long ago during the Secretary of State's career. The Secretary of State also served for a time in the Department of the Environment. Last week we were told from the Dispatch Box that he was in China. He does not have a clue about mining. I put that to him straight.
  I have served for 35 years in mining and other Opposition Back-Bench Members have served for donkey's years in mining. The problem is that Conservative Members have had their connections with the management of industry. Many of them have been directors of this, that and the other company and have been associated with firms that have failed. Yet the Government suggest that they know how to deal with the future of coal mining.
  I am convinced that the Government are preparing to sell off the coal industry. If one studies many of the public industries that have been sold off or are being prepared to be sold off by this Administration, it is plain that this industry is being lined up for similar treatment. The miners are being led to the slaughter by the Government.
  The problem is so great that a meeting took place recently between all the bodies within the mining industry to study the position and to draw up a formula for the defence of mining. The management of the National Coal Board participated in that meeting for the first time. The bodies included the British Association of Colliery Management, the NUM, the Colliery Office Staff

  749
  Association and the National Association of Colliery Overmen Deputies and Shotfirers. They all agreed to stand four square behind the mining industry.
  If we study the many suggestions made by the Government, the future of mining appears to be pretty bleak. The Government have an energy programme that will involve a hard core of nuclear power stations, the PWRs, which have not been proved in the United States. We have decided to buy them because the United States no longer wants them. The Minister nods and laughs, but that happens to be true.
  There was the Three Mile Island incident in the United States where thousands of people were convinced that they should leave the area, but still the Government are prepared to install PWRs here.
  I picked up a copy of last night's Nottingham Evening Post in the Tea Room today in which there is an amazing report headed:
  "City would not survive N-war says top report."
  A Government report predicts that if there was a nuclear explosion we would have
  "A coal-based economy with steam-engines back in use."
  If that is what the Government say, why are they going down their present path? The National Coal Board is not making the decisions; the Department of Energy is telling it what it should do. Mr. MacGregor has his marching orders. I will pay his fare back to the United States—provided, of course, that he does not go on Concorde.
  Although the Government have made their plan, they say that we would return to coal and steam if there were a nuclear war. If we continue to tread the Government's path, I am convinced that we shall return to the days, not long past, when we went cap in hand to the middle east for its oil. The middle east would hold us to ransom, as it did before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) correctly said that beneath our feet there is enough solid fuel to last for 300 years. Robin Hood has been mentioned in relation to Sherwood, which is a beautiful area. There is a great deal of coal there in high-production units.
  The Secretary of State criticised and savaged members of the mining industry for not pulling up their socks and putting in a real effort. Not many days ago in the House, I said that there are pits in my area that regularly break output records. There are similar pits throughout the country. Why does the Secretary of State criticise mining and the people involved with it? The reason is that he knows nothing about it. It is high time that he went round the mines, as the Under-Secretary does, see what it is all about.
  We have record breakers who will continue to be record breakers, but if the Government continue with their policy of further pit closures the unemployment queue will be increased. Robin Hood, unlike the Government, helped people in need. There are many sections of the population who are not being helped by the Government, particularly the disabled. I hope that the Government will support the Emphysema Compensation Bill on Friday. The Bill will affect the many miners who have been seriously injured in the pits. I maintain that Robin Hood was a true Socialist. He was certainly not a Scottish Conservative.
  If we examine the facts and figures as presented by the Government, we learn that the costs of erection, installation and the rest incurred in providing a nuclear power station are nearly three times those of a coal-fired
  750
  power station. The Government tell us that money is not available to undertake certain projects. At the same time, they are prepared to support the present programme of building nuclear power stations. That is one method by which the Government are preparing to sell off the economic pits to the rich.
  I wish to deal with the problem of uneconomic pits. A classic example is the Sherwood pit in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) which many years ago was uneconomic owing to geographical difficulties. The chairman of the National Coal Board at that time wished to close the pit. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the National Coal Board shows that the Sherwood pit is now making a profit of £6·5 million annually. That shows how circumstances can change within the mining industry. A pit may be uneconomic one year and later become economic and make its contribution to the nation.
  Conservative Members are wrong to say that the mining industry has failed the nation. The industry has made its contribution by making a profit every year since the first day of nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) made it clear that the industry's problem is caused by the interest repayments which have crippled the coal mining industry.
  The NCB recently closed a pit in my constituency which had plenty of reserves. It is no good the Secretary of State or any other Minister saying that the pit 'was exhausted. Down the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) another pit was working the same seam. Nevertheless, the pit in my constituency was closed. My constituency once had nine pits but now it has only five. The NCB continues to close them while the lads working in the remaining pits continue to break output records. The Government must be much fairer to the mining industry and to those who work in it. I hope that in the not too distant future the Government will change their attitude towards the mining industry.
  I welcome the investment in the mining industry, but it is not sufficient. If the Government examined other nations' coal mining industries they would realise that those nations put more into their mining industries than we put into ours. At the same time, our coal mining industry is expected to be competitive. In Germany, subsidies are paid right, left and centre, but that is not the position in England. It is known as investment. Investment is used to look for further reserves, mine those reserves and provide the necessary equipment. The tightening up of available money has prevented management from ordering equipment to enable the mines to keep working 24 hours a day. Machines churn out coal 24 hours a day. Hon. Members do not work 24 hours a day in the House, but the lads at the pit work such hours. Pits work for 24 hours a day to provide the energy requirements of the nation. Given the opportunity, they will continue to do so, but not if they are to be subject to the Government's proposals.
  I believe sincerely that the Government are preparing the destruction of certain sectors of the industry and at the same time paving the way for those who have the money to move in, take over the economic pits and line their pockets. Members of Parliament who wish to get their fingers into that pie will be unable to do so, and I welcome that. I do not believe that the Government are giving the coal mining industry the opportunity to prove itself beyond all doubt in the interests of the nation and its future energy requirements.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who made a distinguished and excellent speech. I am certain that in future we shall hear from him many more good speeches on the coal industry. After all, my hon. Friend's constituents include 15,000 miners, most of whom, I daresay, returned my hon. Friend to the House. The Opposition must bear that fact in mind. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that he spent 35 years in the mining industry and knows all about it, but he has not learnt the lessons of the industry's current position. He has not considered the position facing the coal industry in the world.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in the United States, which caused not one death. He made no reference to the fact that in the past 80 years 30,000 Pennsylvanian coal miners had lost their lives as a result of mining accidents, and that in Appalachia, in the United States, 57,000 coal miners suffer from black lung disease. I emphasise that the Three Mile Island incident did not cause a single death. We must be cautious when we refer to nuclear power. I do not wish to discuss that matter as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order.
  I wish to explain the coal industry's position. Coal production in 1982 was 125 million tonnes but consumption was only 110 million tonnes. We must remember that we have a saturated market. There are insufficient buyers and overcapacity in the industry. Another significant indicator is stock levels. Today there are 58 million tonnes of stocks compared with 34 million tonnes five years ago.
  The truth is staring us in the face. If only the Labour party and the miners would realise that it is no use producing all that coal if there are no buyers. If it cannot be sold abroad or at home, it goes into stock and remains there. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the jobs and the men?"] I shall deal with all those aspects in due course. On the international market thermal value 250-therm steam coal, 15 per cent. ash and 1 per cent. sulphur, deliverable cif to north-west European deep-water ports, is £23, or $35, per tonne, on the spot market. The price ranges from £23 per tonne to £26 or £32 per tonne for higher qualities. Naturally, the impact on the German economy is substantial. The German industry is heavily subsidised and the Germans must now decide what to do about the present predicament. The same applies to France. Other countries are beginning to face the facts. When will the United Kingdom begin to face facts?
  Mr. Peter Hardy: As a passionate supporter of the European Community, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Community has imported coal of that quality from South Africa. Does he expect us to believe that it is appropriate for Europe to allow its own coal industries to disappear so that it may buy cheap coal from a dubious source while at the same time expecting British farmers to support a common agricultural policy which achieves exactly the result for other countries that a common energy policy could achieve for Britain?
  Is it wise for Europe to develop such a reliance on imported coal as the hon. Gentleman suggests?
  Mr. Skeet: No, Sir. The Select Committee report puts it rather well:
  752
  "In 1981, for example, the losses incurred in 30 of the Board's older collieries totalled some £228 million, equivalent to 90 per cent. of the industry's operating deficit in that year."
  If a few totally unprofitable pits reaching the end of their natural life were closed, the industry could become viable, but if we try to retain those pits the industry will never be viable. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many pits?] Perhaps I may continue as most of the points will be rounded up later in my speech. The Trans-Natal Coal corporation has said:
  "Coal stockpiles of consumers are full to overflowing worldwide"
  and:
  "export prices are not expected to improve before 1985."
  If world prices are not expected to improve that will not be to the advantage of the United Kingdom. It will be even more difficult to sell our coal internationally, so if we cannot sell it at home we shall be in dire trouble.
  When the 1980 legislation came before the House the Government said that it was designed to reduce the operating grants and to return the industry to viability by 1983–84. The Secretary of State said today that the industry would be viable in two years' time. Personally, I should like to believe that, but I cannot.
  According to my calculations, between 1973–74 and 1982–83 capital investment in the industry totalled £4,260 million. The grants poured into the industry totalled a further £2,118·9 million. When one adds to that about £865 million in write-offs, one realises that more than £7 billion has been poured into the industry in that period.
  Let us consider what could have been done with £7 billion. Between 1976 and 1982 £3 billion was spent on North sea exploration, which has added 5 per cent. to the gross national product. North sea oil provides much income for the nation. Yet the United Kingdom is in debt. The National Coal Board is the Mexico or Brazil of the British economy.
  Let us take another example. Between 1977–78 and 1983–84 overseas aid was £5·9 billion. The sum in question could have been spent helping to lift the standard of living of people in other countries. Does that not commend itself to Labour Members?
  I am a reasonable man. I wish to help the mining industry. I have recommended that the Vale of Belvoir project should be assisted. I have recommended help for Selby, which currently has great problems with water. I hope that such projects will be a success because I believe that they are potentially profitable.
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report shows that north Nottinghamshire has an output per man-shift not of 2·2 tonnes but of 5·12 tonnes at Thoresby, 4·13 tonnes at Welbeck, 4·16 tonnes at Ollerton and 3·88 tonnes at Sherwood. If our entire coal industry could achieve outputs of that magnitude, and we are moving towards that situation, the industry would become viable very rapidly. As I understand it, that is precisely the Government's policy.
  Mr. Woodall: Does not the hon. Gentleman support the Vale of Belvoir project because the National Coal Board promised to transport the colliery waste to Bedfordshire to fill in the empty clay pits there, thus making that land more attractive and viable?
  Mr. Skeet: As I have said before, if the NCB is prepared to pay the transportation charges — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The Bedfordshire local authorities cannot be expected to pay them as the material is coming

  753
  from another area, but if the board will pay the charges we should be only too glad to receive the colliery waste. It would fill in the knot-holes and provide more agricultural land. It has been our consistent policy to try to assist the coal industry in any enterprise that we consider would be profitable.
  I shall be brief, as hon. Members on both sides should have the opportunity to put their views, but I should refer to one or two minor matters. There is much talk of closures. Hon. Members will recollect that there have been closures in shipbuilding, steel, refining and petrochemicals. In the United Kingdom, as in France and Germany, those industries have been scaled down to a suitable size to make them viable. Why should the United Kingdom mining industry be exempt? Why are we told that no pit should be closed until the reserves are exhausted? If pits are entirely unprofitable—with production costs at £60 or £70 per tonne they will never make a profit—the only solution may be to close a few of them. However, it is entirely for the National Coal Board to make the selection.
  I recently attended a conference at which it was said that in Germany it had been decided to cut back Ruhrkole capacity by 10 million tonnes to about 80 million tonnes per year to make the industry viable. Mine closures are not new to the United Kingdom. In 1965 to 1970, in the era of Lee, Marsh, Gunter and Mason there were 263 closures. During the era of Varley and Benn, between 1974 and 1979, there were another 32 closures.
  Mr. Rowlands: What is the hon. Gentleman's argument about, then?
  Mr. Skeet: I am merely observing that the Labour party has presided over substantial closures. If it recognises the need for such closures it should not criticise the chairman of the NCB or the Secretary of State for hinting that something must happen today.
  Mr. Lofthouse: To what extent does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the mining industry's production capacity should be cut back? How many men would then be needed in the coal industry to produce that capacity?
  Mr. Skeet: I should have to examine the number of men involved carefully.
  Mr. Rowlands: It would involve the closure of 70 pits.
  Mr. Skeet: The figures that I am giving appear in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission document.
  Mr. Rowlands: What is the hon. Gentleman suggesting?
  Mr. Skeet: I shall make my suggestions later. There are 141 loss-making collieries. I would certainly not accept closures on that scale. It involves a sizeable manpower figure. I should have thought that closure of 30 pits is a maximum. Such closures will have to be achieved through negotiation and the number actually closed might be only 20. That would make the industry competitive.
  There have been transfers of miners from one part of the country to another. For example, when production at the Vale of Belvoir starts in earnest, men will be transferred there from other parts of Leicestershire. I dare say that if another major pit is opened in Wales, men will be transferred there from other pits that are going out of production. That makes good sense.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 40,000 men should lose their jobs?
  Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman has put a figure on it. I am not doing that. I am prepared to look up the figures involved. Some job losses will be carried by natural wastage. The Government have given a guarantee to younger miners that they will be kept in employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Can Opposition Members tell me of one industry in which employees are given a better future than are miners? Top salaries in the mining industry are much higher than in any other industrial undertaking.
  Mr. Lofthouse: But there are no jobs for the young men now.
  Mr. Skeet: There are jobs. I am complaining about the ossified attitude of Opposition Members. They are backing the National Union of Mineworkers in its call for the banning of imports of coal and its demand that there be no closures unless pits have been exhausted.
  My final plea is for hon. Members to be reasonable. It is not the Government's money but taxpayers' money that is involved. We have poured millions of pounds into the industry and we are not getting a satisfactory return on it. As I understand it, the Government are trying to make the industry economic. I should have thought that, rather than oppose that move, the Opposition would earnestly support it.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Jack Dormand (Essington): I shall be brief, as many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
  What the Secretary of State said was as ominous as what he did not say. He did not address himself at all to the industry's problems today. He referred frequently to what was happening in 1973. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) properly told him that what appertained a decade ago is not true for 1983. My right hon. Friend did not get a satisfactory reply. Perhaps there is not one. If there were more time, I should have enlarged on that point.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) made his usual tirade against the coal industry. I have never heard a more irrelevant speech on the coal industry. He simply fails to recognise the social implications of the state of the industry. Why should we be surprised—he is the epitome of Tory economic theory and of capitalism. For him, if the industry is not making a profit, that is that. I come from as hard hit an area in county Durham as anyone. We have had our share of pit closures. Their effect on the community is devastating, not merely for the industry but for those who depend on it.
  I hope that we shall hear no more facile criticism of miners which we so often hear from Conservative Members. Whatever improvements there have been in the mining industry, a coal miner's job remains a dirty, dangerous and disagreeable one. The Labour party needs no lectures from Conservative Members on it. No one recognises the problems that face the coal industry more than the miners. However, those problems require deeper scrutiny than they are normally given.
  The large stocks of coal are frequently referred to. Several factors have created those stocks. No one should criticise miners' performance. I shall refer to performance in the north-east. The region's 20 collieries finished the

  755
  year ending 31 March in record breaking style. They bettered their weekly productivity record by 1 per cent. by producing at a rate of 2·33 tonnes per man-shift. They also increased the annual average by 1 per cent. to 2·09 tonnes per man-shift. Moreover, the weekly record has been broken twice since March. Therefore, there can be no question of miners in the north-east resting on their laurels. That applies to miners who work in other coalfields.
  We can say with confidence that the miners are playing their part in increasing productivity. It is a pity that the Government have not played their part. I accept that there has been substantial investment in the industry —it it is implied in the Bill—but the Government's disastrous economic policies have created an industrial desert. In huge areas, speaking geographically and figuratively, the country is an industrial desert. If that were not the case, there would have been much greater use of coal. If we had had the expansionist policies that are advocated by my party rather than the results of the cripplingly restrictive monetarism of the Government, the coal industry would have been in a much happier state.
  Too little effort has been put into promoting the sale of coal. There must be a change to the use of coal in coal-rich countries such as Britain and in the rest of the industrial world. The potential for coal use in the industrial sectors of the 24 OECD countries would be as high as 1 billion tonnes a year by the year 2000. I take my figures from Lord Ezra. I hope that the House will recognise him as sufficient authority. Such coal use would represent a growth of 5 per cent. a year on present consumption of 343 million tonnes a year.
  I welcome the Government's 1981 innovation to provide grants to firms that want to convert to coal. However, the original scheme was too narrow. I am glad that it has been improved. No one can be satisfied with the results so far. The Government must examine the scheme more closely to assess where it fails and to determine how improvements can be made.
  As the Minister knows, I always try to be constructive. Let me make three suggestions. First, I suggest that the grant should be increased from 25 per cent. We hear rumours that it will be decreased. If that is true, we should be told about it, and I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies to the debate. Second, the scheme should be extended beyond December 1983. Third, and perhaps most important, the scheme should apply to the whole public sector. The scheme would be much more effective if it took in the extra demand for coal, for example, in schools, hospitals and public buildings.
  One could not say that the CBI was exactly affiliated to the Labour party, but let me quote its view on the matter. I quote from one of its documents:
  "From a long term energy policy point of view we believe that it is in the national interest to encourage the use of coal. Therefore, in order to maintain the impetus which the coal firing grant scheme"—
  that is the scheme that I am talking about—
  "has created, the CBI would welcome additional funds being made available when the present allocation expires. In addition to acting as a useful incentive to decision making both schemes would help towards widening the market for coal".
  When the document says "both schemes" it is referring to the ECSC loan scheme, of which I am sure the House is aware. I hope, therefore, that some attention will be given to this matter.
  756
  Before he became chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. MacGregor said that when he became chairman he would launch a sales drive. I have not seen much evidence of it. I hope that he has not forgotten that promise, because it is of the greatest importance to our industry. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding his head. It may well be that the CEGB and the big industrial users of coal are looking for bargain prices from the NCB. As a one-off sale, that might be a good idea, at least in the immediate future. In any case, the chairman of the NCB should concentrate on that aspect of his work, not on how many pits he can close. I repeat that the need for a new dynamic sales drive, including exports, is crucial in dealing with the industry's present problems.
  These matters also relate to the Venice summit of 1980. We do not hear too much about that these days. I remind the House that the Heads of Government of the seven leading industrial nations of the West, together with representatives of the EC, met to attempt to reach agreement on a co-ordinated restructuring of energy demand. The aim was to free their economies from excessive dependence on oil, because that would mean a substantial increase in the use of coal. We are therefore entitled to ask, after three years, what contribution this Government have made to that end. There has been a dearth of information on this subject, and many of us suspect that the Government are dragging their feet. I suggest that the Minister should make a comprehensive statement in the near future about the British Government's contribution to the targets that were set by the Venice declaration.
  There are two matters that I frequently raise in the House. Some people may regard them as peripheral, and to some extent they are, bearing in mind the major problems that now face the industry. However, I do not apologise for mentioning them again. The first is the effect of coal production on the environment. It seems obvious to most people that special measures should be taken in coal-producing areas to protect the conditions in which the inhabitants live. The matter is so important that the powerful Flowers committee was set up to study the issue, and its report is the strongest possible argument for action to be taken to counteract the effects of producing coal. The Government have done almost nothing to implement the committee's recommendations, although I hasten to thank the Under-Secretary of State for giving money to set up at least the machinery to clear the blackened beaches in my constituency. He did that when he was at the Department of the Environment. He visited the beaches with me, but I have to tell him that it will be a long time before we see the golden glory of those beaches again. However, at least a beginning has been made, and none of his tight-fisted colleagues in the Government saw fit to deal with the problem. I hope that that praise does not go to the hon. Gentleman's head, because much remains to be done.
  The Flowers report is a frightening document but it demonstrates with boldness and great clarity what has to be done. I urge the Minister to convene regular meetings with his ministerial colleagues to monitor what is being achieved in the face of these great problems.
  Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. To deal with sulphur dioxide from coal would involve an expenditure by the CEGB of no less than

  757
  £4 billion, and that would put up the price of coal considerably. Further, it would be extremely expensive to remove nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide.
  Mr. Dormand: The hon. Gentleman again demonstrates his typical view of these matters. I have lived in a coal-producing area all my life, and those of us who live there say that it is the responsibility of society as a whole. It is not a matter for individual industries. On this, it is clear that we fundamentally disagree, but that is how a Labour Government, after the next election, will tackle the problem.
  To finish what I was saying, the Minister will find that precious little has been carried out so far, and I hope he will agree — I hope that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North will also agree—that the rest of the country owes a debt to the people who have to live in such an environment.
  The other matter that I want to raise—I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East touched on it in his speech— is the need for greater attention to the liquefaction of coal. We very much appreciated the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who used to speak on coal matters on behalf of the Opposition. This was one of his main interests. By "greater attention" I mean two things: first, more resources; and second, a much greater determination on the part of the Government to develop what is, after all, an exciting project.
  This is not the occasion on which to argue the case for liquefaction of coal. Indeed, the case has already been made, and I think that the Government accept the principle, judging by what they have done so far. However, they are guilty of being doctrinaire in the matter. They insisted on private capital being put into the project and then, when the promises of such capital were withdrawn, the project was slowed Sown. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who has Point of Ayr in his constituency, may agree with that, at least in principle. I do not say that there are no problems, but they are far from insuperable. What is lacking is the will to press on with the development. The National Coal Board is enthusiastic, as the Minister knows, but rightly insists that more money and encouragement should be given by the Government. The time could not be more opportune, in my view, for this country to take the lead in a process that will be commonplace by the end of the century. Clearly there is much to be said for being the first in the field, particularly when a comparatively small sum of money is involved. I look forward to questioning the Minister many more times on this matter.
  The Bill recognises some of the continuing needs of the coal industry. Not only are the policies important, but the way in which they are carried out is of the utmost importance, and it is fundamental to their success that the Government and the NCB retain the absolute confidence of the miners. Those of us who are privileged to live among them, and who come from mining families, know that they are among the most responsible members of society. Their record over generations shows that they have made a substantial and vital contribution to the well-being of the nation. Many of them have paid a high price in broken health and broken limbs in making that contribution. It is therefore only just that the needs of their industry should be properly recognised.
  758
  The appointment of the present chairman of the NCB was one of the Government's most savage acts. His threats about pit closures are based to a large extent on the fact that he has no allegiance to this nation. Before long he will disappear from our shores with a large transfer fee in his pocket. He will have £1·5 million safely tucked away. If the Government do not act quickly, he will leave behind him in the mining communities a trail of devastation unparalleled in the history of the industry. I hope that the Minister will heed the many warnings that have been and will be given by Opposition Members today. The country owes a great debt to mining and the miners, and it is up to the Government to ensure that that debt is paid.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: Many Conservative Members now represent constituencies with substantial mining interests.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Where are they?
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who represents the largest coal mining constituency in the country, made an excellent speech. My constituency contains the whole of the Warwickshire coalfield. There are four pits employing some 5,500 men. Despite the fact that two of the pits are nearing the end of their lives—though they have not yet reached that point—I am happy to say that overall the coalfield is profitable. The miners in my constituency are concerned that there should be investment in the future of the industry and, in particular, in the development of the south Warwickshire prospect. That profitable new development could replace the aging pits in the north of the coalfield. Above all, however, the Warwickshire miners are hard-headed, moderate and realistic. They know in their hearts—and they are not afraid to say—that uneconomic pits are dragging down the whole coal industry in Britain.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that the performance of pits can vary from year to year. That is correct. It would be folly to close a pit on the basis of one year's performance, and it is absurd to suggest that the chairman of the NCB would do any such thing. He will consider the performance' of pits over the past few years. Among other things, he will consider the way in which the work force has co-operated in developing new working practices to make the pits more profitable.
  The miners in my constituency know that the development coin—the investment coin—has two sides. Money must be put into new fields and existing pits must be made more profitable, but, on the other side, old and uneconomic pits have to be closed. We have been asked how many pits must be closed. The number need not be very large. It need not be anywhere near the 252 pits closed between 1964 and 1970 by the Labour Government.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many miners were made redundant during that period?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Member can find that figure as easily as I can. Nearly half the number of pits that existed in 1964 had been closed by 1970.
  Producing coal is not an end in itself. Opposition Members occasionally talk as though it is desirable in itself that men should go underground to raise coal that is not

  759
  needed, as though it is a wonderful thing to have a vast stockpile of coal. Coal mining is not a social service. It is an industry that exists to raise from the ground coal that people want to buy. If no one wants to buy the coal, there is no point in bringing it to the surface.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why we have huge stockpiles of coal—there is now 55 million tonnes and the figure is growing all the time — is that we are spending far too much money in importing fuel? That is the source of the problem. We have not developed techniques for burning coal more efficiently. If money had been invested in such activities over the years, we might not have huge piles of coal. It would have been used.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we export twice as much coal as we import.
  The whole House is committed to the future of the coal mining industry. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) mentioned the possibilities of the liquefaction of coal. There is no doubt that that has an enormous future.
  This country must have a coal mining industry. The Bill provides for enormous investment in the future of the coal mining industry. It is astonishing that the Second Reading of a Bill which will greatly increase investment in the coal mining industry should be used by the Opposition as an opportunity for attacking the Government. One Labour Member has referred to the Bill as being the result of monetarist policy. The Government are to invest over £1 billion a year in the capital future of the industry and to subsidise it to the extent of £600 million a year in operating and other grants. Anyone who considers that that is monetarism must be standing on his head.
  "Plan for Coal" made clear what the future of coal might be. That future has not come about, but it is absurd to suggest that that is the result of inadequate investment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear—his figures are beyond dispute—that the amount that this Government are investing in the coal industry is more than was suggested in "Plan for Coal", which was the product of a Labour Government.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) talked as though, through the Bill and other measures, the Government are weakening the industry. That proposition does not bear examination. What could be more enervating than that the investment available to the industry should be poured into pits producing coal at more than twice the price at which it can be sold? There are plenty of pits where coal is produced below the selling price, and many more which are producing it at or just below the selling price. Some pits in America with equivalent geology are producing equivalent amounts of coal with half the number of men, and those men are earning the equivalent of £28,000 a year. It must be the profitable pits and those which are near break-even point which attract the investment. It is the height of folly to pour money into uneconomic pits to produce coal, which is not needed in any event, to swell larger and larger stockpiles. That is throwing money away. I am astonished that that idea should attract any support.
  The hon. Member for Easington referred to criticism of the miners by Conservative Members. I have not heard one word of criticism of the miners by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have the greatest respect for the coal miners
  760
  of this country. When we visit coal faces in the pits in our constituencies, we have the opportunity to appreciate fully the difficulties and dangers of the job. Despite mechanisation and the undoubted improvement in conditions, the dangers are still enormous. There is a miner in my constituency whom I know well. He works in one of the most modern and best pits in the country, in Warwickshire. He recently suffered an accident in which he lost an eye. We do not talk glibly about how easy conditions are. We know that mining is difficult, disagreeable and dangerous, and we agree that miners should continue to be the highest earners among all our industries.
  Mr. Woodall: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear the Secretary of State say that in the past 10 years miners had increased their productivity by only just over 1 per cent.? If that is not a criticism, what the hell is? We know from the figures that output per man-shift has increased by far more than 1 per cent. year after year, and is now at its highest level ever.
  Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did no more than state the facts. In "Plan for Coal" it was expected that productivity would increase by 4 per cent. per annum. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do that in the decade since "Plan for Coal" was produced, total productivity in the industry has increased by slightly more than the annual figure predicted. That is a criticism not of coal miners, but, to some extent, of management in that industry. In many pits, coal miners have played their part in improving work practices.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East spoke about Mr. MacGregor and the possibility of a ballot being imposed on the coal mining industry. Who would not agree that the proper body to hold a ballot on the present pay offer is the National Union of Mineworkers? We would be delighted if that were to happen, but the fact is that it has not happened so far, and there is no prospect of it happening at present. What are Opposition Members doing to persuade their friends in the NUM to hold such a ballot? The miners in Warwickshire are getting fed up with an overtime ban that they do not support. They are losing a lot of money, and they are fed up with being manipulated for political ends. They know that there is no prospect of an increase in the offer. They also know that the action being taken seriously endangers the industry's future.
  On Friday I visited a pit in Warwickshire. I shall not tell the House what one of the miners said he would do if Mr. Scargill showed his face in a Warwickshire pit. It involved the use of a mine shaft and gravity. However, I warn Mr. Scargill that the miners in north Warwickshire have had enough of being manipulated for political ends.
  The fact is that every Conservative Member is fully committed to the future of the coal industry in Britain. We know that there must be investment. The Bill provides for more investment than for any other nationalised industry. To criticise it for not going fast enough is absurd. The Bill represents a very full commitment to the future development of our coal mining industry. I hope that the House will support it.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr.

  761
  Orme) for his comments. For 12 years I was the Front Bench spokesman on coal for my party, both in and out of government. I am told that that record will probably never be repeated, although never is a long time. However, I welcome the opportunity of speaking in the debate.
  It is rather depressing to listen to remarks of the sort made by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). He indicted not only all the miners in Britain, but those in Europe. We produce the cheapest coal in Europe. It is absurd to suggest that American miners are better than those in Britain or Europe. We are entitled to something more than such sixth-form debating points.
  Mr. Maude rose——
  Mr. Eadie: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  We must start to discuss the case for coal. That case has nothing whatever to do with providing miners with jobs, important though that is. The case for an expanding coal industry involves the whole nation, because coal is the only fuel that we have in abundance. All the other fossil fuels are wasting assets. By the 1990s oil will have been reduced to a trickle. By the next century gas resources will have disappeared. However, there is an abundance of coal. We have coal resources that we can identify that will last for more than 300 years. We have pre-planned mining projects which could expand the coal industry. In addition, our technology will certainly improve, and then there will be coal in these islands for more than 2,000 years.
  Therefore, the case for coal is that we have that form of energy in abundance. A Government who neglect it do a great disservice not only to the miners but to the whole nation. It makes economic sense to say that a nation that does not have its own energy cannot hope to be an industrial nation or to occupy any position in that industrial league of nations. It must have supplies of energy that are not only abundant, but safe and secure.
  This country is blessed with an indigenous and abundant source of energy. Therefore, the case for coal is overwhelming not only from the miners' viewpoint, but from that of the nation. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that she is concerned about the defence of the realm. Indeed, we are all concerned about that. However, it is in the interests of that defence that we should develop our own indigenous source of energy, coal. Can anyone say that the situation in the middle east is anything other than volatile? We know what is happening in Lebanon and that a crisis can rage throughout the middle east for just one night and force the whole Western world almost to its knees. Given what the Prime Minister preaches, the Government must have a duty not to contract the coal industry, but to expand it. That is in the interests of the defence of the realm, of industry and of our people.
  Some Conservative Members who are accountants and lawyers seem concerned about the accounts and the cost. However, that expenditure could easily be put on the defence bill. That would make more sense than some of the defence expenditure now being incurred.
  Mr. Maude rose——
  Mr. Eadie: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give way. I have a lot to say, and this is the first speech that I have made from the Back Benches for 12 years.
  762
  I want to deal not with propaganda, but with the arguments. We have already heard some propaganda tonight. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State's approach was a little cosmetic. He told the House that the Bill proposed extra borrowing for the coal industry. None of us would quarrel about that. However, we would have liked to oppose the Bill or to table an amendment to increase borrowing, but are unable to do so because it is tied to the money resolution. We can reduce the sums. but we cannot increase them. That is one of the reasons for not opposing the Bill.
  There is a case for even more investment in the coal industry. I said that the Secretary of State had been a little cosmetic. He spoke about 1973. I went into the Department of Energy in 1974. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman and I wish that he were in the Chamber to hear me, but when I arrived there in 1974 the undertakers had already arrived for the coal industry. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's record when he had responsibility for the coal industry. The industry was starved of investment. The right hon. Gentleman said that he gave the nod for Selby, but it was the Labour Government in 1974 who sank that mine. I had to go to Gascoigne Wood to answer all the objections. I had to go to the Cabinet to find funding for the project. I discussed it with the National Coal Board.
  Do not let me hear the Secretary of State say that he sank the pit at Selby. The Labour Government were responsible for the investment in Selby. I went there, and was present at the pit's sinking. The Government have a despicable record, for which I attack them. During their period of office from 1979 to 1983 they did not sink one new pit.
  The Government have changed to some extent the strategy for coal. They do not have a policy of sinking new pits or opening coalfields. It is a disgrace for the Government to talk about the Vale of Belvoir. If that scheme comes to fruition, there will not be three pits; there will be only one pit. The Government are killing that coalfield financially, before it starts. That is disgraceful.
  The Government are pursuing and encouraging what I have described as a black site policy. What do I mean by "a black site policy"? Money is being invested in existing pits. I do not quarrel with that policy; I started it myself. I believe that, if one can find new reserves in a pit and coal seams because of the vast increase in technology, one should capitalise on that investment. It makes good sense to invest in existing pits.
  The policy pursued by the Government will cause the contraction of the mining industry. Unless we have a green field site policy, the industry will contract. There must be new coalfields if the industry is to progress. The Government have not sunk a new pit since they came to office. Because they are not pursuing a green field policy, that will inevitably cause the contraction of the coal industry.
  We should take account of investment. Eighty-one per cent. of investment—I may be 0·5 per cent. out in my calculations—is in Nottingham, Yorkshire and parts of Derbyshire. The other 19 per cent. must be divided between south Wales, other parts of Derbyshire, Durham, Cumberland, Kent and Scotland. Those areas are classified as peripheral.
  The policy advocated by the National Coal Board, and encouraged by the Government, will cause the complete destruction of peripheral coalfields. It is their fondest wish

  763
  and dream that the mining industry should disappear in south Wales, Derbyshire, Durham, Cumberland and Scotland. They are pursuing a policy of contraction. They may talk about investment, but that investment is not properly divided.
  When we consider the areas of coal production in the United Kingdom, the matter seems much more serious for the nation. About 55 per cent. of coal production comes from the areas I have mentioned which benefit from 81 per cent. of the investment. The rest of the coal is produced in areas that receive only 19 per cent. of investment. Was it not a joke when the Secretary of State was chastised when he spoke of anthracite coal? He said, "Oh yes. But when the new investment comes, everything will be all right." We know that Margam is rich. We know that Betws is rich. The Government and the National Coal Board have done nothing about that. Long lead times are involved. It is vandalism to pursue such a policy.
  My criticism of Mr. MacGregor is not that he is an old man, which he is, but that he is incompetent. I said when he was appointed as chairman of the NCB that it was a provocative appointment. The mining industry does not want him. According to the standards applied by the Tory party and its arguments on the standards of the market, Mr. MacGregor would have been sacked from the British Steel Corporation. It had lost more money when he left than when he started, never mind the wholesale destruction of manpower in the industry.
  I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) talk about liquefaction. When I was a Minister, I proposed two schemes for liquefaction. I signed an agreement with the NCB and obtained £20 million from the Labour Cabinet to get them started. In relation to liquefaction, the Government have never washed a dish, they have never struck a blow, although we have had plenty of promises.
  When he was the Minister responsible for the coal industry the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me that a Conservative Government would match every penny that the Labour Government promised to start the liquefaction schemes. I know what will happen. A scheme will be started in a country such as Japan, but the Government and Mr. MacGregor will do nothing about it.
  When some of my hon. Friends went to see Mr. MacGregor about the liquefaction scheme, he said that he had no intention of reinventing the wheel. He also said that it would not come into being until 20 years after the beginning of next century. Mr. MacGregor is not only an entrepreneur and the chairman of the NCB, but he is posing as a scientific expert. He could say to his kids that oil will not be made from coal for the next 37 years. Every scientist and economist would laugh him out of court for making such a suggestion, but he did make it. It was reported in the press. That is why he is incompetent.
  Perhaps the reason why Mr. MacGregor is incompetent is that there has never been a scientist in the NCB since Joe Gibson left. The Minister should say to the NCB that it is time that it had scientific advice. A scientist should advise Mr. MacGregor so that he does not make silly statements.
  Mr. MacGregor said that he thought that there could be a market for 200 million tonnes of coal. However, there cannot be a market for 200 million tonnes of coal if coal is not liquefied or gasified. I have said before that I refuse
  764
  to believe that after we have invested billions of pounds in a gigantic gas pipeline all over the country we shall forget all about it when gas in the North sea has diminished. Of course we shall gasify coal.
  I understand that some exciting things have been happening in the gasification of coal. There is no problem about making synthetic North sea gas. We mastered that technology years ago. We sold some of it to America and kept the patents ourselves. There is a breakthrough, but Mr. MacGregor does not know about it. He is trying to assist the NCB to get the 200 million tonnes. He is incompetent.
  When we talk about oil from coal, it is not a Walter Mitty idea. It is not a new technology. It is now being developed in South Africa by Sasol. Incidentally, the technologies invented by the NCB are better than those of Sasol because they are better in the use of coal, but we as a nation are doing nothing about the matter. The Government have dragged their feet all the time. I have said before that making petrol and oil from coal is nothing new. Most of the aeroplanes that came over from Germany during the last war and knocked hell out of us in Clydebank, in Coventry and in London flew on petrol derived from coal. We are not talking about a new technology, although one would think when listening to the National Coal Board and the Government that it was.
  The Secretary of State talked cosmetically about the pit closure programme for contraction of the industry. The House must understand that the average age of miners in the coal industry is lower than ever, at about 38·7. It is the declared policy of the National Coal Board to get rid of 70,000 men. That is on the record and there cannot be any argument about it. The board will not be able to do so simply by getting rid of men over the age of 50. The board will be saying that men over the age of 30 will have to leave the industry because of the policy which is being pursued. I know it is tied to the economic policy of the Government, but it is dishonest for Conservative Members to suggest that there are great prospects in the mining industry if we go ahead with the policy that the National Coal Board is pursuing.
  In my area the miners at Monktonhall were out on strike for eight weeks and I resented it bitterly. I have always believed in conciliation rather than confrontation. I believe in argument and discussion. In this debate I have tried to put forward arguments which should at least be considered. In the first week of that dispute I, together with my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) put forward proposals to settle the dispute. They were discussed for two and a half hours. Those proposals would not have suited everybody but they would have ended the strike. My constituents in Midlothian were on the sticks for eight weeks and suffered terribly. When they went back to work it was more or less on the proposals that we had put forward.
  I say to Mr. MacGregor and his faceless bureaucrats in Hobart House that they bear a heavy responsibility for the suffering of the miners in Midlothian, who will not have a good Christmas. Mr. MacGregor and his officials should feel ashamed that they allowed that strike to go on for eight weeks. How can they expect to have good industrial relations?
  Last Friday I went to the miners' treat at Monktonhall. In the mining industry we never forget the old folk. To organise a treat for 1,000 people requires much work. Do

  765
  hon. Members know what the National Coal Board has done? It has withdrawn facilities for the union and the social committee to organise the old folks' treat. Mr. MacGregor is an old man. It is a disgrace that he should be associated with that policy and that he should be punishing the old people in my constituency by non-co-operation.
  The coal industry is a great industry. We must get rid of people like Mr. MacGregor. We must preserve a policy of green field site investment. We must sell more coal abroad and introduce all the new technologies. There must be a policy of liquefaction and gasification of coal, not just to suit the miners but because it is the right thing to do in the interests of the nation. I long for the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East will be the Secretary of State for Energy and when a Labour Government will pursue these policies in the interests not only of the miners but of the whole nation.
  6.33 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who for 12 years spoke with immense distinction and authority in the House for the coal industry, has made a great speech; the whole House listened to him spellbound. I say that it was a great speech, but I do not say that it was a sensible speech. Indeed, I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say. All of us, particularly on the Government side of the House, should recognise the passion and the conviction with which the hon. Gentleman spoke. He was speaking on behalf of the miners. No one on this side of the House has come to appreciate the miners more than I have, but I did not make the mistake of identifying their interests necessarily with the national interest. In many cases they may coincide, but they will rot always do so.
  I speak with some sadness because I no longer represent coal miners. Because of parliamentary distribution the Point of Ayr colliery is no longer in my constituency. Although I fought as best I could for the liquefaction plant at Point of Ayr, I no longer have the right to do so as a constituency interest. That colliery is now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who is not present today because he is negotiating with Mr. MacGregor and the National Coal Board to further the interests of that most important scheme. I can only give him what suppert I can from the outside. I hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who was here earlier, will recall that this mine is no more in his constituency than it is in mine and will confine his interventions in the matter to supporting the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn.
  Although the Point of Ayr colliery is not in my constituency, it is reasonable for me to say that the technology of liquefaction of coal is valuable in itself. Not merely is it a technology that will be valuable to this country for converting coal into oil, but, if we can perfect it, it will have a sale value in other countries.
  As a result of a slowing down in the increase of world oil prices it is only too clear that this process will not be viable, considered in purely commercial terms. If we had a Secretary of State who was the hard-faced monetarist that it suits some Opposition Members to portray him as, he would no doubt very swiftly run his pen through the whole project. I rejoice in the fact that my right hon. Friend is a man with a broad approach to these problems
  766
  and that he is prepared to apply Keynesian economics where they can be demonstrated to work. I feel a measure of confidence that this child is in his keeping.
  I pay a deep tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), who for a long time looked after the interests of the coal industry from these Benches. I note that he has come under criticism from the Opposition for floating proposals for a measure of privatisation of the coal industry. I do not think that any of us on this side of the House are sufficient ideologues to think for one moment that it will be possible to privatise the coal industry. But surely it must be to the advantage of the coal industry, as to all other industries, to draw additional resources into it. If that involves binning the frontiers between private and public ownership, then I do not think that any of us should object. I am glad that my hon. Friend, now Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is putting forward these ideas. Perhaps they cannot he made to work, but, if they could, some of them would be of real benefit to the coal industry.
  I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on the Front Bench. He has already demonstrated his close interest in the industry. I think this is generally recognised on the Opposition Benches. No doubt he, too, will demonstrate a broad approach to the problems of the industry.
  In such a debate Mr. Ian MacGregor becomes the Aunt Sally at which every Opposition Member loves to heave a stone, and clearly he is the sort of man who attracts violent criticism. However, it is wrong to regard Mr. MacGregor as a butcher. He is a salesman—a man who sees it as his function in life to sell the products which he is in charge of producing. That merely echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Easington, who spoke of the importance of selling more British coal abroad. It is absurd that Britain, which produces such vast quantities of coal and has enormous reserves, should be content that only a tiny proportion of it is sold abroad. The argument for the MacGregor approach is powerful. It is that if one brings costs down far enough, one can have a better paid work force and a much larger output. That is the direction in which our coal industry must move.
  It is not unfair to say that the previous Secretary of State for Energy was not interested in proposals for a common energy policy in the EC, because he regarded it as a means by which EC expenditure, and therefore Government expenditure, might increase substantially. I hope that the present Secretary of State will be a little more flexible in his attitude towards this matter. When the EC budget was being considered, the budget commissioner, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, put forward proposals for a tax on imported energy into the Community. In some forms, such a tax or levy could be extremely damaging to Britain; but here is the germ of an idea that could be of immense benefit to Britain and to the coal industry, because it could produce the funds to enable a substantial investment to be made in the coal industry to make it more modern and efficient. If the coal industry of the next century is to compete with the United States, India or Australia, we must be prepared for massive investment and for the modernisation of working methods. That inevitably involves considerable expenditure—probably far beyond what is available to any single member Government.
  We must not lose sight of our main objective, which is not merely to secure jobs for the miners—although we would all wish to do that—and to get as much coal out

  767
  of the ground as we can, but to provide the British people and industry with energy at a fully competitive price. All of us know from speaking to constituents that they are sick of perpetual increases in the cost of energy—above all, the perpetual increases in the cost of electricity; and the largest ingredient in the cost of electricity is the price of coal. We must keep down coal prices, which, as has been demonstrated by many Conservative Members today, would be consistent with high wages and good working conditions for miners. The coal industry must be expansion-minded. I know of no Minister more expansion-minded than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad that the Bill is to receive a Second Reading, apparently without opposition.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Terry Patchett: Many hon. Members present today represent constituencies that are heavily involved in coal mining, as is mine. I have heard much today about the miners, but I have heard nothing about the attitude of the miners towards the Government and how we have reached the present position. I am sure that the coal industry will welcome this breathing space given by the Bill, given its present financial position, but we must realise that it is only a breathing space. The Government have not fully recognised the problems of the industry, which can be settled only on a longer-term basis than the Bill allows.
  However, the Bill at least hints that the Government are aware of some of the problems, since clause 2 grants a new period of payment of grants to reduce deficit from 1983–84 to 1985–86. However, their enthusiasm for clauses 3 and 4, which deal with the financing of pit closures and redundancies, highlights one of the major problems of the industry. The miners — I am speaking not about one chap I met in the club, but from a lifetime's association with the mining industry—believe that the Government lack enthusiasm for the industry.
  We are all aware that the strategy of the Coal Industry Acts 1980 and 1982 was that the board should ultimately be self-financing, and every report that I have read said that that would be achieved by 1984. However, three years is a long time in industry as well as in politics, especially under a Tory Government. Who would have predicted in 1979 or 1980 the utter failure of the Government to tackle unemployment and thereby to stimulate industry to use energy? Conservative Members say much about markets abroad, but the domestic markets have been decimated by the Government's lack of initiative in tackling the problem. That, apart from the added financial burden of the stacks of coal in collieries all round the country—which are not caused by a lack of interest or productivity on the part of the miners — is a monument to the Government's economic policy.
  The men in the industry believe that the Government are basing their energy policy not on the cool light of facts but on a blind hatred of the National Union of Mineworkers. They imported an Americanised chairman more renowned for union bashing than for his experience in the coal industry. However, at least they conceded a U-turn. At the beginning of the recession the Government were blaming naughty trade unionists and the lack of productivity for the problem, but the Prime Minister could
  768
  not go to the CBI and find anyone suitable in British industry to manage our nationalised coal industry. Even her friends in the CBI must have been snubbed by that.
  The Government seem to be hell bent on a nuclear energy programme, regardless of the safety questions that are still unanswered, including the disposal of nuclear waste.
  In 1979–80, 24,000 jobs were lost in the industry, and 10,000 were lost in 1982–83. That does not stimulate confidence in the Government, who appear to be going nowhere. The terms of reference of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission once more highlighted only a three-year period and ignored completely the fact that we lost a vast market because of the Government's inactivity.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said that one reason why the board's figures were so bad in recent years was high interest rates. They have been a handicap since vesting day, and the public should appreciate that they have been a heavy burden. Therefore, a high proportion of the grants paid to the National Coal Board are repaid in the form of interest payments for previous borrowing.
  Coal is an asset, and it should be exploited as such. Many allied industries will suffer as a result of the cuts and closures in the mining industry that the Government are encouraging through the auspices of MacGregor. The Government appear to be considering coal expenditure as a single aspect of spending. It is not just spending on the coal industry that counts, but the overall effect on public spending. When uneconomic pits are sliced off, public expenditure must be used to cover the loss of jobs and so on.
  I hope that with this in mind the Government will take a fresh look, will recognise the damaging effects of the recession and will be ready if ever an upsurge comes. I do not see one coming, but Conservative Members tell me it is. When a Labour Government take over after the next election we want a coal mining industry and an energy industry to get the country back to work and to bring down unemployment. We want to get the industry back on its feet. Please do not decimate our energy source.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Two weeks ago the House was asked to approve a Bill to increase the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders, the borrowing limit of which in 1979 was £300 million, to a limit this year of £1,200 million. Tonight we are being asked in a similar way to increase a limit which in 1979 was £2,200 million to a total of £5,500 million, extendable to £6,000 million. The two Bills appear to have three similar characteristics. First, there is no end in sight to this public subsidy. Secondly, and sadly, there appears to be a total absence of agreement between management and unions on the structure, size, shape and scope of the industry involved. Thirdly, the assumptions made by Government throughout the consideration of both industries for a period going back more than 10 years have been wrong time and again.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), when introducing the Coal Industry Bill 1980 said:
  "I would expect that the new level would be sufficient to last the board for about three years".—[Official Report, 17 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 1380.]
  We are three years on today and not only is that assumption wrong—and, interestingly, it was made on

  769
  the basis of 14 per cent. annual inflation, which did not turn out to he the case—but the other assumptions made when that Bill was presented to the House in terms of the closure of uneconomic capacity and improvements in productivity were similarly wrong. I wish that Opposition Members, who have mentioned productivity in their speeches, would study the damning evidence in appendix 3.10 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
  I described the action of British Shipbuilders' unions in demanding an increase in the borrowing powers of that industry as treating Parliament as an autobank. I think it only fair to say that, for the miners over the past 10 years, Parliament has been more of a milch cow. What has been mined over the past 10 years is public money —taxpayers' money — from the Treasury. As we have already heard today, more than £1 billion a year now goes in either capital or current subsidy to the industry. Not only operating grant, but all manner of supporting money goes together with that subsidy. There are regional grants, social grants, and deferred interest payment schemes for the industry and, for the miners themselves, there are, in addition to normal redundancy payments, disturbance allowances, retention payments and removal allowances.
  Indeed, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in paragraph 3.133 of its report, put it very well when it said that:
  "The NCB has been financed almost entirely by loan capital and Government grants during the last ten years."
  I think it is time that hon. Members were slightly more frank about the state of the industry, in particular the state of the deep collieries and their operating results. It was not until the publication of that report that it was possible for the House to evaluate the operating results of each colliery, one set against another. It was not until that report was published that it became clear that only twice over the past 11 years have the deep mines ever been profitable and the profit over those 11 years totalled about £32 million and must be set against losses of nearly £855 million.
  I have carefully read through the proceedings on both the two previous borrowing powers measures and, having read those debates and the proceedings of the two Standing Committees, I am struck by the air of unreality that appears to permeate debates on the coal industry. The only honourable and consistent exception to that air of unreality appear to have been the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet). This industry might be described as "Arthur in Wonderland". I should like to give a current example of how unrealistic are the attitudes of the industry and how divorced they are from the interests of taxpayers as a whole. An article in The Times of 3 November said:
  "At a recent joint meeting of the deputies' union, NACODS, and the British Association of Colliery Management, it was agreed that the coal board should be approached to ask the Government to ban further pit closures, provide subsidies for coal production, and halt coal imports."
  With regard to providing subsidies to the industry, it has become clear during the debate that not only has my right hon. Friend responded to the challenge to put further resources into the industry but he has done so in a way which some Conservative Members might consider almost too lavish. With regard to halting coal imports, it appears to have escaped the notice of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), that coal imports have halved over the past three years—the great bulk of them is taken up by the import
  770
  of materials that are not indigenous to this country. While I agree with the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) who said that the real task facing the industry is to find new markets abroad, I was disappointed that he then went on to mount a personal attack on the chairman of the Coal Board, who has particular expertise in that area. Not only did he do that but he appeared to expect OECD countries, to which we were to be asked to export more coal, at the same time not to expect us to change some highly monopolistic arrangements in the conduct of our own industry, such as the centralised bargaining system that exists between the Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board.
  The final issue raised in the statement by NACODS and the British Association of Colliery Management is closures. It would appear from what has been said from the Opposition Benches that the need for the closure of uneconomic capacity has been suggested only by Mr. MacGregor and Conservative Members. That is not true. It was first proposed by the then Labour Government in 1974. The present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking in the debate on the last coal industry measure, in 1982, reminded the House:
  "A coal industry examination interim report produced by the Labour Government in June 1974 contains definite assumptions relating to the pattern of closures due to excessive capacity during the period when new capacity came on stream. The assumption was that 3 million to 4 million tonnes of capacity a year would disappear during the period'.—[Official Report, 2 February 1982; Vol 17, c. 206.]
  That was recognised not only by the Labour Government in 1974. It was subsequently recognised by the Commission in Brussels in a proposal for a new regulation and it has been recognised yet again by the chairman of the Coal Board in his introductory statement to this year's report, when he says:
  "In these circumstances of financial and physical imbalance, it cannot be right, as I have said repeatedly throughout the year, that a small proportion of our total output, mined from persistently unprofitable pits with no prospect of viability, should be responsible for the greater part of both surplus output and financial losses".
  In the end we return to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and this is the first opportunity that the House has had to consider the findings of that report since its publication before the election. Its central conclusion, in my view, concerns pit closures. It says in paragraph 8.25:
  "When we questioned the NCB as to why it had failed to achieve the level of closures envisaged in the Tripartite Report of 1974 and why it had assumed only a modest level of closures in its current medium-term development plan, we were told in both cases that the necessity of maintaining good industrial relations precluded faster progress."
  Thus, when the right hon. Member for Salford, East argues for a return to the tripartite machinery, he is really arguing for a return to the veto by the miners' union over decision-making by the management and Government on the future needs of the industry and, indirectly, over the needs and better interests of taxpayers as a whole.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: It was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my compatriot, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). and a privilege to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), whose speech was the most passionate I have heard since entering Parliament. It had the House spellbound.

  771
  The Bill is necessary, given the present state of the National Coal Board's finances, because it extends the borrowing limits of and advances extra assistance to the NCB. Therefore, we on this Bench will not oppose it. Nevertheless, we consider it another disappointing measure because it represents an extension of a Government policy which, although presented today as supportive of the industry, falls far short of the positive commitment to the coal industry that we in the Liberal party and SDP believe is necessary if the industry in Britain is to have a meaningful future.
  It cannot be doubted that there is a crisis in the coal industry. There is a crisis in industrial relations, of which recent events at Monktonhall are a symptom, and there is a financial crisis, one of the more acute symptoms of it being the increased stocks at many of our coal mines. The hon. Members for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) and for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) seemed to think that the consequence of having large stocks was colliery closures. The hon. Member for Midlothian eloquently put the argument why hard-nosed economics are not the only criteria to apply when considering the future of collieries. Although we may have coal reserves in the soil to last for 300 years, in the great length of history that is only a limited period. In any event, much of those stocks would be lost if we closed mines which still had productive capacity.
  Reference has been made to defence considerations. I have on a number of occasions debated North sea oil with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North. It has been generally accepted by hon. Members that it is in the national interest that we should become increasingly self-sufficient in oil and not be so dependent on the volatile nations of the middle east. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North thought that we might get coal from South Africa. Apart from any moral questions—about how that coal is produced as cheaply as he indicated—that would appear to be a volatile part of the world on which to depend for future energy supplies.
  I agree that we have excess coal stocks, but that is due to efficiency on the part of the coal industry and inefficiency on the part of the Government to run the economy properly. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, the fuel used by the public supply system was 122 million tonnes coal equivalent per annum. It had reduced to 107 million tonnes by 1982, a drop of just over 12 per cent., but the proportion of that made up of coal fell by only 9½ per cent. There has been a world recession, but there has also been a Government failure to sustain the level of overall demand, and that has led to a decrease in the demand for coal. At the same time, there has been an increase in the efficiency of miners; overall output per man-shift hour has been rising over the years and today, at 2·44 tonnes, it is the highest since nationalisation.
  One must examine the problem from two angles. The first is to examine how to increase the market for coal. There must initially be an expansion of the economy. Lost manufacturing production since the Conservatives came to power has contributed to much of the problem. If the Government introduced some of the policies outlined in the report "Back to Work" commissioned by the Liberal party and the SDP, there would be an increase in manufacturing output and a corresponding increase in fuel demand.
  772
  The Government could extend the Government-aided scheme, for which there are signs of a good take-up, for converting to coal-firing boilers now using gas and oil equipment. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) referred to this at length. It has been suggested that the limit of £50 million placed on that scheme by the Government will be reached by the autumn of this year. It also appears that the take-up of the scheme only scratches the surface of what could be done. Will that scheme be continued and is it having a good take-up?
  The biggest market for coal is that which goes to the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Perhaps they could follow private industry by converting some of their oil boilers to coal firing. It has been done with considerable success in the United States and Denmark, where some conversions have enabled a dual system to operate; it is then possible to have both oil and coal capacity, thereby safeguarding the position to take account of future price differentials.
  We on this Bench consider that a barrier to innovation is the decision of the CEGB and South of Scotland Electricity Board to put so many of their eggs in the nuclear basket. We are sceptical about the expansion of nuclear power and do not think that there are economic arguments for it. No doubt someone from the electricity generating industry can pick out one good nuclear power station and pit it against a coal-fired station and tell us that it is more economical. We are entitled to ask, in any of these calculations, where are the costs for the years which Heysham B took to be constructed and the years when Hunterston B was out of commission? The Select Committee on Energy, in a report two years ago, made it clear that it was dubious on this matter, and had great scepticism about whether there was an economic case for saying that electricity generation by nuclear power was cheaper than by coal.
  The demand argument does not exist. There is excess capacity in England and a considerable amount of excess capacity in Scotland. As a result, in the last fortnight the South of Scotland Electricity Board yet again cut its requirements for coal from Scottish pits. In 1981, the demand from the SSEB was 7·8 million tonnes, and next year it will be just over 3·8 million tonnes. That must threaten a number of pits in Scotland. The Government say that they are supporting the coal industry, but is that not hypocritical, and inconsistent with their encouragement of bodies such as the SSEB to go ahead with nuclear power stations, and in particular to continue with the station at Torness?
  The other crisis in the coal industry is that of pit closures. Undubtedly, after many years of working, pits can become exhausted, or the geographical circumstances may be such that there are insuperable difficulties, and in both events pits must close. Labour Members have been misrepresented by Conservative Members as saying that they oppose closures at any cost. I heard some Labour members say clearly that there were circumstances in which closures had to take place. "Plan for Coal" in 1974 made it clear that when a mine had become exhausted and there were insuperable running difficulties it had to be closed.
  The great loss of morale in the coal industry is because much has been said about closures and not enough about investment in new mines.
  Mr. Rowlands: Or in existing ones.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
  We accept that some mines will have to close, but there should be full consultation with everybody involved, and a number of factors should be taken into consideration, in particular the social ones. The older mines, which are in most danger of being closed, are in limited geographical areas in south Wales, the north-east of England and Scotland. If closures occur in such limited areas, the social impact will be even greater. We must ensure that the Government are sensitive about this and have social policies ready to take care of the problem if and when it should arise.
  We should also ensure that we do not waste resources. Our energy resources are finite and we cannot afford to lose them. I have studied some of the reports of past debates on the coal industry, and I was struck by the number of right hon. and hon. Members who gave examples of mines that one year were declared to be unprofitable and unproductive but which, because nothing was done about them at the time, were making a profit two or three years later in changed circumstances. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) gave such an example today. We must be sure, when we take decisions to close mines, that we are not unnecessarily wasting capacity.
  The closure of mines must go hand in hand with the progressive replacement of old capacity with new and the introduction of new technology in mining to make it more efficient and safe, and we must develop existing mines as well as sink new ones. There must be a future for our coal industry, because coal resources are available. Coal must play a significant part in our future energy strategy. We call for a reaffirmation of "Plan for Coal". There should be a new tripartite deal for coal, with the industry committed to a high level of investment, and with more Government support.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) asked, "Why not financial reconstruction?" When the Government seem prepared to write off the debts of British Airways, why not take the bold step of writing off the debts of the NCB? It is all very well for the Government to tell us how much they are giving as a deficit grant to the coal industry—£374 million in the last financial year—when of that £366 million was paid back by the Coal Board in interest charges. The third leg of the tripartite agreement would be constructive co-operation between management and the mining unions on any pit closures, with the unions safe in the knowledge that that would go hand in hand with new mining developments.
  As we look forward to a time when oil and gas reserves decline, the future of the coal industry must be bright. Its problem is a short-term one because of lack of demand. It is vital, at this difficult time, that we maintain existing capacity, do not unnecessarily throw away coal resources or our skilled labour force, and that we invest in a successful future for the coal industry.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Tim Eggar: I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will forgive me of I do not follow him in his points about the future of the coal industry. I shall dwell on one particular proposal. We need a strong coal industry. It should be a smaller industry, and it will be in the National Coal Board's interests, over a period, to dispose of its ancillary businesses and opencast mining operations. However, I shall not develop that point this evening.
  774
  I shall concentrate on developing some of the points made by Labour Members about the current balance sheet and financing structures of the Coal Board. This is the fourth Bill that the House has had to consider since 1977. Mr. Tony Benn in that year raised the borrowing limit to £1,400 million. In this Bill, some seven years later, we are seeking to extend the limit to £6,000 million. That. by any stretch of the imagination, is a considerable increase.
  There is an argument in favour of putting all nationalised industries, not just the Coal Board, on a proper financial footing. There is also an argument for a radical restructure of the Coal Board's balance sheet. I do not say that simply with a view to writing off bad debts. We need to ensure that the Coal Board has a proper balance sheet and a reasonable debt to equity ratio comparable with other mining companies worldwide. It should also be reasonable to expect it to proceed without further deficit grants. Any social grants that are thought to be reasonable in all the circumstances should be revealed in the balance sheet and committed by the Government up to a maximum limit for a number of years forward.
  With this reconstructed balance sheet, the Coal Board should be expected to pay a dividend on the Government's equity capital. In other words, the Coal Board should be put into the same position as any major private sector mining company, such as Rio Tinto-Zinc, the Amax Corporation or any other corporation, with the one difference that the shareholding would be held by the Government only, not by a number of private sector individuals or investment trusts.
  What are the advantages of such a change? There is not only the question of the writing off of past debts, but acknowledging that we have lost a considerable amount of public money. The major importance of such a restructuring is that it would concentrate the minds of management, unions and Ministers on where they want the industry to go in future. It would force them to put a sensible valuation on the assets of the Coal Board. Restructuring would make them examine how much investment they would need to achieve in two or three years.
  Management and Government would know that it would be a matter not simply of returning to the House for a further inrease in the borrowing limit if things went wrong. There would be effects on directors if a company went bust under the Companies Acts. That would affect public understanding of the financial difficulties within the industry. The public do not realise that each time we raise the borrowing limits, in effect we acknowledge that the National Coal Board has gone bust again. They would understand it if the Coal Board were a company under the Companies Acts and had to go through the stages that are required of such companies.
  I do not believe that this Bill will make a tremendous difference to the way in which the Coal Board is run, but it is an improvement. It would mean an internal discipline on management, and an improvement in communication with the public about the industry's performance. Just as importantly, this measure would make it easier for those of us who are not experts on the coal industry to have a better idea of what is happening. It would ease the role of the Select Committee in examining the way in which the industry is proceeding.
  I recognise that it is too late for the Minister to consider introducing such a step in the Bill, but I hope that the Department and the Government will consider my

  775
  suggestion because it applies to all nationlised industries, not just to the National Coal Board. If, God forbid, we have a similar Bill in a few years' time, my suggestion might offer an alternative that could be considered by the House.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: When I left the Chamber for one cup of tea, I was frightened to death by the story on the front page of The Standard about the crash of an atomic waste lorry on a motorway. I thought that the article referred to the M4 into Wales, across the Severn bridge. If a lorry crashed there and traffic on the bridge was further restricted, this would be a disaster for Wales even greater than the one that we have suffered since the Tory Government took office in May 1979.
  There are four valleys in Ogmore, each containing a number of collieries. After four years of Tory Government there is only one colliery in the Ogmore valley still producing coking coal. Last week we were informed that the Wyndham western colliery was subject to closure. If Conservative Members want to see the social consequences of a colliery closure in a mining valley, they are invited to come to my constituency. In the Ogmore valley, there are 8,000 people out of work. Last Friday the job centre had 100 jobs on offer—for bar attendants and assistants and for engineers in Airvac, but there were few jobs available for people in the Ogmore area.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who left the Chamber as soon as he made his speech, suggested that no young people are being made redundant. He should come to Wales, because not only are young people in the collieries being made redundant, but there is no chance of jobs for them in Wales. In the Ogmore valley, 1,600 young people under the age of 21 have few, if any, prospects of obtaining a job in mining or other industries.
  My father was a miner, and I lived in the Rhondda valley. He tried to persuade me to continue at school so that I did not go into the mining industry. However, all my school mates worked in the colliery. Their sons and grandsons, who should have jobs in the Rhondda, Ogmore and other mining areas of south Wales, have no chance of a job in a colliery. No apprentices are taken on in south Wales.
  When I left the Chamber for a cup of tea, I had a shock not just because of the front page story of The Standard, but because of a story on the second page. In a way, it was a relief because I read:
  "Jobs message to Tories
  The Government must cut unemployment if it is to stay in office for a third term, Energy Secretary Peter Walker said today.
  Speaking at a Financial Times conference in London on The Second Thatcher Government, Mr. Walker said he did not think the Tories should go into another election with jobless figures at their present level."
  Mr. Rowlands: There must be two of them.
  Mr. Powell: We have noted the right hon. Gentleman's stance when he addressed that conference and his stance when he started to address the Chamber this afternoon. If he does not change the Government's energy policies and stops colliery closures, I can guarantee that the Tory Government will not have a third term.
  Because of the carve-up of parliamentary boundaries by the Tory electoral commissioners, to ensure Tory seats, I
  776
  lost half of my former constituency. I had an electorate of 74,000, and it was reduced to 52,000. Nevertheless, despite a reduction of 22,000 electors, I received a handsome majority of 17,242—1,240 more than I had received during the 1979 election.
  We feel for the people who have been put out of work, and we talk to them. Conservative Members should go to the Ogmore valley to see young lads strolling round the streets with nothing to do all day. They should go into the miners' institutes, to which my father and my friends' fathers contributed threepence a week to keep them going. Those lads are in the clubs and playing snooker. Some of them have degrees, but have no chance of obtaining a job because of the Government's policies.
  People in the Ogmore and other valleys had already suffered massive unemployment because of MacGregor's attitude to the British Steel Corporation. This was before Mr. MacGregor was appointed to the chairmanship of the National Coal Board.
  Mr. Skinner: Another Yankee import.
  Mr. Powell: Do not put me off; I was in full flight.
  Mr. MacGregor began by persuading the trade unions that the answer to the steel industry's problems was to make the industry efficient and well paid for those who would be retained in that industry. Conservative Members should go to the Port Talbot and Llanwern works, talk to the remaining staff and ask them whether it is the industry that they expected when they agreed to demanning.
  I warn the miners and their leaders that this is what will happen with MacGregor, who is there to butcher and cut the mining industry. He will persuade them that a reduction in manning levels is needed so that he can create circumstances similar to those in the steel industry.
  The Wyndham western colliery is the one pit left in the Ogmore valley, and that is to close. There is one industrialist on a new estate about which the Secretary of State for Wales continually boasts. There are four new factories on the Pwyllygwent site. One is occupied and employs 40 women. That industrialist told me only a fortnight ago that if the Wyndham western colliery closed he would take his factory from Ogmore valley and go elsewhere. With a valley of 8,000 to 9,000 people, we have one factory employing 40 females while a colliery is to close that employs 540 miners.
  It is no good the Secretary of State going to a conference this afternoon and warning people about the Government's term of office expiring at the end of this Parliament unless unemployment is cut. Something must be done in the valleys to create jobs for people in my area.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned "Yankee." I call Mr. MacGregor the Yankee doodle butcher of the steel industry because he can claim the remarkable achievement of closing most of our steel plants at taxpayers' expense. I have often wondered, and I have been asked many times, how Parliament can pay such a price to one person to destroy so much in so short a time. I know hundreds of people who could have easily achieved more for far less. Mr. MacGregor reduced the steel industry by 110,000 jobs within four years. Parliament does not do anything. We take him on at great expense to cut as many jobs as possible in the shortest possible time, without any regard to the social consequences of colliery closures. Only 69,000 steel workers are left after four years of MacGregor. They are

  777
  facing an endless deterioration in their standards of living. It is time that Parliament took a hand to try and streamline the industry. Wales will never recover from the butchery. It is still reeling from this vicious, unprecedented attack on its steel industry. There are 200,000 people out of work in Wales. Most areas had a reduction in unemployment figures last month but in Wales they increased.
  MacGregor wants a vote to decide whether the miners should accept their 5·2 per cent. increase and whether overtime should be banned. I have no doubt that the miners would welcome a ballot if he included in it a question whether he should continue as chairman of the National Coal Board. The miners would jump at the chance of making a democratic decision.
  For months before the general election in June, as convenor of the Welsh group of Members of Parliament I had discussions with county councils, borough and district councils, trade unions, Welsh Members of Parliament and at Select Committee meetings; we had seminars and talks with Philip Weekes, the general manager of the south Wales NCB, and Mr. Siddall. The list is endless but the results are significant. The Government announced the new NCB chairman. A crisis turned out to be a frightening disaster. We approached many people. including the Secretary of State for Energy. He responded and within a matter of hours received a deputation as the result of a request from the Secretary of State for Wales. A letter was sent to MacGregor in September asking for a meeting. He said, "No, go and talk to the chairman of the south Wales NCB."
  The Government should carefully consider the extent of the butchery and annihilation of the south Wales pits that has taken place, so that we retain what we have.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Opposition's speeches have been long on heat and short on light. We on the Conservative Benches will not all rise to speak with unalloyed pleasure about the presentation and discussion of the Bill. It is the third time recently that we have been invited to pour more money down the mine. Some of us are coming to the conclusion that the time is quickly approaching when this must stop.
  The intention of the 1980 Act which we are updating was that the coal industry should break even without grants by 1983–84. The results are manifestly different from the original expectation. It is well worth studying the published figures to see the amount of money which has been swallowed by these bottomless pits since 1980 and to understand the scale and measure of the problem. In 1979–80 grants amounted to £251 million; in 1980–81 to £255 million; in 1981–82 to £576 million; in 1982–83 to £520 million; and in 1983–84 they are expected to rise to £643 million. Thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been wasted in this appalling way.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has given us some interesting statistics. He may like to compare them with the fact that the Government whom he supports are proposing to spend £3 billion on 400 families in the Falkland Islands. We have 200,000 people employed in mining plus those in its associated industries.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman would no doubt look at the matter differently if there yeas a prospect of sinking coal mines in the Falkland Islands. He seems to
  778
  consider that burrowing underground is worth spending money on regardless of what is brought out. Some of us wish that the hon. Gentleman was still burrowing underground.
  The figures that I have given represent operating and social grants that have been made to the industry. In addition, investment finance has also been funded by the taxpayer. The NCB's external financing limit this year is the amazing sum of £1,195 million. It is the largest external financing limit of any nationalised industry. We must ask ourselves what its purpose is. Is it simply to maintain in existence for ever a coal mining industry? What would be the utility of such an approach?
  Much has been said about the history and social consequence of changes in the mining industry. Although there are no coal mines in my constituency, my family has been involved with the mining industry for many generations. I am the first member of my family not to derive an income directly from the coal mining industry. My father spent 35 years in the south Wales mining industry, and both my grandfathers were coal miners. I grew up in the type of area to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred and I well understand the social problems created when a mine is closed, but we must not blind ourselves to the consequences of economic change throughout the world. We cannot ossify our economy for ever on the basis of that which existed 60 or 70 years ago.
  Mr. Skinner: We have coal reserves for 300 years.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member can make his own speech in his own time. I should be grateful if he did not make it from a sedentary position while I am speaking.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not interrupt from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is clearly not giving way.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Bolsover recently enjoyed the protection of Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will extend the same protection to me.
  We must not consider ossifying the economy. No doubt similarly impassioned and erudite speeches could have been made about the charcoal burners of the 16th century when the coal miners took over from them. Impassioned pleas could also have been made to preserve the jobs of cart and stagecoach manufacturers in the 19th century No doubt the national union of quill pen operatives would have had much to say when the typewriter was invented and new technology made redundant many of the skills employed by its work force.
  The arguments of Opposition Members have been quite extraordinary. We are discussing taking money out of people's pockets which they themselves, by the expression of their wishes through the market, do not wish to spend on the purchase of coal. That would be the equivalent of forcing people to shop in an establishment where the prices are higher than they wish to pay and the goods in the shop window are not those which they wish to purchase. I believe that the time has come for us to consider properly the ethics and morality of continuing in the present manner.
  The debate and the relevant documents have established that the coal industry is absolutely broke and that there is

  779
  no justification for any wage increase. If we examine the NCB's outstanding loans as shown in its books, we discover that the sum involved is £3·74 billion and that the assets of the NCB amount to £3·71 billion, so the balance sheet will show a deficit. The NCB is giving an illusion of prosperity. The Bill is the most expensive pit prop ever invented.
  I deplore the derogatory remarks made about Mr. MacGregor, the new chairman of the NCB. I believe Mr. MacGregor to be a talented and intelligent business man who has the interests of the industry at heart. He appreciates that to survive in the world we must produce the goods that people want to buy at the price that they are prepared to pay. The future prosperity of the coal mining industry depends not only on domestic demand for the product but on being able to sell it increasingly on the world markets. That is the only way in which employment in the industry will stabilise, thereby saving jobs.
  The 1974 document, "Plan for Coal", is the root of all the arguments to which we have listened and underlies the legislation that we are trying to update. Parts of the plan have been fulfilled and Opposition Members are delighted with those. However, they conveniently forget those parts of the plan which have remained unfulfilled. Since 1974 16 million tonnes of new productive capacity have been opened and a further 23 million tonnes of annual productive capacity will be opened by 1987. We are getting near to the 40 million to 42 million tonnes which was the target for annual and new capacity put forward in "Plan for Coal".
  Conversely, when we examine the history of closures of uneconomic mines, which was an essential part of the strategy in the plan, we note that 2 million tonnes of annual capacity have been closed since 1974 which is well below the 3 million to 4 million tonnes of capacity projected in the report. We can see that the other side of the equation has not come into existence.
  The two principal problems facing the coal industry have been well exemplified in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Contrary to what was said by one hon. Member, the report is not hostile. It was compiled by independent men who had taken evidence from both sides of the industry and came to an independent conclusion. Both of the problems isolated in the report are referred to on page 366, paragraph 19.13, which states:
  "The first problem is that the NCB is producing much more coal than can find a market either in the United Kingdom or, at acceptable prices, abroad. As a result coal stocks held in the United Kingdom have been rising for a number of years, and in the NCB's own view are now excessive. These stocks are a continuing drain on the NCB's finances and a considerable burden on public funds."
  We all know that at present there is six months' supply of coal on the ground. We also know that Mr. Scargill poses no danger by threatening an overtime ban which would hurt only the employees in the industry because the power stations have sufficient stocks of coal to last them through the winter. For the miners to crucify themselves on the altar of Arthur Scargill and his blatherings would be the ultimate in foolishness.
  Coal stocks stand at 59 million tonnes, which is six months' supply to the CEGB. An overtime ban for four years would be needed to exhaust the existing stocks.
  The second problem which the report identified was that of high cost pits. Paragraph 19.14 states:
  780
  "well under half of the 1981–82 deep-mined output of 108 million tonnes was produced at levels of operating cost below current average proceeds."
  The report correctly states:
  "The high cost pits impose a heavy burden on the industry's finances. In 1981–82 the 10 per cent. of the deep mined output 10–8 million tonnes that came from pits with the highest losses per tonne involved operating losses of £263 million."
  Mr. Skeet: Would my hon. Friend refer to volume II, page 41, of the report, which deals with south Wales? Only four pits appear to be profitable in that area.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some Opposition Members seem to have been unable to read volume II of the report. Although Monktonhall colliery was referred to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) as a profitable pit, the figures given in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission belie that statement. A loss of £8·9 million was recorded in the latest year for which figures are available. Before the Opposition pontificate on the Bill, they should read and digest the facts. The problems of the coal industry are high production costs and insufficient demand.
  Mr. Peter Pike: Will you explain why existing stocks are so great?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not attribute arguments to me and expect me to explain them.
  Mr. Pike: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Member for Tattorn (Mr. Hamilton) agree that the high stocks of coal are due to lack of consumption resulting from the rundown of the economy brought about by the Government's policies? If the economy recovered and demands for power increased, the stocks would rapidly fall.
  Mr. Hamilton: The simple answer is that I do not agree, but I shall not detain the House on that point.
  There is a startling contrast between the situation in the high-cost deep-mine pits and the new investment in efficient projects. In contrast in the loss-making 12 per cent. of production capacity, operations such as the newly developed Selby coalfield employ advanced mining technology and are highly capital intensive and highly successful. At Selby, the world's largest capacity coal mine, 4,500 men produce 10 million tonnes of coal per year. About 25,000 men would be required to produce that volume of coal from the high-cost mines listed in the report. If the industry is to survive and be profitable, and if jobs in the industry are to be secure, that is the way of the future.
  There is another dimension to the problem. It is not just a question of the direct cost to the taxpayer in the price of coal and the subsidies to the industry. Other industries must bear the high cost of energy, with repercussions on jobs elsewhere in the economy. It is well known that 82 per cent. of CEGB power stations are coal fired. The high price of fuel thus makes production costs of other industries uncompetitive and many other jobs are put at risk. Far from contributing to the decrease in unemployment that all Conservatives wish to see, it makes it even harder for firms to survive.
  The Government have sponsored agreements with the CEGB to purchase more coal, imposing further cost on the taxpayer. In 1981 the NCB contracted to sell 75 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB. Imports were to be restricted to 0·75 million tonnes although coal could be obtained on

  781
  the world market more cheaply than at home. That cost £19 million in compensation from the Government. I therefore greatly welcomed the Financial Secretary's recent statement that no state monopoly was sacrosanct and that through competition and privatisation the Government intend to open the state sector to the stimulus of competition. I hope that that will be extended to the coal industry, at least in some limited way. I have no doubt that that would maximise investment in the most efficient pits, which would do wonders for job security in the industry as well as being regarded as an advantage by the taxpayer.
  The Opposition regard the multinationals and the oil companies as bogies and demons——
  Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right that a Member of the House should ignore the advice and guidance of Mr. Speaker, who asked for brief speeches? Some hon. Members have been here since 2.30 pm and they will be deprived of the opportunity to address the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker can only offer advice. Whoever is in the Chair, one hopes that hon. Members will follow that advice. If hon. Members are anxious that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) should conclude his speech, it may help if they let him get on with it.
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall not detain the House much longer.
  There are great prospects for investment in the coal industry by the oil companies if only we allow it to happen. In 1981, the last year for which figures are available, five or six major oil companies world wide invested £1,400 million in the coal industry in various parts of the world. We need that kind of investment in this country from private pockets, not extorted from the taxpayer by the use of parliamentary majorities. There is an umbilical connection between exports, jobs and investment from abroad.
  This week's issue of The
  Economist——
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members have been present since the beginning of the debate, hoping to participate. Many are from coal mining constituencies which will be affected by the Bill. I am getting a little hot under the collar because the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has been speaking for more than 25 minutes. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that after this we should go on to the 10-minute rule.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing has occurred so far which is out of order. I repeat, however, that I hope that hon. Members will take Mr. Speaker's advice. It is perhaps in the best interests of the House if we let the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) conclude his speech.
  Mr. Hamilton: I might well have finished by now if the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) had allowed me to continue.
  A short paragraph in The Economist this week exemplifies yet another opportunity to expand the coal industry and the number of jobs in it. I should have thought that to spend a few minutes on that would be encouraging. I am surprised that the Opposition disagree. The article states:
  "Britain is western Europe's largest hard-coal producer, sitting on the edge of one of the fastest-growing coal markets in the world. Europe's present consumption of 250 million tonnes
  782
  of coal could, some think, double in 10 years. But British deep-mined coal costs on average £38 a tonne to extract, while world prices for coal delivered to Europe are around £33 a tonne."
  We are not competing in the market to maximise our advantage.
  The coal industry has not always been renowned for good industrial relations, least of all before nationalisation. In a letter after the 1926 strike Lord Birkenhead said that it would be possible without exaggeration to say after meeting the miners' leaders at that time that he had met the stupidest men in England, were it not for the fact that he then went on to meet the owners. The taxpayers are now the owners and they are not so stupid. The taxpayers of this country will not stand by for ever while thousands of millions of pounds of their money are poured ever further into the bottomless pits of the coal industry.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Roy Mason: We have just witnessed a blatant display of bad manners and an abuse of the House. The person responsible—one cannot call him honourable—should withdraw from the precincts. The Government Whips panicked because they had run out of contributors in a coal debate, so they scoured the Corridors and brought in somebody with an Institute of Directors type of mind to pour out statistics and phrases from the various volumes and documents that he had the nerve to bring into the Chamber. He should be ashamed. The House will remember what he did.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have attended the debate since it began at 4 o'clock, except for an hour between 5 pm and 6 pro when I was attending an industry committee.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) has said which I believe to be out of order.
  Mr. Mason: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you have been present during the whole debate, as we have, that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) might have appeared, but that he vanished for at least two hours until he was sought out to come and fill the gap on the Conservative Benches.
  I shall be brief. I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Energy, in what could have been a wide-ranging debate on the future of the coal industry—especially on Second Reading of a borrowing powers Bill—did not try to allay the fears and anxieties of Opposition Members and many people in the mining industry. We are worried about the threat of our industry being privatised. The Minister knows that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was formerly responsible for the coal industry, made a typical speech to stockbrokers in the City. He can afford to be brave in front of his stockbroker friends. During that discourse he said that activities such as coal production and sale are in no sense natural monopolies. That is extremely ominous, coming as it does from the former Minister with responsibility for coal who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  If the Minister wishes to clear the air in his winding-up speech, he should say whether he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are seriously considering privatising some deep mine output which is now controlled by the NCB. We do not want the clock to be turned back 35 years. We got rid of the old system in 1947. I must warn

  783
  the Minister that if ideas of that type are allowed to run free without him or the Secretary of State stopping the rumour gathering force, the miners will resent the Government and the Secretary of State with such force that the pit closure programme will not alone be the driving force for that resentment. I strongly recommend that he clears the air tonight.
  I warn the Government about the MacGregor ballot which is being rumoured in the press and other media. Those rumours are too strong to be without some foundation. Perhaps they are being encouraged by the Government. I warn the Minister that such a ballot would be regarded by everyone in the industry, whether managers, deputies or miners, as a blatant and gross interference in the constitutional practice of trade unions. The Government must ask themselves what will happen if the miners ignore a ballot. They will. The call will be to the men to ignore the bosses' ballot and stand by their union. The result will be hardened attitudes, and direct confrontation will be inevitable. Is that what the Government want? Moreover, what is the Government's role in this affair? I advise them to clear the air on the matter and not to encourage MacGregor on that tack.
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report has been mentioned. Having read his speech, the Tatton director has just left. His departure is another typical abuse of the Chamber. The report is a series of cold calculating proposals made by a group of detached bureaucrats. The Government are using the commission as a tool to do their dirty work. They will use it to say what the Government want it to advise. They will then present it as an independent body which is telling us what to do—cut capacity by 10 per cent. We have already lost 24,000 jobs in the coal industry since 1979. Are we to lose another 10 per cent. or 60,000 jobs by 1987? Embarking on such a programme will produce constant conflict in the coal industry.
  The Government must be warned that the closure of high-cost collieries will have serious repercussions on employment in some of the most deprived regions of the country. What is more, they will be inflicted by a man who has already imposed job losses in Scotland, the north-east, Wales and in the coal mining areas around Sheffield and south Yorkshire. If the Government embark on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations, there will be trouble. They should recognise that there has been increased output per man-shift overall and at the face, and that absenteeism has been reduced. Moreover, there has been no opposition to mechanisation. We now have the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe and we have achieved that with less subsidy than our European competitors. Instead of just subsidising redundancy and the dole queues, the Government should see how we can best use that investment to keep jobs.
  Who is now encouraging the idea of devolution in the coal mining industry? Is it the Government? Is it MacGregor — the man who has now taken over the NCB? Is it he who is encouraging the break-up of our national industry into autonomous areas? Is it he who is insisting that each area must pay for itself? Is it he who insists that the rich will survive and the weak must go to the wall? Is he responsible for reviving the old district competition? Such a course will be hated and it will be fought against by the British Association of Colliery
  784
  Managers, the National Association of Colliery Officials, Deputies and Shotfirers and by every man jack in the NUM.
  I should have thought that, in his first major speech on the coal industry, the Secretary of State would have tried to allay some of the anxieties that Opposition Members and those who work in the coal industry feel. We have many worries about the industry's future. I hope that the Minister will allay some of those fears. I warn him that there are too many ominous signs and that there are many dangerous roads ahead.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Roger Freeman: I do not represent a mining constituency but I served my political apprenticeship in south Yorkshire. I hope that the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will return to the Chamber soon to make their speeches as I intend to be brief.
  I resented the implication of what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said—that only those who have worked in, or are now involved in, the coal industry are qualified to speak. I resent that because the Bill is being presented to the whole House. We are talking about a great deal of taxpayers' money and I am one hon. Member who, I hope, represents taxpayers.
  I and several of my colleagues recognise the difficulties associated with pit closures in some parts of the country. We are also aware of the dangers of coal mining. When I lived in south Yorkshire I visited many pits, so I appreciate their dangers. Conservative Members are as keen as Opposition Members that miners should earn higher wages but the difference between us is that Opposition Members cannot apply sound common sense to the industry's economic future.
  I have sat through the entire debate and I have heard not one sensible justification for keeping open the 20 or 25 pits that are losing upwards of £300 million a year.
  Mr. Skinner rose——
  Mr. Freeman: I have been looking forward to an interjection from the hon. Member from Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the past few months another Bill has gone through the House dealing with petroleum royalties. The central argument of that Bill was that because of the shortage of oil—we shall hit the peak in 1986—it would be a good idea to relieve marginal oilfields so that they could produce oil. We believe that marginal pits should be given the same lease of life.
  Mr. Freeman: That leads directly to the two points that I was about to make.
  The two justifications offered to the House for keeping open uneconomic pits were, first, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, that we should look to the future and thus be assured in some magical way that there would be a real demand for coal. It can be said, with the benefit of hindsight, that "Plan for Coal", which is now almost 10 years old, made optimistic forecasts for coal. Those forecasts have not materialised. It is our duty in the House to look at the present position of the industry, and not look forward 10 or 15 years. We must take the industry as we find it.

  785
  The second justification, offered by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), relates to the social consequences of closing pits. My view is that it is the duty of the National Coal Board to run the industry efficiently, and the Government's duty to look after the social consequences of unemployment.
  We are talking about a substantial Government expenditure this year of up to £666 million. We must look at alternative ways in which the Government could spend that money. For example, there is the youth training service, which costs about £1 billion. We have heard nothing from the Opposition Benches about alternative uses of Government spending, for example, on the National Health Service, housing and education—all of which are vitally important in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Bolsover knows, it is valid for the House constantly to compare priorities, and that is what I am doing on behalf of the taxpayers.
  Conservative Members accept the Bill, but we believe that progress should be faster in improving overall productivity. There are three reasons why we need to improve productivity. First, we need to control public expenditure and reduce subsidies to this industry. Second, we need to improve our opportunities for foreign trade in coal, by controlling and reducing the price of coal and making it more competitive. Third, we must hold down electricity prices, because they depend crucially on coal prices.
  This year, productivity in the coal industry, up to the end of October, rose fairly dramatically—that is, up to the overtime ban. It is up by about 5 per cent. When Selby comes fully on stream, productivity will increase even more. However, the House must be assured, by steps taken by the industry itself, that the public money we are considering tonight is spent wisely and that the industry will take steps to put its house in order.
  It has become a ritual for Opposition Members to criticise Mr. MacGregor. I remind them that it was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) who first persuaded Mr. MacGregor to come here from the United States. Mr. MacGregor has been described as old, unpatriotic and incompetent. He can well look after himself, and I hope that he will play his part in pushing and pulling the industry into the next decade.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: This is a very unusual coal debate, because as yet Labour Members have not spoken successively. Clearly, the Government have persuaded their newer Back Benchers to join in. Unfortunately, not all of them have listened to the whole debate. If they had, they would have realised that one or two Conservative Members have actually made some sensible comments. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) made a particularly telling point when he urged the Government to persuade Mr. MacGregor not to intervene in industrial relations. Unfortunately, the last two speeches from the Government Back Benches have not shown the same intelligence. The one advantage in the speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) was that it took less time than the speech of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).
  We have argued from these Benches that the Government should not take such short-term action that it disqualifies the future. The Minister has already mentioned, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for
  786
  Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the difference between 1983 and 1973. The change is remarkable. The reference to 1973 reminded me that the present Secretary of State—I very much regret that he has hardly been in the Chamber since he made his speech—was in charge of the steel industry 10 years ago. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) is probably the only occupant of the Conservative Benches who was here then. He may recall that when the Secretary of State was in charge of industry at that time, he was buoyant about the future of steel and foresaw a huge growth in steel production. The National Coal Board, in my area particularly, invested hundreds of millions of pounds to improve the coal product and to bring it up to metallurgical standard to meet the demand for steel that was envisaged by the present Secretary of State. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested at south Yorkshire pits. Then came Mr. MacGregor, and the whole investment was rendered worthless.
  I wrote to Mr. MacGregor suggesting that the steel industry had an obligation to the coal industry, in view of the massive investment that had taken place. Mr. MacGregor's response was dismissive. He said that he did not see that he had any responsibility to assist the coal industry. I am not surprised that the Government appointed Mr. MacGregor. However, I suggest that he will have to be restrained, because it cannot be said that he succeeded in steel. Certainly, our experience in south Yorkshire of the decline in the capacity of our special steel industry, which the Minister knows is of world breaking character, cannot be allowed to be repeated. In 1973, the Conservative Government engaged in a U-turn. That is what we need now.
  Mention has been made of unemployment. In the Rotherham metropolitan borough this year only 14 per cent. of school leavers have got jobs. I ask the Minister to comment on that. Does he believe that any community can sustain for long the sort of unemployment that the hon. Member for Tatton and others want to be exacerbated?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke about aid for small oilfields. We should mention the vast sums of money that the Government are preparing to put into the pressurised water reactor. In the press last weekend—I believe that this is relevant—we heard that orders are likely to be placed in advance of the Sizewell inquiry resolution. We read in the press that safety issues are as yet unresolved. In recent weeks there has been substantial evidence of the incidence of contamination. Indeed, if the Conservative party took the same cautious view of the PWR as it appears to take of the coal industry, there would not be the risk of us running headlong into intensive energy difficulties.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Does my hon. Friend know that not only are there advance orders from Sizewell, but that at Druridge bay in Northumberland, land is being purchased for a site for which there has not even been a planning application? There is a further point that may interest hon. Members. On 18 July this year, there was an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of France. There is now an agreement between this country and France on the monitoring of establishments that give off radioactive discharge. We made that agreement this year, although we have had nuclear power stations in this

  787
  country for 30 years, and France has had them for the same length of time. Someone is worrying now in 1983 about something they did not worry about in 1952–53.
  Mr. Hardy: I cannot respond to that intervention from my hon. Friend, but I trust that the Government will arrange a full day's debate very soon to discuss the important matters that are now subject to public debate.
  My hon. Friend mentioned France. I was about to say that Ministers and their Back-Bench supporters are talking nowadays about cheap French nuclear power. Not long ago at a conference I challenged the chairman of the CEGB, who was also talking about cheap nuclear power in France and who had conveniently forgotten the enormous capital write-offs that the French Government provided to ensure that French industry enjoyed lower energy prices than industry in the United Kingdom. We should follow their example and apply a more Keynesian approach to our industrial policies. French energy prices are cheaper than ours, because the French Government make sure that they are cheaper in order to assist industry. They have written off nuclear capital research and development expenditure to an enormous extent. They have taken advantage of that which nature has given them. they have maximised the potential for hydroelectric power, which is essentially inexpensive.
  Our national advantages are being thrown away. The Government are extracting our oil and gas with the utmost speed, and we shall very soon reach the end of our self-sufficiency in energy. To do that, and then to respond to the call of Conservative Members for a contraction of the coal industry, would be stupid. In less than 20 years we shall need 90 million tonnes of coal a year for gas alone. We shall need coal for feedstock. We shall need coal for mobility. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made a splendid speech on that subject, and I shall not repeat his remarks. We shall need all the coal that we can get. It would be utter folly — it would be an absurdity—to allow the coal industry to contract to the point at which it could not serve the national interest.
  Conservative Members may say that coal can be imported. We would be remarkably foolish if we were to lose our strategic advantage, to lose the skills which have been developed in the British mining industry and to become dependent upon the "COPEC" of the 1990s or the first years off the 21st century. Let us not take that route.
  I was reassured when a Foreign Office Minister, in answer to a question last week, suggested to me that he would be encouraging Europe to buy our coal. Since we have to fund such a large part of the common agricultural policy, the request is not an extravagant one.
  There have been changes in the industry. One of the most significant changes has been that younger men are now working down the pits. The average age has been reduced. We have heard about safety rates in the American pits. I believe that Mr. MacGregor is casting an eye on supervisory and management grades in the NCB.
  I represent the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. One of the principal grounds for pride in that association is that it has made a tremendous contribution to ensuring that our industry is safe. If we have a younger work force and if Mr. MacGregor decimates the supervisory staff—or worse—we might not be able to boast any longer that we have a
  788
  safe industry. That would be foolish, uneconomic and immoral. It would be foolish because we have a real international advantage. Today, man is scratching the earth's crust. He will have to go deeper and deeper for his mineral resources, and that presents an enormous opportunity for the British mining engineering equipment and technology industries. If we can demonstrate that we produce safe equipment and that our industry is successful and has a regard for human life, there will be a substantial international opportunity for us.
  Many people who are interested in the industry are disturbed at the growing concern in Europe about acid rain. One cannot attend a meeting of any kind in Europe without hearing about this anxiety. The Government could demonstrate to Europe and to the world that they take that problem seriously. If the Government decide to act upon the Atkins report and to encourage British industry to develop fluidised bed combustion, and if they establish CHP and district heating systems, that would be a highly desirable form of capital expenditure. We would then be able to demonstrate to our neighbours that we are concerned about their problem, that we are doing something about it, and that Britain can maintain not only a modern and safe coal industry but modern and efficient coal use. If the Government did that, they would be able to look areas such as mine more squarely in the eye. That would compensate for the appalling industrial devastation that the Government have inflicted on constituencies such as the one that I am proud to represent.
  8.26 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I apologise for not having attended the whole debate. I have been serving on the Standing Committee on the Housing and Building Control Bill. As soon as the Committee finished, I rushed down to the Chamber—I did not even have tea—to listen to the honeyed words of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Yesterday, with a number of other hon. Members representing coal mining constituencies in the midlands, I spent an hour with Mr. MacGregor. There is only one coal mine in my constituency, but there are also the main research establishments where work is being done on acid rain and other developments, the main test sites and a number of other major research units. We have the brainiest coal miners in the country. I suspect that we have the brainiest mining people in the world. They have had the sense to vote Conservative in the last five elections, and I intend to continue to represent them into the next century.
  In the short-term, Mr. MacGregor's view was that we must close these Victorian holes in the ground as soon as possible. They are uneconomic, unpleasant and dangerous. Last December the Select Committee on Energy produced a report on pit closures which said:
  "There can be no doubt that the very high cost of this marginal and, at least in the short-term, surplus capacity, unfavourably distorts the coal industry's financial position, and imposes a considerable drain on public funds … to judge by their evidence to us, the NUM appear to believe that in order to maintain employment in mining, the industry should be encouraged and financed to produce as much coal as it possibly can, and that the country somehow has an obligation to find ways of consuming it." ——
  and, one might add, ways of financing it. If the NCB does not have a hit list, it should have one, and the sooner it acts

  789
  on it and reduces the uncertainty about closures, which is so difficult to cope with. the better it will be for the industry.
  In the medium term, Mr. MacGregor's view was very encouraging. He believes that the many marginally unprofitable pits could be brought up to profitability by considerable investment. I believe that my mine at Cadley Hill probably falls into that category. The south midlands area of the NCB made a loss of £27 million last year, of which £24 million came from three pits. The other pits in the midlands are carrying the burden of those three uneconomic pits, and the quicker that they are shut, the better. That £24 million could then be invested in the remaining pits so that we could take the coal economically.
  In the long term, Mr. MacGregor's plan for coal is very exciting. It is that we must aim to replace oil by the year 2005 and at economic, competitive world prices. That will require a quite different approach to the small-mindedness and backward-looking views of Opposition Members. Indeed, I could only fault Mr. MacGregor on one thing; his habit of calling me "Lady". I took exception to that, but when I called him "Gentleman", he stopped it.
  In my constituency there are many sheep. I do not mean miners, but real sheep on four legs. The other night I stayed to listen to the debate on sheep payments. That measure was not opposed, and I hope that Opposition Members will not oppose the Bill. Beneath the sheep there is a lot of grade two agricultural land, and beneath that their is a heck of a lot of some of the best coal in the world. It is perfect for electricity generation. The economy of my area means that it is well produced and has a considerable future.
  The long-term approach to the coal industry should be quite different from that displayed by Opposition Members. We should be asking where the coal is, and how we can get it out. We should be asking how we can bring it to the surface with the latest technology, which is all British, and which involves industries operating in the midlands and the north. How can that be done? Let us not tie ourselves to the existing pits, some of which were sunk more than 100 years ago. Let us ensure that by the year 2005—when many of us will still be representing coal miners—the industry is as efficient as possible. The scale on which that could be achieved is astonishing. Those of us who visited the Selby coalfield with the all-party group on minerals, and who saw what can be done with an investment of £1,000 million in a top-class coalfield, and the way in which coal can be obtained for £17 per tonne all found, know that that must be the way of the future.
  It takes about seven years from the point at which the decision is taken to the point at which coal is taken out of the ground. I have urged previous Ministers, as I urge the Government now, to take decisions soon about the Asfordby coalfield in Leicestershire, the Warwickshire coalfield based on Daw Mill and about the future development of the mine, which I regard in a personal fashion, at Cadley Hill in south Derbyshire. In that way we can ensure that as oil runs out in the 1990s there is coal to replace it. Otherwise, there may be shortages. I strongly believe that in that way the coal industry can have a rosy future.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on his return to the Back Benches—not that I do not think that he is not needed on the Front Bench—in that he has found once again his old powers of Back-Bench oratory which we all enjoy. All those who heard his speech will have enjoyed it.
  The debate was interesting and enjoyable until the director of the Institute of Directors, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) came along and spoilt it, and then fled from the Chamber. Although the debate has been enjoyable and worthwhile, I think that we may be wasting our time. I wonder whether anyone has been listening to us. I also wonder whether the decision to scrap "Plan for Coal" has not already been taken.
  In the press we read that Mr. MacGregor tries to rattle his sabre and talks about going to ballots and putting the increase in wages in the miners' pay packets. However, my advice to him, which comes from a lifetime of experience in the mining industry, is that he should keep his nose out of trade union affairs. If he does not do so, he will find that in taking on the miners he is taking on a heavier force than he attempted to take on when he was chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
  There can be no doubt that the coal industry, not for the first time, is at a critical point in its history. The recession has had a devastating effect on British industry, with the result that total United Kingdom primary energy demand has fallen by more than 12 per cent. That has led to the old clamour for market forces. Some of the statements made by Mr. MacGregor and others have created an atmosphere of distrust in the mining industry. Unfortunately, I believe that some of those utterances come from Ministers who should have much more sense. We all know that not long ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was the Minister responsible for the mining industry. His speech has already been referred to at length, and I shall not go into it in detail. It shows that there is no doubt that the Government have plans to privatise the mining industry.
  Last Thursday the Prime Minister went some way towards denying that there was a privatisation programme for the mines, but she did not rule out the fact that some parts of the industry might be privatised. If that is so, the Government are going down an unwise road. The mining industry is not an animal that is ready to be privatised. Even the younger men in it are well aware, from the teachings of their fathers, of what happened in the days of privatisation. I remember that, because I worked in the industry. I know the difference between the privatisation and the nationalisation of coal mines.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the nationalised industries were nothing but a drain on the country's economy. We refute that. The Secretary of State for Energy is reported as having suggested that he is to open the floodgates for privatisation. If that is true, he owes it to the mining industry to come clean and tell us what the programme is. The longer the rumours continue about the number of pits, such as 40 or 60, and the number of men, the worse it will be for the industry. It will be completely soured. The miners want to know the truth. I hope that the Government will be prepared to give it to

  791
  them. Whatever actions the miners take to defend themselves and the industry are a matter for them, but they have a right to know the truth.
  However, I am not hidebound by my general disapproval of the Government's attitude to the public sector. I recognise the continuing high capital investment in the industry, now about £750 million per annum. I welcome the Bill, which extends the NCB's borrowing powers to £6,000 million. Whether the ceiling is sufficient is a moot point, but I welcome the proposed extension. I also endorse the Government's renewed commitment to establish a coherent EC solid fuel policy, reported in the supplement to the Treasury's economic progress report of October 1983. I welcome the more strident stance taken by the Under-Secretary in Brussels recently on that important issue.
  The EC market is a potential major outlet for United Kingdom coal. I fully support the Government in all measures that will facilitate the entry of the NCB into that market. The Commission expects coalburn, excluding that of the United Kingdom to increase to about 330 million tonnes per annum by the year 2000. United Kingdom coal could increase its share of the European market if the Community were to expand the resources available by input from the general Community budget. There have been recent welcome developments in that area, but they are only proposals and a political decision is needed to translate them into action. The Secretary of State for Energy is a supposed expert in dealing with EC matters. He should put his talents to use on behalf of the coal industry. However, I regret that tangible success has been thin on the ground so far. One or two potential markets should be vigorously pursued.
  I was pleased to hear that the coal industry national consultative council had been informed at its meeting in October that the £50 million allocated by the Government for the grants scheme for the conversion of industrial boilers to coal had been taken up. It will produce an additional 2 million tonnes of coal sales. The council was also advised that there is potential for a further 2 million tonnes of coal, provided that the grants scheme can be extended beyond the end of the year. It is therefore essential that the Government allocate further money for this proposal not only because of the additional coalburn that it will provide but because of the cost effectiveness of the scheme.
  Another important additional market in the short term, particularly for Scottish coal, would result from the conversion of Kilroot power station in Northern Ireland to the use of coal. Currently oil consumption in the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland is the equivalent of some 200 million tonnes of coal. This would be reduced substantially if Kilroot were to be converted to coal. The arguments for conversion are compelling and should not be constrained by making conversion dependent on the Northern Ireland budget. It is, however, a cause for concern that the matter has been deferred again until 1987.
  In regard to the longer term, the liquefaction of coal presents a potential new market for coal. The lull in oil prices should be used as a breathing space to step up energy investment rather than as an excuse to relax and allow important decisions to be deferred. The process developed by the NCB's coal research establishment is
  792
  much more efficient than the liquefaction technology used in South Africa. The importance of this will become increasingly clear as we move to the time when the production of petroleum from coal becomes a viable proposition. Unless the Government take a more positive approach and stop insisting on a private sector partner, the already minuscule pilot plant at Point of Ayr is likely to be postponed indefinitely. This would be a tragedy. It would be a great mistake if the Government did not take action and put in sufficient investment.
  In regard to the decision of the NCB to bring in a private consultancy firm, McKinsey and Company, to examine what management responsibility might best be devolved to areas, this is unwise. The British Association of Colliery Management will resist it with all the power at its disposal. I understand that that firm did a similar exercise in the steel industry and that its recommendations were a miserable failure.
  Great play has been made of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I have not the time to go in depth into that report. Many hon. Members have used it to illustrate recommendations which are in line with Government thinking, but I stress one paragraph that says:
  "Where the social consequences of a decline in coal mining in a region would be particularly acute, it is for the Government to decide what action to take."
  What action will the Government take if there are to be mass pit closures? In my time in the mining industry, both as a trade union official and a member of the industrial relations department, I lived through the days of Sir James Bowman stockpiling coal and through Robens' butcheries. I was in an office in the National Coal Board that was responsible for transferring workers up and down the country.
  Things were difficult then, but the climate was different from what it is today. There were not the same mass redundancies and unemployment. We are reaching a stage where men aged 50 and over can expect in the next few years to be offered redundancy. I must be honest and say that so far the board has not had a difficult task in getting men of 60 and 55 to take redundancy. It is a fact of life that many miners of that age have been waiting for redundancy. They have sold their sons' jobs, but one can understand them. If I were still down that hole in the ground after 40 years, and someone dangled that gold in front of me and said that I need not go down the pit any more, it would be a great temptation. However, the Government are now talking about redundancies for men aged 50. In the early days, the system may be attractive, but I can tell the Government——
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a man aged 50 who has worked in the coal industry for all his life, assuming that he does not work until pensionable age, will take home a total benefit of about £30,000?
  Mr. Lofthouse: Yes, but, although it is attractive in the early days, it is not so attractive when considered against the years during which he will have lost wages.
  With respect to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), there is more to it than that. I, with many of my colleagues, live, play and work with miners. Some of those who have been made redundant have said to me after the first months, "This is the worst job we have ever had." They have known nothing but hard work, and they have not had many hours of play, because when they come out of the hole in the ground they are too tired to play.

  793
  They find it unpalatable that at a young age their work is ended and that there is no prospect that their sons will replace them.
  I hope that the Government, while taking everything into consideration and not just the mark at the bottom of the balance sheet, will acknowledge that we must compete. We cannot continue to produce coal for ever if we do not use it. I believe that the production capacity of the NCB should be continued at 140 million to 150 million tonnes a year, with readily available reserves of another 50 million tonnes, until the year 2000. The Government would be very unwise not to pursue that course.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: One can understand and respect the deep commitment to and understanding of the coal industry shown by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), but tonight Parliament is once again being asked to approve a massive expansion of public funds for a nationalised industry. ft is one of many such demands that the House has had to meet during the past year. Parliament has an absolute right to examine the demand carefully and to decide with great caution whether it should approve an extension of funds to the NCB. It is not the Government's money that we are providing, but taxpayers' money, which could be used in other ways. If it were used to reduce the national insurance surcharge, that would create jobs in other industries. We could use it to meet our health needs, with which all hon. Members are concerned, or to meet the rising demands on defence expenditure if we are to have proper defence.
  We need not spend the money. We could use it to reduce our massive borrowing, which would lower interest rates to industry and thus help to create jobs. Tonight we must remember that over the past decade thousands of millions of pounds have gone to tie NCB. That expenditure by itself has imposed a burden on jobs and production elsewhere. That is why the House has a duty to ensure that taxpayers' money, for which the House is primarily responsible, is spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible. That is a principle on which the House could unite.
  I believe that the whole House recognises the importance of coal. There is not much dispute about our aims for coal. "Plan for Coal", which, nearly a decade ago, set out a substantial future for the coal industry, has had the support of successive Governments. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Pontefract and Castleford are too dismissive of the support of this Government and of the previous Government for the coal mines. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, that investment in coal has been substantially higher than that envisaged in "Plan for Coal". We cannot ignore that. The whole country is proud of the achievements of Selby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) pointed out. We are proud that the 20 most efficient pits produce their coal at a cost of £28 a tonne while the selling price is £40 a tonne. We are certainly proud of the technical skills that have been developed in the pits and the application of technology to mining. Such skill has been, and can be, exported around the world.
  We are proud of our coal industry—its traditions and achievements—but at the same time we have a duty to recognise that there is a darker side to the industry. We must face that. It is not good that the 20 least economic
  794
  pits produce their coal at about £90 a tonne, losing £50 for every tonne produced. It is wrong that the worst 12 per cent. of pits make a loss of nearly £300 million a year. We should recall that in the past year about £650 million has gone from the taxpayer to the National Coal Board, which is not far short of 1p on income tax. We must remember that the taxpayer, not the Government, contributes that money. We are asking the taxpayer to support our coal industry.
  It was sad to learn from the Secretary of State that in the past decade productivity has increased by less than 5 per cent. in total when "Plan for Coal", which all Governments have supported, envisaged—of course, in rosier times—an increase in productivity of 4 per cent. a year.
  There is much to hope for in the coal industry, but it is fair to recognise that there is much to put right. If we are to approve the Bill tonight, as I believe we should we should be assured that the problems facing the industry will be tackled realistically. The House is right to demand that the current dispute about overtime and wage settlement should be settled moderately.
  We also have a right to demand that we should at least tackle the problem of uneconomic pits. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South pointed out that there is a generous redundancy scheme that can give new hope and new perspectives to those miners who, unfortunately, must be made redundant, but, as Opposition Members said, many of them have chosen that course because they recognise the opportunity that is offered to them.
  The Government must adopt a more imaginative approach to the productive future of the coal industry. It is fair for the taxpayer to ask, "What is wrong with putting private capital in the industry? Why is that evil?" For example, if an old mine is to be closed, is it not sensible to see whether someone with private capital is prepared to put money into it and to squeeze out the last reserves if that will save jobs in the area?
  Mr. Jack Thompson rose——
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall not give way because several hon. Members are still anxious to take part in the debate.
  Why should not developments—for example, Belvoir—be financed by private capital? Indeed, I believe that many miners would welcome the opportunity to participate on the financial side, and private finance could give them that opportunity.
  I believe that the opportunity for exports has been underestimated. If we could control costs in the mining industry, then with the reserves, infrastructure and skills at our disposal we could increase exports by far more than the 7 million tonnes annually now going abroad.
  I am willing to support the Bill to give extra help to the mining industry—a step that hon. Members in all parts of the House support—but I expect better results from now on. I want the Government to make efforts to get those results in a full-hearted, not half-hearted, manner.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Alec Woodall: By necessity, not intention, my remarks will be brief so as to allow other hon. Members an opportunity to speak, and I will speak only about clause 4. That provision increases the payments to redundant mine workers from £300 million to £1,200

  795
  million, an increase of 300 per cent. That is designed for one purpose only—to speed up pit closures, so making more miners redundant.
  Several of my hon. Friends, in particular the hon. Members for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), spoke of the social consequences of closing collieries. Coal mines are not to be found in London, Birmingham, Glasgow or Liverpool. They are away from such areas and usually the coal mining communities are built near the collieries, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) said. When a pit is closed, the whole life of the area can be cut off, and usually it is the type of area that already suffers from high unemployment. When a pit is closed in that sort of area, devastation is the result.
  I want Conservative Members to know exactly what happens when a pit is closed. Not only have I seen it happen, I have lived through it, but they have not had it spelt out to them in detail. I worked at what was called a gathering colliery for pits that were being closed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central is not in his place because he knows the areas about which I am speaking, such as Darton, New Lodge and Mapplewell.
  The pits there were closed and the miners who lived in those areas were transferred to my colliery at south Kirkby. They were asked for their addresses, buses were then laid on—on contract because at that time the NCB did not own buses; it does now—and lists were given to the men showing the various picking up places where the buses would stop to take them to south Kirkby. On the day shift, the men from Mapplewell and New Lodge had to be on the corner of the street at 4.10 in the morning. That was the time at which they had to be picked up, enabling the buses to go round the estates of Barnsley so that the men could be down the pit at south Kirkby before 6 o'clock. That meant that by the time they got out of the pit they were away from home for at least 12 hours to work a shift. If, for any reason—accident, breakdown or whatever else—a miner did not get out of the pit on time, his mates were on the bus screaming, "Let's get off home," and he had another two or three hours added to his day away from home because he had to travel home by public transport.
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that young miners have no need to fear, and for the NCB to say that there will be safe jobs in future. We are concerned about the jobs of young miners, but we are also concerned about potential miners. What young miner today who has had his pit closed and has had to transfer to another and travel miles to work until he acquires his own transport or packs in altogether will want such a life for his son?
  By clause 4 the Government are making miners redundant, and as a result they will be in short supply. I remember what happened in 1974. After the oil crisis, pits became more popular and we wanted more coal. There was a nation-wide appeal for ex-miners to come back into the industry. They were offered generous resettlement money and, they were told, a secure job. Now, 10 years later, the Government are telling these people that they do not want them any more. They are being given a carrot of golden shekels, and are told to get on their way because they are not wanted any more.
  796
  If the Government start to close pits on a massive scale, as they intend, they should remember what happened and try to imagine what will happen in a few years when the 58 million tonnes of coal now in stock have gone, the pits have gone and there are no new developments or collieries for the new young miners who are now at school. Some of those young men are just entering the industry and they will marry and have sons to do the same.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) is right. It is all very well to dangle the carrot and offer the golden shekels to the miners to make them accept redundancy. They will accept them, and I can understand that. However, any man who has worked down a pit for 40 years should be given a generous pension and told, "Retire now, you've done your whack." They should not be tempted to leave the industry by a measure that is designed to run down the industry and will be to our detriment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, it is vandalism of the industry, and it is doing the nation a great disservice.
  The Government should be careful not to lose potential miners because, once they do, we shall never get them back. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) appealed to the Government Front Bench to take early decisions on the new developments in Leicestershire and Warwickshire. It is too late now to make the decision because the pits in Leicestershire and Warwickshire will be closed soon and once they are closed we shall never get the ex-miners back into the industry, no matter how much we try. I warn the Government not to sacrifice young miners and potential young miners for this expediency of closing the pits because they say that they are uneconomic.
  Conservative Members may favour privatisation and want the sale of profitable subsidiaries. When a nationalised industry makes money, it invests it so that it can have money of its own instead of having to increase the borrowing requirements and the consequences that go with that. The Government had better think hard again about selling off the subsidiaries.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Michael McGuire: I remind the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) that in 1919 there was a Sankey commission, which recommended certain things. At that time, the coalmining industry was privately owned but we were still having to shovel money at it. The Sankey commission's conclusion was that the industry should be nationalised and that there should be a miners' charter. The miners have always had a public duty, and although after the war they could have pulled down the temple of nationalisation, it was this public awareness that some day they would reap their reward that meant that the miners did not enforce, as they could have done, the Sankey charter, which consisted of such points as a seven-hour day. Anybody who tries to put over this barmy notion about putting private money into certain projects in the industry will start up more trouble than they could anticipate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) said. I advise anybody who thinks like that to study the history of the British coal industry.
  During the Secretary of State's speech I intervened to plead a point that my colleagues have made from time to time. Hon. Members who represent mining constituencies know of men who have worked in the industry for as long as 40 years. Only a fortnight ago, I visited a man who, I

  797
  believe, had worked for 41 years in the mining industry. He believed that he had pneumoconiosis. Paradoxically, this disease used to enable a man to claim special hardship and obtain the lighter jobs that were reserved for such men. This man was not able to obtain certification. He could not continue in the industry, but he had to earn a living. Because of his poor health, he intermittently worked outside the industry. Subsequently, he was certificated. In his bedroom he has oxygen containers, which he must use daily. The authorities have given him a bungalow. Because of the gap between his leaving the industry and being certificated, he cannot go to court to claim compensation. If we empathised with that man, we would be worried about him.
  The Government, like the Labour Government, have introduced many good social measures that have helped the miners, especially by the tripartite agreement. I hope that money will be made available to these ex-miners. Not many people are affected, and many more widows than surviving ex-miners. It would be deeply appreciated if the Government recognised their plight.
  I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has had much experience in these matters. I believe that he has given distinguished service to our Front Bench in Government and in opposition. I have been entertained by him, in the past and have, indeed, tried to entertain him in previous coal debates, as, I hope, have others.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central, in a cogent speech delivered with skill and passion, warned the Government about what miners want to hear. The Secretary of State—I hope that he is doing so unwittingly—may, with Mr. MacGregor be encouraging the idea that they should pre-empt the constitution of the National Union of Mineworkers. Time and time again, Conservative Members, during a dispute in some other industry, have praised the miners for their constitutional provisions for strike ballots and the like. 'When there is an overtime ban, the mineworkers' constitution does not provide for an automatic referral to its members, as it does when strikes are proposed. Given the record and the solidarity of the mineworkers' union, it would be the height of folly to interfere to organise a ballot. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central was right. If that were done, the ranks would immediately close out of loyalty to the union. The men would be asked whether the Coal Board or the union makes the decision. The mineworkers' constitution provides for a 55 per cent. vote in favour before a strike can be held. The long history of mining has shown that this is a matter of life or death. The solidarity of the union is the spirit that moves its members.
  There are already signs afoot that pressure will bring about, sooner rather than later, some attempt to test the temperature. Let matters develop in their own way. Mr. MacGregor should not take a straw poll, because I believe that the Secretary of State would regret it bitterly if the issue were forced. I urge him to say to Mr. MacGregor, "Hands off." The miners have sound union machinery, which has been long developed. It has been the unanimous wish of the coalfields, which have been consulted in the traditonal way, to take this action. They will make the decision to change. Anyone who seems to be interfering will bring down upon them the miners' wrath. Instead of being successfully settled as I hope, the dispute will be prolonged, to the miners' discomfiture. It will be a tragedy for the nation.
  798
  I end as I began by asking the Minister to look sympathetically at the subject of concessionary coal for the group of former miners that I have mentioned.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: My anxiety to speak is attributable not merely to the amount of time that I have been waiting but to the increasing concern that I have felt as I have listened to the way in which the debate has developed.
  The starkness of the position that faces not just the NUM and the coal industry generally but people in my region particularly has been made clear in the speeches of Conservative Members. In 1947, when the coal industry was nationalised, there were about 201 pits in Durham and Northumberland and about 149,000 men employed in the industry. There are now about 20 pits employing about 27,000 men. However, the NCB is still the major employer in the north-east.
  We are faced with the problem of whether that 27,000-strong industry will survive. The Government have an inconsistent attitude to the coal industry, the representatives of the NUM and Opposition Members. They heap opprobrium on our heads and call us scaremongers and exaggerators when we talk about the difficult problems that face the coal industry — the NCB's intention to close pits—but every speech that has come from Conservative Members has been redolent with phrases such as, "Let us have a hit list," "Why do we not close pits?" and "It is only a Victorian hole in the ground." and so on. Areas such as the one I represent face a cut in the coal industry.
  The coded language is clear—whether in terms of peripheral pits as opposed to central block pits or economic pits as opposed to uneconomic pits—that one of the crucial issues presented during the debate is whether the peripheral pits have any future. There is a considerable body of opinion on the Conservative Benches and in the NCB that feels that they have no future and must be cut.
  The Government attempt to present the issue as an inevitable economic position—something that is written in an economic fate from which the NUM cannot escape. We have heard a great deal about facing up to reality and the necessities of economic life.
  The Opposition case is that there is no inevitable or inexorable fate that dictates that mines must close. It is a matter of political choice and judgment. The coal industry's restriction to an annual production of about 80 million tonnes, which is what Mr. MacGregor wants, and the cutting of the peripheral pits have nothing to do with economic inevitability but everything to do with deliberate political choice.
  When we consider the political choices to be made, two factors appear in any sensible and objective examination of the coal industry. First, we must consider the extraordinary difficulties involved in predicting the demands made upon the total energy resources of the nation and the predicted energy consumption. "Plan for Coal" was published in 1974 because the attempt to meet short-term expediency demands was seen to be quite out of kilter with the true energy needs of the nation. The plan was an attempt to assess our future energy needs rather than leaving the problem to the short-term fluctuations of the market. Surely we must analyse the future of the coal industry in that spirit.

  799
  Secondly, in the context of the available sources of energy, especially gas and oil, a shortfall will occur in the next few years about which a decision must be taken. At present we have the gas energy equivalent of about 70 million to 80 million tonnes of coal and about 114 million tonnes of oil. In the next few years those sources will dry up or diminish considerably. We shall be faced with either importing the energy, with all that that means for the indigenous industry and our balance of payments, or taking a long-term view now and planning ahead to meet that crisis by expanding the coal industry.
  I urge the House not to allow subsidies to obscure the real argument of coal as an energy source in the future. The heartwarming factor in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was his challenge to the Government on their basic thesis towards the coal industry. We have a simple choice to make about coal. We either restrict the industry in the way in which Mr. MacGregor wishes, which would be incapable of meeting an increased demand as it arises, or we take a long-term view and expand coal production to meet the energy requirements as they arise.
  When Conservative Members refer to subsidies, one would think that the coal industry was the only industry which received a subsidy, or that subsidies were invented by the National Union of Mineworkers and never saw the light of day until the Government came to office. The truth is that there is nothing odd about subsidising an industry. To proceed in such a way is sensible.
  The subsidy given to agriculture is massively greater than that given to the coal mining industry but we do not hear a murmur from Conservative Members about that. If we accept the figures given in the NCB's 1983–84 report, the subsidy for the north-east coal mines is about £60 million to £70 million. That figure is nowhere near the equivalent cost of putting 27,000 people out of work. The social cost of cutting back the industry in the manner contemplated by the Government easily outweighs the cost of any subsidy. To use a subsidy is a perfectly sensible way to organise the coal industry in my constituency. The issue affecting constituencies such as mine is not just that of providing coal as a source of energy or jobs but the future of entire communities which have grown up and exist in and around the mines. When the National Coal Board is the major employer of labour in such areas and the mining industry contracts, the communities are bereft of life. Although about 2,500 miners live in my constituency, it is full of disused pits. The work which was supposed to have come to my constituency has not arrived. What is at stake is a sensible energy policy for the future and the livelihoods of many people working in many communities. I hope that the Government take account of that.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: First, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on his maiden speech. It was most interesting in that he did not identify himself with some of the harder lines that we have heard today. He talked about the story of Robin Hood and Sherwood forest. In the summer I read a book by Professor J. C. Holt who said that Robin Hood did not even exist.
  800
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not peddle myths in the House. We hope that he will contribute to our debates on many occasions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made the best speech of the debate. I share his passionate commitment to the industry. Having been brought up in a mining community and representing a mining community, one understands the arguments and the issues.
  I wish that I could have complimented the Secretary of State even on having attended most of the debate, but he was absent for more than four hours. He opened the debate, listened to a speech or two and then left. I have been a Member of Parliament since 1966 and I know that it is not usual for a Minister to behave in that way. Had he stayed, he would have learnt more about the industry than he appears to know. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shrugging his shoulders. We are justified in complaining about his absence. Had he remained, he would have heard about the deep concern of communities which fear another round of accelerated pit closures. As many of us know, that means closing not just pits but communities. Anything that happens to the pits of south Wales, the north-east or Scotland happens to the entire community.
  Had the Secretary of State stayed to listen, he would have been shocked at what he heard. We now understand that the future of our miners lies not in staying in Scotland or in Wales but, as the Scottish press now shows, in advertisements for colliery electricians in South Africa. That, apparently, is the future offered to many young miners who may be thrown on to the scrap heap by further accelerated pit closures.
  It is no use the Secretary of State issuing dire warnings to Financial Times conferences about the future of the Government and saying:
  "We do not think the Tories should go into another election with jobless figures at the present level."
  He should make his comments here in the House where it matters and where hon. Members of all parties can ask questions. Let him stand up now in the presence of Members from communities worried about jobs and even more worried about the problems facing the mining industry.
  Had the Secretary of State stayed, he would have heard the challenge made to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) that he should clear the air about privatisation now—not with the glib response that he made when he was first challenged about the Financial Secretary's speech but by telling the House that he does not believe in privatisation of coal production and that that is no part of his policy or the Government's. Let him clear the air today. If myths and unreal anxieties are growing in the mining areas, he is the best person to allay those anxieties and puncture those myths. Otherwise they will grow. That is the problem.
  In his opening speech the Secretary of State made no reference to the growing anxiety in the industry. He opened a debate on coal industry finances with a most curious speech in which he scarcely mentioned the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Yet the shadow of that report hangs over the mining communities, arousing new worries about a further programme of accelerated pit closures. The extraordinary thing is that the Secretary of State did not refer to that report. His answer is typical of a Government who answer only through

  801
  written answers. Just before the summer recess, the Secretary of State gave his view of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
  Apparently the Secretary of State—who has not attended most of the debate—is not prepared to listen even now. He knows that a deputation, of which I was a member, saw him before the summer recess to express the anxieties of coal mining communities about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report and about what may happen to those communities if there is an accelerated pit closure programme. At that meeting, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a memorandum that he was preparing for the Cabinet. It dealt with the future of the coal industry. Has he prepared it yet? Has it been submitted to the Cabinet? If so, what conclusions has the Cabinet made? When can we expect a statement on the future of the coal industry from the Secretary of State? I am not referring to the type of speech that the right hon. Gentleman made today.
  Mr. Peter Walker: It was an extensive statement.
  Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman did not make an extensive statement today.
  Mr. Walker: Rubbish. I made an extensive statement on behalf of a Government who have invested much more in the coal industry than did the Labour Government.
  Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman made no real statement about the future of the coal industry. He made no effort to allay the anxieties that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report has created. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on the commission's recommendations? Why is he laughing at that?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's argument is absurd.
  Mr. Rowlands: It is an extremely serious point, as the report has cast a new shadow on the industry—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
  In a written answer the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The Government also agree with the MMC's central conclusion." —[Official Report, 28 July 1983; Vol. 46, c.523.
  I shall remind the House of that conclusion. It was that we should remove 10 million tonnes of capacity from the deep-mined coal industry. The report identified the means of achieving the removal of that 10 million tonnes of capacity as lying with the 70 top loss-making pits in British coalfields. It did not suggest 20 or 30 pits but a massive 70. It is perfectly reasonable for people who are told that the Secretary of State supports the central conclusion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report to be worried when they read it. Will the Secretary of State now say that he supports the proposition that 10 million tonnes of capacity should be taken out of the British coalfields and that that involves 70 pits?
  Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman still agree with the two Labour party statements on the coal industry of 1974 and 1977 which say that between 3 million and 4 million tonnes of capacity should be taken out each year?
  Mr. Rowlands: Perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] In each year since 1974, 2 million tonnes of capacity have been taken out. Since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, 18 pits have been closed.
  Mr. Walker: Answer.
  Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman should answer my question. Does he support the report's central conclusion? Does he agree with his predecessor——
  Mr. Walker: Answer my question.
  Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman should answer this question. In February 1981, the Secretary of State's predecessor came to the Dispatch Box and rightly withdrew an accelerated pit closure programme. Does the right hon. Gentleman support his predecessor's decision? The right hon. Gentleman and others, who say that miners are Luddites, should realise that there are 500,000 fewer miners in the industry than there were in 1947.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that community after community has accepted closures where there is development. We say that there must be development alongside change. We have never refused to accept change. Mining is one of the most remarkable industries, and it has accepted considerable change. My hon. Friends know how many changes there have been and how many pits have been closed. Indeed, Conservative Members repeatedly say that there have been pit closures. Of course there have. We have accepted change on a scale that is almost unprecedented in any other industry, and we are not prepared to listen to lectures from the right hon. Gentleman and others.
  We ask the Secretary of State again, "Do you support the central conclusion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which suggests that during the next couple of years—or whenever it is to be—10 per cent. of capacity has to be taken out?" That is the commission's recommendation, and it will affect pits with losses of more than £10 a tonne. That means 70 pits.
  Let me give an illustration of what that means. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) gave the list. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what it means for south Wales. It would mean that, under that criterion, 24 of the 33 pits in the 1981–82 list would go. It would take out nearly half the anthracite production of this country. Two of the major pits would be closed. It is nonsense, and we know it is nonsense, so why does not the right hon. Gentleman reject it? Why did he not say this afternoon that he does not support accelerated pit closures? Does the right hon. Gentleman support an accelerated pit closure programme? We do not. We reject it utterly, just as it was rightly rejected in 1981 by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has told us that his party rejects accelerated pit closures. Will he confirm that his party is now reneging on the clear commitment that was made in "Plan for Coal" for pit closures of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year?
  Mr. Rowlands: As the report shows, the worlds of 1973 and 1983 are utterly different worlds. We do not support an accelerated pit closure programme, as proposed in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report—nor did the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present Government have kept up the investment programme of "Plan for Coal"? Will he admit that investment by this Government has been better than that of the Government that he supported? Will he further admit that, in what he has just said, he has now scrapped "Plan for Coal"?
  Mr. Rowlands: We rightly welcome investment, but most of it was laid down in our period of government. Investment under "Plan for Coal" was started in our period, and this Government have continued it. We welcome that. However, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said that we cannot have pit closure programmes of this scale and size in our present economic situation.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister who is responsible, whether he supports an accelerated pit closure programme of the size that is proposed in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. Will he answer that question?
  Mr. Walker: It is bogus.
  Mr. Rowlands: It is not bogus. That is the shadow that has been cast over our coalfields. As a result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report—the right hon. Gentleman endorsed it in a written answer—we shall see another accelerated pit closure programme. Does the right hon. Gentleman support that or not? We shall certainly not support such an accelerated pit closure programme. We do not beleve that the Government have any idea of what they will do about it. We need not less investment, but more. We need more investment in anthracite. We need more investment to open up new coalfields such as Margam. We will then be able to accommodate the problems of closures in the south Wales coalfield.
  Where there has been investment, there has been increasing productivity. I represent pits in which there has been some investment. Their productivity has rocketed. They have been breaking production records. We are entitled to demand that the Government should tell us that they do not inend to embark on another accelerated pit closure programme, as proposed in the commission's report.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman support the pit closure programme that would be the automatic consequence of this document? If he does not, he has an opportunity now to dispel the fears in the mining communities in all our areas. In social and economic terms, in terms of jobs and employment, we fear what the consequences would be. It is within the Minister's power to say that, on the contrary, the Government will recognise the potential for development of the biggest and most successful coalfield in Europe, and the coalfield with the lowest cost per tonne in Europe. We want to know whether the Government intend to support the industry.
  We do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We will investigate the Bill more closely in Committee. We want to know whether there will be support for the boiler conversion programme, which the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned. We want to know whether opportunities to open new coking fields in Margam and elsewhere will be taken. These are not questions for the NCB alone. They are questions for the Government too, because the consequences of not taking these steps would be visited on local authorities and central Government and on our communities.
  When the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that he will tell us whether the Government support the potentially dramatic changes suggested in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We believe that the industry has tremendous potential. We believe that, given
  804
  the backing of a Government who will turn their back on the nonsense of reducing options by premature pit closures, the industry will in the future befit the nation's needs.
  9.38 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): First, I join Labour Members in paying tribute to the excellent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). It came as no surprise to me that the hon. Member representing that constituency should decide to make his maiden speech in this debate. I congratulate him on what he said and on the manner in which, clearly, he will take an active interest in the major industry in his constituency.
  When I was at Gedling colliery recently, which I suspect is in my hon. Friend's constituency, I heard men speak extremely highly of the interest my hon. Friend was taking in the colliery.
  I should also like to pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). My predecessor came to know him well and had a warm regard for him. It was typical of the hon. Gentleman that he also extended his courtesy to me in my brief but pleasurable acquaintance with him. His robust performance from the Back Benches today demonstrated that he has lost none of his tremendous fire and enthusiasm for the industry that he loves so well, and has served with such distinction for so long.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) sat down amidst a welter of accusations and counter-accusations. It is not usually my style to do battle with him about this or any other issue, but I should remind the House what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a written answer on 28 July:
  "The commission found that the NCB is facing two central problems, which are closely related: over-capacity and the high cost of a number of pits in which coal production has become uneconomic. The commission did not attempt to define precisely the way in which the NCB should reduce excess capacity in high cost collieries, acknowledging that that is for the board to define and take the necessary action." — [Official Report, 28 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 523.]
  Although I understand the deep anxiety of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney about potential closures, particularly in south Wales, the facts are now so clear that successive chairmen—not just Mr. MacGregor, but Sir Norman Siddall before him—have actively discussed, within the industry and outside it, how to tackle the problems. I am glad to note that this Bill will not be opposed. That does not surprise me one bit, given that £6 billion is being made available in borrowing limits. However, it is vital to argue the case in a way that bears some relation to the facts. Hon. Members should not say that they are all in favour of progress as long as it does not mean change. That philosophy is not worthy of the industry or of those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have its interests at heart.
  The debate has been wide-ranging and more balanced than other debates. Since May 1979 the Conservative Benches have had a number of worthy representatives from coal mining areas. Debates on coal mining are now, certainly, cross-party affairs—[Interruption.] For example, my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) and for Sherwood all spoke from their intimate knowledge of their constituencies' mining problems, as

  805
  did my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). That is very worthy. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of interest or knowledge in these matters.
  Mr. Blair: Will the Minister comment on the remark of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that if Mr. MacGregor did not have a hit list, he certainly should have one?
  Mr. Shaw: Mr. MacGregor is entitled to have many things. I have little doubt that he will take advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. However. I am sure that he is capable of making up his own mind. having taken soundings within the industry.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) mentioned investment levels. The Bill provides for a very high borrowing limit. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in recent times the investment levels have been about £800 million per annum, or £2 million per day. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was much less than in some other parts of the Community, but it is three tunes the amount invested in West Germany and 20 times the amount invested in France. It is substantially greater than the sums for other comparable European countries. However, I take the point that there are methods of subsidy other than investment. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Perhaps one could provide investment on the scale that the right hon. Gentleman wants, but if there were subsidy plus investment, we would be unable to make that provision.
  Let us also be clear about interest rates. The board's total deficit financing will provide cover for its interest charges. With that level of deficit grant, the board can cover the interest charges. There is no case, purely on interest rates, for a capital restructuring of the board, which is another matter that was raised by Opposition Members. We must recognise that there is high investment. It is not possible to have a similar and comparable level of subsidy. We have a high deficit financing that carries the board through its high interest charges.
  Privatisation was mentioned by the right hon. Members for Salford, East and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). I make it clear that when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that there was no natural monopoly in the production of coal or of many other things, he was not suggesting that there was an immediate prospect of, or plan for, the privatisation or selling of pits. There is no such plan. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, there is no plan for the privatisation of pits. There has been, and is, a plan for the disposal, where possible, of ancillary businesses associated with the NCB. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that has been the board's policy for years. There is nothing new in that.
  Mr. Skeet: It is possible to run a private mine with 30 people in it. Does my hon. Friend propose to extend that to about 100 people?
  Mr. Shaw: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend asked that question. I pay tribute to the fact that about 100 private mining companies produce about 1 million tonnes of coal, many under contract to certain power stations. I make it clear that that is not the issue raised by the right hon. Members for Barnsley, Central and for Salford, East.
  806
  If clearing the air is required, I hope that the right hon. Members and the Opposition will accept that there is no plan to sell the pits.
  Opposition Members also referred to Point of Ayr and liquefaction. It would be rare if the hon. Member for Midlothian did not refer to it. I am aware that there have been recent discussions with Mr. MacGregor and that he made a statement about it. The 2.5 tonnes per day coal liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr in Clwyd is on target. Progress is being made. Hon. Members expressed concern at the statement by Mr. MacGregor early last month that he would need to take time to make a proper assessment of the viability and future of the project. I assure hon. Members that the basis of that assessment will be the report on the current programme of work, involving the detailed costing, design and proper specification of the pilot plant. The programme began in April this year and should be completed in about mid-1984. An announcement on the appointment of the design support contractor is expected shortly.
  Hon. Members have also been concerned about the funding of £1 million. It is being shared by the Department of Energy and the NCB and is not conditional on Community or private sector support for the project. I give that assurance to hon. Members who raised the matter.
  Many hon. Members referred to the conversion grant scheme. I recognise that they believe in it and consider that it is making an important contribution. We agree about that. About 2 million tonnes of additional coal burn has been identified during the two years that the scheme has been in operation. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) wondered whether the percentage grant could be extended, and whether the scheme could be extended to the public sector. It is run by the Department of Trade and Industry, not by the Department of Energy. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having urgent discussions and we have been examining the scheme. We hope that the correct decision will be made in due course. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are working on it.
  With regard to the extension of the percentage grant, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that 25 per cent. is the limit currently in force. He asked whether the limit could be raised from 25 per cent. Possibly the average grant has not reached that level, but the limit is currently at that level. With regard to extension to the public sector, the scheme is under the Industry Act 1972, and that Act precludes assistance to public sector schemes. I very much regret that that cannot be done.
  Some hon. Members expressed concern about coal imports. I fully understand that concern, but the House must always bear in mind that 95 per cent. of our coal requirements are supplied by British coal, so we are talking about a very small proportion. That volume has been getting substantially smaller in the last three years. It was 7·3 million tonnes in 1980, 4·3 million in 1981 and 4 million in 1982. In certain instances fuel shortages of one sort and another have made it inevitable that prime quality coking coal and anthracite should find their way into the market by imports, but I stress that it is a small percentage of the total coal take and I hope hon. Members will not consider it a serious threat to the viability of the industry.
  The redundant mineworkers payment scheme is a major provision in the Bill. Provision for it is increased from £300 million, at which it was introduced two years ago, to £1·2 billion. This has raised a great deal of contention

  807
  on both sides of the House. Some hon. Members argued that it is far too generous, and I regret that it was described by one hon. Member as a glorified death grant. At the time of its introduction the scheme was warmly welcomed by the industry as probably the most effective and generous scheme that could be designed.
  Let me try to disabuse the House of one belief, which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) expressed with some force. The sum of £1·2 billion in the Bill is not and cannot be interpreted as an absolute number of persons leaving the industry, as it were, a targeted figure. Indeed, when the Bill becomes effective, about two thirds of the money will be used for payments to those who have become redundant before 1 April 1984. As hon. Members know, there is a weekly payment of a kind under the scheme and it is a commitment until the miner reaches pensionable age. Those payments constitute a major requirement for about two thirds of the £1·2 billion provided in the Bill. Therefore, hon. Members can recognise that the scheme is not a hidden measure, but a major commitment to the costs of redundancy in the industry. The fact that the increase in the amount required is of this order is a reflection of the current rates of redundancy and also of the changes introduced to the scheme earlier in the year. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that.
  The Flowers report, or the CENE report as I used to know it, was referred to by the hon. Member for Easington. I yield to no one in my determination to see that that report is carried through, as he would expect from my previous background. There has been much progress within the industry on its discussion. For example, opencast planning procedures will be transferred on a transitional basis to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment probably from 1 January. As the hon. Member for Easington knows, working studies have been initiated on spoil disposal. I hope that we will keep faith with the major recommendations to which he ascribes such importance.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) always gives the House an extremely frank view of affairs, and with his 35 years experience in mining he is entitled to do that. However, I hope that he will, on reflection, accept that the propositions in the Bill are not a preparation to sell off the industry.
  Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that, and I ask the Minister to take it back.
  Mr. Shaw: I shall not take anything back from the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that I noted down the remark——
  Mr. Haynes: I will see the hon. Gentleman after.
  Mr. Shaw: —shows the hon. Gentleman how confusing he can be when he starts to speak on this matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) has made a major contribution to coal debates for a long time. He was right to lay stress on the international price of coal, on the height of stocks and on the fact that the overall commitment of expenditure in the industry has topped the £7 billion mark. Those are the significant underlying reasons why we must examine the
  808
  industry on a factual, not an emotional, basis. I welcome the cool clarity that he brought to the proceedings at that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said that he was no longer responsible for the constituency in which the Point of Ayr liquefaction plant is established. He also laid stress upon the EC dimension. I realise that the Community can make an important contribution to the restructuring of the coal industry, and discussions continuing in its energy committee are encouraging in that regard. I understand the passionate concern of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about the unemployment that will be caused in some constituencies—his might be one—but we must consider whether we can continue to make provision for the entire range of costs that are incurred in mining, and he will know much better than I that changes can bring benefits if we apply them in as many pits as we can.
  The main issues before us were best summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), who talked about the cost of extraction versus the price that can be obtained in the market. The industry must grapple with that basic fact. I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that, taking a production value of about £40 a tonne, about 47 million tonnes are currently being sold on the right side of the line, which is at market rate or above. However, 32 million tonnes are below that line, but are close to being brought into the profitable sector. While the debate has been largely concerned with closures, we must allow the industry to examine afresh the prospects of moving a large part of its output into the productive and profitable price sector.
  Mr. Orme: That means closures.
  Mr. Shaw: That does not mean closures. It means improved efficiency, better methods, better management and a reduction in overheads. It can be achieved, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if those 32 million tonnes could be brought on the right side of the line and were profitable, there would be a major reversal in the capacity of the industry to pay its way.
  I should make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that although the Bill provides for only two years, that does not mean that the job must be completed within two years. Another Bill will follow this one, no doubt with further provision. The borrowing limits have been raised to £6 billion, and the provision for redundancy and other payments has been increased to £1·2 billion, and it is clear that there can be a major improvement in the profitability of coal produced, but what really matters is to be able to sell the coal that we produce to people who are willing to buy. We cannot do that when world prices have dropped to a point where United Kingdom deep-mined coal is significantly less competitive than other coal. The Bill provides a commitment that the Government will continue to support the industry with huge public investment and with a vast deficit on the understanding that we shall have a more viable industry in a few years' time. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  Increase of borrowing limits
  1. Any payment out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from increasing to £5,500 million, with power to increase by order to £6,000 million, the limit on borrowing by the National Coal Board.
  Deficit grants
  2. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from—

  (a) providing for the period in respect of which grants may be made under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1980 (grants in respect of group deficits) to be the financial years of the Board ending in March 1984, 1985 and 1986; and

  (b) imposing a limit of £1,200 million, with power to increase it by order to £2,000 million, on the aggregate amount of such grants.

  Grants in connection with pit closures
  3. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from—

  (a) extending the period in respect of which grants may be made under section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 (grants in connection with pit closures) to cover the financial years of the Board ending March 1985 and 1986; and

  (b) increasing to £400 million the limit on the aggregate amount of such grants.

  Redundant workers
  4. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from—

  (a) extending the qualifying period for payments under a scheme under section 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 (payments to redundant workers) until 29th March 1986; and

  (b) Increasing to £1,200 million the limit on the aggregate amount of such payments during an extended period covering the financial years of the Board ending in March 1985 and 1986.

  Receipts
  5. Payments in to the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Moore.]
  Mr. Bob Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to events that have taken place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster tonight in relation to section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act. A large number of people have been gathered outside the building tonight and a large number of people have been carried away by the police and, I believe, arrested. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether an Act which was designed to protect the right of Members to have free access to the House should be abused in the way that it has been by the Metropolitan police tonight. I stood with the demonstrators for three quarters of an hour and then I heard the senior police officer say to his men via a loudspeaker system that a warning had been given on four occasions that the people within the police circle should now be arrested. I stood there myself for three quarters of an hour and I did not hear one warning given before the
  police started to arrest hundreds of people.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House, that we are about to embark on a debate on a prayer which must end at 11.30 pm, so he is taking time out of that.
  Mr. Clay: I greatly respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to be extremely brief. The only other point that I wish to make is that, after this took place, and people who were standing on the pavement were being moved on, police constables were instructed not to move them on but to arrest them. That was clearly heard on two occasions. Is it in order that, at a time when the peace of the world is being threatened by cruise missiles, people should be prevented by the behaviour of the police from making their views clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Robert Parry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will have heard on a number of occasions this evening Conservative Members shouting "Rubbish". May I suggest that Conservative Members are causing more trouble and are antagonising——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is a point of order for me. I did not hear "Rubbish".
  Mr. Parry: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who should declare an interest on matters of security, last week stated that the people who are protesting at Greenham common are involved in a conspiracy and would be shot by their own——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a matter for us tonight.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief because I do not wish to delay the House. I and a number of Conservative Members were present when the police were performing their duty. I should like to put it on the record that I have never seen an operation performed so well and so competently. It ensured that people were able to get to the House and that the public outside were able to travel.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was also outside the House and witnessed what occurred. I must say that the police behaved absolutely impeccably——
  Mr. Clay: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the warning?
  Mr. MacKay: I also heard the warning because I was outside. I was fearful that certain Members, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), would be there and might distort what happened. The police behaved impeccably. I, like many other hon. Members and taxpayers, am concerned about the cost of this operation. I should like once more to commend the police for the excellent job that they did.
  Mr. Speaker: I have had a report from the Serjeant at Arms that the Carriage Gates were closed between 6.50 and 7.45 pm. I remind the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and others who have raised this matter that on 22 June the House passed a Sessional Order that contained these words:
  "That the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House."—[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 38.]

  Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1215), dated 26th July 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th August, be annulled.—[Mr. Norman Hogg.]
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The motion standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends relates to regulations that have arisen as a result of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill that was passed at the end of the last Parliament. I was not involved in that piece of education legislation because I was engaged in a similar exercise with the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1983, though in many respects the procedures that were entered into for the speedy passage of both measures were similar.
  The undertakings that were given by the Minister at that time, the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act, were of a rather different nature from the undertakings that were then given by the present Under-Secretary for the Environment. I choose my words carefully when I say that the latter Minister has had his undertakings reneged upon by his successors. Indeed, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Leader of the House said that the hon. Gentleman was right
  "in suggesting that these regulations do not carry out a commitment given during the passage of the parent Bill before the dissolution. —[Official Report, 1 November 1983, Vol 47, c. 829.]
  That, basically, is the complaint that my hon. Friends and I have about the regulations—that the undertakings given by the Government during the passage of the parent legislation have not been carried out in the way that we were led to expect. In particular we had a promise that a group of overseas students would be given special consideration in that their case would be considered by the authorities in respect of their ability to remain as students and enjoy the benefits and privileges that are associated with residency of the United Kingdom.
  As the result of a judgment made on 16 December last by Lord Scarman and others, there was a change in the definition of what we have come to regard as normal residency. The change came as something of a surprise to all who took an interest in these matters and it was agreed on both sides that the gap in the law which resulted from that change had to be filled. Consequently, the parent legislation was not in essence a matter of contention among the parties in the House; the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, was as active on the subject as my former colleague, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, who unfortunately is no longer with us in the House and who at that time represented Derby, North.
  The point made at the time was that there should be included in the legislation an amendment to take account of the situation of persons taking refuge in the United Kingdom in pursuance of a decision by Her Majesty's Government. That meant people who had been forced to leave their country of origin or to stay away from it as a result of internal political changes. The peoples who had been considered in this category were Poles, Afghans,
  812
  Ugandans and Iranians. Now, as well these four national groups there are the Tamils, who suffer from the difficulties in Sri Lanka. It was assumed that these individuals would be able to enjoy the privileges which normal residence would afford and that that facility would be given under the exceptional rule category.
  The position of these groups has been changed by the regulations, while it is true that they may still be accorded certain benefits in the form of reduced fees or enhanced awards such as grants. When the regulations are applied in Scotland, it will be at the discretion of the colleges concerned, without any likelihood of central Government financial support. The position is slightly different from that prevailing in England and Wales as the majority of colleges in Scotland are what are known as central institutions, which are directly funded by the Secretary of State and the Scottish education department. Therefore, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make available the funds, if he so desired. The position that prevails in England and Wales and in respect of that part of Scotland covered by the other humble Address that we debated some two weeks ago, will be different from that in the rest of Scotland. In Scotland, apart from one or two of the local authority further education colleges offering, in the main, advanced courses, we are considering what I have already referred to as central institution, which come under the direct control of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  We are concerned about the reneging on the undertakings given in Committee before the Bill was passed. This changed attitude will force the burden of resonsibility on to institutions that at present are being starved of funds and that in many instances do not have the counselling services that many of the universities about which we debated in the previous humble Address have at their disposal. For local authorities, the burden of responsibility will fall on the education committees. With the best will in the world, most of the local authority education committees in Scotland will consider as a relatively low priority the protection of the interests of these individuals.
  The consequences of the inadequacy of the funds, of the difficulties with the counselling of overseas students in smaller colleges and the likelihood of a low priority being given to this by education committees because of financial constraints mean that the prospects for the students concerned will be uncertain. It is likely that there will be inactivity in that the students will not be able to pursue their studies. Instead of receiving funds to pursue their studies, we shall have the ridiculous circumstances in which they will receive supplementary benefit, which will probably be adequate to cover their basic needs but insufficient to enable them to continue with their studies.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about the low priority that this will have for local authorities. In fairness to the local authorities, does he not agree that this will come about because the authorities' budgets are already severely cut, that there will be a further reduction in the applied funds, and that they will be in a position that is even more difficult than their already bad one?
  Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I thought that I had made it already. I appreciate what he meant. The local authorities are

  813
  already encumbered by a variety of commitments. With the best will in the world, the education sub-committees will put this item at the end of their agendas when a determination must be made. This will probably occur after the available funds have been expended.
  During the discussions on the order for English, Welsh and Scottish universities, the Minister put forward a case which, to say the least, did not impress the House. I hope that his colleague in the Scottish Office has had an opportunity to reflect on the scheme's inadequacy, to improve upon it and to change his mind. Hope springs eternal in the House.
  We are looking for a change. We are not impressed by the excuses that were advanced by the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who is the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he said that the amendment had not been clear when it was discussed in Standing Committee because it had been tabled on Friday 6 May and debated on Tuesday 10 May. The departmental officials had only had four days in which to consider the amendment. The Bill passed through the House in three or four days, and one would have imagined that the Department's attentions could have been extended at least to subparagraph (c) of this fairly insubstantial amendment. On that occasion, we heard the somewhat convoluted words that were presented as the defence:
  "Persons who are taking refuge in the United Kingdom in pursuance of a decision by Her Majesty's Government."—[Official Report, I November 1983; Vol. 47, c. 829.]
  According to the Under-Secretary and the Department of Education and Science, these words have no precise meaning in law. Confusion may be caused by the problems that arose when dealing with the status of Vietnamese refugees. There appears to be some confusion in the minds of officers of the Department of Education and Science on the difference between those seeking political asylum and those seeking refugee status. It has been argued that refugee status cannot be taken but can only be granted. Therefore, the use of the word "taking" in subparagraph (c) has no meaning.
  There is something sadly wrong with Ministers if they seek to defend their inability to implement what they regard as bad law because they do not like the amendments that they accepted when they were in Opposition. I hope that the Minister can come up with something better than the feeble excuses advanced by his colleague.
  The Government have had months to reflect, and they could have accepted the responsibility which this perhaps ill-drawn amendment imposes. We believe that there is a strong moral and legal responsibility on the Government within these regulations care for a group of people who, through no fault of their own, have come to this country and who are dependent on its largesse and generosity for their studies and welfare. We hope that at some stage many of these groups can return to their countries and enjoy the same freedoms that they enjoy here. They will return to their countries with a healthy respect for this legislature and the British system of government. For them to do that, it is necessary for the Government to meet their responsibilities.
  I make no apology for raising this matter a second time, but we believe that the Scottish higher and further education system has a long and distinguished record of support for students from disadvantaged parts of the world.
  814
  There is a long and distinguished record of contact through the missionary work of the Church of Scotland and other organisations to bring such students to this country. Scotland has an educational centre which affords an opportunity to people from all over the world to come here, occasionally as political refugees. We feel these regulations are a feeble effort by the Government to provide such people with this country's help and support when they are in severe difficulties and when their education should not be interfered with and interrupted.
  For those reasons, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join in rejecting the regulations and suggesting to the Government that they try again to get it right and to do the right thing by the rest of the world which looks to them for support on such issues.
  10.20 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the purpose of these regulations, although, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neil) said. the policy underlying them was debated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen during the passage of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill in May and in two prayers against statutory instruments since then—one on 1 November, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and one in Committee in July, in which we both took part.
  As hon. Members will realise, these regulations and others in the awards field are necessary if the position is to be returned to that which was understood by successive Governments. The hon. Gentleman confirmed that there is no difference of principle on that point between the Government and the Opposition.
  There is a long-standing policy of treating overseas students differently from home students. The key test for a student was whether he was ordinarily resident in this country, and successive Governments applied what was, in fact, a "real home" test. Last December's House of Lords judgment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, widened the interpretation of "ordinary residence" to an extent inconsistent with the Government's intentions. The consequences were serious and would have been costly if no action had been taken.
  The position of the Scottish Education Department's awards scheme was restored by amendments to existing regulations, but for fees and those awards not covered by amendments to regulations, the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 was necessary, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. I am happy to acknowledge that it was passed with the co-operation of all parties just before the Dissolution and received the Royal Assent on 13 May. I acknowledge the support received by hon. Members on both sides of the House for what was recognised as a most necessary piece of correcting legislation.
  The Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 permits the charging of higher fees to overseas students by educational establishments in Scotland other than universities. Scottish universities, as hon. Members are aware, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  Mr. John Maxton: Shame.
  Mr. Stewart: They are covered by fees and awards regulations made by him, which were the subject of debate on 1 November.

  815
  The Scottish regulations have otherwise in their fees provisions the same effects as the English regulations. If the regulations had not been made the charging of fees to overseas students at levels higher than those charged to home students could have put institutions at risk of legal action for discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976.
  Under previous rules higher fees for overseas students were permitted in pursuance of arrangements approved by Minister of Crown in accordance with section 41 (2) of that Act. With the "ordinary residence" judgment the previous legal framework was reviewed, and it was decided that regulations made under a separate fees and awards Act provided a more appropriate statutory basis.
  The Scottish regulations differ from the English regulations in their coverage of student awards. Awards for advanced courses are, in Scotland, as hon. Members will be aware, administered centrally by the Scottish Education Department under discretionary powers exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Amendments to deal with the question of "ordinary residence" were made earlier this year in separate regulations and were debated on 21 July. Further minor amendments, including provisions to deal with access by European Community migrant workers to awards at vocational training establishments, are contained in regulations which, hon. Members will be interested to know, were laid before the House on 31 October.
  Awards for non-advanced courses are administered in Scotland by the regional authorities on a discretionary basis within a framework of regulations made by my right hon. Friend. Amendments to these regulations which deal with ordinary residence and certain other related matters were also laid before the House on 31 October.
  The awards provisions in the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 therefore refer to a very minor postgraduate studentship scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and covering no more than a handful of awards annually. They are included in these regulations because they are not covered by the powers under which the main scheme of student awards is drafted.
  Mr. Maxton: I do not think that the explanation about part III was as full as some hon. Members would have wished. Can the Minister expand on that? I am not clear about the specific provision which seeks to discriminate against English, Welsh, Northern Irish and overseas students—[Interruption.] That is my reading of it. I hope that the Minister will explain it in more detail.
  Mr. Stewart: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the reason that these awards are in this regulation is because they are made under paragraphs contained in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911.
  I have already stated that the provisions on fees reflect provisions made in respect of England and Wales.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I wish to assist the Minister, as my hon. Friend has referred to part III and amendments to section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911. I have taken the precaution of arming myself with section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911. Section 4 refers to the constitution of the board of agriculture for Scotland, which so far as I know no longer exists.
  Mr. Stewart: The postgraduate awards to which we refer are given under the provisions of that Act and not under the education Acts under which the other awards are given. They are covered in the previous regulations which were discussed by the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Home Robertson: They are not—that is the problem.
  Mr. O'Neill: Can the Minister say how many times, in the intervening period since the original discretionary awards regulations were passed in the summer, he has used his discretion in respect of such individuals? The Secretary of State has the opportunity to exercise his discretion in respect of awards for people who fall into this category. On how many occasions has he done so since then?
  Mr. Stewart: No particular case has been brought to my attention since the regulations were passed.
  As I have said, the provisions on fees reflect provisions made in respect of England and Wales which cover the Scottish universities. It may be helpful, however, if I explain them in a little detail. Needless to say, I regard it as important that there should be no policy divergence between Scotland and England in the matter of overseas students.
  The provisions on fees are contained in part II and schedule 1. The key points are regulations 6 and 7. The regulations are necessary because of the House of Lords judgment which meant that the legal protection afforded by successive Secretaries of State to institutions charging fees under section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act was not adequate. The regulations ensure that students cannot become eligible for home fee status when they have been here wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education. That is the meaning of regulation 6 which establishes the criterion of "relevant connection" with the United Kingdom. Students affected by these provisions are those attending full-time or sandwich courses provided by a central institution, a college of education or other further education establishment.
  Home fee status is not, however, restricted to students whose "relevant connection" with the United Kingdom is established under regulation 6. Various categories of excepted student are defined in schedule 1. Nationals of member states of the European Community and their children have home fee status if they satisfy ordinary residence requirements in relation to the European Community similar to those laid down in regulation 6.
  Refugees, their children and spouses are also excepted students. I remind hon. Members that in their treatment of refugees the regulations are the same as those debated earlier this month. The hon. Member for Clackmannan will recognise that the matter was fully debated in the House on 1 November when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science explained the position in relation to the commitment given when the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill was debated in Committee. There is little to add to what he said as there is no particular Scottish dimension to the question. The Government's policy on immigration and refugees is administered on a United Kingdom basis and regulations which impinge on that policy must reflect that. As my hon. Friend told the House, and as the hon. Member for Clackmannan repeated today, when the Bill was debated in Committee an undertaking was given to extend home fee status to a category described as

  817
  "persons taking refuge in the United Kingdom in pursuance of a decision by Her Majesty's Government".
  That commitment was given in good faith, but it was not clear at the time that it was meant to extend home fee status to all those allowed to remain in this country outside the immigration rules. As my hon. Friend explained, and as I believe the hon. Member for Clackmannan accepted, the form of words used has no precise meaning in law. Even if it had, it remains very difficult to prescribe in regulations for every circumstance that might arise. That is a familiar problem with regulations of this kind. The circumstances of individuals given what is described as exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom—the amendment did not specify that category—are often very different. When the implications were fully understood it was concluded that the issues involved were too complex and varied to be resolved in time for the 1983–84 academic year and the need for the regulations was urgent. Nor does the lack of specific provision mean that nobody in that category can benefit from a lower level of fees.
  Institutions continue to have power to remit fees under regulation 3. The hon. Member for Clackmannan asked about financial resources. The short answer in relation to central institutions and colleges of education is that finance will effectively be provided by the Scottish Education Council because a college's grant takes account of its income estimates. They should include overseas student fee income. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
  As to local authorities, the hon. Member for Clackmannan is aware that rate support grant is given as a global sum. The hon. Member spoke at some length on that point, but in another important respect—the treatment of newly arrived immigrants—the regulations go further than the undertaking that was given during the passage of the Bill. That is the answer to some of the generalised points that the hon. Gentleman made about my hon. Friend's undertaking.
  I do not doubt that hon. Members will appreciate that the concession is not limited to the children of such immigrants, as originally intended. It now benefits wives and spouses. I am glad to acknowledge that there is a Scottish dimension to that concession in that it was initiated by my Department following discussions with the Scottish Council for Racial Equality, which raised the issue of newly arrived immigrant wives who would, without the concession, have had to pay overseas student charges to pursue English language courses. I hope that the House will welcome that.
  Mr. O'Neill: I welcome the concession that the Minister has just announced. On his earlier point, however, will he confirm that no student at a Scottish central institution will be denied a reduction in fees if he or she applies, given that the funding is along the lines which the Minister suggested earlier?
  Mr. Stewart: That is not the case as the hon. Gentleman is referring to circumstances in which the central institution or college of education has discretion and can exercise its own judgment.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: I have already given way about six times, but as the hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State I shall give way. However, it must be the last time that I do so.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister. Of course discretion lies with the local authority but the Minister appeared to say that if a central institution exercises that discretion in favour of a student and gives him home fee status, no financial penalty will be imposed on the institution. Is that so?
  Mr. Stewart: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not a believer in devolution when it comes to Front Bench responsibility. As to his question, as I have said, a college's grant takes account of its income estimates. They should include overseas student fee income estimates.
  Mr. Dewar: Am I right?
  Mr. Stewart: Another exception to the rule that home fee status can be granted only to those who satisfy the ordinary residence regulations is students who fail the test only because of their temporary employment abroad or that of their parents or spouse. That and the other exceptions that I have described are fair and defensible. I trust that hon. Members will recognise that. Although the regulations provide that institutions shall be able to charge higher fees to students who are not eligible for home fee status, the scale of fees which should be charged is not laid down.
  This is a departure from previous practice and responds to one of the proposals in the report "A Policy for Overseas Students" drawn up by the Overseas Students' Trust in May 1982. The trust recommended that there should be more flexibility in the level of fees charged by institutions, so that the differences in the costs incurred by individual establishments or classes of establishment would be reflected in the fees that a student had to pay. The Government accepted that suggestion, and no minimum level of fee will be prescribed. Within the overall policy framework, institutions will therefore be able to charge economic fees which reflect their own cost levels.
  Part III and schedule 2 relate to the scheme for a limited number of agricultural postgraduate studentships. The background to that scheme was discussed earlier in the debate.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman has no idea what it is all about.
  Mr. Stewart: I hope that hon. Members will have found my explanation helpful.
  Mr. Maxton: We understand it better than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Stewart: The regulations are less complicated than their English equivalent, even though they reflect the same policy, because their awards coverage is much less. They are, in the Government's view, necessary measures. That being so, I commend the regulations to the House and ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the Opposition's prayer.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister has given an interesting explanation of the regulations, which I believe that he would rather not have had to defend in the House. There is no doubt that the Government have

  819
  reneged on a commitment. There are people in this country whom, before the election, the Government were prepared to support in education, and whom they are now not prepared to support. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has said, an undertaking was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others before the election, and the regulations are now taking something away. On my calculation of the number of applicants with whom the Minister might have to deal in a full year, based on a World University Service estimate, the sum involved would have been less than £50,000. That is the amount at issue in Scotland. To pursue such a vindictive line for such a small amount of money is not worthy of the Government. The sum is not worth the breaking of the pledge given before the election.
  Mr. Clement Freud: The Government's pledges are not worth much.
  Mr. Bruce: No, and this one is worth less than most.
  The Minister says that the institutions have discretion and can decide that they will allow domestic student status. He knows, however, that the financial constraints under which most of the institutions operate would not allow them easily to make such a concession. He knows that if that discretion was used, there could be considerable anomalies. As was suggested last week, if a brother and sister applied to two institutions, one might qualify and the other might not.
  The Government claim that we need national policies—that is why local government must not be allowed discretion—yet the educational institutions are to have discretion. I suggest that the Minister is prepared to make that concession only in order to get himself off an embarrassing hook.
  It is Government policy to allow some people to enter the country. They are dispossessed people who have had to leave countries such as Iran and Palestine and to seek refuge here. It is absurd that they can be allowed, or forced, to live off social security benefit, but be denied the right to pursue the education that they will need to find their way in the world and—if they are to stay in the country for any length of time—to contribute to the economy. The Government are apparently prepared to allow the people to stay here but to deny them the education that would allow them to be more useful to the country, and which would also be an asset to them. They are prepared to do that all for the sake of a maximum of £50,000 per annum in Scotland. This legislation is very petty minded indeed.
  The legislation is in furtherance of a policy that the Government started four and a half, or five, years ago, which involved cutting our tradition of educating overseas students. We were once proud of that tradition, but we should now be thoroughly ashamed of it after five years of Conservative rule. Institutions whose overseas students once accounted for 15 per cent. are now down to 4 or 5 per cent. Only the rich can afford to pay the fees that the Government require.
  The Government are now picking on a small category of people whom they previously insisted that they would provide for. Not even those few people will be able to benefit from domestic student status. I think that when asked the Minister told the hon. Member for Clackmannan
  820
  that he had not had an application for such an award since the election. However, I have a constituent who might have fallen into that category had he not had the good fortune to be granted citizenship. He would have been denied eligibility but for his good fortune to obtain that citizenship. However, although he has been resident in the country for seven years, has citizenship, and has been married to a British subject for two and half years, he has been told that he is not eligible for a grant to pursue his studies. That is applying the anomaly one step further back. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the regulations apply to grants as well as to overseas students' fees.
  The Minister has not convinced us that there is any justification in introducing petty-minded, vindictive, regulations that involve only a paltry sum of money. If the Government's honour is worth only £50,000 in Scotland, they must be pretty shameless. If you are going to put your honour on the line, I would have thought that £50,000 was a rather cheap price to pay. Perhaps that is your own choice—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have no choice in this matter.
  Mr. Bruce: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said that, if the Government want to put their honour on the line, one would have thought that they would have attached a higher price to it than less than £50,000. In the circumstances, I hope that hon. Members will vote against the regulations.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I shall be brief. I simply want to refer to a point that has been drawn to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I refer to part III of the regulations, which is singularly obscure. As far as I can judge from the regulations and the Act that they seek to amend, they will amend the powers of a board that is no longer in existence. The Minister should tell us a little more about the effect of that part of the regulations.
  If the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will excuse me for saying so, this legislation is nationalism at its worst. These regulations seem to say that no grant will be paid from the Secretary of State's funds towards the expenses of a postgraduate course at a Scottish university that are incurred by an English or Welsh student, even after he or she has done three years at a Scottish university. Where are such people to find funds? Will they obtain grants from the Department of Education and Science? What about retaliation? Many Scottish students of agriculture take postgraduate courses in English universities. What on earth is wrong with that? Will the Department of Education and Science operate a retaliatory scheme, or will the Minister pay grants to cover the costs of Scottish students who go to university in England and Wales, if the Secretary of State for Education and Science were to retaliate? I have the distinct impression that the Minister does not understand that part of what he is doing. That came across when he introduced the regulations.
  The regulations are unnecessarily narrow, restrictive and unfair. They invite retaliation and could cause genuine problems for postgraduate students of agriculture.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I was surprised to see the Prayer on the Order Paper. It would be churlish not to recognise the way in which Her Majesty's loyal Opposition helped the passage of the primary legislation.
  The regulations are entirely in the spirit of that legislation. I could understand it if the Government had introduced regulations that provided for. matters that were not handled in the primary legislation. It seems that the only thing that the re-creation of the Lib Lab pact has done tonight is to complain that the Government have not put in the regulations matters that were not put in the primary legislation. That is a ridiculous basis on which to found a Prayer.
  I was astounded to hear, at the end of a long speech to make a small point, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) inviting his right hon. and hon. Friends, and those in the Liberal party, to vote in support of the Prayer. The Government have behaved entirely honourably and rationally. All the matters provided for in the primary legislation had no other purpose than to recreate the conditions after a legal judgment that everyone understood existed before.
  The speech by my hon. Friend the Minister was the one good spot in the debate. He clearly and succinctly explained what the regulations are to some Opposition Members who do not seem to understand them.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again briefly.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), who said that the justification for the Prayer is only a tiny point. Hon. Members who spoke, including the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), did not deal with the simple fact that the phraseology in the amendment under question has no legal basis. That is a key question. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has said that he will keep the matter under review. He told the House of his meeting with the British Refugee Council on that point. His position is perfectly understandable and acceptable.
  I do not know where the hon. Member for Gordon got his estimate of £50,000. I note it. If it has any basis in fact, perhaps the hon. Member will let me know his source. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) —
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian asked about postgraduate agricultural studentships and whether there was discrimination. The regulations deal with Scotland in the same way as the English regulations deal with England. English students get their grants from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Question put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 173.

  Division No. 68]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Blair, Anthony

  822

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Marek, Dr John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Campbell, Ian

  Martin, Michael

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Maxton, John

  Clay, Robert

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, William

  Conlan, Bernard

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Nellist, David

  Cowans, Harry

  O'Brien, William

  Craigen, J. M.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Pike, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Donald

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Randall, Stuart

  Douglas, Dick

  Redmond, M.

  Eadie, Alex

  Robertson, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Ewing, Harry

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Forrester, John

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Foster, Derek

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

  Freud, Clement

  Snape, Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Soley, Clive

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hardy, Peter

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Home Robertson, John

  Stott, Roger

  Howells, Geraint

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Wallace, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Loyden, Edward

  Wareing, Robert

  McCartney, Hugh

  Welsh, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  White, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McWilliam, John

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Norman Hogg.

  Madden, Max

  NOES

  Ancram, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Hayes, J.

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

  Hayward, Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Heddle, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Henderson, Barry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hickmet, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hicks, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butcher, John

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Holt, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Cope, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Crouch, David

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dover, Denshore

  Jessel, Toby

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Farr, John

  Key, Robert

  Favell, Anthony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Knowles, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knox, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Lang, Ian

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Freeman, Roger

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gale, Roger

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Galley, Roy

  Lightbown, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lilley, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Gregory, Conal

  Lord, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Luce, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  823

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Maclean, David John.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Major, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Malins, Humfrey

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Malone, Gerald

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maples, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Speed, Keith

  Marlow, Antony

  Speller, Tony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spencer, D.

  Mates, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mather, Carol

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maude, Francis

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mellor, David

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Moore, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thorne, Neil (Word S)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Needham, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Waddington, David

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Walden, George

  Pollock, Alexander

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, Barry

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Watts, John

  Powley, John

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Whitfield, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Yeo, Tim

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ryder, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  PETITION

    Contraception (Under-age Girls)
    11.5 pm
    Mr. Roger Freeman: I have the honour to beg leave to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Donald Jones of Linden Avenue, Kettering, and 698 other residents of Kettering. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to their opposition to section G of the revised Health Service notice issued by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1980. I heartily endorse the views of the petitioners.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Margaret Livesey
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to put before the House the case of Margaret Livesey, presently serving life imprisonment for the murder of her 14-year-old son which I do not believe she committed.
  Early in 1982 I received a series of anonymous letters regarding this case. One such letter arose from the author's concern about a debate taking place at about that time on capital punishment. He had, he claimed, an open mind on the subject until February 1979. It was what he described as a miscarriage of justice in the Livesey case that decided him on that issue. He also drew my attention to the opinion of a chief psychiatrist who was working at that time at Risley remand centre, who had declared himslf convinced of Margaret Livesey's innocence, and several other factors, such as the evidence of two women, Norris and Warren, to which I shall refer later.
  I determined to see Mrs. Livesey in Durham prison and paid a visit there on Tuesday 13 April 1982. Obviously I made a subjective assessment, and decided that she was most likely innocent of the murder of her son. Following this, I visited the scene of the crime, the crescent in which she and her family had lived, and spoke to several neighbours and the husband of Margaret Livesey, who still lives not far from the area but in a different home. Finding new evidence that could be submitted to the Home Secretary was beyond my resources, so I turned to Tom Sargent, the then director of Justice, for assistance in this case. What happened thereafter has been the subject of a BBC television programme, "Rough Justice". I hope that the Minister, if he has not seen the programme already, will make a point of seeing it in the near future.
  Having read a transcript of the trial which culminated in the guilty verdict and sentence of July 1979, and having considered the evidence produced by the "Rough Justice" team of researchers, I am more than ever convinced that this case requires a new official investigation.
  I am aware that Tom Sargent, to whom we all owe a considerable debt, made a submission to the Minister of State on 9 November in which he presented several documents urging a reappraisal of the case. I do not wish to spell out precisely what was in those submissions, but I wish to emphasise certain crucial questions.
  The fixing of the time of the murder with absolute certainty is difficult, as it is in most such cases. That is why forensic evidence becomes vital. Professor Cameron, a highly reputable authority on forensic science, has concluded that the time of death was in the region of 10 pm based on all the evidence regarding food digestion and rigor mortis, particularly in relation to the eyelids, which Margaret Livesey had attempted, but failed, to close later that evening.
  When interviewed, Professor Cameron made several statements which would have assisted the jury to reach a different verdict had they had access to them, and I hope that the Minister will study Professor Cameron's evidence particularly carefully. It is doubtful from his evidence that the murder weapon as produced at the trial was in fact the weapon used, because of the absence of blood, which could not, in his opinion, have been completely wiped or

  825
  washed away. There is also the suggestion of a homosexual element in the murder which unfortunately does not appear to have been fully investigated by the police.
  I return to the time element. If Professor Cameron's view that 10 pm is a likely time is right—and we assume a margin of error of half an hour on either side—we are considering the period 9.30 pm to 10.30 pm, and not 11 pm which the police appeared to have fixed as the time of death.
  During that period—9.30 pm to 11 pm—on the day of the murder, Mrs. Livesey's movements are well known. She left her home at about 8.50 pm and went to the Queen's Hotel, Bamber Bridge, where she was joined by two friends, both of whom state that the time of leaving the pub was 10.50 pm. Following a chat in the car park, Mr. Bamber drove her home and he fixed the time of her leaving the car in the crescent, where she resided and where the murder took place, at 11 pm
  Since the trial another witness, John Kershaw, has been interviewed; he saw Mrs. Livesey in the crescent at 11 o'clock. Mr. Kershaw, who had been visiting a friend in Leyland and left there at 10.50 pm, was able to fix the time exactly, and, from his evidence, Mrs. Livesey is placed near a lamp post just past the entrance to the crescent, as I say, at 11 pm. Mr. Kershaw's evidence was ignored by the prosecution and unfortunately he did not give evidence at the trial.
  Another witness, Mrs. Matthews, said at the trial that Mrs. Livesey knocked on her door at 11 pm or 11.15 pm, but she has subsequently revealed that it was 11 pm and she had said that it was 11 pm in her original statements to the police. This was pointed out by the defence at the trial but apparently ignored by the jury.
  The evidence at the trial given by Susan Warren and Christine Norris is clearly in need of re-examination in the light of the contradictions produced during the "Rough Justice" researches. Were they activated by malice when they made their statements in court, statements that had clearly been changed? Was there an assumption by Mrs. Warren that she needed to protect Peter Nightingale from police suspicion? He had been held by them for several hours for questioning. Peter Nightingale it was who at 10.5 pm heard a noise emanating from the Livesey house and saw what he described as a young man, about 5ft 10ins with white blondish hair which bounced at the back of his head, wearing an anorak, walking down the garden path of the Livesey home. The time was fixed clearly by "News at Ten", which Nightingale had heard start at his friend's home, five minutes walk away, as he left.
  It would be possible to go on referring to the material produced in the film made by the the BBC and to refer particularly, because I rate their views as highly important and relevant, to the points made by Lord Salmon and Professor Cameron. Instead I shall place on record a summary of the main issues in the case. I refer first to the matters that have contributed to Mrs Livesey's conviction, such as her alleged confession—a confession not written by Mrs Livesey, and the publicity given to it in her first trial. Next, there is the evidence of Susan Warren and Christine Norris of her shouting at her son, and their blackening of her character. There is the devaluation by the trial judge of the vital evidence of Peter Nightingale, to which I have already referred, and consequently of the noises heard by both Susan Warren and her gentleman friend Ronald Mason at 9.55 pm. The failure of the trial
  826
  judge to mention to the jury the defence counsel's submissions that Alan's killing and the circumstances surrounding it implied that it had followed a torture session, the failure of the prosecution to serve on the defence statements taken from Mrs Rogers and John Kershaw, and the failure of the police to provide the defence with full information about the cigarette packets found in the room and to test the cigarette stubs in the room for saliva, are all important points that contributed to Mrs Livesey's conviction.
  On the other hand, there are matters that point to Mrs Livesey's innocence. When on 23 February, she gave the police a detailed time schedule of her movements the previous night, she could not have known whether they would be confirmed by six prosecution witnesses. There was strong evidence that Alan had entertained a visitor after his mother had left the home, from the sounds heard after 9.55 pm, the evidence of Peter Nightingale. the presence in the room of three packets of cigarettes, and Alan's change of clothing back into his cadet's uniform and boots.
  There were strong signs that the wounds were the result of a homosexual torture session, I refer the Minister to the opinions expressed by Professor Cameron and Lord Salmon in this regard. The only possible time that Mrs Livesey could have committed the murder and done what she was alleged to have done was around 10.45 pm, by which time she could not have arrived at the crescent unless Frank Bamber and Marion Walker, and to a lesser degree, Miss Jones were lying, which was not suggested at any time. The knot around Alan's wrists was far too complicated for Mrs Livesey to have tied it and the nicks in the sock around Alan's neck showed it had been there during the stabbing. Professor Cameron's opinion, based on the stomach contents and the degree of rigor mortis, was that death had taken place between 9.30 and 10.30, and, as I have already said, Mrs. Livesey's movements during that period are clear and beyond question.
  We should consider Mrs. Livesey's inability to close Alan's eyes because of the rigor mortis, the absence of any forensic evidence linking her with the killing and the evidence that, on her arrival at the Matthews' house, she seemed to be normal and there were no signs of blood on her clothes. Mrs. Livesey was advised that, as the jury must have accepted the confession as genuine, there was no point in appealing. She wanted to appeal, but thought that she could not because she had had two trials. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is aware that the first trial was terminated because a juror had a serious domestic problem.
  Mrs. Livesey eventually applied for leave to appeal out of time. I do not know anything about its contents or how it was received. It can be fairly urged that very few, if any, of the matters that I have dealt with have been considered by the Court of Appeal and that there is sufficient new material to justify a reference to the court.
  I request the Under-Secretary to submit the Livesey case to the Court of Appeal unless, following his examination of the case in detail—which I am sure will happen—he reaches a firm conclusion that she ought to be released forthwith. I shall be glad to hear the Under-Secretary's comments, and I hope for his co-operation.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: With permission, I register an interest because, following the Boundary

  827
  Commission changes, I now represent the area in which this tragic case occurred. I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) on the clarity with which he raised this issue, and I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary has to say because this matter now affects me as much as it affects the hon. Member for Preston.
  11.22 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) said about the case of Margaret Livesey, and I note the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).
  It would be helpful first if I explained the functions of the Home Secretary in cases in which it is suggested that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. While it may be familiar, it forms the essential background against which we have to consider this particular case, and therefore it bears repetition.
  Constitutionally, the duty of administering justice in individual criminal cases lies with the courts. The decision whether to convict is taken by a jury, and the accused person's normal remedy, where it is suggested that the conviction was wrong, is to go to the Court of Appeal. It is to take account of the possibility that points may emerge which suggest that the conviction was wrong but which are not capable of being considered in the normal way, that the Home Secretary is given certain powers to intervene—either by recommending the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy or by referring the case to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This allows very exceptional cases to be dealt with by whatever means are appropriate and the powers are therefore very wide in their scope. In their practical operation, however, it is essential that selectivity and discretion should be applied. Otherwise, as I am sure the House will recognise, there is a danger that the Home Secretary will simply usurp the functions of the courts. This means, for example, that the Home Secretary will not normally consider recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy in a case that is capable of being referred to the Court of Appeal. It also means that the Home Secretary will consider taking action only if some new and material consideration comes to light that has not already been looked at by the courts.
  The Home Secretary will not recommend the award of a free pardon on the basis of facts or arguments already considered by the courts, nor will he refer a case to the Court of Appeal simply so as to require it to, as it were, have another go at a case which it is said to have got wrong. It would be quite wrong for the Home Secretary's powers of intervention to be used merely because, if the decision had rested with him, he might have taken a different view of the facts. He must therefore be satisfied that there is new material which goes to the heart of the matters on which the conviction was based; and when an application is made to him he must carefully differentiate between those pieces of evidence which are genuinely new and those which are mere restatements of points made when the courts were considering the case. He need not necessarily be satisfied, before referring a case to the Court of Appeal, that the new evidence is overwhelming; but he will want to be satisfied that it is relevant and cogent
  828
  in the sense, for example, of not being contradicted by other, undeniably more persuasive, evidence. I shall deal with Mrs. Livesey's case against that background. As the hon. Gentleman has told us, Mrs. Livesey was convicted at the Crown Court at Preston on 25 July 1979 of the murder of her son Alan, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. She subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against her conviction. Her application was refused on 17 September 1980 by a single judge empowered to consider such applications. She did not renew her application to the full Court of Appeal.
  On 22 February 1979, the day of the boy's death, following an evening spent with friends, Mrs. Livesey was given a lift home. According to her third and final statement to the police, immediately upon her return home an argument started between her and her son, and shortly afterwards she picked up a kitchen knife and stabbed him. She then left the house and went to the house of a friend—a Mrs. Matthews. Alan's body was found later that evening by Mrs. Matthews' son, Leslie, who had gone to the house at Mrs. Livesey's request. Alan had been stabbed 10 times in the face, neck and chest and his hands were tied behind his back. There was a sock around his neck and the gas taps were turned on. The police were summoned to the house at 11.28 pm. A pathologist put the time of Alan's death at about 11.10 pm but said that it could have occurred within one hour either way.
  The basis of the prosecution case, therefore, seems to have been Mrs. Livesey's statement and the evidence of her two next-door neighbours who said that they had heard her arguing with Alan at around 10.30 to 10.50 pm. In giving evidence before the jury, Mrs. Livesey denied that she killed her son and said that she "couldn't remember" having admitted to the police that she had done so. She said that she had made the statement in the first place only because the police were "going on" at her. She said she had left the public house at 10.50 pm., had been given a lift to the corner of the road, and had gone straight to Mrs. Matthews' house. She said that she did not go to her own house until Leslie Matthews returned and told her that Alan was dead.
  Mrs. Livesey has now served a little over four years of her life sentence. Let us be clear that during this time she has not petitioned the Home Secretary about the circumstances of her conviction. Nor, until the BBC took the matter up, were any representations received on her behalf at the Home Office. I now know that the hon. Member for Preston has been involved with the case from early in 1982. The first occasion upon which doubts about her conviction were brought to the notice of the Home Office was through the recent television programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I have seen. This is not, therefore, a case in which it can be suggested that the Home Office is being slow to take action to investigate a possible wrongful conviction. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that.
  I watched the television programme with interest, as I have watched all the programmes in the new "Rough Justice" series. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are, of course, every bit as anxious as anyone else that any cogent suggestion that a wrongful conviction has occurred should be properly looked into.
  A little while before the programme was broadcast, but after we had received notice of it, the producer was asked by the Home Office to let us have any new and material evidence which suggested that a wrongful conviction had

  829
  occurred so that it could be carefully examined. The BBC has not sent us its material, but last Wednesday, 9 November written representations on behalf of Mrs. Livesey were sent to us from the organisation Justice, with which the BBC collaborated in the series. These representations are commendably clear and comprehensive. They appear to cover, and in some respects helpfully to expand upon, the points made in the television programme. The hon. Gentleman has obviously had the advantage, as he made clear, of seeing Justice's representations.
  I hope that the House will accept that we have not been able to examine, thoroughly and conclusively, the representations in the very few days since we received them. I am therefore not able today to say whether my right hon. and learned Friend will conclude that it is right to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. But the hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to know our first reaction and how we intend to reach a conclusion, and I can offer him and the House some significant assistance this evening.
  The first step now must be to see what is new and what, of that, is relevant in the representations that we have received. That is, of course, entirely the normal procedure. Where we find that new points are raised which
  830
  might go to the heart of the conviction, my right hon. and learned Friend will normally instigate a police investigation into these matters. In this case, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is apparent that the representations newly received merit a fresh police investigation, and that is how we intend to proceed.
  As for who should carry' out the investigation, I am, of course, aware that one of the central issues is the reliability of the admissions that Mrs. Livesey made to the police. I have therefore reached the view, without in any way prejudging the merits, that it would be right in these circumstances to have the inquiries made by police officers from a different force. We have discussed all that with the chief constable of Lancashire, who is wholly content to proceed in that way.
  I hope that those steps will commend themselves to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. Once the police report is received, my right hon. and learned Friend and I can then properly consider the case as a whole and determine what should be done in the best interests of justice.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Minister for Fisheries
  Minister for Fisheries
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ethnic Minority Staff)
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ethnic Minority Staff)
  Darlington
  Darlington
  NHS Hospitals
  NHS Hospitals
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Health Expenditure
  Health Expenditure
  World Population
  World Population
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Village Hall, Stanton
  Village Hall, Stanton
  Road Injuries (Compensation)
  Road Injuries (Compensation)
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Custodial Remand
  Custodial Remand
TRANSPORT
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Goole and Gilderdyke Bridge
  Goole and Gilderdyke Bridge
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Coaches (Motorways)
  Coaches (Motorways)
  Serpell Report
  Serpell Report
ENERGY
  Isles of Scilly
  Isles of Scilly
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
THE ARTS
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Office of Arts and Libraries (Annual Report)
  Office of Arts and Libraries (Annual Report)
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
CIVIL SERVICE
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Overseas Travel
  Overseas Travel
  Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates
  Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates
  Overseas Personnel
  Overseas Personnel
  Grenada
  Grenada
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Supervision Orders
  Supervision Orders
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Slough (Public Disorder)
  Slough (Public Disorder)
  Overseas Personnel
  Overseas Personnel
  Remembrance Day
  Remembrance Day
  Cable Services
  Cable Services
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Neighbourhood Watch
  Neighbourhood Watch
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  "A Plan for Action"
  "A Plan for Action"
  Electrical Equipment
  Electrical Equipment
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Overseas Personnel
  Overseas Personnel
  Duty-free Imports
  Duty-free Imports
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  British Telecom (Equipment Approvals)
  British Telecom (Equipment Approvals)
  Monopolies and Mergers
  Monopolies and Mergers
  2,4,5-T (Imports)
  2,4,5-T (Imports)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government (Redundancies)
  Local Government (Redundancies)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Housing Investment
  Housing Investment
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Stock (London Boroughs)
  Housing Stock (London Boroughs)
  Underwater Heritage
  Underwater Heritage
  Rate Support Grant (Newham)
  Rate Support Grant (Newham)
  Housing (Leicester)
  Housing (Leicester)
  Captive Balloon Advertising
  Captive Balloon Advertising
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Office Development
  Office Development
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Paint (Lead Levels)
  Paint (Lead Levels)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Cornwall (European Community Support)
  Cornwall (European Community Support)
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  European Community (Intervention Costs)
  European Community (Intervention Costs)
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Herring Fishery
  Herring Fishery
WALES
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Patients (Referrals)
  Patients (Referrals)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Health Authorities (Manpower)
  Health Authorities (Manpower)
  Cardiothoracic Services
  Cardiothoracic Services
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Welsh Water Authority
  Welsh Water Authority
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
EMPLOYMENT
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Dyslexic Children
  Dyslexic Children
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Prefabricated Steel Bridges
  Prefabricated Steel Bridges
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Open Enrolment
  Open Enrolment
  Hereford and Worcester
  Hereford and Worcester
  School Curriculum Development Committee
  School Curriculum Development Committee
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Double Taxation Convention
  Double Taxation Convention
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Gibraltar (Double Taxation Relief)
  Gibraltar (Double Taxation Relief)
  Cuba (Agreement)
  Cuba (Agreement)
  Unitary Tax
  Unitary Tax
  Greenham Common Air Base
  Greenham Common Air Base
DEFENCE
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  United States Air Forces Bases
  United States Air Forces Bases
  Visiting Forces Act 1952
  Visiting Forces Act 1952
SCOTLAND
  Wild Birds (Control)
  Wild Birds (Control)
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Blackburn-Orlit Houses
  Blackburn-Orlit Houses
  Rate Support Grant (Dundee)
  Rate Support Grant (Dundee)
  Teachers (Tayside)
  Teachers (Tayside)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Vacancies)
  NHS (Vacancies)
  Nurses (Hours)
  Nurses (Hours)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Dundee)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Dundee)
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Health Boards (Bad Debts)
  Health Boards (Bad Debts)
  Travelling People
  Travelling People
  Generating Capacity
  Generating Capacity
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Electricity
  Electricity
  NHS (Griffiths Report)
  NHS (Griffiths Report)
  Parents' Charter
  Parents' Charter
  Education (Staff Statistics)
  Education (Staff Statistics)
  NHS (Efficiency)
  NHS (Efficiency)
  Closures (Consultation)
  Closures (Consultation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Fair Wages
  Fair Wages
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  Parades
  Parades
  Annual Report (Departmental Work)
  Annual Report (Departmental Work)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs Bill
  Drugs Bill
  Inner Cities (Primary Care)
  Inner Cities (Primary Care)
  Pacemakers
  Pacemakers
  National Association for Limbless Disabled
  National Association for Limbless Disabled
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  RAWP Formula
  RAWP Formula
  Family Doctors (Inner Cities)
  Family Doctors (Inner Cities)
  Disabled Persons (Chair Lifts)
  Disabled Persons (Chair Lifts)
  Health Districts (Resources)
  Health Districts (Resources)
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  Tinnitus
  Tinnitus
  Mid-Sussex (District General Hospital)
  Mid-Sussex (District General Hospital)
  National Health Service (Waiting Lists)
  National Health Service (Waiting Lists)
  Ex-patients (Accommodation)
  Ex-patients (Accommodation)
  Community First Aid Posts (Emergencies)
  Community First Aid Posts (Emergencies)
  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Families (Young Children)
  Families (Young Children)
  Family Support
  Family Support
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Generic Prescribing
  Generic Prescribing
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  National Health Service (Privatisation)
  National Health Service (Privatisation)
  Private Hospitals (Inspection)
  Private Hospitals (Inspection)
  Chemotherapy (Cancer Treatment)
  Chemotherapy (Cancer Treatment)
  South London Hospital for Women
  South London Hospital for Women
  Peterlee Community Hospital
  Peterlee Community Hospital
  Regional Health Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Regional Health Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Alternative Medicines
  Alternative Medicines
  Association of Directors of Social Services
  Association of Directors of Social Services
  Drugs Prescribing
  Drugs Prescribing
  National Health Service (Beds)
  National Health Service (Beds)
  Northumberland and Newcastle Health Authorities
  Northumberland and Newcastle Health Authorities
  National Health Service (Consultants)
  National Health Service (Consultants)
  Health Service Resources
  Health Service Resources
  Family Practitioner Services (Expenditure Report)
  Family Practitioner Services (Expenditure Report)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Benefits (Increases)
  Benefits (Increases)
  Tobacco Products (Advertising)
  Tobacco Products (Advertising)
  Patient Treatment
  Patient Treatment
  State Pension
  State Pension
  Supplementary Benefit (Pensioners)
  Supplementary Benefit (Pensioners)
  Poor Persons
  Poor Persons
  Benefits (Office Mergers)
  Benefits (Office Mergers)
  Single-handed Fishermen (National Insurance Contributions)
  Single-handed Fishermen (National Insurance Contributions)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Southend Health Authority
  Southend Health Authority
  Social Workers (Misconduct)
  Social Workers (Misconduct)
  Specialist Claims Control Units
  Specialist Claims Control Units
  Advisory Committees
  Advisory Committees
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Health Authorities (Manpower)
  Health Authorities (Manpower)
  Osmosin
  Osmosin
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Social Security Advisory Committee
  Social Security Advisory Committee
  Elderly Mentally Ill Persons
  Elderly Mentally Ill Persons

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Lord Wilson of Rievaulx
The Right Honourable Sir James Harold Wilson, KG, OBE, having been created Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, of Kirklees in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Longford (Lord Pakenham) and the Lord Shackleton.

Lord Bruce-Gardyne
John Bruce-Gardyne, Esquire, having been created Baron Bruce-Gardyne, of Kirkden in the District of Angus, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Elton and the Lord McAlpine of Moffat.
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

NHS: Staff Consultations
2.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have held or plan to hold with the trade unions representing National Health Service employees regarding the future of the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the normal channel for consultation with National Health Service interests is the staff side of the General Whitley Council, on which trade unions and professional bodies covering NHS employees are represented. My honourable friend the Minister for Health saw staff side representatives yesterday to hear their views on matters of current concern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services meets the TUC Health Services Committee from time to time to discuss matters of topical interest. Meetings were held on 7th July and 12th September, and a further meeting will probably be held early in the new year.
There have also been discussions among my honourable friend and members of the committee on long-term pay determination arrangements for the National Health Service. Three such meetings have been held since July. My right honourable friend will also be meeting the General Secretary of the TUC and members of the General Council on 24th November to discuss future funding of the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's very comprehensive reply. I am sure he will agree that it is confirmation that the Government recognise the authority and knowledge of all those who are engaged in running the health service and who, via their associations, can respond and make recommendations to the Government. Inasmuch as there might be argument as to whether or not the National Health Service is facing difficulties, there seems to be among the staff representatives the need for a comprehensive meeting, apart from the meetings which the Minister has already outlined. May I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government would consider that perhaps the Whitley Council, the TUC and all the others involved should have a conference with the Minister in charge to discuss the future of the National Health Service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend and honourable friend will note what the noble Lord says. The Government are always willing to hear and consider the views of National Health Service trade unions on matters of mutual concern, but, as the noble Lord will know, at the end of the day it is for the Government to make up their mind on health policies.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give an assurance that the Government will consider extending the period during which staff cuts have to be made? The evidence shows that insufficient time has been allowed for proper discussion as to reorganisation. Will the Minister therefore discuss with the TUC and the staff organisations the possibility of an extension or delay?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, that will not, I fear, be possible. As the noble Lord knows, the manpower targets for achievement by 31st March 1984 have already been settled with all 14 regional health authorities in England.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that anxiety about the future of the National Health Service is by no means restricted to the trade unions representing National Health Service employees? Is the Minister aware that, in addition, the British Medical Association and the General Nursing Council are very anxious—as, indeed, are patients and potential patients? May I ask the Minister to use his influence to persuade his right honourable friend to consult the community health councils, who will be able to give him a clear picture of how the National Health Service now looks to the patients who are having to use it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the National Health Service unions not affiliated to the TUC, if they are what the noble Lord is referring to, do meet Ministers from time to time, and they account for about 150,000 people. So far as the community health councils are concerned, I believe that my honourable friend the Minister of Health is going to see them today.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, there are

1147
many professional associations within the National Health Service and elsewhere who are a little shy of calling themselves trade unions but who nevertheless have a specific point of view. Would the Minister therefore consider, in so far as concerns the people he mentioned—the Whitley Councils and the trade unions—who might have specific points of view to put forward, that if they were brought together for one day to assist the Secretary of State it would be of benefit to the Secretary of State, to the Government, to patients and to all aspects of the National Health Service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I really think that I answered the noble Lord's question when I spoke earlier.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, accept that the cuts are much greater than those announced, as there were something like 7,000 vacancies at the time they were imposed?
Lord Glenarthur: That is another question, my Lords, and we have already debated the NHS at some considerable length last week.

The Falkland Islands: Immigration
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Britons have emigrated to the Falkland Islands.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, immigration is a matter for the Falkland Islands Government. However, I understand that since June 1982 approximately 29 Britons have arrived in the Falklands with the intention of settling permanently.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, of course I accept precisely that which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said; that immigration is fundamentally the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Government. I may remind the noble Lord that there have been times when we have said that the Government of the Falkland Islands need our assistance as well.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, there is one aspect which is giving concern in the Falkland Islands and to Britons with farming experience who would like to go there. Is the noble Lord aware that the Falkland Islands Sheepowners' Association purports to represent all farmers, including the ordinary Falkland islander, as well as the Falklands Islands company managed by Coalite with the very smallest tenants? However, there is some concern that insofar as this is a limited company which meets secretly, it ought not to call itself the tenants' association because it represents no one except those very closely associated with that limited company? Will the Government be prepared
1148
to look at that point to see whether they can rectify it to the benefit and help of all Falkland islanders?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I was not aware of that organisation. I have read of many other organisations but I was not aware of that one. Perhaps we might discuss it later.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that any settlement in the Falkland Islands must present a very uncertain future unless we are able to normalise relations with Argentina? Can he therefore say when that process might start?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I believe that is another question for another day.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many people have actually left the Falklands Islands permanently during the period when the 29 Britons arrived there; and how many people who are ordinarily resident in the Falkland Islands that leaves as at today's date?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, since the end of hostilities, approximately 35 islanders have left permanently. As to the exact population as at today's date, I am unaware of that, but I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with the precise figure.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as the Falkland Islands are a Crown colony, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government about emigration—or do they not have one?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for the individuals and for the Falkland Islands Council.
Lord Morris: My Lords, of the 29 new residents, how many of them are single women?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I believe that there are three "Mrs." and one "Miss"; although I could not say whether they are suitable as single women for the purposes of my noble friend's question.

GLC Spending: Comparisons
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: 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 by how much GLC spending rose between 1979–80 and 1982–83 and how this compares with the rise in prices generally, and whether they will provide the same information in relation to the Metropolitan Authorities.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the latest estimates that I have suggest that the GLC's net current expenditure rose by 75 per cent. between 1979–80 and

1149
1982–83. Over the same period, general prices in the economy as measured by the GDP deflator increased by 40 per cent. Net current expenditure of the metropolitan counties rose by 61 per cent. over that period.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Regrettably he did not differentiate between 1979–80 and 1982–83. There are I believe significant differences. Does he agree that that is so? Does he not also agree that there is a direct relationship between expenditure and the rate precept, and that in the past two years in particular the rate precept has risen at an alarming rate and has caused difficulty and even hardship to residential ratepayers and actual damage to business and industry in the areas influenced by the authority?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not quite clear about the additional statistics my noble friend requires when she says that I did not give her the Answer she expected or required on the figures between 1979–80 and 1982–83. The figures I gave are the figures which are the facts. As to the second point, the 118 per cent. increase in the rate precept over the last two years by the GLC is quite enormous and compares with a 20 per cent. average across the rest of the country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to complete the Answer to the noble Baroness's Question by giving the other element in the rates; that is, the amount of Government grant? Will he indicate what part of the rate increase is accounted for by a decrease in Government grant?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the question of Government grant is really a matter for the GLC themselves. They can be within or without grant according to the levels of expenditure they decide to incur. The reason they are out of grant at the present time is because their expenditure is some £300 million over the target set.
Noble Lords: Answer the question!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would not the picture he more complete if the noble Lord advised the House that central Government expenditure over the same period has increased by 55 per cent. while the RPI has gone up by 38 per cent? Bearing in mind that over the same period the GLC and other London boroughs have suffered a net grant loss of more than £1,000 million, and bearing in mind that when they and the other metropolitan authorities were elected in 1981 they were elected on a programme of increased expenditure, and the rates that went with them, why do not the Government trust the people and have elections for the GLC and the other metropolitan boroughs in 1985?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord has put a whole series of questions. First of all, the statistics the noble Lord gives regarding Government expenditure are not correct. If one tries to draw a proper comparison, one should look at things like expenditure on defence, the health service, social security and so on, which are really matters which are
1150
quite apart. To get a really meaningful comparison one ought to look at the manpower statistics. The reduction by local government over the period 1979–83 has been 4 per cent. Incidentally, that figure is now rising again. Over the same period, for the Civil Service it has been 11 per cent. If I may say so, in my own department that figure is now 30 per cent.
As to the other questions, in regard, first of all, to the £1,000 million, or whatever figure the noble Lord mentioned in connection with reduction of grant, I must give the answer I gave earlier that the GLC has suffered a reduction in grant for no other reason than that their own expenditure figures have been so much over the target figures that they have been in penalties. It is no use the noble Lord asking who started anything; the fact is that other local authorities around the country manage their affairs within the targets set, and this authority chooses not to do so. So they must not complain if there is no grant.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sharp increase in rate levels imposed by the GLC is having a very serious effect on the economic life of the capital city, involving the withdrawal of many offices from London to the provinces? Will he confirm that dealing with this danger is one of the purposes which Her Majesty's Government have in mind in the forthcoming legislation?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do indeed confirm what my noble friend says. Those who would try to pretend that this is not a significant factor in what is happening in employment within the areas concerned are really misleading themselves and others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister accept—I am sure he will be able to confirm this by reading Hansard—that I did not ask him why the Government grant to the GLC had gone down, nor who started it, but by how much it had gone down? Would the noble Lord be good enough to answer that question?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I will certainly write in detail to the noble Lord giving him a list of the figures for each year. I hope that will be helpful to him.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has any figures with regard to the values by which the rateable base has gone down as a result of the withdrawal of industry and offices and other people from London; because this is a very serious consideration in regard to this particular question.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the figures that I think the noble Viscount would like me to give are not those that I would readily bring to answer a Question such as that on the Order Paper, but I shall certainly be glad to write to the noble Viscount.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend understand from me that when earlier I was asking about the difference I wanted him to confirm—and, can he now do so?—that between 1979 and 1980 under the Conservative controlled GLC

1151
there was only a small rise in the rate precept but that from 1981 to 1983 there was a rise of over 100 per cent. in the rate precept? This shows a remarkable difference in expenditure. Will my noble friend also confirm whether he is aware of the fact that £120 million was the total lost grant in a recent year and that that £120 million bore no resemblance to the many hundreds of millions of over-spending?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I certainly confirm the first point made by my noble friend. I mentioned a figure of 118 per cent. as the increase in precept over the past two years. I am aware that the figure under the previous Conservative Administration was much less. But again, when referring to the specific amounts of grant lost each year, one must qualify the word "lost" because it is lost if there is a penalty, and that has happened with the GLC because of its massive over-spending.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all of us who know anything about managing the economy agree that there is a problem in controlling public and local authority expenditure, but that the method chosen by this Government is grossly unjust because it penalises the poorest areas in the country, which have the greatest collection of social and physical problems? Is the noble Lord also aware that in the North-East of England—the area with the highest unemployment in Great Britain of sometimes 30 or 40 per cent.—the figure of £30 million has been withheld in grant? Is not this grossly unfair?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to agree with his assessment of the reasons for loss of grant. The fact is that there is a basis of assessment of need which applies throughout the whole country to everyone. It is a method which is clearly there for everyone to question in detail if they so wish. Grants are then given on that basis. The Government believe that it is critical to contain the 25 per cent. of total public expenditure which represents local government expenditure in the context of managing the economy. That is why the Government have set down systems to try, in the first place, to exhort, or otherwise penalise, those authorities who will not do what local authorities have always done in the past—that is, to work within parameters set down by central Government. It is the failure to do that which is causing the problem.

East Timor: Military Operations
3.2 p.m.
Lord Avebury: 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 reports they have received about the build-up of Indonesian troops in East Timor since the middle of August, and the military operations which have been undertaken there by Indonesia.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, firm information is hard to come by. But it is clear that the ceasefire in
1152
East Timor which had been in effect since the beginning of the year has come to an end.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has not the Foreign Secretary said in correspondence with a number of people that there was a substantial build-up of Indonesian troops in East Timor? Has the noble Lord studied reports that the number of such troops may amount to between 10,000 and 20,000, and that helicopters and planes are being deployed in the attack on the people of East Timor which—does the noble Lord agree?—was clearly premeditated? Will he bear in mind the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross was prevented from operating in the territory from July onwards, just before the attack took place?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, Indonesia has certainly sent extra troops to East Timor; but, as the noble Lord himself made clear, estimates of the number vary. It seems unlikely that operations have been extensive, given the small number of active Fretilin guerrillas involved, and we would expect that military operations will have to end shortly when the rainy season begins. As regards relief organisations, yes I am aware, and I am aware that my right honourable friend is aware, of the situation concerning the ICRC, but it seems that a number of other relief organisations continue to operate in East Timor and these include the United States Catholic Relief and UNICEF.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of this unprovoked aggression and virtual annexation of East Timor, which I understand the Government have condemned, and the appalling violations of human rights—again, I understand that over 100,000 people in East Timor have been killed—why are the Government still selling armaments to Indonesia? Can the noble Lord say why the Government failed to support the United Nations Resolution supporting self-determination for East Timor?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the figures to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, refers are his figures. They are speculative. Of course, we will continue to watch the situation closely but no grounds exist at present for formal representation. The noble Lord may like to know that we are in touch with the Indonesian Government and they are fully aware of our interest in this matter. As regards arms sales, this is a difficult matter. Many factors must be taken into account, including the effect of such sales on employment in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord knows, all sales require an export licence and each application is carefully considered.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to my figures as speculative. Does he not agree however that serious violations of human rights have taken place in East Timor? In those circumstances how does he justify the sale of armaments by Great Britain to Indonesia, which is guilty of these violations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it would not be appropriate to adopt any arms embargo against Indonesia. We have excellent relations with Indonesia.

1153
Furthermore, there is no mandatory United Nations arms embargo against Indonesia.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the total number of people who have perished in East Timor since the occupation by Indonesia in 1975 is estimated by competent authorities at between 150,000 and 200,000. Bearing in mind this enormous carnage committed by an aggressor nation on this tiny territory, does not the noble Lord think that reasons of economic self-interest pale into insignificance? Will he reflect on the remarks that he has just made to the House when next the question of American arms sales to Argentina occurs, because surely there is a parallel there? In both cases aggression was committed on a small and defenceless people; but in one case the Government are saying that the Americans should not supply arms to the aggressor but are busily supplying arms to the aggressor in the other situation.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly do not intend getting involved in any discussion about Argentina which is the subject of another question altogether. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would the Minister agree that he is probably a little optimistic in suggesting that the rainy season will stop these operations? Is he further aware that those of us who were in the Somme in 1915 were standing up to our waists in water for weeks on end and that did not stop operations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am interested to hear the noble Lord's anecdotes; but I think there is evidence to support what I said, that the coming of the rainy season should end these operations.

Cyprus: Turkish Declaration of Independence
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish community in Cyprus.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lyell will answer this Question in the way of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available at the usual time of 7.30 this evening.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 34 and paragraphs 10, 1112 and 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to
1154
the Standing Orders shall apply to the motions in the name of the Lord Pitt of Hampstead and the Lord Strabolgi set down for Wednesday 30th November.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Council (Moneys) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Crimes of Violence
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury rose to call attention to the need to examine new ways of reducing crimes of violence in the light of the recent decision of the House of Commons that capital punishment should not be reintroduced; and to move for Papers.
The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper. This House is full of experts on this subject, but the subject itself is one that cuts across party lines, so it seems appropriate for a Cross-Bencher to open the debate. Since this subject raises deep and difficult ethical issues, it is proper for an Archbishop to speak on it and to listen.
Perhaps I may say a word about the background to this Motion. When it was first tabled, the question of capital punishment had just been debated in another place. I do not want to repeat today the reasons which led me and others to oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty for certain types of very serious crime. It may, however, be helpful if I recall some remarks which I made immediately after the result of the debate in the other place was announced. I made three points. The first was that in the public mind capital punishment seems to provide a short-cut solution to very serious crime. It does not. The second was that we need to initiate a much wider debate about the causes and prevention of crime, about the treatment of offenders and about the conditions in our prisons. The third was that, while it is proper to have concern for criminals, our society has perhaps shown too little concern for their victims.
Events have moved on since that evening in July in that the Government have now announced their decision to ensure that for certain crimes of quite exceptional violence criminals will serve longer periods in prison. This is the first opportunity which this House has had to consider these decisions and they are bound to figure in this debate. I hope, nevertheless, that they will not be allowed to overshadow a number of other issues to which the Government have yet to address themselves.
In response to the measures which the Home Secretary has already announced, I should like to make four points. First, I understand the public concern which has led to these decisions. I accept that society has a right to express its utter abhorrence of certain crimes by ensuring that quite exceptional periods are spent in prison by those committing them. I hope, nevertheless, that it may he possible to review these policies in due course. Secondly, the introduction of longer periods in prison, even for only

1155
a relatively small proportion of prisoners, makes the matter of acceptable and humane prison conditions more urgent than ever. I sometimes wonder whether we realise sufficiently the consequences by way of strain and suffering for prison warders and fellow prisoners.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will take seriously the evidence gained from those places where the criminal is involved in the constructive understanding of the origins of his behaviour. Peper Harow and Grenden Underwood are two such places with which I have been personally associated. If this process does not take place during confinement, the opportunity for change to the community's benefit, and the individual's, is lost.
Fourthly—and this is obviously of greatest importance for me—we must never forget that the Christian belief in God on which the ethical framework of our country has been built combines a realism about the fundamental corruption of human nature with a determination not to despair about the potential in everyone for redemption. It is an ethic which draws its inspiration from a unique marriage of discipline and compassion. That is the face of God in Jesus Christ.
Of course, the great bulk of crimes of violence, thankfully, are not of the type for which these longer penalties are designed. It would be most unfortunate if the natural public concern about the activities of a relatively small number of terrorists and professional criminals diverted our attention from the evils and suffering which result from the very much larger incidence of other types of violence in our society. It is to this subject that I hope much of today's debate will be devoted and to which I now turn.
In approaching violent crime, we should not be misled by sensational newspaper reports, but nor must we doubt that there is a very real problem. We may be comforted by comparisons between our cities and, for example, New York and Chicago. These are, however, the wrong comparisons to make. Britain in the 1920s and 1930s was not a violent society. We cannot say this today of life in our great cities where the incidence of violence has, in certain areas, reached quite terrifying proportions and sometimes takes extraordinarily cruel and perverted forms. I hope that this debate may focus on the problem of gratuitous evil: the elderly person casually and brutally assaulted; the young football fan in the crowd stabbed for no apparent reason; the baby slashed with a razor blade so that his mother yields up the few coins in her purse. This is the sort of violence which kills communities: the threat which leads people to hide behind their shutters, even when—at least statistically—they are unlikely to be victims. We must remember that the threat of violence is as corrosive of a society as violence itself.
The problem of violence is moral and spiritual. It is not just social and environmental. Violence is one of the expressions of egoism. If you are self-centred it becomes easy to regard fellow human beings as objects, inferior, unworthy of respect and legitimate targets. This is a moral question. It is a religious question of what it is to be a human being. But there
1156
are environmental factors. In themselves, poverty, deprivation and unemployment do not necessarily lead to violence. But higher expectations, and their consistent frustration, will inevitably encourage lawlessness, and the physical condition of the inner city can offer in itself a provocation to violence, as well as the most frequent opportunities to profit from it. We should be deluding ourselves if we were to deny the existence of a very large number of people who live on the margins of society, their lives bounded by urban dereliction, the decay and boredom of mean streets and the indignity of the dole.
I want now to look at some of the ways in which, as a society, we can try to reverse some of the failures of the past. Many of your Lordships will remember a remark which the Lord Chief Justice made in this House in March 1982:
"neither police nor courts nor prison can solve the problem of the rising crime rate. By the time that the criminal falls into the hands of the police, and more particularly by the time he reaches court, it is too late. The damage has been done. The remedy, if it can be found, must be sought a great deal earlier".—[Official Report, 24.3.82; col. 988–9]
I believe we must start with the home and the school. The prevention of violence—like its occurrence—will be closely linked to family life. If violence in parents can often lead to violence in children, equally parents can do much to prevent it. Yet all too often in Britain there is not so much an absence of parental love as a failure of parental nerve. Unless we can do more to strengthen families and to reduce the frightening increase in divorce and separation we shall not he getting at the roots of violence. The volume of concern is such that a determined effort to re-establish the authority of parents and the necessity of firm values would be met not only with success but with relief.
But the burden of such teaching will not fall on parents alone: our schools are crucial. They will determine largely whether children serve the community or react against it and whether they appreciate or exploit the needs and fears of its more vulnerable members. There are already many remarkable "community education" projects in existence, and they are staffed by exceptionally dedicated and imaginative teachers. At the same time, however, many of our schools are the breeding ground for precisely the kind of mindless, tribal violence which it should be their task to outlaw. Such a tradition of violence, once generated inside the school, flows outward to the street and the football terraces, to the home, and ultimately back to the school. It is essential that the cycle of violence be attacked at every point and inhibitions against it instilled in our children as early and as frequently as possible in their lives.
Schools are very much a reflection of the society which they serve, and without external commitment both to good values and to the restoration of real purpose for our young people, the schools alone will be able to do little. I was impressed by the recent report of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group entitled, The Prevention of Crime among Young People. I believe that its analysis and recommendations should be widely circulated within the teaching profession.
I now want to turn to the role which communities can themselves play in these matters. We badly need

1157
today a heightened sense of community. In the Christian Gospels we are enjoined to love our neighbours. Modern society shows that not only is compliance with this commandment morally right; it is essential if the weak and lonely are to be safe from attack, if the sick are not to suffer alone, and if the old are to enjoy the dignity which they deserve.
In his lecture to the Howard League last January, Sir Kenneth Newman had some wise words to say about this question in relation to crime. His view is that,
"police acting alone cannot make a fundamental impact on crime".
The efficient detection of crime requires active participation and co-operation by the public. In his talk he mentioned some research carried out in the University of Manchester which evaluated the extent to which members of the public actively contributed to police arrests. The study found that almost 70 per cent. of arrests were initiated in some way by the public. This kind of thinking is leading to the emphasis of police policy shifting from the potential offenders and their motivation to potential victims and their environment. It seems to me that the concerns—and the views—of the victim have been too little considered by our society in dealing with these matters. He or she is too often the silent and forgotten person in the drama.
My attention has also been drawn to some work by Dr. Joanna Shapland, of Oxford University, which has argued for a victim-centred system for compensation and victim assistance. I believe that the public would be genuinely interested to know more of this kind of thinking in our efforts to improve the criminal justice system which we now have. I have also been interested and impressed by the progress of the National Association of Victims' support schemes. Encouragement of such schemes should, in my view, be a primary component of future penal policy.
A considerable virtue of such schemes is, in my opinion, the way that they bring together representatives of different parts of the community—from local commerce, from the police and from other agencies involved in social work. Such co-operation is something which the Churches have tried to foster, for it is a fundamental part of our belief that we belong to one another.
Another area in which much can be done is the physical condition of some of our run-down city areas, and in particular some of their worst housing estates. It is regrettable that so many flats and houses should remain empty when there is a general housing shortage. Overcrowding is a significant factor in much domestic violence. The standard of a person's home has a fundamental impact both on his self-esteem and on the way that he runs his life. Community violence, community fear and community disorganisation follow hard on neighbourhood decay. Let us try to mobilise people to take an interest in the maintenance of their evironment. Give people a stake in their community and we shall find them more willing to defend it.
Your Lordships may know that I have recently set up a commission to look into ways in which the Churches can better help those who live in urban priority areas. And we do have some knowledge of
1158
these matters, for we are one of the few organisations whose official personnel both live and work in deprived areas. This is very important from the point of view of all parties in such a relationship, and a matter in which I think that the example of the Church could be followed. I would urge that those agencies which operate in our inner cities should encourage their employees to do likewise.
I feel that I should mention three matters which, I believe, have an influence on the incidence of violent crime, and which could give us cause for concern. The first is the burgeoning of "video nasties". Most of us have little first-hand experience of this phenomenon, but it is clear from a recent showing of some examples to Members of another place that this is a deeply disturbing phenomenon—something wholly different in kind from what we are accustomed to see on television or in the cinema. I am glad that this matter has been raised through the Private Member's Bill recently given a second reading in another place. I hope that we may soon have an opportunity of considering the matter in this House. A society which genuinely wants to curb the incidence of violent crime must confront this frightening influence for evil.
Secondly, there is the influence of television. I know the extreme care that is taken by the broadcasting authorities—and I cannot deal with this matter in any detail—but I find it hard to accept that a daily diet of mayhem and murder does not have a cumulative desensitising effect. I think also that many will share my deep apprehension at what may happen when many more TV channels become available.
Thirdly, I must mention the problem of violence induced by alcohol. We all know that there is a problem here, not least among young people. I have no wish to see the legitimate enjoyment of the many prejudiced by the foolish behaviour of the few, in this or any other field. But there is a relationship between alcoholism and violence, and I should like to see more resources being devoted to these matters. It would surely be sensible if some of the proceeds of the revenue gained by the sale of alcohol could be seen to be devoted to health education and detoxification centres. This would in itself serve to remind people that alcohol can be a plague as well as a pleasure.
I want finally, and I am afraid rather briefly, to put forward some thoughts about the criminal justice system itself. Whatever may be the pros and cons of long periods in prison for a hardened criminal of the kind I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, I believe that most of us would agree that alternatives to custodial sentences—and certainly to long custodial sentences—are desirable for a great number of those convicted of less serious crimes. A good deal has already happened in this area. My purpose today is simply to ask whether more could not be done, and done more quickly. I am impressed by the success that seems to have been achieved by community service schemes as an alternative to prison in certain circumstances. I know that this puts a heavy burden on the probation service, but it has achieved an acceptance by the courts, by the community and by the offenders; and, as David Mathieson, the Chief Probation Officer of Merseyside, said in another Howard League lecture, it has helped all concerned to see the offender,

1159
"not just as someone who needs something done to him, but as someone who—given the right opportunities—is capable of doing something constructive himself".
I should also like to see developed further the concept and practice of direct reparation in our criminal justice system.
I have tried in this introductory speech to cover a lot of ground and yet I am conscious that there is much that I have left unsaid. I want to end on a note of hope rather than gloom. We are right to be deeply concerned about the incidence of violent crime in our society, with the problems of prison overcrowding, and with our seeming failure to find solutions to these matters. My impression is that there is a great deal of work being done in these areas which is both realistic and constructive. For too long, the public has seemed to want to push these matters under the carpet. Perhaps the very size of the problems has now woken us up to the fact that there is which should start in the home and be continued work which not only can be done but which must be done and for which resources must be found. It is work in the schools, and which should involve every community. For the heart of this matter is the question of the kind of moral values on which we wish the life of our nation to be based. Only limited good can be done by Acts of Parliament, important as they are. Responsibility for these problems must be accepted by each one of us as individuals and by the community as a whole.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I wish to ask a question, if I may. May I ask the most reverend Primate one thing? We know that the Church and education are ready to help but what I, and, I know, many people would like to see, is that the Church should take a very much deeper interest in the problem of unemployment, which he put right at the bottom of his arguments.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I should like to say in reply that this is a subject on which I hope there will be more publicity. I believe that the Church is engaged in many projects and has many spokesmen dealing with that matter in relation to education. On another occasion, I should be very happy to respond in detail to the noble Baroness.
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I am sure that the House will share my own pleasure in welcoming the most reverend Primate back from his travels in partibus infidelium and will also rejoice to know that he has introduced for debate in this House this extremely important subject. I was also very glad to see—I am sure that my gladness will be shared by other members of the House—that, in addition to the Front Bench spokesmen, we shall shortly have the pleasure of hearing my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice speak to us again.
Violence is something which horrifies all right minded people, and all right minded people are almost daily agonised by terrible accounts of the circumstances attending murders and brutal assaults—some
1160
of the most macabre and almost unreal of which we have ever heard—violence at football matches, riots in city centres, rapes and child abuse, bombs and terrorist activities and, in other countries, massacres. I suppose that we are all disquieted by the belief, well founded and entirely borne out by the facts, that particularly, since the war, violence has increased almost steadily, is increasing, and, doubtless, has not reached its peak.
The crude statistics which, however, may be to some extent—but only to some extent—falsified by better methods of recording and must he read in the light of a rising population are, indeed shocking. My own opinion is that violence has been rising ever since about 1930. I am surprised and gratified to know that the most reverend Primate seems to have arrived quite independently at almost exactly the same figure. Prior to that date, I believe that it had been declining.
I therefore take as my baseline the year 1925. Taking that as the baseline, homicide has about doubled. But there are also about 30 times as many serious woundings, and nearly 20 times as many other serious crimes of violence. In the whole of 1925 only 650 cases regarded as serious cases of violence were recorded. By the end of the war, this figure had doubled to 1,300. But since then, it has rocketed; in 1955 to 1,600, in 1965 to 3,600, in 1975 to 6,200, and in 1982 to 6,500. It is, however, worth saying that, over a longer timescale, probably the number of murders per million of the population may actually be less than in Victorian times.
There is another yardstick. When I went to the Bar in 1932, there were four courts in the Old Bailey and the judges there, including the Recorder and the Common Serjeant, often used to help out with the civil business of the Mayors and City of London Court. There was a small criminal court complex at Newington Causeway and another in Parliament Square for the Middlesex Sessions. Now we have 25 courts at the Old Bailey—I think that is the figure. Newington Causeway has multiplied. The Old Middlesex Sessions Court in Parliament Square is still active and, in addition, there is Knightsbridge, there is the old Hans Crescent Hotel, there is Snaresbrook, there is Croydon and I know not what else.
The most reverend Primate's Motion, as he told us at the beginning of his speech, links the debate with the recent refusal of the House of Commons by a decisive majority to reintroduce capital punishment. I will not go into the merits of that argument nor will I in any way seek to reopen that debate. The fact is—at least, I think I am right in saying this—that never since 1948 has any House of Commons, on a free vote, supported the principle of capital punishment for murder, and never since, I believe, 1938 has it supported corporal punishment for robbery. Whatever the merits of these disputes, we cannot go on debating them for ever, and. even if we were to do so, it would be wholly intolerable, in my opinion, on any view, that the law should go in an out, to and fro, on either of these subjects according to the particular composition of the House of Commons at any particular time. Law and its enforcement must have a certain durability to be effective, and, may I say, to be respected. Therefore the most reverend Primate is clearly right. Sooner or later we must stop debating this subject, which has become infructuous, and get down to discussing new ideas for

1161
dealing with the situation or, as he puts it in his Motion, new ways.
No one, of course, will deny that the level and methods of policing and the levels and types of sentence in the criminal courts must play a central part in our discussion. Of course they must, if only because these things are matters for which Government and Parliament are responsible and which, within limits, are therefore within our control. They are the tools within our grasp, and their design and methods of use are therefore things which we must discuss.
At the same time, I should like to express my own view—which I found to my pleasure was echoed or, rather, initiated by the most reverend Primate—of the limitations on the influence which these tools can have on the course of events. We must use them for what they are worth, but, having used them, we must look further afield into the sources of crime, its causation and, if possible, its prevention. Here we are, indeed, on uncharted seas. My own view of crime, which seems to correspond in other words to what I believe the most reverend Primate has been saying, is that crime is an extension beyond reasonable limits and beyond acceptable limits by individuals, but still only an extension, of the general mores of society. I shall return to this topic when I come to discuss the later passages in the most reverend Primate's speech. In that I believe I am only perhaps echoing his words in less felicitous terms.
The origins of crime lie in evil motivation spilling out into overt action. That happens to be the Biblical view, and I believe it to be also historically proven. If a society glorifies or acquiesces in or condones hatred and violence in its talk, in its publications, in its actions; if it deifies lust; if it even worships covetousness and the acquisition of material things to the exclusion of more civilised and more civilising values; it will not be able, by the mere use of police methods or the imposition of deterrent sentences, or even the new methods of disposal advocated in the terms of the Motion, to prevent violence, dishonesty and sexual crime among the least law-abiding of its citizens. Police and criminal sanctions are necessary: but they are not enough. I must add that if, in addition to displaying these characteristics, a society takes pleasure in discouraging respect for the lawful authority of the state, whether in its executive, its legislative or its judicial arms, it will find the tendency to break the bounds of decency even less easy to control by police or criminal sanctions. I was interested to see in the recent Darwin lecture of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that he, too, had arrived at a somewhat similar conclusion.
The second general warning I would wish to give is that crimes of violence are not necessarily a single category of unlawful behaviour. Between the man who indulges in, let us say, racial violence, a man who uses violence in the course of a burglary, a man who rapes women or abuses little boys, a man who kills his wife or a woman who kills her husband, there is relatively little motivation in common. There was little motivation in common between, for instance, a Sutcliffe or a Nilsen and the little Irish girl I once defended for beating her two-year-old child to death. I was happy to note that the most reverend Primate's analysis made a direct mention of the correlation
1162
between violent crimes of one sort or another and the abuse of alcohol—and I would add, myself, also, the use of prohibited drugs. I am sure there is such a correlation, and any preventive action the state may take will he more than welcome. Perhaps it is possible for my noble and learned friend or others to expand on this.
Your Lordships will notice that, in the catalogue I mentioned above, except in two instances I used the word "man". I did so advisedly. In terms of criminality, however else, the sexes are not equal. Criminality of all sorts, but particularly, perhaps, crimes of violence, are predominantly a feature of male behaviour, and are particularly a disorder of young males. Of the prison population—and here I am not far wrong, but am to some extent guessing—of, say, 44,000, about 42,500 at any one time would be men. Not more than about 1,500 (of whom some would be civil offenders) will be women. Indeed, 45 per cent. of male offenders in crimes of violence would be under 21, and nearly a third of those would be under 17. If we are thinking of remedies, we cannot disregard gross facts of this kind.
But I must turn for a moment to Government measures. I do not believe that it would be true to say that the Government—any Government, for that matter. although it is only for this one that I can speak—or the judiciary have gone deliberately soft on crime. On the contrary, we (by which I mean this Government) have increased the numbers and improved the pay of the police. In the field of punishment, my right honourable friend recently announced a series of measures relating to criminal sanctions within the field of his own discretion designed to give increased effect to the sentences of the courts by postponing release in serious cases of violence. And, with suitable concessions to reasonable criticisms, he has re-introduced the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, as to which I will say nothing today as there will be ample opportunity later in the Session to discuss its proposals.
Nor would I think it convenient to comment on the most reverend Primate's suggestion that my right honourable friend's proposals be reviewed. On some of them there will have to be discussions with the parole board. But I am sure that the Home Secretary would also like to reply personally to any specific and constructive proposals the most reverend Primate or others would like to advance. It has to he said, however, that my right honourable friend's proposals were made against the background of grave public disquiet and against the knowledge that there are criminals whose conduct has been so grave that every other consideration may have to he postponed, under the authority of the courts and in accordance with judicial sentencing policy, to the necessity of preventing them from offending again.
Turning now to substantive law, there can be no doubt, I would say, that in general the maximum penalties are already long enough to give judges adequate scope. A life sentence is, of course, mandatory for murder; and life, or a very long determinate sentence, is permissible for manslaughter, rape, robbery and assaults with intent to do grievous bodily harm. These are only examples of the available maxima. We also intend to legislate to make a life

1163
sentence available as a maximum for carrying firearms in furtherance of crime. Within these maxima, sentencing policy itself is, of course, a matter for the judiciary primarily and, perhaps, alone.
I do not think, in the main, that it can be said—although it often is said—that judges sentence too lightly. But sentencing policy is and ought to remain essentially a matter for the judicial as distinct from the executive or legislative branches of government, in particular for the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. Excessive severity (where it exists in individual cases, and there are sure to be some from time to time) can of course be dealt with on appeal, and such appeals can be used as an occasion to give guidance on policy. When my right honourable friend's proposed legislation reaches the statute book, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) will also be able to deal in the same way with sentences alleged to show excessive lenience without incurring the constitutional difficulties as to double jeopardy and the ethical restraints on prosecuting counsel, which I pointed out at Question Time last summer.
I personally do not believe very much in the reformative possibilities of prison, though it is right in each case to do our best. I do not think it is, in general, likely to improve a man's character to deprive him of liberty, especially in conditions of three to a cell and slopping out in the morning. Of course, I am sure that incarceration has some deterrent effect. But what is certain is that while a man is inside prison his ability to harm innocent third parties is curtailed and, to some extent, prevented; and there are some people who have to be sentenced to long custodial sentences for this reason alone. It is for this reason that I regard a custodial sentence as the normal penalty to be expected for serious violence.
Of course, not all violent crimes merit custodial sentences at all. For some cases I have always advocated—and I was glad that the most reverend Primate echoed my words—hefty compensation orders followed by an order for costs. Reparation has a moral merit in deterring crime and possibly even in reforming the criminal.
I now come to the reference to the new ways referred to in the Motion. I agree with those who point out—as did the most reverend Primate—that ever since 1907 (that is, over my whole lifetime) other methods of disposal than custodial sentences have commended themselves: probation was I think the first and probably the most valuable of all, and more recently deferred or suspended sentence and community service, to which the most reverend Primate referred, and so on.
These methods are available over the whole field of crime, and have proved themselves. As this is not a general debate on law and order, I shall not further pursue the matter here, except to say, unfortunately, that the really serious crimes of violence on which I am concentrating are not perhaps the most promising fields for the introduction of these alternative methods. It is a field well ploughed, harrowed, sown and reaped, and I am not at the moment sure that other methods of disposal, other than those that have been mentioned by the most reverend Primate, or that
1164
I mentioned a moment ago, would have a significant effect on our problem.
I have considerable scepticism about what I might call the sociological explanation of crime which is fashionable in some quarters today. I believe that there is a factor of individual responsibility for doing wrong. I came to manhood in the 1930s when unemployment was rife and poverty far more widespread, and when wages were low. Housing was much worse and education largely stopped at the primary stage. But, as I have shown, in those days crimes of violence were much fewer. Not seldom judges on assize got a pair of white gloves, as we used to say. No doubt, of course, unemployment and poverty can be a source for crime. Long periods of enforced leisure undoubtedly provide an opportunity—perhaps a temptation—for misbehaviour. But except in that respect, I do not believe that there is the correlation that some people suppose.
There is such a thing as individual responsibility, and I personally have never seen a greater sense of human dignity of moral values than I saw in my youth among the very poor. My own belief is that it is really an insult to those suffering from social or economic conditions lower than those that we regard as acceptable to suggest that they cannot be expected to resist the temptation to lower their self-respect. No doubt such suggestions are compassionate and well-intentioned. but I do not believe that they do justice to human nature at its best.
I have always maintained that speed in the detection of crime, conviction and punishment has a favourable effect upon the maintenance of law and order. The delay for which I am departmentally responsible is the delay which elapses between committal and arraignment. I have always put the reduction of this delay high in order of priority among the responsibilities of my office. To achieve this reductions has the additional merit of relieving the innocent from anxiety or imprisonment on remand, and, in a system which relies so much as ours on oral evidence, of increasing the probability of a just result.
At the end of my first period of office, by dint of drastic and largely unrepeatable measures, I had succeeded in halving the figure to about eight weeks in the provinces and about 16 weeks in London and its environs. Alas! these figures had approximately doubled again by 1979, and since 1979 we have been struggling desperately to stand still. Despite the enormous increases in volume, we have made a little progress.
To give a picture of the increase in volume, between 1979 and 1982 the number of committals increased by just over one-third, from just less than 51,000 to just less than 68,000. By the end of this year, alas, the increase is likely to be 50 per cent. over 1979. Nevertheless, despite these figures, between 1979 and last June average waiting times have still gone down from just under 18 weeks to just over 14 weeks. I do not think that we shall do quite so well in the coming months. Currently there are 21,000 cases awaiting trial, 11,000 of which come from the south-eastern circuit.
I return from this short departmental issue to the main thrust of the most reverend Primate's speech. In

1165
passing, I have already referred, as did the most reverend Primate, to reparation, but this can only deal with a minority of crimes of violence. Violent criminals on the whole favour a cash economy and are not usually capable of paying much cash compensation, even when the dangerous nature of their proclivities does not preclude a non-custodial sentence.
This leads me to revert to what I thought in some ways was one of the most remarkable parts of the most reverend Primate's speech, namely, his reflections about the moral tone of society in general —to which I have already adverted—and his recognition of what I believe to be the truth, namely, that criminal behaviour is only an extension to an unusually unacceptable degree of the least praiseworthy features of the general mores of society. How about some of the old values as well as the new methods? I am oppressed—and I think that perhaps it is better for a layman to say this than even a Primate—with the physical dangers attendant on wickedness, not only to the innocent victims of crimes but also to the criminal himself. The wages of sin are not necessarily a popular subject for clerical leadership today. It took a Pope, speaking to his faithful in Drogheda, to say "Murder is murder is murder". But I was glad that the most reverend Primate said so too, although perhaps in less explicit language. I am also glad, if I may say so in passing, that he did not attempt to underestimate the seriousness of politically-motivated crime. In my book, politically-motivated crimes of violence are sometimes the most serious crimes of all, precisely because they spring from hatred.
When I hear of American or Irish courts refusing to extradite politically motivated murders, or even give public and unsolicited testimonials to those who publicly advocate murder, I am astonished at their inability to distinguish crimes which are in their nature political, like treason, sedition, or certain types of criminal libel, and those which are intrinsically ordinary crimes fuelled by hatred but motivated politically. In my book terrorist activity is not a mitigation of the offence. It is an aggravation.
Ordinary murder is bad enough. But when I see an Arab diplomat gunned down in central London by a fellow Moslem, I am not inclined to say that the murder is mitigated by its political or religious motive. Politically motivated murder is an attempt to overthrow civilised society by force, and the only excuse for not extraditing it is if a trial in accordance with proper justice cannot be guaranteed in the recipient country, and that is a matter which ought to be within the discretion of the executive.
However, wickedness is not restricted to political crimes. Nor is it restricted to criminals. History is littered with the ruins of societies which have glorified, condoned, or acquiesced in hatred, lust or greed that is the multiplication of wealth unaccompanied by any comparable service performed for others. The idea of divine punishment is rather out of fashion nowadays. I suppose it is because we are inclined to fear being accused of portraying the Deity as a petulant old gentleman upstairs who constantly loses his temper and discharges thunderbolts on the smallest provocation.
1166
That is not exactly how I regard the matter (although I say in passing that the thousands of nuclear weapons stocked on each side of the Iron Curtain are not wholly unlike thunderbolts either in appearance or in purpose). I regard morals as a sort of celestial highway code, disregard of which is accompanied by the greatest possible physical danger in this world not only to those who disregard its prescriptions but also to other and more innocent users of the highway. It is a mistake to suppose that these dangers are less seriously portrayed in the New than in the Old Testament. The Old Testament prohibits the act of killing. The New tells us in unmistakable terms that the origin of murder is hatred, and that we have already incurred the moral guilt if either we indulge in hatred ourselves or encourage it in others.
It is no good inveighing against rape if you glorify lust or encourage it in others, and it is no good inveighing against robbery or mugging if you believe that the acquisition of wealth need not be accompanied by service, or that in business or industrial relations you are entitled to cut corners or adopt an inferior or a second-class standard of honesty. So, if we see what we see on page 3 of a newspaper, or in other media, let us not be altogether surprised if on page 1 or page 5 we read the melancholy recital of homosexual murders, rapes, crimes like the Ripper's, muggings, woundings, burglaries, riots, kidnappings, or child abuse either by violence or sex.
I therefore agree with the most reverend Primate in bringing parents and teachers into the equation. And may I add neighbours, media, and the Churches to the list. Moral suasion and moral reprobation are I believe by far the greatest social sanction against crime. It is not simply a question of discipline or punishment. When I was in the Ministry of Education we used to say that every teacher was a teacher of English, good or bad. How true! How much more true it is—and how much more important—that not only every teacher but every parent, and I would add every neighbour, is a teacher of morals, and every writer in the media is of course even more responsible for the morals of the young and the old. The young are particulary intensely imitative and quick to discern in their elders the slightest scent of hypocrisy.
I can only echo much of what the most reverend Primate has said. I believe that it is the function of the Churches to lead the nation back to a rediscovery of God, because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and righteousness, we read, exalteth a nation.

Cyprus: Turkish Declaration of Independence
4.5 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer being given in another place in answer to the Private Notice Question on Cyprus. The Answer is as follows:
"The position is that this morning the body calling itself the Assembly in Northern Cyprus passed a resolution approving the establishment of a Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and a declaration of independence. Her Majesty's Government deplore this action by the Turkish Cypriot

1167
community, which amounts to a declaration of secession. We have issued a statement which makes it clear that this is incompatible with the 1960 Treaties.
"Our position has always been that we recognise only one Republic of Cyprus. That remains the position today. In our view this latest move cannot be seen as altering the status of the Turkish Cypriot community. We would deeply regret it if, as seems all too likely, this action provokes the breakdown of the inter-communal talks and the consultations carried out by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Both have had our full support.
"There have for some time been reports that a move of this sort was being contemplated by the Turkish Cypriot authorities. We have throughout made it clear, most recently both to Mr. Denktash personally and at a high level in Ankara, that we would strongly disapprove such a move. It must be a matter for deep regret that these representations have apparently been disregarded. Our Ambassador at Ankara has this morning, on my instructions, called on the Turkish Government not to associate themselves with this move by the Turkish Cypriot authorities. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has sent a similar message to President Evren urging him to help secure a reversal of the declaration.
"In accordance with British responsibilities under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee I shall be proposing urgent consultations to both the Turkish and the Greek Governments. We are also in direct contact with the Government of Cyprus. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke this morning to President Kyprianou and I have just seen the Cyprus High Commissioner in London.
"We shall consult urgently with other interested Governments and also with the Secretary General of the United Nations, who has been playing a key role in the search for a peaceful solution to the long-standing Cyprus problem. In addition, we are approaching the President of the Security Council with a view to securing an early meeting."
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Answer. While Mr. Denktash has mentioned the possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence several times over the past few weeks, the news that such a declaration has been made is both sad and unwelcome. As the noble Lord has stated, this action is in breach of the treaty of guarantee which laid down that an act of partition by one of the parties is forbidden.
We warmly support the assertion in the Statement that this arbitrary unilateral act is particularly unfortunate at a time when the Secretary General of the United Nations is seeking to arrange consultations to seek to resolve the problem. We further support the Government in their expressions of strong disapproval of this move, and their messages to Greece and Turkey, and the Prime Minister's approach to President Kyprianou this morning. Can the noble
1168
Lord give any indication of the prospects for the proposed UN sponsored summit? Does he think that this is now still a possibility, and will Her Majesty's Government support the move?
As one of the three guarantors of the treaty, are the Government proposing any steps—for example, by raising the matter in the Security Council—to alleviate the tensions which are bound to be exacerbated in Cyprus as a result of this UDI? Further, can the noble Lord say how this declaration has affected the nature of British obligations under the treaty of independence? Are we likely to be in a rather different situation as a result under the treaty? Can he also say how many British citizens reside in the Turkish sector; and are we happy, or certain, that they are safe following the declaration? Will the noble Lord also confirm that this act makes the position of Greek refugees considerably more uncertain? Is not this a matter which must also be investigated? We are aware that we shall be able to dwell in rather greater detail on all these points in tomorrow's debate on Cyprus.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It breathes the right spirit. We think that tomorrow is the time to debate the long-term prospects and how the Government should act in the long run. In the meantime, we should perhaps say a word about what the Government might do in the next 24 hours. To read the Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence, one would never suspect that there had been a string of United Nations condemnations over nine years of their presence. We on these Benches are far from believing that the Greek Cypriots have always been whiter than the driven snow during the last 20 years, but the Turkish statement blames the Greek Cypriots for all that has ever happened. To read it, one would be surprised to learn that anything happened in 1974. One would see no mention of the Turkish invasion and partition of the island. One would not suspect that since then the Turkish army has been there, paid for 100 per cent. by Turkey. One would not suspect that Turkey has been meeting 85 per cent. of the civil budget in Northern Cyprus since then.
Will the Government remember—they do not say so in so many words, but it is implied—that Britain is a guarantor power of the 1960 treaty which established the Republic of Cyprus and that the present Government do not have the excuse which the Labour Government had in 1974 for lying low—namely, that it was in the run up to an election?
It seems to us that to call for a meeting of the guarantors—which the Government are doing—is right; to try to secure a reversal of the declaration is right, though obviously hopeless; and, above all, to call the Security Council is right.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wish to thank both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Kennet, for their welcome for the Answer that I have just given. As well, we express gratitude for the very strong and forthright support of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the Government's action in this especially delicate situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has stressed, we probably should delay more detailed discussion of this problem until tomorrow's

1169
debate, when we shall have the benefit of any further developments from the United Nations. I believe that your Lordships would wish the Government to wait for any developments in the Security Council, to which I referred in the last words of the Answer. On the detailed points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I hope that he will accept that we should wait for the answer to most of them until tomorrow.
The noble Lord asked me a specific question about the number of British citizens who reside in the northern sector of Cyprus. I understand this figure is in hundreds; I think it is about 200. We are cognisant of their position, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn and your Lordships will agree that the position is extremely delicate and we do not want to say much today.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, too, for his forthright support. Of course, I stress the importance of the 1960 treaty of guarantee to Cyprus and our commitment under that. We intend to abide by it. I outlined in my Statement that we are consulting with our allies about appropriate action which should be taken in the United Nations Security Council and we shall consider any other possible action in the light of our consultations.

Crimes of Violence
4.16 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it falls to me to return to the great debate which we have been having and which was so magnificently introduced by the most reverend Primate in a challenging and immensely constructive speech. We have been given the opportunity today of discussing the sombre subject of crimes of violence in our society, and we have already had a powerful preamble (if that is not dismissing it too lightly) in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Whether I shall qualify under his celestial highway moral code remains for the future to tell.
We are particularly looking forward to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. His great office enables him to give guidance, as he frequently does, to all our courts. There is a Cornish proverb which says that everyone knows what to do with a kicking horse except the man who is in charge of it. I expect that proverb has come to his mind, as indeed to the mind of a former Home Secretary, when consideration has been given to this issue. We shall weigh carefully the guidance that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice gives us, if that is an encouragement to him.
We also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, who has joined us for his maiden speech today. I apologise personally that, unfortunately, owing to a previous commitment, I cannot be here while the whole debate continues.
It may be useful in discussing violent crime to note the extent and pattern of it. This has been communicated to me in a useful document from the National Association of Probation Officers. I see from
1170
the latest criminal statistics—those for 1982—that under 5 per cent. of all offences recorded by the police were offences against the person. It should be noted that this is similar to previous years. That does not underestimate its sinister importance. In total numbers, those crimes were: violence against the person in 1982, 109,000; robbery, 23,000; sexual offences, 20,000—making a total of 152,000. Of the offences of violence against the person, the great majority (indeed, 102,000) were of a less serious kind; that is to say, broadly, offences of wounding and assault, not endangering life. That is the pattern and that is the extent.
We also now have available the British crime survey, the Home Office research study, which enables us to gauge the extent of the unrecorded crime, what has been known as the dark figure of crime, and its seriousness, and, importantly, people's reactions and attitudes. One of the things that emerges from that survey is that fear of crime is out of all proportion to the risks, and that the fear is becoming as great a problem as crime itself.
Those findings and conclusions, although they put matters in proportion, do not justify complacency, and we should not take too much comfort from the fact that the extent of violent crime in Britain, for example, compared with that in the United States, is far less. We should be considering in the course of this debate the problem of how violent crimes should be tackled. The law-and-order lobby, if I may say so, has provided none. There are no simple solutions or easy answers. The whole community, as we have been told in the two notable speeches earlier, has to involve itself in combating it—parents, families, schools, the Churches, the divers voluntary societies that play such a great part in holding our society together. Crime, indeed, is far too serious a matter to be left to the judges and police.
However, one illusion should, I think, at once be removed—that the courts of this country have been and are being soft on crime. The fact is that heavy sentences have increased from five years to seven years in the early 1960s to about 12 years now. In 1981, 184 men were imprisoned for over 10 years; in 1963, only 65 got such heavy sentences. Indeed, criminal justice in this country in its punitive aspect is more severe and imprisonment more likely to be used as a means of punishing crime than in most Western European countries. In proportion to the population, there are four times as many people in prison in Britain as in the Netherlands, twice as many as in Belgium, 60 per cent. more than in Italy and 25 per cent. more than in France.
Added to this, we must bear in mind the sombre fact that, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said when in another place, many of our prisons, because of overcrowding and other factors, are an affront to a civilised society. The director general of the Prison Department has agreed. As the writer, Mr. David Downes, has put it, by comparison with most other western societies, imprisonment in Britain is nasty, brutish and long.
What has troubled us on these Benches is our apprehension that the Home Secretary's recent proposals for dealing with long-term prisoners sentenced for violence will do nothing to reduce

1171
violent crime and a great deal to produce more violent prisons. He has announced two main measures: first, the treatment of lifers. The Home Secretary has announced that certain categories of murderer will normally serve at least 20 years in prison; namely, murderers of police and prison officers, terrorist murderers, murderers who kill with firearms during robberies and those who commit sexual or sadistic murders of children—all appalling crimes that we of course deplore. Many prisoners in that category already serve very long sentences, some, indeed, of 20 years and, of course, some of life.
In our view, the proper course would be for the Home Secretary to consider each lifer's case for release individually and not to announce a blanket policy for whole categories in advance. Individual murderers in each category can, of course, change their attitude for reasons including maturity, ageing, genuine remorse, the influence of prison staff, the influence of families and friends. A policy which refuses to acknowledge that some offenders may repent and change, or that they may do so before 20 years have elapsed, is a policy of despair. Is it to be the case that no matter how deep and genuine the remorse an offender may feel, no matter how well he may behave in prison, no matter how glowing are the reports from within and outside the prison, if he falls within one of these categories he cannot be released for 20 years?
To keep in prison for 20 years lifers who, from the point of view of the community, could safely be released after 12 or 15 years will do nothing to protect the public. It will, however, as the Prison Officers' Association has forcibly pointed out, create severe problems in controlling prisons swollen with prisoners deprived of hope and with little to lose. It is hard to see why the Home Secretary, with all his record of being a humane person, has found it necessary to go down this dead-end road when trial judges already have the power to recommend in appropriate cases that a murderer shall serve a minimum period in prison. And such recommendations are very rarely overturned by the Home Office. Since 1965, judges have made over 130 such recommendations. In only three cases have prisoners been released earlier than the time recommended and, even then, only following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge. Several lifers, of course, stay in prison for life.
Then we come to the second category that has been specially identified: those serving over five years. The Home Secretary has announced that a violent offender serving over five years will not normally be granted parole except possibly for just a few months immediately before the end of the sentence. If this policy had been in force last year, about 500 offenders who were granted parole in 1982 would not have received it. Virtually abandoning parole for these prisoners, we believe, means throwing away an important means of controlling released prisoners' future behaviour. There is now clear evidence from Home Office research, and the research of NACRO and other bodies, that release on parole, which combines supervision by a probation officer with the possibility of recall to prison for misbehaviour on licence, reduces offenders' chances of reconviction. This effect is particularly striking for those with sentences exceeding four years.
1172
We believe that it is both tragic and foolish that, for reasons, it may be, of political expediency in the name of combating violent crime, the Home Secretary proposes to jettison one of the few penal measures which has proved successful in reducing serious crime. It is true that parole may still be available for these offenders for a short period just before the end of their sentences, but probation officers and many members of the Parole Board feel that there are many such cases where supervision, in order to operate successfully, needs to be for a longer rather than for a shorter period. Particularly where, for example, a violent offence has been alcohol related and where an entire family unit may need the guidance and support which parole offers, as well as its sanction of recall to prison, the chances of successful resettlement may otherwise be slim.
I hope that it is not too late for the Home Secretary to reconsider his proposals in this field. To concentrate and rely more on severe sentencing as a solution to the problems of crimes of violence is, as I think has been implied in the two previous speeches, to start at the wrong end of the story of crime. Courts come on the scene only when the crimes have been committed. The police come on the scene earlier; but, even by then, the damage to the victims has been done. In this connection, I echo the suggestion that have been made about the importance of seeking reparation from the offender and restitution to the victim, perhaps bringing home to the offender the consequences of his crime. Our system of criminal justice punishes the small proportion of criminals who are caught but, I fear, is of little use to the victim except, of course, for the contribution that it makes to the maintenance of order in our society generally.
There are various factors which need further consideration in the matter of crime prevention, and it may be that we shall hear some practical suggestions about these in the course of the debate. Reducing the opportunity for crime is a field where much more needs to be done. I am thinking particularly, in a violence and mugging context, of the design of some housing estates and areas around large blocks of flats, particularly high-rise flats, which provide fine opportunities for vandals and muggers, particularly if the areas are poorly lit. Measures which can be taken to make safer the housing estates where many of these mugging offences take place—after all, the biggest victims of crime are the poorer people, not the better off—include the use of entry phones, the provision of resident caretakers and, above all, improved lighting. All those are measures of importance, and I am happy to see that I get approval from the Front Bench opposite of those suggestions.
Another important situational factor—I do not like the phrase, but it is the best that is suggested—which NACRO offers in this field is the availability of firearms. Police spokesmen have called for stricter controls in the issue of shotgun certificates. At present, anyone who wants such a certificate simply applies to the police. There are no powers to ask why he wants one, how many he wants or where he will keep them. The holder of a certificate can acquire any number of shotguns without any record made on that certificate. It is then possible for him to pass one on to others, without being accountable for it. The police say that

1173
criminals are taking full advantage of this, by arranging for associates with no criminal record to obtain shotguns on their behalf.
The Police Superintendents' Association has asked the Home Secretary to change the law to bring the issuing of shotgun certificates into line with the stricter procedures for the issuance of certificates for handguns, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply may, even though I may not have the privilege of hearing him, be able to refer to this matter.
I now come to a factor which is perhaps more important than anything I have up to now mentioned, perhaps more important than the influence of alcohol and more important even than the constant showing of violence on TV: that is, the growing evidence of a link between violence and unemployment. Some of that has been produced by the Home Office itself. It was well summarised, if he will permit me to say so, in a speech by the former Home Secretary, now to our satisfaction the Leader of the House, in the House of Commons on 27th February 1978, when he said:
"There has been a dramatic rise in unemployment among boys and girls … Let no one have any doubt about the danger that that has created in terms of crime of all sorts, violence and vandalism. If boys and girls do not obtain jobs when they leave school, they feel society has no need of them. If they feel that, they do not see any reason why they should take part in that society and comply with its rules. That is what is happening and, wherever we sit in this House, that is what we have to recognise."—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/78; col. 40.]
That was stated in his own forthright terms by the noble Viscount.
We on this side of the House believe that it is essential, in assessing the costs of alternative fiscal and economic policies, that the Government should also take full account of the social costs of unemployment, including its association with crime, with violence and with urban disorder, all of which—and I make no political point about this; at any rate, directly—have risen markedly since 1980. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, stated in his memorable report on the Brixton riots, the social conditions there do not provide an excuse for disorder. But he added:
"But the disorders cannot be fully understood unless they are seen in the context of complex political, social and economic factors which together create a predisposition towards violent protests."
We neglect those factors at our peril and, unless steps are taken by the Government to deal with those factors soon, violence and urban disorder may well become more endemic in our society.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, whatever its intrinsic merits, I feel that this debate will prove to be important if, and only if, as a result of it there is a greater sense within our responsible citizenship of the deep underlying causes of the rise in crimes of violence; and I hope that we shall be able to use our influence to persuade responsible bodies and authorities to take the necessary steps to counteract many of the forces which are operating on our society today. The most reverend Primate, in his most impressive opening of this debate, said that this House is full of experts on this subject. I venture to think, though he was flattering to the House, that he was entirely wrong. There are no experts on this subject either in this House or in any other House. For far too long we have
1174
thought that there were so-called experts in this country, and we have subordinated our own instincts as parents and as responsible citizens. When we have seen things happening we have not taken the appropriate action; we have not reacted as our instincts would make us react. We have tended to leave it to the so-called experts, and we have been very wrong in so doing.
I am bound to say that when I first saw this Motion I was slightly dismayed. Judging by the speech which the most reverend Primate delivered today, there was clearly a misunderstanding on my part, because I thought that the reference to the refusal of the other House to reintroduce the death penalty implicitly suggested, in some way, that had that been done it would have had the possible effect of reducing crimes of violence. If that had been the proposition I would clearly have rejected it, but the most reverend Primate obviously had something totally different in mind.
I should like to say a few words about that crime of violence which excites most interest in our community and which certainly has more attention given to it in the media—the crime of murder. I have been involved over the years in many cases of murder, either for the prosecution or for the defence, and I am bound to say that the longer I live the more I believe that there are some people in this country and in this world who, however serious the crime of murder—and some such crimes are absolutely horrible—inflict far more grievous wounds on the community than even murderers. I think of those who, these days, organise in an international way the importation of drugs, the peddling of drugs, and so on, in our community, and who inflict incredible harm upon our young people. Normally, they never see the dock. In their lifestyle, and so on, they are indistinguishable from very affluent businessmen.
Today, there is a huge international crime wave organised by such people, and if there had to be a death penalty—and I have always been against it—I should prefer to see it introduced for them rather than for the crime of murder, because so many murders are committed in what may be called stressful domestic situations, and so on. It is a minority of murderers who graduate to murder through the gradations of crimes of violence. But, of course, there are some, such as psychiatric murderers—and I use that term broadly—who are virtually insane and whom juries rightly find guilty of murder under the law, who are a great menace to society and who must be kept in prison, probably for life, in order to protect society because there are some risks which society should not run.
Having referred to that, I want to come to the main thrust of this debate and say that in my humble opinion it is useless to look to the courts for new ways of reducing crimes of violence. It is a trite saying, obviously, that the courts are concerned with the mopping-up operation. The most the courts can do is to contain crime. But by the time a young man has resorted to a number of very serious crimes of violence and is, unfortunately, before the courts in his late 'teens or early twenties, it is too late for the courts to do anything about it. Though the public, so often encouraged by the media, press for more and more violent sentences, we must face the reality of the fact

1175
that the extent and degree of violence that we see today is a reflection of our own society. We live in a violent society and, unlike the society of our forefathers, which was also pretty violent at times, we live in an era of broadcast violence. Violence now comes into the sitting room of every cottage, bungalow and flat in this country through the medium of television.
We live in a society of relative values. I have visited other countries, and was greatly impressed on a visit some years ago to Russia to see how clean the cities were, and the absence of graffiti, and so on, on the underground. In a society with fairly absolute power, where values are more absolutely stated than they are in our own country, it is easy to get a more superficial appearance of respect for law and order than we have in a country like ours. One has it in Moslem countries. But we have in our age moved to a society of relative values. How many values do any of us express absolutely today? Of course, it is easy to say that it is more comfortable for a sophisticated society to live in this kind of way, with relative values. I certainly find it easier to do so. I am very much concerned, though, with the weaker brethren, as St. Paul referred to them. I am concerned with the effect that a society based on relative values has on them, whereas they would prefer to have greater certainty.
The development of crimes of violence and the incidence and nature of crimes of violence is an inevitable by-product of the society in which we live. I happen to live in a part of the country where there is very little crime and where there is still a very settled society. It has been settled for many years. It is a part of the country where there is a common, shared basis of values, where there is probably more religious observance than in most other parts of the country. Crime is still a comparative rarity. But this kind of society is so far removed from our inner cities of today that I wonder whether we are living in the same world. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who harked back to the 1920s and the 1930s, we shall never go back to the kind of society which accepted those values. Although it was a perfectly valid point that poverty in those days did not make people resort to crimes of violence, the people who lived in poverty in the 1920s and the 1930s in difficult environmental conditions did not have some of the environmental conditions of today which drive people, I believe, more to violence than they did in that age. Yet we live in a society which has brought us many benefits and blessings.
Surely the problem with which we are faced in our country is a question of balance. We live in a welfare state. We live in a far more humane country, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, than our parents and grandparents lived in during the 1920s and the 1930s. We are more caring for the mass of the population—and so we should be. At the same time, there is probably less personal commitment, less personal involvement in our society, than occurred in the era of our fathers and grandfathers. This is the problem. If we have a more open, more international, more questioning society, yet hark back and perhaps yearn for a more settled, a more homogeneous society, we have to draw the balance somewhere. I believe that we need to aim at a
1176
more liberal and responsible society rather than at a permissive and self-destructive society.
I want to put forward a few steps that we ought to take in this country. First, let me turn to the education system. In deprived areas—I do not need to rehearse the descriptions of deprived areas which we have already heard in this debate—surely the role of the school is very much more important than it is in many other communities. The school not only has to reinforce parental guidance: in many cases it has to be a complete substitute for it. It has to replace it. Of course, there are what might almost be called criminal enclaves in many parts of the country to which families who have always tended to indulge in crime gravitate—no doubt assisted, to a degree, by the housing authorities. Youngsters who have resorted to crime and have criminal records tend to be pushed into the same areas. In that kind of society, who is to provide a basis of morals? Who is to teach the difference between right and wrong? Yet these are the very areas of the country where there is the highest ratio of pupils to teacher and where the need is greatest.
I believe that there ought to be a major and discriminating effort in this country to try to repair the depredations in our inner cities in the educational sphere. We should aim at a ratio of something like one to ten in classes because the teacher is called upon to fulfil a role which should be fulfilled by parents but is not. We should be deluding ourselves if we thought that parents were going to fulfil a constructive role. But let me ask the question rhetorically: are this Government prepared to spend the money on the inner city areas, in the educational sphere, which they should?
I come to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, of the economic hopelessness of many of our youngsters today. This is a major contributory factor. It can be over-emphasised, but the speeches which are made that ignore this factor are ignoring a basic element in the increase in crimes of violence. Let me take, for example, the black youngster in some of our deprived city areas who has no hope of a job and no kind of home environment in which he can relax. His disillusionment with society must be enormous. He is faced not only with the glaring inequalities of society: there is also no apparent hope of changing it. He has no apparent hope of a job himself. Is it surprising that in those circumstances he will become anti-social, anti-establishment, anti-police? It is not. The truth is that we should recognise this as one of the (I emphasise "one of the") major contributory factors. Something really must be done about these inner city areas so far as the economic sphere is concerned.
Let us look at a few restrictive steps which we should take. I am sure that I am in a minority in your Lordships' House in that I was opposed to the introduction of independent television into this country. I tried to persuade my party to oppose it, but was accused of being very anti-Liberal and an illiberal fellow—which I do not think I am. But I really thought that once we had independent television we should have, on the one hand, the advertisements which raise expectations which cannot possibly be fulfilled. On the other hand, in the competition for audiences we would

1177
inevitably have to resort to the lowest common denominator. Generally speaking, taste dropped. I am not saying that ITV were any more guilty than the BBC in this respect, but in competing for audiences they went for the lowest common denominator and thereafter we had a diet of violence on television and have lived with it ever since.
I feel that a country such as ours should have used television much more for educational purposes in the broadest sense. However good the teacher may be and however influential the parents may be—and I am sure we have all experienced this—it is terribly difficult to compete with that important environmental factor in the corner of the sitting room. We need to take the greatest care with our television programmes even now. I am not sure to whom the television producer is eventually responsible, but I am not convinced that when he is really determined to get his way anyone can resist him.
I entirely agree with that which has been said about the production of video nasties. In his very distinguished Darwin Lecture recently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, dealt with that matter. All I would say from my humble position is that I am 100 per cent. in agreement with him.
I now wish to say a word or two about drink. I believe we all underestimate the influence that drink has on crime. I entirely take the point that most criminals—and this is so in my own experience—give as their reason for committing a crime the influence of drink. There is a subtle difference between drink and drugs in their relationship to crime. A man tends to commit a crime more easily if he is under the influence of drink. That is especially so of youngsters—they in particular will resort to violence. Drugs tend to affect crime in a totally different way. Hard drugs are now very expensive—although they have become cheaper in this country recently—and people are motivated to commit crimes of violence and to commit burglaries in order to get the money to buy drugs. There is a subtle difference between the two.
I, for my part, would like to see a total ban on the advertising of drinks on television—as I would like to see one on the advertising of tobacco. The Government could do a great deal more through advertising, if we are going in for advertising, to point out the connecting factor between drink and crime.
In conclusion, I want to point to some of the things we have done in our society over the past 20 years which in my view have created the kind of climate in which crimes of violence can flourish. I regret to say that, in my judgment, we shall see an increase in crimes of violence. We shall not contain it. We are not prepared to face up to the problem and take the measures which are necessary in order to contain it. But let us look at some of the things we have done.
I have referred to my own society, which is an extremely well-knit rural society, and I contrasted it with the inner city area. The truth is that we have destroyed the societies of the inner city areas; we have moved them out to concrete suburbs, and so on. To take the example of a city I know quite well, we have left in the middle of Liverpool a concrete jungle where obviously crime flourishes and where the old
1178
restrictions and social sanctions which used to apply—even in the little criminal enclaves at times—have been destroyed. Over the past 20 or 30 years, our policing has become more remote. Community policing is not new; it is new in its modern aspect. When I was a boy, certainly there was a great deal of community policing, and that was true of all the cities. It has been destroyed in the past 20 to 30 years, and now we must return to it.
We have centralised far too much; even in the courts. In my younger days when I sat as a recorder and as the chairman of quarter sessions, in the period between 1960 and 1972, the courts worked closely with the police and with the probation service. One knew who the probation officer was and one received periodic reports of those on probation. But now everything has become more centralised and every service seems to be remote from other services. The community has become less and less involved with the treatment of crime in all ways. We need to take many steps as a community before we can begin to think of achieving any success in arresting the growth of violence in our society.
We have a very violent society, the unacceptable face of which is reflected in our courts. But we have a much larger problem than many leaders of the community appreciate, although I am not so sure that the average citizen does not feel deep down, instinctively, that we have gone wrong in many ways over the past 20 to 30 years. I can only hope that this debate will start us on the road to repairing many fences.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Lane: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence for this reason: I appreciate that a judge's view may very well be distorted by the fact that he deals largely with the pathology of society. Speaking for myself—and I am neither a sociologist nor a criminologist and nor can I drive a horse whether it belongs to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones or not, or whether it is kicking or not—I, too, was misled by the terms of this Motion. It seems to imply, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has indicated, that there is some connection between the rise in violent crime and the failure to reintroduce the death penalty, the suggestion being, as I understood it initially, that were hanging to be reintroduced there would be a sudden improvement in the violent crime figures. I was very glad to hear from the most reverend Primate that that, despite the appearance of the Motion, was not what it meant.
Unfortunately, there is no instant panacea. There is no magic wand. There is no magic noose that will solve this problem overnight. It will not be solved by long terms of imprisonment—certainly not on their own. It will not be solved by making compensation orders because the average violent criminal has no means with which to meet such orders. If one imposes a compensation order, it is quite clear that when the offender comes out of prison how he is going to equip himself with cash flow to satisfy the order.
It is just as well to remind ourselves—is it not?—of the problem with which we are trying to deal here today. We are not concerned—are we?—with the division 1 criminals: the so-called high-class armed robber and masked gunmen; cold, calculating villains

1179
who play for high stakes. Different considerations apply to them. We are concerned primarily with the teenage thug, the bully-boy. That is the area in which this horrible increase in violence has taken place. It is the teenager—sometimes an incredibly youthful person of 13, 14 or 15 years of age—who perpetrates crimes of such a horrendous nature that it ill-becomes me to describe them here.
His victims are not the security guards who are well able to look after themselves and who are paid for the risks they run. His victim is the elderly widow, usually living on her own, who is carefully "sussed out" by the young gentleman and his friend as probably supplying an easy source of money with a minimum amount of risk. His victim is the housewife carrying her shopping bag, or her handbag with money in it for the shopping, down to the supermarket. His victim is the woman, of whatever age it might be, whose body he desires to violate and frequently, regrettably, does. He very seldom kills; he seldom was a candidate for the hangman, and even if hanging were to be reintroduced—and, of, course, happily, it now never will be—it would make no sort of difference to him.
What causes this type of crime, what activates this sort of behaviour? There are a number of identifiable reasons and no doubt as many unidentifiable reasons in this highly complex matter. The causes we do know of, regrettably, admit of no miracle solution. They can perhaps, I suggest tentatively, be classed broadly under one heading, and that is a loss of respect for other human beings and an acceptance as normal of things which everyone ought to know are not normal.
The things which have degraded our standards should be obvious to everyone, and judging from the letters which I receive are obvious to most people. Among other things, of course, is the lack of jobs, the difficulty of the young man to find any gainful employment even before he goes to prison, and more particularly when he comes out of prison or custody. But on top of that there is a host of other reasons: easier divorce—soon to become easier still, I understand—with broken homes as a result, easy abortion, the Pill at the age of 11 and 12 with all that means by inference, a huge increase in the abuse of hard drugs and its importation; and alcohol of course plays its part in very many crimes. But what has increased in horror and filth more than anything else in recent years is the degrading film, the degrading television programme, the degrading magazines of all sorts, soft pornography and hard pornography, depicting scenes which, regrettably, we see in the courts acted out faithfully by youngsters.
The difficulty is—or so it seems to me—that some of the very organs of public information which should be vociferous in condemnation of these matters do not seem to raise their voices above a whisper, if indeed they raise their voices at all. There are those—notably some of the television authorities—as my noble and learned friend Lord Hooson has already indicated, who seem to be actively engaged in speeding up the easy descent to Avernus by presenting violence and obscenity as a form of entertainment. And if you do present violence and obscenity as a form of entertainment, very soon they become accepted by the weaker
1180
brethren as the norm; and it is the weaker brethren with whom we are concerned.
People who say—we hear it frequently, I am afraid—that videos must be kept away from children miss the point. These horror videos have much less effect upon children than they have upon the adult with the mind of the child—and it is the adult with the mind of a child who is the person with whom we are trying to cope. It seems, if I may say so, horrifying that it was really only when Scotland Yard put their made-up video, pieces of horror videos from various films, together, and showed it to Members of the other place that voices started to be raised. Does it really require live cannibalism to make people realise the effects of videos, and not necessarily horror videos?
So nothing happens. Despite hundreds of thousands of unheard voices in the country who deplore what they seegoing on around them, it is always someone else's problem, it is never our own problem, and it is sad to see this paralysed acquiescence by society over the loss of ordinary decency and humanity. The power of the porn lobby is great, because—needless to say—the profits are enormous. People do not like being called fuddy-duddy, prudish or narrow-minded, or any of the other expressions which are bandied about; and ridicule is easy. So things get worse and worse. It is deadly easy to corrupt and almost impossible to discorrupt.
I was sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Hooson say—though probably truthfully—that we shall never go back to the morality of the 1920s. I doubt, cynically, if anyone with power or influence will ever do anything about it. But there is no harm in trying. Who is going to reverse this trend? The answer lies, first of all, in this very building—does it not?—in this Chamber and the other Chamber. The answer lies in the schools, does it not? The answer lies in the homes, preferably not single-parent homes. And—dare I say it!—the answer lies in the Churches. We cannot reintroduce hanging. May I suggest that we might reintroduce conscience and reintroduce the devil.
5.8 p.m.
Earl Kitchener: My Lords, I am fortunate that my aspect of this subject, about the importance of which I know there may be two opinions, has not yet been aired. A possible cause of some crime is diet, either faulty in general, or wrong for the individual. Much of the evidence for this comes from the United States of America. This is not the place to go into details, but particular substances of which shortages seem to be connected with behaviour problems are iron, cobalt and vitamin B1; and among those of which an excess is suspect are lead, cadmium, highly refined foods, and even—when taken in very large quantities—milk. Another aspect of nutrition which has been seriously implicated in behaviour is abnormal concentrations of sugar in the blood. They may vary very rapidly, and seem to be associated with violent behaviour.
The International Journal of Bio-social Research is a leading periodical in this field. I will just mention one or two men of importance in this line: Dr. Alexander Schauss in Tacoma and Dr. Michael Colgan in San Diego, both of whom I have met and found very

1181
impressive, and in Scotland Dr. Ian Menzies in Dundee.
In this country we are fortunate to have the McCarrison Society, which is named after Sir Robert McCarrison, who was a doctor in the old Indian Army. The society, under its chairman Dr. Andrew Strigner, provides a focus for work on the effects of diet on physical and mental health. Its recent conference on nutrition and behaviour was reported in the New Scientist in October. The article provides a useful account of some current ideas. I know of the Government's interest in this matter because when Dr. Colgan was in this country earlier this year my noble friend Lord Elton suggested that I should arrange for him to meet the Director of Prison Medical Services, who showed his considerable interest in Dr. Colgan's work and theories.
In many ways prisoners are ideal subjects for experiments on diet. But I understand that, however clearly it is explained that participation is voluntary, the prisoners will not be convinced and they expect to get a black mark if they do not volunteer. That builds up a resentment against the whole idea of experiments. On the other hand, in addition to what might be learned the experiments would give them a much needed feeling of usefulness. It may be optimistic, but I believe that with the right leadership and encouragement from the governor, medical and other staff, the difficulties of conducting these experiments could be overcome.
I make a concrete suggestion to the Government. The Health Education Council recently published a discussion paper on nutrition education, written under the leadership of Professor James of the Rowatt Institute in Aberdeen. Many of its recommendations, which I think were quite independent of the other work on criminals—Professor James had nothing special to do with criminals' diet—are in the same direction as those found beneficial to behaviour. I hope that the Government will apply them, at least experimentally, to prisons and many other areas in which the Government have responsibility for diet.
On a separate subject, I offer a point to any coming speaker who might be dealing with the important question of work in prisons. I notice in the recent report of the Inspectors of Prisons in Scotland that in one prison the governor and staff were reported, without any explanation, as not being in favour of any working hours beyond 4½ a day. I feel they may have had some reason for that. That may be a point that noble Lords speaking later on this subject might find worth referring to.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I am the first to be able to felicitate the noble Earl on his maiden speech and I do it sincerely. I found the substance of what he had to say both unexpected and nourishing. I believe that this is an aspect of the problem which will probably go further than is required for a debate of this nature, but I hope that the Government will take careful note both of what was said about the implications of diet on the possibilities of violence—both in the house and outside it—and of the possibility which, with the noble
1182
Earl, I hope will be resisted, of making experiments with prisoners as if that is an addition to their sentences. I believe that would be an arrogation at which we should look with great care and hesitation. But there is a possibility of voluntary submission to these experiments. People do this in regard to the ordinary cold, and if prisoners can believe that they are to some extent increasing the sum total of good in the community by such submission to experiments, then the noble Earl has said something of importance and significance and we are greatly extremely grateful to him for that. I hope he will bring other relish to our delight in future debates in your Lordships' House.
I wish to express for myself and for the Methodist Church, which in this respect I can to some extent represent, the gratitude we feel to the most reverend Primate, my most reverend friend, for the introduction of this debate and the magistral way in which he set about the task of covering the ground and encouraging those who follow to take the points which he raised and deal with them with the particularity which, in the time at his disposal, he could not provide. I am happy to take the suggestion which he made that there is in this particular context an approach which can be called the social approach and another which must be regarded as the spiritual one.
I found some little perturbation when I read the Order Paper. I do not think that much light is thrown on this problem when we reject the death penalty as being wholly unsuitable in a civilised society, but I was even more perturbed at the introduction of the word "new". I do not believe that we are so much in need of new ways of approaching the problems which confront your Lordships' House today as of recognising that, like Christianity, a great many of the perfectly worthwhile proposals have not been tried and found wanting, but have been found difficult and not tried. In that regard, I shall try to say something that is not about the particular ways in which the law can be improved, although in many ways it can. There are many more in your Lordships' House today whose competence in this field is much superior to mine and who will cover that ground more than adequately.
What I have to say is about the correlation between human nature and human behaviour. Without presumption, I take it that your Lordships will agree that human nature is very different in the way in which it expresses itself and in the way in which it carries out is implications. In many respects human nature is soluble in the acids or the waters of circumstance. We are confronted this afternoon with the ways in which this basic human nature is affected by the environment in which it is found. To begin with, we live in a world of unprecedented violence. That is not a question on which there is any debate. There can be none. How grateful I was to the most reverend Primate for what he said in Dresden recently. I believe he said that if one is thinking about violent crime, war is the supreme and final violent crime. In that context, the incidence of violence with which we are confronted day by day has become not only an unprecedented figure but an unprecedented menace.
I entirely share the views of those who have spoken this afternoon on the effect—the very dangerous effect—of violence. In my judgment and experience it has increased in television programmes. I wonder how

1183
many of your Lordships have seen any of the spaghetti westerns. I have endured one or two of them. They are replete with violence of an uncomplicated, simple and dreadful nature. I detest them, yet even in my old age I find an unfortunate attraction to violence which I hope I can resist. But I wonder whether those who are so much acclimatised to violence in their early youth will have the same resistance capacity.
In the second place, the proliferation of arms is also of an unprecedented nature. I suggest that no human being is fit to carry arms. They have now reached a dimension and capacity which is apocalyptic and have become more or less the accepted accompaniment of life, at least for the thinking, if not the practice, particularly of young people. Would it not be a good thing if your Lordships who shoot for pleasure were prepared to renounce that pleasure for the time being in order to present to the world a very much different attitude to the whole concept of what people do when, with a human nature which is not totally bad but in which there is a high ingredient of original sin, they are confronted with an incentive to violence which, once one possesses that particular implement, is likely to override one's better concepts of what one should do?
Heaven forbid that I should endeavour to preach to this congregation. I give only my own evidence: if I carried a gun I should be largely conditioned, if not determined, by that weapon. Therefore I will not carry one. I believe that those who argue for the retention of guns for what they regard as perfectly innocent purposes are themselves the victims of a smear and a smog of violence which adversely affects young people in particular. It accustoms them to the use of the gun as the expression of violence. In that regard it is a menace to their own welfare and an incentive to the commission of crime.
Another aspect of the matter also needs a great deal of attention. Occasionally this afternoon it has been given attention. I do not know whether human nature is worse or better than it was 200, 15 or 30 years ago. But a youngster living in this society of grab may be unemployed and have no prospect of employment. He has a sense that society is not a community at all but a rat race. At that very moment he may be stimulated by the presence, almost wherever he looks, of advertisements for those things which he is invited to believe he requires if he is to enjoy himself, or indeed to grow up, and he does not have the money.
Only a little while ago a group of doctors and others in Glasgow were concerned with this problem. They were particularly concerned with those who were addicted to, or susceptible of being addicted to, drugs, both hard and soft. They came to one alarming conclusion which I can hardly believe. I shall recite it to your Lordships and you can make up your minds. They had evidence for what they said, which was that many a youngster required for his satisfaction, both for hard and soft drugs, sums of money every week ranging from £10 to £200. I find that difficult to believe, but, even if it is only one quarter true, is it surprising that those who feel that imperative need for money to satisfy their desires are likely to be violent when they see the opportunity to mug an old lady to get hold of that money?
1184
Nothing in what I have said militates against my total regard for morality as being infinitely desirable and evil as being infinitely to be regretted. I remind myself that sin is the second strongest thing in the universe. We should be prepared to take the proper precautions to set people who are weak and liable to crime within an environment which encourages decency. Only in that way are we likely to meet the real needs to which the most reverend Primate has invited our attention.
I turn briefly to the spiritual side. I find it extraordinary—perhaps it is not extraordinary—that time and time again, when it is considered what can be done, religion comes a bad third, if indeed it is regarded as important at all. A group calling itself the Christian Education Society has produced a pamphlet. It appeared only in the last few days. It conducted research among youngsters in 11 schools. The question most frequently asked by the youngsters was, "What do you mean by being religious?", as if religion was on the periphery of life. In many cases the youngsters had no practical or active knowledge of what it meant.
If in this debate your Lordships ignore the religious element—the conversion element; the evangelical element—you ignore what our fathers at least regarded as by far the most important element. My father in God, John Wesley, spent a great deal of his time ministering to the prisoners in Newgate Jail and with considerable results. He would turn in his grave—if indeed he were not elsewhere, as I am confidently assured he is—at the idea that religion has very little to do with this matter or that the appeal to a different kind of life is unimportant compared with the environmental and circumstantial processes to which I have adverted.
Not so long ago a group of Roman Catholic prelates deplored the fact that there were two elements in the contemporary religious situation which largely inhibited their evangelical efforts and the prospects in which they indulged. One was the breakdown of confession and the other was a disbelief in hell. I was much interested in the penultimate statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and his endeavour to resuscitate the devil. I assure him that the devil still goes about like a roaring lion. There can be no doubt at all that the concept of evil is by no means dormant.
What is now almost non-existent is the prospect that if you do what is wrong, and continue so to do, sooner or later you will go to hell. I have been speaking in the open air for long enough now, and I cannot remember anybody at any time in that ministry—if I may so call it—who was prepared to recognise the prospect of hell and was in any way prevented from the performance of acts which he knew to be wrong by that prospect. I do not want to see a resuscitation of that kind of frightening prospect, but I want to see the other aspect—what is called confession, whether in the confessional or in the Methodist class meeting. Confession is the way in which we keep alive the difference between right and wrong. In many respects what is happening in our secular society today is that the dimension that separates right from wrong has almost entirely disappeared.

1185
I am responsible to some extent for a boys' home. Many of the youngsters who come before us to see whether they are fit to re-enter society have no basic concept of right and wrong. In my judgment it is supremely the business of the Church to advocate, specify, nourish and determine the prospects that right is the only way in which life can be properly lived and that wrong is as clearly defined—although it may have various appearances—in the denial of what is sacred and the refusal of what is just.
Reference has been made in kindly fashion to the function of the Church. I suggest that carrying out large-scale evangelical jamborees, in which large numbers of people are invited to get converted after half an hour of various kinds of religious entertainment, is no substitute for the real function of the Church, which is apposite to the matter we are engaged in considering this afternoon. I want the Church to be the advance copy—the workshop—of the kingdom of God. We need enough people to come within the framework of the Church and see it beginning to carry out the concept of the kingdom of God as laid down by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Then the Church would not invite people to flee from the wrath to come or to believe in the first instance a number of propositions which are highly dubious. It would encourage them to live in a new kind of environment—a caring society in which they could believe in one another and in which they would be cherished and reproved. It is an environment in which I believe that, by God's grace, they could find their way to a nobler form of life and a better way of living in consort with their fellows.
I know that this is a piece of evangelism. I make no apology for that. I am sure that the most reverend Primate would concur: we cannot regard the Church as merely an ancillary in these matters. If it stands for the ultimate truth it is of the utmost importance. To seek first the kingdom of God is its prime and final duty.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper. He speaks with a length of experience of offenders which very few people in this House can rival. I should like to echo what he said in tribute to my noble friend Lord Kitchener on his maiden speech. The noble Earl is the bearer of a famous name. He spoke today with a kind of special knowledge different from that of his illustrious predecessor, and he spoke with eloquence. We look forward to hearing him again in the future.
I welcome an opportunity to take part in the debate, and at the outset I declare a special interest, since I am chairman of the Parole Board. However, I speak today in a personal capacity, and not on behalf of the board. Two of my predecessors are in the House at the moment and they know that it is not possible for anyone to claim to represent the views of such a large and diverse board. Nor would it be right for me this afternoon to debate those matters concerning the proposed changes in parole which are currently under discussion with the Home Secretary. I understand that it is the Home Secretary's intention when those discussions are complete to inform Parliament of the
1186
outcome, and no doubt he will do so at the earliest possible moment.
Instead I should like to concentrate my remarks on two topics: the sentencing of violent offenders by the courts; and, secondly, fear of crime which disfigures society—"corroding" it in the phrase used by the most reverend Primate in his speech—causing anxiety and disquiet on a widespread scale. Imprisonment imposed by the courts for the most serious offences naturally has an important part to play in countering crime—it always has done, and it always will do—but too much emphasis on imprisonment can be misleading. We have heard that this afternoon from no less an authority than the Lord Chief Justice.
There are several justifications for imprisonment: the expression of disapproval by society; the prevention of the offender from committing further crimes during the period while he is deprived of his liberty (referred to by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his own speech at the start of the debate this afternoon); and, above all probably in most people's minds, to deter and discourage the potential offender from committing a crime due to the prospect of imprisonment if he is apprehended and brought to trial.
Yet for imprisonment to act as a deterrent it follows that there must be a deliberate intention, formed in advance, to commit the crime in the first place. Sometimes, as in the case of organised bank robberies or drug trafficking, this will be so. It may also be so in a majority of cases, though not all, of burglary and other property offences. A man may weigh up the chances of getting caught and the sentence of imprisonment that is likely to result if he is convicted; and one must hope that these considerations will amount to a powerful deterrent.
That said, however, it remains a fact that in many cases—indeed, in all probability a majority of cases—involving violence to the person these preconditions simply do not exist. The offender may be, and often is, a highly inadequate personality. He may be—and, as we have already heard this afternoon, often is—abusing alcohol or controlled drugs. He may be emotionally disturbed. He may be mentally disordered, to a greater or lesser extent.
Let us take as an example the most grave of all violent crimes: those incidents in which as a consequence the victim loses his life. Statistics indicate that approximately one-third of all killings are committed by people who are in an abnormal mental state, to adopt the description used by the Butler Committee. Some of them—as many as 40 last year—commit suicide before they are brought to trial. In a majority of homicide cases (over 70 per cent. in most years) the victim was already acquainted with the person who caused his death.
Perhaps the most significant statistic of all is that in nearly half of the cases—and I am still speaking of homicide cases—the victim was either a married partner or another member of the family; or a cohabitant, a lover or an ex-lover of the culprit. It is true to say that some of these killings within an existing relationship were callously planned and calculated in advance. But most of them were not.

1187
It is part of my task to study the cases of considerable numbers of men who are serving sentences of life imprisonment. My noble friend the Leader of the House also saw some of these cases when he was Home Secretary. Noble Lords opposite who have been previous chairmen of the Parole Board have done the same. Having read the full details and noted the circumstances of these crimes, I am left with an overwhelming sense of the weaknesses and unpredictability of human nature, the arguments and the fights that take place in the home, the jealousies and the resentments and, above all, the outbursts of sheer frustration that can lead to such terrible loss of self-control, resulting in the extinction of another human life. And how often alcohol and drugs are noted as having played a part.
I refer to the background of these dreadful domestic crimes not to excuse the perpetrators, nor to minimise their culpability, but simply to illustrate the point that the deterrent effect of the sentence, irrespective of its length, will have little impact in circumstances of that kind. Moreover, the fact that life imprisonment is the mandatory penalty in all cases of murder has I believe come to undermine its effectiveness as the ultimate sanction. Although by no means all murders are as serious as one another, ranging from mercy killings at one end of the scale to organised terrorist murders at the other, the court cannot distinguish between them in the sentence that it awards. The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment leaves no room for account to be taken of either mitigating circumstances, or what might be called aggravating circumstances. Thus the period that is actually to be served in custody has to be determined later by the discretionary action of the Home Secretary, after he has consulted the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge (if he is available), and, in recent years, the Parole Board. It is here, very properly, that account is taken of the circumstances of the offence, as well as the prospects for the future if the offender is to be released on licence.
The misleading average often quoted—that is the average of ten and a half years' imprisonment served by lifers—conceals the fact that this statistic relates only to those released in the course of a year and not, by definition, to those who are retained in custody. Secondly, it includes a considerable number of domestic killings or other cases, a proportion of which, incidentally, are first offenders and where there have been mitigating circumstances. Would it not be better to reserve life imprisonment only for the most serious cases? This could be done in one of two ways. It could be done by making life imprisonment the maximum rather than the mandatory sentence for all murders. That was recommended by the Advisory Council on the Penal System, at the time under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, in 1978.
The alternative would be to make life imprisonment the penalty only for the most serious categories of murder with a range of determinate sentences available at the discretion of the court in other instances. This approach used to be thought inappropriate because of the inherent problems of classification that arise. But since the Home Secretary has now specified certain categories of particularly
1188
grave murders—five in all—where he would expect the offender to serve at least 20 years, presumably the administrative objections to categorisation no longer apply with the same force. I appreciate that legislation would be needed and so no immediate change can be envisaged, but I would welcome an indication of the Home Secretary's attitude from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he comes to reply.
I should like to repeat, before leaving this point, that the aim should be to mark the uniqueness of the life sentence as the penalty for the most serious crimes of all; that is, where the public would be entitled to expect that very long terms of imprisonment would actually be served. This leads me to my second point, which I shall develop briefly in view of the time and the number of speakers who are to follow. It is this. In a number of areas of the country today, mainly inner city areas, fear of crime is a deeply rooted, pervasive and growing social evil. It is well documented in the British Crime Survey, completed only last year, and further details are to be found in a particularly interesting article on Urban Crime, Fear and Stress written by the Head of the Research and Planning Unit in the Home Office Research Bulletin No. 15.
This is no longer a matter of subjective judgment and opinion; it is based upon thoroughly researched and substantiated facts. The research demonstrates the extent of the problem in a number of ways. Let us take only one or two. Among selected sub-groups of the urban elderly fully 75 per cent. indicated that they were afraid to walk in the streets at night. Women are afraid of being mugged or raped. Parents are afraid for their children's safety; householders are afraid that their homes will be broken into. Fear of crime has joined noise, overcrowding and pollution as a major source of stress for those who live in cities— often, it should be added, in the least privileged parts of the cities.
In some cases, those of nervous disposition have progressed from symptoms of stress to something close to clinical phobia as a result of their fear of crime. No Government can afford to overlook a situation of this gravity. It may help to explain that the risks of being assaulted by a stranger in the street are less than those of being knocked down by a motor vehicle, or suffering a heart attack. It may help to press for better street lighting and surveillance devices. It may help to develop more extensive crime prevention schemes and improved physical security in the home. All these things are being done; they are important, and priority must continue to be given to them. But they are not enough. The affected public are entitled to demand a positive response from Government. They want to see more police on the streets and more offenders brought to justice. They want to see evidence of a realistic grasp of the problem and the sheer misery that it is causing to people's lives. After all, the protection of the citizen is one of the foundations of any state that regards itself as stable and free.
It is not necessary, I submit, to agree with every item and every detail of the policies enunciated in recent months by the Home Secretary to be encouraged by the resolution and determination that he has shown in tackling this intractable and fundamental problem. Of course, not every proposal will meet with the support of everyone who has studied this critically serious

1189
situation. But we can agree, I hope, that increasing public confidence in the system of criminal justice is a worthy and, indeed, essential aim to which we should all give our efforts.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, as a social worker who has worked in prisons elsewhere since 1945, I have seen not only the consequences of crime on the criminal himself, including many under sentence of death, but also on the victims of the Nazi system, many of whom were victims of the crime of genocide and of unsurpassed brutality and hatred. We have heard, and will continue to hear, extremely interesting views on what is an immensely complex and difficult subject. There is no single identifiable cause of violent crime just as there is no single Utopian solution anywhere.
This problem begins at a person's very early upbringing. There are so many influences throughout the course of a person's life. We should not neglect to try to do all that we can now to counter bad influences at the very early stages and to provide incentives and real assistance where we can. If the home environment is inadequate and if the school too lacks discipline and good direction and religious and moral instruction, the child is already at risk and has no firm foundation on which to withstand the temptations which life will surely bring.
Although your Lordships will be surprised by what I am going to say, I feel it is worth mentioning that the Poles—if I may use them as an example—with whom I have been privileged to serve and work for well over 40 years, have very close family ties. There continues to be an extremely strong and, indeed, unsurpassed religious faith in Poland which is responsible for high standards of personal morality combined with very strict parental discipline both at home and in the schools. These factors are quite apart from the authoritarian discipline imposed upon their lives by the state.
The heart of the matter is the fact that violent crime is a direct reflection of the customs and morals of society. There is very little hope of improving this without first improving the quality of society. So where—may we ask ourselves—are the areas where we may try to exert a good influence on children and young people? I may seem to over-simplify. First, there are the schools which can bring God back and explain who He is. Secondly, there is the media. The unrestrained use of violence and horror is bound to have, and has had over so many years, a frightful effect; also there are the advertisements enticing material greed. Thirdly, there is the personal example of people in the public eye. I mention in passing the permissive society among some pop singers whose behaviour exerts an enormous influence upon young people. Fourthly, unemployment is a serious contributory factor. The Devil makes work for idle hands. Here we should remember that only a small minority of the unemployed really wish to remain idle.
Almost every week in the course of my work, especially in the big cities in Britain, I meet those who say, "What is there left in life?" I realise that the reintroduction of national service or something on similar lines has constantly been under review. But let
1190
us please pause for a moment and remember that there were positive factors with the scheme: first, the development of self-discipline; secondly, physical training; and thirdly, the bringing together of people from all walks of life for a common purpose. I do indeed, however, understand that I am touching upon another sensitive and complex subject. But is not such a scheme better than leaving youngsters to roam the streets or to sit within four walls watching the telly, with probably a mum who is fed up and a dad who may himself have lost his job or have other unfortunate problems or preoccupations?
It is a sad fact that approved schools were abolished in January 1971 because the success rate there was 65 per cent. In my humble opinion it was a grave mistake to do away with them. The present services are unable to cope.
In summing up, let me repeat my firm belief that the problem lies with a lack of moral standards in our society. To cure the one it is necessary first to improve the other. All of us are responsible and all of us must shoulder the responsibility which, in a free society, rests firmly on the shoulders of each of its citizens.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my own gratitude and I am sure that of many other Members of your Lordships' House to the most reverend Primate for having introduced the debate today. In my view, it has been regrettable that this House has not had the opportunity of discussing the question of capital punishment either in this Parliament or in the last Parliament when the Government invited another place to make a decision on the matter. Nevertheless, we have had this opportunity today, and for that I am sure we are all grateful to the most reverend Primate.
I hope that the argument about capital punishment has, so far as Parliament is concerned, been finally determined, and on this matter I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at the beginning of the debate. If a Parliament with such a very substantial Conservative majority in another place has rejected capital punishment by such decisive majorities, it is in my view highly doubtful whether a majority will ever be secured in another place for the reintroduction of capital punishment.
However, those of us who, like the most reverend Primate and many others, are strongly opposed to the reintroduction of capital punishment have to recognise one unpalatable fact: that almost certainly a substantial number of our fellow citizens, almost certainly the majority, take the view that we are mistaken. There is in this country—and we have to recognise it, and indeed the debate is taking place in the context of this situation—a widespread fear of crime throughout the land and it has in my view grown immeasurably over the last decade. I believe that nothing is more damaging to public confidence in our parliamentary institutions than if we appear to be indifferent to the concerns of our fellow citizens and if from time to time we appear to be so obsessed by the problems of dangerous offenders and apparently indifferent to the victims of violent offenders.
In the context of this situation the problem facing any Home Secretary is very considerable indeed. His

1191
resources are, as we know, limited; the bulk of his stock of prison buildings is deteriorating rapidly; the overcrowding is still getting worse; and the life sentence population, containing as it does a very significant number of particularly dangerous offenders, is continuing to rise. But in some respects there has been progress. There has been progress since the general election, thanks, to a considerable degree, to what the present Home Secretary has done.
There has been progress as far as getting people out of police cells is concerned. That is an important development. It has in my view been deeply objectionable that hundreds of men, unconvicted, have been kept in deplorable conditions in police stations for nearly a year and a half—in conditions which those of us who have had the opportunity of examining them have regarded as highly reprehensible. The Home Secretary has indicated that he will get them out of the police cells by the end of this year. That is to be welcomed, as is his decision to reduce the parole threshold to six months. I believe that that should have been done at least a year ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is aware, it could have been done at least a year ago. Nevertheless, it is now being done and I think that we should all welcome it.
On both these matters I think that the Home Secretary has been entirely right; but I fear that in other respects his response to the debate on capital punishment in another place has been profoundly mistaken. I think that his speech at the Conservative Party conference was mistaken on two of the central issues he raised there. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, on these particular issues, and I propose to take them at some length because I think that they are absolutely central to some of the issues involved in this debate today.
First, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary discussed the length of sentences that some convicted of murder could expect to serve. He indicated that anyone convicted of the murder of a police or prison officer, or of a child in sadistic circumstances, or anyone who used a firearm during the course of a robbery, could expect to serve at least 20 years. Of course, in a number of cases that may well be entirely appropriate. Of course it may. Indeed, I have examined—as I am sure have the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and my noble friend Lord Hunt—cases where it is in fact clear, or appears to be clear on the evidence put before us, that the risks involved in releasing an offender into the community are so considerable that it may well be that no parole board will ever recommend the release of the person concerned.
However, speaking on the basis of my experience as chairman of the Parole Board, I am deeply sceptical about the desirability of attempting to put murders into sharply defined categories—to create a rigid tariff. Certainly an unarmed police force must be protected. But those who murder police officers already know perfectly well that they will be kept in custody for a very long period indeed—and quite right, too. But the House should know that no one who has killed a police officer has in fact been released on licence since 1965, which in itself is 18 years ago and which happens to be the year in which capital punishment was abolished.
1192
However, and in any event, I repeat that it is an error to lay down rigid definitions as to who will serve 20 years and who will not. Let me give an example. Let us take the cases of two life-sentence prisoners. One was the driver of the getaway car in an armed robbery during which an innocent passer-by was shot dead. In most cases, of course, the driver of that vehicle is just as guilty as the man who in fact pulled the trigger and caused the death. Having studied the Home Secretary's speech carefully, it appears to me that he will be covered by the 20–year minimum rule. Let us now look at the second case, which is of a burglar who beat to death an elderly person, or, indeed, even an elderly couple, during a robbery at their home. But this time, of course, a firearm was not used, so it appears that the 20–year minimum rule does not apply in his particular case.
I should be very interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at the end of this debate why one offence is demonstrably more wicked than the other. Why should one be covered by a 20–year minimum and the other not? If the noble Lord suggests, as indeed the Home Secretary did at the Conservative Party conference, that this is simply a response to public feeling, I am bound to say that I would find it very surprising were such an attitude to be reflected by public opinion in this country.
In any event, what the House must recognise is that no one holding the office of Home Secretary can lay down permanent guidelines of this character unless he intends to amend the law of this country and to create two or three degrees of murder, each with the minimum period to be served in custody. I very much hope that we shall have the opportunity to receive explicit answers to these questions, because at the moment there is a great deal of doubt in the country and in the prison service. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as to what, indeed, are the intentions of the Home Secretary. Is this what his right honourable friend the Home Secretary has in mind—that we should in fact have two or three degrees of murder, each with a particular minimum sentence to be served in custody? If, indeed, that is the position of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, I very much hope that he and his advisers will not require to be reminded of the need to look at the experience of the Homicide Act (and I suspect that they will not), because by attempting to draw distinctions between capital and non-capital murder that Act was eventually seen to be a near absurdity; and, indeed, the passage of the Homicide Act in itself made a major contribution to Parliament's deciding to abolish capital punishment in 1965. It would be strange indeed were the Home Secretary to decide to invite Parliament to repeat these serious errors of the past yet again.
However, and in any event, as someone who, as chairman of the Parole Board, had responsibility in his time for looking at the cases of over 600 people who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, I find it surprising that there is a belief that in some manner or other it is possible to place murderers in a number of neat categories, some serious and some demonstrably less so.
To take another example, I think it is quite wrong to believe that there is an easily defined category of

1193
domestic murderers—people who in most respects are regarded as perfectly decent fellows who just happen to murder their wives. Some domestic murderers did, indeed, simply lose control of themselves, and are deeply and genuinely remorseful for their conduct. But other cases of so-called domestic murders were among the worst that I examined as chairman of the Parole Board, when cold, calculating men butchered their wives in conditions of almost unbelievable savagery.
I accept at once, of course, that successive Home Secretaries and Lord Chief Justices have applied a number of informal rules when considering how long a person convicted of murder should remain in custody. For instance, it is already true that anyone who murders a security guard or a shop manager during the course of a robbery can expect to serve a sentence that is substantially longer than the average. But if we are to retain the indeterminate sentence —and whether or not we do so is, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said a few moments ago, certainly a matter for consideration—it is surely highly desirable that we do not attempt to imprison ourselves in rigid, publicly-defined categories of the kind upon which the Home Secretary embarked at the Conservative Party conference.
While commenting briefly on that point, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whether or not the rules defined at the Conservative Party conference also apply to Scotland. I think that a number of us would be interested to hear whether, indeed, that is so.
I come now to my second point of concern, and it touches the cases of both life-sentence prisoners and those serving determinate sentences of over five years. In this latter category the Home Secretary announced that in future there will be two separate categories of offenders: those convicted of violence or drug trafficking and another quite separate category of those convicted of other offences. Certainly on drug trafficking I am as alarmed as the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice about the growth of this offence; and I shall come to that issue in a few moments. But first I must make it plain that in principle I am opposed to creating two separate categories of offenders, one of which will be considered seriously for parole and the other, to quote the Home Secretary in his speech, who "should not get it".
Let me give another example of the sort of problem that will lie ahead if we proceed down this particular path. In one case a man is sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment for a serious robbery—an assault on a bank messenger with a blunt instrument. In the other, a man receives 7½years' imprisonment, possibly from the same judge, possibly on the same day, for a series of frauds on elderly people who have as a result lost their entire life savings.
I have read, as I am sure many others have, including the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and my noble friend Lord Hunt, the many tragic cases of this particular character. The long-term consequences to the victims of cases of theft by trickery of all their life savings as happens to many old people can be far more damaging than a single assault, however serious. It can in reality destroy the lives of many of the elderly people concerned. Yet, the Parole Board will know that the Home Secretary will almost certainly agree to parole in that case but will refuse to give parole in the
1194
other case. I find such a view entirely unjust. I believe that such a policy, if carried through, will undermine confidence in the fairness of the parole system. If these proposals of the Home Secretary are proceeded with, I am afraid that many will come to the conclusion that it would be far better not to have a parole system of any kind in this country.
That brings me to the point which links these cases with those of life-sentence prisoners, and that is the general security situation in our prisons at the moment. As the Home Secretary said at the Conservative Party conference, the measures he outlined would "increase the number of violent criminals in custody and dim their prospects for release". I would make one qualification to that. I do not believe that the Parole Board, either at the time I was there or indeed at the moment, when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is chairman, would recommend the release on parole or life-sentence licence of anyone they believed would be likely to return to violent crime. If they were to do so, Ministers have the power to decline to accept that recommendation.
However, the Home Secretary was entirely right in suggesting that many prisoners now feel that their prospects for parole have worsened dramatically—some, indeed, possibly mistakenly. He went on in his speech to pay a warm tribute to the prison service. I welcome that, and his praise was entirely justified. However, if he recognised the implications of his own decision so clearly in terms of what was going to happen in the prisons, why did he make no effort—none at all—to consult either the professional association representing the governors or the Prison Officers' Association on a serious basis? He did neither.
Many of the most dangerous men in custody are in our dispersal prisons. At several, the staff believed, with good cause, that there were risks of serious and immediate disturbances following the Home Secretary's speech. Those risks remain. Speaking in this House, one is in every sense of the word a great distance from the wings at Gartree, Wakefield, Hull, Wormwood Scrubs, Long Lartin, Albany and Parkhurst. At all, there is a constant risk of serious violence and of hostage-taking incidents. At one of these prisons that I have mentioned alone there have been three such incidents this year, in which human life could have been lost.
Our dispersal prisons contain many dedicated terrorists and other offenders who know that they have little hope of release for 15 or 20 years or more, whether the Home Secretary's new policy is complied with or not. Many work constantly to forge alliances with other long-sentence prisoners, also men with little hope: sometimes, of course, they succeed.
In the last few years, we have had serious disturbances at Parkhurst, Albany, Hull, Wormwood Scrubs and Gartree. To increase needlessly the tension in these prisons was a serious error of judgment by the Home Secretary, and to do so without proper consultation with the staff whose own safety was involved made it even worse.
I turn lastly to the question raised by the most reverend Primate in his speech, and many others: how do we reduce the number of crimes of violence in our

1195
society? I do not want to discuss the issue in general terms, but I should like to put two particular proposals to the House and to the Government. There are two areas which deserve priority, and they have both been touched on in the course of the debate this afternoon: firearms and drugs.
First, firearms. The number of armed robberies increased by 400 per cent. in the decade between 1971 and 1981. A high proportion of these offences were carried out by criminals who carried shotguns. Many senior police officers now believe that there is an urgent need to re-examine our system of control over shotguns. I agree strongly with them.
Until the Criminal Justice Act 1967, there were no controls whatever over shotguns in this country. Now a chief officer of police can decline to issue a licence, but the grounds on which he can make that decision are extremely limited. Anyone is able to buy as much ammunition as he likes without even having to show that he possesses a shotgun certificate. One certificate enables a person to hold as many shotguns as he chooses, and to do so without any obligation whatever to keep them in safe custody. With controls as slack as these, it is hardly surprising that criminals find it so easy to acquire shotguns. I hope that we shall hear tonight from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he intends to review these arrangements as swiftly as possible.
Now I turn to drugs. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, in his Darwin lecture, drew attention to the fact that prominent criminals have increasingly been turning their attention to the trade in hard drugs. If anyone is inclined to be sceptical about this, he should examine the statistics of hard drugs seized by the Customs and Excise. The quantities of heroin and cocaine seized from 1st January to 31st October in each year since 1979 are instructive. In 1979, 61 kilogrammes were seized; 1980, 73 kilogrammes; 1981, 100 kilogrammes; 1982, 195 kilogrammes; and this year 202 kilogrammes. In other words, seizures have risen by well over 300 per cent. in a period of only four years.
Despite the excellent work carried out by the Customs and Excise, there is no reason to believe that they are being spectacularly more successful than they were in 1979. What has happened is that drugs have become a multi-million pound business in which a number of sophisticated criminals are becoming extremely rich. The criminals' only problem at the moment seems to be that with so much heroin and cocaine available, the street value of hard drugs is now declining, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, confirmed in a Written Answer he gave to me on 3rd November.
Anyone with any knowledge of the damage done by hard drugs in the United States must be disturbed by the degree of complacency that exists in this country about this problem. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said:
"These drugs destroy, and destroy in the most appalling way".
Quite apart from the grievous damage done to the victims' families and the terrible deaths of many of the young people who experiment with these drugs, the House should be in no doubt about the relationship
1196
between drug abuse and violent crime. I have been told, by both prison authorities and police officers in the United States, that the overwhelming majority of cases of violent crime committed in the United States are drug related, normally by addicts desperate to obtain money to satisfy their craving for drugs.
There is no doubt whatever that the true numbers of addicts in this country is many times greater than is known to the authorities, and that our resources to deal with the problem are woefully inadequate. What is needed, I believe, is, first, an early statement by Ministers. They have to define the scale of the problem. Secondly, I think they have to indicate what steps they propose to take with the law enforcement agencies both in this country and those of our partners in the European Community and the United States to improve international collaboration to stem this tide of death. In the meantime the Government should at once reverse their policy of cutting the uniformed strength of the Customs and Excise, who are our first line of defence at our airports and seaports. It is quite extraordinary that, in a situation of the kind we are considering, the Government have cut the number of uniformed customs officers by 20 per cent.—over 900—since coming into office, to a present total of only 3,746 officers. We are told that 10 per cent. of even that small number of officers are engaged exclusively on office messenger and security duties.
When on the Parole Board I read the cases of people caught at airports bringing in really substantial quantities of hard drugs, I wondered how many more had walked effortlessly through the green channels because of the limited number of customs officers on duty. I hope that this unwise and dangerous policy will be put into reverse at once. But, as I have indicated, this will not be enough in itself. The Government simply have to awaken the country to the gravity of the drugs situation which we are now confronting.
I hope that the debate today will have done something to alert our fellow citizens to the grave difficulties on this issue which confront this country. Again I would express my own gratitude to the most reverend Primate for having introduced it.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, by tabling this Motion which raises a matter of deep common concern for debate in your Lordships' House, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has done us a timely service on a moral plane which transcends creed, race, politics or any other potentially divisive consideration, other than the means of resolution. As to these means of resolution to contain or, if one looks at the wording of the Motion, to reduce the problem of violence, I do not share, if the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will forgive me, his pessimism. It is proposed to advance a tentative proposal for your Lordships' consideration for immediate implementation with short-term effect. This in no way ignores the suggestions made by several noble Lords that the roots of the long-term problem lie buried in the various crevices which have ruptured the foundations of our social, and indeed moral, fabric; education, housing, inner city problems, the influence of press and media, home influences, unemployment, want of religious belief, want of social discipline, video

1197
nasties, drink, drugs, want of community spirit, or, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice put it, loss of respect, which, in a sense, says it all.
The opening speech of the most reverend Primate sought to impose its own discipline, a discipline which it is proposed to seek to observe. First, it ordains an order of general debate stripped of legal confusion, even if the means of resolution, as is stated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, are to be reflected in amendments to the law.
Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was swift to recognise, it precludes anodyne complacency. It enjoins stringent examination and it envisages innovation—innovation which, when it comes, as it is bound to come, shall lie within the province of Parliament, as was recognised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in his, certainly for me, wonderfully moving and constructive speech; and innovation, as it will come, unfettered by preconception, tradition or the hamstrings of practice. Lastly, the opening speech opens the door to consultation in a constructive spirit of realism and compassion where the interests of the victim are put in proper perspective.
But in all this, surely the priority which takes pride of precedence is that, without conferring any special privilege whatever, we should examine new ways to seek to reduce crimes of violence against our unarmed police in uniform in the execution of their duty. For, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor truly asserts, the key to the resolution of the general problem of violence is detection. Here we are not so much concerned with the class one criminals, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred, or the categories of murder, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just referred, but with the protection of the 75 per cent. of the urban elderly referred to by my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
If we wish to see positive results, to which my noble friend referred, is it not axiomatic, following albeit the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that the introduction of further measures of protection, such as might be accommodated within the framework of existing law, could not possibly warrant the attention of your Lordships' House?—because within the framework of existing law the police now are left unfairly exposed to an unacceptable degree of violence and an unacceptable risk of injury. Hence this cause of common concern which commands the attention of your Lordships today and demands the consideration of Parliament in future.
The wording of the Motion seems to have imported some measure of slight confusion. But as I read it, I hope I am right, the wording envisages the introduction of some new deterrent to crimes of violence other than murder. The wording also appears to acknowledge that the offence charged often tends to reflect the result of violence as distinct from the intent to do violence—a matter of hazard according to circumstance.
There are two tentative proposals which I seek to advance for your Lordships' critical consideration. In doing so there is no hint whatever of disrespect to the judiciary. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-
1198
Jones, observed, this is far too serious a matter to be left to judges and the police. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, truly said, there are no experts on this subject in this House.
The two tentative proposals are these. The first is to strengthen the structure of substantive law, and the second is to introduce the new sentencing principles but this only in context of crimes of violence against the police in uniform in the execution of their duty. The first proposal is that where an unarmed police officer in uniform in the execution of this duty is injured less than seriously, the structure of the law should be strengthened to ensure that all such cases are tried on indictment with certain sentencing consequences. In this context, we are concerned with the teenage thug and bully-boy described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice; the adult with the mind of a child, also so described; and the vast majority (if I may use shorthand) which was referred to cogently and in great detail in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. It is that type of category with which we are really concerned, not with the serious crimes of violence, because there the structure of the law can reflect the distinction between intent and result. It is in the lesser categories that this difficulty arises.
The proposal as to sentencing is that as regards all categories of violence other than murder a modified type of minimum sentence according to category should obtain. The modifications are designed to ensure that the judge retains total sentencing discretion if a plea of guilty is tendered on arraignment or if the accused is under the age of 21 and a first offender in this type of offence, or if wholly exceptional circumstances obtain such as medical considerations. As regards murder, the current proposals for mandatory minimum sentences (which, of course, are applicable in the case of unarmed police officers, with which my speech is concerned) recognise that, contrary to the submission made by my noble friend the Minister on another occasion, with respect, available maximum sentences, however tough, afford no substitute for the known minimum sentence in terms of deterrence. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me as time runs on if I do not deal in any detail with the proposals which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
This debate must serve (must it not?) as a prelude to consultations with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, with the Law Officers and with the Home Office. In such consultations, no doubt the merits of this set of proposals which have been put forward this evening, which include dropping parole in certain cases and the provision of the facilities of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, to reaffirm correct sentencing principles, will be canvassed. But, sound and welcome as these proposals may be, is it not much to be doubted, on any showing, whether these could afford any sufficient or any timely means of resolution of the problems to which I speak? In conclusion, my hope is that in advancing these tentative proposals for your Lordships' examination I have not already jammed the radar system of communication in your Lordships' House with some sort of tinfoil scatter of legal chaff. Such was not my intention. If the debt we

1199
owe to protect those who protect us claims precedence and priority, the question is: how shall this debt be discharged? In the spirit of this debate, no doubt some answers shall be found.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow closely his interesting proposals. Indeed. I can do no more than touch on this series of exceptionally expert speeches, beginning with the deeply impressive addresses of the most reverend Primate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my own Leader here.
I was addressing myself to some students the other day in a university town, and I put them this poser in order to stretch their imagination. Would they put themselves, in the first place, in the position of a Home Secretary about to address a Conservative Party conference, bearing in mind that one of the most admired men in the country (who is not with us at the moment but who is our Leader now) had a very rough passage when he adumbrated some progressive ideas at that same conference two years ago. That would be something, I thought, that the young men could bite on. Then, on the other hand, not necessarily in conflict but not in obvious harmony with that feat of imagination, I suggested that they put themselves in the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury about to address the House of Lords and about to offer that moral guidance for which we look to him—and never look in vain.
Well, my Lords, we have now heard the speech from the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was really a miracle of compression. It was only about 20 minutes long. When I think of the speeches that I have made and what I have taken 20 minutes to say, I think it was amazing. But one will have to think very carefully on what he said before one can evaluate it. The speech of the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party conference was referred to scathingly by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris—in this House, anyway—but I must say that I thought that he talked extraordinarily good sense today, and perhaps in future we shall agree a little more. But that speech by the Home Secretary was ripped to pieces mercilessly, in a way that I would hardly have tried to render in like capacity, by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. But there are points about that speech, bearing in mind all the circumstances and making all the allowances that should be made. His general idea is to reduce the total number in prison. So far as his proposals bring about that result, I welcome them. When he approaches the matter of serious criminals who have been convicted of violent crime, there, I am afraid, I regard him as very unenlightened.
Before coming on to that, may I just say a word about the victims? For many years people, when they got rather tired of somebody like me talking about prisoners, their rights and their treatment, would say, "What about the victims?" In fact, there have been four debates on victims in this House in the last 20 years, and they were all started by me. People do not believe that, so there is no use my saying it here again. But it is true that I am the only person to have
1200
introduced a Bill to try to help the victim. So when people say, "What about the victims?", I ask them to look at the evidence. I hasten to exonerate my noble friend Lord Mishcon from this, because he and I fought shoulder to shoulder in this House on behalf of the victims.
However, coming back to the Home Secretary's speech at the Conservative Party conference, he drew a sharp distinction between what he called the safety of the public and the interests of the individual criminal in the more serious cases. The safety of the public must always prevail in the eyes of the Home Secretary over the interests of the criminal. The distinction here is much too crude. It has led the Home Secretary to offer as a solution that those convicted of serious violent crimes should be kept in prison a good deal longer than they are kept in prison now. That is clearly the outcome of his proposals.
Yet, he must be aware—he has not been very long in office, but there are others who have been concerned with these matters for years, and he himself was a Home Office Minister before—that research at the Home Office points to the conclusion that long sentences do not act as more of a deterrent than short ones. I think that the Lord Chief Justice would bear out that Home Office conclusion. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the heavier penalties which the Home Secretary wishes to impose will have absolutely no deterrent effect on criminals. They are a bogus populist solution for an all too real problem.
It may be said that at least they would keep a number of dangerous men out of circulation for a longer period than is the case at present. In the short run, that may be so, though even in the short run the impact on relations between the staff and the prisoners could be very deleterious and damaging, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who speaks with a good deal of authority, brought home to us just now. But in the long run, and even if the Home Secretary was in power for 20 years—at which I am sure he does not aim—and was carrying out those policies, all, or nearly all, of those dangerous people would be released.
The Home Secretary thinks that, possibly, just a few will be retained in prison for ever, which has never happened up to now in Britain, except by accident. People have died in prison, but they have never been deliberately kept in prison for ever in recent years. So we can take it that, in the end, all these people will come out of prison and they will be far more embittered and dangerous than they are now. In the long run, the level of crime will have increased rather than diminished.
Such opinions, whether offered by me or by wiser people, are speculative. No one can really prove what the long-term consequences will be. But there is something which is manifest already. Long-term prisoners are already treated with a harshness which bears little relationship to the ideals of a Christian society. An additional dose of severity would represent the introduction of downright cruelty.
Over the years, like other noble Lords—and I can speak only for myself—I have come to know a considerable number of prisoners serving long sentences, sometimes for horrific crimes, including murder. I have time to quote only one instance this afternoon. I

1201
am thinking of a man whom I visited and who has been in prison for 18 years. I have visited him for 15 years. This man has twice been examined, once about 12 years ago and once, much more recently, by Home Office psychiatrists and in each case it was recommended that he should be transferred to a special hospital.
In the first case, the move was blocked by the Minister of Health at the time, but in the second case I have been shown a very full report based on a two-year examination, and that report reached the same conclusion which I understand was reached a good many years ago. Yet that man still languishes in prison and "languishes" is not an overstatement. His weight has come down in the last year from 13 stone to 8½ stone, yet he is not on hunger strike. His weight is apparently still dropping. He looks like a skeleton. Recently, in sheer frustration, he broke his right hand by smashing it against a wall.
I am no doctor, but you do not have to be medically qualified to be aware that there is a very sick man. But he is retained in prison against the advice of the Home Office psychiatrists who have fully examined him. I am not saying a word against the authorities at any level in that prison where he is, admittedly, now in the hospital. But the rules in a prison like that—and they may be widespread—are pettifogging beyond belief. I say this so that people will realise what being in prison for many years is like. It is not fun and games, as is sometimes suggested.
I was recently asked by an official of the prison to take that prisoner, who had been in prison for 18 years, some fruit and chocolates. He has never asked me for anything before, but he is now so weak that he felt he needed some fruit and chocolate to give him the energy to cope with a longish visit from me. I obtained the fruit and chocolate from a shop in the town, under the auspices of one of the prison officials, so that I could not have inserted anything which could be in the slightest degree dangerous. But when I arrived at the prison, I was told that it was impossible for him to have the fruit—there were only a few apples and oranges—and a little bit of chocolate. I was told that it was not permitted. It was never quite clear what the actual rule was, but I was not allowed to supply him with that stuff which had been asked for.
When the governor was informed that I had obtained the fruit and chocolate at the suggestion of a prison official, he waived the rule and allowed a special dispensation. So the prisoner was allowed the fruit and chocolate, but not till after the visit was over, so that it did not meet its purpose of giving him energy. That is the kind of thing that happens in prisons—not because the governor or prison officials are brutal, but because those are the rules that are applied in a large number of prisons. So when we talk about toughening them up and making things a bit harsher, we are talking about toughening a system that is already brutal enough.
What are we to think of a Minister, or anyone in a position of authority, who seriously intends to make the conditions of men in these prisons worse and more distressing than they are now, in order to satisfy what is thought to be public opinion? When we talk of public opinion, let us not forget the evil part played by certain very popular newspapers which stir up this hatred and make it very hard to know what public
1202
opinion would be if it were not for these unpleasant influences. There can be only one excuse. If someone really wanted to make conditions worse, that would be through invincible ignorance. But invincible ignorance should not be accepted as an alibi for very much longer in the case of anyone who holds a great position of state.
Today, we are primarily concerned with the reduction of crime and not with the more humane treatment of prisoners or criminals, which we have often discussed before and to which we shall no doubt return. I have down an Unstarred Question on parole, which I believe will be taken on 14th December. I do not believe that there is any obvious way—and none has been suggested today—of reducing the amount of crime in this country by making sentences longer or shorter, or more or less severe. I do not think that that will bring about any immediate reduction in crime, such as we must all agree the Government are quite right to seek rather desperately.
So far as the young people are concerned—and, quite naturally, there have been some references to them—you can reduce the crime of the future by treating them in a much more enlightened way. One way would be to provide alternative remedies instead of sending them to institutions. That would involve many more probation officers, but there would be a net economic saving in the end and, on the spiritual side, a much bigger saving still.
Also—this accords with what was said so forcefully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—unemployment undoubtedly has a big effect on their minds. I have spoken to a lady who runs, under Government finance, two factories where young people who have been in prison are employed—60 of them in London, 60 in the country. I asked her about these young delinquents, many of whom have been convicted of violent crime, what she thinks is the common factor. She believes that it is frustration—that young people who go in for violent crime are frustrated. Many of these young people are blacks. This frustration is greatly exacerbated, she believes, by unemployment. Behind it lies an inadequate educational system. Anybody who tampers with it or tries to reduce the educational facilities in this country is taking on himself a terrible responsibility.
The Lord Chief Justice, who I am sorry has had to leave, delivered recently an address of the first significance, which I have studied very carefully. Today he has given us a rather shorter version of that address. I am not going to tie myself to all the conclusions of his main address but, in the light of what the Lord Chief Justice said the other day, and said rather more briefly today, I should like to offer three propositions which bear very much on the subject.
I should like to argue, first, that the eruption of all crime, especially violent crime, is the result of a moral decline in the last 30 years. It is impossible to weigh these matters in the scales, but we have to accept that this increase in violence in the last 30 years is the expression of a moral decline. Secondly, the permissive society in most of its aspects—I cannot go into that in detail now, although I have supported some aspects of it in this House, including the

1203
Wolfenden reforms—has played a large part in the decline of morals. I do not think that the Lord Chief Justice put it quite so clearly today but the other day he said that the permissive society was the immoral society. He left us in no doubt about his opinion. Finally—the Lord Chief Justice did speak about this today—there is no doubt that the development of pornography has gone forward hand in hand with the development of the permissive society. It is difficult to say which is cause and which is effect, but they have gone hand in hand together and they have both gone along with a moral decline and a growth in crime.
Thirteen years ago I opened a debate in this House in which I submitted the propositions that pornography had increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. I said that most of us disliked pornography but that we also disliked censorship. It would be a matter of legitimate controversy at all times as to how the balance should be struck between them. I do not feel that the word "censorship" is the most appropriate. I am talking about the need to strengthen the laws against obscenity. From that time onwards the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who I am so glad is to speak next in our debate, and other members of your Lordships' House, have given a very strong lead in the direction of Christian decency. And outside this House, long before I became involved in these matters, Mary Whitehouse was fighting the fight. She has fought it much harder than any of us since then.
At the same time, since we had those debates in 1971 and 1972, the advance of technology and remorseless commercial interests have had plenty of evil success. I am certainly not going to claim that we achieved anything very noticeable, except in the sense that I am quite sure things would have been a great deal worse if we had not tried to act. The public today does at least seem to be aroused. A Bill to control video nasties has just had its Second Reading. And now we have the Lord Chief Justice, in that address the other day and again today, making it quite plain that he regards pornography as a cancer so evil that it must be eradicated without too much arguing and messing about with possible refinements. Those are my words, not his. But if anybody reads that address he will see that the Lord Chief Justice considers that pornography must at all costs be stamped out.
I do not, therefore, end on a note of special depression. Our debate today has been encouraging, in particular the religious lead which was given us so strongly at the beginning of our debate, and now we are beginning, with the help of the Lord Chief Justice and others, to isolate and identify the wickedness with which we are trying to cope. There seems to be some chance that we shall succeed in triumphing over it. I cannot find any words of my own which can rival the eloquence of the most reverend Primate or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, so I shall quote some words, very much in the spirit of their speeches, which were used in my hearing a good many years ago by one of the most reverend Primate's predecessors, Archbishop Temple:
"Only religious faith can make the world safe for freedom. Only religious faith can make freedom safe for the world".
6.56 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I warmly agree with the second part of his speech. I congratulate him upon the tremendous campaign which he has carried out over a decade or two to try to check the flood of pornography which still increases and threatens to overwhelm us. But I must begin by thanking the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate with a most interesting and comprehensive speech, with which I find myself in almost complete agreement, and upon one or two points in which I should like to touch.
First, I agree with the most reverend Primate and several other noble Lords that the penal code and prison system, however it may be improved—I recognise the great thought that has been given to it—cannot alone check the increasing flood of violent crime. The impulse to commit crime starts in family circumstances and national background. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, crime is an extension of the mores of society. That is profoundly true. But what they meet today and what they have been meeting since childhood is something very different from what they met in 1930, to which my noble and learned friend referred.
The fact is that crime, prosecution and sentence are the tragic end product of a series of adverse circumstances. A brief word I wish to apply to them. I reckon that the Government now have a responsibility to check this worsening trend. The problem, of course, is that violence is part of human nature. It is part of all of us, but most of us were fortunate enough to be brought up in family circumstances where we had responsible and loving parents who proceeded to civilise us, more or less. They struggled with it. It was more difficult for some of us than for others. And if Christianity was in the home as well, how lucky we were, because it was planted in us. Gradually over the years it has continued to grow and we have become a shade more civilised in the process.
But unhappily today—this again is a very major difference, I would say to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, from the 1925 to 1930 period—the number of broken families is legion. Here is where the trouble comes. These children, far from having parental guidance and any sign of Christianity, get no parental guidance at all. The children with the second wife who is not interested in them just run wild. They are vulnerable to all the dangers of the modern environment, which have been referred to so vividly in speeches today: drink, drugs, pornography, violence. They are the potential delinquents of the future. A great deal is being done to help these youngsters in school, in social services, in youth clubs, but the fact is that it still is not enough. More help is needed.
I have just two suggestions to make on schools and youth clubs before turning to my main point. On schools, I notice that the Council of Europe has just published a report on A Cultural and Educational Approach to the Problems of Violence. The study group visited 15 countries, and perhaps it is of interest and some little consolation that ours is not the only country suffering from this awful problem of' violence in our lives today. The report makes a number of useful suggestions, and I will mention just one; which

1205
is that for teaching non-violent solutions to problems of personal stress and conflict in children. This matter is set out pretty convincingly in the report.
In this country, we are blessed with at least one advantage; that religious education is taught in our schools. In fact, it is the only statutorily required subject to be taught in our schools—sometimes not terribly well, it is true. Nevertheless, it is taught and if that could be combined with the thought that comes with this report from the Council of Europe it might be of help to some violent youngsters who obviously cannot control themselves.
Secondly, in schools and youth clubs there is an ever present need for more sports facilities. Nothing is more helpful to a vigorous youngster than to play a game or have a swim. There is a striking deficiency still, with all the money that we spend, in public sector schooling compared with private sector schooling. Is it possible that the Government could grant aid to local authorities to acquire some more land and get together a volunteer group of unemployed youngsters, who might join in with the task of preparing such land for playing fields or the like? If that could be done, the creation of more playing fields or sports centres would be something of value to youngsters in a particular area.
No speech on this subject is complete without a reference to jobs. It is one of the dire consequences of today's huge army of unemployed that it is so difficult for youngsters to get a job at all. But my noble friends in Government are to be congratulated on the youth opportunities programme which has, after all, taken hundreds of thousands of youngsters into the beginnings of employment. I think it is an admirable scheme and I hope that my noble friend will build on it.
Such measures in schools and youth clubs will help the unstable youngster but, in my judgment, more is needed. The increasing element of violence in the media is creating an atmosphere damaging to all of us but which is downright dangerous to these youths. It really is time for the Government to take a hand to check this trend. Here I have a point to make to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. We are in a very different age today from that of 1925 or 1930. Communication is the major revolution of this age and of the twentieth century. Speed of development is so fast today that there is a real danger that it will become our master rather than our servant.
Television is by far the most powerful agent, soon to be greatly extended by cable television. Already its influence is critically important. Let us take note of a recent study to which I referred in a recent Question in the House, which showed that school-children in the five-to-14–year age range watch television for no fewer than 23 hours per week—23 hours! Think how that influences their young minds.
Unhappily, throughout that time the showing of violence has steadily increased both in degree and in amount. The BBC to their credit have just published a new guidance note on violence in television programmes; it is for the guidance of their staff. Substantially, it is a revision of the 1979 guide. I will quote just one sentence from it:
"The British public has become used to more intensive factual images of violence on the screen in their own homes than ever before".
1206
That is a matter of fact.
The report goes on to discuss problems facing editors and producers—and they are real problems. The difficulty is that violence is dramatic; the audience like it up to a point. All the same considerations apply to obscenity, which I may say is not discussed in this report.
We must recognise that the BBC and ITV—as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, rightly said—are in a competitive relationship; they are looking at audience figures all the time. The inevitable upshot is that the trend of pictures shown in news and drama goes slowly but inexorably down; in drama, accompanied by a similar element of obscenity and coarse language.
Among the national newspapers, the great ones make a splendid effort to maintain standards but on the whole they are tending to drift downwards too. The pornographic press produces a volume of material of violence and obscenity of an extreme kind. More recently, the video tape to which reference has been made has arrived with a further element of programmes of unbelievable violence and obscenity. We hope for legislative control shortly. I may say that I have arranged for the police film to be shown in this House next week on Tuesday morning, for noble Lords who may be interested to see just how appalling some of the worst of this material is. I have said enough to show that the unstable youngster is exposed today to a stream of violent scenes which can but inflame and encourage him to go out and try some of that for himself.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, made a splendidly forthright speech today, in which he had no doubt about the influence of the pornographic and violent scenes that children see—mainly on television but to an increasing extent on video tape. All common sense causes us to believe that there is a direct relationship between them. My conclusion is that Her Majesty's Government really do have a responsibility for these young criminals which goes beyond bringing them to court and imposing custodial sentences—a responsibility to check this deteriorating trend which is seriously influencing the mentality of our weakest citizens to commit violent crime.
It is not enough for us to refer to the 1973 Act to check ITV nor to the Normanbrook letter to check the BBC's programmes from this dangerous trend in violence and obscenity. It continues to go downwards in a competitive situation where the free market in media has led to increased sensationalism, and with the parasite pornographer exploiting the worst aspects of this sleazy trade with his unpleasant wares.
I quite realise that to do anything in this field impinges into the most difficult area of the liberty of the subject. All Governments tread here, rightly, with the greatest of care. It is impossible to check corrupting influences without some movement into that area, but I recognise that no movement can be made without the consensus of the nation to support such movement. Heaven knows that there has been quite a consensus here today, and I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has taken it very much to heart.

1207
I should like to suggest that it is now time to consider, and time for the Government to consider, setting up a committee of inquiry—if they like, a Royal Commission—to examine this matter right across the board. It is not just one subject for the Home Secretary, and it is not just one subject for even my noble and learned friend. It is a subject also for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, for the Secretary of State for the Environment—right across the board. The time has come to look at this matter to define precisely where the problems are and what the solution should be, and to gather a consensus which might give the Government the power to check that which is so dangerous to our national life.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, this debate opened with a marvellously constructed speech by the most reverend Primate; but I must say that the contributions made by the other two holders of great Offices of State—the noble and learned Lord the Lords Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice—filled me with a degree of disappointment. Although I hold both of them in the greatest possible respect and affection, if I may say so their contributions seemed to me to be very strong on condemnation but both of them were weak on the essence of thisdebate—which is, after all, the search for new procedures and new remedies.
It was to me a grave disappointment to have the privilege of hearing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice without hearing really anything at all about the approach of the judiciary, the impact upon the judiciary of this appallingly difficult problem which we are discussing here this evening. I cannot help feeling, that the suppression of video nasties is not really going to have a very profound effect on the whole question which is before us in this debate.
We are debating one important area of crime, the category of the crimes of violence, but it would be a mistake to think that this is the most important, the most pressing, the most heinous area of crime. After all, it is the facts which are the basis of any discussion of this problem, and not emotion. Let us look quickly at some further facts. The first fact is that the crimes of violence are a very small proportion of the total number of serious crimes committed in this country. There are three and a quarter million reported offences, that is offences which used to be grouped under the heading of indictable offences. Of those offences 94 per cent. are crimes against property, theft, handling, burglary, criminal damage, and. in addition, fraud, and 2.3 per cent. of those offences involve violence against the person, 0.7 per cent. robbery, and 0.6 per cent. offences of sex. Of that 3.3 per cent. 94 per cent., or 54,000 of those offences, are categorised as the less serious woundings and assaults, and of these, as has already been mentioned, about 45 per cent. are perpetrated by persons under 21. So we are asked this evening to look at our ideas for a further reduction of those figures in the light of the decision not to reinstate capital punishment.
I presume—and something has been said about this already—that the mention of capital punishment brought into this debate can only have been brought in in relation to homicide and therefore only perhaps in
1208
relation to the treatment of persons serving life imprisonment. On the question of homicide, to bring that into a sense of proportion, in 1982, as your Lordships probably know, there were 182 convictions, and those, as we have heard analysed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, are really perhaps not the most significant part of this debate.
Violent crime, of course, must be regarded with alarm and the utmost seriousness, and I am by no means complacent about it. But, unfortunately, it is the one category of crime which is grist to the media and indeed to the politician; of course, the protection of the old, the protection of the helpless, the protection of women must by description be an outstanding vote catcher at all times.
But, of course, it is of no comfort to inform the public that of the victims of violent crime the old, the helpless, form in fact only a tiny proportion. It will bring little satisfaction to those whose job it is to maximise the circulation of newspapers. Though, of course, condemning violent crime, we none of us should be surprised that violence does in fact involve about 4 per cent. of the totality of crime. This is not in fact new; this is not in fact unique, and indeed the population of this country still remains one of the least violent in the world.
I suppose one can say that the concept of civilisation has much to do with the social control of man's most powerful appetites—greed, lust, violence, envy—and in this country we have made a great contribution in that control with the support of the institution of the family, education, religion, the arts, and the whole concept of justice under the law. The criminal law is deeply concerned with man's appetites, and greed and sex and violence are, I suppose, the main motivation behind practically all serious crime.
We shall never eradicate those things, and, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Hooson, all we can do is to contain them. Our task surely is to contain them in the most civilised manner which is shown to be most effective. And to decide how to contain them we have, first, to identify the offenders, secondly, to identify the causes, and, thirdly, to select the penalties.
Your offender—as we have heard, and I agree—is mainly the young offender; his acts are committed on the whole in the explosion of adolescence upon victims, as the British Crime Survey has pointed out to us all, who are mainly young too. The offender comes, of course, mainly from the inner cities and urban areas and mainly from difficult and broken homes. Other causes are overcrowding, television, alcohol, unemployment, and the zeitgeist, or, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the mores of society at the time. It is really in those two first areas that there must be political action: there must be a social policy.
Referring to that, the All-Party Penal Affairs Group in their pamphlet The Prevention of Crime among Young People has already identified six practical, sensible areas for action. NACRO, of which I am proud to be a council member, is in fact fighting this battle on the ground. Its crime prevention unit is now operating on 31 housing estates; its safe neighbourhood unit is operating in London, financed by the GLC, and already covers no fewer than 5,000

1209
households; its juvenile crime unit, funded by the DHSS, is now working in nine local authority areas, bringing together, as your Lordships probably know, the police, magistrates, social workers and other agencies. On the housing front that organisation has no fewer than 89 projects, with 800 staff, providing last year 6,000 places for offenders and disadvantaged people. At the same time it is conducting an onslaught on the young homeless situation with a special group directed to that purpose.
We who support this direct positive action on this problem are designated by supporters of this Government in another place as woolly libertarians. It is easy enough for those who are reared in homes where there is room to live and room to breathe, in schools with space to learn and to play, for those who have been to university with tutors, libraries, theatres, art classes and sports fields, for those who may perhaps go on the the tranquillity of the Temple, to lay down harsher, and call for harder, sentences and treatment for people who commit violent crimes. But no serious research has yet shown any positive connection between severer sentences and the reduction in any category of crime. No serious research has shown that cramming offenders of this kind into conditions in prisons where they find the same situations as those which lead them to violent crime—overcrowding, unemployment, degrading conditions, the destruction of self-respect and self-reliance—has ever been a cure for violent criminality. Moreover, I say with a certain degree of trepidation that no serious research has yet shown that a judiciary that is honest, humane, intelligent and professional, as is our judiciary, but utterly lacking in any knowledge of, training in. or experience of, conditions in prisons or custodial establishments, can ever bring about the necessary reforms in sentencing policy.
Turning to penalties, what was the Home Secretary's first action? We know already, and I do not wish to rehearse the ground, that his immediate reaction was to specify—to use his words—minimum sentences for certain categories of violent offence. Twenty years, he says, are to be served in 10 different categories of crime, whatever view the court of trial may take. I agree entirely with every word that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said about the hopelessness of trying to categorise offences in this way. We have seen it all in the Homicide Act. Every offence and every situation is different from every other. However much one tries to categorise types of violence, one will find that, if one locks oneself into definite and unchangeable sentences of', for example, 20 years, one will be flooded with exceptions and injustices. I echo what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said, and I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will not go too far down that road.
Secondly, the Home Secretary said he is to increase, in this situation in which we find ourselves, the maximum penalties for the offence of carrying firearms, even beyond 14 years. Further, he intends to interfere in the parole system by making it impossible for the Parole Board, whatever view it may take, to release another long category of perpetrators of offences—a whole range—and laying down that they cannot expect any form of early release. One would be interested to know whether there is a single governor of
1210
a prison in this country, or a single prison officer, who has let the Home Secretary know that he or she thinks that that will assist them in their almost impossible task of running the overcrowded prisons in this country.
That was the immediate reaction of the Home Secretary to crimes of violence. I suggest that that is not the route to the reduction of violent crime. That is not a new way. The sentencing of young offenders is an extremely sensitive and difficult operation. I have taken part in it myself only over a period of 10 to 12 years as a Recorder in minor courts, but dealing with young violent offenders requires patience, knowledge, experience, and a great understanding of the whole sphere of alternative punishment. Of all penalties for such people, the short, sharp shock is the most hopelessly useless route to follow. If the person who is to suffer the short, sharp shock is sufficiently tough, he comes out of it proud to have gone through the experience and is tougher and more violent than before. Those who are not suited and not fit for such penalties simply fall by the wayside and learn nothing from their incarceration.
The judiciary in this country, and indeed many responsible politicians, are very apt to reflect, or say that they reflect, what the public want. I suggest that in fact what the public want is leadership and information. That is what they want from those holding high judicial office and those holding important positions in the state. At the last election, the Labour Party took the view that the population of this country put down its troubles to the Common Market. The Labour Party took the view that the population wanted to get rid of the Americans from these shores. In fact, as they showed through the ballot box, when the public listened to the arguments and were informed of the facts those two beliefs were found to be profoundly untrue.
What I suggest to your Lordships tonight is that, when one is dealing with violent crime—as, indeed, the study we have heard about tonight indicated—when the population hears about the treatment, about the persons who perpetrate these offences, about the ways and means of improving the situation, it is not out for retribution. One of the most interesting things about that inquiry was that fact which came to light. It only reflects what one perhaps has always believed. In a mature democracy such as ours, it is not for those in powerful positions to reflect what they think the population wants, or what they see suggested in the newpapers is what the population wants: they must come to an informed view of the situation themselves. Having done that, they should then lead those they lead towards a constructive method of dealing with this problem, which is a problem of the greatest possible seriousness.
Despite the remarkable opening speech and what was said, the debate, although full of interest and ideas, has been short of constructive suggestions to deal with the problem. I sincerely hope that those who speak hereafter will contribute constructive ideas so that those in charge of our affairs can go forward in a new way to deal with those persons who reflect—I agree with many other speakers—what we see about us in the world. They need to deal with these people in a civilised and constructive manner.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I feel that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is doing the country a great service in instigating this important debate in your Lordships' House. There can be nothing more important than to try to find successful ways to reduce crimes of violence. I was most hesitant to put my name down to speak in this debate with such erudite and distinguished speakers: but the reason why I felt I should contribute is on behalf of women, who are so often the recipients of violent crime.
In Yorkshire, women have been frightened beyond words by the murders by "the Ripper" and by other recent terrible murderers, and by attempted murders. One example is the Leeds nurse who was bundled into a car in a hospital car park, raped, tied up, thrown into the river and left to die. Luckily she managed to struggle free. Last year two helpless elderly ladies, one of whom lived near York and the other in Bradford, were beaten and robbed. Both had to have hundreds of stitches. Their condition shocked many people. They were two of many such people who are living in fear and alone throughout the country.
A few days ago a young New Zealand girl who was nursing at the Marsden Hospital had just left the hospital when two black youths snatched her bag. They then returned, took her watch and pulled her gold chain from her neck. The girl was terrified and screamed for help. She thought she was going to he raped. People opened their windows, but nobody came to her rescue. How sad it is that this is the memory that this girl takes back to New Zealand from London. People just do not want to get involved. They are frightened of being stabbed. I ask the Minister whether compensation is given to people or their families if death or serious injury occur when they go to the help of others in distress. I think that more people might be ready to help if compensation were paid in these circumstances, and if that were made clear to the public.
The week before last I went to the showing by the police of the so-called video nasties to Members of another place and Members of your Lordships' House. I found that I was the only woman among many men. I feel very strongly that more women ought to know just how violent and terrible these obscene films are. It is quite possible that many mothers do not realise what their children and young people may be watching. It is difficult to understand why these evil, horrific and vile videos have not been outlawed before now. The police told us that some of these videos have been in the country since 1975. I cannot see any reason at all for letting them pollute our society. They could he just as damaging to an unstable adult as to a young person. Could I ask the Minister what facilities Scotland Yard and other police forces have for researching the effect of such violent viewing on people who have committed serious crimes?
I know that great concern has been expressed by heads of schools, including primary schools. I wonder whether the Department of Education and Science has shown any concern over this serious matter, and whether children who have seen violent videos show signs of disturbed behaviour? This might take years to present itself, and perhaps the devastating effects will
1212
lie hidden for a long time. I am pleased that Mr. Bright's Bill has been given a Second Reading in another place. Perhaps Members of your Lordships' House, with such a wealth of experience, will he able to improve the Bill when it comes to this House.
There is no doubt that many people are disturbed by so much shooting and violence coming into our homes on television. I, for one, feel myself getting frustrated. I have to leave the room if my noble kinsman watches an American gangster movie on our television set. If I am allergic to anything, I think it is to cheap American films with a great deal of shooting. There is concern that more such material will be on the screen when cable television arrives. I think this has been mentioned by several noble Lords this evening.
I am president of our British Spinal Injuries Association. We have a few cases each year of stab and gunshot wounds which have paralysed the victim by damaging the spinal cord. In the United States of America, at least half the people who become traumatic paraplegics each year do so as a result of injuries from such violence. We must not let this terrible state of affairs spread over here. Should we not tighten our laws on the possession and carrying of offensive weapons?
One of the reasons for this terrible violence on the streets and in society as a whole in the United States is no doubt that the drug craze has been with them for longer than it has polluted our community. However, terrible crimes of violence are committed to procure money to buy drugs in Britain. I, for one, have had my car window broken and things taken out of my car. I was lucky, and I was grateful to two CID officers who searched a man on suspicion in the underground station at Piccadilly. I got some of my things back. The man was a drug addict. I feel that unless the police can search in suspicious circumstances, their job is virtually impossible. I cannot see why people worry about this if they have nothing to hide. But I think that it should be carried out tactfully by the police.
A recent film on television showed how, in Dublin, in three years heroin has spread to epidemic proportions. It showed how a community living in flats had organised rotas of their people to police the flats. They had combated the immediate drug problem, but it had moved elsewhere. The film showed how inadequate are the Customs facilities in Eire. It made me think: could this not be a route for heroin trafficking into Britain? No doubt heroin is coming in by many and various routes, by air and sea. When I have come through Customs from various parts of the world I have never seen dogs sniffing people or luggage. I have seen splendid dogs in your Lordships' House. If there is a shortage of dogs for detecting drugs, I for one should be very pleased to breed Labradors, or any breed of dog, for this purpose, and give them to the country.
We must get on top of this evil invasion, which causes so much tragedy to so many vulnerable people. There is tragedy when the drug addict becomes hooked and slowly kills himself or herself. There is tragedy to addicts' families, who are helpless; and tragedy to the unexpected, innocent person who becomes the victim of violence by those who will go to all ends to procure the drugs. A growing number of babies are being born as heroin addicts. They suffer the

1213
terrible withdrawal symptoms as adults, and need treatment to wean them off the drug. These are just more problems for the over-stretched National Health Service.
Last year I met a doctor who worked at the Pakistan Embassy here in London. He told me of the terrible plight of the Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He said that there are now well over 3 million, maybe 4 million, refugees. They are in need of medicines, vitamins and vaccine, as well as warm clothes for the very cold winters. They have epidemics of measles and other diseases, and very often they are hungry. British Customs officials have said that last year the Indian sub-continent, and in particular Pakistan, accounted for 84 per cent. of the heroin seized. If there are desperate people, half starved and in need of products vital for life, is it not possible that heroin is being sold here and elsewhere in Europe to help fund the desperate need of over 3 million homeless people in a poor country?
After speaking to the doctor from the embassy, I discussed the needs of the refugees with an eminent Member of your Lordships' House. I thought that we might be able to have an appeal to get some necessary help, such as medicines and vitamins. There must he thousands of drug samples and unused medicines which could help the people in the camps. The problem is very serious. Everything ought to be done to stop heroin coming on to our streets.
Can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House about the drug amyl nitrate, which is said to be able to kill? Am I correct in saying that it is sold for £5 for a small bottle in pubs and nightclubs, and is very dangerous? It is sold under the name of "poppers", "golden fluid" or "golden liquid". Is this drug banned in Britain? If not, are the Government going to make it restricted? I believe that it is banned in the United States of America.
Why is it that this generation of young people like their pop music so loud that it is medically dangerous to them? Are they trying to drown and forget the difficulties in modern society which they do not, or cannot, face up to? Are they hiding beneath the blaring throb which goes all night, so that they can sleep most of the day?
I ask the Minister: what has gone wrong with the sentencing of young people since the Criminal Justice Act was passed? There seem to be more 15 and 16 year-olds being sent into youth custody, with detention centres half empty. I have a Question down on this subject for Wednesday of next week, and so I hope for a satisfactory answer. During the Committee stage of the Bill in you Lordships' House I moved an amendment suggesting that school children should be separated in a school environment, rather than be part of the youth custody system. There is great concern in the probation service that these young people should not be residing in adult prisons waiting for sentence while on remand.
I am told that in Birmingham there are many 15 and 16 year-olds locked up for 23 hours a day in Winson Green Prison. How many more are there throughout the country? Does not the Minister (who is also a teacher) think that they would be better doing a full day's school work and being treated by people who
1214
understand the difficult problems of puberty, rather than lying on their beds most of the day in an adult prison, thinking that they are grown-up criminals?
These youngsters are mainly the casualties of broken homes, within which there has very often been a great deal of family violence. Could the Government turn some of the half-empty detention centres into juvenile remand centres and combine juvenile youth custody with full-time education? I should like to see people re-educated in good child care and taught to be good parents, so that the cycle of deprivation is not continued.
I used to take a discussion group for young prisoners in a prison. They used to tell me, "We will go on committing crimes as long as it pays". The danger is that where there is little to lose, crime must seem to be an outlet and a challenge to many. Today many young people are not patient, nor tolerant, nor Christian. They want to get rich quickly. If they can take a short cut, they do. Perhaps they should be taught in nursery school that life will be a long, difficult ladder that needs climbing at a steady pace, and that there will be, one hopes, a better life after death if they try to reach the top.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I must resist the temptation to go further into the viewing of the noble Baroness and her relations. I think that instead I ought to stick to the advice of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop. His speech was so wide-ranging and so helpful that at this time of the evening it is probably better if I speak very briefly about one topic that he raised—and only one. It is the role of the police, which has been mentioned only very few times during the debate.
The most reverend Primate gave two quotations which I thought were so apposite. First, he referred to a quotation—I am not sure where it came from—stating that it was too late for many young criminals to fall into the hands of the police. He gave a second quotation, which was that the police alone cannot make an impact on much of the crime that we have in this country.
I should like to make two comments on this question. First, we should all pay much more attention to the police and not just take them for granted as all too many people do. Secondly, we should recognise the gap between the police and the people, which has probably widened over our own lifetime. We should do all that we can to narrow the gap. New ways of reducing crimes of violence are not easy to find, but all can contribute. It is so important that we should all do what we can.
I should like to suggest that the police are probably the most vital of all the agencies that have been referred to. They have a wide range of problems to face. It is certainly wrong of us to assume that the problems in heavy industrial areas are the same as those in country areas; or that the problems are the same in the different countries in the West. The police must have great imagination and be very flexible in their duties and in the way in which they plan for the future.

1215
In all countries, and certainly in ours, the police should command the respect of everyone. Further, there should be an element of fear of the police for the criminal. It is especially important that the criminal should have some fear of detection. The police cannot do everything that is required on their own. Too often the police and also, I think, sometimes the Home Office fall back on the party cry, "More men and more powers". I should like to give one figure to show the immense cost of the police today. To employ one man with his back-up equipment costs £20,000 a year. Even the smallest increase in the establishment of a force represents a substantial sum that is generally divided between the county and the Exchequer.
I should like to see not just more men and more powers but better men who are better trained. I am sure that the most reverend Primate, if he casts his mind back to his days as an infantry officer, will agree that in a good battalion it is possible to value men at different stages of training.
We want to see more police in uniform, especially in areas where many people are fearful, but we cannot afford large numbers of men walking because of the high expense.
We must follow up much of what was stated in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. We must see that his recommendations for consultation are not allowed to fall back. I feel sometimes that, except in one or two places—I believe Brixton to be one exception—progress on consultation is extremely slow. This may apply over the whole country and not just to London south of the river.
We must help the police as far as we can. When they feel hurt they react and they withdraw, as the Scarman report stated, into "fortresses". They close their ranks. That is a bad sign. We want them to be much more open because we have to close the gap between people and the police.
Our police grew from representatives of local communities, unlike in France where the police have been built up as a regiment, organised centrally. But our young constables today are given less training than young constables in police forces of other Western countries. An effort is being made, I believe, to extend the training period but it will take some time before the period of three months, the basic time a year or more ago, can be extended to the six months, which was recommended by Lord Scarman. We want these young men to have better skills and more confidence. This has been missing from many areas of their training.
Here is another approach to the search for new ways. We could well review our special constabulary with its long history. There have been two recent working parties, rather half-hearted, and various recommendations have been accepted by the Government. But comparatively little has resulted. We still wait, so far as I know, for a chief constable to come out into the open and say that the special constabulary can take a full part in the fight against crime on the streets, instead of simply using them as back-up in more simple police tasks when many men would be capable of doing more. I suspect that chief constables are careful because they do not want to rub
1216
up the Police Federation the wrong way. The federation has never been enthusiastic about the special constabulary.
There must have been 250 noble Lords present in the Chamber earlier today. I wonder how many have ever served as special constables or gone out of their way to try to learn about police duties. Have they been out on foot with men on duty, or out in cars? Are they familiar with the duties carried out on the streets and in police stations? There will be some who have done so, but they will be a minority. I wish it was the other way round. I recommend that they should learn from their local police about the duties that they perform.
Some forces would be friendly if noble Lords visited their local police station and asked to be shown the duties that they perform. Some noble Lords might be rebuffed. Some senior police officers dislike Parliament and politicians most of all and they never make much effort to conceal that dislike. Even if they receive a rebuff, I can assure noble Lords that they will find it worth while to continue their efforts and to persist in their search. They will learn a great many useful things that they did not previously know.
The task of the police today is to work closely with the many people who want to work with them. This is a two-way traffic, but there will always be a gap and something of a bitter-sweet relationship between the public and the police. But if the professionals, the amateurs and the general public would only work together, we could achieve much in the fight against crime.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to join all the speakers who have thanked the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating this debate and for presenting his speech in his characteristically lucid and humane fashion. Secondly, I should like to apologise for having a very nasty cold. I can only surmise that I caught it from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington during the National Health Service debate.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry I did not hear what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I was apologising for having your cold. I wish to concentrate on the part of this debate concerning the search for new ways of reducing crimes of violence. After all, the young offenders of today can tragically turn into the violent criminals of tomorrow. I should like to concentrate on the work being done by the voluntary organisations and the youth movement to halt the movement of delinquency towards criminality. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has mentioned this aspect but there has perhaps been insufficient reference to the important work carried out by youth, social and voluntary organisations in the field of crime prevention. I should like to focus especially on a community-based scheme called Intermediate Treatment which, in my view, has been highly successful in the prevention of crime among young people.
One should perhaps recall how the present system is getting on in dealing with young offenders. The first

1217
sobering statistic is well known. We have more young people in custody than any other Western European country. I understand that at present there are more young people in custody than at any time since 1912. It is revealing to note that, while the number of juveniles committed to detention and youth custody centres has risen by 150 per cent. in the last decade, only one-fifth of that increase can be accounted for by an increase in young people coming before the courts. So the only justification for the rise in custodial sentences must come from a belief in punishment which not many people, I notice, admit to holding. However, when taking into account the proven failure of custody as a remedy for delinquency—surely, the reconviction figures are unequivocal proof—then the only explanation for sending so many young offenders to penal establishments must be a wish to punish them.
But another and, in my view, heartening fact is that 95 per cent. of all youthful offenders commit crimes against property rather than against people. This goes to show that, in the first instance at any rate, there are very few young violent offenders. It would indeed seem to prove that children from every kind of family background can go through a stage of delinquency as part of the process of growing up. If it is dealt with properly then they will come out at the other end of that stage as law-abiding citizens. So it must be critically important to decide on what remedial treatment will dissuade young culprits without pushing them further into crime.
I happen to believe that children and young people respond very definitely to the way in which they are treated. I am convinced that if you treat an unstable, confused 15 or 16 year-old from an unstable background and with little hope of a job, as a criminal after he has committed some petty theft or vandalism, then there is every chance that he will become one. In view of the high rate of reconvictions for young offenders, I do not think it really is going too far to describe our penal institutions for young people as "universities of crime". They go in to learn; they are treated as criminals and they come out, in very many instances, as criminals.
It is for that reason that I should like to comment briefly on the importance of the work being done with young offenders by the voluntary and community organisations, especially through intermediate treatment. Since the term "intermediate treatment" first made its appearance in the 1968 White Paper entitled Children in Trouble the notion has grown that allowing these difficult people to remain in their own homes while bringing them also into contact with a different environment is more successful in deterring delinquents than custodial care. Many of the intermediate projects serve to involve the wider community in supervising difficult young people—indeed, it is as if the extended family, which so many of these children lack, is thereby recreated.
I should like to give one or two examples of the type of work going on. The first example is in Belfast, where the danger of delinquency among children is enormously strengthened by their higher poverty factor, the greater shortage of jobs for school leavers and the existence of violence, and where, consequently, there is in fact so much enlightened
1218
thinking as to ways of preventing crime among the young. One such scheme, supported by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust—a voluntary organisation in which I am involved—is called the West Belfast Auto Project. That project is aimed at combating the heartbreaking and serious problem of joyriding, in which a young boy of 15 or 16 steals a car, puts his girl friend inside it and then drives through police and army checkpoints. Fairly naturally, he will be fired on and this will bring danger to himself and disrepute to the police and the army. So, instead of putting these children into detention, a project was devised whereby they were brought to a makeshift garage and taught how to look after old beat-up motor cars which were brought in for that purpose. Every Friday, having mended the cars, they were allowed to race them around a track in Belfast. So although the project is primarily a preventive one, it also provides an alternative to custody for those young people referred by the courts as a condition of a probation or supervision order. The success rate of this particular project is indeed very high.
Another successful scheme is run by a small voluntary organisation in West Yorkshire. This was a truly pioneering venture set up in 1963 and in close co-operation with schools. The organisation provides weekend schemes involving problem children and their families. They believe that it is essential to treat those who might become violent in a non-violent way, and they try to restore to those young offenders not only some self-respect, but also a respect for the people in the community who surround them.
Finally, there are numerous schemes implementing intermediate treatment in London. There is one near to where I live in Chelsea. It has a very high success rate. During the five years it has been functioning only two of the problem children with whom it has dealt in daytime classes and evening sessions have ended up in custody. These young people include delinquent boys between the ages of 14 and 17, girls between the ages of 14 and 16 with family problems, and a whole host of other very disturbed children.
All the projects that I have mentioned are financed through consortiums of different funding agencies. But, matched against the low re-offending rates of the intermediate schemes which have been monitored, the funding really is ridiculously small. For instance, in 1981 it was assessed that the re-offending rate of four monitored schemes in Maidstone, Birmingham, Pontefract and Harringay was 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. Yet in 1982–83 local authorities in England and Wales spent only £12 million on intermediate treatment and £197 million on community homes and observation and assessment centres. These, as we know, have an extremely high record of reconviction.
Central Government have committed themselves to make £15 million available for intermediate treatment in the next three years—a tiny fraction, I am sure your Lordships will agree, compared to what central Government will be spending on detention and youth custody centres in that period. I should like to impresson the Minister that it should be imperative to establish permanent funding for intermediate treatment, because otherwise at the end of those three years the funding of this highly successful system will be left to the vagaries of the particular local authority

1219
concerned. Surely from both the human and the practical viewpoint it must be recognised that this particular system has worked and should be placed fairly and squarely as a strong alternative to custodial care within our juvenile system. If we really want to stop today's young delinquents from turning into tomorrow's violent criminals, surely there must be more support for those committed and dedicated workers in the social, voluntary and youth services upon which there is such a very great responsibility. It is their influence over our young people which has proved to be so much more effective than the repressive and often brutalising methods of the custodial establishments.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the most reverend Primate in his wise and moving speech developed this debate on a wide canvas, and for that we are grateful. I seek to develop one aspect only of his speech. I seek to make the case to your Lordships' House that, with some exceptions, violence in adults has its roots in disruptive experiences in childhood. I make this statement based on personal experience of children in trouble and in need, and through contact with those in prison. My personal experience is reinforced by research at both Oxford and Cambridge Institutes of Criminology, Lancaster University, the Dartington Research Unit and other notable centres of research.
I would particularly refer to the work of the late Dr. Kellmer Pringle, the first director of the National Children's Bureau. In 1973 she gave a paper to the Association of Police Officers and others entitled, The Roots of Violence and Vandalism. In her paper, based on research, she cited four basic needs of children which, if unfulfilled, engender fight or flight, attack or withdrawal. What are these needs? First, the need of a relationship of love which is secure, continuing and consistent; on this love depends the healthy development of personality and the ability to form satisfying happy relationships through childhood into adult life; secondly, the opportunity for mental and physical development; thirdly, the need to be valued; and, lastly, the need for responsibility.
Research has found that the development of a child's personality lies, in the first instance, within the confines of the family, the extended family and the neighbourhood in which the family lives. I believe that it is on the family that we must build. Conversely, children who are battered, who witness violence and vandalism in their homes or outside, and who do not receive warm, loving and consistent care are, in the main, although not exclusively, those who may turn to violence in adult life through frustration, loneliness and a sense of emptiness.
I should like to mention a few instances where our social and education policies could perhaps better support children and their families. There is the unresolved dilemma of mothers who need to work or who feel within themselves that they must do so. Unless carefully handled, the emotional needs of children will suffer. If married women with young children need to work, then fathers need to play a greater role in the home. Furthermore, it is cause for concern that no Government in this country have yet
1220
created a policy, nor a climate of opinion, which seeks to meet the needs of children under five years of age. Our EC partners have been more sensitive in this sphere. Could it be that the people of the EC countries recognise the emotional needs of children more than do we, or do they just love their children more than do we in this country?
In our schools—and I pay a tribute to our teachers—should there not be a policy throughout the country of involvement, as between parents and schools, particularly in schools where there are children from families with a different culture?
Then, again, I would make an urgent appeal to the Secretaries of State of both the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Social Security, to develop and pursue a policy of keeping children out of the penal system. Encouraged by Lancaster University, various local authorities—such as Northamptonshire, Hillingdon, Liverpool and some in South Wales—are working towards this policy through a juvenile bureau which includes teachers, social workers, probation officers, youth leaders, police and the voluntary sector. This bureau provides a co-ordinated service to parents and children and young persons who are experiencing difficulties, including non-school attendance and vandalism. They are offered counsel and the provision of activities, such as was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on a voluntary basis, thus preventing a court appearance. It is known as the "diversionary policy".
However sound is our penal system for young people—and let us pay tribute to those who deal with young people in the penal stream—nevertheless, as has already been stated, those who get in to the penal stream in many cases graduate to prison and, even if they do not, in their own eyes, and in the eyes of others, they are labelled as being part of the delinquent stream. I contend that one of the greatest things we could do would be to keep children out of the penal system.
It would be unrealistic not to face the fact that there are children and young persons whose early lives have been disrupted and who have little sense of right and wrong, who must come before the juvenile courts. If they are sensitively and wisely handled, I believe—and, in fact, I have experienced the fact—they can be rehabilitated.
However, has the time not come to think and rethink the juvenile court system? I am chairman of a committee entitled New Approaches to Juvenile Crime. This committee invited Mrs. McCabe, a criminologist, and her colleague, Mrs. Treitline, to review the juvenile court procedures in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. Their report is just about to be printed. They consider that the present juvenile court system has outgrown its usefulness. Their recommendation for the reform of juvenile courts is based on the penal system of Scotland, although not exclusively.
Time does not allow of a description of that system which was introduced in Scotland in 1973 and which has reduced the number of children in the penal system. Suffice it to say that, under the Scottish system, parents are involved and helped to experience a sense of responsibility for their children, which is not

1221
generally the case in England and Wales. Dare I hope that when the report is published it will be taken seriously by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the Home Office and the Department of Health.
On another issue, may I say to my noble friend the Minister how disturbing is the Interdepartmental Report on Conciliation in Divorce Cases. I dare to hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not rely on that report when considering the needs of children in divorce cases.
I want to mention two last points. I would suggest that no education or social policies, however good, will provide a service to parents and children unless those offering the service are themselves people with skills, emotional balance and a deep sense of feeling and commitment, and who in one form or another experience spiritual values which take precedence over party politics.
My noble and learned friend in his speech made reference to the fact that we should be quite clear on what is right and what is wrong and not to seek to excuse people. For fear it should be thought that I condone wrongdoing of children who have had a disruptive and unhappy childhood, I would say that teaching and helping them to uphold what is right and true, and condemning what is wrong, is not incompatible with understanding.
I should like to cite one instance of a boy of about 16 or 17 years old who stole a Balliol tie and a Balliol suit, who went to the Randolph in Oxford and lived there for a week. In a lordly fashion he marched out and asked for the bill to be sent to me, and the bill came. It was astronomical. The description of the boy was such that I knew who he was and I saw him. He said to me, "Ah yes, miss, but you see. I've had a very unhappy background. I am a psychiatric case, and therefore there is nothing you can do". I said to him "John, you have had a psychiatric background, you have had difficulties in your past, which were more than most people could bear. But what you have done is wrong and you can choose. Either I take you to court or you get a job and pay me back the money which you owe me". He paid me back the money right down to the last penny. That was 20 years ago and only last Sunday he rang me up, and so bears no grudge. I mention this, because it is possible to have understanding of a background, to care and have deep commitment and yet to adhere to a distinction between what is right and what is wrong. I would submit that if we do not do this, and if we do not demand of a person, whoever they may be, the very highest we can, we diminish that person's personality.
Finally, I would say that the emotional education and social needs of children and their families must surely be met by the churches of all denominations whose spiritual beliefs should illumine our policies, and should provide guidelines with each and every child. I end as I began by saying that I believe that violence would be greatly diminished if, as a country, we had a policy for the family, and in particular if we had sensitive and more positive regard for the known and established needs of our children.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will appreciate why I do not at this late hour—I should love to be able to do so, although I would not do so as effectively as she has done—follow her into some of the fields she has explored. What emerges clearly at this stage is that there is no dispute about the need to call the attention of the Government, and indeed Parliament, to finding new ways of dealing with violent crime. It is probably sensible to separate violent crime from the other fields of crime in this way, because it is a special variety calling for special treatment and special care, and a special and in some ways expert approach, provided that it does not blind us to the fact that the non-violent crimes include a wide range of crime whose effects are often profoundly evil for the victim—sometimes just as evil in their own way as are the crimes of violence. However, there it is: it is crimes of violence that we are considering tonight.
I was diverted by the circumstance that both the Lord Chief Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, misunderstood the reference to capital punishment in the most reverend Primate's Motion. I should never have thought that the latter would be so unwise as to regret the passing of capital punishment. I must confess that this never occurred to me, and I am a much more obtuse person, I am sure, than either the Lord Chief Justice or the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Anyway, I thought he was simply saying "Now we have got rid of this irrelevance, let us get down, all of us together, to the problem of trying to solve this particular aspect of the criminal field". I should have thought that that was a wise, sensible and well-timed decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said something else which interested me. He said that there were no experts in this House, and of course nor there are, I have some doubts as to the experts outside. I well remember that, when I started sitting on the Bench, the Secretary of State's advisory committee—and this is many years ago: more years than I like to think—was advising us that there was no point in sentencing people to imprisonment unless it was a long sentence. We went around visiting prisons from time to time, and this was the preaching which was sent to us. It is a terrible confession to make, but I suppose any consequences are prescribed after nearly thirty years.
I was simple and naïve and I took the experts' advice and fell over backward to avoid sending people to prison, but if I sent them to prison, I sent them to prison. Fortunately, my powers of sentence were restricted in those days so no dreadful consequences would have followed. But I shudder to think what consequences there might have been if I had really had unrestricted powers of imprisonment. Now of course the experts tell us that this will not do, and one wonders why. Well, so much for the experts.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington made a wise speech, although I did not agree with everything he said. He seemed to throw out a challenge to us, and I was a bit concerned about it, when he hoped that there would be some constructive suggestions in the rest of the debate. Our whole thinking on this problem has to take a new form; our

1223
whole approach. The time is ripe, if not overripe, for a new approach.
People talk about it being all the fault of the permissive society. This, to me, shows a sort of confusion in thinking. It does not recognise that, just as great inventions bringing in beneficial effects to people are often ambivalent in their effects, so also reforms bringing great benefits to society are similarly ambivalent. The simple illustration is the printing press, which gave us the possibility eventually of works of great literary merit and even just good boys' and girls' stories that were worth reading, but also brought us the Sun newspaper. Similarly with the permissive society.
It is a more civilised society. Of course we are more civilised than we once were, and in this field of the administration of criminal justice and dealing with crime and the criminal we are much more civilised than we once were. We certainly do not want to return to the Victorian age so far as that is concerned. If we come to terms with that, we can go forward with our thinking as to how to deal with these side effects which have arisen as a result of the great liberation which has taken place.
I think that my noble friend Lord Hutchinson agrees with the Observer editorial, but I found it profoundly depressing when it said:
"Youth criminality has little to do with the permissive society. It almost certainly has little to do with pornography or video nasties".
I cannot understand that as a sensible judgment at all. Surely the video nasties must blunt the sensibility of people to violence. Such research as there has been—and I have made no profound study of it; I do not pretend to have done—surely establishes that, as one would expect in common sense, sensitivity and horror of violence, particularly among the young, is blunted by these things. Therefore they ought to be brought under control.
I have a special interest to declare in this connection because we have just had a video shop come to the village where I live, 10 miles west of Stirling. There is a proliferation of them in the small Scottish town of Stirling, and I have been making a special study of them and watching the kids looking at the windows and saying, "Coo, I'd love to get that one, you know". I find it profoundly depressing. They turned up in this village where I live. There in the window was a splendid display not 50 to 100 yards from the parish church. The centrepiece of the display was a skull in glorious technicolor, dripping blood. It was advertising a film called "I Drink Your Blood". I went in and had a look round. They had "Murder on the Orient Express" and one of Mr. Henry Fonda's famous films—perfectly legitimate, but, judging by the covers on the cassettes or whatever they are called, the range was from the offensive to the obscene if the covers properly represented them. I cannot believe that that sort of thing does anything but harm. When one comes close to it like this near to one's own home it concentrates the mind on the problem. It is like being mugged, because that, too, concentrates the mind. Something must be done about video nasties. I think they have a connection with our troubles, though they do not explain them all.
I have spoken as long as I ought and I have not given my noble friend any constructive suggestions. What
1224
about the politicians? When the noble Lord, Lord Soper, was speaking—and I am thinking also of the peroration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—I wondered about the contribution of we politicians, we who participate in politics. Is there not a time when we, searching for votes, appeal to all that is worst in men, to some extent aided and abetted by the advertising men whom we employ? Some of us appeal to fear, do we not? Some of us appeal to greed and envy and so on. After it is all over and we have the votes or not, we appeal to St. Francis of Assisi.
Is this the right way? Should we not look in on ourselves as politicians? What is the good of appealing to all that is worst in people for three weeks and then, when we are faced with the problems of government, we have to appeal to the best in people? We should not be surprised then if they do not respond but laugh cynically.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we are grateful to the most reverend Primate for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject. The constraints of time necessitate concentration upon one or two aspects only of this complex problem. I therefore intend to concentrate on the appropriate punishments for crimes of violence.
I do not despise popular opinion and, like most people in this country, I believe that such punishments ought, by and large, to be more severe than they are at present. But to counter-balance this—notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside has just said—I would favour less severe punishments for crimes that do not involve injury, pain or suffering, be it physical or mental, to individuals. In this connection perhaps the admirable innovation of partly suspended sentences could play an increasingly important role. Again I would think that less severe sentences for non-violent crimes would accord with the public mood. I was very pleased to hear the Shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, take much the same line on the radio a few days ago.
Crimes of' violence naturally cover an extremely wide spectrum. For example, a drunken driver who knocks down and kills a child or an elderly lady on a pedestrian crossing is, in my book, guilty of a crime of violence. At the very least the law should be changed so that his licence is suspended for a minimum of five years instead of the present twelve months' minimum. Having got that off my chest, I want to concentrate upon the crime of murder and this brings us naturally to the issue of capital punishment.
I have always believed capital punishment to be entirely justified morally for the most heinous types of murder, but, at the same time, I can appreciate the force of the undoubted aesthetic and practical arguments against capital punishment. On balance, and with certain provisos, I would say the House of Commons took the right decision earlier this year. However, this leaves public opinion almost totally at loggerheads with Parliament, which must be an unhappy and undesirable state of affairs. Can the gap between the public and Parliament be narrowed? I think it can.

1225
What the opinion polls are really telling us is that over 80 per cent. of the population want more severe punishment for the worst types of murder—which excludes obviously most murders within the family—and that, faute de mieux, capital punishment is what springs to their mind. If a suitably rigorous alternative were suggested and subsequently adopted, I think public demand for the restoration of capital punishment would largely fade away.
The status quo is clearly unsatisfactory. What then are the possible alternatives? First, I cannot agree with those people—some of them decidedly of a liberal persuasion, incidentally—who say that life imprisonment must mean life. There must always be the possibility, surely, of some remission of sentence as an incentive to good behaviour and to protect the lives of prison officers. Another reason for disagreeing is that I suspect the very concept of a life sentence of having outlived its usefulness. Everybody in Britain knows that nobody will spend the rest of his life in prison, unless, for example, he has an unexpected heart attack. Armed with the knowledge that the average "lifer" spends only nine or 10 years in prison, the man in the street regards the whole thing as a farce.
This farcical aspect was compounded by the extraordinary ineptitude and lack of any instinctive sense of psychology or public relations on the part of those responsible—which I suppose must mean Parliament—when it was decided to allow judges to recommend the minimum periods of actual imprisonment to be served by certain convicted murderers. Up until that point all sentences had been expressed in gross terms; that is, gross of remission. Yet the minimum periods to be served under the new rules were to be expressed in net terms, net of remission, thereby totally confusing the public.
The sentence to which all other lengthy sentences are instinctively compared by the man in the street is the 30–year sentence awarded to the Great Train Robbers. So, when the newspapers the other day carried the banner headline "Nilson gets 25 years", because no newspaper was prepared to become a laughing stock by announcing dramatically "Nilson gets life", the man and woman in the street automatically assumed that the "soft" establishment had done it yet again, and was treating a man who had murdered 16 people much more leniently than they had treated the train robbers who, after all, had murdered nobody.
Would it not have been generally beneficial, not least to restore public confidence in Parliament, to adopt some variation of the American system whereby for the crime of murder a flexible sentence is imposed within determinate limits? Sentencing for murder, always at the discretion of the judge, might then work out something like this: the average domestic murder or crime passionel would normally be treated as a third degree murder, although one would not need to use that term, for which an appropriate sentence might be 10 to 30 years. The convicted person would be eligible for both remission and parole and could, accordingly, be released in as little as three years and four months.
In quite a different category comes the type of murder in which an elderly sub-postmistress is blasted in the face with a sawn-off shotgun, or where a policeman is shot in the back. I wonder whether your
1226
Lordships realise that 181 policemen and women have been murdered in Northern Ireland over the past 13 years. This is equivalent to the systematic murder of 6,575 policemen and women in England, Scotland and Wales over the same period. The appropriate sentences for these types of murder might be in the region of 30 to 60 years, subject to remission but not to parole. This would mean a minimum of 20 years in prison. I am delighted that the Home Secretary effectively seeks much the same objective, albeit by a different route; although his policy would not allow judicial discretion as mine would. I, too, should like to know whether the Home Secretary's writ in this matter extends to Scotland and to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales.
Quite the worst types of murders are multiple murders, especially the cowardly and contemptible bomb outrages like those in Hyde Park, Regent's Park and in numerous parts of Belfast: for example, the Belfast bus station bomb, in which, I think, 13 people died, including several women. For these, the appropriate sentence could hardly be less than 45 years to 75 years, entailing a stay of at least 30 years in prison.
The maximum period of imprisonment stipulated in each of these cases would very rarely be served, but would effectively mark the gravity and the public detestation of the crime. These maxima would also provide a useful longstop if an unexpected manifestation of homicidal tendencies by the prisoner in question made an earlier release undesirable. I think that the general public would be greatly heartened by some development of this nature.
However, all this presupposes that, in the absence of capital punishment, the only alternative that can be contemplated is a very lengthy period of imprisonment in a conventional prison. But is this really the only alternative that can be contemplated? All punishment, ideally, ought to be short, sharp and should follow quickly upon the crime. This, after all, is the rationale for capital punishment. But there is something not quite right about stringing out a punishment over a quarter of a century, during which time the prisoner may well have altered totally in personality as well as physically, to the extent that he is really not the same person who committed the original crime in anything but the most technical sense. In this respect, if not on others, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
Is there some way, therefore, short of capital punishment, in which those found guilty of unusually heinous killings could be severely punished for a limited period immediately following their conviction and subsequently sent to conventional prisons, thereby enabling them to spend a shorter time overall in detention than would otherwise be the case? Britain has no equivalent of Devil's Island and I do not think that the American chain gang would suit us; but we used to have penal servitude with hard labour and the army "glasshouse" system as it was called, used to be particularly tough and rigorous. Might these not be revived? We are, after all, talking about only a relatively small number of evil people, who would spend no more than two or three years in such an institution before being transferred to a conventional prison.

1227
More radical steps could be considered. In the United States, young offenders are frequently required to read the Bible from cover to cover and then to answer questions on it to the judge's satisfaction before before being released. I once suggested in your Lordships' House that terrorist murderers should be treated like exceptionally wicked schoolboys and made to write out the Sixth Commandment several hundred thousand times as a precondition to their release. The aim would be to deglamourise these individuals and to make them objects of amused pity rather than objects of veneration and respect in their communities. Alternatively, the evil man who plants bombs in crowded places, killing and maiming scores of men, women and children, might be given a constant visual reminder throughout his waking hours of the true horror of what he had done, at least until he showed signs of remorse and repentance. Modern techniques of colour photography and photographic enlargement and reproduction on to durable surfaces make this entirely feasible.
Perhaps the European Court, which I sometimes think is mentally stuck in the innocent and optimistic 1950s, would raise its collective hands in horror and cry, "Cruel and unusual punishment!" But all punishments are unusual until a few dozen people have experienced them: to ban what is unusual is to rule out innovation of any sort. As to cruelty, well, one man's cruelty is another man's soft option. Many convicted murderers would find it far less cruel to face three years rigorous imprisonment followed by, say, 10 or 12 years of conventional imprisonment than to have to look forward to 20 years or 30 years of conventional imprisonment. What is more, such an arrangement would be far less cruel to the taxpayers' pocket.
Leaving murder aside, other innovations in sentencing policy could be tried. For example, those convicted of robbery with violence could be sentenced to x years for the robbery plus y years for using violence in the course of that robbery, these to run consecutively and not concurrently. The second sentence, that for using violence, would relate directly to the degree of injury caused to the victim. The object of this would be to induce those engaging in such robberies to avoid injuring their victims at all costs.
No doubt there will be plenty of objections to what I have suggested, both niggling objections and objections of substance. To these, I can only reply that, as current methods do not seem to be working all that well, might it not be wise to revive some of the old methods, or to try some new ones?
8.47 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for introducing this debate on crime. I respect him for doing so. I suspect that my speech will cover points entirely different from those mentioned by many other speakers in this debate. I want to say something about freedom, about the principles that must support freedom and about leadership. I believe strongly that if we returned to past principles life would be made far more difficult for the criminal. The views that we express give an idea of what we have experienced. I once lost my freedom in circumstances
1228
of extreme hardship. I know what kept many alive when, by the nature of what happened, they should not have lived at all. It was only a belief in this country, in its beliefs, its principles, its leadership and, above all, the way it governed its everyday life. This was simply the issue: that the struggle to hang on to life was worthwhile. That was our strength.
Today, it is my belief that it is necessary to regain some of this strength that has weakened. As I see it, this means returning to some of the principles that formerly sustained us. What seems to me to have happened in the ensuing years is a tendency either to forget past principles or to allow attacks to be made on these principles by learned individuals who should know better and who have been completely unable to propose anything better to replace them. There is, therefore, a void, an empty space, and leadership is weakened.
I am no expert on crime. I leave that to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. But I say that, when leadership is weak, I see no reason for criminals in our midst not to misbehave as they do. Leadership is weak when it fails to speak out loud and clear on issues affecting our authority and when it fails to act, as it ought. With respect, I maintain that leadership has been weak on this score. There is another failure of leadership. After the war, in 1945, we failed to articulate to our people, as far as I can make out, the benefits that were about to be bestowed upon them as a result of their efforts in sustaining the Second World War. I presume that this was considered to be a reward for the efforts they had made on this occasion.
In 1983, the cost that the British taxpayer has to pay in support of the National Health Service runs into billions of pounds. In 1983, I have nowhere heard of any gratitude from our peoples for the fact that we have the National Health Service. I have heard only assertions that they have it by right. Still less do I hear any appreciation from those who have benefited from the establishment of our educational service; or from the grants that are available for those who desire to continue their studies at university. On the contrary, all I have heard from those (and, admittedly, it is only a minority) who, but for the policies which have been brought into being, would never have been able to go to university, is a challenge to the principles on which our freedoms are dependent in this country. Yet so far they have been quite unable, by the arguments that they have propounded, to suggest any better principles.
This has spread to teachers in our schools. Discipline went by the board and, when London schools were affected, it became necessary for the Inner London Education Authority to insure their teachers against the results of violence from their pupils. Then militants from outside became active on this score. Here we have, indeed, reached the depths—no discipline, no respect for authority and the very principles of our society discouraged, which is fertile ground for the criminal outside.
Seemingly, leadership is powerless to act to safeguard our youth and our posterity. As a people, we are probably more free and have less government than the peoples of any other nation. But the privileges that we enjoy can be safeguarded only if we act with responsibility towards those principles, and this

1229
implies a duty on leadership to lead and to speak out about them.
I now turn to the media. What can give more encouragement to someone to break the law than to show on television a disparagement of authority, in either Government or industry, which has responsibility for our affairs? Is it not true to say that when a person is interviewed the questions are hostile, at least to begin with, suggesting impropriety or inefficiency on the part of a person or a department, turning the whole process of the interview into an inquisition? I know that it is a defence for the media to say, as they do in reply to such a charge, that in their questions they are only attempting to bring out explanations which they think the public ought to know; in other words, they reserve to themselves the right to be the judges on that. I cannot accept that as any justification for a hostile question. Authority ought to be protected and in no way disparaged. Authority is necessary in the management of our day-to-day affairs. If authority is weakened, it does not help stability; it helps the criminal outside.
In this Motion by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury we have been invited to consider new ways of reducing crime in our country. I have suggested that in reducing crime we should not overlook or forget those principles which have sustained us in the past, and that leadership should be more articulate about them. I believe that many of our people would be glad if that were done. I believe that our people are not slow to follow what they want to hear, and if leadership is shown in the way that I have suggested life will be far more difficult for the criminal.
8.55 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, after so many distinguished and expert speakers, I rise with the greatest diffidence. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, on his remarks. He made constructive suggestions about diet and its effect on behaviour, which I, too, have read about with very great interest, and I hope that his suggestions will be tried. Perhaps we should start here in this House and see whether our behaviour improves.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, said that the Church should resurrect the devil. I think that it should resurrect the Ten Commandments, which it has allowed to fall into disuse to such an extent that, in many places, they no longer seem to be taught even to confirmation candidates. I should also like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who stressed that it is for the Government to maintain law and order, not for the public to use more and more expensive, sophisticated and inconvenient devices to protect itself from criminals. Finally, I agree with every noble Lord who has blamed television, video and the entertainment world in general for increasing violence.
For more than a generation Governments, psychiatrists and educationists have been undermining parental control, which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said he would like to see brought back and reinforced. The police did not want the public to help them; they wanted to do it by themselves. Now, suddenly, they want help again, but it will be very much more difficult to restore parental
1230
authority and co-operation between the police and the public than it was to destroy them. To destroy is usually easier than to create. It will be very difficult, and will take a long time, so the sooner we get started the better. My father used to say that it' children went wrong it was almost always the parents' fault. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, wants to keep children out of the penal system, and I entirely agree with her, but in very many cases I would put the parents on the mat instead.
Ordinary people, whose views are not coloured by expertise or fashionable theories and attitudes, tend to feel that the punishment for any given crime must be adequate not only as a deterrent but because, however wrong and unchristian it may be, the desire for revenge is a very basic human reaction; for example, where a loved one, perhaps a child, a mother or a grandmother, has been brutally murdered or injured. If the punishment is adequate, this desire in civilised people usually dies a natural death. But if the penalty is felt to be grossly inadequate, it may persist and lead to members of the public taking the law into their own hands, which will not do at all.
Then there is another consideration. Where people have no particular religion and have no acquaintance with the Ten Commandments, the yardstick by which they tend to judge the heinousness of a crime is the severity or otherwise of the punishment which the criminal is likely to receive if he is caught. I know that not everybody agrees with me about that, but I believe it is true. I hope that the Government will bear these points in mind when framing any future legislation.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the numbers of cases of personal violence and of robbery have doubled since 1972. Since then, those cases involving firearms have gone up by 16 per cent. annually; and it is an interesting fact that of those firearms used no less than two-thirds were air guns. The causes of violent crime are, of course, very varied, and many of these have already been covered by a number of speakers. Obviously, environment is the first one, and high-rise flats with no play areas must surely account for a great deal of the crime in younger people. They have nowhere to play, and inevitably the only thing they can do is to cause damage and write graffiti in those buildings. Such buildings are the first step towards anti-social behaviour.
Blocks of flats split up communities. Community feeling is lost in the streets where houses are pulled down. In those streets there is a great neighbourly feeling and a great community spirit. People look after each other. But once they are scattered among people they do not know that community spirit is lost. When crimes are committed in passages, all that people do is to look the other way.
It is interesting to note that in Hong Kong's high rise buildings single room flats are provided. When a village—perhaps even a village made of tin sheets—is relocated into a block of flats, not only is the whole village put on the one floor but, so far as possible, each person is put next door to his neighbour so that the community continues in that block of flats.
The breakdown of family units, whether it is a question of one-parent families or both parents going

1231
out to work, is a great factor in people getting into bad habits at an early age. Lack of parental guidance inevitably results. Once children start to roam the streets they are heading downhill. I wonder seriously whether equality for women is all that it is jacked up to be. If women go out to full-time work, how can their children be properly looked after? One day I feel that the wheel will turn full circle: that women will be encouraged to stay at home and bring up a healthy family rather than go out to work.
A child's early environment, which includes parental love and discipline and the inculcation of good values affects that child, as we all know, for life. Furthermore, if a child at an early age sees his mother being hit, it is very likely that he himself will grow up to be a wife-beater. If children, again through lack of parental care, have few possessions, they are the most likely to disregard property which belongs to others and to tread the road towards vandalism.
Unemployment is obviously another factor. And lack of money, coupled with increased leisure time, must be a large factor. Everybody has to occupy themselves in some way. If there is no way in which to occupy themselves, people get into trouble, in spite of all the facilities for people which are laid on nowadays by councils.
The youth training scheme is excellent. I understand that yesterday the Prime Minister said that by Christmas there will be an opportunity for every 16–year-old to join the youth training scheme. Some people who are in a position to do so—and how lucky they are—are able, when young, to go to Australia to work on a farm in the outback. Whatever it may be—the youth training scheme or the ability to make their way round the world, and it is remarkable how many people are doing so—young people must do something.
The one thing which we are all agreed about is that idleness at a young age is fatal. To have some occupation is absolutely essential. Young people should not be allowed to say that they do not wish to join the youth training scheme or that they do not wish to do anything. I believe that serious consideration should be given to giving no social security whatever to anybody aged 16 or 17 unless they have been a member of the youth training scheme. They should not be allowed to prefer to do nothing, as some of them inevitably do. It would be marvellous if National Service could be reintroduced, but it will never, I regret, be seen again. It got people away from home, gave them confidence and instilled a little bit of discipline at a time when it was most important to do so.
Other points are stress, caused by boredom and sometimes anger. Crimes are often committed as a result perhaps of losing a girl friend. Group influence can also be good or bad. It is very often the case that a decent boy will have to commit a crime in order to remain a member of his group.
Many speakers have mentioned video nasties. If you stub your toe often enough against a brick wall you get a bruised toe. If you deprave your mind often enough with video nasties, surely you must bruise your mind. I do not believe that we can continue to allow video
1232
nasties to be sold. They must encourage crime and demonstrate methods of committing crime to those in particular who have a low mentality and who are the most likely to be unemployed and influenced.
Drink, drugs and solvents contribute to the problem. In particular, there is the problem of after-hours fights outside pubs. We must be much stricter on publicans. One so often hears a boy say that he had not really been drinking, that he had only had eight pints and that that did not count as drinking. Where a fight takes place outside a pub, the publican should feel that he may lose his licence. The magistrates should be more strict. The suggestion has been made that in certain circumstances plastic glasses ought to be provided, which would be most unfortunate for the publican but which would deny the likelihood of weapons. That would virtually kill the publican's trade. Football hooliganism is now, I gather, spreading to cricket.
Many most important speeches have been made on the efforts being made to help young people. That is where most of the effort must lie. It is the first duty of this country to stop crimes happening rather than to punish them.
Violence for gain is increasing as society is becoming more violent, and criminals are increasingly prepared to resort to violence. Burglars are more prepared when disturbed to attack the householder rather than try to escape. A lot can be done about this. An increasing amount of money is changing hands by cheques in the form of wages, thus reducing the amount of money that has to be in transit. Security of business premises is increasing, and the monitoring of schools, which are so often burnt down or vandalised, can be done by television cameras. More and more houses have security systems. I personally would favour identity cards. I see no reason why they should not be introduced. After all, your Lordships all have identity cards and are not ashamed to have them. I cannot see why identity cards of some kind cannot be introduced, although I know it would be extremely unpopular and probably impossible.
So far as further prevention is concerned, there must be further foot patrols in towns. On the motorways one sees the motorway police, and one tends to slow down should one possibly be going faster than 70 miles per hour. The very fact that the motorway police might be around keeps one's speed down. So too would foot patrols reduce the opportunity open to criminals. They would increase the likelihood of a quick discovery that a crime had been committed and would make the criminal a little unsure as to where the man on the beat actually is at the moment. Also, the patrol policeman gets to know all the faces in his area and can soon identify strangers.
The police already receive great help from the community, but they can only enjoy that help by earning the respect of the community. The police must be known locally and must contribute to the work that goes on in community committees and organisations. And the police must be trusted. The police must be known to be honest, reputable and of good character. It takes only one bad policeman out of 100 in a police force to give those people who are anti-police the opportunity to give the police a bad name.

1233
There is a trend towards increased punishments. We have heard a lot about keeping people out of circulation in prison. But if it is to be that there will be no chance of release for prisoners, then we must accept a greater prospect of violence in prisons. Prisons seldom do any good. They seldom reform anybody, and they are extremely expensive. I seriously question whether prison sentences are not far too long and whether shorter sentences with, perhaps, long periods of probation or reporting would not be just as effective. I do not believe that when a criminal goes to commit a crime he is fearful because it might mean a 25–year sentence, a 20–year sentence or a 15–year sentence. I believe he is fearful of being caught. Therefore, the relative length of the sentence is more important than the total length.
Surely there is also a difference between punishment, on the one hand, and keeping someone out of circulation because they are going to go on committing crimes, on the other hand. These should not be confused. When somebody is put out of circulation, there is no great merit in putting him into bad conditions. On the other hand, when somebody requires more punishment than simply being kept out of circulation, then I feel the opposite; that there is no need to provide him with good conditions.
There are too few effective alternatives to prison. Community service need not be heard at all. There is also restitution. We know all the various punishments and they have their parts to play. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, rightly mentioned the benefits of intermediate treatment. But where one gets the real nasty who has beaten up an old woman or slashed a baby, then a very much sharper punishment is required. But the short sharp shock treatments have usually been watered down within months or years of their being introduced.
When I visited a detention centre the boys were playing games all afternoon. They had single rooms in a very nice block and they had their own keys to their rooms. They had a beautiful gymnasium. And unlike being at home, they had regular and well-cooked meals. I believe that detention centre was for many of them very much better than being at home, except of course that they had lost their liberty. One hut was empty and it was described as a terrible hut and quite uninhabitable, but it was very much better than I had when I joined the army. When I joined the army, along with my noble friend Lord Denham and my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, we had cold water to wash in, we were on a concrete floor, and we survived; and that was not even punishment.
I believe that for these real nasties there ought to be a sort of glasshouse system, perhaps measured in weeks or months, where fellows would have to run all day with full packs, drill, get fit, undertake assault courses, education; let them gain confidence as well, let them learn self-management; but make it a punishment and one that they would not want to go back to, something they feared, but finite, lasting weeks or months.
One punishment which has been suggested is solitary confinement, and that should play its part for certain people. Again in Hong Kong there is a very successful method of detention centres, and as it is so successful I believe it should be looked at and
1234
emulated, even if it does not tally with some of the methods we use at the moment. Most of these methods of good detention centres require extremely well paid and very highly trained warders, and that is expensive but perhaps cheaper than keeping people in prison. Perhaps some of these methods could be used to reduce the need for prison sentences while satisfying the demand for tougher sentences. Most importantly there must be more education against anti-social behaviour, and parents must be made to be more responsible, made to pay fines and damages for their children in many cases. We must remove the video nasties and encourage the residents somehow that it would be more appropriate to be more co-operative with the police.
Violence is part of nature. Children are brought up with violence; they have toys with guns and battle games. They learn to box, they fight, even if they fight their own friends. Research has shown that many terrorists have joined terrorist groups not because they believe in the politics but simply because they want to go and fight and they do not really mind who they fight for. If they want to fight, let us try and channel their aggressive instincts into good areas. I very much liked the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about the boys being allowed to race their motors.
I believe the country is gradually turning the corner; as employment is just starting to get better, prosperity will return, and with it I believe crime will reduce. I think this has been a very valuable debate and I hope some of the ideas will be helpful in the future.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask if he has ever spent any time in solitary confinement?
Lord Gisborough: No, my Lords, and I would not like to think it went on for long; but I think the idea of having a long prison sentence would be equally unpleasant.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has made a lot of points, some of which I agree with but more of which, I think, I do not agree with. It is too late to go into detailed argument across the Floor, and so the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail. I did notice that he examined the speakers' list very closely before he said anything about women's equality; he saw that there was no noble Baroness to follow and so he took the risk. I will not follow him in that, either.
I rejoiced when I saw that the most reverend Primate was opening this debate. We have had many debates on this subject, and we have had much assistance from clergy outside and from Bishops inside this House, but this has been the first time the Leader of the Church has stood up in this House and started something of this kind. We are deeply grateful. I thought, if I might say so without being impertinent, that he did it most frightfully well. I was particularly impressed by the fact that he referred to nearly all the suggestions which can be of the slightest use—and most of them are not—in dealing with the problem.

1235
As an example, he talked about dealing with the family. Nobody else has talked of dealing with the family. It is the only thing that can do any good at all. I am going to talk about it, because before the war I worked for a good many years at the Pioneer Health Centre at Peckham, which was a family club. It was frightfully good, and if we had done it everywhere half these problems would not have arisen. The most reverend Primate was right. That is the first thing.
Most of the matters noble Lords have spoken about today have been subsequent. The most reverend Primate did it himself, about Peper Harow. Peper Harow is a wonderful place, but it is only dealing with people who have already gone so far wrong that no-one can help except the specialist. He also spoke about Grendon Underwood, of which I was the first chairman for ten years. I admire it and think it is a wonderful place; but it is for people who have been selected as already wrong. So my own feeling is that my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington was a bit hard on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Nobody else has made any constructive suggestions, and I do not see why he should expect them to do so.
However, turning to more serious matters, the Motion was so phrased that it left us with two questions to consider. The first is: can society do anything to halt the rise in violent crime? That I have already discussed here. I think that with the exception of one of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, concerning the efforts to help the young—the sort of thing that NACRO is doing with people who have already gone slightly wrong, and the whole strength and movement of the social service throughout the country, which is much criticised and, although often not frightfully good, is often very good indeed—there is nothing else anyone can do. I do not believe that the direct approach of, for example, my noble friend Lord Soper will deal with society. It will deal with individuals, and the Church can deal with individuals, but not with society. So I think that as to the first part of the Motion of the most reverend Primate my own attitude is one of considerable scepticism, but we can do very much more than we are doing now, and I think we should.
Secondly, how are we to treat the increasing number of violent offenders who must have long sentences for the protection of the public now that their removal by hanging is, happily, no longer available? In spite of what has been said in the debate, I do not think much can be achieved on the first point, so I shall pay attention chiefly to the second. It is important to stress—and this is not fully realised—that long term imprisonment is a terrible sanction. It is acceptable in a civilised society only if it is administered with scrupulous care. Conditions should not be noticeably worse than those of ordinary under-privileged citizens. Hope must be kept alive. We must regard violent crime as an additional category to the crimes committed by the ordinary petty criminals who now overcrowd our gaols. In Northern Ireland we used to distinguish them from the terrorists by calling them ODCs—ordinary decent criminals.
1236
The crisis in the prisons is not caused by violent crime. The proportion of convictions for violent crime is only one in five. My noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington gave the proportion of violent crimes to the total number of crimes. The proportion of, not convictions but sentences of imprisonment, is only one in five. The proportion rises up to 30 per cent. within prison because the violent men get longer sentences. What is now accepted by nearly everyone is that prison rarely does any good to the prisoner and invariably does some harm, if only to family relationships and the ability to earn. So it must be used sparingly and only for offenders who are a danger to society.
I know very well that the category of "danger to society" is not easy to define, but we do not need to do that tonight because it is perfectly clear that it includes people to whom this debate refers. There may be marginal areas but, generally speaking, we are talking about people whom we would all agree are a danger to society. So I want to make it clear at the beginning that penal reformers, who are often thought of as soft, have with scarce exception unequivocally agreed that prison is a suitable and inevitable response to violence. I think that everybody who has spoken agrees with that. It is sometimes thought that those of us who work on the prisoner's side from time to time do not agree with it, but we do. We are quite clear about that.
Ideally we should like to see prison used only for such people. If those who need not be there were not there, there would be room in time to pay proper attention to those who have to be there. But this is a long way off. Some progress has been made. My noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington praised the work of NACRO, which I am very pleased about. I am its president, so it would hardly be for me to do so, but I think that progress has been made and NACRO has played its part.
There are different categories of violence. I want to talk first about one in particular—terrorism. The only noble Lords who have referred in the debate to the terrorist were the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Terrorists must surely be in a category by themselves. Some hangers-on are no more than gangsters, but the dedicated and sincere terrorist is a man who acts from conviction and not for gain, and so is doubly dangerous. They believe themselves to be at war in a just cause and feel that they have a right—perhaps a duty—to kill and maim, and to risk their lives in doing so, just as we (those of us who are not pacifists) feel justified in doing so in a declared war. Only political solutions can alter this attitude. They can do so quickly, as we have seen in Kenya, but such solutions are outside the scope of this debate.
I cannot see that any preventive action is possible here. In Northern Ireland, for example, religion has tried—so me think not hard enough, it is fair to say—on both sides to dissuade its flocks from violence, but with little success. The difficulty is that terrorism has a moral basis—as I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about violence—however misguided and in spite of being based on hatred. This makes it particularly hard to counteract.
My view is simple: we should fight it ruthlessly and with all the weight of the law and not limit the

1237
effectiveness of the police or troops who protect us by insisting that they look over their shoulders the whole time to satisfy every single demand for the preservation of civil liberties, which is fair enough in peace but is inevitably subject to some adjustment in a war situation. Field Marshal Montgomery told his troops—and I was one who heard him do so—that they must learn to hate the Germans. There are directions of a different kind from the Christian religion, but I have succeeded in hating the terrorists. I say that without shame, though no doubt I shall suffer for it hereafter.
Terrorists who are guilty of the most serious crimes must be sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and must be kept in maximum security. Here I speak only for myself, but I personally favour the Mountbatten plan of a fortress-type prison, as near as possible impregnable to escape from within or attack from without. But if people are to be imprisoned for long periods they must be given decent conditions. This is possible only within a secure perimeter.
I was going to describe other categories but I think that life is too short at this time of night. I thought that there were about three categories, the second being the professionals and the third those who commit violence not for gain but for jealousy, rage, wounded vanity, and so on. A certain amount can be done about this. The situational solutions which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to, by which real efforts are made to make things difficult for people to commit crimes, can work particularly for the casual youngster who is stealing about the place. If things are properly locked up and housing estates are properly designed, less of this happens. But, in relation to the people who use violence in a social setting for rage or jealousy, I do not think that there is much that you can do. Violence springing from the passions of human nature has always been with us and I fear that it always will be. I remember the much respected and loved head of the family in Aksakov's A Russian Gentleman, who, if argued with by his wife, pulled her around the room by her hair and pulled a lot of it out. He was a confirmed and pious churchman and his admirers were awed rather than shocked by such behaviour. Times have changed since then, and, thanks in no small way to women's lib, heads of families have to behave a little better than that. But human nature remains fairly ungovernable, and I see no prospect of making much change.
These various categories—one of which I have mentioned at length, and two of which I have referred to—all involve a prison sentence, though very different ones in different cases. I think that the public have a very wrong idea of a severe sentence. Seven years is a very severe sentence indeed. It is longer than many of us in this House have to look forward to at all—at least the noble Lord and myself. I have been told by more than one prisoner that they cannot visualise more than
1238
two years, and any increase over that adds nothing to their determination not to be caught. What they are determined to avoid is being caught at all.
Incidentally, here I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply to confirm—not tonight, but later—whether I am right in thinking that the crime clear-up rate on the part of the police has deteriorated very badly, since in a way this is almost the most important point of the whole question. The more likely offenders are to be caught, the less likely they are to do it.
I do not think that sentences for violent crime are too long, though I think that the public are wrong to want them longer. I am happy to leave this to the judges, and to the Parole Board to modify their judgment if time justifies it. It is seriously misguided to alter the parole regulations in the way at present proposed, but my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich have said so much about this so powerfully that I shall say no more, except perhaps that an element of hope is an administrative necessity in long-term imprisonment.
We are faced with the problem of a large number of men with very long sentences, and I think that that is unavoidable. We cannot look after them properly without putting right what is wrong in our prisons. Staff are working under conditions which have been intolerable for several years. Prisoners will not be properly looked after until staff conditions are improved. The two things which must be put right—and which have been referred to by most noble Lords today—are prison overcrowding and the long periods of waiting before sentence, which the noble and learned Lord told us he is doing as much as he can about. He has always done a lot about it, but according to the last return 1,400 people have been waiting for over 110 days. So there is a long way to go there.
If those two evils could be dealt with, the prison service would have a chance to make our prisons something that we could be proud of, rather than ashamed of, and we could express society's condemnation of violent crime by severity, tempered with the recognition that long-term prisoners are human and must be treated with humanity within the perimeter of their confinement. This means regular visits and easy correspondence, books, adult education, access to games and outside exercise, wireless and television—in fact conditions not much worse than those of an ordinary citizen, except the ability to go free. And for all—"lifers" as well, and especially the young—the hope of early release subject to recall should always be kept alive. These changes are within our capacity at this very moment, given administrative determination. They would certainly have some effect on the incidence of violent crime, and at least we could feel that we were treating our offending brothers with decency.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the waning hours of the evening and of your Lordships' patience it is my duty on behalf of those sitting on these Benches to try to wind up a debate which I believe has been both interesting and useful. It deals with a very vital matter in our national life, and who better to initiate it than the most worthy Primate (if I may say so) who this evening has led us along a spiritual as well as a practical path. We are most grateful to him.
It was a delight to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, his maiden speech. I loved the remark of Lady Saltoun which likened his guidance to us on nutrition in regard to this subject to the guidance that he might give us in this House. I must say that I saw in my mind's eye a poster behind him saying, "Your colleagues need you". Those of us who remember a poster so worthily associated with his noble ancestor will understand what I mean. I nominate him at once for the refreshment committee of your Lordships' House.
This has been a very worthwhile debate on a very urgent matter. We dealt, in the course of the debate, with homicide. I wonder if your Lordships noted that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave us a most interesting figure of more than one third of those who were convicted suffering from mental instability. I missed—I do not know whether your Lordships did—a doctor in this debate. Not one of the notable medical Members of this House participated.
Lord Stone: They are hard to find, My Lords.
Lord Mishcon: Not even the noble Lord, Lord Stone, was made to get to his feet. He merely murmured a comment to me from his seated position. It was a shame.
It is extraordinary that if more than one third of those convicted of murder or attempted murder are mentally unstable, we heard nothing in the course of the debate which mentioned how their mental instability is being dealt with. Some of us remember the recent Nilsen case. As a proud member of the legal profession, it was no great tribute to that profession or, indeed, to the state of the law in relation to the mental responsibility of those charged with murder. Ten days were spent on the evidence of psychiatrists called on behalf of the prosecution on one side and on behalf of the defence on the other. The jury were left with a conundrum at the end as to which of the psychiatrists they ought to believe. Whose word should they accept before they came to a most difficult decision?
The question that arose was whether he should go to hospital or to prison. Is this the best way of dealing with a man who was convicted of one murder but confessed to 16? In circumstances which would make any ordinary individual, not necessarily a lawyer following a technical regulation, say that this man must be the maddest of the mad and that there was no alternative, he was sent to prison. It may be right, as the noble and learned Lord said, in a loud whisper from the Woolsack, that he was sent to prison. Maybe that is the only answer that we have got as a civilised society. But is there not greater room for some sort of
1240
medical care for the many convicted of violence who are suffering from some form of mental derangement?
Can the noble Lord the Minister, who always deals with questions that are put to him with such courtesy and tolerance, possibly, in his answering speech, give us some information as to whether that medical service is being improved, whether more money is being spent on research, or whether, in unfortunate companionship with the National Health Service, there are cuts even in that sort of medical care?
Much has been said about youth and violence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whose speeches to this House are always erudite and so very welcome, challenged the mores of the day and compared them with the days of his distinguished youth. They are very different days, and they are very different days for some cogent reasons.
We live in an age of violence. This is the first generation when young students—not juvenile delinquents—face a situation of violence in the world which may end the world and civilisation as we know it. We face the violence of the terrorist, to whom reference has been made in the course of this debate. There are such people and organisations all over the world. As the noble Lord who preceded me said, they may have ideals at the back of their terrorism, but what a shameful state it is that their ideals can only be given expression and only receive publicity in the media. Maybe the cause of it, the origin of it, the inspiration of it, comes when bombs burst and explode and people are killed.
We face violence in other directions in our everyday life. As other contributors to the debate have said—and I shall not repeat it—there is violence on television, violence on videos and violence in films. Therefore, it is no wonder that violence is part of the life of the juvenile delinquent languishing on the streets, often in terrible housing, often living in the hopelessness of a society that does not want him and does not need him. There is no work for him.
Passing reference was made—and it is a difficult subject—to the question of racial minorities in this country and their participation, too, in not only other aspects of our national life but unfortunately also in juvenile delinquency. I wonder whether from the comfort of our Benches we can imagine what it must be like from the point of view of mental reaction, from the point of view of respect for the rules of society—and we have used the word "respect" often in our debate—for so many of those youngsters who know that they suffer from disabilities when applying for employment which is all too scarce for white youngsters. They also find themselves living in ghettos. There is a notice in a window saying that there is a room to let. They knock on the door and ask, "Have you got a room to let?" and still too often when a coloured family applies they find that the room has already been let five minutes ago. It is not difficult to understand the distortion of mind that occurs in that connection.
I do not justify the crime; I do not justify the delinquent. But we are trying to analyse the causes of it. One therefore has to look at oneself and ask, "Are we in society somewhat to blame as well for producing the conditions of unfairness, of prejudice, which in

1241
turn produce the revolt against the society we ourselves have created?" When one is dealing with crimes of violence and with burglary generally there is no doubt that the statistics show that young people under the age of 21 and also under the age of 17 present the most perplexing problem in that they represent a completely, one might almost say unimagined, percentage of those who are in fact convicted of violence and of the crime of burglary.
Therefore, in the course of this debate—and rightly so—we have tended to concentrate on young people. There is one aspect of young people and the way in which society ought to deal with them that has not been touched upon in the debate. I say this proudly from this Dispatch Box, representing as I do at this hour the views of my noble friends; I am second to none in believing that the police of this country constitute a force of which the nation should be proud. They face difficulties, they face violence of a completely unparalleled kind, and they deserve our admiration.
Having said that, we have a duty as friends and admirers of the police when we discuss them and when we discuss their attitude to youngsters, which may lead to a difference in the life of those youngsters. Certainly the first time they are caught we have the right to ask the police to be very careful indeed of their conduct. I am not saying that myself; I am quoting from a most interesting, frank, honest and very useful document, the British Crime Survey Research Study No. 76 for 1981, which was produced by the Home Office. At this moment I am looking at the noble Viscount who leads this House and of whom we have already become so fond, who as Home Secretary brought a great deal of enlightenment to that office. We all hope that his successor will live in his shadow in that respect.
A representative sample of 11,000 people in England and Wales took part in that survey and the document says:
"A high proportion (almost one in five) of young men complained of misconduct on the part of the police".
Later in the recommendations that are made—and I turn to the summary and implications, which are mentioned in the report—it is said:
"The findings suggest the need for greater care on the part of the police, especially in urban areas, in their dealings with young men. These often view themselves, rightly or wrongly, as treated aggressively and insensitively by the police. This may jeopardise whatever co-operation they presently afford the police".
I continue with my praise for a gallant force, and I believe that it is the duty of people taking part in a debate upon this subject to quote these words and to hope that the quotation will do some good, because the relationship between the police and our young people is of vital importance. It is certainly of vital importance in seeing that young men and young women who are first taken into custody by the police, or who are seen to be doing some wrong, feel that they are dealing with a force that they can respect.
The hour is late, and I would just deal with one other aspect of respect which has been dealt with already but which, again, must not be forgotten. If we are to have respect by our young people and those who have fallen foul of the law in the hope that they may indeed
1242
become useful citizens again, there are two things that are necessary. The first is that society itself, in its treatment of them, shows that it is better than the offender.
The prisons of this country, to which reference has been made so much in this debate that it is not necessary for me to prolong the discussion, have been called "dustbins", and the term was used by a distinguished governor of one of our prisons. What respect for society can there be, what hope for recovery is there, if the conditions in our prisons remain as they are? I know that the Home Office is doing what it can in regard to the building of ten new prisons. That will take a long time. What we must do in the meantime is to find more measures for seeing that sentences are shorter where they can be, and that those who are convicted of crimes other than those which make it essential for there to be a prison sentence do not in fact receive a prison sentence.
I close, I promise your Lordships, with this thought. There must also be respect by us for the judges.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: I am so glad that noble Lords opposite approve of that remark. If there is to be true respect for the judges, I would wish that some of the media, for example, did not take remarks made by judges out of context, and give their rulings and do their moralising on sentences without even knowing what the facts are—leading, indeed, in some cases where there is a sensitive judge to his early demise, as I know happened, quite frankly, in one particular case. Some of us in the law know the case to which I refer.
We must also have respect for the judges and not think that we, as legislators, can determine what sentences must be. In those circumstances I say to noble Lords, that when recommendations come forward that there must be a minimum sentence we in this House should oppose those recommendations and say, "Leave this to the judges, who will see what the facts are, have the defendant before them, and decide what the proper sentence ought to be". I hope, too, that the judges will meet more often in order to co-ordinate their policy on what punishment ought to be meted out, so that there is a little more uniformity in regard to sentencing. Your Lordships have been more than patient after a long debate, and I am most grateful to noble Lords for having listened to me as they have.
9.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, it is a rare thing for your Lordships to debate a Motion tabled by a most reverend Primate. This is only the fifth time that any Parliamentary business has been initiated by an Archbishop of Canterbury in the 38 years since the end of the war in 1945. I therefore feel it an added honour to assist on this occasion.
It is by any standards an impressive field that has been pursuing the truth in his wake this afternoon. I can assure every noble Lord who has spoken that a close study will be made of every word that has been said, but that study will last a number of days and my

1243
own reply, which can be the produce of but the briefest reflection and has to toil over ground made heavy by all the flying hooves that have gone before, must be brief. I must compress many large issues and many fine answers into a small span of time. If I spent only two minutes on each of your Lordships' speeches, I should not sit down for 50 minutes and your Lordships would not forgive me. Brevity of mention must not, therefore, be taken as lack either of courtesy to a noble Lord or of due weight attached to his opinions. I will make reparations of omissions in correspondence.
Let there be no mistaking the importance of this issue or the Government's determination to deal with it. Crime is a poisonous growth and we must hack at it at root and at fruit. The most prolific fruit of crime is fear. It is, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, as much an evil as violent crime itself and it is as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, have emphasized, greater than the volume of crime itself would warrant. My noble friend Lord Windlesham made this very clear from recent research published by the Home Office.
Fear is a deadly and a debilitating thing. It breeds rumour and feeds on it. It diminishes social contact. It causes neighbour to bolt door against neighbour. It widens the gap between communities and narrows their perception of each other, until all of us begin to see not individuals but stereotypes. It thus puts a distance between people that is at odds with the health of a community, not just in the civil sense, which is the concern of Government, but in the spiritual sense, which is the concern of the Church. It is true that "Perfect love driveth out fear". Love is the weapon that saints turn against fear. But most of us are not saints and for us the converse is also often true: "Great fear quenches love". Crimes of violence therefore strike at the fabric of society. I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, that those who go to the aid of victims do qualify for the criminal injuries compensation scheme, when they seek to defend those being attacked.
The Government share the concern which the most reverend Primate and many other noble Lords have expressed for the victims of violent crime. Indeed the Government have done a good deal to give practical help. Victims can obtain financial compensation from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Over 20,000 awards were made in 1982–83 totalling over £29 million. The powers of the courts to order offenders to pay compensation to their victims was strengthened in last year's Criminal Justice Act. Victims also need personal support, and the development of local victim support schemes seeks to meet this need. There are already over 150 schemes in operation under the auspices of the National Association of Victim Support Schemes. The association receives financial aid from the Government.
I very much welcome what the most reverend Primate said about the research by Dr. Shapland of Oxford University. This important work was done for the Home Office and we are studying its findings as she would have us do.
1244
The most reverend Primate draws our attention to the need to examine new ways of reducing crimes of violence following the latest decision against capital punishment taken in another place. While I quite understand this concern to find something new with which to fight criminality, he will, I am sure, forgive me if I reflect a little on old ways as well. The fact is that we have done quite a lot lately to make those old ways more effective than they have been before and in some respects they are bringing demonstrable results of the sort all of us are looking for.
One of the most important spheres in which we have introduced a new style in the established methods is the police. In our view, they are, I should say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, already well protected by legislation. I cannot expand on that now, but I will write to him later. We have already increased the size of our police forces by 9,600 since 1979 and my noble friend Lord Inglewood will appreciate the importance of that. We are also in the process of making them more efficient. Management by objectives is being introduced into an increasing number of forces. Her Majesty's Inspectorate is increasingly promoting the best practices of different forces into the daily routines of others, and police manpower is being increasingly effectively deployed as well. In the metropolitan area alone, apart from introducing extra police to the tune of 4,400 since 1979, some 1,000 policemen have been released from administrative duties following a review in 1981 and deployed on street duties where they can be seen by the public. Since the present commissioner took office a further 650 police officers have been put on to street duties as well, where, my noble friend Lord Windlesham pointed out, the public want to see them and where my noble friend Lord Gisborough said they can do most to diminish the level of crime.
In this matter public perceptions of the police are as important as the public perception of crime. In this I am on common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I was happy to find myself quite frequently on common ground with him this evening. Policing must never be seen as something imposed on the community or something done to it. Proper policing is an expression of the community's own desire to live in a just and orderly society. Therefore, we place enormous importance on the developing theory and practice of community policing, to which my noble friend Lord Inglewood eloquently referred.
My noble friend the Leader of the House started the ball rolling by taking the bobby out of the panda car and putting him on the beat. Since then, we have gone much further and with striking results. In Brixton the awful breakdown of law and order in 1981 led to a most perceptive and influential report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the policy took shape and has accelerated. The most reverend Primate has quoted the metropolitan commissioner's own exposition of the central thesis that the police must be at one with the community. In Brixton itself a community police consultative committee was set up on the personal initiative of my noble friend the Lord President. Law enforcement was done with increasing sensitivity and the more accurate targeting of criminals, which the commissioner has encouraged, has led to a marked drop in the number of robberies.

1245
In London as a whole the first eight months of this year has seen a reduction of 5 per cent. in robberies and violent thefts. Robberies by gangs of armed criminals are down by no less than one-third. That is the first part of my answer to the most reverend Primate. The long increase in recorded violence in places is actually beginning to be reversed as a result of police forces that are both stronger and more efficient than when we came to office. That is a new departure and it is reducing crimes of violence.
There are other less publicised crime prevention activities by the police. There are over 500 crime prevention officers in England and Wales doing much excellent work in schools. We have recently released three crime prevention films for use in schools; a teaching plan for secondary schools is being published commercially next spring on crime, law and society. This was developed by the Home Office and Schools Council with advice from police and teachers. These are new applications of old methods.
If the most reverend Primate wants a more innovatory and general approach, we have that, too. My noble friend Lord Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary decided that crime reduction must be based on the efforts of more than one department. He therefore met his ministerial colleagues to consider inter-departmentally how to stimulate the policies and services that might together help to reduce crime. As a result, an inter-departmental group of senior officials was set up to carry the work forward. Chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office, it was attended by the Departments of Environment, Education and Science, Health and Social Security and Employment as well as the Scottish and Welsh Office.
There followed the Bramshill seminar on crime reduction and the development of an inter-agency co-operative strategy at local levels. This is resulting in those responsible for the planning of streets and public housing being aware of the need for building an environment that will not encourage people to commit crimes or predispose people to criminality. I have more to say on predisposing factors later. I do not think—and I will say at this moment that I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—that the terms of the Motion make it proper for me to pursue the question of what we are doing for offenders with mental difficulties when they are in prison. That is not to say that it is not an important matter which has my close attention. Perhaps he would like to raise it on another occasion.
A more recent and dramatic innovation than that to which I have just referred has, of course, been embodied in the recent announcement by my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary about his policy on parole. That has attracted a good deal of attention during your Lordships' debate. May I first say that it is quite wrong to refer to it, as it often is referred to loosely in the media, as a sentencing policy. In all but two respects, it is a parole policy. The two exceptions are the proposal to legislate to increase the maximum sentence for carrying firearms in furtherance of crime from 14 years to life, and the proposal to enable the Attorney-General to refer sentences which appear to him to be unduly lenient to
1246
the Court of Appeal, not for revision but for comment. I should add that the Home Secretary's writ does not run in Scotland—it never has. "Home" for the purposes of this evening is England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland takes his own decisions and he is, in fact, at present considering whether similar steps would be appropriate north of the Border.
In respect of life-sentence prisoners, my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary announced that a minimum period of 20 years will normally be served by those who murder police and prison officers, terrorist murderers, sexual or sadistic murderers of children and those who murder by firearms in the course of robbery. Some murderers in these categories will justify yet longer periods of detention. There will be other murders not readily categorised, where the heinousness of the offence requires no less punishment than murders in the specified categories.
I think I ought to make it clear, in a condensed reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the package (if I may so describe it) sets out the categories with the treatment that they can expect, but outside the categories there will he stiffer treatment for the worst offenders than for those who are not so bad. I shall return to that.
My right honourable and learned friend is working out detailed arrangements with the Parole Board and will be making a full Statement shortly. Therefore, I think I should not respond to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, ahead of that, though I shall of course draw his comments to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend.
My right honourable and learned friend also announced his intention to restrict the granting of parole to offenders sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment for offences of violence and drug trafficking. The offences that he has in mind are those set out in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 as excluded offences, where the Secretary of State may not order the early release of prisoners under Section 32 of the Act. I take sympathetic note of the abhorrence which many noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, accord to dealers in drugs, who, in my view, deal out murder by proxy, and murder of a slow squalid and degrading kind at that.
The intention of my right honourable and learned friend is that offenders in the categories listed in the schedule should he released on parole licence only if a few months' supervision at the end of a sentence will reduce the long-term risk to the public, or in circumstances that are genuinely exceptional. Release on parole licence has always ultimately been at the discretion of the Executive, but the Home Secretary is consulting the Parole Board on the implementation of his intention. These consultations are not yet complete, and he will be making a full Statement shortly.
There was, I think, a tendency among some noble Lords opposite to consider only that part of my right honourable and learned friend's Blackpool speech which contained those proposals of which they disapproved. They would, I presume, approve of his

1247
stated overall aim, which formed the context of the package: which, as well as being the protection of society, was to lower the prison population. Nor would they object, I think, to his undertaking to look at weekend imprisonment, or to much else of what he said but to which they did not refer. My right honourable and learned friend is a humane as well as an intelligent and determined man, and he deserves better treatment than that.
I think the intention to end overcrowding within the decade will bring particular pleasure not only to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who displayed a humane understanding of the real implications of being enclosed in prison, as indeed, in another context did the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Too often, we simply look at a number and say "not enough" without considering what the implications of that number of years may be.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggested that this package will have a serious effect on prison morale. In view of that, and of the pronouncements of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on the subject, accounts of which will doubtless be read with close attention by the prisoners concerned, I think that I should put the package into perspective.
First, life sentence prisoners who already have provisional release dates and determinate sentence prisoners who have a date for release on licence on parole are not affected. Second, the extent of parole needs to be clearly understood. The average length of parole licence in 1982 was 263 days, just under nine months. In 1982, only two prisoners were paroled on a licence of five years or longer, and 24 for three years but less than five. Of the 5,180 paroled altogether, 3,851 were on licence for less than one year. Third, the effect on prisoners needs to be understood.
We estimate that in 1982 about 1,000 prisoners serving sentences of over five years in the categories mentioned by the Home Secretary were considered for parole. Of these, only about 360 were recommended for release on licence by the Parole Board, and about 120 of these recommendations were at the prisoners' final review. Those would almost certainly have been successful under the Home Secretary's proposals. To those successes would be added those qualifying for earlier parole for very exceptional reasons.
These proposals are stern but they are not draconian. They reflect the very anxiety, common among the people of this country, which prompted the most reverend Primate to table his Motion. They do not include the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Windlesham on mandatory life sentences, described, I think, although I may be doing him an injustice, by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as different degrees of murder. If I may refer briefly to my note, I would say, first, that, as the chairman and past chairman of the Parole Board, the views of my noble friend and of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, command close attention. But the idea which Lord Windlesham put forward has been under discussion for a number of years. The question is whether it is right that life imprisonment
1248
should be the mandatory penalty for murder and not a discretionary maximum as it is, for example, for manslaughter. There are arguments on both sides.
The most recent review was by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The committee was divided and could make no recommendations for changing the present position. My noble friend will not be surprised, therefore, that I cannot give him a definite answer at this stage, but I shall draw the attention of my right honourable and learned friend to the comments of both noble Lords.
The aim of my right honourable and learned friend's proposals is to give general but not absolutely inflexible rules for heinous categories of murder like child murder, leaving it to practice to cover heinous instances within the category covering a wider range of murders. Similar considerations apply to the parole proposals. In both cases, overall consistency according to the seriousness of offence and the conditions of the offender will continue to be relevant. General rules about categories of murder does not mean creating different degrees of murder in the sense of inflexible definitions which bedevilled the Homicide Act to which the noble Lord referred us.
Violent crime is a plant that we must tackle at the roots. Its roots do not, surprisingly, flourish especially in any particular economic or employment conditions. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made that clear. Surprisingly but clearly, there is no correlation between the unemployment figures and the figures for crime from at least the beginning of the present century. The roots of crime feed on subtler and sourer ground than that. It feeds not merely on ingratitude, as my noble friend Lord Gridley suggested. It feeds on childhood without love or firm guidance, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. It feeds on schools without clear authority or discipline; upon the switch of public sympathy from hero to anti-hero; on producers and editors who treat excess as admirable and moderation as contemptible; on the elevation of material goals; on ignorance of emotional and spiritual needs; on failure to master self-discipline; on the constant surrender to self-interest. Empty churches and chapels and unread Bibles also have something to do with it. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has pointed out the importance of keeping young people out of prison; incarceration is one of the predisposing factors to crime.
I will only summarise that which is left. The Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Office, and the Department of Education and Science are supporting and participating in a national conference organised by Northamptonshire County Council and Lancaster University. I am happy to remind my noble friend that she is supporting it too. I should add that the Home Office has co-operated with the New Approaches study of juvenile justice systems in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we look forward without commitment to considering the findings.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to racial prejudice as a predisposing factor. My honourable friend David Waddington made quite clear that the Government are bitterly opposed to racial prejudices and it was a good occasion to make clear the

1249
soundness of fellow members of his party on this as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, was concerned about how sentences are being given out to young people under the new legislation. Only preliminary information is so far available on the use which the courts are making of their new sentencing powers for young offenders. Early indications are that the fears of those who believed that the courts would make excessive use of detention sentences have not been borne out. The courts seem to be making substantial use of the new youth custody sentence. It must be borne in mind, however, that youth custody is available for cases in which the courts could previously have imposed sentences of imprisonment as well as borstal and detention centres.
There is a lot to say about rundown housing estates and I will merely refer the most reverend Primate and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, to the Tulse Hill priority estate scheme as an example of the ways in which the Government are now trying to co-ordinate all forms of aid to depressed communities. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, referred in his context to the work of NACRO in deprived areas. I give a warm welcome to the valuable work in which NACRO is engaged with so many young people at risk of offending. It is to developments of this kind that we must look for the prevention of crime. The new Home Office Crime Prevention Unit will have the task of encouraging such developments.
I cannot leave the Dispatch Box without referring to obscenity because I would be alone among your Lordships if I did. I shall not list all those noble Lords who put their names to that grisly subject, although I will mention that the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, alone among your Lordships pointed out that obscenity could be addictive; and my noble friend Lord Gisborough gave a striking image of people getting bruised minds from it.
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice felt that he was a lonely voice in this concern, then he was mistaken. He has the Government as well with him. A great deal of progress has been made over the past two or three years in tightening up the law on obscenity. The Government—notably assisted by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford—introduced powers in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to deal with sex establishments—and a great deal of trouble my noble friend gave me, too, I can recall. And we have lent support to Bills brought forward in another place by Members on indecent displays and bogus cinema clubs—both of which are on the statute book and make important contributions to law on obscenity.
Noble Lords will also know of the help and support that the Government are giving the Bill on video recordings introduced by my honourable friend Graham Bright in another place and will welcome it, I do not doubt, when it reaches us from there.
I could go on speaking for some time about schools, having taught in them for many years. I can only say that I am well aware, as are the Government, of the importance of that which is being done there. I will refer your Lordships to the White Paper on teaching quality of March 1983 in which the Secretary of State
1250
for Education has set out his intention to issue criteria against which all initial teacher training courses will be assessed in future. He is considering recommendations from his advisory committee on the supply and education of teachers (ACSET) on what these criteria might be, and the committee has recommended that all courses would take account of a variety of possible approaches to class management and control. When I was teaching history in a college of education I found that my students were much more interested in how to keep control of the children when they met them than how to teach them history. So I think there will be a certain sympathy for what is proposed
I think at this time reluctantly I must abandon my attempts to satisfy the rest of your Lordships other than in writing, and indeed to satisfy myself, but for one final and important matter. We are talking about new initiatives. Earlier I described the social ground in which crime is rooted, but it has roots in the person as well as in society. No child who is starved of the understanding care of an adult, let alone of love, is properly equipped to live a decent life. And here, too, is a way of reducing crime that is new. Indeed it is still experimental and I was very glad to encourage that experiment when I was at the Department of Health and Social Security. I have watched it with intense interest since. It is called intermediate treatment. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has already given it deserved praise. It involves dedicated adult volunteers becoming closely involved with young people who have committed crimes in structured, challenging and disciplined work. It channels youthful energy away from destruction and into construction.
For many young people this is the first time in their lives that they have had this sort of close and sympathetic guidance and the effect can be dramatically beneficial. For this purpose we have made available some £15 million over three years, channelled to locally-based bodies putting forward viable proposals on top of the extra expenditure of the local authorities themselves. The concept is imaginative and the prospects are promising. They may even result in benefits in the next generation. If children who have not known love and adult care in youth can be given it, they may pass it on and may prevent offending in the next generation.
I return to the most reverend Primate. I apologise to all your Lordships for taking so long. I will say that I hope that he has learnt as much as I, and through me the Government, have from what has been said this evening. I hope your Lordships will have noted that the Government do have a strategy to reduce violent offending. It is in strong and competent hands and I believe it will succeed. As the most reverend Primate himself has reminded us, only limited good can be done by Acts of Parliament, important as they are, and there is a limit also to what Government can achieve by other means with whatever vigour pursued. The extent of our success therefore depends on the efforts of society itself to support us, and that, may I say, with the deepest respect and no little optimism, for I know the most reverend Primate of old, depends in the ultimate on the success that he and such as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, have in alerting that society to its proper response to good and evil in the world in which

1251
we live, in awakening our national conscience, and, in his own words, in restoring parental nerve. I think that he and your Lordships have begun that valuable work already today.
10.23 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, at this late hour you will expect me to be brief, and I would simply like to express my gratitude to all who have taken part in this debate. Your Lordships have been most generous in your response to my introduction of this subject, and I only wish that I were able to be here more often, not so much to speak as to listen.
I do not propose to comment on the many important points that have been made. The noble Lord the Minister has given us very good value in information about particular questions raised in the debate. I apologise for an element of obscurity in the Motion, but I am glad that as usual your Lordships have not been inhibited from saying what you wished to say, for what I hoped for was a wide-ranging debate. We owe a great debt to those who have from personal experience or knowledge of research reported on many good initiatives. We need to build on these, to publicise them and to encourage a sense that progress can be made.
I appreciated very much the distinguished contributions from the judiciary, and particularly those of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. I also thank those who have had long experience in the work of the social services, such as my noble friend Lady Faithfull. In addition, I should simply like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, for a most original and admirably succinct maiden speech. I should like to follow his example at this point, and, knowing that the House has a further debate in front of it tonight, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cruise Missiles
10.27 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. If I may, I shall refresh your Lordships; memories of the Question by reading it. It is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as an opinion poll has shown that 94 per cent. of the British population want dual key control of cruise missiles, they will hold up deployment until such an agreement is reached".
I begin by saying how much I deplore the treatment which is reported to have been meted out to the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence this evening. It is essential on these questions of peace and war, of armament and disarmament, that those of us who believe that the Government are not on the right path should endeavour to penetrate and to secure the minds and hearts of members of the Conservative Party. To offer the kind of treatment which it is reported has been given tonight to a member of the
1252
Government is no way to achieve that end. I hope that we shall have no more of it.
I suppose that the young people who have been referred to in the previous debate might take the view that we in this House have our priorities upside down. I calculate that there were 28 speakers in the previous debate, which referred to serious problems of violence against the individual. There are seven speakers on this later debate, which raises the question of violence against humanity as a whole, not least violence against the whole of the people of our country. I think the young people to whom my noble friend on the Front Bench referred as having this issue very much on their minds might say that perhaps it ought to have been the other way round.
In 1941 flying control people in the Royal Air Force told a rather macabre story among themselves which some of your Lordships may not have heard. It was said to have been based on fact. I am glad to see that the most reverend Primate has not left us, because the story has a termination which I think may commend itself to him. A bomber was returning home badly shot up. It had tried to jettison its bombs, but they were stuck in the bomb bay. The aircraft was circling its base, almost out of fuel. The pilot with increasing urgency asked for instructions, for the undercarriage would not come down and a pancake landing was inevitable. It was clear that on landing the aircraft would almost certainly explode, destroying not only itself and its crew but perhaps other aircraft and the ground staff on the station, including probably the flying control tower and its staff. The pilot desperately again asked for landing instructions.
After a long pause, the flying control officer spoke. I shall use ordinary English and not the radio telephone jargon of the time. "Hello, Zero One," he said, "This is flying control. Here are your instructions. Repeat after me. Repeat after me: 'Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name". It seems that this is the position the Government have got the entire nation into. The people of this country, irrespective of party, have become powerfully aware of their peril. That is why I am asking the Government to act in accordance with the Question which I have put down tonight.
It is easy to see how, stage by stage, operational control was lost to the Government of this country. American aircraft flew from here under their own command during the last war and we were glad of it. From that, through the Berlin airlift, to nuclear weapons was an easy transition—and there is no Government distinction in this slippage—especially when United States Polaris submarines moved in and out of Scotland, again under American command.
In 1954 when I helped form the Anti-Hydrogen Bomb Campaign Committee—a precursor of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—it was already clear that the situation was getting out of hand. In the days of conventional war, political control may have been enough. There was time. But land-based nuclear weapons are a different kettle of fish altogether. With cruise missiles, the operator who releases the weapon holds in his hand the fate of nations—perhaps of the world. It is absurd, and perhaps even deceptive, of the Government to rely on old agreements and to argue that because the Americans operated under their own

1253
command in the past we do not need to have absolute operational control over the cruise missile.
The final release of cruise is carried out by two men. Under present plans both will be—indeed are—American and under sole United States command. I believe that the British people, 94 per cent. of them, have perceived this, and I hope that the Government will listen to insistence that this must be changed. In detail, I say that the senior commander at each cruise station must be British and that one of the two men who actually fire the weapon must be an RAF man under his command. Cruise cannot be fired without both men acting simultaneously. Of course the RAF personnel on each station would be under the direct control of the Prime Minister
I would add that the emergency action message—the EAM, as it is called—which is in code, should be it two parts, one of which should be known only to the British Prime Minister and not to the President of the United States or to any other person. Only in this way is it possible for this country all down the line, at political, command and operational points, to be in control of its own fate. Under pressures of war there may be an honest disagreement. Since I have personal knowledge of working with other nations under pressures of war, in particular with the United States Army Air Force, I can say that under these pressures commanders act in accordance with their conception of what is their own national interest, and no other consideration whatsoever. Therefore, the notion that there can be effective political control in such an emergency is entirely erroneous. There must be total control right down the line if we are going to be in charge of our own fate.
I would add that the technical imperfections of cruise are really alarming. They are an additional hazard to which insufficient attention has been given. The manufacturing quality control of General Dynamics, the manufacturers, has been very heavily criticised in the United States, not least in Congress. The software has been insufficiently tested, in particular the software for the launch control mechanism. The in-service reliability of the sophisticated electronic and mechanical equipment is in doubt. The competence and training of the maintenance personnel and of the operators has also been criticised in the United States. In addition, there are known faults in the operational characteristics of the weapon itself. There are performance deficiencies in its guidance package and its terrain-following abilities.
I would commend to your Lordships who are concerned with these matters a little booklet entitled, The Ground Launched Cruise Missile—A Technical Assessment, which is published by Electronics for Peace. A copy of the booklet is obtainable in the Library.
This adds up to an alarming situation, and I think it right that the people of this country should demonstrate their alarm, irrespective of their political views, as they have done in the recent poll. Consider the enormous tests to which Concorde, a peaceful aircraft, was put before it was allowed to operate within the United States; the tremendous care which the Americans took to make sure that this aircraft was not going to be deleterious or disadvantageous to them in any way.
1254
Compare that with the fact that the British Government have not carried out a single test of their own on this weapon—not one! They have accepted, lock, stock and barrel, the assurances given to them by the American Government. This is a rushed job. The decision to get cruise in here was a political decision as a result of which we have a weapon which is not only intrinsically dangerous, but which is even more dangerous because of the imperfections which have not been ironed out, which have not been properly tested, and which have not been tested at all by representatives of the Government; and the people who would be the sufferers in the event of anything going wrong.
As the pamphlet sums it up—and this is supported by American specialists on the subject to whom I have spoken—the Government would he offering,
"hospitality to an untested, unreliable, bug-ridden system that could turn out to he fatal to its hosts".
That sums it up. No wonder that 94 per cent. of the people of this country want dual control over this bug-ridden system. No wonder that 96 per cent. of the Conservative voters want dual control.
I am not going to say that the establishment of dual control of this weapon right down the line is the ideal solution. I should prefer to he without cruise altogether, and without other nuclear weapons altogether. But if we arc to have cruise—and it seems that it is too late to stop them coming—then this is the minimum basis on which they should be allowed to stay.
The Government's refusal to insist on joint operational or dual key control leads them into much worse absurdities. I have a firm assurance from what I used to regard as the Government newspaper, the Sun—I do not know whether it still enjoys that favoured position—that the lunatic idea that the RAF regiment should shoot Americans who propose to deploy or to fire cruise against our will has actually been uttered by Government authority. If that is not the case and this has not been said by a Government spokesman, the noble Lord, the Minister, in replying to the Question, will no doubt refute it. But I have received that assurance. If that, as the Government spokesman is alleged to have said, is our dual key—that, in an emergency, instead of exercising control before the event, we shall try to shoot down our allies after the event—it illustrates the utter madness into which the Government appear to have descended. I heard Air Vice-Marshal Menaul utter something pretty close to it on television last week. So there may be substance behind this completely crazy idea.
What is needed is the means to prevent the missiles being fired in the event of a disagreement between ourselves and the Americans. It is no substitute to hand over operational control to the Americans and then to say that you will shoot them if they exercise it against your will. The Government seem to want to threaten to shoot everyone. What sort of statesmanship is this? I fear that the Greenham Common heroines are much more likely to be shot than American servicemen.
I beg the Government to think again even at this eleventh hour. If they will not, then, in spite of all their

1255
protestations, what they will really be saying to our entire people is simply, "Here are your instructions. Repeat after us, 'Our Father which art in Heaven'." But we shall not get to the end of the prayer, because the end of our world will have come.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I first echo what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said about what happened to the Secretary of State for Defence last evening. We share his regret and detestation for such action, which has no part in our way of discourse. So many times since 1979 the House has taken up the question of dual key on the cruise missiles. Among all the others, the Social Democrats and Liberals and most recently Labour people who have taken it up, I rise now for the 14th time since then.
Public opinion, which was 92 per cent. with us in May this year, is now 94 per cent. with us. It is clearly not a flash in the pan to rise beyond 92 per cent., even six months later. It is a rare phenomenon, indeed. We, in the Alliance, owe a special debt to Lord Jenkins. He has once again, from his unilateralist position, joined us in the Alliance in hammering home this one limited point about the physical dual key for cruise. I wish that his party in the Commons last week had done the same. In that debate, the Alliance put forward an amendment which was largely devoted to just this point about dual key. The Labour Party abstained in the vote on that amendment. Nor did the Labour Party feel able to risk its own fragile unity by committing to paper any amendment whatever. It limited itself to a totally negative attitude. It abstained on the Alliance amendment and voted against the Government Motion.
That is not our position. We do not, in the Alliance, necessarily resist the operational deployment of the cruise missiles. That remains to be decided at the last moment when it sensibly can be decided by an Opposition party.
We do demand dual key. I submit that the Government must now recognise that it is not just the CND, the Labour Party and the Alliance who demand dual key; it is not just the people who voted for the Opposition parties at the election—54 per cent. It is also a very large proportion of the 43 per cent. who voted for the Government.
The Government have adopted SDP language in talking about "one-sided disarmament" rather than "unilateral disarmament", to make the situation clearer to people. Presumably the Government understood what we meant when we warned the Labour Party that the British people would not accept one-sided disarmament. Will the Government now perhaps listen to the warnings we have been giving to them for four years about the dual key?
Let me rehearse the argument. Once upon a time there were American nuclear-armed bombers in Britain which were governed by a written agreement, which was secret, and there was no dual key. Then the question arose of American-made nuclear missiles being deployed on British soil. That wise Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, perceived in 1958 that this was something quite different and that there had to be a dual key. Why, my Lords? As we all know, a bomber
1256
can be recalled: a missile cannot be recalled. It is as simple as that.
Later came the nuclear-armed submarines—first American and then British. There was no dual key for the very simple reason that a submarine can be recalled, but a missile cannot be recalled. It is as simple as that. Moreover, a bomb is dropped from the air: a nuclear submarine launches its missiles from the sea, generally the high seas. What could be more different than that, on the one hand, and the soil of a nation—British soil—on the other hand?
However, for about 25 years there have been American-made nuclear missiles in the hands of the British Army in Germany. All the time for about 25 years those missiles, the Lance and Pershing I missiles, have been under physical dual key. Why, my Lords? It is because they are missiles launched from land. Of course, Macmillan was right; the British people saw it and did not protest. Of course, the Government are now wrong; the British people can see it and are protesting.
The Government are also putting up a number of specious arguments against the possibility or desirability of having a physical dual key. The first is that we should have to purchase the entire American-made cruise system if we are to get a physical dual key arrangement. That, of course, is not true. The physical dual key arrangement could be put on existing missiles, without our purchasing them, by agreement with the United States. An arrangement could be made. Whether it is quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, I do not know—it is classified—but I expect that it is. However, if it is not it will not be much more complicated than the noble Lord described. It may well be that the United States would refuse this arrangement. But I have been told in answer to Questions in this House that a simple request for a physical dual key, without purchase, has not been put to the United States. I submit that it is the Government's duty to put that request. Indeed, it has been the Government's duty to put it for four years past.
Mr. Heseltine's newest argument is that if we were to request a simple dual key without purchase the United States would ask for the same as regards our Trident boats when they become operational. He has advanced this argument at great length with increasing certainty over recent weeks.
The discussion here goes rather near the heart of deterrence theory, and I only hope that I am able to express clearly what I have to say. I hope, too, that the following part of my speech will be heard carefully and perhaps even read carefully in Hansard later.
The Secretary of State for Defence will not accept that there is a distinction between a missile launched from a United States submarine based in British waters and an American cruise missile launched from British soil. This means that he denies the distinction between, on the one hand, British soil and, on the other hand, the high seas and international air space. If he really does deny that distinction, he is, of course, clearly unfit for his job. I do not believe that he is unfit for his job. and I do not believe that his denial of that distinction is sincere.

1257
But Mr. Heseltine might answer—indeed, I think he has answered—that the Soviet Union has said that the launching of a United States-built missile, whoever it belongs to and wherever it is launched from, will bring Soviet retaliation on the United States as well, of course, as on the country which launched it. Either Mr. Heseltine does not believe this statement or he does. If he does not believe this Soviet statement, it is no doubt because he, like many others, cannot really believe that the Russians would be such idiots as to do it. It would be because he shares the opinion of most sensible people that that is a declaratory statement for deterrence purposes, but not an operational binding one. In that case, if he does not believe it, the distinction for this purpose between British soil on the one hand, and the high seas and international air space on the other hand, becomes even clearer.
If, though, the Secretary of State does not believe in the truth of this Soviet statement, there is no need for the cruise deployment at all, as a British-owned Polaris missile fired at a Soviet desert will ensure retaliation on the United States, and would have done so at any time in the last 15 years, if we were idiotic enough to want that.
It is supposed that the cruise deployment was desired by the Western leaders to avoid the "decoupling", so-called, of the United States and Western Europe. It is said that it was requested by Western European statesmen, and the commonly accepted locus classicus for that request is Helmut Schmidt's 1977 lecture at the Institute of Strategic Studies in London. That lecture is falsely quoted. It contains no such request and no suggestion of any such request. So we do not know who made the request, if anybody. To avoid decoupling one would have thought that the presence of tens of thousands of American troops on European soil would be enough.
I return now to the question of the United States dual key on our Trident—the question which Mr. Heseltine introduced two or three weeks ago. If the translation of Mrs. Thatcher's "categoric" veto (which she maintains we have on the launch of the cruise missiles) into a physical dual key means that the United States will demand a countervailing dual key on the launch of our Trident missiles when we have bought them, does not that imply that we have already agreed that the United States will have a categoric veto over their firing, equivalent to that which the Prime Minister claims we have over the U.S. cruise missiles? If not, where is the analogy? Where is the symmetry? Why does Mr. Heseltine introduce the argument? If the United States were to ask us for a dual key on our Trident missiles, would we say that they would have to buy the whole force?—not only to buy back their own missiles, but also to buy what we had made: the boats, the warheads, the command, control and communications systems? The argument becomes nonsense at this point.
One large area on which I have repeatedly put questions remains uncovered—the questions have remained unanswered. The Government rely on undertakings given by the United States that they will not fire these cruise missiles without our consent. All right, but who is the United States? The President of the United States has the right in United States law to
1258
devolve the function of firing nuclear missiles down the line of military command from himself as commander-in-chief. I have repeatedly asked the Government how far they have agreed he could devolve it in the case of cruise missiles on our territory. I have had no answer.
The United States constitution also foresees that if the President and the Vice-President of the United States are dead, or out of action, or cannot be found, the function of the Presidency shall fall upon the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Tip O'Neill, whom we know in the Irish context. Again I have repeatedly asked the Government whether they know, and if so whether they agree, that the responsibility for firing these missiles on which there is no dual key might fall upon such a person, whether I have understood it correctly, and if not on whom it would fall.
I come back to the beginning. The people say, according to the poll—and we have no reason to doubt it—that by 94 per cent. they want a physical dual key. Why do the Government insist on aligning themselves with the 6 per cent? Who are this 6 per cent. of the British people? Are they not precisely that strand of opinion which surfaced last week in the House of Commons when a few Conservative Members signed an advertisement in the New York Times actually apologising to President Reagan for our Government's criticism of his action in Grenada, and also for our "diplomatic errors"? Are they not the "United States right or wrong" brigade? Why should the Government wish to align themselves with that brigade, above all now that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have at last distanced themselves a little from the policy which many people thought until recently was veering too much towards "the United States right or wrong"?
Why are the Government unable to go with the huge majority of the people? Is it because that majority is saying what the Alliance has said since it came into existence in 1981? I cannot believe it. That would be laughable, if it were not so important. Or is it that there is some fact, some reason, some argument which the Government have not yet told us about? No fact, or reason, or argument which has been advanced has yet been sufficient. The British people are saying, "Macmillan was right and the present Government are wrong". Now let the Government, however belatedly, lead a united country in the right direction, which is the direction that that country desires.
10.58 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his Question tonight, because possibly the air may get cleared a little before the end of the Question, and perhaps quite a number of erroneous impressions which have been circulating not just in this House but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom may get cleared. Much as I thought that the noble Lord's argument was extremely good, I am afraid that I do not agree with very much of what he said. However, I was extremely pleased that both noble Lords deplored what had happened to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in Manchester today.

1259
I maintain that the real purpose of Lord Jenkins's Question tonight is to provide a smokescreen so that the cruise missiles which have arrived and will arrive here, will never be deployed, because I think that that has always been at the back of the noble Lord's mind. He has always preached unilateralism, and he is fully entitled to his thoughts on that. But I find it strange when a newspaper such as the Daily Mirror—which, on the whole, has been a fairly good supporter of the Labour Party for many years—says in its editorial today that the United Kingdom will be no more of a target since cruise missiles are here than it was before they arrived. It also went on in the same leader to say that having a few cruise missiles here was nothing like as dangerous as disarming the West and relying on the Soviet Union's good faith.
I want to give one example of the Soviet Union's good faith. In the strategic arms limitations talks in the 1970s it was agreed that both super powers should have a rough parity of intercontinental ballistic missiles; an ICBM is one that has a range of 5,500 kilometres or more. But at the time the Soviet Union had considerably more than the United States. So what did they do? They dismantled a large number of what was their SS.16, which was a three-stage rocket, and they removed one stage, which meant it would travel only 5,000 kilometres and therefore was not an ICBM. That missile is today's SS.20. If that is not getting round a treaty, I do not know what is.
I do not really want to bring in personalities, but I think I would be wrong if I did not speak in your Lordships' House because I have said these sort of things before. I think that the peroration of the general secretary of CND, Monsignor Kent, to the Communist Party of Great Britain last Sunday left more than a lotto be desired. But I think it is more unfortunate for the CND because it at last shows where its loyalties lie, in spite of his many years of insistence that he has had no affiliation or connections with the Communist Party. One can read what one likes out of it and interpret it the way one wants.
I think we are lucky that the Monsignor's outburst and the first missiles arrived here more or less simultaneously, for it must be a bitter blow to the Soviets, who have striven by every means possible to prevent the arrival of these missiles. The Soviets may walk out of Geneva, but they will walk back again, because even they do not care to lose face. If they do not come back it shows that everything they have ever said before about disarmament is absolutely and utterly useless.
But, to revert to the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, dual key has been rammed down our throats by CND ever since CND realised it could not stop the missiles arriving. So it became CND's second line of defence. The leaders of CND have tried to mislead and misinform the general public. We have a perfectly good agreement between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country. It has worked happily for many years and I am sure it will more than outlive my lifetime and the lifetimes of many younger noble Lords in this House.
But let us analyse what is trying to be done against us. The main objective of the unilateralists has been to
1260
dissociate the West—and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned this—by splitting the United States away from Europe. I repeat this objective. It would be absolutely and utterly disastrous for NATO and it does not need a crystal ball for us all to know that the other element that would like to destroy NATO is the Soviet Union.
However, I also maintain that CND may only be a small part of the British public, though it is indeed vociferous. However, it is also very canny because it is now trying yet a third ploy. It is advocating civil disobedience and it has even made efforts to try to subvert the British soldier. How can it be that in the dual track position of 1979 it was many Socialist Governments that asked NATO to update the intermediate nuclear force? Why is it that what was so good for the Socialists when in government is no good for them now that they are in opposition? I hope that my noble friend when he winds up will categorically state that deployment will not be held up unless and until such time as the Soviet Union gets down to serious arms reduction talks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Earl that, in his tireless advocacy of the cause of peace, Monsignor Bruce Kent has talked to Conservatives, to the CBI, to the TUC, to the SDP, to the Liberal Party, as well as to the Communist Party? I do not know why that particular speech should have picked up so much prominence.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, if I may say one word to the noble Lord, to whom I gladly give way, not very long ago I went to one of Monsignor Bruce Kent's talks. He spoke for 45 minutes and he spoke remarkably well. In those 45 minutes, he laid at the feet of everybody in that room—about 100 people—that everything that had gone wrong in the world since 1945 was the fault of Great Britain and America and was nothing to do with Russia.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I believe in the spirit of debate, one speech answering another. But I think that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, will find that what I say will be in comment on much of what he has said. I have said this before but it needs to be said again and again. The Government have no mandate for deploying cruise missiles in this country. In the defence debate I gave the figures of those who had voted for the Government and of those who had voted for parties which were against the introduction of the cruise missiles. Those figures showed that there was a majority of 111,365 for parties which were opposed to the introduction of the cruise missiles. I admit that many vote on other issues; but I say to the Government that that result indicates that opinion in this country is almost equally divided upon the installation of the cruise missiles.
I suggest to the Government that it is utterly irresponsible, when national unity is required on an issue of peace and war, to proceed with their policy when half the electorate have voted for parties opposed to the introduction of the cruise missile. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made no convincing answer to that argument. He said that he was unable to comment upon my arithmetic. I

1261
obtained my figures from the Library of this House. He has had the opportunity since that debate to check those figures. I asked him if he has found any inaccuracy in them. His only answer was that the composition of another place showed that the Government had a mandate. But, under our present electoral system, the Government represents only one-third of the votes of the electorate. I suggest that a far more reliable indication of opinion in this country is the actual votes cast by the electorate.
I am the co-chairman of the World Disarmament Campaign in this country. It is a multilateral organisation in its aims. Therefore, before we declared against the introduction of the cruise missile in this country we took the opinion of the Soviet Government as to what its response would be. It indicated that, if the cruise missile was adopted in this country and the Pershing II in Europe, inevitably it would have to increase its forces. But the Soviet Peace Committee, which is only permitted to advocate policies of the Soviet Government, replied that the Russian response to failing to introduce the cruise missile and the Pershing II would be as follows.
It would reduce its missiles to the level of the British and French missiles, including the SS.20. It was prepared to negotiate with the United Kingdom and France mutual reductions of the remaining missiles. It was prepared to accept a nuclear freeze which would mean no more nuclear weapons and no more deployment of them. It said that it would undertake no first strike with nuclear weapons. It also said that it was prepared to accept the absence of all nuclear weapons in Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, and was prepared to destroy the SS.20s and not merely to withdraw them from the other side of the Urals.
I suggest that the Russians should be put to the test when they say that they are prepared to do those things. It is often urged from the other side of the House that they are insincere in their proposals. If that is the case, if the Government feel that it is bluff, let the Government call the bluff If the Government are sincere in their proposals for multilateral disarmament, let them put the Russians to the test when they advocate those things.
The danger is that the introduction of the cruise missile here and the Pershing II in Europe will result in the escalation of Russian arms. We have urged the Russians to he restrained in their response and I think it probable that, while they may withdraw temporarily from the talks with the United States of America, they will resume those talks in the early future.
I acknowledge that I have little faith in dual control. The statement has been made that the Americans will not use the cruise missiles without the consent of the Prime Minister. But a Prime Minister in this country is only temporary. It may easily be the case that after the next election there will be a Labour Government with a Labour Prime Minister, and the response of that Prime Minister would be very different from that of the present Prime Minister.
In addition, I do not believe, in the circumstances of a nuclear war, that the American Government would pay much attention to the opinion of the people of this country. Once the bombs began to fall, the very security of both America and the Soviet Union would
1262
be at stake. In that situation the Americans would inevitably use whatever power they had stationed in this country. Therefore, I urge very strongly that the only solution to this problem is the withdrawal of the cruise missiles from this country. People all over the world are now beginning to realise that they cannot live with the nuclear weapon. If the nuclear weapon remains in the world, mankind itself might be destroyed. I believe that this conviction is spreading throughout the world so strongly, that within five years the peace movement of the world may sweep like a wave over Governments which have been installing the nuclear weapon and it will be decided not merely that nuclear weapons must be ended but that we must make a beginning in world disarmament.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet set out very clearly and persuasively the case for dual key. As he said, in the House of Commons a few weeks ago this was the central feature of a comprehensive amendment covering the problem of cruise missiles which was put forward by the Alliance and supported by all the Alliance Members of Parliament, though unfortunately not supported by the Labour Party. However, one of the dangers of discussing the dual key as intensively as we have in this debate is that we may lose sight of what is the bigger objective of us all: to create the conditions in which the deployment of these missiles, either the deployment of the first flight of missiles which have arrived or the deployment of the later flights which will arrive as the months go by, is no longer necessary.
I am haunted not only by the belief that the British Government could have created the conditions in which we did not have to deploy the cruise missiles but also by the belief that they still have the opportunity, if they have the courage and independence to take it, to solve this problem in the way that we all, on both sides of the House, want to see it solved; namely, by agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union which would make the deployment of the missiles unnecessary.
I was greatly struck by the final words of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. He said, "We will deploy until the Russians start to negotiate seriously". But I would put it to him that a careful, objective study of the way the negotiations have gone over the last two years does not justify the comment implied in his statement, that whereas the United States has negotiated seriously the Soviet Union has not negotiated seriously. I would beg him to consider this carefully and in detail. We all remember that when the negotiations began two years ago they began with the United States' proposal of the zero option. At the time I believe everyone felt that this was an optimistic first negotiating bid. It laid on the Russians the duty to scrap all their SS.20s, and it laid on the Americans the duty merely to do nothing.
As I say, I think everybody realised that this was an opening, hopeful negotiating bid. Even so, I would say that the Russians might have been wise to accept it. After all, it would have given them their priority objective—which is to prevent the deployment of cruise and Pershing. And although it would have lost them all their SS.20s, they can easily devastate Western Europe several times over with the missiles

1263
they could already have. They would have been wise, probably, to have accepted it.
However, as we know, they rejected it and negotiations began. I draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, to this fact: the United States have made no concessions whatever in those two years. The one significant move they made was to rejig the zero option saying, in effect, to the Russians, "If you will not accept equality on the basis of zero—with no Pershings, no cruise and no SS.20s, we offer you equality at some other level"; 420 warheads is the latest offer.
But something which no one has ever tried to explain, and which cannot be explained, is why, if the Russians reject the zero option, this rejigged option is more favourable to them or less favourable to the United States than the zero option. In the last debate, the noble Lord the Minister threw out this rejigging idea as though it was a concession which the Americans were making to the Soviet Union. Let him explain, therefore, in what way the Russians gain or the Americans lose by accepting equality at, say, 420 warheads.
What that would mean to the Russians is not only a reduction in their missile deployment but a corresponding increase in American missile deployment and the loss of their priority objective—which is, to prevent the deployment of cruise and Pershing, which is what the zero option gave them.
Apart from this rejigging, what have the Americans offered in two years of negotiations? Nothing whatever. It can be said that the Russians have not offered very much, and I agree that their concessions are limited. But their concessions are real. They have agreed to come down from more than 200 missiles deployed against Europe to 140. They have narrowed the gap. If the United States had negotiated seriously, the gap might have been closed.
Now we are back to the frank statement of zero option. The noble Lord the Minister, in his Statement last week, explained that the reason for the deployment was that the Russians would not accept the zero option; thus confirming that for two years there has been no movement at all. I asked the noble Lord at Question Time to give me a precedent in the history of international diplomacy for a Government going into negotiations of an important nature, spending two years pretending to negotiate, and coming out at the end in exactly the same negotiating position that they had when they entered. I invited him to search the history of diplomacy to find a precedent there.
Now there is some evidence growing that the Government agree with me that the Americans are not being flexible enough. Some noble Lords may have seen a report in the Guardian this morning with a headline stating that the German and British Governments were "brushed aside" for making representations that the United States should take a more flexible policy during the negotiations. I invite the noble Lord the Minister to comment on this point. I do not believe that the noble Lord himself would feel this; he showed in the last debate, not least in some references to myself, that in the East-West relations he stands four square with President Reagan. But I invite
1264
him to comment on that report in the Guardian. Can he confirm it? Because there is nothing in Britain's membership of NATO. nothing in acceptance of the twin track policy which commits us to the negotiating position of the United States. There is absolutely nothing, legally or morally, which obliges us to string along with this rigid negotiating policy. We are loyal to NATO, but the deployment of cruise missiles in Britain is a matter first and foremost for the British Government and not the American Government.
What is more, the British Government is in a position to insist on conditions if they wish, conditions as to the cruise missile, conditions as to the negotiating position at Geneva. They can do so, because, if the British do not deploy, the Germans will not deploy, the Italians will not deploy and the NATO project will come to grief. What I say is that it is a tragic thing that this Government have not shown their independence, have not used the very great influence they could have in this in order to close the gap and get an agreement. Why not insist even now, before the deployment of the first flight of missiles, that the United States make some move to narrow this gap?
We know what it is; we know the Americans will settle for no cruise, no Pershings and no SS.20s; we know the Russians will settle for no cruise, no Pershings and 140 SS.20s. Viewed in the light of the gigantic nuclear overkill of the Russians and the Americans, 80 to 100 SS.20s are meaningless. Even in the light of the Europe-based nuclear weapons of NATO, 80 to 100 SS.20s are meaningless—in the light of the 192 Polaris warheads, the 400 Poseidon warheads, all Europe-based, the 900 warheads on our 18 air bases in Europe, the carrier-based aircraft with their nuclear warheads. Even in the light of the Europe-based nuclear weapons of NATO this gap is insignificant.
Why do not the Government even now make some effort to close that gap—because, of course, the political consequences of an agreement would be of incalculable value to the Government, apart from anyone else. They would restore their reputation. They would deal a death blow to CND, if that has not already been done by Monsignor Bruce Kent. Perhaps I may just correct the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins; Monsignor Bruce Kent has never addressed the Liberal Party—perhaps he may have spoken at a fringe meeting at our Assembly. He has never addressed the Annual General Meeting. That is reserved for the Communist Party. I doubt whether he has addressed the Annual Conference of the Conservative Party; I doubt whether he has addressed the Annual Conference of the Labour Party: certainly not the SDP; I know for a fact that he has never addressed the Annual Assembly of the Social Democratic Party. His presence at an annual party rally is reserved for the British Communist Party. That is one of the aspects of the mistake I think he made.
What I am saying, however, is that the way for the British Government to win their political fight with unilateralism and neutralism and anti-Americanism is to get a multilateral agreement. That is the solution we all want, and they have shown no sign of the necessary imagination or courage or independence—no sign whatever. Therefore, it is in this spirit that I ask the Minister to reply to the debate

1265
tonight. Perhaps it is asking rather a lot that he should accept what I am saving at this late hour on this occasion, but let him use what influence he has to get the British Government to take a positive attitude to these negotiations and not to feel it is too late, because these flights of missiles are not all going to arrive at once. Let the British Government say to the Americans, "Before the first flight are deployed we are looking to you to make a decisive move in your negotiating position in Geneva".
11.30 p.m.
Lord Bishopton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked the Government to reply to the debate tonight. The Minister will not think it amiss if I remind him of what seems to have been forgotten recently: that the house is debating the Question which asked her Majesty's Government:
"whether, as an opinion poll has shown that 94 per cent. of the British population want dual key control of cruise missiles, they will hold up deployment until such an agreement is reached".
That is the matter which the House is supposed to be debating tonight, and I anticipate that the Minister will be replying to those terms.
The House is once again indebted to my noble friend Lord Jenkins for giving us the opportunity to debate this most important subject—the most important that Parliament could be considering because the lives of future generations will be at stake if we make the wrong decisions. If the Government do make the wrong decisions—decisions which lead not to security and peace but to war with nuclear weapons—there could well be no way of recovering after the devastation and the grievous loss of life which would result. This is a matter which concerns all the Opposition parties here, and I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, chose the occasion to deflect attention on this vital matter into a party issue.
The one worry which many have concerns the apparent feeling of infallibility which the Prime Minister and the Government have that decisions, once made, cannot even be reconsidered, much less reversed, and that strength is coming to a conclusion and standing by it, with a failure to listen or to respond. More than at any other time we are dealing with a situation where the Prime Minister should, like the rest of us, be questioning personal and political judgments, because therein lies real strength, and not weakness. I am sure the House will agree that good politicians will he having regard to the possibility that they could well be wrong and that others may be right.
The other aspect of concern is the Government's practice of doubting the motives of those who dare to question their policies; so much so that Ministers appear—at least, according to the media—sometimes to he appointed on their potential ability to deal with the critics. Rightly or wrongly, the Secretary of State was put into that category by the press. This debate is not concerned as to whether we are in favour of multilateral disarmament or unilateral disarmament, or both, as the Labour Party is: it concerns the present position that the Government have decided that cruise and intermediate nuclear weapons should be deployed on our soil.
I am sorry to see that only two Government Back-Benchers have been present tonight because those who
1266
support the Government's policy have a much greater responsibility for questioning the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding safeguards. They have a greater responsibility than those who do not. It is for them to try to hold the Government in check, to ensure that we have the safety procedures which are vital to our survival. I am pleased to see the chairman of the All-Party Defence Studies Group as the representative of the entire Government Back-Benchers, whose lack of concern is in direct contrast to the 94 per cent. of the people who want dual control of cruise missiles.
It is for sincere reasons that people question Government policies; and, if so, they have the responsibility to say so from the rooftops. That surely is the strength of democracy in the free world. "What kind of people do they think we are?", asked Mr. Churchill of our adversaries during the war. What kind of people do the Government think we are if, with grave concern about defence policies, people fearing for their future and the future of their families sit at home and do nothing? Is it a surprise that millions of men and women in all walks of life join in peaceful demonstrations to show their concern?
Is it surprising that thousands of women who are concerned for their families and future generations suffer personal hardship trying to impress Her Majesty's Government in the more cosy bunkers of Whitehall that they should reconsider their nuclear policies, even at this late stage? The vast majority of those demonstrating share with many others the wish which there must he among the Soviet people—and, one hopes, among the Soviet leaders—that the great powers should think again. The pity is that Soviet and Warsaw Pact people do not share the benefits of real democracy and the rights of free speech that we have.
Having said that, I must make reference to today's events involving the Secretary of State for Defence. Many of us have heard with great concern of the demonstration in which he was involved. While the nature of the demonstration may indicate the strength of feeling of the demonstrators, it is not representative of the millions of others who are also concerned. Such demonstrations do not help the case that we seek to put. If the Warsaw Pact countries take comfort from such incidents, they may well reflect on the freedom of expression and the right of protest identified with real democracy here. It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State and the Government will try to avoid the temptation to over-react to the unrepresentative minority whose actions will be deplored by the vast majority who share the concern on the matter that we are debating.
Briefly, what is the background to the growing number of people demanding dual key? There are good grounds not only for concern but for fear for the future of this country since the recent events in Grenada and following the shooting down of the Korean airliner a few months ago. It seems clear from recent opinion polls, as the Motion tells us, that only 6 per cent. back the Government in their policies in relation to dual key control.
The world recoiled in horror when, despite all the sophisticated controls, and despite all the considered safeguards regarding flight paths and international

1267
boundaries, over 200 people recently lost their lives. But of greater concern is the fact that it could have happened after all the assurances that Parliament has been given by the Government. Following the questions and answers in this House only yesterday, no one can be assured that it could not happen again, possibly within British air space over this country, and furthermore with a nuclear dimension next time.
In the events in Grenada, the late night telephone call to our Prime Minister from the President led to the faltering replies from the Foreign Secretary. In a country where for years the Prime Minister has insisted that there are no alternatives to her policies, her Foreign Secretary on 26th October told the other place in respect of the United States action in Grenada:
"On a matter of this kind it is still possible for more than one point of view to be held…Of course we have to take care of what we say about one of our principal allies".—[Official Report, Commons, 26th October 1983; col. 303.]
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord seemed to complain that I was straying from the question of dual key control to more general questions on the cruise missile. In the light of the noble Lord's admirable comments on Grenada and the Korean airline disaster, I wonder whether he would like to offer some explanation?
Lord Bishopston: If the noble Lord will listen, he will see the relevance. With the experience of the—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, does the noble Lord. Lord Mayhew, appreciate that it is "Grenada" and not "Granada"?
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, it is possibly the effect of too much television on the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I was making the point—and I think that the observation is a fair one—that recent experiences have given us grounds to doubt whether there is proper control by the British Government. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, never gives up trying to score party points where national interest is still at stake.
I had just quoted what the Foreign Secretary said on 26th October. The Foreign Secretary—and indeed the wholeGovernment—is showing reluctance in speaking out to the United States about our nation's security. Taking care of what we say about our allies, as the Foreign Secretary put it, is of course less important than protecting the well-being of our people.
On the same date (26th October), also at col. 303, the Foreign Secretary said that,
"There is no credible analogy between the exchanges on Monday"—
on the Grenada debate—
"and the consultations that would take place before any decision could be taken to fire American nuclear missiles from Britain".
He went on to say that,
"no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the British Prime Minister's agreement".
Of course that means little if the British Prime Minister is consulted in the same way as she was before the United States forces invaded Grenada. Perhaps the President used the word "consultation" in the same
1268
way as the Prime Minister does; namely, telling the other party what has already been decided, rather than consulting in the sense of being prepared to change one's own mind in the face of the other's point of view. In an emergency time would be even shorter—maybe of only four minutes duration. What a pity it is that as members of a nuclear club we do not have our feet under the negotiating table in Geneva.
But how does the agreement of the British Prime Minister and the President fit in with the interests of the United States? Secretary of State Shultz said on 25th October last:
"We are, of course, always impressed with the views of the British Government and Mrs. Thatcher, but that doesn't mean that we always have to agree with them and, of course, we also have to make decisions in the light of the security situation of our citizens as we see it"
The old agreement, on which the Government place so much reliance for safeguards, was based on the use of weapons then far less lethal than the present nuclear weapons.
As allies, our interests have much in common most of the time, but many people—even supporters of the British Government—have the gravest fears when they recall, as I say, the Korean airliner and Grenada situations, as the recent poll reveals.
As I told the House yesterday, I am pleased that Labour's former leader, Mr. Foot, and former Defence Secretary, Mr. Healey, have visited Moscow to urge more flexibility in defence negotiations, and that recently Labour's former Prime Minister, Mr. Callaghan, has added his considerable influence, for the Labour party wants real security.
Finally, the need for dual key control is both vital and urgent. The Government claim that dual key control will cost a billion pounds. But without adequate nuclear safeguards billions may be pounded. Dual key control safeguards may be costly, but lack of adequate nuclear safeguards may well cost the earth!
11.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, following the Statement which I repeated to your Lordships yesterday, I am conscious that the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is one of considerable concern to many or your Lordships, and I therefore welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the matter. But while I recognise that there is a respectable body of opinion that agrees with the thesis of the Question, I believe none the less that such views are mistaken, and I hope that your Lordships will allow me to explain why.
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would not disagree with me if I suggested that the lesson to be drawn from last week's opinion poll is that the British people are perfectly clear that no decision on the use of nuclear weapons based in this country should be taken without the consent of the British Government. I shall make no apology for explaining once again that the existing understandings on joint decision-making provide the assurance that the British people reasonably require, and that the provision of a physical "dual key" would add nothing to that assurance, or to our safety and security. I should like to start by reminding

1269
your Lordships of the background to the current arrangements.
United States forces, both nuclear and conventional, have been based in this country now for well over 30 years. During that time it has been felt proper to establish clearly the basis on which any use of these forces might be called into play. The matter was first taken up by the then Mr. Attlee and followed through by Mr. Churchill. The understanding which those Prime Ministers arrived at with President Truman was summarised in a joint communiqué issued in 1952 which explained that any question of the use of those forces based here would be a matter for joint decision—not just consultation, but a joint decision. Your Lordships may wish to be reminded of the relevant section from that communiqué, which reads:
"The use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by His Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time."
It was not a secret agreement, as one noble Lord said, but was referred to in the communiqué which I have quoted. This understanding has been reviewed and reaffirmed by each successive British and American Government since that time. Without exception, all have found it to be an entirely satisfactory arrangement. Indeed, it is the arrangement which governs the use of United States nuclear forces already stationed here, the United States Air Force F.111 bomber aircraft and the Poseidon submarines, which have, of course, been here for some time through successive Administrations.
When the present Government came to consider the question of arrangements for controlling the use of the cruise missile force, it was entirely logical that this same understanding should apply. There was, of course, an alternative. We could have chosen to buy the cruise missiles and their supporting equipment and operate them as a British Force with the United States retaining control of the nuclear warhead. This was the so-called dual key system of control, and we use it for some weapons systems operated by the British Army of the Rhine. It also applied to the Thor ballistic missile based in this country 20 years ago. The cost of owning and operating Thor was, of course, borne by the United Kingdom.
But we estimated that the cost of such an enterprise for cruise missiles would have been in the region of £1,000 million. So we had to ask ourselves whether there would be any advantage in spending this order of money, thereby diverting it from other areas of the defence budget. There is no precedent for any country having a physical dual key on a nuclear weapons system except in circumstances where it owns, mans and operates the means of delivery.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to interject a question? Why did the Government rule out the possibility of setting a precedent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, for the reasons that I have already explained. There was no need to establish a precedent because the alternative arrangements were equally as good.
Lord Kennet: A circular argument.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no advantage whatever, as I say, in such a course of action. There is no military advantage, and, above all, it would do nothing to enhance the crucial role of these weapons as a deterrent against aggression, or the threat of aggression.
Is there any reason to believe that the existing understandings are in any way unsatisfactory? Is there any evidence to that effect? There is none whatever. On the contrary every Government since the war, including the one, if I may say so, of which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was a distinguished member, have found the understanding perfectly satisfactory. Moreover, the Government have reviewed the understandings in close consultation with the United States Government specifically in the light of the forthcoming deployment of cruise missiles in this country and have found them again to be entirely satisfactory. Cruise missiles pose no issue of principle such as to justify introducing new or different arrangements: for the effect of the understanding between the two countries is in no doubt. In the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
"The effect of the understandings and of the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".—[ Official Report, Commons, 12th May 1983; col. 435.]
These arrangements will apply to United States cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom whether on or off bases.
Any alliance is built upon, and can thrive only on the basis of, trust. The trust between the United States and the United Kingdom in our joint commitment to mutual defence within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is total. The degree of that trust in us by the United States is evidenced not only by its commitment to the Alliance, by the 300,000 men it has in Europe, but also by its willingness to make available to us the Trident weapon system, which will, like Polaris, be under the absolute control of the British Government. We reciprocate that trust, and it is fundamental to the integrity of the Alliance that we do. For what sort of message would we now send to the Soviet Union if we sought to change these long-standing arrangements? What sort of message would we send to our NATO partners? What would be the impact on the cohesion and solidarity of the Alliance which has been its foundation since the start? And what would be the strength and credibility of its deterrence strategy if we were now to say, in effect, that we no longer trust the United States and its commitment to a collective effort in support of its treaty obligations?
The decision to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe enhances deterrence by demonstrating to the Russians that the United States sees the defence of Europe as indivisible from its own defence; and the resolution of the Alliance in implementing that decision is crucial in attempting to persuade the Soviet Union to negotiate seriously in the arms control talks in Geneva.
I should like to turn to the main thrust of Lord Jenkins' Question that we should call a halt to our progress towards the operational deployment of the first flight of missiles by the end of the year. I trust that I should not be misrepresenting the noble Lord's views

1271
if I suggested that he is not a supporter of the deployment of cruise missiles in this country. As he said in your Lordships' House on 3rd May this year (and I think he confirmed again this evening):
"many of us … would at least go so far as to say that Pershing II and cruise missiles should not be deployed".—[0fficial Report, 3rd May 1983; col. 46.]
That is a view with which I profoundly disagree. However, having heard the terms of the noble Lord's Question, I find myself asking whether he would be prepared to accept the deployment of the missiles if the Government had gone to the expense of buying them and thus provided a sort of physical "dual key". If the noble Lord is not so prepared—and I do not suppose that he is—then I regret that I must conclude that he is attempting to use the controversy over control not as a means of meeting the public concern to which I referred in my opening remarks, but simply as a means to a rather different end—to delay the operational deployment of cruise missiles. That again is a perfectly respectable aim, although not one with which this Government agree.
At this point it is perhaps worth considering the effects of a delay in NATO deployments. It would leave the Soviet Union with a monopoly of land based longer-range INF missiles and the capabilities which these represent. It would remove from the Soviet Union a powerful incentive to negotiate seriously with the United States at the negotiating table in Geneva.
Incidentally, contrary to the expectations voiced yesterday—and I think by at least one noble Lord tonight—I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the Russians appear to be willing to meet as usual in Geneva this week. And what conceivable justification would the Soviet Union have for walking out? For two years the West has been negotiating patiently and constructively, without deploying a single cruise or Pershing II missile. The Soviet Union has steadily added to its arsenal of SS.20s ready to strike at Western Europe. Did we meet these Russian deployments by breaking off talks? My Lords, we did not. We met them by realistic new proposals for arms control; the latest advance in the Western position has been tabled by the United States only this week.
As your Lordships will recall, all the variations of the Soviet proposals in the INF talks have centred around one common theme. That is the retention of a substantial missile monopoly by the Soviet Union while seeking to prevent NATO deploying any comparable missiles of its own. The means to this end is the creation of a false balance between Soviet and NATO missiles. To create this so-called balance the Soviets have had to introduce into the talks the deterrent forces in Britain and France, which they had previously acknowledged to be strategic. On the strength of this they deny the right of NATO to deploy any equivalent missiles in Europe in response to that Soviet threat. I would not for one moment suggest that the Soviet leadership and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, share common motives, but I am bound to observe that the results of his proposal and of the Soviet proposal would be the same: no cruise missiles, no Pershing II, at least 140 SS.20s with more than 400 warheads threatening Western Europe, and well over
1272
100 SS.20s with more than 300 warheads threatening the Far East.
I now turn briefly to some of the other points that have been made during the course of this debate. During the course of his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to the article which appeared in the Sun on Friday, 11th November. I, too, saw that article and I can tell the noble Lord that it is an entirely nonsensical one. The existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States provide that a joint decision between the two Governments is required before the bases or the missiles could be used in an emergency. There has been no consideration of an Order in Council by the Queen and there are no contingency plans which envisage shooting United States servicemen.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also referred to the reliability of these weapons. The United states has completed satisfactorily a very thorough and comprehensive programme of development and testing. The results of United States tests have been made known to us and we are confident about the safety and performance of the weapon. I see no reason why the Government should place more reliance on material provided by organisations such as Electronics for Peace, to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be good enough to give way on this point, I am sorry to interrupt him, but would it not at least be wise for the Government to carry out one or two tests of their own?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that that is necessary because, as I say, we are entirely satisfied that the tests, of which we have been fully apprised, have been carried out satisfactorily.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I think one or two other noble Lords, referred to the Western attitude to arms control. I must reject the suggestion that the West is not serious about arms control. Events such as the Korean airliner tragedy, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, underline the need for an unremitting search for measures which can lead to greater stability and security and lower levels of forces. We shall continue to strive for arms control and disarmament agreements which are balanced, realistic and verifiable. There is a whole range of Western proposals on the table and it is now up to the Soviet Union to respond seriously to these.
On the INF talks in particular, which were very much in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, we of course strongly support NATO's goal, which is the zero option. If the Russians dismantle their SS.20, SS.4 and SS.5 missiles, we shall forgo the plans for cruise and Pershing II missiles. This radical proposal would eliminate all the Soviet and United States intermediate range missiles which can reach Western Europe from the Soviet Union, and the reverse. But NATO is also prepared to negotiate an interim agreement providing for balance in the number of warheads on these INF missiles. Indeed. President Reagan announced at the end of September further flexibility in the United States negotiating position aimed at meeting some of the concerns expressed by the Soviet Union.

1273
The additional flexibility called for by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, would of course leave us wholly exposed in the present situation, where the Soviet Union have a monopoly of these intermediate-range weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, referred to the relationship as he saw it, between this matter which we are considering tonight and the recent events in the Caribbean. The fact is that in the case of the cruise missiles based in this country there is a clearly defined and well-understood commitment to prior consultation and joint agreement before use. This cannot be compared with the conduct of United States foreign policy outside the NATO area, where there is no obligation to consult and no provision for joint decision.
I do not wish again this evening to rehearse the reasons underlying NATO's December 1979 decision and why it is now more than ever essential that NATO should proceed with its preparations for operational deployment, in the absence of an arms control agreement obviating the need for it. I will say again that 1983 is not the end of the deployment process, but the beginning. NATO's deployments are planned to be spread over five years. These deployments can be halted, modified or put into reverse at any time should results in Geneva warrant it. I still hope that the Soviet Union will be prepared to reach a serious agreement on a balance of forces at the lowest possible level of weapons. Their deployments of SS.20s have increased from under 130 in December 1979 to 360 now. The United States, in consultation with its allies, has made radical proposals for reductions and we are still awaiting a serious response from the Soviet Union. Whatever view one takes of the question for the control of cruise missiles, if one supports the need for NATO to retain an effective deterrent one must also support the need for preparations for operational deployment to continue without delay. Moreover, the Government are in no doubt that the existing arrangements for joint decision making remain fully effective with respect to cruise missiles as to other U.S. nuclear weapons based in this country, and that these arrangements fully meet the very proper concerns of the British people.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as he has made what he thinks is a valid point against my noble friend Lord Jenkins for a Motion which he seems to suggest is compatible with unilateralism, would the Minister say why on so many occasions when he claims that most people are multilateralist still 94 per cent. of the population are insisting on dual key control? That is surely what the whole Motion is about.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, first this is a Question and not a Motion. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I thought that one thing that came clearly from that poll was that the British people are perfectly clear that no decision on the use of nuclear weapons based in this country should be taken without the consent of the British Government, and that is our position.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, before the Minister sits down again, does he deny my statement that at the
1274
general election more people voted for the four parties opposed to the introduction of the cruise missiles than voted for the Government party supporting them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no doubt that if we had a system of proportional representation in this country the result in the other place at the present time might be different from what it is, but I fancy that the Conservative Party would nonetheless have won the last election.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord——
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I think we are getting a bit out of order. Perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, wishes to ask a question of my noble friend before he sits down finally he could do it, but this is an Unstarred Question, the Government Minister has the right to reply, and there is no right of debate thereafter. If there is a brief question for elucidation that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has to ask he may well do so, but beyond that we shall be way out of order.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip. We have had two questions for elucidation from the Labour Opposition. Is it not the case that the House is now in an unusual and possibly unprecedented situation in that the Minister in replying to the Question has not even mentioned, let alone answered, any of the arguments put forward by the largest opposition bloc in this House during the debate?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not think that that is a proper "before the noble Lord sits down" intervention. This is not a debate. There is no right of reply. I think that I must therefore move the adjournment of the House. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Denham.)
House adjourned at three minutes past midnight.

  DETENTION CENTRE SENTENCES
  DETENTION CENTRE SENTENCES
  YOUTH CUSTODY SENTENCES
  YOUTH CUSTODY SENTENCES
  PRISONERS' APPEALS: INFORMATION LEAFLET
  PRISONERS' APPEALS: INFORMATION LEAFLET
  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK: REBATE
  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK: REBATE
  HOOKE PARK FOREST: TRAINING CENTRE
  HOOKE PARK FOREST: TRAINING CENTRE
  APPEALS TO THE COURT OF SESSION
  APPEALS TO THE COURT OF SESSION