Sitting of 25 January 1984

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

    Turkey
    Mr. Bellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of diplomatic representation of Her Majesty's Government in Turkey.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): We are represented by a resident ambassador in the Turkish capital Ankara with a full supporting staff.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Foreign Secretary convey to our ambassador in Turkey the strong feeling, not only in the House but in the country, over the fact that 33,000 political prisoners are languishing in Turkish gaols, and that, by Telex to newspapers throughout the country, the military recently banned any references to an amnesty for those political prisoners? Given the fact that we are partners in NATO, will our ambassador in Turkey make the strongest representations to the new Government there about our great disquiet over the number of political prisoners in Turkey?
    Mr. Whitney: Her Majesty's Government have steadily made clear to the Turkish Government our concern about human rights in Turkey, and this was last done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in Stockholm last week in his discussions with the Turkish Foreign Minister. We shall continue to make the Turkish Government aware of this concern. We welcome the fact that immediately on taking office the new Turkish Government declared that they were opposed to any action aimed at reducing basic human rights and freedom.
    Mr. Hill: Should not the Turkish Government be further complimented on the fact that within the first few days of their office they have agreed to the holding of local government elections throughout the country, involving all political parties? Is this not a great step forward in democracy?
    Mr. Whitney: I accept what my hon. Friend says. We welcome that development, as we do any further development towards the full restoration of democratic rights in Turkey.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, there still remain 800 United Kingdom nationals
    900
    uncompensated for the losses incurred during the campaign, some of them for sums amounting to £10,000? As we participated last year in giving $32 million of aid to Turkey through article 113 of the Committee of the EEC, has not the time come for more strenuous representations to be made to ensure that these people are compensated?
    Mr. Whitney: We have continued to make the strongest representations and have given support to ensure that British nationals in Cyprus are duly compensated. We regret the delays and continue to keep up the pressure.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Are not Moslem countries which are parliamentary democracies extremely rare? Turkey suffered a period of ferocious political and civil violence, followed by a period or martial law, and it is now trying to re-establish democracy. Does not Turkey require and deserve all our help and support throughout this difficult period?
    Mr. Whitney: I agree with my hon. Friend. We understand the problems that have affected Turkey over many years, and we commend the efforts that have been made, to put things right in particular, the elections that were held in November. We look forward to a continuance of the evolutionary process to restore democracy in Turkey.
    Mr. George Robertson: Will the Minister remind himself and his hon. Friends that Turkey is a full member of NATO and as such should respect the central tenet of that organisation, which is respect for individual freedom? Is not the continual breach of human rights in Turkey utterly unacceptable? Will the hon. Gentleman make the strongest representations about the imprisonment of political prisoners, in particular that of Dr. Mahmut Dikerdem, the former ambassador, whose show trial was an affront to any normal standard of justice?
    Mr. Whitney: We understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I can only repeat that we continue to make that concern known to the Government of Turkey and that that was done most recently last week on 19 January, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met the Turkish Foreign Minister.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Indonesia concerning violations of human rights.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): We deplore violations of human rights wherever they may occur. The Indonesian Government are fully aware of the concern felt in this country at reports of human rights violations, particularly in East Timor. We do not believe that direct, formal, representations on our part would be helpful.
    Mr. Parry: The Minister will be aware that more than 200,000 people have been killed in East Timor since 1975, following the illegal occupation by Indonesia. Will he ensure that no further arms are supplied to Indonesia until a ceasefire occurs, and will the Government also not supply arms that may be used to repress human rights?
    Mr. Luce: There is varying evidence about the level of alleged abuse of human rights, and I am not sure

    901
    whether it is right to put a precise figure on that. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this issue, and, as he well knows, human rights is a major factor in considering export licences for any arms. I assure him that we take that very fully into account when any applications affecting, Indonesia come before us.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Irrespective of the number of people who have been killed in East Timor, is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern among Conservative Members about the continued occupation of a country which has been denied self-determination, while at the same time we continue to supply arms to the Indonesian Government? What are the criteria for selling arms to such a country—whether or not it has friendly relations with the United Kingdom — without regard to what is happening about human rights?
    Mr. Luce: I know that my hon. Friend also takes a close interest in this issue and I have discussed it with him. This and previous British Governments have at the United Nations supported East Timor's right to self-determination, and I am glad to reaffirm that. Human rights is a serious factor when considering applications for arms exports. I assure my hon. Friend that we take that fully into account.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Given the concern of Commonwealth countries such as Papua New Guinea and Singapore over Indonesia's current role, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that no Indonesian soldiers are training in this country?
    Mr. Luce: There is no evidence of that so far as I am aware, but I shall have to confirm it.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will take further international initiatives to prevent international terrorism.
    Mr. Whitney: We are committed to combating international terrorism and would indeed consider any new proposals very carefully. At the same time, extensive arrangements are already in existence, and our primary aim is to ensure that these arrangements work effectively.
    Mr. Woodall: During his recent visit to the middle east, did the Foreign Secretary discuss the role of the Syrian Government in permitting Iranian suicide groups to operate within Syrian-occupied Lebanon, and did not the Syrians provide logistical support for the horrific terrorist attacks mounted against the multinational force in Beirut? Given continued threatened Syrian hostility towards Jordan, will the Minister reassure us about the safety of the Queen, who is to visit Jordan in March?
    Mr. Whitney: My right hon. and learned Friend did indeed raise the terrorism issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Syria has repeatedly assured us that it does not support particular terrorist activities. We shall, of course, make sure that all appropriate arrangements are made for Her Majesty's visit to the middle east.
    Mr. Poctor: Do the Government need to take further steps beyond those contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill which we shall
    902
    discuss later today, as that measure deals with international terrorists operating here and using the United Kingdom as a safe haven? Will he particularly look at developments on extradition which have occurred in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee?
    Mr. Whitney: The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is, of course, primarily the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, will give proper effect to our serious concern about the need to combat international terrorism and that our legislation should be consonant with that objective.
    Mr. Anderson: Presumably, the next convenient international forum will be the London economic summit in June. Will the Minister confirm that probably the most relevant area for progress would be that of the security of diplomatic personnel and premises? In the meantime, will the Minister press the French Government to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, as there is some sign that they may be more inclined to do so now as a result of their recent experience with the Basques?
    Mr. Whitney: Previous economic summits have, indeed, provided a useful opportunity for exchanges between the seven Governments on methods of combating international terrorism. I expect that the London summit will provide another opportunity of ensuring that our cooperation in this important sphere remains as good as it should be. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question is that we have ratified a variety of international conventions on international terrorism, and we very much hope that all the other countries concerned will similarly ratify and give effect to those conventions in their national laws.

    Argentina
    Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is currently having with the Argentine Government.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding relations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government now have any plans to seek to establish diplomatic relations with Argentina.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We are holding no discussions with Argentina at present, but we have made clear our wish to restore normal bilateral relations. We will not enter into talks about the transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are now in a position where we can be magnanimous? Does he realise that many hon. Members on both sides are disappointed at the lack of positive response to the news coming from the Argentine? Does he agree that we should seek commercial normalisation, at the very least, as soon as possible, and at least give some encouraging noises to that Government that we would welcome their participation in talks?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely take the force of my hon. Friend's point. The message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to President Alfonsin after the election of the democratic Government in Argentina was intended to pave the way towards more normal relationships. It is clearly right for us to seek to do so along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, and as I have said in previous statements, by seeking, for example, to begin improving commercial relationships between the two countries.
    Mr. Winnick: With Argentina fortunately restored to democratic government, is this not the right opportunity, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has just said, to explore with the Government of that country all aspects of the future of the Falklands? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the news that about £7 million of public money has been spent on the erection of just 54 prefabricated houses in the Falklands is just one example of the growing, formidable price that this country is paying for the present Government's policy on the Falklands?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the Government have made it clear that there is no intention of embarking on negotiations about sovereignty, and that is compatible with everything that we have said and done about the Falklands so far. In those circumstances, it is right and proper for us to take prudent steps where necessary to secure the defence of the islands and their development. It is in that context that the houses which the hon. Gentleman mentioned were urgently needed, by way of replacement, and as accommodation for new personnel. The final cost for the supply and erection was high for a number of reasons, but the original contract price had been adhered to. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I have already made plain, that we should now look for ways of improving our relationship with the Argentine Government, and we should do that by concentrating first on those areas where practical steps towards agreement are most likely to be possible at an early stage.
    Mr. Dubs: If the Foreign Secretary is sincere about improving relationships with Argentina, is not the establishment of diplomatic relations a necessary first step, from which better relations generally with that country will follow?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right to contemplate the establishment of diplomatic relations unless and until there is a declaration by Argentina of its willingness to end the state of hostilities. However, the absence of such a declaration, as I have made plain, does not rule out the wisdom of looking for ways of improving our relationships. I emphasise that that process must start in the areas which are most likely to be practicable, probably in commercial matters.
    Mr. David Atkinson: In the interests of establishing this sort of good will, is not the time ripe for the Government to renew their offer to the Argentine Government to facilitate arrangements for the Argentine bereaved to visit the graves of their relatives on the Falkland Islands?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, I am glad of the opportunity to do that. Since the summer of 1982 we have made it clear on a number of occasions, through the International Red Cross, that we are prepared to facilitate the repatriation of
    904
    the Argentine dead. That offer remains open. Secondly, we have made it plain that we shall place no obstacle in the way of a visit of the sort described by my hon. Friend by a bona fide group of relatives who meet the conditions that we have suggested and are prepared to go under arrangements made and supervised by the International Red Cross.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that immigration into the Falkland Islands will not be ruled out as a subject for discussion between the two countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Robert Banks: As the Secretary-General of the United Nations is charged with the task of seeking to bring about talks between ourselves and the Argentine Government, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this might be an appropriate moment to make our position known to the Secretary-General, to ascertain whether a dialogue could be initiated?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had our position made plain to him in the course of the work that he did before reporting to the General Assembly towards the end of last year. It seems that the right way of setting about this process is to seek to improve relationships through the intermediation of the protecting powers, and to move from that to try to establish a normal pattern of business between the two countries.
    Mr. Healey: As the fortress Falklands policy, according to the Government's own figure, will cost the British taxpayer £2 million a year for the next three years for every family of Falklanders, and as much of that money is wasted through incompetence, as we have seen recently in respect of housing, will Her Majesty's Government show the same readiness to meet the democratic leader of the Argentine half way as they have demonstrated in offering to meet the Communist leader of the Soviet Union halfway? Will they undertake negotiations with the democratic Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands without preconditions, as they have already undertaken negotiations with the Communist Government of China about the future of the 6 million people in Hong Kong?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The parallel which the right hon. Gentleman sought to draw at the end of his supplementary question is characteristically inappropriate. The fact that cannot and must not be overlooked is that the Falkland Islands were the subject of an unprovoked armed invasion, which took place a very few weeks after the Argentine Government of that time had been purporting to negotiate on the future of the islands. Having said that, it is sensible for us to be willing, as we have made clear, to seek a better relationship with the democratic Government of the Argentine. We have welcomed their election, but we must invite them to have some respect for the right of those who live on the Falklands to self-determination.

    USSR (Human Rights)
    Sir Bernard Braineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that

    905
    the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics comply with their human rights obligations under the Helsinki agreements.
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make urgent representations to the Soviet Government with regard to the detention in mental institutions of sane persons for political or religious reasons.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has been any improvement in the human rights record of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since the Helsinki review conference in Madrid last September.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government can take to ensure that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics carry out their responsibilities under the Helsinki agreement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I regret to say that there is no evidence of any change in the Soviet Government's human rights record since the conclusion of the Madrid conference, whether in relation to religious minorities, treatment of individuals confined to mental institutions or in any other regard. But, together with our allies and partners, we shall continue to follow closely the Soviet Union's actions and take suitable opportunities to draw the Soviet authorities' attention to their commitments undertaken at Helsinki and Madrid.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the British delegation at the Madrid conference made strong protests to the Soviet representatives about the contined harassment of Soviet citizens who have tried to monitor infringements of the Helsinki accord by their own Government? Will he also say whether the opportunity was taken to make further representations to the Soviet authorites about the fate of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg, the brave Swede who saved 100,000 Jews from the Nazis and was imprisoned by the Soviets? They have declined ever since to say whether the man is alive or dead. Are not the world and Wallenberg's family owed an explanation of what has happened to him?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our delegation in Madrid took a number of opportunities to raise individual cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The case of Raoul Wallenberg was raised most recently by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), when he saw the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kornienko in Moscow last spring.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Secretary of State clarify the difference between his good words in the House and his actions? Did he take the opportunity to raise that matter when he spoke to Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm? If he did not do so, will he give an undertaking to raise it at their next meeting?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I did, indeed raise that matter. I have had two meetings with Mr. Gromyko, one in Madrid last September, and another in Stockholm last week. On both occasions I raised the matter in general terms and cited particular examples. As I told the House yesterday,
    906
    when I was in Stockholm I took examples of people whose cases were more serious because they were ill, such as Shcharansky and Bonar Sakharov.
    Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the difference is, apart from colour, between a white Government prosecuting and oppressing black people, and a white Government oppressing and prosecuting white people? Should not the Gleneagles agreement, the Helsinki final act and the United Nations human rights charter apply equally? All of us should try to adhere to them.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised two questions which can be, and often are, linked together. It is right that we should not apply double standards in our approach to human rights matters in any part of the world, but it must be recognised that any action that is taken to repress human rights which is based specifically and exclusively on colour discrimination has an especially unattractive flavour to it.
    Mr. Cartwright: I raise a matter arising from the Helsinki agreement. What steps are the Government taking to press for the release of Solidarity and KOR leaders, who are imprisoned in Poland and are threatened with political show trials?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must understand that this sort of question arises in a number of contexts. In most cases, our formal status is very limited. We have to choose the right way and best way of making such points. We shall take full account of the hon. Gentleman's question as opportunities arise and as we consider our relationships with countries such as Poland.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Helsinki agreement, which was freely accepted by the Soviet Union, declares that respect for human rights is an essential factor for peace? When, from time to time, the Soviet Union loudly declares its love of peace, would it not be worth while quietly to point that out?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I made that point in the House yesterday and, indeed, I made it to Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm last week. If people are shown conduct of the kind with which the House is concerned in terms of human rights, it is bound to have an effect on their perception of their country's disposition towards peace and international relations.
    Mr. Anderson: The Foreign Secretary knows from previous exchanges in the House that there is a bipartisan approach to human rights. We join the Government in their condemnation of the abuse of human rights in the Soviet Union. However, we wish that the Foreign Secretary would show that same zeal and enthusiasm for human rights in Chile. The Government recently abstained from voting at the United Nations on the issue of human rights.
    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise the close correlation between the severity of the cold war and the Soviet Union's tightening of the screws on Jewish and Christian dissidents and human rights campaigners? Will he accept that dissidents in the Soviet Union can best be helped by avoiding the Star Wars cold war rhetoric and getting on with the business of detente?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government take every appropriate opportunity to raise questions of human rights.

    907
    We have had exchanges in the House on Chile on other occasions, and I shall not go into that now. I do not believe that there is any simple connection between the international atmosphere and the way in which the Soviet Union conducts itself in such affairs. I wish that the matter were as simple as that. However, it is true that, for example, Jewish emigration was running at over 50,000 in 1979, but was below 3,000 in 1982. It is important to continue pressing the Soviet Union for an improvement in its behaviour in that respect and for an improvement in the whole international atmosphere, leading towards a dialogue between both sides of the iron curtain.

    Gulf War
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on any recent initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise at the United Nations Organisation the failure of Iran and Iraq to respect Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gulf war.
    Mr. Luce: We shall maintain our efforts at the United Nations to try to achieve a ceasefire and settlement acceptable to both Iran and Iraq. We have urged both sides to respect United Nations Security Council resolution 540 and to make use of the United Nations Secretary-General's good offices in working for a negotiated end to the war.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that that dreadful war has now been going on for more than three years, that at least 200,000 people have been killed and that nobody seems to be doing very much to stop it, or taking much interest in it? Why is the Security Council not in permanent session to try to implement those resolutions, and why are the diplomats not giving it a much higher priority?
    Mr. Luce: I entirely agree about the seriousness of the war. It is now in its fourth year and there have been very heavy civilian and military casualties on both sides. It is of great concern to us and many other Governments that the war should come to an end. Considerable diplomatic efforts are being made to try to ensure that Security Council resolution 540 is implemented. The British Government are taking an active diplomatic part in that in the United Nations and elsewhere. We are doing whatever we can.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: In pressing on countries the need to accept such resolutions, particularly in the middle east, is not one of the difficulties that one country, Israel, continually violates both Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? When it is suggested that other countries should concern themselves with Security Council resolutions, it does not help if a major friend of this Government constantly ignores them.
    Mr. Luce: To return to the main point, the most recent resolution, No. 540, which was passed in October by the Security Council is a balanced resolution. That is what matters. It is fair to both sides and if the war is to come to an end, as everyone wishes, it should be pursued on that basis. We hope that the Secretary-General will be able to send his representative out, if there is enough common ground, to hold discussions and to see whether there is a way forward.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does not the news today of the possible deployment of Soviet SS12 missiles in Iraq chill even the Minister's blood and diplomacy? Is it not time that we began a major diplomatic offensive to try to get both parties to adhere to existing United Nations resolutions? Will the Government continue to adhere to their policy of not sending arms to either side in the conflict, and include in that the military support ships now lying at Yarrow's shipyard, Glasgow?
    Mr. Luce: Our priority is to do what we can, hearing in mind that we have only a limited amount of influence with the parties concerned. However, to the extent that we have it, we should use it. Without any shadow of doubt that is our priority. The hon. Gentleman will be aware drat we take a neutral position towards the war and do not believe that it is right to sell lethal arms to either side. We believe that all our efforts should be on the diplomatic front.

    Nuclear Disarmament
    Mr. Strangasked the Secreary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives on nuclear disarmament he has supported in the United Nations in the past three years.
    Mr. Luce: We remain committed to supporting, at the United Nations and elsewhere, initiatives from any quarter that are likely genuinely to advance the search for security through negotiated arms control and disarmament measures. Thus, over the past three years we have supported the United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerned with the prevention of nuclear war. the intermediate nuclear force negotiations and nuclear weapon-free zones.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware of how appalling the Government's overall record is in opposing so many major nuclear disarmament initiatives at the United Nations? How, for example, do the Government justify voting against a motion for the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests?
    Mr. Luce: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely wrong to suggest that the British Government have not been constructive in appraching the resolutions, not only in the last three years, but in the last year, that have come before the United Nations General Assembly. The criteria we adopt when we examine resolutions are whether they are likely to lead to a positive prospect of arms control agreements, and that means that they must be verifiable and they must be balanced. We look at the langauge of each resolution with those criteria in mind. That surely is the most sensible approach.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the unlikely event of the French proposal for an international satellite monitoring agency under UN aegis being implemented, some of the first pictures brought back will be of continued Soviet SS20 launch site construction? Is this not a very serious matter and the sort of thing to which the United Nations should address itself?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend that verification is one of the key aspects of making any progress on arms control agreements, and any evidence of abuse of that in previous agreements does not help the process. What we must hope is that the Soviet Union will now fulfil what Mr.

    909
    Andropov is reported to have suggested, and that is that the Soviet Union would like to see progress in arms control. The most sensible way in which it can prove that is to come back to the talks in Geneva, and the sooner the better.
    Mr. Healey: Since, according to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, Her Majesty's Government do not dispute the findings of the world's leading scientists that both the super powers now have at least 100 times more nuclear explosives than they could use without destroying their own people—never mind what those explosives did to the enemy — will the Government now support the demand of the overwhelmingly majority of the United Nations for a freeze of development and deployment of nuclear weapons so that at least countries cannot continue adding yet more dangerous nuclear weapon to stockpiles that are grossly excessive for any conceivable military or political purpose?
    Mr. Luce: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right. We all want to see an end to the escalation of the arms race. What really matters, if I may suggest this to the right hon. Gentleman, is not a freeze, but an actual reduction. This is what we have been proposing; indeed, this is what President Reagan has been proposing. If one goes for the policy of suggesting that we should have freezes, in many cases—in the case of intermediate nuclear weapons—one is ossifying an imbalance in weapons, in this case a monopoly on the part of the Soviet Union. There is, therefore, no incentive for reductions. What we want to work for is reductions, not freezing, of weapons.

    Syria
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvement there has been in relations between the United Kingdom and Syria, following the Minister of State's visit to that country.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although we disagree on a number of issues, we seek to maintain a constructive dialogue with the Syrian Government. I had useful talks with President Assad and the Syrian Foreign Minister during my visit to Damascus on 11 and 12 January.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is essential for peace in the Lebanon that Syrian troops should get out of that sad country, along with the rest, which they have persistently refused to do? If so, did he express this view to President Assad, and what response did he get?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We did, indeed, have a full discussion of the Lebanon, and we made it plain to the Syrian Government that the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the Lebanon is one of the features necessary to secure an ultimate settlement in that country. The Syrians of course take the view that their troops are there on a different basis from those of other countries. They have other difficulties, in particular in relation to the 17 May agreement. We pressed them and, indeed, have pressed others, not to let that agreement become an obstacle to progress. I urged the Syrian Government to be flexible over arrangements that would have to be made for the withdrawal of all foreign forces, including their own.
    Mr. Walters: In his talks with President Assad, was my right hon. and learned Friend able to point out clearly
    910
    that Her Majesty's Government remain firmly committed to resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab-occupied territory, including Golan? Will he do everything in his power to try to help to improve relations between Syria and Jordan, as that would play an important part in any subsequent peace negotiations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Most of my time with Ministers in Syria was devoted to the immediately pressing topics, geographically and practically, arising out of Lebanon, but I made plain the Government's view that the way forward to a settlement of the main Arab-Israel dispute had to be founded essentially on the propositions contained in the Venice declaration. I did not have an opportunity of discussing relationships between Syria and Jordan, but I note the point that my hon. Friend made.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that now that the ceasefire talks have broken down for the umpteenth time and the talks for national conciliation between the various factions in the Lebanon have also broken down, in part because of American intervention on the side of the Gemayel Government, the time has come when Britain should take the initiative in organising the withdrawal of the so-called multinational force from the Lebanon?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the participants in the multinational force, together with much moderate opinion in the middle east, believe that the precipitate withdrawal, along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, of the multinational force would be quite irresponsible. It would undermine the prospects of success for the Lebanese Government; it would damage the prospects of reconciliation there, and it would run the real risk of promoting a new outburst of bloodshed, which the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to regret.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    America
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects the EEC Council of Foreign Ministers to discuss relations with the United States of America.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The Council discusses such matters whenever necessary, but at present has no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister impress on his European counterparts the need to put every pressure on the United States not to reduce its budget deficit, its PSBR, because that would only create further unemployment in America and greater unemployment in western Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom? Is it not fair to say that every time the British Chancellor of the Exchequer requests a reduction in the budget deficit of the United States he is asking for greater unemployment in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has the unique distinction of being about the only person in Europe to hold that point of view.
    Mr. Forman: Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government take every opportunity at EEC Council of

    911
    Ministers' meetings and elsewhere to try to get agreement in the Community, and hence with the United States, on the need to avoid international economic warfare, whether it be through subsidies, quotas or any other mechanism? Is he aware that if the Government are serious about looking for public expenditure restraints, not to speak of cuts, we must remember that this country alone spends about £500 million a year on export subsidies and that if we were to get a satisfactory international agreement, that would be a saving well worth making?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter. I agree that it is not only the responsibility of the United States not to introduce any new import restrictions. Her Majesty's Government argue strongly in the European Community that in seeking to resolve the problems of the Community we should not try to do so at the expense of increasing protectionism from the point of view of the Community's relationship with the United States or with other countries.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: What initiatives will Ministers take regarding a reduction of the arms race and the possibility of suggesting some initiatives on nuclear disarmament? Do EEC Ministers support the initiative taken by Premier Trudeau in trying to get the five countries that produce nuclear weapons together to achieve a reduction?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the EC does not itself take a position on defence issues. He will be equally aware that those European Community members who are also members of NATO strongly support the position of the United States on the disarmament negotiations and hope that the Soviet Union will soon return to the negotiating table.
    Mr. Hordern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans must be somewhat puzzled about what they should do to get things right, since they were first criticised for exporting too many dollars and now they are criticised for importing too much money from other countries? Could not the Americans easily reduce their overseas deficit by reducing the number of forces in western Europe? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans remain invaluable and trusted allies of the West and that we would do well to recognise that?
    Mr. Rifkind: I unreservedly agree with my hon. Friend's final remark. I hope he shares the view that the presence of United States' troops in Europe is an important part of the defence of the West as a whole, and in the interests of the West and of the United States.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Minister reconsider his smart answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Is the Minister aware that by answering in that fashion he proves that he is unique in Europe in that he has never read the valuable opinions of many European Governments who support my hon. Friend's view? Does he recognise that his answer has the support only of those conventional bankers who take the monetarist view which he and his Government support?
    Mr. Rifkind: In the light of that supplementary question, I accept that there must be at least one other person who shares the view expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Gentleman must not use simplistic arguments. He must be aware that not only the present British Government, but
    912
    the Socialist Government in France, and other European Governments, hope to see a reduction in the American budget deficit because of the beneficial effect that that would have on interest rates around the world.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
    Mr. Fallonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made at ministerial level towards an acceptable solution to the current budget crisis in the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with other Ministers in the European Economic Community about the future of the Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to secure the conditions he outlined on 1 December, Official Report, c. 1014, before any agreement is considered to increase the Community's own resources.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions on European Economic Community reform since the Athens summit.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I expect to attend the next Foreign Affairs Council which is due to meet on 20 and 21 February.
    I attended the first Foreign Affairs Council under the French Presidency on Monday. The French Foreign Minister said that it was the aim of the Presidency to reach agreement on the main issues in the post-Stuttgart negotiations at the March European Council. The negotiations will be carried forward in a series of bilateral discussions, at a special meeting of Foreign Ministers on 18 and 19 February and in the Foreign Affairs Council as necessary. Specialist Councils will handle those issues which fall directly to them.
    I stressed the need to make substantial progress in the hope of reaching agreement by March. I emphasised the need for detailed work to be done on the difficult issues in the negotiation: control of agricultural and other spending and budget imbalances, as well as the future development of Community policies. These issues could be handled separately in detail but needed to be drawn together so that decisions could be taken by Heads of Government on all the measures together.
    I am arranging for a note on the other issues discussed at the Council to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be explaining to his colleagues at those meetings the growing impatience in Britain at the slow progress being made towards a solution to the budget dispute? Will he be announcing, albeit privately, that his freedom to

    913
    manoeuvre in negotiations has been limited by the growing opposition on the Government Benches to linking a solution to the budget problem to an increase in own resources?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have made it plain throughout the discussions that have been going on since Stuttgart last summer that there is a need for urgency in reaching a conclusion to that agenda. I have made it plain publicly and privately that we are all impatient to see a conclusion of the negotiations so that the Community can concentrate on a wider range of business, including new policy. The fact remains that, as at Stuttgart, the question whether there should be an increase in own resources is connected with the proposition that we there laid down that there must be effective control over agriculture and other spending and an equitable financial arrangement, and that there can be no increase in own resources unless both those requirements are met.
    Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the case for a clear distinction between the Council's legislative and deliberative functions? Can he reassure the House that progress has been made towards the completion of the internal market and the elimination of non-tariff barriers?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that there is reason to be impatient about the progress towards the establishment of an internal common market, including removing non-tariff barriers within the Community. I believe that it is important that we should press ahead with what are known as new policies in that respect and which are at the foundation of the original concept of the Common Market.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not ironic that, 11 or 12 years ago, when Britain was being taken into the Common Market by the last leader of the Tory party and the social dreamers who sometimes inhabit this Bench they did it on the basis of saving a sinking pound, rescuing the Common Market and solving all the problems of the Third world? After little more than a decade the Common Market is up to the neck in debt. The International Monetary Fund is cadging money from the United States. The Export Credits Guarantees Department is a busted flush. Right around the world financial institutions do not know how to find the money for 40 countries which are rescheduling their debt. Does it not prove to the British people that it has been a waste of time? What the Foreign Secretary ought to be doing is telling them—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unfair to other hon. Members.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Foreign Secretary got the question?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has exposed a large number of propositions for brief examination. At the conclusion I must find that he is totally bankrupt of constructive ideas.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State expect any progress at the meeting in March to which he referred? Does he think that, because the different sides are irreconcilable, there will be no progress? If this is the case, what will the Government's attitude be at that time?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If there were to be no progress at the completion of the negotiations on which we embarked at Stuttgart, for the overwhelming body of opinion in the
    914
    House, and certainly in the country, that would be a serious state of affairs. I believe that overwhelmingly people recognise that progress, particularly in the economic field, depends upon our maintaining the coherence and cohesion of Community institutions. That is why, as I made plain earlier, we must emphasise not just the urgency but the importance of moving towards agreement on these matters at the earliest possible stage.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us who have supported the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us who supported the Government last week in some unpopular but necessary measures to curb expenditure and to stop waste will feel let down if, in trying to solve the budget problem. the Government agree to vast additional public resources and public spending going into economic nonsenses, such as a Channel tunnel? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us a clear assurance that there will be no question of the Government agreeing to increased resources, giving us in exchange a half share in a white elephant?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The linkage with an increase in own resources is with the two propositions I have already announced. We stand by the two conditions laid down at Stuttgart — effective control of agricultural and other spending and equitable financing. There are many reasons for being wary about the implications of the Channel tunnel. It is certainly something which I, for one, would want to consider very carefully before regarding it as a proposition to be accepted with enthusiasm.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: When the Foreign Secretary meets the Ministers, will he be more mundane and convey to them the concern expressed in steelmaking communities throughout the country about the threats from the Common Market to make further cuts in our steelmaking capacity? Will he tell them that our industry has already been cut to the bone whereas other Common Market countries have not adhered to the directives of that organisation?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry emphasises that point with the utmost clarity at the Council when this matter arises. It is also worth reflecting that our membership of the Community has enabled us to obtain protection from some of the disadvantages of world economic conditions that would have arisen had we been alone. It is also worth remembering that one of the features which add to the problems of the world's steel community flows directly from the high level of the United States federal budget deficit which we were talking about some time ago—the high level of the dollar.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Following the free elections in Turkey and the restoration of a civilian Government, with the support of the vast majority of the people of that country, will my right hon. and learned Friend press for the restoration of all rights for the Turkish people under the association agreement when the Council of Ministers next meets in political co-operation?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly take account of what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, therewas some discussion earlier today about the balance between progress towards human rights and the current position in Turkey.
    Mr. Hardy: Instead of preparing complacently platitudinous answers, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect upon the fact that the principle achievement of the EEC in recent months has been the classification of the feathered hyacinth bulb as a vegetable?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's astuteness in observing that.
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. and learned Friend was quoted on Monday as saying that the EEC was stony broke and in a state of semi-paralysis. Does he expect that state to be changed in any way by the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament or the Commission, and is there anything that this House can do to help?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If we are to achieve the necessary reforms to deal with the problems which we have been discussing, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament all have a part to play.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary try to achieve some sense of urgency? Is he aware that in time, if not in geography, we are now half way between the Athens and Brussels summits? If, as he says, the Community is in a state of semi-paralysis—a description more appropriate to the Foreign Office under the right hon. and learned Gentleman—why does he not admit to the House that there is no serious prospect of reaching any agreement which would justify his inviting the House to vote more tax resources for a spendthrift Community?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original reply he would know that at Monday's meeting I stressed the need for substantial progress, in the hope of reaching agreement by March, and that I emphasised the need for detailed work to be done. Throughout that meeting and many others I have done all that I can, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to stress the sense of urgency that is needed. If we achieve an appropriate settlement of the budgetary problem and a proper mechanism to control imbalances, Britain will pay less, despite an increase in own resources.
    Following is the note:
    Foreign Affairs Council 23 January 1984
    Other issues discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council which met in Brussels on 23 January and at which I represented the United Kingdom.
    In response to a suggestion from several member countries of the European Free Trade Association, the Council agreed to propose to EFTA that there should be a joint ministerial meeting in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council to be held in Luxembourg on 9 April.
    The Council reviewed the current state of the negotiations on a successor to the present Lomé convention, in preparation for the EC/ACP ministerial meeting in 9–10 February. There was a discussion of ESPRIT (European Stategic Programme for Research in Information Technology) and it was agreed that Ministers would consider the programme further at the Research Council on 28 February.
    There was also an inconclusive discussion of energy measures. It was agreed that Energy Ministers should examine the proposals again next month.
    At a ministerial conference in the margins of the Council a Community declaration on agricultural structures was presented to the Portuguese.

    Budget Rebate
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what
    916
    specific political initiatives he proposes to ensure that the next summit meeting successfully agrees arrangements for the payment of the United Kingdom's budget rebate.
    Mr. Willie Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in expediting the payment of the £457 million rebate due to the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We are taking the necessary steps within the Council to ensure that there is no obstacle to the bulk of our 1983 refunds being paid by the end of March as in previous years. If it is to act responsibly, the European Parliament should lake the measures necessary to enable the Community to meet its obligations and thus strengthen the chances of success in the present negotiations, and not take discriminatory and unacceptable action against us.
    Mr. Bennett: My original question asked whether there was anything new in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's initiative. If there is not, how does he expect it to work this time when it has failed in the past?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Urgency, and indeed novelty, are added to the present negotiations by the growing perception that unless they are brought to a successful conclusion the Community in its present form will run out of money. There are many reasons, well perceived by the parties to the negotiations, why a successful conclusion should be reached, and the sooner the better.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, however great the provocation, and however tempting the short-term advantages of reacting to the failure to agree on the budget by withholding our contributions, the United Kingdom stands to gain more than any other member country from the strictest application of the rule of law within the Community?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The United Kingdom wishes to see obligations upheld and observed throughout the Community. If the Community does not meet its obligations, we must take steps to safeguard our position.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government did not take the European Parliament to the Court over its veto on the rebate? Will he give an unequivocal assurance that, if the rebate is not paid by the end of March, the Government will take immediate action to withhold all or part of our contributions?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is our expectation that, as in previous years, we shall receive the bulk of the refund by the end of March. To achieve that we need regulations and transfer to the line of the moneys now in the reserve chapter of the budget. Steps are in hand to implement those procedures. The European Parliament can meet them by the end of March, and there is no reason why the money should not be paid then—
    Mr. Foulkes: If not?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If not, as I said in answer to a previous question, of course we must consider what action is necessary to safeguard our position.

GCHQ (Employment Protection Acts)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government communications headquarters and the Employment Protection Acts.
As the House knows, the Employment Protection Acts contain provisions that enable the Government to except Crown employees from the application of the Acts. These provisions can be used only for the purposes of safeguarding national security, and reflect the acknowledged need for particularly sensitive functions of Government to be protected so far as possible from the risk of exposure or disruption.
Government communications headquarters is responsible for intelligence work of crucial importance to our national security. To be effective, this work must be conducted secretly. Moreover, GCHQ must provide a service that can be relied on with confidence at all times. It is clear, therefore, that the conditions envisaged in the special provisions of the Employment Protection Acts exist in this case.
The House will wish to know that, for these reasons, I have today signed certificates under section 121(4) of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and section 138(4) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, excepting GCHQ employees from the application of the relevant provision. The certificates have immediate effect and new conditions of service are at the same time being introduced at GCHQ. Under those new conditions, staff will be permitted in future to belong only to a departmental staff association approved by their director.
The very special nature of the work of GCHQ will be apparent from what I have said. The action I have taken stems directly from that. The Government fully respect the right of civil servants to be members of a trade union, and it is only the special nature of the work of GCHQ that has led us to take these measures. I can assure the House therefore that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside the field of security and intelligence.
GCHQ staff are being informed of these measures this afternoon. Those who decide to remain at GCHQ will each receive a payment of £1,000 in recognition of the fact that certain rights that they have hitherto enjoyed are being withdrawn from them in the interests of national security. Those who do not wish to continue to serve at GCHQ will be offered the opportunity of seeking a transfer to another part of the Civil Service.
Mr. Denis Healey: I found the Foreign Secretary's statement at once disturbing and perplexing. Government communications headquarters, of which I know something from the six years I spent as Secretary of State for Defence, has performed an indispensable service to the nation since the war by providing vital intelligence with an efficiency and dedication that is the envy of the world. It is not, like some other branches of the security services, a small body of professionals. It is a large industrial enterprise employing thousands of skilled technicians. Any of the very few offences against security that have been committed by members of GCHQ have been dealt with under the law, as in the Prime case not long
918
ago. As far as I am aware, there has been no industrial action for the past three years since 1981 by members of GCHQ.
The House must be told by the Foreign Secretary why the Government have decided after all these years to deprive GCHQ employees of rights that are enjoyed by civil servants in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who are doing work of equal security and operational importance. Why is the Foreign Secretary depriving GCHQ employees of rights of industrial organisation that are enjoyed by employees of the royal ordnance factories and those in private firms such as Vickers and Plessey, who are doing work which is equally secret and equally central to the nation's security?
I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary two questions about how he took his decision. What consultations did he have, before taking his decision, with the elected representatives of GCHQ employees? Secondly, did he discuss his decision with the Security Commission which, although it was not set up specifically to deal with a broad question of this nature, comprises people with deep and long-standing knowledge of the work of GCHQ and whose impartiality would be accepted on both sides of the House?
I put it seriously to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has announced a very grave decision. I appeal to him not to implement it before he has consulted the representatives of the employees concerned and put the matter to the Security Commission for an objective judgment.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Members of the Security Commission were not consulted. It is not a matter for them. They are normally involved only in cases where there has been a breach of security. Nor was there any consultation with the trade unions at GCHQ. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It would not have been appropriate in such a matter to consult in that way. In parallel with my announcement, letters are being sent today to all GCHQ staff, and the non-industrial Civil Service trade unions are being informed this afternoon.
I appreciate the importance of the matter. That is why there has been long and careful consideration of the issue and, for example, of the need to avoid a repetition of the industrial action that took place in the three years from 1979 to 1981, which faced staff doing this work with a severe conflict of loyalties. Bearing in mind the need for confidence in the stability and reliability of the service, the Government have concluded that it is right to take these measures. It is right to remind the House that the provisions that I am invoking are already applied to other aspects of the security services and are contained in statutes passed by the Labour Government of whom the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was a member.
Mr. Healey: I must press the Foreign Secretary on the questions that I put to him.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would not it be more appropriate if the right hon. Gentleman did so at the end of questions on the Foreign Secretary's statement?
Mr. Healey: No, Mr. Speaker, with respect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Very well, but this takes time from other hon. Members.
Mr. Healey: It is important that I put these points to the Foreign Secretary again. I understand that the two

919
branches of the security services that are disallowed normal industrial activity under the Act are MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, both of which are small bodies of professional men. The GCHQ is a different type of enterprise. In terms of its importance to national security, the secrecy of its work and its operational importance, it does not differ essentially from the Foreign Secretary's private office, the civil servants in the Ministry of Defence, the many industrial employees in the royal ordnance factories, and the private arms manufacturers, all of which are doing work that is vital to national security and intensely secret. All those employees are given the right of industrial organisation and they have not abused those rights, any more than have the staff of GCHQ.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Member has moved on to different ground. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last year, the functions of GCHQ include safeguarding the security of our military and official communications and the provision of
"signals intelligence in accordance with the requirements laid upon it by the Government in support of the Government's defence and foreign policies." — [Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 430.]
That being so we believe that confidence in the freedom of that service from intervention or intrusion is of the highest importance. It was after considering that matter that we came to the conclusion that I have outlined.
Dr. David Owen: The Foreign Secretary owes it to the House to tell us what relevant provisions of the Employment Protection Acts he intends to invoke. The House is also entitled to some greater explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's objectives. If his objective is to avoid strike action in GCHQ, it is thoroughly desirable, but could it not better be achieved by negotiating a no-strike agreement? There is the precedent of the gas and electricity workers, who were members of unions but were bound by no-strike agreements. If the Secretary of State wants to exclude people from the system of complaints to the industrial tribunal, because of anxiety over the giving of evidence relating to security information, that could be done by revoking section 24 of the 1978 Act. Section 23 and others are sections that affect trade unions, but surely the setting up of a staff association is not in itself a guarantee that there will not be industrial action. Industrial action has been taken in the past by staff associations.
I understand the motives of the Secretary of State, but I feel that he has not found a way of carrying conviction with the more than 5,000 people employed at GCHQ—to whom over £5 million is now to be paid out. A better approach would be for the Secretary of State to explain to the House and to the establishment in question what the objectives are, and to negotiate a satisfactory agreement.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The statutory background is provided by the two sections that I have already mentioned to the House, which enable a certificate to be granted under the 1975 and 1978 Acts to allow certain Crown employees to be excepted
"for the purpose of safeguarding national security".
Dr. Owen: From all the provisions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: From the provisions of the Act —that is right. We are motivated, first, by the need to secure freedom from serious disruption and to remove the risk of strike action. I have been asked why that could not
920
be achieved by a no-strike agreement. Such an agreement could not prevent exposure to industrial tribunals. 'The need to prevent such exposure is the second reason for wanting confidentiality. Experience has also shown that in an organisation whose activities include intelligence work there can be problems if staff are members of national trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. That is why GCHQ management and staff representatives will he looking for other ways to conduct industrial relations.
Mr. Charles Irving: On a matter of such fundamental importance to a very large number of my constituents, I really feel that it would have been reasonable for me to have been informed of the statement in advance so that I could have had a chance to study it. The timing of the statement could not have been worse. Staff at GCHQ are already reeling under the imposition for a trial period of the lie detector, which is renowned for its failure rate. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell the House whether, in undertaking the fundamental removal of a democratic right, and de-unionising a large group of people, he is setting a precedent. Roughly 7,000 people in my constituency are involved. I should like to know, firstly, whether it is the normal accepted practice in areas of sensitive security to take such steps without the fullest consultation. Are those people who feel offended by this introduction to be guaranteed — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] I do not speak as often as the hon. Member. If he shuts up, I will be quicker.
Are job transfers to be guaranteed for those who object to this imposition? How long will the offer of £1,000 be open to those who decide to accept? I hope that the Secretary of State will agree today that, if I should require it, a deputation led by me will be received by him.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a number of points that are important to his constituents. I shall certainly be willing to arrange to meet a deputation of the kind that he has in mind.
I assure my hon. Friend that the matter that I have announced today has no connection with the Government's acceptance of the Security Commission's recommendation that a pilot scheme should be carried out to test the feasibility of polygraph examinations. They will, of course, involve only a small proportion of staff in the security service at GCHQ.
In the first instance, the offer will be open until I March this year. It is important that GCHQ management should know as soon as possible which of their staff will be remaining and which will be leaving. We cannot say exactly how long it will take beyond that. Every effort will be made to transfer to other Departments staff who are unwilling to remain with GCHQ under the new conditions. GCHQ will continue to employ them while that is being done. Staff for whom it proves impossible to arrange a transfer to another Department will be eligible for premature retirement on redundancy terms.
Mr. Dave Nellist: It is called a blacklist, you know.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those who opt to leave, but for whom no alternative posting can be found, will be given a second chance to accept new conditions before they are considered for premature retirement.
Dr. John Gilbert: If there was no security leak worth reporting to the Security Commission

921
three years ago, why is it necessary to do this? Why are the GCHQ staff being singled out? Can the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking to the House that such measures will not be extended to the many other staff that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) identified, who work in security intelligence?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said in my statement, I can assure the House that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside security and intelligence. The step has been taken now only after careful consideration, to assure reliability, and freedom from disruption and intrusion which is of the utmost importance to retaining confidence in this organisation.
Mr. George Walden: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that while some of us may consider these measures to be an unfortunate necessity there is another side to the security coin? Will he give us an assurance that a close watch is being kept upon the size of certain diplomatic missions and organisations, and that where ceilings have been imposed they are being made to stick?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That raises a rather different question, but my hon. Friend's point is certainly kept in mind.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Governments do not usually act in this way unless something has happened. Has anything happened recently, or has any information been received, which makes it necessary to act in this way? All of us who are sympathetic to looking after this country's interests do not want to feel that the Government have acted just because something might happen.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, industrial action during disputes before 1981—[Interruption]—clearly showed the potential for serious disruption at this important Government organisation. It damaged confidence in the organisation's stability and reliability. We have taken this step after long and careful consideration of the matter. We should not be blamed for having thought long and hard before taking steps, but hon. Members do not seem to accept that.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Was there not widespread acceptance after the Prime case, not only in the House but among GCHQ staff as well, of the need for stronger security measures? Are not the staff bound to be worried when they see this step being taken, with no justification, at the same time as the experiment with the polygraph, which is based on extremely unreliable evidence, when what is needed is a great deal more money spent on employing people to carry out real and necessary security measures, such as positive vetting and perimeter security?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman refers to the polygraph "experiment", and must therefore remember that that is what it is. It is because of the anxieties that he and others have expressed that the Government have accepted the experimental use of the polygraph, which will affect a small number of people in the security service and at GCHQ. The reasons for taking this action are not connected with the experiment. They are reasons that we
922
have considered for a long time and that we believe are the duty of Government to act upon in coming to the conclusion that we have.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been rising.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the House is at one in wanting to secure higher standards of security — that is not in question — but that his decision today has caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he accept that he must take this into consideration? Where will this decision stop? A precedent has been established. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that this process will not go beyond the present decision?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that in this country we are living under the conditions of a more secret society than any other democracy in the western world? Does he recognise that actions such as this will be counter productive and that there will be more leaks? As he has given a reason for taking this action that goes a considerable way back, will he tell the House, in reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) whether there is any other reason?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said several times, there is no other reason for the decision than that which I have announced. The hon. Gentleman began his question by saying that the House was at one in wanting to ensure security and secrecy. That is what this measure is designed to do, by maintaining confidence in the organisation. The House is rightly concerned, as are the Government. It is for that reason that we have considered for the length of time we have whether this action should be taken. We have concluded that to avoid the impact on confidence that will arise from the risk of instability and intrusion, this step is necessary. I repeat the assurances that I have already given, that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside security intelligence. I repeat also that this is not a precedent. The precedent lies in the statute under which I am acting, and under which action was taken by the previous Government.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has completely failed to justify this fundamental attack on the democratic rights of civil servants? Does that not suggest that the decision reflects the Government's hostility to British trade unionism rather than any need to protect our national interests?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It reflects nothing of the kind. I repeat what I said:
"The Government fully respect the right of civil servants to be members of a trade union, and it is only the special nature of the work of the GCHQ that has led us to take these measures."
The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State admit that this action begins a process of taking legislation on trade unions back to the 19th century, to the days of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, when gas and water workers—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Get back to Moscow."]—were banned from taking industrial action —[Interruption.] All right, all right.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard, as has every other hon. Member.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State admit that one of two things must be true? Either in the past three years something must have happened which would prevent workers from joining a union and which he is trying to cover up, or his mental processes are even slower than we thought, so that he has taken three years to come to the decision? Which of those two things has happened?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Had I come to the House within days, weeks or months of the last industrial action and said that I intended to take this action, the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to denounce the Government for taking such a decision at impulsive speed. Because of the importance of the decision, we have considered it carefully and come to this conclusion.
When the hon. Gentleman says that the decision takes trade union legislation back to 1875, he would do well to reflect that the provision we are invoking has been invoked by previous Governments. It is contained in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, passed by the last Labour Government, and in the Employment Protection Act 1975. That great charter of trade union freedom was meant to replace the Industrial Relations Act, and the powers under which we are acting today are to be found in that Act.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his announcement is deeply disturbing to hon. Members on both sides of the House and that it will be seen by many devoted civil servants who are members of their appropriate trade union as an insult to them? In view of the significance of the important point of principle for which he has argued rather thinly, is not a full debate in the House the least that we have the right to demand?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I do not think that the decision will be seen by civil servants as an insult. We thought carefully about it, and several features were taken carefully into account before coming to our conclusion. I believe that the reason for taking the decision will be understood and welcomed by a number of civil servants who, when invited to take part in the previous industrial disruption, found the conflict of loyalties posed to them very uncomfortable indeed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that throughout the ages all Fascists have used the cloak of national security and national interest to chip away at hard-won liberties and freedoms, especially those affecting the trade unions? What evidence is there that trade unionists are more likely to hinder national interests than those who come from Eton and Harrow—the belly of the establishment? How many shop stewards have betrayed their country? Almost without exception every person who has done so has come from the ranks represented by Conservative Members. Is it not time that this tawdry piece of propaganda was sent back to where it came, as it represents the march of Fascism in 1984?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is a measure designed to uphold the very freedoms that have been threatened by Fascism, not least by Fascism of a Socialist kind.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Exactly.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The evidence justifying such a provision on the statute book is the same as that which convinced the last Labour Government of the need to include these measures in the employment protection legislation.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Foreign Secretary state categorically whether the Government have received any request from the United States Government that such action should be taken in the light of the continuing close relationship between GCHQ and the National Security Agency?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There has been no such request, and that is not the reason why this decision has been taken. It is important to all of us that there should be complete confidence in the freedom of this institution from the risk of disruption and intrusion. That is why, after careful consideration, the Government have taken this action.
Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary's attempt to justify his action has increased rather than allayed concern. It clearly emerged from what he said that the only reason for such a decision is that between three and five years ago certain industrial action was taken by some employees at GCHQ. Many of us feel that someone made this proposal for many years. They could not persuade Lord Carrington to accept it, and they could not persuade the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) to accept it. However, they found the present Foreign Secretary a pushover.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us earlier that this measure was intended to avoid disruption, although he admitted that it could well lead to a large number of employees leaving the service and the Government sacking others. He said that the advantage of the measures that he announced to the House—not for consideration—is that the Government would be able to victimise employees of GCHQ without their right of appeal to an industrial tribunal. We regard it as a shabby affair. We shall watch very closely what happens in Cheltenham, and we shall ask for regular reports from the Foreign Secretary on the consequences of this imprudent action.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman knows that victimisation is no part of the purpose of this measure. It is a measure that exercises the statutory provisions that exist for the purpose for which they are designed. Certainly the Government would not expect or wish a large number of people to leave their employment at GCHQ for that reason. The purpose of avoiding risk to confidence and of diminishing the threat of industrial disruption or intrusion into this institution is a legitimate purpose that we have considered carefully over a number of years, and I have no doubt that it is a sufficient and right justification for the steps that we have taken.

Scott Lithgow (Debate)
4 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order, of which I have notified the Secretary of State for Scotland and also the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.
Yesterday, in the debate on Scott Lithgow, the Secretary of State for Scotland purported to quote from a speech that I made in the House of Commons when I served in Her Majesty's Government. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, also purported to make such a quotation. Neither of them notified me in advance that they intended to refer to me — [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—unlike the Secretary of State for the Environment who, before he referred to me in the debate on the rate support grant on Monday, properly notified me that he would do so.
An extract from a statement I made and the answer I gave to a question in the House in February 1977 was quoted by the Secretary of State for Scotland in seeking to justify the Government's failure to assist Scott Lithgow. He quoted, totally out of context, part of a sentence which said:
"It would be foolish to bail out yards that are not able to meet pricing and delivery criteria."
I say that the right hon. Gentleman wrenched that out of context, because it was part of a statement that I made in the House on that day, announcing the introduction by the Labour Government of a £65 million intervention fund for assisting shipyards to gain orders, and in which I said:
"The Government are determined to emerge from this crisis with a substantial and viable shipbuilding industry with secure long-term employment prospects."
I also said, in reply to the Leader of the House, who was speaking for the then Opposition, that the Government were not looking for any reduction in capacity, and that
"we refuse to accept across-the-board reductions in capacity for the British shipbuilding industry." — [Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1653–55.]
So, contrary to the impression that the Secretary of State sought to give to the House yesterday, in my absence, far from advocating reductions in the shipbuilding industry, I was announcing unprecedented assistance for the shipbuilding industry.
Secondly, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, said:
"It was the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who, when a Minister in the Labour Government, said, as my right hon. Friend pointed out today, that we cannot go on having one yard threatening the existence of British Shipbuilders."— [Official Report, 24 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 819.]
I made no such statement, and it was impossible for me to make such a statement because, at the time that I made that statement in the House, British Shipbuilders did not even exist.
926
In addition, when I spoke on that day, quite contrary to what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said, I stated:
"Our aim is not to see how many yards we can close; it is to find the maximum numbers of yards that we can keep open." —[Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1656.]
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Weasel words.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to have the debate all over again. The right hon. Gentleman should now bring his point of order to me to a conclusion.
Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Speaker, you make the very point that I seek to make. If I had been notified either by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, I should have been able to intervene in the debate yesterday and make clear —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why were you not here?"] I was not here because I am active in Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, that being one of my duties in the House at present.
You very properly say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not appropriate to have the debate all over again but if I had been notified I could have been here to make it clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrenching my words most distortedly out of context, and that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry was foisting an invention on the House.
Mr. Speaker: May I say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, that I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will always observe the long tradition of giving notice of personal attacks. As to the contents of ministerial answers, or the contents of speeches from the Back Benches, I am afraid that I have no control over them.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the House thrives on sharp controversy sustained in good faith, and it is buttressed by conventions. I understand the anxieties that the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed, and I shall see that they are conveyed to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the practice of the House in regard to personal statements cover the predicament in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself, and would it not be a more effective and appropriate way of dealing with such a matter than a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: The House will have heard what the Leader of the House said.

GCHQ (Trade Union Membership)
4.7 pm
Dr. David Owen: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision to deprive members of GCHQ of membership of a trade union."
The matter is specific, because it affects the fundamental liberties of well over 5,000 of our citizens. The matter is important because I believe that there are other ways of achieving the desirable objectives — a negotiated non-strike agreement, and exemption from the industrial tribunal provisions of the Employment Protection Act—while still abandoning any attempt to prevent civil servants from being members of trade unions.
The matter is urgent because, as I understand it, the action has already been taken without any consultation with trade unions or with the Security Commission—the body which all sides of the House have trusted on matters dealing with the GCHQ and many other areas of national security.
I believe that this matter will cause a great deal of public controversy throughout the country. It is better for that controversy to take place in this House, where the serious issues of security, the legitimate rights of security, and the protection of the security of this country can be properly balanced against the rights of individual citizens.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Nevertheless, he supports the action.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
928
"the decision to deprive members of GCHQ of membership of a trade union."
We had a long question and answer period On the Foreign Secretary's statement, and I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore. I cannot submit his application to the House.

GCHQ (Trade Union Membership)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith

  Mr. David Amess

  Mr. Richard Holt.

  BILL PRESENTED
    WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES (No. 2)
    Mr. Dave Nellist, supported by 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, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to health, safety and other working conditions of the trainees on Government training schemes; to make further provision with regard to conditions of employment and payment of such trainees and the responsibilities of the Manpower Services Commission to them; to regulate the terms of youth training schemes; and to establish the right to a job of trainees who complete the youth training scheme: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 February and to be printed. [Bill 88].

Social Security (Cold Climate Allowance) Amendment
4.10 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith.
Under present social security arrangements, allowances that are paid to cover heating costs are the same regardless of whether the recipient lives in Cornwall or Caithness —in other words, regardless of the severity of climate. In the wake of the blizzards which have struck Scotland and the north of England repeatedly over the past couple of weeks, while the south has escaped unscathed, it would seem redundant of me to invest too much of my energy in proving my assertion that the further north one lives the colder it becomes and, consequently, the more expensive it is to heat one's home to the same temperature. There is hard scientific evidence to prove that the further north and east one goes from the south-west of England the colder is the annual average temperature. Mainly because of that, the cost of domestic heating rises accordingly.
Professor Thomas Markus of the department of architecture and building science at Strathclyde university has had this to say:
"In terms of air temperatures, wind exposure, rain, and available sunshine, the Scottish climate is significantly different from the UK as a whole. The difference between the west of Scotland and the west of England is in the order of 20 per cent. (in the amount of fuel required to maintain a given house temperature). Even within Scotland, the difference between Glasgow and Aberdeen is 10 per cent. This means that for a house in Glasgow, it would require 20 per cent. more fuel to maintain a given temperature than for an identical house in Bristol. Similarly, for the same house in Aberdeen, it would require a further 10 per cent."
When giving evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 23 March 1983, Professor Markus said:
"The Scottish climate is significantly more severe than the English climate even if measured by the one characteristic of air temperature. If to this is added the relative lack of sunshine during the winter months in many parts of Scotland, the higher wind speeds and the greater incidence of rain, and hence of wet walls, then the overall climatic severity is significantly higher than in England by percentages varying between 15 and 40 per cent."
These significant differences are not at present taken into account in the payment of social security benefits.
Another indicator of the more severe climate in Scotland is electricity consumption. The Scottish Fuel Poverty Action Group stated:
"Electricity consumption in the South of Scotland Electricity Board area is 25 per cent. higher than the English average and in the hydro board area the figure is 50 per cent."
The average domestic consumption of electricity in England and Wales in the year 31 March 1980 was 4,020 units per annum. The comparable figure in the South of Scotland electricity board area for the same period was 5,328 units. In the North of Scotland hydro-electricity board area, the figure was 6,678 units.
Most of the evidence is based on Scottish conditions, but I readily accept that there are gradations of temperature throughout the United Kingdom. The proposals that I am submitting will cover that. A study of the temperature statistics of the Meteorological Office's 30-year records and of isothermal charts drawn up by the Meteorological Office has enabled me to work out average annual
930
temperature belts in the United Kingdom. I shall rely on these figures when I come to explain my detailed proposals, which would ensure greater justice for those who live in colder areas.
It is a fact that fuel poverty exists and leads to hardship, hypothermia and premature death in some instances. Every year in the United Kingdom there is an unnecessary cull of the weak, the vulnerable and the aged. Among the over-60s, the death rate rises by 20 per cent. in the winter months. Among children under one year old, it rises by 40 per cent. Studies have been carried out in recent years to determine the extent of the risk of hypothermia among the aged. One such study was carried out in Glasgow in December 1980 by Dr. W. R. Primrose and Mr. L. R. N. Smith from the Govan health centre. I understand that 220 elderly patients within a practice were chosen at random and visited at home. Most of their living-room temperatures were found to be below the recommended level, which is 16 deg C. Thirty-four per cent of the sample were found to be on supplementary benefit and thereby in receipt of rent or rates rebate.
Another study entitled "Cold and Old" was carried out by Mr. Malcolm Wicks. It was observed that 9·6 per cent. of the sample were at risk of developing hypothermia. In The Observer of 16 December 1979, a former junior Minister of the DHSS, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), revealed that Department officials had suppressed independent research findings on the extent of hypothermia because they were politically embarrassing. The figures suggested a death rate of 35,000 old people a year from hypothermia.
The elderly are not the only group to suffer. Low-income families have to devote a much higher proportion of their household budget to fuel than average income families. In the parts of the United Kongdom which have the coldest climate, the suffering will be the more severe. It is hardly surprising that Mrs. Christine Davis, the chairman of the North of Scotland district electricity consultative council, wrote in September 1982:
"We have argued, and will continue to argue, that the present system, which allows the same amount of money whether you live in Torquay or Shetland, and whether you have a choice of fuels or are in an 'all-electric' home, is not helpful in the north of Scotland where the winter is longer, the weather is colder and the money, accordingly, is shorter."
I turn to my proposals to deal with the problems that are faced by those living in the colder parts of the UK. Using the temperature data to which I have referred, I have divided the UK into four zones. For the exact boundaries of the zones, I have utilised regional or, in the case of England, county boundaries. Roughly speaking, the areas with an annual average temperature of less than 8·5 deg C make up zone one, the coldest zone. Zone two is based on the areas between 8·5 and 9·4 deg C, zone three from 9·5 to 10·4 deg C and zone four from 10·5 deg C upwards.
Zone one consists of the Islands councils, the Highlands, Grampian and Tayside. Zone two consists of the rest of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and north Yorkshire. Zone three consists of northern England, Wales, the midlands of England and East Anglia. Zone four consists of London, the south-east and the south-west of England.
There are basically three existing fuel benefits. First, within supplementary benefit there is a notional fuel element, which in November 1983 amounted to £7·95. Secondly, within family income supplement, there is a

931
notional fuel element. Thirdly, there are additional awards that are called exceptional heating additions, which are available over and above supplementary benefit at a lower rate of £2·05 and a higher rate of £4·05. These different rates are not related to climate. I am proposing that there should be a differential payment of these fuel benefits according to climatic zones. The basic levels of payment for both notional fuel elements and heating additions should be fixed for zone four, the south of England. Those living in zone three, the midlands and Wales, would receive 10 per cent. above the basic level. Claimants living in zone two would receive 20 per cent. above the basic level and those living in the coldest zone, in the north of Scotland, would receive 30 per cent. above the basic level.
Regional variations in the payment of heating additions are nothing new. Until November 1970, they were calculated regionally on the price of coal. My scheme calls for variations that are dependent on a much more constant factor, climatic severity. For justice to be done in the United Kingdom, it is necessary for the physical factor of climate to be taken into consideration when fuel-related benefits are paid. My proposals attempt to bring in such justice and I ask the House to take a first step towards this goal by giving me leave to present the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Social Security (Cold Climate Allowance) Amendment
  SOCIAL SECURITY (COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE) AMENDMENT
  Mr. Gordon Wilson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
Orders of the Day

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the selection of amendments? You have not selected amendment No. 38, and I understand that decision. However, there was considerable feeling in Committee about the international repercussions and importance of the matter. It was recognised that it would be difficult to amend the Bill without some repetition. Therefore, I ask you to rule that it will be in order to refer to amendment No. 38 when we debate amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 37.
  Similarly, will it be possible for hon. Members to exercise discretion when referring to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others, which have not been selected but which could reasonably be referred to during the debate on amendment No. 43? That discretion would be for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I regret that I am unable to readjust my selection, but I shall certainly allow reference to these matters if the right hon. and hon. Members concerned make them relevant to the amendments.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
    New Clause 1

      SCRUTINY COMMISSION
      The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission of three persons of suitable qualifications and experience whose duty it shall be to monitor the operation of this Act and to report annually to both Houses of Parliament upon its working and effect.—[Mr. Alex Carlile.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House should bear in mind that there is no form of legal redress for those who are subject to exclusion orders. New clause 1 was tabled with that very much in mind.
      I shall quote from paragraph 175 on page 68 of the "Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976", by Lord Jellicoe. He said in relation to exclusion orders:
      "It is in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers: in its effect on civil liberties, it is in my view more severe than any other power in the Act; in its procedure and principles it departs more thoroughly from the normal criminal process than any other part of the Act; it has aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation: it has led to criticism of the United Kingdom in the international fora on human rights; its value is difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way both for reasons of security and because it is the most essentially preventive part of the Act; and yet those ministers and police officers who have operated the system are convinced that exclusion has on occasions saved lives throughout the United Kingdom."
      I shall refer, too, to paragraph 200 on page 77 of the noble Lord's review, in which he said:
      "I have concluded, albeit with some reluctance, that for the present at least a residual power to exclude must remain "
      He went on to say:

      933
      "I believe that the need for it is likely to decline still further and that it should be allowed to lapse as soon as it is no longer considered strictly necessary."
      My final quotation from the review for the purposes of new clause 1 is from paragraph 178 on page 69, where Lord Jellicoe said:
      "My conclusion is that the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases … that the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers."
      I am sure that hon. Members will find those quotations from Lord Jellicoe's review to be most helpful in their consideration of new clause 1. They make it quite clear that it is not merely my opinion, nor that of my colleagues, that the exclusion order provisions are extreme and well outside the normal judicial processes which we have all rightly come to respect.
      The importance of having some form of regular review or scrutiny of the operation of such provisions is quite obvious. However, the problem that arises in relation to the views as to the need for the provisions expressed in Lord Shackleton's report, and in Lord Jellicoe's review, is that those opinions are expressed largely on the basis not so much of evidence as of the views and opinions of others. Even the most carefully prepared and expressed review by Lord Jellicoe is not founded upon anything which we would ordinarily regard as evidence, particularly in the legal context.
      We on these Benches fully understand the problems that would arise if there were a court hearing for every exclusion order at which the subject of the exclusion order could discover not only the basis but the personal sources of the information used against him. The danger to those giving such information or passing it on would be great. Indeed, we know that to be so from what has happened to those who have informed and have been caught by, for example, the IRA.
      In our view, a scrutiny commission made up of a small number of suitable persons could be set up and would be able to report to the House and the other place in 12 months' time. Upon a subjective examination of each of the cases it would be able to tell us whether it was necessary for a resolution to be passed, affirming the continuation of this legislation. When Lord Jellicoe said that the provisions should be kept under regular review, we may be sure that he did not think merely that people should float their opinions every 12 months without having the advantage of evidence to substantiate them.
      A scrutiny commission such as that suggested in new clause 1 would allow for continuing and subjective scrutiny of each case by properly qualified persons. That scrutiny could be based on something which we all understand to be evidence and which, even in the broad legal context, would be understood to be such. It would be as near to a judicial procedure as is reasonable in the circumstances of such legislation, without affecting what we on these Benches certainly accept to be the necessity for confidence.
      On that basis, I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Those of us who have been concerned with considering this Bill closely, and in Committee, have been struck by one of the difficulties that it presents. I refer to the combination, in a single Bill, of measures that are very different in
      934
      character from one another, and where the experience of their application and the importance of their retention might vary considerably. That may have been behind the thinking of those who tabled the new clause. However, they have not hit on the correct solution to that undoubted problem. After all, a task that hon. Members undertake is to interest themselves in legislation, to watch and to obtain information from the Government on the manner in which it is carried out and the experience that accumulates as it is applied. If hon. Members consult the written answers columns of Hansard during recent years, they will find a mass of information upon the application of the Act in the form in which it is at present in force.
      4.30 pm
      I do not think that, in order to cope with this problem, we need the assistance of an outside commission reporting to us once a year, quite apart from the difficulties of that commission looking into and, as it were, re-trying the cases that might have been dealt with under the various parts of the Act by the Home Secretary and his advisers. I think the difficulty is concentrated on the provisions for review of this legislation by the House that are to be found in clause 17. Although the House will not have the opportunity, owing to the all-wise decision of the Chair, of considering in detail certain propositions, I believe that they ought to be considered, and I want to make a suggestion to the Home Secretary for his consideration in the context of clause 17.
      Clause 17 requires that the Act shall not apply for more than one year at a time without action by Parliament, and that action is set out in clause 17(2). The Secretary of State has to come before the House and seek approval of a statutory instrument, but the acid words are in clause 17(2)(a) which enable the Secretary of State by his statutory instrument to provide
      "that all or any of the said provisions … shall continue in force".
      I am not impugning the sincere intention of a Secretary of State on these yearly occasions to consider whether he should call for the renewal of all or only some of the parts of the Bill. What I am pointing out is that the House will not be in a position to query or debate that decision. The House will not, of course, be in the position which it is with the Bill where it can take the provisions clause by clause and argue them upon their respective merits. The House will not be able, if it is presented with a draft order, to pick it apart, so to speak, and to say, "Well, part I has justified itself, but the evidence of the working of part II during the past 12 months indicates that part II, is no longer, upon balance, beneficial", or other arguments of that kind. However effective or well supported the arguments may be by evidence—in some cases evidence provided by the Government—of the use or disuse of those provisions, the House will still have before it, in the case I posit, an order that renews the whole Act.
      The proposition that I wish to make to the Home Secretary is not that he should accept a new clause of this or any similar character, or, indeed, any amendment of the Bill as it stands, but that he should consider whether he can give an assurance about his intentions in regard to the renewal procedures in clause 17.
      All Ministers are under considerable pressure from the managers of Government business so to arrange what they have to put before the House that it makes the minimum demand upon the time of the House. Nevertheless, I am

      935
      suggesting that the Home Secretary might utilise what appears to be his power under the terms of clause 17(2) to lay before the House not one instrument renewing the whole Act, even if he comes to the conclusion that that is what is required, but possibly two, three or four instruments that would enable the House to address itself separately to the merits and working of the different parts of the Act. If the Home Secretary were to take a kindly view of that suggestion, he would help the House very much and go far to meet the essential point that underlies new clause 1. It an acknowledged defect, of which we from Northern Ireland have only too much reason to complain, that the draft order procedure does not allow for anything to be removed or altered in what eventually comes before the House.
      Having listened to the Home Secretary fairly frequently in Committee, I am sure that he will approach the future renewal of the Act not with a closed mind, with the attitude, "Well, there is the Act; let us go on with it as it stands for another year." I am sure that he is quite genuine in having provided himself, in the subsection to which I have referred, with the means of jettisoning portions of the Bill that in his judgment, and upon advice, are no longer justifiable on the statute book.
      What I am putting to the Home Secretary is that even if, in his judgment, all parts of the Bill ought to be given another 12 months of life, he should enable the House, when he comes before it with a proposal, to consider separately and, if it can, to make a valid case against parts of the Bill which to a large extent do not cohere and are not interdependent with one another.
      I hope that that suggestion will in some form commend itself to the Home Secretary, and that he will reasssure the House that, even if there is to be a proposal for the future renewal of the Act, it will be made in a form that will enable the House to form, to express and, if necessary, to record by vote a differing view upon the justification for the different sections of the Act.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Bill in the form in which it has emerged from the Committee does not allow for separate consideration of constituent parts of the Bill. It does not enable the House to pass judgment on the individual components of the legislation.
      When the House of Commons seeks to abridge the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen, as it has done in introducing this legislation, it obviously does so for weighty reasons, and only for weighty reasons. It is therefore incumbent upon hon. Members to consider whether the reasons that led to the introduction of the Bill remain or whether the Bill should be altered in any way in the light of experience.
      That was the view expressed by Lord Jellicoe in his report in February last year. In dealing with this problem he specifically stated that he did not believe that continuing scrutiny by Parliament would best be achieved by subordinate legislation. He spoke of the need for annual renewal by primary legislation. In paragraph 14 of his report Lord Jellicoe said:
      "I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force and, if so, whether it requires amendment in the light of changes in the terrorist. In my view both these aims would best be achieved through a
      936
      requirement for periodic full re-enactment by Parliament. I recommend, therefore, that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should require annual renewal as at present but should have a maximum life span of five years, without the possibility of further extension."
      Lord Jellicoe was right, and the purposes which my hon. Friends and I—and the right hon. Member for Down, South— have in mind would best have been met had Lord Jellicoe's advice been accepted by the Government.
      The provisions of clause 17(2) (a) and (b)—(a) in particular—to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred are somewhat novel. When he replies to the debate the Minister may wish to tell us how, in the event of a statutory instrument being laid by him which would modify the provisions, he would propose to put before the House, in advance of the one and a half hour debate which would no doubt be necessary, the considerations which had led to such an important change in the law being necessary.
      When Parliament decides how to respond to such a proposal from the Secretary of State relating to the powers necessary effectively to combat the threat of terrorism, we should be better informed than we can be by way of answers provided by Ministers at the Home Office; answers which are necessarily of a statistical nature and cannot contain argument.
      As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, hon. Members can obtain a good deal of information about the operation of the legislation, and I do not complain about that. However, we cannot, by means of probing questions, obtain a full understanding of how, in practice. these somewhat draconian provisions are being operated and what is the judgment of those who are operating them as to their effectiveness, the extent to which they may be counter-productive and whether they should be modified.
      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I fail to see how the provisions of clause 17 differ from the recommendation of Lord Jellicoe which the hon. Gentleman read to the House. There is a yearly provision for renewal which comes before both Houses of Parliament and the clause states that this legislation
      "shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years".
      How does what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting differ from what is in the clause?
      Mr. Maclennan: Perhaps Lord Jellicoe's recommendation was not as clear as I had understood it to be. The suggestion that there should be full re-enactment does not imply that it should be by way of statutory instrument. Lord Jellicoe made it plain that he was talking about full parliamentary scrutiny. Earlier in the passage to which I referred he said that
      "the renewal debates have not on the whole received the parliamentary time which they merit."
      He was speaking of precisely the statutory instrument procedure which he was calling into question, and he added:
      "There have been exceptions, but in the Commons they tend to be held late at night and to last no more than ninety minutes or so, and in the Lords they can be even briefer and more perfunctory."
      He went on:
      "I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force".
      Having read that passage from the Jellicoe report, I shall not weary the House by repeating it.
      4.45 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The penultimate sentence in paragraph 14 of the Jellicoe report contains the actual recommendation:
      "I recommend, therefore, that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should require annual renewal as at present"
      and that is precisely what will happen.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention shows that Lord Jellicoe's recommendation was perhaps less clear than I had understood it to be. However, I have no doubt that Lord Jellicoe was recommending that primary legislation should be reintroduced annually, but that it should not outlast the five-year period. Indeed, all the criticisms that he made in paragraph 14 were about the procedure concerning subordinate legislation.
      I come to the considerations that would move the minds of hon. Members in the event of the Secretary of State making orders, and it must be said that the information on which the judgment of the House could be made is, as things stand, too limited. There should be men and women of the highest experience and independence who would be able in a continuous way to scrutinise the operation of the measure. The House would value the evidence which such a commission would give. The House entrusts the Secretary of State with these exceptional powers only with the greatest reluctance, recognising their necessity, but if they are to affect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen in the way that the Bill proposes, it is clear that there must be continuing observation of how the measure is working.
      Mr. David Ashby rose—
      Mr. Maclennan: I have given way enough. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
      It is important to demonstrate that the measure is under scrutiny. If there is any doubt in the minds of the individuals who carry out the task, that doubt should be reported to the House. There is sometimes too great a reluctance by the Government—I do not speak only of the present Government— to submit their workings to the close scrutiny which a measure of this sort should have. It is clearly not possible for hon. Members, in matters touching the security of the nation, to probe in depth. Therefore, the people whom one would have in mind to whom to entrust the task would be senior Privy Councillors and those with experience of the operation of security, people in whom the House would have total confidence — the type of confidence that led to the establishment of the review conducted by Lord Jellicoe. Such a step would greatly assist the House in considering, as it will from time to time, whether such provisions are necessary.
      While what we propose may not be quite what the right hon. Member for Down, South would favour, it would assist in enabling hon. Members to formulate their response to any suggestion that the measure should be amended or extended, and our future deliberations would be informed by the weighty judgments of the kind of people whom we hope the Government would appoint.
      Mr. Soley: I understand what the Liberal party is trying to achieve, but my understanding is not as a result of the
      938
      speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). If the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is seeking to achieve a judicial aspect for exclusion orders, he should support new clause 2. His new clause covers the whole Act and does not provide a judicial review or anything remotely resembling it.
      The need is for better statistics and I should like the Government to make a major effort to provide them, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. I should also be happy to consider the possibility of a Select Committee being set up to consider the operation of the Act or a special Committee of the House to act as a watchdog over the security services. That would be useful and positive.
      My main reservation about the new clause is that it is weak and inadequate. That is why we cannot support it. The House is sometimes tempted, particularly on the advice of the Liberal party, to put barriers between the people whom we seek to represent and the House. The House of Commons was set up initially to protect, defend and enhance civil liberties. What on earth are we doing trying to set up a commission to do our work for us, to tell us what to do while we trot into the Lobbies, put up our hands and say yes or no? We must do the work.
      In a way, the House has failed, particularly in the last 10 or 15 years, to be an effective defender of the civil liberties and democratic forums that the House was established to protect. It is not enough to set up a commission of wise people. Who will select the wise people? Will they be Liberals chosen to protect Liberal values? Who will decide on the values? For what interests will they speak?
      Hon. Members are elected, and one of their primary purposes is to defend and enhance civil liberties. The new clause undermines that purpose. I accept that that is not intended and that Liberal Members have good intentions. I am not saying that they are trying to put back the clock or work a trick, but I believe that they have not understood the logic of our constitutional position. We are here as the first and last defenders of the people's rights. If we dodge that, duck our responsibilities and pass them to others, not only do we do a diservice to those people, but we undermine and betray the purposes for which the House exists.
      Mr. Carlile: Is the hon. Member really saying that the House is abdicating its responsibility when it considers, for example, the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading or anyone else appointed by statute to consider the workings of an Act? If he is saying that, his view is insupportable and I do not understand it.
      Mr. Soley: The hon. Member must understand the fundamental difference between this Act and fair trading. We are talking not about fair trading, but about whether people should be excluded from one part of the United Kingdom. We are not talking about the price of a packet of tea.
      Mr. Waddington: If press reports are correct, later tonight the public will be gasping with astonishment at the spectacle of a Labour party which apparently still aspires to government voting against a measure which it has supported consistently for eight years, after having introduced it. The public will not be surprised if we all express our reluctance that a measure such as this should

      939
      remain on the statute book for a moment longer than necessary. Therefore, I fully understand the view of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
      In his review of the 1976 Act, Lord Jellicoe addressed himself particularly to the need to scrutinise exceptional powers. In paragraph 14 of his report, he said:
      "if the terrorist scene is an evolving one, then legislation enacted to deal with the situation at one period may well need substantial amendment by Parliament in the light of changing circumstances. The Prevention of Terrorism Act rightly contains provision for annual renewal by order, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament … I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force and, if so, whether it requires amendment in the light of changes in the terrorist. In my view both these aims would best be achieved through a requirement for periodic full re-enactment by Parliament."
      Later, in paragraph 17, Lord Jellicoe considered the question of reviewing the legislation before re-enactment. If that takes place it will not normally take place for five years. Lord Jellicoe examined particularly the procedures for considering possible amendments to the Armed Forces Act and concluded that a similar procedure could profitably be adapted and applied to the prevention of terrorism legislation. He said that he did not think that the taking of evidence by a Select Committee would be appropriate.
      The Government have accepted the recommendation that the legislation should have a limited life. That is incorporated in clause 17(3). We believe that the Secretary of State of the day should decide, when the time for re-enactment approaches, how best to respond to Lord Jellicoe's general recommendation about review. I stress that he made no firm recommendation about the form that such a review might take. He certainly made no suggestion remotely resembling that suggested by the Liberal party.
      The hon. Member for Montgomery referred almost entirely to exclusion powers, but the Bill deals with much more than that. The new clause also deals with much more than exclusion.
      I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman asked him to consider laying more than one instrument before Parliament at the end of a year, so that Parliament can make a decision about whether separate parts of the Act, rather than the whole, might be renewed. We shall consider that suggestion seriously. We inserted in the Bill the words "all or any". Those words were the subject of an amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Down, South and they are intended to convey as strongly as possible that two separate options are open to the Government—to renew in toto or to renew in part.
      I shall not repeat what I said in an intervention when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was speaking. The position is plain. Lord Jellicoe recommended annual renewal as at present, but that at the end of each five years the Act should lapse and that we should therefore have to relegislate so that each part of that legislation can be fully considered. That seems to be a sensible recommendation and an important safeguard. That is why we incorporated it in the Bill.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the inappropriateness of the proposal in the new clause, and I advise the House to reject it.
      5 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in relation to clause 17(2)(a) as being constructive and appropriate, but with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman I think that his suggestion and what is contained in new clause 1 are not mutually exclusive but can be properly regarded as complementary. To rely upon questions asked in the House and, even more, to rely upon answers given to questions asked in the House for the purpose of reviewing the operation of such an important piece of legislation, affecting the rights of the individual, would be extraordinarily haphazard, entirely inappropriate and about as inept a form of scrutiny as one could imagine.
      The Minister of State referred to the fact that in moving the new clause I spoke only of exclusion orders. That is right, because I regard the scrutiny commission as having the most important role in relation to exclusion orders. Of course, the scrutiny commission would also be concerned with the way in which the power of arrest was exercised and the way in which detainees were detained. It is most important to bear in mind that each year when these provisions come before the House and the other place for approval, if that is what is asked for by the Government, not only the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and a small coterie need to be informed of the way in which the Act has been operating and the way in which the provisions have been applied; Back Benchers also need to be informed, so that their approval or disapproval of the continuation of the provisions is based upon evidence and so that they make a proper decision instead of relying on the recommendation of a small body of people, founded upon inadequate evidence.
      As for the criticisms of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), his assessment of the constitutional position of the House shows a somewhat inadequate knowledge of history. I was reminded that the constitutional and historical position is that the House was originally created for the purpose of levying taxation and for no other reason. My hon. Friend and I shall not be supporting new clause 2 because it is obvious, if one examines it, that it raises security problems which could be damaging for the individual. I can only conclude that the Labour party is not prepared to support this new clause because the hon. Member for Hammersmith did not think of it himself.
      Mr. Soley: That is an insult.
      Mr. Carlile: I hope that the House will take a view other than that of the hon. Gentleman.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time
      The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 228.

      Division No. 138]

      [5.3 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Wainwright, R.

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Wallace, James

      Freud, Clement

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Howells, Geraint

      Wilson, Gordon

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maclennan, Robert

      Mr. A. J. Beith and

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Mr. John Cartwright.

      Penhaligon, David

      941

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Hordern, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Howard, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Arnold, Tom

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Ashby, David

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Irving, Charles

      Beggs, Roy

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Jessel, Toby

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Body, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Key, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Bright, Graham

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Knowles, Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Knox, David

      Budgen, Nick

      Lang, Ian

      Burt, Alistair

      Latham, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lester, Jim

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Lightbown, David

      Cockeram, Eric

      Lilley, Peter

      Colvin, Michael

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Coombs, Simon

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Couchman, James

      Luce, Richard

      Cranborne, Viscount

      McCrea, Rev William

      Crouch, David

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      McCusker, Harold

      Dicks, T.

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      MacGregor, John

      Eggar, Tim

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Maclean, David John.

      Favell, Anthony

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Maginnis, Ken

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Major, John

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fox, Marcus

      Malone, Gerald

      Freeman, Roger

      Maples, John

      Gale, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Galley, Roy

      Marlow, Antony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mates, Michael

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Mather, Carol

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Francis

      Gow, Ian

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gregory, Conal

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moate, Roger

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Harvey, Robert

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Hayes, J.

      Mudd, David

      Hayward, Robert

      Murphy, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Henderson, Barry

      Norris, Steven

      Hicks, Robert

      Onslow, Cranley

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Hill, James

      Osborn, Sir John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hirst, Michael

      Page, John (Harrow W)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Holt, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Hooson, Tom

      Pollock, Alexander

      942

      Porter, Barry

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

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

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Powley, John

      Sumberg, David

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Renton, Tim

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Tracey, Richard

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Trotter, Neville

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Rost, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Waddington, David

      Ryder, Richard

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Walden, George

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Waller, Gary

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Watson, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Watts, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Sims, Roger

      Wheeler, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Whitney, Raymond

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Speller, Tony

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Spence, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spencer, D.

      Woodcock, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Yeo, Tim

      Squire, Robin

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Stanley, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      POWERS OF REMOVAL
      '(1) Where the Secretary of State decides not to revoke an exclusion order, the person to be excluded may apply within 30 days to an Exclusion Tribunal for an order that the exclusion order be revoked.

      (2)(a) the Exclusion Tribunal shall consist of three High Court Judges. It shall have the power to revoke or confirm the exclusion order. It shall hear representations and evidence, by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, and representation and evidence by or on behalf of the person to be excluded under the order,

      (b) the Secretary of State shall inform the person to be excluded in advance of the reasons for the order and of the evidence against him,

      (c) the person to be excluded shall have the right to legal representation and to legal aid.

      (3) Where:—

      (a) an exclusion order has been made against a person, and

      (b) notice of the making of the order has been served upon him the Secretary of State may have him removed from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as the case may be—

      (i) if he consents;

      (ii) if the period mentioned in subsection (4) of section 7 above has expired and he has not made representations relating to the matter in accordance with that section; or

      (iii) if he has made such representations but the Secretary of State has notified him that he has decided not to revoke the order and thirty days have elapsed without an application having been made to the Exclusion Tribunal, or if such application has been made, it has been determined by the order being confirmed.

      (4) A person the subject of an exclusion order may, after one year has elapsed from the making of the order, or after one year has elapsed from any proceeding consideration of the exclusion order by the Exclusion Tribunal, apply to the Exclusion Tribunal for an order that the exclusion order be revoked.
      (5) The Secretary of State shall not impose a further exclusion order if no further substantial evidence has been presented to him other than that on which the original exclusion order was based.'. —[Mr Soley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 20, in page 7, line 22, leave out clause 8.
      Mr. Soley: We now come to a particularly important part of the Bill dealing with exclusion orders. We have argued many times, especially in Committee, that exclusion orders represent by far the most serious attack on civil liberties in this country for many years. I appreciate that the decision was taken in the aftermath of the Birmingham pub bombings, with all the emotion that prevailed at that time. It was part of an Act which was then regarded as helpful in preventing terrorism. We have consistently argued that time has shown that it is not a very effective way to prevent terrorism, but it remains a major infringement of civil liberties.
      If the Minister, who was so dismissive in the previous debate, proposes to come out with any further pathetic innuendo about the Labour party changing its policy, I remind him that the purpose of the House is to consider legislation enacted in the past on the basis of evidence as to its effectiveness. If, in all reason and conscience, the House finds that the evidence does not prove that the legislation is achieving its aim, then there are strong and positive grounds for repealing the legislation. That is the position of the Labour party on this matter and the evidence is extremely strong. I hope that there will be no further pathetic innuendo from the Minister as he has repeated it so many times already that one day it will be put to music and perhaps reach the Top Ten.
      Mr. Waddington: Is the hon. Gentleman including the Harrods bombing in his new strong evidence?
      Mr. Soley: Yes, I am doing precisely that. I should like the Minister now to give me any evidence that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has taken the Government one step forward towards catching the people responsible. There is overwhelming evidence — one or two hon. Members will provide that evidence — that the legislation has resulted in several people being picked up, held, questioned and released without any charges being laid against them. We know that about 5,600 people have been arrested under the provisions of the legislation, but fewer than 100 charges have been laid. Every time the Minister makes statements he must take into account the way in which the measures alienate the minority community in Northern Ireland, and many people of Irish extraction in this country, from the forces of law and order.
      We are fighting a propaganda battle, and the way to win it is not by alienating those whom the terrorist seeks to represent. That is the fallacy of the Minister's statement. I again challenge the Minister to give the House and the public one example of how the Prevention of Terrorism
      944
      Act has helped to catch or has enabled a move to be made towards catching anyone who planted the bomb outside Harrods. I shall give way now if the Minister wishes to put on record that he believes that the legislation has done so. I am not surprised that we are not receiving a response from the Minister. The Government have consistently failed to face the fact that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has alienated many people and damaged the credibility of successive Governments in fighting the terrorist menace.
      Mr. Proctor: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this legislation caused or promoted the Harrods bombing?
      Mr. Soley: I can give positive evidence that the legislation is effectively used by the Provisional IRA and the INLA as a propaganda weapon with which to beat the British and as a way of appealing to the minority community to support and, in some cases, to join those organisations. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example, I advise him to read last week's edition of the Provisional IRA's paper "Republican News" which refers to the Act. The hon. Gentleman will then understand my point, but whether he agrees is another matter.
      I am in danger of getting out of order on this issue, and I do not want to do that. Successive Governments have recognised the use of exclusion orders. I am not criticising either the present Government or previous Governments on the issue whether they regard this measure as a serious infringement of civil liberty. All Governments and all Home Secretaries, and the Minister of State, recognise that. Sometimes we give nice labels to horrendous ideas against civil liberties, and so, for example, refer to exclusion orders.
      We should be frank and blunt and recognise that we are talking about internal exile. We should not dress it up with slightly better words. We are saying that if a person lives in one part of the United Kingdom and the Government think fit, that person will not be allowed to go to or live in another part of the United Kingdom. That is what we complained about so bitterly when the Soviet Union exiled Sakharov. I realise that the reasons for that action are fundamentally different, but we must recognise what we are doing: for the first time since the middle ages this country and the House are involved in political legislation which allows internal exile. That is the important point of the new clause.
      In Committee, the Opposition argued strongly that it was time for exclusion orders to go. Lord Jellicoe recognised that this was one of the most important points that should be reviewed more frequently. We lost the vote, but I believe that we won the argument. People outside Parliament who would like to consider that debate should read it in the Official Report. There are some convincing arguments in that debate. Above all, they ought to examine the statistics in the back of Lord Jellicoe's report, which will tell them about the dangerous road on which we are travelling.
      It is not just internal exile that troubles me. The Labour party is increasingly concerned about and recognises— we recognised this from the beginning, and there is an honesty of discussion within the Labour movement on this matter—that exclusion orders represent a slide from the rule of law and the judicial process, which means that politicians and police officers decide whether a person should be exiled from one part of the United Kingdom to another. I understand why we have allowed ourselves to slide into that position.

      945
      I remember the feelings after the Birmingham pub bombing and know the intense hostility and anger that I and all hon. Members observe each time a bombing or killing occurs. I say to many of those people who approach me that I wish there were the same degree of anger when such incidents occur in Northern Ireland, as happens all the time. I say that confidently as a shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. If there were anywhere near the same degree of hostility in Britain towards the killing and torture by paramilitary groups on both sides in Northern Ireland, I should be more confident that we could raise the level of the debate in this country about the nature of the political problem in Northern Ireland and the inability of the House to deal with it.
      Lord Jellicoe, in a straight and clear admission, in page 95, paragraph 191 of his report, states:
      "Exclusion is a matter of public policy."
      Lord Jellicoe is at one with Lord Gardiner in saying that reference to a court or tribunal is not appropriate because of public policy.
      Why table a new clause that introduces such a court or tribunal? The argument must be that if we cannot abolish exclusion orders—as we argued in Committee—the next best thing is to say, "For heaven's sake, let us take this dangerous power that we have given to politicians and police officers and put it under at least some aspect of judicial control." The essence of new clause 2 is that some attempt must be made to bring exclusion orders under judicial control and take them outside the decision-making powers of police officers and Home Secretaries who are politicians elected to represent specific interests.
      Between 1975 and 1980, the number of exclusion orders was relatively high. Sometimes there were as many as 45 per annum. Since 1980, the number has dropped considerably. In the last couple of years it has averaged about 10 per annum. A two-edged argument results. One argument is that, as so small a number of people are involved, is this matter of such importance that we should do anything about it now?
      The other side of the argument—the one that weighs most heavily with me—is that, if the exclusion order is used so infrequently, do we want this draconian power — successive Home Secretaries have said that it is draconian—to deal with only 10 or 11 people, with all the shame that that brings to the House with its long history of protection of civil rights and liberties? I suggest that it is a fallacy to say that we want that power, and we should not allow ourselves to go down that road.
      Lord Jellicoe, in page 94 of his report, states:
      "the possibility of abolishing it"—
      the exclusion power—
      "should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers."
      Lord Jellicoe recognises that exclusion orders are by far the most draconian part of the Bill and that we need constantly to examine the other powers in the legislation. He is right. Given that we are using this power against only 10 or 11 people, the time has come to say that we can manage without it. I go further and say that our fight against terrorism could be enhanced if we showed that we were beginning to get on top of this aspect of the problem. That is the only interpretation in the light of the number
      946
      of exclusion orders dropping from about 45 per annum to about 10 per annum. If we are beginning to get on top of the problem, it is time to do without exclusion orders.
      I recognise the force of the arguments of those who say, "You could cause a loss of life by doing that. A person who is excluded might otherwise have caused a bomb explosion." I have never argued that various parts of the Act have not saved some lives; they probably have.
      5.30 pm
      However, there are two arguments to put in the balance against that. The first is that the Act alienates the community that we are seeking to win over. The Act is used by Republican paramilitary forces as a recruiting sergeant. They use it to persuade unemployed youngsters in the north of Ireland who are impressed by the argument for nationalism to join their forces. However much we may dislike that argument, it is understandable, in the circumstances, that it has attractions.
      There is no way of knowing which way the balance tilts — whether the Act is more productive or less productive. We have to make a judgment, and I say that we should come down on the side of civil liberties.
      The second argument to be put in the balance is that, if we are talking only about saving lives, a lot of other legislation could save lives. I give what may sound a slightly unusual example, but it is one which I want to use and examine carefully. It would be possible to save several hundred lives every year by putting a massive police presence outside every pub visited by people who drink and drive. We could clamp down heavily and have numerous breath tests all over the country. That would be opposed by many Conservative Members who have spoken out publicly against random breath tests in the past few months.
      Figures from the Department of Transport and elsewhere show that if we substantially reduced the number of people who drove while under the influence of drink we would lower the death rate on the roads by several hundred a year. The price would be measured in terms of civil liberties, and a democracy has to make judgments about such matters. It has to weigh the balance. No matter how unpopular its decisions may be when a bomb goes off outside a shop and kills people, the balance has to be weighed. One of the jobs of hon. Members is to act as leaders.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no evidence that the Act has done anything to help prevent a single act of terrorism or to detect the perpetrators of any terrorist act? The claim that the Act prevents terrorism is not proven, and that is why the House should not re-enact it in this form.
      Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her words "not proven" are appropriate. I can envisage that the Act may have prevented terrorist acts, just as I can say that it may have caused loss of life by acting as a recruiting sergeant for paramilitary groups. That is a matter of judgment.
      Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes an enormously important point when he says that the Act may have saved lives. I disagree fundamentally with that. [Interruption.] This is an extremely important matter and not a subject for laughter.

      947
      The important powers in the Bill to catch criminals and terrorists exist in other legislation and it can be demonstrated that the Act has led to an increased danger of people losing their lives.
      In Committee, we asked the Minister of State to tell us whether anyone who had been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland had subsequently been convicted of terrorist offences. There is a significant number of such people—15 certain cases and a possible 31 more. If we did not have the exclusion power and the police did their job properly and kept an eye on those people, they would not be sent to Northern Ireland and left free to commit other terrorist offences.
      I take the opposite view to my hon. Friend. The Act does not prevent terrorism. Indeed, the exclusion power gives people a second chance to engage in terrorist activity.
      Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is not as far from me as she thinks. I did not say that the Act prevents terrorism. I said that what is in question is the balanced judgment whether the Act does that. There is subjective evidence on both sides of the case and no definite proof on either side. We have to make a judgment based on the figures and our assessment of people's feelings here and in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was right to use the words "not proven". There is no evidence to show that the Act has prevented terrorism and none to show that it has not. The case is not proven, and therefore we have to judge the matter by other standards.
      We must recognise that when we exclude a person we are saying, in effect, "We know what your are up to." It is rather like the spy who is caught; his usefulness is immediately diminished. If we believe that a person is involved in paramilitary activity, the weapons that we should use against him are the normal weapons of surveillance that the security forces employ. If we exclude someone, we are saying to him, "We know that you are involved." We also say to all contacts, "We know that he is involved." As a result, the contacts are broken, hidden or changed. It does not cure the problem; it merely puts it on another plane.
      We argue for a tribunal of three High Court judges. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said earlier that our proposal would expose some secret matters to public view. It would not do so. Tribunals and courts can sit in camera.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Of course courts can sit in camera, but if the provisions of the new clause are intended to mean what they say the detainee would hear the evidence of the information that led to the decision to detain him. That would pose great dangers to members of the public who had supplied information to the police.
      Mr. Soley: It is a two-edged weapon. If the hon. Gentleman were involved in the debate in Northern Ireland, he would know that the problem is not unknown there. People face it and give evidence in the trials of members of paramilitary forces. I admire their courage, but it has to be done. There is a price to be paid for democracy. I hope that I am not putting it too high when I say that when we are challenged by a paramilitary threat, we have to ask people to put their lives and welfare on the line. Indeed, hon. Members who represent constituencies
      948
      in Northen Ireland do that and some of them have died doing so. I recognise that, and the hon. Member for Montgomery, who speaks as a lawyer, also needs to recognise that.
      Mr. David Ashby: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the tribunal would sit in open court or, as I would expect, always in closed session? Would there be direct evidence? There would be considerable difficulty about that. What standard of proof would be required? Such questions are pertinent to the new clause.
      Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If I do not answer his questions; as I move on, I shall be happy to allow him to intervene again.
      I assume that in the vast majority of cases, the tribunal would sit in camera. That option would always have to be available to it. That is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question. I am not sure about direct evidence. I was intending to say that there is a clear case on both sides of the argument. The relevant point is that the person facing exclusion should have legal aid, because he would then have a legally qualified person to speak and ask questions for him. That is important and could perhaps deal with the problem of direct evidence. I do not pretend that I have a detailed answer, but I should like to see the tribunal build up a body of practice and legal knowledge to deal with the problem. I cannot see any alternative
      If the Government are determined to stick by their rigorous decision to retain exclusion orders, I have to say that, if we are to have them, there must be some judicial practice. I will concede, as I am sure that the Minister will, that many difficulties; would be involved. Some of them have already been described. However, a decision must be taken.
      For how much longer are exclusion orders to be retained? If the figure drops from 10 to two a year, will we keep the orders or drop them at that stage? If, one year, no orders are made, shall we still retain the power to make them? The orders may be with us for many years. I assume that a tribunal or court could build up a body of legal practice which would enable it to deal with them. I do not pretend that the process would be easy or even always entirely logical, but it would be an effort to reduce the element of straight political legislation in this part of the Act and to increase its involvement with the rule of law and judicial interpretation.
      At the moment, an excluded person can only make representation in writing to, and seek a personal interview with, a nominee of the Secretary of State. He does not have direct access to the person who excluded him. He writes down his views as to why he should not be excluded. If he does not receive a satisfactory answer, he may then ask for the Secretary of State to appoint a nominee. The nominee may talk to him. That is the only defence against internal exile.
      It is easy to stand here and pick holes in the new clause. However, one must ask what the alternatives are. If the Government have decided that they wish to retain this part of the Act, I can understand that. If they wish to drop this part of the Act sooner or later, we must ask at what point they will do so. How do we judge when a power should be dropped? How rarely must it be used before it is abandoned? Those are the questions that the Government must answer if they object to the new clause.

      949
      Finally, subsection (5) enacts and tightens up the statement made by the Home Secretary in Committee that, without further evidence, he would
      "only in the rarest of circumstances" — [Official Report, Standing Committee D; 15 November 1983, c. 144.]
      make another exclusion order on an individual who had already been excluded. He would insist on fresh evidence. To make repeated exclusion orders on the basis of old evidence could not be justified. That is what we are trying to make clear in the new clause.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The new clause refers to that part of the Bill which is concerned with exclusion orders. There is nothing that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) can say against exclusion orders which has not been said, and is not strongly held, by my hon. Friends and myself. From the very beginning we have protested against this institution, which the hon. Gentleman correctly describes as internal exile. It is internal exile with the additional implication that Northern Ireland, distinguished for this purpose from the rest of the United Kingdom, is treated as a leper colony to which terrorists or potential terrorists can be exported.
      I have no desire to trench upon discussion of the next amendment, which is aimed at eliminating internal exile from the Bill. I trust that my hon. Friends and I will have the support of the official Opposition for that amendment, in the light of the words just used by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the institution of exclusion orders in 1974, and their retention, has represented a slide away from the rule of law. It entrusts an administrative discretion to a Minister to impose upon a citizen the severe penalty of being ordered to remove from one part of the United Kingdom to another, and to impose that penalty, not for an offence, but for what is apprehended administratively as a danger.
      5.45 pm
      The hon. Gentleman was quite correct in his assertion. Where I believe that he is mistaken is in recommending the new clause as a remedy and as some partial restoration, as it were, of the rule of law. That is not possible. We are attempting, if we adopt it in that light, to combine incompatibles.
      What the new clause represents is the creation of an executive power. My hon. Friends and I do not believe —and nor does the hon. Gentleman—that that executive power is any longer justified—whatever the case in the past-or that its existence outweighs its disadvantages, but we cannot alter its nature by setting up a commission of three judges. They will not be exercising a proper judicial function, taking the law and deciding whether a particular individual falls within the mischief of the law as made by this Parliament, but will be covering an administrative act of the Secretary of State. They will be a sham cover for an act which is not judicial but administrative.
      I can prove that. Let us suppose that it were possible —this is only hypothetical—to demonstrate that failure to exclude X had resulted in the commission of a terrorist atrocity. If that failure to exclude had been the result not of the Secretary of State's decision not to use his power, but of a decision of a court, the Secretary of State could say to members of the public who complained that the Secretary of State had powers and was not using them for
      950
      their protection that he had washed his hands of the matter and that it was nothing to do with him: the House of Commons had said that it was to go to the court, and the court had thrown it out.
      The effect of such an amendment would be to blur the fact that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State. It would blur the essentially executive nature of the decision which he has, on his own responsibility—his responsibility ultimately to this House—to make.
      It would also have another undesirable effect. It would degrade and place in a false light the function of the judiciary. We have gone too far down that road already. Too frequently use is made of High Court and other distinguished judges to chair tribunals and courts of inquiry, especially in the case of hot political subjects. If we were to adopt the new clause we would put that error on to the statute book. We would give to High Court judges, whose business is to interpret the law, the function of deciding whether the balance of risk — not on probative evidence, but on such evidence as in these cases the Secretary of State has to take account of—justified their condemning someone to internal exile. We should put the judiciary in a false position if we attempted to introduce this safeguard. In fact, it is not a safeguard, in the sense that it exaggerates and increases the disadvantages of the exclusion provision.
      One beneficial result that is likely to come from this debate is that we shall see that we must have the exclusion procedure, or that we must get rid of it altogether. We cannot simply compromise and cover it up by discovering some sort of tribunal or instance of appeal which will make it harmless or less harmless.
      Therefore, I fear that as much as my hon. Friends and I dislike—as we will prove presently by debate and in the Lobby — the existence of this power, we cannot support Her Majesty's Opposition on this amendment.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: I have a great deal of sympathy with the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but when we consider the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Bill, one of the matters which stand out to those who have been in Committee—this is a new development for us—is that hardly one jot or title of the Bill has been altered. In fact, so little has been changed that when there was a tiny alteration—I say this with the deepest respect to the right hon. Gentleman—the Minister made a witticism and boasted about it.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: But he did not vote for it.
      Mr. Flannery: No, he did not vote for it. We know that the feelings of Conservative Members—the bombings deepen this—are not dissimilar to those during the panic in 1974 when, with no dissent, a Bill was enacted following the Birmingham bombings. That attitude returns every time anything dreadful, such as the Harrods bombing, takes place.
      Knowing that we cannot kick out or mitigate the effects of the Bill in some way, we are trying to bring back the rule of law and give some sustenance to the people who are attacked by such draconian measures, as they were described when they were first enacted. We are aware that the exclusion orders do no provable good. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that with many things, such as breath tests, we are convinced that we save lives. These exclusion orders may be saving lives,

      951
      but that cannot be proved. We condemn many innocent people in the process and antagonise many innocent Irish people, and people such as myself with Irish names, who are immediately subjected to abuse and obscene telephone calls when the Irish are being condemned.
      One matter which has not been mentioned, although I am sure that hon. Members are aware of it, is that most of these exclusions or internal exiles are to Northern Ireland. It is using Northern Ireland as a dustbin and in effect saying, "If you are going to do something dreadful, do it over there and not over here." That is not treating Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom by those who insist that it is.
      The provision causes misery and leads to the abuse of anyone connected with Ireland or who raises his voice about it. I have never spoken in the House, as far as I can remember, without saying to Members of the Official Unionist party that I worry as deeply about them as about anyone. My heart goes out to the people who must live in Northern Ireland, but at the same time I want to point out that exclusion orders, which are the most objectionable part of the Bill, are an abrogation of natural justice and the rule of law. They do no good. They treat people as if they are all potential criminals.
      I remember Gerry Fitt, who was then the hon. Member for Belfast, West, and of whom I have been a friend for many years, saying
      "I particularly resent this legislation because of the exclusion orders … I am convinced—again, one can only use one's intelligence, and I have a reputation for being opposed to the men of violence—that utterly innocent people have been excluded from this part of the United Kingdom without their having been involved in any action or support for terrorist organisations." —[Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 167.]
      I object to the draconian nature of the violation of the rule of law. People have no right to know why they are being excluded; no right to know the evidence against them or to cross-examine those who are supposed to have collected it; and no right to a trial or a formal hearing. That is dreadful. The danger is that the power will be extended. I noticed that a man called Stokeley Carmichael was excluded from this country the other day. People may know all kinds of reasons for that. I know that when there is an exclusion provision, it is later used to exclude wider and wider groups of people.
      Amendment No. 20 and new clause 2 are a serious attempt by the Opposition to try to introduce some slight measure of law and democracy into this dreadful Bill. We do not have much hope, but we wish to get it on the record that we are trying to do that, because it is vital to let it be known that those who have spent all their time struggling against the Bill since the beginning—as some of us have — are on the side of the rule of law and are profoundly against terrorism, from whichever side it comes.
      Ms. Harman: Exclusions orders are really internal exile. Internal exile is a form of punishment without charge or trial. What is being said to people who are subject to internal exile is, "Although you are citizens of the United Kingdom, you cannot live here in Great Britain." That will mean losing their job, if they have one, and if they are excluded to Northern Ireland they have a fat chance of finding a job there. They are forced to separate from their spouse and children or to disrupt their lives and take them. That could mean disrupting their education and jobs and making them leave their friends.
      952
      To cap it all, they would be forced to live away from Great Britain under the stigma of an accusation of terrorism. That is a severe punishment. It cannot be described as anything else. It is nonsense to say that it is not.
      The Government say that it is not a punishment, but merely an administrative measure, because if they were to concede that it was a punishment they would have to allow a fair trial. Calling it an administrative measure is sleight of hand to preclude natural justice for the person subject to an exclusion order.
      As the Bill stands, there is no natural justice. The person whose life is likely to be seriously disrupted has no right to know what he is suspected of. He has no right to know, hear or challenge the evidence which, apparently, has been put forward against him.
      We know that if evidence is not subject to challenge, a low standard of evidence can be used. The provision for making representations to the Secretary of State is a sham, because how can one make representations that one has not done something when one does not know what one is accused of? The representation point is slender.
      6 pm
      The same is true of the so-called right to interview. The interviewer is nominated by the Secretary of State, so he is not independent. This is about as fair as the Secretary of State would feel it to be if the potential interviewer were to be chosen by the person to be excluded. What a bizarre sort of interview it will be. Will the interviewer tell the person being interviewed anything about the suspicions against him or about the evidence? Will he be allowed legal representation? The chances are that he will not get legal aid because there is no criminal charge entitling him to legal aid. Will the person be entitled to know what representations the interviewer will make to the Secretary of State?
      I remind the House of what Lord Jellicoe said about exclusion orders:
      "I have found consideration of the system of exclusion to be the most difficult part of my task. It is in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers: in its effect on civil liberties, it is in my view more severe than any other power in the Act; in its procedure and principles it departs more thoroughly from the normal criminal process than any other part of the Act it has aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation."
      The House must accept that internal exile is a punishment. If any of the hon. Members on the Government Benches who intend to vote for the Bill were subject to internal exile, they would regard it as a punishment. We should not mete out punishment without even a nod in the direction of natural justice. The new clause will go part of the way to mitigate that injustice. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Act is so rotten at its best that the new clause does only a small amount, but we feel that it does enough to make it worthwhile introducing and supporting.
      The new clause would do that by the introduction of an exclusion tribunal. At least the three High Court judges would not be directly nominated by the Secretary of State. They would be more independent than that. At least the tribunal would hear evidence and arguments from both sides and the person who was likely to be punished with an exclusion order would have an opportunity to hear the evidence and arguments against him. He would at least be entitled to legal representation and legal aid and would be

      953
      able to ask for a review of the exclusion order after one year. If there were no further charges or evidence against him, the exclusion order would then lapse.
      Mr. Ashby: The hon. Lady is a lawyer, so will she explain how one can have legal aid when there are no rules governing the form of evidence? Where evidence will be circumstantial or hearsay, there cannot be any rule of law. One would be looking at reviews and reports. In no way would there be a judicial proceeding. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that turns the whole system on its head. How can the hon. Lady's system work properly?
      Ms. Harman: Internal exile as an administrative procedure is rotten. It is difficult to graft on to something that is fundamentally rotten a partially fair procedure. However, that is what we are trying to do, although we would rather see the Bill go altogether. We lost that in Committee, and we are trying, on behalf of the people who might get caught up in this, for some mitigation. If some hon. Members were innocently caught up in something about which they knew nothing, they would be grateful for such mitigation, small as it is, and would want to know the evidence against them and be able to have legal representation.
      Without the new clause, and even with it, internal exile as an administrative procedure breaches the European convention on human rights. We should be prepared to apply the same standards to ourselves as we are so ready to apply to others. When internal exile occurs in other countries, we are quick to point the finger and say that it is a disgraceful denial of human rights, but we are doing it in this country.
      If someone is involved in terrorism and there is evidence to that effect, he should and must be prosecuted. If there is no evidence, he should be regarded as innocent until he is proved guilty. That is supposed to be one of our fundamental principles of law. If the people who are being subjected to exclusion orders are guilty of criminal offences and of instigating terrorism, should we export them to Northern Ireland? That is nonsense. Internal exile brings the law into disrepute and we should vote in favour of the new clause, but bear in mind that the system of exclusion orders is fundamentally wrong.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: We had many debates at some length in Committee on the subject of exclusion orders. I say now, as I said in Committee, that the exclusion order is an affront to our society because it leads to the dumping of people in one part of our land—Northern Ireland—and means that the Siberia concept is imported into our law.
      In Committee, on the debates on clause 8 and in various other debates, time and again an important series of questions was asked of the Minister. I asked about the quality of evidence and why there could not be an investigation. His reply bears looking at with some care, particularly when we begin to try to rectify the mess of the Bill. I go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said, that the new clause is by no means the ideal solution but it might import some fairness into our system, a system that is patently and blatantly unfair. The Minister said:
      954
      "Sometimes there is information against a person that points to his being a terrorist, but which would not be admissible in court."
      I have always thought that the basis of our system was that we needed real evidence, evidence that was admissible, not tittle-tattle, prejudice, adverse comment, supposition or suspicion. The Minister went on:
      "There is often evidence against him which would be admissible, but it cannot be disclosed publicly because it might lead to the death of the person who had given the information to the police." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 November 1983; c. 125.]
      We pointed out to the Minister, as I have done time and again, that it is not unusual in an English court room for a witness to be at risk, and steps can be taken to protect him. That happens all the time and has happened in a recent series of robbery trials in the Old Bailey in which the witnesses were thought to be at risk. They were given a new identity in another land.
      I do not accept the Minister's reply in Committee. We pressed the point but failed to get another answer. It seems that the Government are determined not to learn the lessons of history or to learn that this land, which prizes so greatly its ability to abide by the rule of law, sometimes gets wrong laws. We bring in Acts that are later shown to be a disgrace. The prevention of terrorism legislation has always been a disgrace because it is a series of infringements of fundamental liberties. If a society is worth having, it is worth having only if it keeps to its basic principles and concepts.
      This is not the first time that we have flown in the face of the European convention on human rights. I can give two examples, one very recent and one not so recent. The not-so-recent case concerned our laws for the mentally ill. I declare an interest, because I was involved in the case that went to Europe, which resulted in alterations to the Act. My ex-practice took that case. We still do not have our mental health laws right, but we are a long way further down the road of doing so.
      The same can be said of the parole system. That was the subject of much challenge in a recent decision on admissibility. It appears that we have also got that wrong. Equally, I suggest that we are wrong in the way in which we deal with people under the prevention of terrorism legislation, and once again we risk the condemnation of the European courts. In a way, I would welcome this matter being tested in the European courts. As a country that prides itself on the rule of law, it is essential that we should have laws that comply with the European convention on human rights.
      The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked how legal representation could be given. Under the new clause, a person subject to an exclusion order, or faced with exclusion, would at least have some hope of having his side of the story put, as a result of which the method of determining exclusion might be changed. All that happens under the present system is that forms are passed and notes are made without the party involved knowing what is going on.
      Under clause 7(6), such a person is entitled to be advised by a person who is nominated—almost like a friend. But even clause 7(6) has its limitations when one considers the provisions of clause 7(8), which contains a get-out in certain circumstances. The Bill will give a person few or no rights, but the new clause will at least give him the right to

      955
      "apply within 30 days to an Exclusion Tribunal for an order that the exclusion order be revoked".
      Subsection (2)(a) of the new clause says:
      "the Exclusion Tribunal shall consist of three High Court Judges."
      Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) talked about secrecy. I remind him that from time to time treason trials are held in this country, and everyone involved maintains the secrets that are disclosed in the "in camera" hearing. Therefore, what is the danger of three High Court judges hearing the evidence? There is none. Our judiciary has always been bound by silence, as have our lawyers. If lawyers were made subject to the Official Secrets Act, that would be no worry to them. One of the great advantages of our legal system is that our lawyers know when to keep a secret. They can disclose only on the authority of a client, or they will be in breach of their professional rules.
      Subsection (2)(a) also states:
      "It shall hear representations and evidence".
      The judges will be in a good position to sift the tittle-tattle, innuendo, suspicion and smear. If someone is to be sentenced—exclusion is a sentence—he ought at least to be informed of the evidence.
      We cannot have punishment without trial, not in a civilised society, because the minute we reach that stage we are well on the Orwellian road. Regrettably, we began going down that road not in 1984 but in 1974. Perhaps after 10 years' experience we will have the courage to leave that road.
      Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states:
      "the Secretary of State shall inform the person to be excluded in advance of the reasons for the order and of the evidence against him".
      Were that to become part of our legal system, it would at least give the person the right of reply, as well as knowledge of the allegation. It is difficult for someone to talk to a person appointed to interview him if he does not know what the interview is about. One could have an endless and useless conversation based on speculation. At least some effort has gone into the new clause to avoid that.
      6.15 pm
      Subsection (2)(c) says:
      "the person to be excluded shall have the right to legal representation and to legal aid."
      That simply means that the person will have the right to advice. Whether or not he can afford it, he will get that advice, and the person giving such advice will be able to sift the value of the evidence and allegations, prepare the counter-arguments and, ultimately, present them to three High Court judges.
      That is not an ideal solution, but it is at least an attempt to correct a great and horrific injustice in the Bill. The ideal solution would be not to accept new clause 2 but to reject clause 8 in its entirety. However, the Committee has already felt the weight of Conservative votes, and no doubt the weight of those votes will again be used tonight.
      I hope and pray that Conservative Members will begin to understand that if we are to call ourselves a civilised society, the least we can have is civilised laws. Internal exile is not civilised. It is a disgrace. New clause 2 is but a humble and poor attempt to try to rectify a great wrong.
      Mr. Waddington: The debate began with some general remarks from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the exclusion powers. We shall shortly
      956
      debate those exclusion powers. It is, however, important to consider what the hon. Gentleman said, because presumably that explains the birth of the new clause
      He said that the legislation alienates the Irish in this country. I do not believe that it alienates the well-disposed, but I do not pretend that I am an expert in this matter. All I can say—I know that the hon. Gentleman resents this type of remark, but in this context I am perfectly entitled to make it—is that it has taken the Labour party a long time to discover that the legislation creates such great alienation and causes such great disadvantage that it counterbalances the advantage that he has conceded may well flow from exclusion clauses.
      Ms. Clare Short: Throughout Committee, and twice in his speech today, the Minister has sneered at the Labour party for previously supporting the legislation and, in the light of experience, changing its mind. He has also said that the Conservative party reluctantly supports such draconian powers which endanger civil liberties and cells us that they will get rid of the Bill at the earliest opportunity. Does it not therefore follow that one day the Conservative party will change its mind and cease to support the Bill? If so, will the hon. and learned Gentleman refrain from making such a totally inconsistent argument?
      Mr. Waddington: The difficulty about the hon. Lady's argument—and we must not waste time on it—is that the Labour party suddenly had a change of mind without any change in the circumstances. That has always puzzled many people.
      Ms. Harman: Will the Minister accept that it is not a sudden change of mind? What was sudden was the passing of the prevention of terrorism laws, and since then we have been able to reflect on their effect. It is in the light of that experience that many people who agreed with the laws when they were first put on the statute book have genuinely changed their minds.
      Mr. Waddington: That is a difficult argument to follow. The hon. Lady was saying that it took about eight years for the Labour party to come to the conclusion that what it had decided was necessary when it was in office was no longer necessary.
      Let us not spend too much time on this matter. Although the hon. Member for Hammersmith concedes that lives might be saved by the exclusion arrangements in the Bill, he thinks that more lives might be lost because of the alienation of people as a result of the existence of these powers. He is entitled to hold that opinion, but it is an opinion that I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, do not hold.
      Mr. Soley: The Minister keeps pursuing this matter, and as long as he does so I am afraid that we shall have to intervene to put him right. We know the figures that were given by Lord Jellicoe. Back in the 1970s, about 144 people were detained for more than 36 hours. Now the figure is down to about 10 or 12. However, the Minister could not tell us why. The same is true with exclusion orders. The figures produced by his own office demonstrate the need for change. The problem is that the Conservative Government do not learn from experience.
      Mr. Waddington: If there were many uses of this power, the hon. Gentleman would argue that it proved how purposeless it was to have the powers because they were

      957
      not proving of any use. Terrorism was going on, hundreds of exclusion orders were being made. He would say that, because it was having no impact, we should not renew the legislation. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect the House to pay much attention to that argument.
      The main thrust of amendment No. 20 and new clause 2 is to introduce into the exclusion system a judicial appeal procedure by setting up a tribunal of three High Court judges to hear the cases of the Secretary of State and the excluded person. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, at the start of the debate, and to his credit, accepted that Lord Jellicoe strongly refuted the argument, which he is now advancing on behalf of the Labour party, that the final decision should not rest with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to the key passage in paragraph 190 of Lord Jellicoe's report:
      "Exclusion is a matter of public policy. It is based not merely on the conduct of the excluded person, but also — once his terrorist involvement is established—on matters such as the security situation at the time exclusion is considered and the danger the person poses to the public at large. Neither the courts nor any form of tribunal could properly be expected to carry out an examination of all these issues and to reach a binding decision. It is noteworthy that Lord Gardiner's committee which in the mid-1970s examined, amongst other things, the procedures governing internment in Northern Ireland recommended that the final decision should rest not with any body or tribunal, but solely with the Secretary of State."
      In the next paragraph, Lord Jellicoe went on to deal with the argument that
      "the review process should incorporate more safeguards and place greater emphasis on elements of due process".
      He concluded in paragraph 193 that the introduction of such procedures would lead not only to no improvement in the process of reviewing exclusion orders
      "but would in practice constitute no more than a parody of due legal process and would thus contribute to a loss of public confidence in the legal system".
      The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) echoed those words. We must decide whether we want to have the exclusion powers. There is no benefit whatever in trying to pretend that one can draft on to that executive power this window dressing of judicial process.
      Lord Jellicoe accepted that exclusion decisions are not based on evidence of the kind dealt with in a court of law. This deals with the matter that was raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). We went over the matter repeatedly in Committee. If such evidence were available, the exclusion system would not be needed. It is designed to place some control on people against whom prosecutions cannot be brought, even although it is known that they are involved in terrorism. Often there is no firm evidence of such involvement, only intelligence, which gives a picture of terrorist activity over a long period.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister accept that he is saying, in effect, "If we think it and we cannot prove it, we will punish you by excluding you. However, if we think it and we can prove it, we will prosecute you." Is not that conviction by innuendo rather than conviction by evidence?
      Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has never recognised that the only justification for these powers is the fact that sometimes it is impossible to produce evidence that would lead to a conviction in court and that sometimes, even although there is clear evidence that
      958
      would lead to a conviction in court, such evidence cannot be disclosed, because it would lead to revealing the source of that evidence and his possible demise. The hon. Gentleman has had that said to him on many occasions. He may disagree with it, but he knows perfectly well that that is the justification for the legislation. He does not like the legislation. I happen to believe that what has happened in Northern Ireland makes it necessary, and that is the Government's view at present.
      Ms. Harman: A moment ago, the Minister called our new clause "window dressing". If he were an innocent person — there is always the possibility of suspicion falling on such a person — on whom suspicion had fallen, would he rather have legal representation, a right to know the evidence, and a hearing by three High Court judges, or would he say, "Sorry, I am not interested. That is window dressing." In my opinion, that is an ultra-Leftist view.
      Mr. Waddington: I do not know what view the imaginary person would take. I am saying that the three judges would not, by definition, be listening to evidence. If they were listening to evidence, we should not need this Bill. We are dealing with a situation in which Parliament has deemed it necessary over a period of years to take special powers that are invoked as a result not of the presentation of evidence but of the existence of intelligence.
      I do not intend to go into the ways in which such intelligence is gathered. That is not necessary. However, I am sure that the House will understand that to make such information public, for example, by giving it to the excluded person, might destroy not only the chances of obtaining more information from the same source, but endanger the lives of those people who collect it. As intelligence gathering, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has often enabled the police to pre-empt or frustrate planned terrorist attacks, I am sure that the House will agree that everything possible should be done to protect such activities. For those reasons, the suggestion that the person to be excluded should be told of the evidence against him is quite unacceptable.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister accept that Lord Jellicoe says in his report that the basis of the evidence is normally from what is called secret service sources— that is to say, Army officers, special branch, and so on? Does the Minister accept that if the excluded person is told that the allegation against him is, for example, that on 13 March he was present at a meeting in Dungannon or somewhere else in Northern Ireland, and that that is the nature of the evidence, that will not endanger anyone? Will it not at least give the excluded person the right to reply, "I was not there. I was in fact elsewhere," and he can then produce evidence to support that. There is a way in which evidence can be given which does not disclose the source and does not endanger anyone else.
      Will the Minister further accept that it is possible in major criminal trials in Britain to protect witnesses who are thought to be in danger? We are discussing a fundamental principle of human rights, which is the right to know the allegation that is made against the person.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Waddington: I do not know what is meant by "evidence", as the word appears in the new clause. The

      959
      hon. Gentleman is right to say that some limitations could be put on the meaning of the word. In spite of the plain wording of the clause, the Labour party might mean that the whole of the evidence should not be disclosed to the person concerned. I have not the faintest idea of the thinking that lies behind the clause. However, if the evidence in the true sense is to be revealed to the person concerned, it is almost inconceivable that there would not also be revealed to that person the identity of the person who had given the information to the police.
      It seems that there is a misunderstanding of the existing schemes to provide legal aid. Legal advice and assistance is available under section 1 of the Legal Aid Act 1974. It operates on a sliding scale of remission of fees and provides for oral or written advice by a solicitor, and by counsel if necessary. It may not initially exceed work to the value of £40, but that ceiling may be raised in certain circumstances.
      Legal aid is also available for civil and criminal proceedings before the courts and certain tribunals. It is intended to provide for legal representation in those proceedings where, because of complex rules of evidence and procedure and because an adversarial system is applied, it would be unreasonable to expect the litigant himself, or a lay representative, to present the case adequately. As for assistance with representation under clause 7, the necessary advice and assistance is already available, subject to means, for the likely circumstances.
      It will be clear from what I have said that the Government's opposition to the establishment of a tribunal rests on a number of planks: the need for the power to exclude to remain with the Secretary of State, Lord Jellicoe's view that the judicial process is an inappropriate one for exclusion and the need to protect sources of information.
      It will be no surprise, therefore, that we are resisting also the suggestion in subsection (4) of the new clause that the tribunal should have the power annually to review exclusion orders. The three-year life for exclusion orders, which was recommended by Lord Jellicoe and implemented in clause 3, is a relaxation of the provisions in the 1976 Act. It is designed to ensure that a person who is the subject of an order does not suffer unnecessary hardship, and that he has time to demonstrate by disengagement that he is no longer involved in terrorism. If, after three years, the police are not satisfied that the excluded person has terminated his involvement, they may make an application for a new order to the Secretary of State. I am satisfied that this is the right way to provide a safeguard for excluded persons against indefinite extension of their orders, especially in the light of the assurance that was given in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Subsection (5) of the new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from making a further order against an excluded person unless there was further substantial evidence over and above that on which the original order was based. I am not sure precisely what the Opposition mean by "substantial evidence". It appears that they are imposing a more stringent requirement on the Home Secretary than that in clauses 4,5 and 6, which require him only to be satisfied of an involvement in terrorism. I hope that they will find it helpful if I quote the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend made in Committee on 15 November 1983 on the subject of further orders:
      960
      "It is necessary that there should be a power to make a fresh order for the reasons that were given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. It would be absurd if fresh circumstances arose which satisfied the Secretary of State that some people had been involved in the commission of acts and terrorism. Therefore he must not be prevented from making an exclusion order merely because he made one previously on the basis of different evidence. However, if events during the three years in which an exclusion order is in force indicate that nothing fresh has occurred, that there is nothing to give rise to a fresh application—if all that is being relied on is material which led to the initial application—I envisage making a fresh exclusion order only in the rarest of circumstances. I would not simply rely on stale material that had been the basis of the original order. I am talking about a fresh order. Only rarely will previous material which is unsupplemented and uncorroborted by more contemporary material be regarded as sufficient for that purpose." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D; 15 November 1983, c. 143–44.]
      Mr. Bermingham: I listened to that undertaking in Committee and I have listened to it today. The issue that has troubled me and many other hon. Members is that there is no way in which anyone can know upon what basis the original order was made. We never know the details of the allegations or anything else. Therefore, there is no yardstick by which we can subsequently test the new order that is being sought. I know that it is stated in the Jellicoe report that we should rely on parliamentary scrutiny and announcements to Parliament, but I am a practical man and I must ask the Minister how we are to know that there is adherence to the undertaking. There is no yardstick and there are no criteria on which we can judge in each individual case.
      Mr. Waddington: If one accepts the necessity for the legislation, there can be no way in which the hon. Gentleman will always be able to discover the information which was given to the Secretary of State. It is likely that he will never be able to so discover. That is the inevitable result of operating a system which depends on information as well as evidence, as I said a short while ago.
      Mr. Flannery: The Minister will probably remember that I said in Committee that under this procedure the accused is not tried but is found guilty and is then made the subject of an exclusion order. If the order is withdrawn, the same system is operated and he is not tried but is found guilty again. What sort of justice is that?
      Mr. Waddington: I would not accept for one moment that an exclusion order has been wrongly made because there may thereafter be an acquittal of a specific criminal offence. It would be nonsense so to suggest, any more than it is right to suggest, although it has often been suggested from the Labour Benches, that because a criminal charge does not follow an exclusion order, the exclusion order should not have been made.
      The hon. Gentleman was rather churlish when he said that the Bill was not changed in Committee. I am sure that he will agree that there have been considerable changes in the Bill compared with the 1976 Act, which was introduced by the then Labour Government. New safeguards have been inserted because we recognise that we are dealing with serious powers. I urge the hon. Gentleman to give credit where credit is due. The fact that there can be no use of an exclusion order after three years of residence instead of 20 years of residence is a new protection for the individual. The fact that an exclusion order lasts for only three years instead of indefinitely is a

      961
      new protection for the individual. The wider provisions to make representations that are set out in clause 7 are new protections for the individual.
      To revert to the passage that I read from the Home Secretary's speech in Committee, the Opposition may be seeking to embody his assurance in the Bill by framing this part of the new clause. However, I draw their attention to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend reserved his position by referring to the rare circumstances in which he might wish to make an order without new data. The subsection would deny him that possibility, and bring into the public domain the question of what constitutes substantial evidence. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment and the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 250.

      Division No.139]

      [6.40 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Barron, Kevin

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Leighton, Ronald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Blair, Anthony

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Litherland, Robert

      Boyes, Roland

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Buchan, Norman

      Loyden, Edward

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Canavan, Dennis

      McGuire, Michael

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Clay, Robert

      McKelvey, William

      Cohen, Harry

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McTaggart, Robert

      Cowans, Harry

      McWilliam, John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dormand, Jack

      Nellist, David

      Dubs, Alfred

      O'Neill, Martin

      Eadie, Alex

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Eastham, Ken

      Park, George

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Parry, Robert

      Ellis, Raymond

      Patchett, Terry

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Pike, Peter

      Ewing, Harry

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Prescott, John

      Faulds, Andrew

      Redmond, M.

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Fisher, Mark

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Flannery, Martin

      Rogers, Allan

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Foster, Derek

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Garrett, W. E.

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      George, Bruce

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

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Skinner, Dennis

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Smith, C.(Islton S & F'bury)

      Haynes, Frank

      Soley, Clive

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Strang, Gavin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Home Robertson, John

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wareing, Robert

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Welsh, Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      962

      Wilson, Gordon

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Mr. Don Dixon

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Henderson, Barry

      Arnold, Tom

      Hickmet, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Hicks, Robert

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Hill, James

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Baldry, Anthony

      Hirst, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Beggs, Roy

      Holt, Richard

      Beith, A. J.

      Hooson, Tom

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hordern, Peter

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Howard, Michael

      Body, Richard

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

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Howells, Geraint

      Bright, Graham

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hunter, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Irving, Charles

      Butcher, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Butterfill, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Chapman, Sydney

      Key, Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Coombs, Simon

      Knowles, Michael

      Cope, John

      Knox, David

      Couchman, James

      Lang, Ian

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Latham, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dicks, T.

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lester, Jim

      Eggar, Tim

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Favell, Anthony

      Lightbown, David

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Lilley, Peter

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Luce, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Fox, Marcus

      McCrea, Rev William

      Freeman, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Galley, Roy

      McCusker, Harold

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      MacGregor, John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maclean, David John.

      Gow, Ian

      Maclennan, Robert

      Greenway, Harry

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Gregory, Conal

      McQuarrie, Albert

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

      Maginnis, Ken

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Ground, Patrick

      Malone, Gerald

      Grylls, Michael

      Maples, John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Marlow, Antony

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Mates, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mather, Carol

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maude, Francis

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hannam, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Harvey, Robert

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mellor, David

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Merchant, Piers

      Hawksley, Warren

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hayes, J.

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Hayward, Robert

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      963

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Speller, Tony

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Spence, John

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Spencer, D.

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stanley, John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Stern, Michael

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Needham, Richard

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Newton, Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Norris, Steven

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Pawsey, James

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Pollock, Alexander

      Thurnham, Peter

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

      Tracey, Richard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Trotter, Neville

      Powley, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Viggers, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wainwright, R.

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Walden, George

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wallace, James

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Waller, Gary

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Watson, John

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Watts, John

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wheeler, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Ryder, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wood, Timothy

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Yeo, Tim

      Silvester, Fred

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sims, Roger

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. John Major and

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      EXCLUSION ORDERS: GENERAL
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 31, leave out '4, 5 or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 9, in page 4, line 5, leave out Clause 4.
      No. 12, in page 4, line 31, leave out Clause 5.
      No. 15, in page 5, line 20, leave out from 'enter' to 'with' in line 21, and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 21, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'Great Britain, Northern Ireland or'.
      No. 22, in page 7, line 28, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 29.
      Mr. Powell: All the other amendments associated with amendment No. 4 are consequential to it, and I hope that no consequentiality, apart from those, has been overlooked.
      The effect of the amendment would be to eliminate from the Bill two of the three forms of exclusion order that it contains at present. The three forms of exclusion order are two internal and one external. The two internal are from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and, conversely, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The external exclusion is exclusion from the United Kingdom. The amendment leaves in the Bill the third, or external, form of exclusion, but removes what in the previous debate was described perfectly accurately as "internal exile". It leaves external exile — although "exile" is an inappropriate word, since it is applicable only to people who are riot British citizens — but it removes the evil of internal exile.
      It may be queried why, in view of what I am to say presently about exclusion orders, one should not get rid of the whole contraption and the entire part of the Bill. There would be considerable attraction in that course except that, when questioned in Committee, the Secretary of State asserted that, although he had powers under existing legislation otherwise to exclude from the United Kingdom, or prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of. undesirable persons under the emigration law, there was a very narrow category of Irish citizens who would not be covered by those powers. He also asserted, although we failed to elicit from him very much illumination of what he meant by it, that the powers in the Bill were more efficient than the powers in other legislation for excluding, or preventing the entry of, non-British citizens in respect of the United Kingdom.
      I do not think that in present circumstances we would wish the Home Secretary to lack the efficient power to prevent an alien from entering this country for what the Home Secretary had reason to believe were nefarious purposes, or to terminate his stay herd in similar circumstances. Therefore, the amendment does not touch the power of exclusion from the United Kingdom What it does do, I repeat, is to remove the power to issue an order to a citizen to remove from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom.
      In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, "We have not much hope of succeeding," and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, "Conservative Governments never learn from experience." I appreciate that both those propositions could be buttressed with a good deal of illustrative material. Nevertheless, I move this amendment in genuine hope because I cannot believe that the Government can go on year after year—with the number of persons excluded under the powers in clauses 4 and 5 dropping from the very large numbers when the Bill was first introduced to a handful at the present time—attempting to justify the maintenance of this utterly unacceptable presence in our law of a power to dictate the position of residence inside the United Kingdom to a British subject or, as it has often been called, the power to impose internal exile.
      If the Government had presented to the House a new Bill embodying the powers in clauses 4 and 5, then 1 think hon. Members on both sides of the House would suppose that they had taken leave of their senses. It would be quite inconceivable that, in 1984, any Government, in the

      965
      circumstances that now obtain, would have come forward with those powers. But of course, we are not treating this in fact, although we are in form, de novo. We are dealing with powers that have existed on the statute book for 10 years, although we are, with substantial modifications, renewing them by this Bill.
      My hon. Friends and I are entitled to ask the House to consider this provision as if it were today for the first time that the Government were asking the House to grant these powers. We would ask the Government, "How many cases do you expect a year will fall within the ambit of the exclusion from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?"—a curious direction and proposition, in any case—and they would, with the benefit of hindsight, reply, "Oh, about 10 or a dozen." We would then say to the Government, "Have you any reason in present circumstances to suppose that you could not provide for security in other ways by the use of the ordinary criminal law without having recourse to this specific power in so tiny a number of cases?"—of which again only a small proportion, as the past evidence shows, will be concerned in terrorist offences.
      It would not be made to stand up, it could not be justified, and the continuance of what has always been regarded by the whole House as a blot upon the statute book, and by the people of Northern Ireland as a special slur, a special imposition, upon themselves, could not be justified. The provision nevertheless, appears in the Bill. I ask the House and the Government to recognise that, upon that test which it is reasonable to apply, they do not today propose a new provision of this kind, and that therefore they ought not to be producing a Bill that contains it.
      7 pm
      There is, I admit, an argument in relation to part I of the Bill that, having had the power to ban an organisation for so long, it is new to bring that power to an end. I concede that suddenly in 1984 to say that the IRA and INLA should not be proscribed organisations would be unreasonable, even had we not proscribed them since 1974. But no possible mischief can come from saying that such has been the experience in the last 10 years that there is no longer any substantial ground in the use made of this power which would justify it remaining on the statute book. Nothing is lost. There is nothing on the other side of the account, nothing that is unacceptable to public opinion, nothing that would outrage a public opinion that has witnessed the continuance of terrorist offences here in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland right up to the present day.
      Therefore, I am asking the House now to remove from the statute book what might have been justified 10 years ago and in the earlier period of that decenium, though even from the start it was the product more of indignation and panic than of reasoning. Now that the circumstances are so changed, as the factual evidence in the Jellicoe report illustrates, I am asking for this to be removed from the statute book so that we shall no longer be exposed to the charge that we in the United Kingdom, who point the finger at other countries, have on our statute book a power by which a Minister can impose exile from one part of the United Kingdom to another on a British citizen.
      Whatever was the argument in years gone by—whatever jocularity may be indulged in at the expense of
      966
      those who, at the beginning of that 10-year period, supported or did not oppose this provision—it is time for it to go, and I hope that the House will do right tonight and take it off the statute book.
      Mr. Soley: I shall not delay the House, because we have been over many of the arguments already. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I agree on many of the issues about which he spoke in relation to the amendment, and we have debated them at length in Committee and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the official Opposition will vote for the amendment, for we recognise that this group of amendments would put an end to what we have rightly called "internal exile".
      Ms. Clare Short: I, too, support this group of amendments, which would remove from the Bill the power of internal exile. The only exclusion power to remain would be the power to exclude people from the United Kingdom, with no right to exclude people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
      This power, which was taken rapidly in the wake of the Birmingham bombings, was originally designed only to exclude from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The symbolism of that was that an explosion or death from terrorist activities in Great Britain was intolerable and unacceptable to this House but that such explosion or death in Northern Ireland was of little concern. That was undoubtedly the symbolism of the original measure and it was subsequent embarrassment—when that was pointed out — that made the Government take the power to exclude people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, so that it would look like parity and not as though we did not care what happened in Northern Ireland. That is at the root of the power. We should be clear about that, admit it openly and say what a disgrace it is, for if more hon. Members and more people who live in Great Britain had shown more concern for the situation in Northern Ireland we might have found solutions to the problems there a long time ago.
      The power is, in any event, strange because by it we say, in effect, that if we move to Northern Ireland certain people who are moved to use force and engage in terrorist activities in Great Britain, things will be safer here, Northern Ireland being the place where, some people feel when considering the political situation there, people wish to use force. It would make more sense, if it was a power designed to prevent terrorism, to exclude people to Cornwall, Orkney or to a place where they would not be constrained to involve themselves in terrorist activities in connection with Northern Ireland. If that were to happen it would cause uproar in this country—I am sure that it would cause uproar in Cornwall and so on—and would be considered intolerable.
      The precedent for the power can be found in the Soviet Union, where certain citizens are excluded to Siberia. We take a parallel power, but our Siberia is Northern Ireland; we exclude people to poor old Northern Ireland if we think that they might endanger the public peace in Great Britain. In itself and in principle the power is intolerable.
      The Minister said that such a grave and serious action—the use of the power—was taken when there was no evidence against the individual concerned, only when there was intelligence or suspicion—something that

      967
      would not hold up before a tribunal or court. In other words, this grave and serious power is used on the basis of very slight evidence.
      I am sure that we can agree that the power is in principle objectionable. An argument for it might be that somehow it prevents terrorism and makes things safer. But when we look at the figures we find, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, that in the last two years only 26 people were excluded. In other words, this deeply offensive power is being used so sparsely that we can consider getting rid of it, even if there ever was a case for it.
      In addition, it could be argued that, rather than prevent terrorism, the power could encourage it. Following inquiries that we made in Committee, the Minister wrote to me—the letter was copied to all members of the Committee—giving the figures for people who had been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and who had subsequently been convicted of being involved in acts of terrorism. The figures are quite large: 15 people for certain and a further 31 convicted of offences that might have been offences connected with terrorism. In other words, because the police or intelligence forces in Great Britain have about certain people a vague suspicion that would not hold up in court, those people are bundled off to Northern Ireland.
      We are told that those excluded are closely watched by the security forces, although I note that Lord Jellicoe's report stated that when he was attempting to review old exclusion orders and write to people who had been excluded, half of them could not be found. It is clear, therefore, that it is not the case that those who have been excluded are carefully watched. Thus, in a good many cases, people who were excluded from Great Britain on a vague hunch subsequently went on to involve themselves in violent actions in Northern Ireland. It could be argued that the power has permitted terrorist actions to take place, for had the police been better policemen and had they continued to watch the individuals of whom they were suspicious, they might have been able to arrest them for criminal offences and thus prevent acts of terrorism.
      For those reasons, I strongly support the amendments, which would get rid of what must be considered an intolerable power in any society that claims to be free. It is an intolerable power, a power that in its symbolism shows that we care nothing about violence and the troubles in Northern Ireland, and a power that does not prevent, but could be argued to perpetuate, terrorism.
      Mr. Waddington: We fully appreciate that it is a serious matter to deprive a British citizen of the right to move freely in his own country, and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Jellicoe said that he found consideration of the exclusion order powers the most difficult part of his task. These provisions, distasteful though they are, remain a sad necessity, so long as the threat from terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs remains with us, a fact which none of us can now doubt.
      It has been suggested that these provisions are unnecessary because they do not work and it has been said that they did not prevent the Harrods bombing. That is rather like saying that there is no point in having any police powers because crime is still committed. The truth is that the essentially preventive nature of the exclusion powers makes their effectiveness extremely difficult to judge. The system comes into operation only when there can be no
      968
      question of a prosecution because of the sensitivity of the intelligence on which cases are based. To expose such intelligence in court could, in some cases, endanger lives, and would inevitably prejudice the gathering of further intelligence from the same source.
      I accept that we who are closely involved in the operation of the system are not perhaps best placed to make a judgment on how it is used, and for this reason we must place great weight on Lord Jellicoe's judgment. He carried out a very careful examination of a large number of exclusion cases. He talked at length to those involved in the operation of the system and he concluded that it
      "has played a significant part in preventing acts of terrorism, or in making the commission of terrorist acts more difficult"
      and that,
      "regrettably, the power cannot simply be abolished at present".
      In agreeing with that conclusion, the Government share particularly Lord Jellicoe's feelings of regret that such exceptional measures remain necessary.
      It has also been said that the power to exclude persons from Great Britain has made Northern Ireland a dumping ground for terrorists. That is despite the reciprocal provisions allowing exclusion from Northern Ireland as well as from Great Britain which were introduced in the 1976 Act after an amendment to that effect had been tabled in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell).
      As an illustration, reference is made to the large number of British citizens excluded from Great Britain—268 since the legislation was introduced compared with only seven from Northern Ireland. As I said in Committee, that is no more than a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of British citizens involved in Northern Irish terrorism originate, as one would expect, from Northern Ireland.
      A separate argument is involved in amendment No. 15, because different considerations arise. That amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to make an exclusion order against a non-British citizen whom he was satisfied was attempting to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom with a view to being involved in acts of terrorism.
      The power would be exercised against such persons only if they were attempting to enter the United Kingdom from outside. So long as there is a risk that non-British citizens will travel from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or in the opposite direction in pursuit of their evil deeds, I believe that the power to exclude from the United Kingdom should be retained.
      I take no comfort from the fact that circumstances still require the retention of these exceptional measures. We all fervently hope that the time will come, sooner rather than later, when the provisions will be allowed to lapse. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), simply because we realise that these are serious powers we have tried to mitigate their effects. Everyone, even those who disagree with the maintenance of the powers, will appreciate that.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister seriously saying that the purpose is, in the case of a non-British citizen present in the United Kingdom, to catch him at his nefarious intentions when he is passing between Great Britain and Northern ireland and to erect a new and artificial barrier and net against non-British citizens who

      969
      happen to be in the United Kingdom for terrorist purposes?
      That is a novel view of the background to the exclusion order. Is that seriously the intention?
      The shoulder title of clause 6 is
      "Orders excluding persons from the United Kingdom".
      That appears to be the purpose of clause 6, yet the Minister is telling the House that inside clause 6 he is maintaining an internal barrier, as one might have a road block on the M1, at which people can be intercepted in their movements within the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman explained why he decided not to table an amendment to delete clause 6. He was saying that he was content for the time being that there should be a power to exclude from the United Kingdom and therefore, I should have thought, a power to prevent people from entering the United Kingdom. One does not "enter" the United Kingdom if one is an Irish national travelling from Ulster to Great Britain and therefore there would be a gap in the legislation.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 208.

      Division No. 140]

      [7.17 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Leighton, Ronald

      Barron, Kevin

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Beggs, Roy

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Blair, Anthony

      McCartney, Hugh

      Boyes, Roland

      McCrea, Rev William

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Buchan, Norman

      McGuire, Michael

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McKelvey, William

      Canavan, Dennis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McWilliam, John

      Clay, Robert

      Madden, Max

      Cohen, Harry

      Maginnis, Ken

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Maxton, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cowans, Harry

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

      Nellist, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Parry, Robert

      Dormand, Jack

      Patchett, Terry

      Dubs, Alfred

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

      Eastham, Ken

      Prescott, John

      Ellis, Raymond

      Redmond, M.

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Fatchett, Derek

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Fisher, Mark

      Rogers, Allan

      Flannery, Martin

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Foster, Derek

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Garrett, W. E.

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      George, Bruce

      Skinner, Dennis

      Godman, Dr Norman

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

      Golding, John

      Snape, Peter

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Soley, Clive

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Strang, Gavin

      Haynes, Frank

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Wareing, Robert

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Welsh, Michael

      Home Robertson, John

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Winnick, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Mr. Harold McCusker and

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

      970

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Arnold, Tom

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Ashby, David

      Key, Robert

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Baldry, Anthony

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Beith, A. J.

      Knowles, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Knox, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Lang, Ian

      Body, Richard

      Latham, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Britian, Rt Hon Leon

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Lightbown, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Lilley, Peter

      Butcher, John

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Luce, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Coombs, Simon

      MacGregor, John

      Cope, John

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Maclean, David John.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Maclennan, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Dicks, T.

      Malins, Humfrey

      Eggar, Tim

      Malone, Gerald

      Fallon, Michael

      Maples, John

      Favell, Anthony

      Marlow, Antony

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Mates, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mather, Carol

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maude, Francis

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fox, Marcus

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Freeman, Roger

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Mellor, David

      Galley, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Greenway, Harry

      Montgomery, Fergus

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

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Grylls, Michael

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Needham, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harvey, Robert

      Norris, Steven

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Hayes, J.

      Pawsey, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pollock, Alexander

      Henderson, Barry

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Powley, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hill, James

      Raffan, Keith

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hirst, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hooson, Tom

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Howard, Michael

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howells, Geraint

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Irving, Charles

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      971

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Silvester, Fred

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Sims, Roger

      Viggers, Peter

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Waddington, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wainwright, R.

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Speller, Tony

      Wallace, James

      Spence, John

      Waller, Gary

      Spencer, D.

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Watts, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Stanley, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wilson, Gordon

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Woodcock, Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Yeo, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mr. John Major.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 36, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 49, in clause 18, page 14, line 28, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
      Mr. Carlile: I shall be brief, but I hope that my brevity will not be regarded as an intention in any way to dilute the importance of the amendments. The duration of exclusion orders proposed by the Bill—a period of three years—is a considerable improvement on the present provision and my hon. Friends and I regard that as highly commendable. However, we think that three years is still a very long time.
      It would be possible to produce a catalogue, indeed a magazine, of cases in which injustice or undue hardship had occurred because of an exclusion order for a period in excess of two years. I do not propose, because I do not feel I need to, to give the House a series of hard luck stories which have arisen under the provisions of the existing and previous legislation.
      One must bear in mind that under the Bill the Home Secretary would in any event have the power to invoke a further exclusion order after the operational period of the initial or subsequent order. Accordingly, we invite the Minister of State to accept that two years is long enough.
      Mr. Waddington: Under the 1976 Act, exclusion orders remain in force indefinitely unless or until they are revoked by the Secretary of State. Lord Jellicoe saw no reason why they should not have a fixed life and accordingly recommended that henceforth they should be for a fixed term of three years, after which they would automatically expire. He also recommended that if it were considered necessary to continue a person's exclusion beyond that period it should be on the basis of a fresh application by the police, detailing recent intelligence on the person and setting out the reasons why exclusion remained necessary. Thus, a new exclusion order would have to be made by the Secretary of State if exclusion were to continue for longer than three years.
      972
      7.30 pm
      Of course, there is nothing magical about the period of three years and the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has not suggested that there is anything magical about two years. As with many of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations, however, the proposal is the outcome of a painstaking process, balancing hardship for the individual against the need to protect the safety of the public. The period must be sufficient to allow a person to mend his ways if that is his intention and for the Secretary of State to be reasonably certain that he has done so. In some cases this would involve fairly fundamental changes in the person's way of life. The period must also be sufficient for the police to decide, on the evidence of the person's activities during that period, whether involvement in terrorism had continued and whether a fresh application for a new exclusion order should be made.
      I see no advantages and some disadvantages in changing the period to two years. In some cases it may be a difficult and lengthy process for the individual to sever all links with his terrorist past. Equally, we must be mindful of the fact that the shorter the period in which the person has to appear quiescent, the greater the risk that he will resume his former activities afterwards. Lord Jellicoe considered that three years was the right period for the purpose and the Government have accepted his recommendation. I see no merit in the amendments and I ask the House to reject them.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 2, leave out
      '(whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 14.
      Mr. Waddington: I need not detain the House for long. Our object is to be consistent in the way in which the territorial ambit of each part of the Bill is defined. The amendments do not alter the effect of the provisions. When considering making exclusion orders, the Secretary of State will still be able to take into account acts of terrorism committed anywhere in the world, always provided that they are connected with Northern Irish affairs.
      In Committee I moved an amendment the effect of which was to make the acts of terrorism referred to in part III, which creates offences in relation to contributions to and information about acts of terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland, unlimited territorially. I also gave an assurance that further amendments would be introduced on Report to achieve uniformity of approach to such references, and that we have now done. If the House accepts the amendments, the position will be that only where the terrorist activity referred to is to have a territorial limitation will there be any qualifying words, as in clause 1(4) where it is intended that before there can be proscription the terrorism must be limited to the United Kingdom. Where the terrorism referred to can have been committed anywhere, there will be no qualifying words.
      The new approach embodied in the amendments was prompted by arguments put forward in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who suggested that the words in question were unnecessary and might even be misleading. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tabled an amendment

      973
      to clause 6 which is identical with the Government's amendment. I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to possible improvements in the Bill. I ask the House to accept the amendments.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have no doubt that the Government amendments are an improvement and a clarification so far as they go, but it might be wise to put down a marker at this point. It is remarkable that, with the exception of part I, the limitation of which to the affairs of Northern Ireland is ipso facto, the other parts of the Bill refer in some cases to terrorism related to Northern Ireland, but part IV relates to terrorism almost totally at large. Many of us do not believe that we have got the definition of terrorism totally at large right or that there is justification for limiting the powers in parts II and III, in so far as they are justified at all, to terrorism related only to Northern Ireland. Although if a different point of view were taken it might involve an amendment to clause 3(6), the matter might more conveniently be debated when we reach clause 12. I therefore leave the matter there, having put down that marker at this stage.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 4, line 6, leave out
      '(whether in Great Britain or elsewhere)'.— [Mr.
      Waddington.]

    Clause 5

      ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 4, line 32, leave out
      '(whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere)'.— [Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 6

      ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 5, line 16, leave out
      '(whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)'.— [Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 7

      RIGHT TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO SECRETARY OF STATE ETC.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 34, leave out from 'interview' to end of line 4 on page 7.
      The amendment removes from the Bill a most extraordinary provision. In considering this, I believe that the Committee finished rather more puzzled than when it started, and certainly far from satisfied that the Government had thought through the implications of what they appeared to be doing.
      The amendment seeks to delete the remainder of subsection (8) after the word "interview" and the whole of subsections (9) and (10). The provision up to the point of the proposed deletion contains the thoroughly intelligible arrangement that
      974
      "the person against whom the exclusion order has been made shall be granted a personal interview with the person or persons so nominated if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is reasonably practicable to grant him such an interview".
      Up to that point, the provision is at large and would cover an interview arranged by the Secretary of State in any circumstances that the Secretary of State thought reasonably practicable. However, the clause then refers to
      "an appropriate country or territory"
      and defines that in the way set out in subsection (9). For an exclusion from Great Britain, the appropriate territory is Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. For an exclusion from Northern Ireland, the appropriate territory is Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. For an exclusion altogether from the United Kingdom, the appropriate territory is the Republic of Ireland.
      That seems to us to give undue weight and significance to the Republic of Ireland in this connection. It may well be that it is mostly to the Republic of Ireland that persons excluded under any of these powers, and especially that in clause 6, will resort, but that does not seem sufficient reason to restrict the matter in that way, having given the Secretary of State power to arrange an interview where he thinks it reasonably practicable to do so. Why should it be reasonably practicable only in the Irish Republic?
      Very difficult matters of jurisdiction and relationship between neighbouring independent states are raised if United Kingdom legislation gives the Irish Republic a special position and provides that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may specify a place in the Republic. It was suggested that he might specify a place in Dublin. Perhaps I may give him a tip. If he is on that line, Dundalk might serve better. As it stands, the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to specify a place in the territory of another country in which to arrange for interviews with persons coming within the ambit of an exclusion order.
      It seems to many of us that it is an improper provision in United Kingdom legislation to make such arrangements and that, even if it were envisaged that an interview could be arranged at a British consulate or embassy, there is no reason to restrict it to the Irish Republic in this way or to put ourselves in the position of treating the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom as a type of joint jurisdiction in any place in which the Secretary of State can arrange for interviews with persons to whom exclusion orders apply.
      The Minister must give a clearer and more satisfactory answer than he gave in Committee to satisfy my right hon. and hon. Friends and me that he has made out a case for this peculiar provision.
      Mr. Proctor: In Committee an exchange occurred between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and me, in terms of custom and practice, about where he envisaged such interviews, if conducted in the Republic, would take place. After some consideration, my hon. and learned Friend said that the interviews would be in the embassy. He said:
      "I cannot…envisage circumstances in which it would be decided that it would be more convenient to hold them elsewhere." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 November 1983; c. 205.]
      Will my hon. and learned Friend go a little further than that and say that any such interview, conducted in the Republic, will be only at our embassy in Dublin?
      Mr. Waddington: I do not want to spend too long reminding the House of the effect of clause 7, but it is an improvement on the earlier legislation. It increases the right of a person to make representations.
      The effect of the amendment would be that a person, having consented to removal and having made representations within the requisite period, would be granted an interview only if it appeared reasonably practicable to the Secretary of State to grant it, and the clause will be silent as to when the interview might be held. That certainly does not reflect Lord Jellicoe's intention. In recommending,
      "The right to an interview should apply to all persons excluded— whether from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole—provided that they have been removed within the United Kingdom or to the Republic of Ireland",
      Lord Jellicoe, at paragraph 195, said that
      "it would be clearly unreasonable for the Adviser to have to travel further than this to conduct an interview."
      Objection has been raised to the fact that clause 7 provides specifically for interviews in the Republic of Ireland. It has been argued that if provision is to be made for interviews outside the United Kingdom, the facility should not be limited to one specified country. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right. I do not believe that one can elevate this to a matter of principle. The fact is that people excluded because of their involvement in terrorism connected with Northern Ireland affairs are almost invariably removed to Northern Ireland, Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland, which is what we would expect.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister quoted Lord Jellicoe as referring to cases where the removal was specifically to the Republic of Ireland and he recommended this provision in that context. It does not appear that there is any such limitation in the Bill, as drafted, which simply takes the Republic of Ireland as the only place outside the United Kingdom where such interviews can be arranged. I accept the Minister's point that the words "within a reasonable period" to the end of the subsection do not form part of my argument and ought reasonably to remain part of the subsection.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Waddington: I am looking at the heavy type in page 76, paragraph 195, wherein Lord Jellicoe states:
      "The right to an interview should apply to all persons excluded—whether from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole—provided that they have been removed within the United Kingdom or to the Republic of Ireland".
      It seems clear that Lord Jellicoe intended that a interview should take place in a part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that he was not envisaging the circumstance in which a person was removed to the Republic of Ireland and then decided of his own volition to go on to Australia. It would be an extraordinary use of public money in those circumstances to say that the man who had been removed to the Republic of Ireland should be entitled to have an interview, even if he went to Australia.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not believe that the Minister has quite taken my point. He has made it clear that the Jellicoe recommendation is not implemented by the clause as it stands, because the clause does not refer only to persons who have been removed to the Republic of
      976
      Ireland. Lord Jellicoe refers to persons removed to the Republic of Ireland or from one part of the United Kingdom to another. There is no such limitation, so far as I can understand it, in the clause as it stands. The clause seems to refer to exclusion orders under clause 6 applying to anywhere outside the United Kingdom, not only to the Republic of Ireland. Even in those cases where there has been a removal under clause 6—not to the Republic of Ireland — an interview can be arranged only in the Republic of Ireland, if I have construed the clause correctly. Does the Minister agree that the clause does not in its present form conform with Lord Jellicoe's recommendation and needs reconsideration in the light of the apparent discrepancy between the Jellicoe report and the natural construction of the clause?
      Mr. Waddington: I must confess that I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument somewhat difficult to follow, but any argument advanced by him is worth considering, and I promise to do so.
      Perhaps we are all falling into the trap which time and again we envisaged in Committee. We tend often to talk about people being removed to the Republic of Ireland, but we are talking about people removed from the United Kingdom. I understand that Lord Jellicoe was talking about the circumstance in which a person was removed from the United Kingdom and finished up somewhere else in the world. Lord Jellicoe said that in those circumstances it was not reasonable to expect interviews to be held anywhere other than in the Republic of Ireland if the person concerned had been removed from the United Kingdom.
      In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), I cannot go further than I did before. I stated plainly in Committee that the chances were that the interview would be in the obviously convenient place, which is the British embassy. I do not see why we should be expected to tie our hands in that regard. One can imagine circumstances in which it might be convenient to hold the interviews elsewhere.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 19, leave out 'notify' and insert
      'give notice in writing to'.
      The Government tabled the amendment to fulfil a commitment made in Committee when we accepted in principle the spirit of an Opposition amendment, the effect of which would have been identical to that of amendment No. 19. Indeed, it was only for drafting reasons that the amendment was not accepted in Committee.
      Amendment No. 19 enshrines in the Bill what has always been the practice. Excluded persons who make representations against their exclusion are notified in writing of the Secretary of State's decision on their representations. That is generally done by an official, acting for and on behalf of the Secretary of State, and the notification is sent either directly to the excluded person or, if his representations have been made through a legal representative, through that representative.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9

      OFFENCES UNDER PART II
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 40, leave out from 'above' to 'he' in line 42.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27 to 30.
      Mr. Waddington: These are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 23 is designed to eliminate unnecessary repetition and amendments Nos. 27 to 30 are designed to remove possible ambiguity in the drafting. They do not alter the effect of the clause.
      The need for an improvement in the wording of clause 9(2) was drawn to our attention in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and, although the method of making that improvement has been more complex than he or we envisaged at the time, we are, as always, grateful to him for his contribution to the clarity and certainty of the legislation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 3, after 'the' insert 'presence in or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 25, in page 8, line 3, leave out from 'Britain' to 'of in line 4 and insert 'or Northern Ireland'.
      No. 26, in page 8, line 4, leave out from 'of' to 'he' in line 10 and insert
      'any other person in contravention of an exclusion order'.
      Mr. Powell: I hope that the amendments will enable me to earn another golden opinion from the Minister or his advisers. The difficulty that subsection (2) presents at first sight is the difference between
      "knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry"
      and
      "in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom knowingly harbours".
      It does not seem obvious that harbouring covers knowingly being concerned in
      "arrangements for securing or facilitating"
      the presence of a person in Great Britain. In other words, if a person is in Great Britain, the only offence is harbouring him. If a person is not in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, the offence is knowingly being concerned in
      "arrangements for securing or facilitating"
      his entry.
      If the term "harbours" includes making
      "arrangements for securing or facilitating"
      a person's remaining in the countries concerned, there is not the lack of symmetry between the two paragraphs that there appears to be. However, that does not seem to be the natural meaning of "harbours".
      The amendments would provide that
      "knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating"
      referred both to entry and to remaining or being in the country concerned. The opportunity has also been taken to substitute "the United Kindom" for
      "Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom".
      It is an apparent paradox to separate by the disjunctive "or" the parts of the United Kingdom from the United Kingdom itself.
      978
      If the Minister says, "Aha, but what I have in mind is a foreigner roaming around in the United Kingdom and this is to catch him as he is passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland," I suggest that he will need a much more elaborate qualification of the terms of subsection (2) to secure that effect.
      I hope that I have succeeded in making clear to the Minister the difficulty that prompted my hon. Friends and myself to table the amendments and that he will refer to the paradox involving
      "Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom".
      Mr. Waddington: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but, just as there were no orchids for Miss Blandish, there are, on this occasion, no accolades for Mr. Powell. I cannot accept his advice.
      Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 would replace the offence of harbouring a person subject to an exclusion order with a new offence of being
      "knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating"
      the presence of an excluded person in the part of the country from which he has been excluded by order.
      The effect would be possibly to widen, and certainly to blur, the scope of the offence. "Harbouring" is a well-established word which has been interpreted by the courts on many occasions. Everybody knows that it means giving shelter to a person in one way or another. "Facilitating the presence" of a person does not have a comparably clear meaning. Presumably it would encompass the provision of shelter. I do not know whether it would include finding the man a job. It might; it might not. It is certainly not a concept known to English law and we should be rash to throw overboard the well-known offence of harbouring, and substitute for it a new offence of knowingly being
      "concerned with arrangements for securing or facilitating" the presence of an excluded person.
      Amendment No. 25 would remove the reference to the United Kingdom for subsection (2)(a), presumably on the ground that the references to entry to Northern Ireland or Great Britain are sufficient. I accept that argument in principle, but the three references reflect the three types of exclusion order in part II of the Bill — from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. I think that to remove one of them would detract from the clarity of the clause.
      The Government amendments that we have made to clause 9 are designed to clarify the references to areas and territories from which persons are excluded in relation to those in which the offences are committed. We undertook to examine what the right hon. Member for Down, South said in Committee about the possible ambiguity to which the word "there" gives rise in clause 9(2) and we have done so in amendments that the House has already approved. We met the right hon. Gentleman's point in a different form from that which he proposed.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No, 27, in page 8, line 4, after 'of, insert
      'a person whom he knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, to be an excluded person'.
      No. 28, in page 8, line 6, at end insert 'such a person'.
      No. 29, in page 8, line 7, leave out from beginning to `he' in line 10.
      No. 30, in page 8, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2A) In subsection (2) above "excluded person" means—'.

      979

      (a) in relation to Great Britain, a person subject to an exclusion order made under section 4 above who has been, or has become liable to be, removed from Great Britain under section 8 above;

      (b) in relation to Northern Ireland, a person subject to an exclusion order made under section 5 above who has been, or has become liable to be, removed from Northern Ireland under section 8 above; and

      (c) in relation to the United Kingdom, a person subject to an exclusion order made inder section 6 above who has been, or has become liable to be, removed from the United Kingdom under section 8 above.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 10

      CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS ACTS OF TERRORISM
      8 pm
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 9, line 11, at end insert—
      '(6) In this section "property" includes—

      (a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, both real and personal property; and

      (b) in Scotland, both heritable and moveable property.'.

      This amendment is designed to clarify the meaning of "property" as it is used in clause 10, under which it is an offence to solicit, invite, receive, accept or make available "any money or other property" as a contribution towards acts of terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs.
      The intention has always been that property should include all types of possessions, including land or buildings, cars, domestic goods and personal belongings, and the amendment is designed to make this clear. It has been prepared following a judgment in an unreported Northern Ireland case, in which the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland took the view that "property" did not necessarily include a house. The amendment is introduced for the avoidance of doubt in the future.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12

      POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 10, line 3, leave out 'A' and insert
      'Subject to subsection (1A) below, a'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 36.
      Mr. Brittan: This amendment is designed to clarify the grounds for arrest contained in clause 12(1)(c), which provides that a person who is reasonably suspected of being subject to an exclusion order may be arrested and detained. This provision is intended to cover the case of a person who is in the country or territory from which he is excluded, and who is thus in breach of the order. We have taken this opportunity to make it clear that the power in clause 12(1)(c) may not be used against a person merely because he is the subject of an exclusion order but only when he is suspected of having breached that order.
      We have no reason to think that the similar power of arrest in the 1976 Act has ever been used in the way which this amendment will ensure is not available under the Bill. In practice the great majority of arrests under clause 12 take place under 12(1)(b), on the ground that the person concerned is suspected of involvement in terrorism.
      980
      Nevertheless, we felt that this point should be clarified. I hope that the House will show that it agrees with that judgment by accepting the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 10, line 7, after 'concerned', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 35, in page 10, leave out line 9 and insert
      '(wherever committed or to be committed)'.
      No. 37, in page 10, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
      Mr. Powell: Amendment No. 34 introduces a very large problem attaching to the Bill, on which the Standing Committee spent a considerable time. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members who have not devoted much attention to this Bill to realise that part IV—the powers of arrest and detention and powers at ports — is not concerned with the same definition of terrorism as is the rest of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is concerned with terrorism in respect of the affairs of Northern Ireland.
      Part IV is concerned with terrorism at large, and that raises two questions for my hon. Friends and myself. First, whether or not the anti-terrorist legislation includes the objectionable exclusion powers which unfortunately are still to stand part of the Bill—notably the power of exclusion under clause 6. What is the justification in 1984 for restricting those powers to terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland when we are vulnerable in London and other parts of the United Kingdom to terrorism of a wider kind, purport and ambit? An obsolete approach has been retained in the Bill, which bears the marks of its origins in 1974, in that all portions of it except part IV are related exclusively to terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland. We would therefore have wished to have had an opportunity which has not been available in the course of this consideration of the Bill to seek to widen the definition of terrorism for the purposes of parts II and III.
      That brings me to the other problem, which resulted in long debates in Committee. What is to be the definition of terrorism, other than terrorism connected with Northern Ireland? There is only one restriction upon the meaning of terrorism in clause 12 as it stands, and that is the provision in subsection 2(b) which excludes terrorism concerned with the affairs of
      "any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland."
      Presumably that means Scottish, Welsh or—for aught I know—English nationalist terrorists or the like. That is not a satisfactory definition, or lack of definition, of terrorism. That became clear when we considered it in Committee. A terrorist act committed in some other part of the world in a cause with which the United Kingdom as such is not concerned is still terrorism within the definition clause of the Bill. Hence there is the possibility that a person living peaceably in this country who nevertheless had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism elsewhere in the world which in no way involved the interests of the United Kingdom would be brought within the powers of part IV of the Bill.
      There were long debates on this matter in Committee, as the Home Secretary will know, and I think that at the end of them the Committee was very uneasy about the

      981
      form of the clause as it stood. It might only be a theoretical possibility that the power would be used against a person who was a terrorist against some atrocious regime in some other part of the world, but that person would be covered by clause 12.
      The clue to the optimum definition of terrorism for the purposes of part IV—and indeed, my hon. Friends and I would argue, for the purposes of parts II and III of the Bill—is to be found in the wording of clause 3(6), which defines acts of terrorism for part II of the Bill as
      "acts of terrorism…designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland."
      I suggest that the essence of that terrorism against which we seek to legislate is that it is directed to influencing policy and opinion in the United Kingdom. That is recognised by the Government in their drafting of clause 3(6), where terrorism designed to influence policy and opinion in respect of Northern Ireland is designated as the terrorism aimed at by the provisions of part II.
      If we are to legislate in part IV in the same sense and spirit, which I believe is the logical one, we ought to use that definition in part IV and apply part IV to terrorism, with whatever it is concerned, that is designed to influence the opinion and policy of the United Kingdom. This would deal with what, obviously, we would wish to deal with in the 1980s—terrorist offences in the United Kingdom or anywhere else—of which the object is to enforce upon this country a policy or an opinion which otherwise it would not entertain. The essence of the terrorism which we seek to bring within the Bill is terrorism aimed at the public opinion or the Government policy of this country.
      The Secretary of State is entitled to remark that what I have just said in moving this amendment is distinctly wide of the amendment. I both apologise and offer my explanation, which is that the attempt to restrict terrorism in clause 12 by restricting it to acts committed in the United Kingdom does not appear to meet the case with which the Committee was attempting to cope in its discussions on clause 12. It is in clause 3(6), as my hon. Friends would have sought to amend it if we had had the opportunity, that the correct model is to be found for the definition of terrorism for the purposes of part IV.
      Therefore, I hope that I may be taken to have moved this amendment as a means to open up the debate on the definition of terrorism in part IV. It remains only to mention the extraordinary exclusion in subsection (2)(b) which seeks to exclude United Kingdom terrorism other than United Kingdom terrorism concerned with Northern Ireland. Why on earth, when terrorist acts are being committed, for example, in Wales with a view to influencing public opinion and Government policy and why, when we know that there is a link between terrorism in Wales and terrorism in Northern Ireland, we should go to this length to prevent the powers in part IV being used against persons, whether they belong to the Angry Brigade, the Scottish National Liberation Army or whoever they may be, who could present an equal threat to security in some part of the United Kingdom I must admit passes my comprehension, and evidently passed the comprehension of the Committee when it considered this clause.
      The proposition that I am putting to the Home Secretary and the Government is that they should take a new look at the problem of the definition of terrorism for the
      982
      purposes of part IV. If we are to have these extended powers of arrest and detention which, when internal exile has gone, will be virtually the only remaining effective part of the Bill, we should have a definition that will stand up to examination and the prospective changes of the coming years. The present definition does not do that. It is too wide in one respect, in that it covers terrorism in other parts of the world not directed to influencing opinion or policy in the United Kingdom. In another respect, it is too narrow in that it excludes terrorism inside the United Kingdom for purposes other than those connected with Northern Ireland.
      That is not a sufficient foundation for the serious powers of arrest and detention with which this part of the Bill arms the Government. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary, when he comes to the debate, to deal with the problem in the widest ambit and to accept as contributions to the debate the amendments both to clause 3(6) and to clause 12(1) and (2) which have been tabled by my hon. Friends and myself.
      Mr. Proctor: I am placed in a little difficulty by the group of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I agree with half the purpose and aim of these amendments but not with the other half. I support my right hon. Friend's comments about domestic terrorism. In Committee I moved an amendment to try to include domestic terrorism within the scope of clause 12 and my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) were good enough to support that amendment on a Division.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers said that as Lord Jellicoe had advised against it we should not proceed down that road at the moment, but should wait on events. I call that posture waiting for the horse to bolt before shutting the stable door. If we were legislating at the Government's behest to widen the scope of the Act and the reference to Northern Ireland terrorism, there would not be any logic or reason in not including domestic terrorism. I shall not weary the House with a list of recent domestic terrorist activities. The list is there for those hon. Members who wish to look at the report of the Committee, and it is a long list of domestic terrorism not related to Northern Ireland perpetrated throughout the United Kingdom.
      Although it was not a violent or terrorist attack, but a criminal one, there has been an attack in the past few days on the home of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. This was a disgraceful attack by an organisation which, in other guises, has sent letter bombs through the post and perpetrated terrorist activity.
      8.15 pm
      Ms Clare Short: I assume that the reference to an attack on the Under-Secretary's home is the attack by the Animal Liberation Front. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to extend the law to deal with such activity, as that attack was a criminal offence and there is therefore no need to extend the laws to cope with such people.
      Mr. Proctor: I accept what the hon. Lady says about that event. I was merely noting that the organisation has in recent years perpetrated terrorist-style activities which bring other organisations, particularly the IRA, which

      983
      perpetrate the same type of offence within the remit of clause 12, remembering that clause 12 is not creating any new offences, but is taking powers of arrest and detention. If we are saying that those powers should be widened to include international terrorists in certain circumstances—my right hon. Friend the the Government have supported that suggestion by Lord Jellicoe—it is an anomaly that we are not extending these powers of arrest and detention to domestic-style organisations.
      Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend accept that the members of the organisations about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) spoke have been prosecuted on two separate occasions and are serving terms in prison, which is a demonstration of how such things can be dealt with effectively by the courts?
      Mr. Proctor: I agree, and I am questioning, not the power of the courts, but the power of the police to bring these people before the courts. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which has helped me to make clear the distinction between the two.
      My reservations on the amendment concern the extent to which it relates to international terrorism. It is my view that, just as terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and Wales have their links and are related, so, too, are international terrorist organisations linked and related. I believe, for example, that the IRA has links with the PLO. My right hon. Friend thinks it important to cover links between the IRA and Welsh and Scottish domestic terrorism, but it should also be remembered that international terrorist organisations such as the PLO have links with the IRA. Democracies can no longer remain isolated in their activities to counter international terrorists.
      In paragraph 78 of his report Lord Jellicoe said:
      "Prompt, firm and effective action by the police and other agencies has already helped to demonstrate that the United Kingdom is not a haven in which international terrorists can operate with impunity. My recommendation here would, if implemented, help to re-inforce that message."
      He used the phrase "a haven", and just before Christmas, President Reagan, in a speech on terrorism on 22 December, said:
      "For terrorists to be curbed, civilian countries must begin a new effort to work together, to share intelligence, to improve our training and security, and our forces to deny havens or legal protection for terrorist groups".
      Mr. Flannery: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, both in Committee and now. He has given the opinion of President Reagan. The CIA, which to some extent comes under the authority of President Reagan, has made about 200 attempts on the life of Fidel Castro during various presidencies. Does the hon. Gentleman regard the CIA and, implicitly, President Reagan—because he commands that organisation—as terrorists? Will he also take account of the fact that Yasser Arafat, the leader of the PLO despite all its difficulties, is accepted by the vast majority of members of the United Nations? Indeed, when he spoke there, he received a standing ovation.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: When was that?
      Mr. Flannery: I am appalled at the ignorance of hon. Members who do not know—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Proctor: I do not know whether your stricture applies to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I might be allowed to reply briefly. I have no information about or direct knowledge of the CIA. However, if Yasser Arafat received a standing ovation at the United Nations, that says more about the United Nations and the sort of representatives prepared to support the PLO's terrorist links than it does about Yasser Arafat.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South seemed to suggest that this was not the appropriate legislation to deal with the growing phenomenon of international terrorism towards the democracies. If so, I agree.
      I supported the Bill on Second Reading with great enthusiasm because it started to begin to deal with the problem of international terrorism, but I am now beginning to think that it was an error to mix terrorism of an internal and domestic nature with terrorism operating in different countries for different reasons, with each organisation having links with the other.
      Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider whether we need to do more, in negotiations with our allies and Western countries, to see what can be done to confront international terrorism.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South spoke of the difficulties of definition. That problem also beset the Committee. A number of international conventions on terrorism exist, and perhaps they could be used as the basis of United Kingdom legislation to combat international terrorism. For example, the police should be given powers, if they do not already have them, to deal with conventions such as the convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft, which was signed at the Hague on 16 December 1970, and the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, which was signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971. Other conventions deal with attacks against the life, physical integrity or liberty of an internationally protected person, including diplomats
      Some imagination may be required in our efforts to tackle international terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South has provided another opportunity to debate clause 12, I should be grateful if the Home Secretary's views would go wider than the direct issues raised by the amendments.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I rise briefly to press the Home Secretary on the major substance of the applicability of the clause and the amendments to organisations which, while committing no acts of violence or no offences against persons within Britain or the United Kingdom, could none the less he regarded as organisations involved in terrorism elsewhere in the world. I have a major interest in this matter, as 15 or 20 organisations which might conceivably be affected by the clause are based in my constituency.
      There are major reasons why those organisations have cause to fear the implications of the clause as it stands, and I press the Home Secretary to make crystal clear the Government's view—and, therefore, by implication, the view that Parliament will adopt—of which organisations will be affected by clause 12, particularly subsection (2)(b).
      Two difficulties were revealed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The first is the difficulty of defining terrorism in an international context. Earlier exchanges revealed a difference of view about the

      985
      role of the CIA and whether that was a terrorist organisation. It has clearly been involved in violent acts against legitimate Governments. Would that be covered by the definition of terrorism?
      Ms. Harman: Is not President Reagan directly involved in supporting and instigating acts of terrorism in central America, particularly Nicaragua? Therefore, if he came here after the Bill was enacted in its present form, would he not be in danger of falling foul of this law? Even though the Government might choose not to use their discretion to call him to book, could that not happen under the law? It shows that this is a highly contentious political point.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is wide of the amendment.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Smith: At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall agree with my hon. Friend, but I want to make a further point that may concern Conservative Members and their supporters somewhat more. Would the Free French during the second world war, for example, have counted as a terrorist organisation? According to the Bill, clearly it would. We must ask the Home Secretary to clarify the precise meaning of the clause and the amendments that we are debating. Therefore, the first problem involves the precise definition of international terrorism.
      The second difficulty concerns the ambiguity of clause 12(2)(b) and whether its provisions are restricted to Northern Ireland or are more widely spread. The clause is extremely ambiguous. I hope that the Home Secretary will make the Government's view clear.
      Ms. Clare Short: The problem that many Conservative Members have in understanding the argument is that they think they can take the law and act against groups that they do not like. Of course, the Government would not act against President Reagan under the clause, but, if we applied the law consistently, they should act against him. That shows what a ludicrous power it is. Similarly, General de Gaulle would have been guilty, according to this provision.
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birminghan, Selly Oak): Nonsense.
      Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has not read the details of the Bill if he says "Nonsense". Surely, the answer is that we should take powers to deal not with terrorism, but with violence and the illegal actions of anyone at any time. Then we should not have all the problems of definition. We could apply the law consistently and live under the rule of law. We are presented with a fundamental flaw in the whole concept of the Bill.
      Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend, but perhaps I can add something that may give Conservative Members pause for thought. The contributions of Conservative Members, the interventions from the Opposition Benches, and the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South in moving the amendment reveal that there is a major difficulty in this part of the Bill—and in this clause in particular — involving the definition of
      986
      terrorism and what constitutes terrorism, as defined in the clause. Wide powers are given to the police, so the Government should make very clear what counts as terrorism under the clause.
      I am sure that the Home Secretary did not intend that groups which are involved in what we would all agree were liberation struggles against oppression elsewhere in the world should, under this legislation, be labelled as terrorist organisations and therefore should be included. If that is so, I hope that he will make it very clear when he replies to the debate. I hope that he will specify exactly how the clause will apply internationally, as opposed to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Ashby: This clause has given me great cause for concern. The amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to clause 12(1)(b) is in conflict with clause 12(2)(b). So there will be some difficulty in accepting that amendment.
      However, the clause contains something that is quite extraordinary in our law. It allows arrest, without charging. It allows a constable to arrest someone who he thinks
      "has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies",
      but where it allows for arrest for acts of terrorism for offences outside the United Kingdom, there is no way in which anyone can be charged with that offence.
      For example, if someone from Afghanistan is over here, planning an act of what could be called terrorism in Afghanistan, planning to shoot down a Russian helicopter, that person can be arrested because the act could be considered an act of terrorism. However, he cannot be charged in this country, because the offence is not committed in this country. Nor can the offence be brought before the courts of this country. The only offences that can be brought before the courts in this country are acts of murder of British subjects abroad or acts of piracy against a British ship on the high seas. So there are grave limitations in the offences that can be brought before courts in this country. Acts such as the one I have described could not be brought before our courts, although it is clear from the clause that such a person can be charged.
      Mr. Proctor: If my hon. Friend looks at the legislation he will find that a person can be charged in this country with the murder of anyone abroad. He does not have to be British.
      Mr. Ashby: Yes, but only murder.
      Mr. Proctor: He does not have to be British.
      Mr. Ashby: No. However, there are those limitations, and any act that could be termed an act of terrorism abroad could not be charged in this country. So the clause contains a very unusual power, and I wonder whether it was always intended that courts should have this power. Someone can be arrested, perhaps interrogated and held up to five days, but then that person must either be allowed to go or be deported. That would be the only effect of the clause. I am not sure that hon. Members appreciate those limitations.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) would like this clause to be extended to domestic terrorism. I disagree. There is no doubt that domestic terrorism is amply covered by the substantive offences in

      987
      this country of criminal damage, murder, injury to persons, wounding and any one of a catalogue of substantive offences. We do not need more offences to be created. They are all there and available to the courts. I can find nothing in the clause that gives the police any more power of investigation, so I see no way in which this legislation could assist in offences that are described as offences of domestic terrorism.
      Mr. Proctor: Clause 12 does not create any extra offences.
      Mr. Ashby: Clause 12 does not create any more offences, but it provides powers of arrest for offences within the Bill, and my hon. Friend was trying to argue that the offences should be extended to domestic terrorism. It would be quite wrong so to extend them. There is ample opportunity to deal with wrongdoers in existing legislation.
      The effect of the clause is disturbing and arbitrary. It allows for a constable to arrest, and within the definition of terrorism, which is revolt, one can conceive of a head of state—I do not want specifically to mention the President of the United States or the president of any other state—or someone of some importance coming to this country and being arrested by a police constable. There is no provision for reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, for example, before such an arrest is put into effect. The clause provides an arbitrary power of arrest for offences which are the concern of countries abroad and not our concern.
      Why do we spend so much time in Committee and on the Floor of the House discussing an issue which is not our concern? We have sufficient problems within our own boundaries and I am surprised that we want to concern ourselves with problems abroad.
      Mr. Flannery: The fears of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) are commendable but the answer to his question—he said that he did not understand why we were having this discussion—is that the debate is taking place because the relevant provisions are in the Bill. That is why the discussion is taking place. We did not put the provisions in the Bill, and we want to be rid of the Bill altogether. The entire Bill is a nuisance and it is causing far more trouble than it can possibly be worth. It is now outdated, if it was ever in date.
      We have all commended Lord Jellicoe's report, but in this instance he has slipped up badly. At page 27, paragraph 76 of his great report, Lord Jellicoe states:
      "I discussed in Part I the increasing threat in Great Britain from terrorism totally unconnected with Northern Ireland."
      It is in the mind of everyone that the prevention of terrorism legislation is connected with Northern Ireland and with the United Kingdom as it is connected with Northern Ireland. There is a tendency sometimes for people to think that Northern Ireland is not connected with the United Kingdom, but I am sure that it is in the mind of everyone that the entire Act is connected with Northern Ireland in some way. However, it was bound to be broadened. In amendment No. 38, we sought to remove one of the most dangerous clauses but, unfortunately, the amendment was not selected. However, as a result of the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), we now have the right to discuss that amendment.
      988
      8.45 pm
      It was the actions of some of the middle eastern terrorists in London that made Lord Jellicoe have what many of us considered to be unfound fears. He stated in his report:
      "Many fear that London, in particular, could become a battle ground for warring Middle East terrorist factions; my own view is that we may be facing this threat for many years to come. To date, most of the victims of such outrages have been foreign nationals resident in Great Britain, rather than United Kingdom citizens. There is, however, no good reason to believe that this state of affairs will continue".
      Lord Jellicoe continued:
      "My concluson, in relation to international terrorism, is that these powers should be available."
      They are available, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicestershire. North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Therefore, there is no need for the extension of those powers in the Bill. Lord Jellicoe has introduced a factor that has resulted in the Government extending the powers by placing them in the Bill. That in turn resulted in the longest and most intense discussion in Committee.
      We were pressurised democratically and honourably by many organisations which fear for their nationals in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the Free French as an example. There are many people in Britain who come from countries where there is no democracy. South Africa is one example. Regimes exist which terrorise the populations that are under them and no democracy exists within them. There are valiant people who have no democratic outlet and who see their people being dragged into gaols throughout the country, as in South Africa, and tortured. They see surrounding countries being attacked, and these noble people fight. They are then accused of being terrorists. At some stage they have come to our country, where they have behaved themselves according to our laws.
      Mr. Proctor rose—
      Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had a fair crack of the whip and it is time for one or two Labour Members to explain their beliefs.
      These so-called terrorists. who come from countries which are held down by tyrannical and undemocratic regimes, are almost always the future statesmen and leaders of their people. They have come to our country from time immemorial. They are distinguished human beings who have struggled valiantly and at great risk to their own lives.
      Mr. Proctor: They are murderers.
      Mr. Flannery: The clause is dangerous because it will have an impact on these people. If they stay in our country and observe its laws, we believe that they should have the right to do what they do.
      Mr. Proctor: They are killers.
      Mr. Flannery: The real terrorists, who will be helped by the Bill, are the tyrants and regimes which suppress democracy. That is why we have received so many documents from those who are fearful of the consequences.
      What are the implications? Many of these so-called terrorists are accepted by the United Nations, for which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) and many of his

      989
      colleagues have such contempt, and the comity of nations throughout the world, but they could be prevented from coming to our country by the Bill. That is one of the factors that has motivated us to struggle so intensively.
      I shall mention some of the valiant people who have come to our country in the fairly recent past. Robert Mugabe was here legitimately and he met our leading people. Some of us met him previously when he was struggling for his people against the regime of Ian Smith.
      Mr. Proctor: He is a killer too.
      Ms. Harman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Flannery: I shall deal with the hon. Member for Billericay as best I can. We all know his background and what he supports. Our Queen recently visited the monument to Jomo Kenyatta, who died some time ago, when she visited his country. He lived peaceably in Britain for many years.
      He became the leader of his country, but before that he fought in and led a resistance movement. Our press was full of it and called him every name under the sun. He was known as "Burning Spear Kenyatta". Now, members of the Government and our Sovereign have been to that country and to the memorial to Kenyatta. He was the hero and leader of his people.
      In Mozambique, Samora Machel led his people and was called a terrorist. He would not be accepted here. Arafat would not be accepted here either. Many people could be cited. For example, Mr. Begin was a terrorist and his group was involved in the bombing of the King David hotel. People like the present Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Shamir, are accepted throughout the world, yet were terrorists in their time. They fought against regimes that appalled them and used the methods of terrorism.
      In Committee, I mentioned that I was in India and that we had to guard people such as Nehru and Ghandi. Of course they were not terrorists, but wherever they went they were surrounded by thousands of people. Terrorism is endemic in such situations. In the same way, Jesus Christ was once surrounded by thousands of people and the regime of the time dealt with him in exactly the same way. Such serious points must be taken into account.
      Lord Jellicoe cannot produce any evidence for his recommendation. He has ample powers already. There is a serious lapse in this terrible Bill. However, it is typical of it, and that is why we must struggle against these provisions in particular. They will have an awful effect on innocent people, just as the whole Bill will.
      Mr. Soley: In Committee, the Opposition tried to amend the clause, because we recognised that it was dangerous and basically undesirable. We saw that it would lead to all sorts of danger to groups that are legitimately in this country. To be fair, the Government and the Home Secretary recognise that. There was an exchange of letters between various organisations and the Foreign Secretary, and an Opposition spokesman was also involved. Thus, there was considerable concern and support for the idea of some change.
      However, at the end of the day the Government were unable to find a form of words with which they felt happy. To deal with that problem, we tabled an amendment, which has not been selected, for the understandable
      990
      reasons that were dealt with earlier, but which would have restricted the Act of terrorism connected with Northern Ireland. Instead, we are debating other amendments related to that. I shall direct my remarks primarily to the problem that has arisen because of the way in which the clause has been drafted.
      The clause has given rise to great anxiety both at home and abroad to those groups fighting for the liberation of their countries and restoration of democracy precisely because there is no universally acceptable definition of political terror. Ultimately, people make political judgments as to whether it is right to use force in certain circumstances and in particular political systems. That is the problem that we all face.
      The Government tried to find a form of words that would reassure some of the groups in exile. I think particularly of the groups operating in south west Africa, Iran, Chile and so on. We recognise that where a country has no democracy, or has lost it, people have a right to try to gain or restore it. Indeed, the Government also accept that. Some Conservative Members have been quick to heckle my hon. Friends. However, I can do no better than to quote someone whom I would not normally quote in support of my argument. I refer to the Prime Minister, whom I quoted in Committee. I said:
      "The Prime Minister has expressed her understanding of a decision of the liberation movements to resort to violence. She wrote in September 1983: 'The exclusion of blacks from the political process has inevitably led to increasing dissatisfaction. Although not to be condoned, this has been a powerful factor in impelling black political leaders to seek by violence what is denied them by the laws under which they live'."— [Official Report, Standing Committee, 29 November 1983; c. 271.]
      Of course, we all recognise that members of this and previous Governments have met and dealt with a variety of such groups and individuals, and it is important that they should continue to have the power to do so.
      The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) mentioned Afghanistan. In a way, that is a good example, not because it necessarily supports my case, but because it underlines the difficulty of identifying what we mean by political terror. In Committee, I put the following question to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), and he could not deal with it. I asked him about the position of Afghan groups operating from Pakistan and receiving support from Britain. I pointed out to him that in the House the Secretary of State for Defence had said that he was not prepared to state that he was not giving direct military support to the Afghan forces fighting in Afghanistan.
      The problem is that any direct military support that is being given is being given to fight the Soviet Union. I profoundly disagree with the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. However, it is not just a matter of arresting the President of the United States under this provision. If it were taken to its logical conclusion, we would end up arresting the Secretary of State for Defence. Nothing could be more absurd or illogical than that. Ultimately, one has to decide which side to support. That difficulty must be recognised honourably. Indeed, the Home Secretary has recognised that in a way, but some Conservative Back Benchers have not.
      Mr. Proctor: If the hon. Gentleman would care to look at column 315 of the Official Report of our Committee proceedings for 1 December 1983, he would see my response to the point about Afghanistan. However, I shall

      991
      not weary the House with that now. By being selective, the hon. Gentleman has misled the House about the views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have quoted her views before, and shall repeat what she said on 21 July to the British Jewish community. She said:
      "The terrorists of our own age talk in military terms. But their deeds are those of common criminals. Many specialise in the safe, long-distance attack: the letter bomb, the remote control device, the bullet from a secret haven. … Gangs of assassins cannot be dignified with the word 'armies'. Terrorists are not 'freedom fighters' … For modern terrorism is an international disease. Terrorists are trained in one country to bomb and murder in another. They rely on international trafficking in arms. The answer to this assault across the frontiers is closer and closer cooperation between governments—the sharing among likeminded countries of information, plans and techniques—and to that the British Government is strongly committed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee, 29 November 1983; c. 280.]
      I wish that the hon. Gentleman would quote the Prime Minister fully and correctly when it comes to terrorism.
      Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has underlined the difficulty. He has not claimed that the Prime Minister did not say that. Indeed, we all know that she said it. The Prime Minister has the same problem as the Home Secretary, the hon. Gentleman and me. On each issue one has to decide. On one occasion the right hon. Lady chose to call such people terrorists and to say that they were unacceptable, and on another she said that they were acceptable. That is precisely what she said.
      The hon. Gentleman is not denying that the quotation I read was true. It is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. I am not trying to say that she is wicked. The problem is that if one has to make a decision on each case, one gets into great trouble. Therefore, in trying to legislate across the board, one ends up taking out friends as well as enemies.
      9 pm
      The Government have attempted to get round the problem by saying that they will issue a circular to the relevant port and police authorities stating that the power of arrest or detention should not be used. That is suggested as an alternative.
      We all recognise that Lord Jellicoe—and just about everybody else—has said that legislation by circular is undesirable and bad in its own right. If the appropriate wording cannot be found, the best course is to recognise the fundamental truth, which underneath we all know, that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 is on the statute book for one reason and one reason only—a persistent threat of paramilitary activity related to the situation in Northern Ireland which has not been resolved. Nobody has yet argued, nor can I consider such an argument, that the Bill should be enacted but for terrorism connected with Northern Ireland. No one could argue, therefore, that clause 12 should be enacted. It should not be there, and we all know it.
      I return to Lord Jellicoe's review, and I ask the indulgence of the House to re-quote what has already been quoted, not just for the sake of repetition, but because there are several points that I consider to be particularly important. In paragraph 76 he says:
      "I discussed … the increasing threat in Great Britain from terrorism totally unconnected with Northern Ireland."
      He continues:
      "Many fear that London, in particular, could become a battleground for warring Middle East terrorist factions; my own view is that we may be facing this threat for many years to come.
      992
      To date, most of the victims of such outrages have been foreign nationals resident in Great Britain, rather than United Kingdom citizens."
      That is a dangerous approach to the problem. First, Lord Jellicoe is suggesting doing something that none of us accept ought to be done—legislating for something that could happen. The essential word in that quotation is "could", and he uses it specifically: he fears that it might happen. We are now doing what we should never do. We are saying that we have identified the problem — terrorism related to Northern Ireland—and it might now come from somewhere else too, the middle east, so let us legislate for that. It might come from central America, south east Asia, Africa, north America—anywhere. Do we legislate for all that? Of course not. It is a dangerous approach. That is what I mean by referring so often to an erosion of civil liberties. Each action is justified as some necessary way of defending democracy as a way of life. It is then extended to cover a possible circumstance that might be bad. In that way, we erode the civil rights that we should be defending.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if one were talking in a kind of surrealistic world, one might be right? However, the House is considering a responsible police force. We are talking not about someone shoplifting, but about the police reasonably thinking that someone is a terrorist or is involved in terrorism. Such people can be detained for only 48 hours without the involvement of the Home Secretary which, in all conscience, regarding terrorism and all its ramifications, is not a long time. Any period exceeding 48 hours needs the sanction of the Home Secretary, and the total period cannot exceed five days. The House is talking not about somebody being shut up in a Chilean or East German prison, but about detention for five days at most. Why is that an erosion of liberty? Is it not more important to protect life than to protect terrorists?
      Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman's argument to some extent supports my contention in that the police are not asking for this power. I shall say more about that later. The police feel that they do not need this power. If, 15 years ago, I had said to the hon. Gentleman that in Britain in 1984 there would be the power to order internal exile, to detain people without arrest or charge and without their seeing a lawyer for up to seven days, with daily searches in shops, stores, and so on, he would have said, "No, never. That is some authoritarian state, not Britain." What I mean by the erosion of civil rights is that the actions of each and every individual situation look reasonable in itself, just as the Prevention of Terrorism Act looked reasonable after the 1974 pub bombings and just as the Emergency Provisions Act looked reasonable in the light of the Northern Ireland situation.
      All of those things look reasonable. The problem is that with that erosion of civil rights we lose the liberties that have been built up. Democracies are rarely lost overnight in a grand coup. What tends to happen is that the civil liberties that have become established are eroded over a period of time as a result of succeeding crises. Then there is a particularly big crisis, perhaps related to the economy or to unemployment, corruption, inflation and so on—or it may be an event related to war—and one suddenly finds that all the defences that were there to protect the civil liberties of the citizen are gone.

      993
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) recently complained bitterly about the police having power to stop and breathalyse drivers. I have made the point once tonight—I have also made it on the radio today — that we could save a couple of hundred lives a year if in every pub in the country there were police officers to stop people from drinking and driving. Should we do that? If we tried, hon. Members say, "No, the cost in civil liberties is too dangerous and at the end of the day that could cost more lives."
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I concede the hon. Gentleman's point that had we been told a few years ago that we should be discussing a Bill such as this many of us would have been horrified. Will he concede that he would have been equally amazed to be told that somebody who was a well-known supporter of the murders that go on in Northern Ireland could be elected to this House? Does he agree that, if people who support the murder of British subjects are elected to this House, that in itself is such an extreme situation that the Government of the day must take powers that they would not wish to take but for the fact that some people are not loyal enough, or even willing, to protect the lives of those whom they have been elected to protect?
      Mr. Soley: I am not sure how much research I should have to do, but I suspect that it would not be much, to show that a number of Members of Parliament, particularly in the last century, were involved in violence, especially in Ireland. I cannot name one off the top of my head, but I am sure that there have been a number. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman thinks back to the last century, and perhaps to the early part of this, many such examples will come to mind. I urge him, therefore, to take a longer view of the matter. At present he is taking a short view, which is not good in present circumstances.
      I come to the question of evidence, which also has a bearing on the point made by the hon. Member for Selly Oak. The onus is on the Government to prove that these extra powers are necessary. They have not done that. Where is the evidence? Lord Whitelaw, when Home Secretary, said that there had been no increase in "middle east terror" in the Metropolitan police area during the past 10 years, and he took the view that extra powers were not needed.
      There is no evidence from any of the police forces that they want this legislation or that they believe that the threat in their areas has grown. The Police Federation takes a different view, but there is no evidence from the chiefs of police, who are responsible for collecting the statistics and analysing them, that such a problem exists in their areas. There is no evidence from the Government that there has been an increase in the threat.
      It is clear to me that the present laws are sufficient. I cannot add to what the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West said on this issue. His analysis was accurate. There is no evidence to show that the present laws are not sufficient to deal with the problem.
      I remind the House that the problem of political violence is not new. We say that it has been particularly severe in the last 10 to 15 years, and it has been, but it has been severe at a number of times in our history, particularly during the last 100 or more years. If one took to its logical conclusion the threat of excluding various refugees who fled to this country from less fortunate
      994
      places, one would have to look back to the reputation of this country in the 19th century, and one would see that it was far less liberal than it is today. Indeed, for a Government who claim to have Victorian values, I must tell them that what stood out about the Victorians was their willingness to keep the door open to people such as Garibaldi, to some of the Russian emigrés and to a host of others who were not allowed to function in their own countries. Karl Marx and Lenin are other examples. The Home Secretary has clearly said that he does not want to stop such people.
      I do not want to continue my speech much longer—I have been led down some diverse paths—but I must say something about the dangers of legislating by circular. Circulars issued by a Department are not laws and carry no weight in a court of law. Some time ago a Labour Government introduced community service orders as an alternative to imprisonment, but no provision was made for that in legislation. The recommendation that they should be an alternative to prison was issued in a circular sent to all the courts in the land. I remember a magistrate saying to me, "I do not mind what is in the circular— the Government can put what they like in a circular— but I see community service as a sentence in its own right, not as an alternative to prison, and I shall use it as I like." I take my hat off to that magistrate. He is right. That is an example of the danger of trying to legislate by circular.
      The second danger is that the Home Secretary of the day can change circulars without difficulty. A recent example is the way that the present Home Secretary changed the parole instructions. That is a classic example of a sudden and dramatic switch in policy implemented through advice, not the law.
      Circulars are incredibly dangerous because they are open to misinterpretation. We ask police officers, customs officers and immigration officers to pick up a circular, read it, and keep its contents in their heads. When they are on duty at a port or anywhere else they are expected to say, "Oh, yes, I think the circular applies to this person." They are expected to operate it fairly on that basis. We put an unreasonable burden on them by asking that of them. We ask them to do something that we would find difficult to do.
      This is a classic case of the erosion of our democracy. The real threat is in Northern Ireland, but the law is being extended to cover supposed threats. There is no evidence that supposed threats cannot be dealt with within existing law or that they have become worse in recent years.
      We must recognise that the Bill came about not because of terror in Northern Ireland, but because the problem spilt over into Great Britain. When the bombs started going off here, we suddenly became worried. If we had felt the same anxiety every time someone was killed, knee-capped or bombed in Northern Ireland, perhaps we would have done more about the problems in Northern Ireland earlier.
      The Bill is about Northern Ireland and Great Britain, not about the rest of the world. We would not have the problem over clause 12 if the Northern Ireland problem did not exist. My advice to the Government is to drop the provision entirely. It is unacceptable, unnecessary and has all sorts of dangerous connotations.
      Mr. Brittan: This debate began some time ago when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) moved the amendment. It is fair to say that the amendments under discussion are a peg on which to hang

      995
      a debate on the proper extent of the operation of clause 12. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman for using the amendment in that way, and we are grateful to the Chair for allowing us to conduct the debate on that basis.
      The House should know that the amendments would not achieve any of the objectives sought by any right hon. or hon. Member, including the right hon. Member for Down, South. I am content to leave it at that and not go into detail about why the amendments would not secure any of the objectives that have been asked for. If we are approaching a vote, it is right that the House should bear in mind that the amendments do not provide an apt opportunity for an expression of view on any of the matters that we have been debating.
      9.15 pm
      We should remind ourselves of the extent of the provision that we are considering. It enables a constable to arrest a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence under earlier provisions or a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this part of the Bill applies. It is clear that the power of the constable is confined to detaining that person for no more than 48 hours after his arrest. Any further detention for a maximum period of a further five days is dependent, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, on a decision of the Home Secretary.
      I take the liberty of repeating those facts on the face of the Bill because they are supremely relevant to whether particular offences of a substantive kind exist and are adequate to deal with terrorism. No one has suggested for one moment that the clause provides for crimes with which people can be charged. What the clause provides is a tool by the use of which it might be possible to ascertain whether somebody has been guilty of an offence and what conduct he has been guilty of. Therefore, I do not think that it will do to say that the number of substantive offences is adequate to deal with the mischief concerned, because the question is not whether the offences exist, but whether it is necessary to have this tool to find out whether certain people have committed offences.
      Of course, one accepts, as I said many times during the deliberations in Committee, as I said on Second Reading and as I welcome the opportunity of repeating now, that the power is exceptional and inimical to the tradition of our civil liberties. It is a power which no Government would have introduced if they had not regarded it as absolutely necessary to do so. The least that I can say about the actions in 1974 of the Labour Government who first introduced the legislation is that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has indicated, it is extremely difficult to see what there is in today's circumstances which leads the Labour party to believe for the first time, after the legislation has been on the statute book for nine years, that the country is so secure and that the threat of Northern Irish terrorism has so diminished that the powers it once believed appropriate are no longer so. The ghastly irony is that between the time when these matters were debated in Committee and today, when we are debating them on the Floor of the House, the Harrods outrage should have occurred. All that will be taken into account.
      The debate is about where and to what extent the powers should be exercised. First, I shall deal with the suggestion that if there is to be an extension of the powers other than—
      Mr. Soley: The Home Secretary has made a number of allegations some of which we have dealt with before. I cannot let the one about Harrods go. He was not in the House when I challenged the Minister of State to say whether the legislation had been of any use in tracking down the people who committed that deed. Would the legislation have been of any use in preventing it? There is no evidence that it would. I challenge the Home Secretary now to say that there is such evidence.
      Mr. Brittan: The inquiry into the Harrods matter is incomplete, but the hon. Gentleman's question is utterly irrelevant in any case. If he will bear with me, I will explain why. It is precisely events such as the Harrods outrage, which was very much on all fours with the pub bombings which originally led to the introduction of the legislation, which provide the justification for legislation of this kind.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brittan: No, I shall not give way for a moment. It is not appropriate to go into whether the legislation has assisted the police in relation to the Harrods outrage at the present stage of inquiries. Nevertheless, powers of this kind were regarded by the Labour Government as justified in 1974 as a result of outrages of exactly the same type. It thus does not lie in the mouths of Labour Members to say that that does not matter and that the powers are now unnecessary and outmoded and should be wiped from the statute book.
      Ms. Harman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brittan: When the Labour Government were in power, events of precisely this kind caused the legislation to be put on the statute book.
      Ms. Harman rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Brittan: The call to order is as appropriate to me as to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, as in straying into these matters I have gone beyond the important debate with which I should be dealing.
      The clause changes the basis on which the powers could be operated. I must make it clear that there was nothing in the original legislation to confine the exercise of these powers to Northern Irish terrorism. The powers were at large, but when I was Minister of State I made it clear, as quoted in paragraph 75 of the Jellicoe report, that, although the powers were not specifically restricted to terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs, their use would in practice be limited to such affairs. I said in a written answer:
      "Arrest is a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned, but an extension of detention under these provisions is granted only where a connection with terrorism related to Northern Irish affairs is established or suspected. — [Official Report, 5 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 571.]
      That was the position at that time.
      The Bill makes it clear that it is possible for the power to be used in relation to terrorism unrelated to Northern Irish affairs, but, as the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, it is limited to terrorism which has no connection with political activity related to the affairs of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) asked why

      997
      the power should not be extended to Scottish and Welsh nationalists and those concerned with United Kingdom nationalist causes.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brittan: Perhaps I may deal with this point.
      Mr. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. Brittan: No, I shall not give way for a moment. I shall give way when I have explained the Government's view.
      The Government take the view that precisely because this is a power of great gravity it would not be appropriate to extend it any further than is necessary. Although what has occurred in the name of Scottish and Welsh nationalism has on occasion been of a violent nature and certainly unlawful, the gravity of the matter has not so far been sufficient to justify the use of these powers in that context, although, as I said in Committee, if the position became worse the Government would not hesitate to extend their use in the manner suggested.
      If that is the position, what is the justification for extending the power to acts of terrorism unrelated to the United Kingdom? The explanation, to which reference has repeatedly been made, is found in the conclusion reached by Lord Jellicoe in his review, and I shall not repeat the passage. His view was that, judging from recent British history, the facts were such that there was justification for extending the powers to acts of terrorism which were not concerned with Northern Ireland alone. It is not correct to say, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) attempted to say, that that would involve legislating for future anxieties. Every hon. Member will recall the Prince's Gate siege in May 1980 and the shooting of the Israeli ambassador in June 1982. To say that these are idle fears which do not call for legislation seems to be unrealistic.
      Lord Jellicoe, after a careful review, said:
      "I recommend … that the power of arrest in section 12(1) (b) … should be available for use against suspected international terrorists of any group, cause or nationality."
      The Government have accepted that and we are implementing other recommendations in the report.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: I should like to give the Home Secretary the opportunity to establish clearly in Hansard what he is talking about when he refers to Welsh nationalism. Welsh nationalism is a democratic, cultural and political movement which has massive support in parts of Wales — 10 per cent. of the popular vote — and has expressed itself traditionally through non-violent democratic means. I should not like to see the Home Secretary and the Government following the practice of some sections of the media—if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might return to this subject on Third Reading, which would be a more appropriate time to discuss it—in using Welsh nationalism as a blanket term in attempting to link democratic political expression with the use of violence.
      Mr. Brittan: I was extremely careful, in the words that I chose, not to fall into the trap which the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, but I welcome the chance of spelling my point out even more clearly and wholly endorsing what he
      998
      has said. I believe that I referred to those acting in the name of Welsh nationalism. I accept that the movement of which the hon. Gentleman is a member is different, but many reputable and respectable movements find that there are others which purport to share the same aspirations but use methods which would not be condoned by the reputable movements. I hope that I have assisted the hon. Gentleman in providing the clarification that he seeks, and I am glad to have the opportunity of making that point.
      I have given the essential reason for the extension of the power in those directions, but concern has understandably been expressed in Committee and on the Floor of the House about the position of foreign nationals who, although they are lawfully in this country, may have been involved in violent struggles for reasons which they and some people in this country might regard as legitimate in their home country. The example that has been most to the fore is that of the South African nationalist movements. It is said that those people would be liable to arrest on the ground that there was reason to suspect them of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of violence for a political end. The case of such people has been put forcefully.
      In response to that concern, which I hoped I showed I fully understood when the matter was debated in Committee, the Committee was given an assurance that guidance on the use of the powers would be issued to the police by means of a circular to chief officers. The terms of that circular have not been put before the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State told the Committee that chief officers would be advised that powers in respect of international terrorism should be used only where there was some prospect that a charge would be laid before a United Kingdom court or that the person would be deported under the Immigration Act 1971.
      9.30 pm
      Having given that assurance — the Government recognise the limitations of assurances given in circulars —my hon. and learned Friend said that we would seek to draft an amendment to give effect to the assurance, although he fairly warned the Committee that that might not prove possible. I regret that, despite considerable efforts, it has proved impossible to draft an amendment which would embody the assurances which we agreed to give in the circular without greatly weakening the thrust of the clause against international terrorism.
      I make no secret of the fact that the clause is intended to fight international terrorism, and not only in respect of international terrorists who commit acts of violence in the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that the House would wish that the powers should not be available to deal with an international terrorist group which took violent, murderous action against a friendly country or blew up buildings in, say, Paris or Bonn. Are we saying that we would not want powers to deal with such circumstances?
      Mr. Flannery: We already have them.
      Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We may or may not have powers to extradite or to charge, but we certainly do not have the power in clause 12. Otherwise, there would be no basis for objecting to its inclusion in the Bill.
      Ms. Harman: Will the Home Secretary give us an example of where the lack of that power has caused

      999
      problems in the circumstances that he has described? Or are we concerned only with what he imagines might happen in the future?
      Mr. Brittan: As those powers were absent in the past, it is impossible to answer such a question. However, I have given ample examples of terrorism in this country and the hon. Lady knows that people involved in hijackings, blowing up property and killing people in other parts of the world have come to rest in this country, either in transit or permanently. It is ridiculous to expect us to say, in the absence of such powers, who the powers might have enabled us to arrest and interrogate in London, Birmingham or Manchester and thereby prevent loss of life in Paris, Bonn or Rome.
      We have been forced to conclude that the only way to protect the interests of the groups whose interests have legitimately been raised by hon. Members — without preventing us from having the necessary powers against international terrorism — is to proceed by circular, despite all the disadvantages of that procedure.
      It would be possible to amend the clause to remove all the anxieties, but only by paying the price that I have mentioned. It is important that the United Kingdom should continue to take, and be seen to be taking, a firm stand against terrorism in all its manifestations. Successive Governments have strongly supported, advocated and pursued a policy of close co-operation with other countries to stamp out international terrorism. That is why we attach so much significance not only to the extension of the powers to international terrorism, but to the absence of a territorial restriction in clause 12(2)(b).
      There are a number of precedents for measures related to terrorism to have extra-territorial aspects. A series of Acts have been passed in the past decade or so to enshrine in United Kingdom law the provisions of international conventions designed to deal with specific manifestations of terrorism by making them offences in the United Kingdom, wherever they occur in the world.
      The Hijacking Act 1971 and the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973 provide that it is an offence under United Kingdom law for any person of any nationality anywhere in the world to hijack an aircraft or deliberately take measures which would result in the destruction of or damage to an aircraft, or otherwise endanger its safety. Is it unreasonable for us not only to have that on the statute book but to have a policing power which may assist in the detection and conviction of someone guilty of the substantive offence?
      Similarly, the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 provides that it is an offence for any person, whether a United Kingdom citizen or not, to commit anywhere in the world any act against a Head of State or certain categories of diplomat which would constitute an offence if committed in the United Kingdom.
      These measures and others like them protect us as much as they protect people overseas. If we want other friendly countries to give us the protection that we are prepared to give them, we cannot deny them the protection of this legislation as well. It would be quite wrong if, by restricting the application of clause 12 to acts of Northern Ireland terrorism or even to acts of international terrorism committed in this country, we lost the opportunity of showing that our concern with terrorism is not limited to those of its manifestations which take place on our soil or directly affect our own interests.
      1000
      For that reason, even though the amendments would not have the effect that has been the subject of much of this debate, I ask the House to reject them on the basis that they would be inappropriate if they had the effect that they are intended to have.
      Mr. Flannery rose—
      Mr. Bermingham rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary has sat down.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 36, in page 10, line 10, at end insert—
      '(1A) The power of arrest conferred by subsection (1)(c) above is exercisable only—

      (a) in Great Britain, if the exclusion order was made under section 4 above; and

      (b) in Northern Ireland, if it was made under section 5 above'.—[Mr. Britton.]

    Clause 14

      SUPPLEMENTARY
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 13, line 13, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 30.
      Clause 14 gives power to the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to make an order to continue the operation of the legislation for a period, albeit temporarily, without first obtaining an affirmative resolution of this House.
      We have paid a great deal of lip service today to the unfortunate nature of this type of legislation. We have all agreed that it is highly regrettable that it is necessary. We have all agreed that it involves serious interferences with civil rights. We have all agreed that risks of severe injustice are inherent in such legislation. We would all agree that one of the most important aspects of this Bill is its temporary nature—the fact that it requires to be affirmatively renewed every 12 months. Another of the most important features of the Bill is that that affirmative resolution has to be made not only by this House but by the other House as well.
      Before we give the Home Secretary even a temporary power to exercise his discretion to continue this legislation without the affirmative resolution of the House, should we not stop and ask ourselves where that line of thought will lead us? I shall not indulge in the already hackneyed analogies with the attempts of George Orwell to predict what might happen in 1984, but the House should allow the exercise of executive discretion of this nature only in the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether the circumstances postulated by the Bill are the most extreme circumstances, in which we would regard it as acceptable for such a powerful executive discretion to be exercised. The alliance has come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate in the Bill for such a discretion to be given to the Secretary of State. Although we doubt it, we hope that the Secretary of State will accept that there is no necessity for the 40-day provision to be included.
      It is most important that only the resolution of the House should permit the Bill to endure beyond a year. Despite not having the advantage of being represented on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, we have considered in detail whether there are any circumstances

      1001
      in which it could be realistically said that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise his executive discretion. In all circumstances, it is open to him so to arrange the timescales that apply to the Bill that he would be able to come back to the House before the 12 months were up and obtain the affirmative resolution that is provided for. We bear very much in mind the strongly justified representations made by many bodies and individuals that the Bill in any event gives a great deal of excessive power of an executive nature—power that is not subject to the usual scrutiny of judicial reform or other similar judicial processes.
      We are of the view that this amendment would in no way damage the efficacy of the Bill or the effectiveness of the powers that the Government seek. However, the amendment would go some way towards harmlessly and properly alleviating the concerns that have been expressed. We regard the amendments as a matter of great importance and we ask the House to accept it.
      Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member seems to be finding difficulties that do not really exist. This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's powers to make an order under clauses 1 and 17 at any time when, for whatever reason, parliamentary approval could not be obtained under the arrangements in clause 14(10)(a). The subparagraph and subsections which would be deleted enable him to make an order when "by reason of urgency" it appears to him that it is necessary to do so without the approval of both Houses for the draft. When an order is made in this way it lapses after 40 days unless during that period it has been approved in the same way as in the case of the draft. There is no question of the Home Secretary not having to come back to the House if he wants the powers to last for a year.
      The object of this procedure is to enable the Secretary of State, in an emergency, to make an order when Parliament is not in session or when the matter is so urgent that it cannot wait until time can be found for debates in both Houses. The power has been used only once, when the Irish National Liberation Army was proscribed in July 1979, because of the need to move quickly and in step with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has separate but similar powers under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.
      In practice, the use of the emergency arrangements is likely to involve either the making of a proscription order under clause 1, or an order under clause 17 bringing back into force, as a matter of urgency, a provision which had earlier been allowed to lapse. One example of a case where an order under clause 1 might be urgently needed would be that of an Irish terrorist group, previously unknown, which committed a series of attacks in Great Britain during the summer recess, or over Christmas. I am certain that there would be public outrage if such a group could not be immediately proscribed just because Parliament was not sitting.
      We are satisfied that the safeguards in clause 14, which are the same as all cases involving the affirmative resolution procedure, provide an adequate means for Parliament to exercise its control over the operation of this aspect of the legislation.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Minister really saying that the somewhat controversial use, only once in nine years, of a similar power is sufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of a power of this sort in a Bill that so fundamentally affects civil rights?
      Mr. Waddington: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that this is a draconian power when, if the Secretary of State makes the order, it lapses in any event after 40 days unless there are affirmative resolutions by both Houses of Parliament? It is difficult to see what all the fuss is about, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 196.

      Division No. 141]

      [9.48 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Litherland, Robert

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Loyden, Edward

      Barron, Kevin

      McCartney, Hugh

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      McGuire, Michael

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

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McKelvey, William

      Blair, Anthony

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Boyes, Roland

      McNamara, Kevin

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      McWilliam, John

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

      Madden, Max

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Marek, Dr John

      Buchan, Norman

      Maxton, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Mikardo, Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Nellist, David

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      O'Brien, William

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Parry, Robert

      Clay, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Penhaligon, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Pike, Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Cowans, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Richardson, Ms Jo

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

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Dewar, Donald

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Dixon, Donald

      Rogers, Allan

      Dormand, Jack

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Eadie, Alex

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Eastham, Ken

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Ellis, Raymond

      Skinner, Dennis

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

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

      Fatchett, Derek

      Snape, Peter

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Soley, Clive

      Fisher, Mark

      Stott, Roger

      Flannery, Martin

      Strang, Gavin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Golding, John

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Wainwright, R.

      Haynes, Frank

      Wallace, James

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Wareing, Robert

      Home Robertson, John

      Welsh, Michael

      Howells, Geraint

      Wilson, Gordon

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Winnick, David

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Tellers for the Ayes

      Leighton, Ronald

      Mr. A. J. Beith and

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Mr. Clement Freud

      NOES

      Ashby, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Baldry, Anthony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      1003

      Budgen, Nick

      McCusker, Harold

      Burt, Alistair

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      MacGregor, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Maclean, David John.

      Coombs, Simon

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Cope, John

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Maginnis, Ken

      Crouch, David

      Major, John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dicks, T.

      Malone, Gerald

      Favell, Anthony

      Maples, John

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Marlow, Antony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mather, Carol

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Maude, Francis

      Fox, Marcus

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Freeman, Roger

      Merchant, Piers

      Gale, Roger

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Galley, Roy

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Gregory, Conal

      Moate, Roger

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

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Ground, Patrick

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Harvey, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Norris, Steven

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hawksley, Warren

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hayes, J.

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hayward, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hickmet, Richard

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Hill, James

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Powley, John

      Hirst, Michael

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Raffan, Keith

      Holt, Richard

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hooson, Tom

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Howard, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ryder, Richard

      Irving, Charles

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Jessel, Toby

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Silvester, Fred

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sims, Roger

      Knowles, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Knox, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lang, Ian

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Spence, John

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Spencer, D.

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Lester, Jim

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Stanley, John

      Lightbown, David

      Stern, Michael

      Lilley, Peter

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Luce, Richard

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      McCrea, Rev William

      Sumberg, David

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      1004

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Watson, John

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Watts, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Wheeler, John

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Thurnham, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Tracey, Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Trotter, Neville

      Wood, Timothy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Woodcock, Michael

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Yeo, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Waddington, David

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. Donald Thompson and

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
      '(c) shall, if approved by Parliament, cease to have effect at the end of a period of 12 months unless renewed by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      We are seeking to allow the Government to get off a hook of their own making. The amendment will allow the proscription of organisations to expire over a period. In 1974, the proscription of organisations was thought to be one of the most important provisions of the current Act. I can do no better than quote Lord Jellicoe's comments in paragraph 210:
      "I believe that time has proved this judgment to be mistaken".
      I think that everyone knows that it was a mistaken judgment. Lord Jellicoe's report did not recommend the abolition of proscription. In paragraph 208 he states:
      "I conclude, therefore, that proscription has had some—albeit relatively limited—beneficial effects."
      In the same paragraph he stated that there were "presentational" issues. He meant that proscription discouraged displays of support for a proscribed organisation. He stated that there was a "practical" purpose, by which he meant that proscription banned collections. He added:
      "Both the presentational and practical purposes of proscription appear to me to be valid; the success of the provisions is questionable in the latter sphere, but, I believe, real in the former."
      We believe that Lord Jellicoe's arguments for the presentational and practical advantages are extremely shaky. In paragraph 208 he argued that presentationally it had been successful because there had been few demonstrations or open displays of support for either the Provisional IRA or the INLA. However, the reason for that is their unpopularity. It has nothing to do with fear of arrest. It is clear to me and, I think, to most people that someone who went round saying, "I support the Provisional IRA," or, "I support the INLA," would put himself and others at risk.
      There is another important point. There have been some displays of support, so why have there been so few arrests? Indeed, this section of the Act has hardly ever been used.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Soley: Lord Jellicoe argues that there is a practical advantage because there are few open collections of funds for the Provisional IRA or the INLA. But again, the

      1005
      evidence is that someone would hardly go round a pub asking for money for the Provisional IRA. There may be one or two pubs or clubs in some areas where that could be done, but on the whole it would risk a punch-up to go round the average British pub asking for money for the Provisional IRA, especially after the bombing of, for example, Harrods. In addition, collections are in any case banned under clause 10.
      The argument against proscription is very strong. It is an infringement of the principle of the freedom of speech. People should be prosecuted not for stating views and opinions but for criminal offences. In paragraph 210, Jellicoe says of that principle:
      "I have much sympathy with this view. If one was starting absolutely with a clean slate, proscription would I believe be low on the list of priorities for inclusion in counter-terrorist legislation."
      Proscription, of course, enables the Provisional IRA and the INLA to present themselves as the persecuted and oppressed voice of Irish nationalism. They can claim that the British proscribe them but do not proscribe the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Red Hand commandos in Britain. Those organisations are proscribed in Northern Ireland under separate legislation.
      In other words, yet again such organisations have a propaganda weapon. Credence is given to the romantic secret army image. I should add that proscription does not have a good track record, either internationally or historically. The attempts to proscribe the various Nazi organisations before the second world war were by and large counter-productive in western Europe. They forced those organisations to go underground, where their activities were less observable. It is significant that in most of the countries that tried to ban the Nazi movement there was a significant and powerful fifth column.
      We are left with one problem, which Jellicoe feels to be important. He claims that de-proscribing would cause "a wave of public resentment". Personally, I doubt whether it would. In any event, politicians should be leaders. We should not do what we think is wrong because the public might be angry with us. At times, we need to stand up and say why something which may not be popular or well understood needs to be carried out nevertheless.
      However, I can see that the Government are not prepared to risk that unpopularity. Therefore, we should allow the clause to lapse. That is precisely what the amendment does. At the end of the year, it would automatically lapse without any debate or further discussion unless Parliament as part of its normal procedures decided to reinstate it.
      That would also get the Secretary of State off another hook on which he impaled himself when he unwisely resisted our amendment in Committee. It would have made the support of a proscribed organisation dependent on material or financial support. The Government managed to get themselves into great difficulties. That can be best exemplified by quoting the Minister in Committee:
      "The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked what happens if a man says in a public place, 'I think we ought to support the IRA.' That should be a criminal offence."
      What we are saying, using the Minister of State's own words, is that the statement, "I think we ought to support the IRA", is in fact, and should be, a criminal offence. There is an argument why it should be and an argument why it should not be. I say simply that it should not be an
      1006
      offence. It is about freedom of speech, and not a criminal act in itself. Most important of all, if we say it is a criminal act, as has the Minister, then we had better start arresting people who say it, had we not? We had better start arresting people who say, "We are going to take power with the ballot box in the one hand and an Armalite in the other." Where will that get us?
      The Minister continues:
      "Mere approval of an organisation is not caught by the Bill."
      That was a contradiction of what he said earlier. He continued:
      "The object of the clause is to keep in check public statements about proscribed organisations." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 November 1983; c. 19–22.]
      That cannot be desirable and it is certainly not practised, because the Government have yet to arrest people for statements of that kind, and I sincerely hope that they will not go down that road. If the Government have any wisdom, they will accept our amendment. It does not change the nature of the Bill in the way that they have so far resisted. It simply allows a part of the clause, proscription, to lapse at the end of the year without any risk of serious embarrassment to them, yet in a way that even Lord Jellicoe accepts is no longer a priority in the fight against terrorism. Lord Jellicoe thinks that on balance it is useful, but that it is a marginal balance. In this short debate, I have attempted to show that it is not only unnecessary but to some extent counter-productive, and it has certainly not been carried out in practice by the Government.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The amendment has provided the opportunity — and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) availed himself of it—for a reference to the unsatisfactory' character of the wording of clause 1, which would automatically be brought into effect in relation to any other organisation which might be proscribed by order. I think that the Standing Committee was almost totally dissatisfied with the wording, and the exposition of the wording, after long discussion.
      The trouble about it is that, whereas substantively clause 1(1)(b) appears to relate to "financial support" or "contributions in money", the wider terms "other support" and "otherwise" are included in the subsection, and the Minister at that time resolutely refused to say that the rule of interpretation ejusdem generis would apply to it, and that those words would mean financial support or other property. I cannot believe that it is the intention to criminalise everything that could be comprised under the word "support" in general terms.
      I notice in The Times of Friday 23 December 1983 a report about a musical group called the Eislea Collective. It appears that it had issued posters featuring the slogan "IRA", with the words "Long Kesh" beneath. The result was that Sir William Rees-Mogg, the chairman of the Arts Council, withdrew the grant, saying that it was political propaganda in favour of the IRA. The question arises whether that was support for the IRA. Sir William Rees-Mogg thought that it was. If so, was any criminal prosecution instituted or any action taken as a result of the musical group proceeding with the programme thus adorned? I take that as an illustration of the wide and undefined extent of the concept of support if it is unlimited.
      Surely the intention is to ensure that the term "financial support" is interpreted in a reasonably wide and generous fashion, and that "contribution in money" is not restricted

      1007
      to money in the narrow sense, but includes, as in clause 10(2), at present in another context, money and other property.
      Consideration of the Bill is not complete when it leaves the House tonight, and the Government have an opportunity to take another look at the drafting of clause 1(2), to which the soft of order that we are debating would apply. It must be in the interests of whatever benefit is to be got from proscription that there should be no fuzzy edges round the actions and behaviour which would be criminalised by the proscription of an organisation, and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say that he will look in that light again at the wording of clause 1.
      I do not think that it would be advantageous, if a new proscription were made, that it should automatically be terminated at the end of 12 months. I do not think that having proscribed, as we have, the IRA or the INLA, we would be anxious to incur the awkwardness of reproscribing after 12 months. No doubt the relative importance of a proscribed organisation may vary with the years, but I cannot but think that it is an inconvenience, which there is no benefit in incurring, to limit additional proscription orders to 12 months. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will neglect that advice from the Opposition Front Bench and accept the invitation to look seriously again at proscription as defined in clause 1.
      Mr. Waddington: I shall, of course, look at the matter again in the light of what has been said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). However, we are here discussing not the proscription powers but the nature of the parliamentary control over those powers. The amendment appears to be designed to give greater parliamentary control over the Bill's proscription powers, but, as I shall demonstrate, the effect would not have any similarity to what Opposition Members must have intended.
      As the Bill stands, clause 14(10) provides that an order under clause 1 or clause 17 shall not be made unless a draft of the order has first been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, except where, by reasons of urgency, it is necessary to make the order without a draft having been so approved. Subsection (11) goes on to set out the procedures that are to apply in those latter cases of urgency, namely, that the order shall be laid before Parliament and shall cease to have effect after 40 days unless it has been approved under the affirmative resolution procedure before the end of that period.
      The amendment concerns only those orders made under subsection (11), those which, for reasons of urgency, have not first been approved in draft. That seems an odd sort of approach to apply what I suppose is designed as an additional safeguard to an order made under subsection (10)(b) but not to an order made under subsection (10)(a). Nor would this new alleged safeguard have any effect on the position of the two organisations already proscribed and listed in schedule 1.
      The amendment also covers the question of the renewal of the Bill, or parts of it, but that already must be done annually by affirmative order as a result of clause 17, so the amendment would therefore add nothing of value.
      Of course we recognise that it is a very serious matter to proscribe an organisation, but I do not accept that when a matter has been given the detailed consideration in Parliament and by Ministers which the affirmative
      1008
      resolution procedure entails, it would be right for it to lapse only a year later. In those circumstances, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 198.

      Division No. 142]

      [10.15 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Leighton, Ronald

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Barron, Kevin

      McGuire, Michael

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Beith, A. J.

      McKelvey, William

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

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Blair, Anthony

      McWilliam, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Maxton, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Mikardo, Ian

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Nellist, David

      Clay, Robert

      Parry, Robert

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Patchett, Terry

      Cohen, Harry

      Penhaligon, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Pike, Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Cowans, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Redmond, M.

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

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Dewar, Donald

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Dormand, Jack

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Rogers, Allan

      Eadie, Alex

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Eastham, Ken

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Ellis, Raymond

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

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

      Fisher, Mark

      Soley, Clive

      Flannery, Martin

      Strang, Gavin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Freud, Clement

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Golding, John

      Wallace, James

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Wareing, Robert

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Welsh, Michael

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Wilson, Gordon

      Home Robertson, John

      Winnick, David

      Howells, Geraint

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Mr. Don Dixon.

      NOES

      Ashby, David

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Crouch, David

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Baldry, Anthony

      Dicks, T.

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Favell, Anthony

      Beggs, Roy

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fox, Marcus

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Freeman, Roger

      Budgen, Nick

      Gale, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      Galley, Roy

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Gregory, Conal

      Coombs, Simon

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

      Cope, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      1009

      Ground, Patrick

      MacGregor, John

      Grylls, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Maclean, David John.

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maginnis, Ken

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Major, John

      Hannam, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Harvey, Robert

      Malone, Gerald

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Maples, John

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Marlow, Antony

      Hawksley, Warren

      Mather, Carol

      Hayes, J.

      Maude, Francis

      Hayward, Robert

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Merchant, Piers

      Hickmet, Richard

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Hicks, Robert

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Hill, James

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hind, Kenneth

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Hirst, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Holt, Richard

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Hooson, Tom

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Howard, Michael

      Murphy, Christopher

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Needham, Richard

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Norris, Steven

      Hunter, Andrew

      Onslow, Cranley

      Irving, Charles

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Osborn, Sir John

      Jessel, Toby

      Ottaway, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Pawsey, James

      Key, Robert

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Lang, Ian

      Powley, John

      Latham, Michael

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Raffan, Keith

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lester, Jim

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Lightbown, David

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Lilley, Peter

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Luce, Richard

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Ryder, Richard

      McCrea, Rev William

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      McCusker, Harold

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      1010

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Silvester, Fred

      Thurnham, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Trotter, Neville

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Speller, Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Spence, John

      Waddington, David

      Spencer, D.

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Waller, Gary

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Stanley, John

      Watson, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Wheeler, John

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sumberg, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 3

      SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS FOR SECTIONS 1 TO 13
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 20, line 24, after 'Terrorism', insert '(Temporary Provisions)'.
      This amendment is consequential on the acceptance by the Committee of an amendment to insert the words "(Temporary Provisions)" in the short title. It amends the reference in paragraph 8 of schedule 3 which makes a consequential amendment to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At the conclusion of the Report stage, it is only right to lay a wreath upon this memorial to the only amendment that the Government saw fit to accept in the entire Committee stage with the hope that they may yet find enlightenment in another place.
      Amendment agreed to.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill fulfils the commitment made to the House by my right hon. Friend Viscount Whitelaw, then Home Secretary, in March 1983, that the Government would give effect to the changes to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 recommended by Lord Jellicoe and that we should do this by introducing new legislation.
  I believe that I speak for the majority of hon. Members in expressing once again our gratitude to Lord Jellicoe for his willingness to undertake the daunting task of reviewing the operation of the legislation and for the painstaking, thorough and, above all, authoritative character of his conclusions and recommendations. Even those who, in Committee and elsewhere, have opposed the need for a Bill have in most cases welcomed the changes recommended by Lord Jellicoe.
  I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for his invaluable work in steering the Bill through Committee and my hon. Friends who were members of the Committee for their contribution to it. The debate was almost always constructive and good natured.
  I do not wish to spend a long time tonight discussing the merits of the Bill. The House has had plenty of opportunity, during the nine years in which the legislation has been in force, to consider the measures which it embodies and which are re-enacted here with the improvements recommended by Lord Jellicoe. Despite the Opposition view, formed in some extraordinary way in the past 12 months, that we do not need these measures and that they are unacceptable—although they introduced them and have been supporting them for nine years—I believe that there is substantial public support for the measures. The Department receives a steady flow of letters expressing concern, if anything, that the measures taken by the Government to combat terrorism are not strong enough—a flow which, as hon. Members may know from their own postbags, increases dramatically following the kind of outrage that we experienced before Christmas but which has still not led the Opposition to change the view that they so inappropriately put forward last autumn.
  The changes to the existing legislation incorporated in the Bill are designed to preserve the balance between public safety and individual rights. They are not dramatic, but they are none the less important for that. Under the Bill, exclusion orders will have a life of three years and the police will have to make a fresh case, based on recent intelligence, if they want a new order to be made to replace one which has expired. It will no longer be possible to exclude a British citizen from a part of the United Kingdom in which he has been living for three years. Until now the exemption has operated only after 20 years. Once the new arrangements in clause 7 are in force, it will be easier for excluded persons to make representations against their exclusion and they will be guaranteed, in almost all circumstances, the right to a personal interview with one of the advisers.
  1012
  I accept that these improvements will not in any way answer those who argue that the exclusion powers are wrong in principle, but even they will have to agree that the changes have made the measures less draconian, and will welcome them. We have already had a most interesting debate about the issue which has generated more concern, both in Committee and among interested groups, than any other aspect of the Bill — the application of the powers of arrest and detention to international terrorists. I do not propose to say any more about that subject now.
  I shall, however, deal briefly with the exclusion from clause 12 of "domestic" terrorism. Lord Jellicoe said that he had considered and rejected the idea that the powers should be available for use against persons whose terrorist activity related purely to "domestic" matters. I share his assessment of the position. As I have said, I shall be ready to reconsider it should the threat posed by domestic groups become more serious. That is a proper and justifiable view to take.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: In his earlier response to my intervention, I believe that the Home Secretary—we shall see this in Hansard tomorrow—said that "so far" the power had not been used in relation to groups that were concerned with possible political domestic violence relating to Scotland or Wales. Will the Home Secretary expand on those words and explain how far is "so far"? When do arsonists, whom all hon. Members condemn, become terrorists in his definition?
  Mr. Brittan: It is a matter not when they become terrorists, but when the degree of threat that they pose is sufficiently serious to justify taking the measures that we have taken in respect of other forms of terrorism. Groups such as the Scottish National Liberation Army and the Animal Rights Militia have mounted attacks on public figures by means of postal devices and arson. Serious though such incidents are, they do not compare in scale or effectiveness with the attacks by the IRA or the INLA or the vicious attacks that some international terrorists have carried out in London. It is not possible to specify in advance or to imagine a series of incidents that would lead one to take a different view, but it is right that we should be chary of coming to that view prematurely.
  There can have been few pieces of legislation which, during a 10-year life, have had as much parliamentary rime regularly devoted to them as the prevention of terrorism legislation. The Government are satisfied that the Bill reflects the amount of care and consideration that it has received over the years. Of course, it amounts to an infringement of civil liberties, but I believe that that infringement is as small as is consistent with providing the public with the best protection that Parliament can provide against the havoc that can be wrought by terrorists.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for his work in leading for the Opposition on the Bill in Standing Committee and throughout most of today's proceedings. The Opposition owe him a great debt for all his work. I thank also my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee and stated our arguments on the Bill.
  On the Second Reading last October, the Home Secretary said that the powers that the Bill contains would

  1013
  in other circumstances be unacceptable. Tonight, in an earlier debate, he said that those powers are inimical to our tradition of civil liberties. Most hon. Members would agree with those statements. The Government must justify to the House in what circumstances unacceptable powers, inimical to our tradition of civil liberties, should be accepted.
  The first Bill of this kind, introduced by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in 1974, was to meet the circumstances that arose following the horrific Birmingham pub bombings on 21 November 1974. That Act was intended to last for six months. In fact, it lasted until 1976 when it was replaced by another temporary provisions Act which was intended to last, in the first place, for one year. Eight years later, we are being asked to replace that temporary provisions Act with an Act which is intended to last for five years.
  The Bill's original title was the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The Committee that considered it forced the words "Temporary Provisions" into its title. It was as well that that was done, to remind the Government that this legislation, now, after various manifestations, in its 10th year on the statute book, was originally intended to survive for only six months in response to a specific emergency.
  Can the House really be sure that when the new Act expires, some time in 1989, it will not immediately be replaced by yet another version, which may be scheduled to last even longer or may even be intended to be permanent, but which may still be called temporary? A six-month Act is finding a permanent place on the statute book for powers which the Home Secretary describes as wholly unacceptable and inimical to our tradition of civil liberties.
  The powers in the Bill are obnoxious to all who believe in democratic freedoms. They include the power of internal exile and the power of prolonged detention without charge. Even the right in clause 7 to make representations against an exclusion order is an abuse of the rule of law, since the person making the representations will not be allowed to see or hear the evidence that he is required to refute. Not only will he have to prove his innocence, but he will not even be told of what offence he has to prove himself innocent.
  Mr. Robert Parry: My right hon. Friend makes the important point that the Bill has a life of five years. Is he aware that most detentions take place in Liverpool and that people who have visited my constituency for trade union conferences, weddings and even funerals have been detained and had their fingerprints taken and that, even though they have been released without being charged with any offence, their fingerprints are kept on file? Is that not a travesty of civil liberties?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I shall be dealing with the effect of the legislation on innocent people. The point that he makes is relevant to Liverpool, because a high proportion of those detained under the legislation are detained on Merseyside.
  If the powers in the Bill are to begin to be justified, the Government have the duty to prove to the House that they are both necessary and effective. They have so far proved neither. Between 24 November 1974, when the first Act came into operation, and 30 September last year, 5,683 persons were detained under the legislation. Of those, only
  1014
  116 were charged—2 per cent. of the total. Of those 116, 12 were acquitted and one was awaiting trial, and four cases were dropped. The remaining 99–1·75 per cent. of the total of those detained—were found guilty. Of those 99, 44–0·8 per cent. of the total—were fined, discharged or given suspended sentences, and 27–0·5 per cent.—were imprisoned for less than one year. None of those people could be described as dangerous terrorists. We are left with 28 people out of 5,683, or 0·5 per cent., who were imprisoned for more than one year. Of those, 21 were imprisoned for more than five years.
  The House must ask itself whether a success rate of 0·5 per cent., at most, justifies the continuation of powers that the Home Secretary himself describes as wholly unacceptable and inimical to our tradition of civil liberties.
  Of the persons detained, only 298–5·24 per cent.—were subject to successful exclusion orders. The Act has been responsible for the detention of nearly 5,700 people, of whom 95 per cent. were innocent of any offence under this of any other legislation.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: In justifying the renewal of the powers, the Government point to Lord Jellicoe's inquiry. That inquiry cannot be regarded as holy writ, vindicating and justifying all that follows from it. Its terms of reference required the acceptance of
  "the continuing need for legislation against terrorism".
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), commenting on the appointment of Lord Jellicoe, said that he would examine the conclusions of the inquiry with the greatest, but most sceptical, care. In advance, we made it clear that we would not necessarily accept the inquiry as the final word. After Lord Jellicoe reported, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said:
  "on the most critical question of balance between protection and liberty he comes down on the wrong side of the argument"—[Official Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 569.]
  On that basis, 10 months ago the Opposition voted against the renewal of the 1976 Act. The Government have no right to quote Lord Jellicoe in aid as some universally accepted objective authority, especially as they themselves refused to implement three of Lord Jellicoe's key recommended safeguards: first, that police applications to detain suspects beyond 48 hours before charge should be approved by the Home Secretary personally; secondly, that officers at ports should continue to have the right to detain persons without suspicion only to ascertain whether they have been, or may be, involved in terrorism, for up to 12 hours, after which they should have reasonable suspicion; and, thirdly, that suspects should have an absolute right to see a solicitor after 48 hours detention. How effective have the Acts been in achieving what their titles claim—the prevention of terrorism? It is a sad and horrific fact that, despite this legislation, savage acts of terrorism have continued, the most recent being the sickening bombing of Harrods last month. The Secretary of State has cited the Harrods bombing as an example of the justification for this legislation, but that bombing is an example of the failure of the legislation. Nine years of this legislation did not prevent the Harrods bombing, and so far it has not been effective in bringing the perpetrators to justice.
  No one expects any legislation against crime to be wholly effective, but the Home Secretary would carry

  1015
  more conviction if he responded positively to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and if he said—we would not have expected any details—that, to his positive knowledge, specific terrorist acts which might otherwise have taken place did not take place precisely and solely because of this legislation.
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: How would he know?
  Mr. Kaufman: Precisely. He would not know. Yet he justifies the legislation by claiming that he does.
  The Home Secretary has been unable to demonstrate that this legislation has been uniquely and necessarily preventive or successful in apprehending those who have committed terrorist acts. In effect, he has admitted the reverse, for on Second Reading he told the House:
  "I need only remind hon. Members of the shooting of the Israeli ambassador here in London last summer — an assassination attempt for which those responsible are now serving long sentences."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 54.]
  Those would-be assassins were caught without the use of the prevention of terrorism legislation. They would have been caught had that legislation never existed. Indeed, other legislation, not intended solely to deal with terrorism, has been more successful in countering terrorism that this legislation, specifically designed for the purpose.
  Mr. Brittan: I apologise for intervening now, but I was so staggered at something that the right hon. Gentleman said—the touchstone of the accuracy of his remarks—that I thought I had better check. I was right. He was wholly wrong in saying that the three recommendations by Lord Jellicoe would not be implemented.
  There was the suggestion that the Home Secretary personally should be responsible for extensions. That assurance has been given and is already in effect. As to 12 hours' detention at ports, the right hon. Gentleman should know that that will be in the supplemental order where it logically belongs. As to the right to see a solicitor after 48 hours. it has been made abundantly clear that that would be dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the exact terms of Lord Jellicoe's recommendation.
  The right hon. Gentleman ought not to found his argument on a mis-statement of that kind.
  Mr. Kaufman: We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that commitment on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
  Mr. Brittan: That really will not do. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he must not use language in that way.
  Mr. Kaufman: As I said, we are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
  Mr. Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am responding to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We are grateful to him for his assurance with regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Those of us serving on that Committee will note what he says and expect that undertaking to be fully observed by the end of our consideration.
  Mr. Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: In a moment. I have something else to say in response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  1016
  I studied the Bill with great care before rising to speak. I am aware that clause 12(3) says:
  "A person arrested under this section shall not be detained in right of the arrest for more than forty-eight hours after his arrest; but the Secretary of State may, in any particular case, extend the period of forty-eight hours by a period or periods specified by him."
  I now take it that the Home Secretary is going on record as asserting—and is assuring the House—that such cases will not go before a junior Minister, such as an Under-Secretary, at any stage, but that every one will be dealt with personally by himself.
  Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling, but he will not succeed. He is now trying to suggest, deliberately or because he has not bothered to read the proceedings, that the assurances I have just given are new ones that he has managed to elicit. He knows perfectly well that the three points I made are already on record. For him now to pretend that this is something new is an attempt to conceal the fact. In suggesting that the recommendations were not being implemented, he was saying something that was wholly without foundation.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course I studied the Committee proceedings; I would not dream of coming here without doing so. One reason why I wanted to refer to clause 12(3), which I have now done, and of which I was fully aware before the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened in his fulsome indignation, was to check whether every one of these applications will now go to the desk of the Secretary of State. That is fine, very good, excellent.
  The would-be assassins of the Israeli ambassador, to whom the Secretary of State referred in his speech, were caught irrespective of the legislation—either that which is on the statute book or that which is before us this evening.
  I want to make it clear, so that there shall be no doubt on the subject, that Opposition Members detest and loathe terrorism. We reject any notion or claim that any political aims or objectives can justify murder and mayhem of the kind that this island has to endure from time to time, and that Northern Ireland has to endure all the time. We in the Labour party want to prevent terrorism. We want to pursue terrorism. We believe with all our hearts that it is unacceptable to give way to terrorism.
  Giving way to terrorism can show itself in two ways: first, in yielding to terrorists' demands as a result of their filthy crimes, and we in the Labour party are totally opposed to that; and, secondly, in undermining the fabric of our democratic society, and so handing to the terrorists a victory that they do not deserve and of which they must equally be deprived. It is because we hate the terrorists and their methods, and because we wish to protect democracy against them, that we shall vote in the No Lobby tonight.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Proctor: I shall not delay the House long, but I think it right to place on record tonight our thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the careful, patient and diligent way in which they have answered our queries and amendments, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
  The strange aspect of this legislation is not the attitude of the Government, but that of Her Majesty's Opposition.

  1017
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Hon. Members may find it incredibly boring, but I shall continue. On Second Reading, the Official Opposition moved a reasoned amendment, and 144 Labour Members voted for it, and not for the Bill's Second Reading. Then 46 Labour Back Benchers voted against the Second Reading completely. So there was a split in the Labour party on the matter.
  Why have Her Majesty's Opposition changed their mind? Why did Labour Ministers introduce this legislation in 1974 and 1976, whereas now, in this Parliament, its Front Bench sides with the pressures from its Back Benches against it? Is it because the source of the contention—the question of Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom—has been settled? No, the question remains. If it is not that, perhaps those who seek to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom by bullet and bomb have changed their aims and no longer pursue violence. No, not at all. Is it a change of tactics of the terrorists that makes our anti-terrorist legislation redundant or counter-productive? No, it is not that either.
  For the parliamentary Labour party and Her Majesty's Opposition, the change is not one of mind, logic or intelligence on this subject; it is a change in the composition of the parliamentary Labour party. It is the shrinkage of the PLP in the House following the 1983 general election and the deliberate and determined shift to the left of the remaining Labour Members that has produced the tidal flow that has washed over the previously moderate Opposition Front Bench.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) talks about his concern about terrorism, and we remember what he said before Christmas about the Harrods bombing:
  "We in the House of Commons, and the British people whom we represent, are united in our utter and implacable determination to stand firm against the evil men who perpetrated this deed, and who now characteristically and contemptibly, seek to creep away from the consequences of their inhumanity. The British Parliament will make no concessions to the bullet and the bomb.
  We welcome the additional security measures that the Home Secretary has announced and we earnestly hope that they will grant a greater measure of safety to our people as they go about their lawful and peaceful occasions" — [Interruption.]
  I do not know why Labour Members are heckling as I quote the words of the shadow Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "Every effort must and will be made to trace and capture those responsible for Saturday's outrage, together with their fellow gangsters. All of our people are aware of the risks they face and know that they must be accepted if the methods and processes of democracy are to be upheld." — [Official Report, 19 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 21.]
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is even embarrassing the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Proctor: Are those not empty words in view of the deeds of Her Majesty's Opposition when it comes to the consideration of prevention of terrorism legislation? Should not the people of our country know that they are voting against legislation which proscribes the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army? Do the people know that that is what the Opposition are voting against? Do they know that they are—
  Mr. Max Madden: You Fascist toerag.
  Mr. Proctor: The Opposition are obviously demonstrating the great attributes of democracy and free speech. Do the people know that they are siding with terrorists when it comes to exclusion? Are they aware of the hypocrisy of the Opposition when they seek to criticise and oppose legislation which they were pleased to support when they were in office? Thanks to the Government, especially my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the recommendations of Lord Jellicoe have been inserted in legislation, including safeguards which will continue for the life of the legislation, which cannot exceed five years.
  The right hon. Member for Ardwick talked about what will happen in five years' time. I hope that there will be no terrorism in five years' time. That will be the real motive force for making the legislation redundant. But if in five years's time there is terrorism that is connected with Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, or with international terrorism, surely the Government would have a duty to legislate against dangers similar to those that we are now seeking to counter, and to introduce even more effective measures. The right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition are full of empty gestures tonight when it comes to terrorist activity.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has referred to international terrorism, which the Bill covers. He said:
  "We recognise very strongly indeed that terrorism wherever it occurs must be unreservedly condemned and whether terrorism takes place in Birmingham or Pretoria or any other city or place around the world it must be treated as the scourge of our modern times and opposed by all means possible and any qualification to such a condemnation would be inappropriate and would be unjustified."
  Tonight, the Opposition put down that unacceptable and unjustified qualification to our campaign and war against the terrorists in the United Kingdom, and I hope that the people of our country take note of that.
  11 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are essentially three elements in the Bill. To one of them, the exclusion orders, my hon. Friends and I have been opposed, not recently, but ever since this legislation was introduced 10 years ago. We regret that we failed in our attempt to remove that element from the Bill during our proceedings. That leaves two elements.
  One element is part I, dealing with the power of proscription and the two organisations which are proscribed under it. Regretfully, I have to say, as I have said before, that I cannot imagine that it would be thought to make sense if the House today said that circumstances had so changed that whatever justification there was 10 years ago for that proscription had ceased to exist.
  The remaining element is one which we discussed at length this evening. I refer to the special powers of arrest and detention. The House should not be under any misapprehension about the exceptional nature of those powers or why they are held to be relvant to the prevention of terrorism. I must trouble the House with a few paragraphs from a report which appeared just before Christmas in the Belfast Telegraph. It said:
  "The three held in London are not, it is understood, suspected of being directly involved in the bombing.
  Special Branch and anti-terrorist squad detectives have rounded up known IRA sympathisers and are now pressing them for information.

  1019
  The majority will not be suspected of having directly taken part in the attack, but it is thought that they could lead to the bombers."
  After listening carefully to the speech of the Home Secretary and to his explanation for the fact that part IV extends to terrorist organisations not connected with the affairs of the United Kingdom, it should be clear to all hon. Members that this legislation arms the police and security forces with exceptional powers. That being so, my hon. Friends and I must take account of the view stated in the Jellicoe report that the
  "arrest powers … have proved themselves far too valuable to be dispensed with while a substantial threat from terrorism remains".
  We cannot remain deaf to the statements made to us by those who know that the existence of such powers is, and can be, the main means of detecting and bringing to punishment those who are guilty of terrorism. That being so, we feel obliged, despite our strong objection to the second element, parts II and III, not to oppose its passage tonight.
  It was on a motion of mine in Committee that the Bill was adorned with the words in brackets "Temporary Provisions." We have been obliged reluctantly to accept — and it is a historical fact — that terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland is the reason why the measure was placed on the statute book and is still the reason why it remains there. That does not, for those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, make the provisions any less temporary.
  Nor does it lessen our hope and belief that before five years have run their course these powers will no longer be found to be necessary. We do not regard them as a permanent, lasting and irremovable burden on those whom we represent or on this kingdom. On the contrary, we believe that the sincere application by this House and Her Majesty's Government to their undertakings to the Province will bring about circumstances in which we shall be able to look back on this legislation as a phase that has passed.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On Second Reading I made it clear that we on these Benches accepted the need for temporary legislation of this type—the appalling terrorism that has taken place in London since that debate of course has not made us change our minds—but we regard the Bill as oppressive by its very nature.
  I also made it clear at that time that we regarded it as being unduly draconian. Indeed, if the statutory provisions were interpreted in the spirit of the speech made tonight by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), nothing could more clearly highlight how draconian in its operation this measure could be. However, I think that I can say with some confidence that the spirit and feel of the hon. Gentleman's speech will make decent Conservatives shudder when they read it tomorrow morning.
  We will not vote against the Bill, because to do so would indicate that there should be no legislation of this type; whereas we accept, as I said, that this type of legislation is required. But by abstaining on Third Reading, we signal our belief that the Bill should be further amended in the other place. Indeed, Liberal and Social Democratic peers will table amendments in the other place and will seek to ensure that they take advantage
  1020
  of the opportunity to do so which we did not have, not having had a Member on the Committee that considered the Bill.
  In making our judgment on Third Reading, we must bear in mind a number of underlying considerations, one being—this leads us to the conclusion that legislation of this type is needed—that the Government have a duty to protect the largest possible number of citizens to the greatest possible extent, but within the acceptable limits of our legal and social system and standards.
  On the other hand, we as Liberals and Social Democrats — [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] — find this denigration of a balanced view, as I am sure the people of this country will find it highly offensive. We take the view that we must never cease in our vigilance to protect the private citizen against laws that involve the risk of arbitrary application without regard to natural justice. That risk looms large in some parts of the Bill. In the wake of the Harrods bombing, in a number of cases the nightmare of the knock on the door in the night has unjustly become a reality. [Laughter.] The case of the McLelland family in north Wales is an example. It is obvious to those of us who take an interest in the people of north Wales, rather than in what some hon. Members seem to regard as the more hilarious aspects of the legislation, that what happened to Mr. and Mrs. McLelland was nothing more than a fishing expedition for possible information, rather than being based on any reasonable suspicion that they were involved in, or with, a proscribed organisation.
  Perhaps more important by far, the greatest injustice imposed by the Bill is not that of being detained temporarily without reason, but rather the risk of internal exile, founded upon sparse information and remote hearsay. That danger too must be guarded against, but it is not properly safeguarded against in the Bill.
  We must bear in mind—I am sure this is a reality— the fact that every person who is unjustly excluded from Great Britain and escorted on to the plane represents an atom of resentment that is liable to split and mushroom into terrorism.
  In considering these provisions we must recognise that, while both Shackleton and Jellicoe thought on balance that the powers of which we speak were effective in reducing terrorism in Great Britain, those conclusions were reached without an objective scrutiny of any detailed evidence of the operation of the provisions from case to case.
  As I think at least Opposition Members would agree, even official Opposition Members, an exclusion order is potentially devastating for the family and the job prospects of the person excluded. There is no right of appeal or scrutiny of the individual cases arising from the Bill. We are very unhappy that, on Third Reading, not having had the opportunity to table amendments in Standing Committee, we are faced with a Bill that still contains no provision for scrutiny. The nominated advisers to date have undoubtedly been skilful and fair, but that is not enough. We need at least to protect people who are subjected to exclusion orders through some quasi-judicial procedure.
  In new clause 1 we proposed a framework which might be used to provide that scrutiny, but it was not accepted. That framework could also be used to provide civil redress against proven wrongs. That would do much to reduce the resentment felt in, for example, the cases which the peace people in Northern Ireland have highlighted. A man may serve long and lonely years in prison and want to avoid

  1021
  being involved in terrorism again. Such a person can be arbitrarily and wrongly excluded from Great Britain and forced by pressure on his family to take part in terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Bill does nothing to alleviate such cases.
  The Government have failed to come to grips with many of the important civil liberties issues which cause great anxiety. Of course I accept that there remains, on the one hand — [HON. MEMBERS: "On the one hand."] We are not ashamed of saying "On the one hand". It is high time that the Government took a balanced view. We believe that the Government have not gone any distance to meet out misgivings. [Interruption].
  Our view is that we should not be seen in this House—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The House believes in freedom of speech. The hon. Member is entitled to be heard.
  Mr. Carlile: We should not indulge ourselves —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in over-reaction of the type expressed in Committee, which is typified by the hon. Member for Billericay. This legislation could be made more effective, but in a more acceptable form.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Bermingham: I put on record tonight that which I put on record at the beginning of the Bill's passage— that the measure is unnecessary. A series of simple points demonstrates that. In Committee I asked the Minister of State how many people had been prosecuted under section 2 of the Act. I was told that the total was two. Both charges were withdrawn and the offence of breach of the peace substituted. We do not need the exclusion orders any more, simply because they are used less and less.
  The legislation has served its purpose. Criminals should be dealt with by the criminal law. Terrorists are murderers and bombers and they are given dignity by being given a special place in law. We should seek to avoid that. Terrorists are no different from any other criminals and they should be treated accordingly. We have adequate laws to deal with them.
  When asked about clause 12, the Home Secretary said that the question of extension had been dealt with by a circular. That worries me greatly because circulars are not the way to legislate or to provide safeguards in legislation. Will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that he will inform the House if at any stage that circular is withdrawn or altered in any way? It is of considerable concern to people outside the straightforward, as it were, Irish question. In Committee it was shown in speech after speech that there were many interest groups in Africa and the far east who were worried about the meaning of clause 12. We should be given an undertaking about the circular.
  Like its predecessors, the Bill has been conceived and debated against a background of horror and acts which emanate from the land from whence I came, Ireland. It is a Bill which acts basically against the Irish and gives offence to many Irish people.
  Mr. Parry: I agree with my hon. Friend. As one of the few hon. Members of the House who were born in the Republic of Ireland, does he agree that the Bill
  1022
  discriminates not only against the Irish, whether from the Republic, Northern Ireland or the mainland, but particularly against Roman Catholics?
  Mr. Bermingham: The legislation has, tragically, had that effect. The solution to the Irish problem does not lie in legislation of this sort, but in beginning to ask the Irish what they want. They have not been asked since the days of Strongbow. Should we not ask the Irish how they see their future, in or out of the context of the North, the South or England. That is the only way forward. The way forward does not lie in setting the Irish up as a separate entity for whom special legislation is needed.
  I shall vote against the Bill for the simple reason that if we are to have a series of islands where all men are thought to be equal, legislation should always lie equally in respect of all men. To differentiate between certain groups is in itself an affront to the concept of equality and to the concept of history that we have in the House.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have indicated their distaste for the legislation. Some have indicated a liberal and libertarian objection to it. Some hon. Members have felt unable to vote according to their conscience, but I leave that as their problem.
  In the final stages of the debate I want to deal with one central issue, the recommendation by Lord Jellicoe that guidance should be issued to police services throughout Great Britain by circular on the proper use and limits on use of clauses 1 and 2. As has already been referred to by hon. Members, in London and north Wales recently there has been evidence of the misuse of the legislation by police forces and also evidence of a deliberate attempt by the media to give the impression that action was being taken when it was not. We have seen the phenomenon of moral panic where the media have been manipulated, whether deliberately or indirectly, by sources close to police services. The impression has been given that the arrest and detention of certain persons was connected with the tragic and appalling murders at Harrods, when there was no such connection.
  Much reference has been made to the Harrods bombing and the relevance of this form of legislation to it. I shall not detain the House by quoting at length from the papers, but on Thursday 19 January the Liverpool Echo wrote:
  "Armed detectives probing the Harrods bombing outrage arrested two people during a swoop in Abergele, North Wales".
  suggesting a connection, yet by the Saturday the same paper was able to say:
  "From the beginning of the inquiry it has been understood that there was no question of any direct link between the couple and the bombers."
  The Standard of Thursday 19 January suggested another connection, so it is clear that some police source of information or misinformation was active in seeking to justify what had happened.
  The Daily Telegraph of 20 January made the allegations referred to earlier in the debate about an apparent link between the IRA and Welsh nationalists who had been burning down holiday cottages. I quote from a report by John Weeks and James Allan:
  "In return for money and other assistance from the IRA, the Welsh nationalists are believed to have provided safe houses in Wales for Irish terrorists on the run."
  That kind of irresponsible journalism can only lead to a situation in which not only Irish persons but all other

  1023
  ethnic and cultural minorities in the United Kingdom are labelled through this legislation as somehow dissident and a threat to the state.
  The evidence from the GLC ethnic minorities unit of the way in which the legislation has operated in London confirms that it has been used to harass political activists to prevent demonstrations and the expression of opposition to events in Ireland and to justify fishing raids for intelligence and information.
  The events at Abergele were thus not isolated incidents. The figures given by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) show that it is the usual practice for this legislation to be used to detain people who are subsequently not charged under it. It is a catch-all intervention in people's financial affairs, as the allegations in the Abergele case show, and in their private lives, as other detentions and raids have shown.
  Will the Home Secretary give an assurance today that the guidance demanded by Lord Jellicoe will be given and that it will be made clear to police forces in Merseyside, London, north Wales, all the port areas and all other places where the legislation is used that it shall not be misused as it clearly has been by certain police forces recently, particularly in the Abergele incident?
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. I speak for myself and not for my party.
  The judgment that Members have to make when they debate matters of this kind is never easy, as they have to try to reconcile the liberty of the individual with the desire of all of us to ensure that terrorism finds no place within our shores. I have reached the view that, in the difficult task of trying as a Parliament to produce a peaceful solution for Northern Ireland and its people, it is vital that the flag of civil liberty should be held higher now than ever before.
  When we have to proclaim the principles by which we act, while respecting the difficult journey that other hon. Members have to make before reaching their decisions about how to vote on the specifics of legislation that will never be perfect, I believe that it is important, above all, that the rights of the people of Northern Ireland as individuals and the rights of those temporarily on this side of the Irish sea are seen to be the same as those for all other citizens and as we should wish for all our fellow citizens at all times. It is counter-productive to tilt the balance against the individual in the way that the legislation does that.
  For that reason, and while hesitating to disagree with those of my colleagues who come to a different view, I shall oppose the legislation. I believe that, in the long term, the sooner we rid ourselves of what is intended to be a derogation of standards which we as a country have long proclaimed, the sooner we shall resolve the problems of terrorism, which are the subject of tonight's debate.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Parry: I shall be brief. Like many of my hon. Friends, I wish to record my complete opposition to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), others of my hon. Friends and I have always spoken against such draconian measures.
  1 am a Liverpool Member. I have received many representations about people who have been arrested and
  1024
  detained in Liverpool. The Liverpool to Dublin boat sails from my constituency, as does the Liverpool to Belfast boat. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said earlier, the large numbers of people who have been detained, and the few who have been convicted, have made us opponents of the Bill.
  The centre of the Liverpool Irish community is in my constituency. I have received many representations on behalf of those who have been detained, many of whom have not been found guilty of any offence and have been released. Yet innocent people have their fingerprints and photographs taken and kept on file. That is a travesty of British justice.
  Other incidents have caused great concern to the Irish community in Liverpool. For example, people who have been detained under the prevention of terrorism provisions have lost the opportunity of promotion at work, and, in some cases, have actually lost their jobs. I know that some people have had nervous breakdowns, or even tried to commit suicide. Those are the tragic side effects of these provisions.
  I and my colleagues will vote against the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will take on board the question of innocent people having their fingerprints and photographs kept on file, and do something about that.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 84.

  Division No. 143]

  [11.33 pm

  AYES

  Ashby, David

  Hayes, J.

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Hayward, Robert

  Baldry, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Hickmet, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hirst, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Budgen, Nick

  Holt, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Hooson, Tom

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howard, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jessel, Toby

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Dicks, T.

  Key, Robert

  Favell, Anthony

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Knowles, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Latham, Michael

  Fox, Marcus

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Freeman, Roger

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gale, Roger

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Galley, Roy

  Lightbown, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lilley, Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Luce, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Lyell, Nicholas

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

  McCrea, Rev William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Ground, Patrick

  McCusker, Harold

  Grylls, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  MacGregor, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maclean, David John.

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Hannam, John

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Harvey, Robert

  Maginnis, Ken

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Major, John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Malone, Gerald

  1025

  Maples, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Marlow, Antony

  Sims, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maude, Francis

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speller, Tony

  Merchant, Piers

  Spence, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spencer, D.

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Stanley, John

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stern, Michael

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Needham, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Newton, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Norris, Steven

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

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

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Viggers, Peter

  Powley, John

  Waddington, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Waller, Gary

  Raffan, Keith

  Watson, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Watts, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wheeler, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Woodcock, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mr. David Hurd and

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton.

  1026

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Loyden, Edward

  Barron, Kevin

  McGuire, Michael

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

  McKelvey, William

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Boyes, Roland

  McNamara, Kevin

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  McWilliam, John

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Madden, Max

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Marek, Dr John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Clay, Robert

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cohen, Harry

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Nellist, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Parry, Robert

  Cowans, Harry

  Patchett, Terry

  Craigen, J. M.

  Pike, Peter

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Redmond, M.

  Dobson, Frank

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dormand, Jack

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Eastham, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fisher, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Soley, Clive

  Golding, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wareing, Robert

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Welsh, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Leighton, Ronald

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  A30 (Cornwall)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
  11.45 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon: It gives me some pleasure to be able to speak on the problems affecting the A30 both on the way to, and within, my county of Cornwall. The Minister is familiar with the argument that I shall present. It is a simple appeal to the Government to rethink their strategy, which appears to be to build the road to wide single-carriage standard.
  The A30 is the county's main artery. It enables us to communicate with the economic centres of Britain and Europe. It is incredibly important to those who live in the far south-west that the road should be built to the standard that is common in the rest of the country.
  I recognise that progress has been made in the past 20 years in improving Cornwall's communications. My dear father believed that the journey to London was a two-day trip, and even trips through Staines seemed to take an hour or so. We now have a motorway to Exeter. The fact that it goes via Bristol adds 60 miles to the trip, but we make no complaint about that. Furthermore, we have a dual carriageway that terminates about half-way between Okehampton and Exeter. From that point, the route is a mixture of reasonable roads, unsatisfactory roads and— in one or two places—roads which, forming as they do the main artery of my part of the country, can only be described as unbelievable. The A30 has been described as Britain's longest lane. That position should be improved.
  Some decisions have been made, and we welcome them. The dual carriageway will be continued from where it currently terminates to a point some five miles on the Cornwall side of Okehampton. However, when I reach that point on my journey home, it is still 65 miles to Truro and 85 miles to Land's End. Most people in the metropolis would regard those distances as substantial journeys, but for those who live in the south-west they represent only the last leg of the journey home.
  The proposal seems to be that there should be a single carriageway everywhere else, except for places where a dual carriageway already exists, and short dual carriageways round Blackwater, Jamaica Inn and Long Rock.
  The stretches of road that are of special concern are the 12 miles from the end of the dual carriageway at Okehampton to Launceston, eight miles from the Truro side of Launceston to Bolventor and the bypasses around Summercourt, Mitchell, Zelah and Indian Queens — a total distance of 28 miles. Twenty-five per cent. of the total route is still not even on the programme, so we are a long way from an A30 of reasonable standard.
  I do not believe that any firm decisions have been made, but I understand that the Government are leaning towards providing a single-carriageway road for that 28-mile stretch. Those who are concerned about Cornwall's economic future can only describe that provision as totally unsatisfactory.
  The problem is that we must satisfy the COBA formula — cost benefit analysis. The Minister is a statistician, and by training I am an engineer. I sometimes think that these man-made formulae are elevated to a significance
  1028
  and importance that they do not justify. Indeed, they sometimes permit decisions to be made that overrule common sense.
  Three points are worth raising, and I ask the Minister to investigate whether the present formula is applied correctly.
  First, the A30 is the main road to Cornwall. I am sure that that the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), who is present for the debate, will confirm that those who live in Liskeard look to the A38 as their route to the county but that everyone else regards the A30 as the ideal way home. That is not surprising. After all, it is 10 miles shorter via the A30 than the A38, and one avoids the inevitable difficulties created by the great city of Plymouth.
  The COBA formula underestimates the transfer of traffic that will take place from the A38 to the A30 if that road is built to a satisfactory standard. Indeed, I believe that all the traffic going into Cornwall beyond Liskeard would use the A30, if it were built to a sensible and reasonable standard. I therefore argue that the formula underestimates the extent of the transfer.
  Secondly, the formula seems totally to underestimate the importance of the tourist industry. It is true that for eight months of the year, traffic flows into Cornwall are not that high, but for the other four months they are unbelievable. It is preposterous to produce a formula which effectively tells someone jammed in Cornwall traffic in July and August that he should not be concerned because had he come in December he would have experienced no traffic problems at all. These averages are a lunacy.
  I concede that for most parts of the country that do not experience these great seasonal traffic changes, the formula may well be sensible, but it does not make much sense in areas such as mine.
  Thirdly, in this marvellous formula which has been elevated above all common sense, no consideration appears to have been given to the overall economic impact on the area. Each decision is made relative to how much more quickly people can travel, and there may be a recognition of the environmental impact on a village, but the correct weighting is not given to the overall economic impact.
  The Minister does not need me to tell her that Cornwall has its difficulties. It has the lowest average wage of any county in England and easily has the highest unemployment figures in the south-west. Until a few years ago, it had one of the highest unemployment figures an the entire country. Those who live in the far south-west believe that without a modern communications system, there can be no relative increase in Cornwall's prosperity or any relative economic recovery for the county.
  As a Member of Parliament, one talks to industrialists who may be flirting with the idea of bringing their enterprises to Cornwall. They have even approached us in the House to get some advice. They are worried most by Cornwall's sheer remoteness.
  They do not ask, "How many miles is it?" They keep asking, "How long does it take to get there?" They are not being unreasonable. English Industrial Estates, which is doing good work in the county, will confirm that more industrialists do not come to Cornwall because of the difficulties associated with remoteness than for any other

  1029
  reason. Indeed, some of the county's own industries, such as farming and china clay, are facing development difficulties for that reason.
  Falmouth docks is one of the great natural harbours of Europe, if not the western world. One cannot but believe that its development is stifled—indeed, nearly strangled —because once a ship has docked it is not easy to get anywhere else.
  However, the greatest effect is on tourism, which provides 13 per cent. of the employment in my county. Every year, I admire the activities of the AA and RAC, who organise their great campaigns in Devon and Cornwall to tell people to travel via the holiday route. Can hon. Members imagine what effect that has on people who are considering spending a holiday in Cornwall? If the AA and RAC are prepared to go to all that trouble to divert traffic, it is clear that a real problem exists. Many people believe that if the single carriageway is built, the services of the AA and the RAC will still be needed, because we shall still have substantial traffic problems.
  This year, the Devon and Cornwall police, who have a good record in community affairs and concern for the well-being of the people who visit my part of the world and of those who live there, gave free coffee to people who got as far as Indian Queens, because they were worried about drivers' fatigue.
  How much extra will all this cost? The answer is £15 million. To have a single carriageway will cost a useful sum, and it will cost £15 million extra to build a dual carriageway in the present programme up to 1989. That is £3 million a year. It is about two hours and 51 minutes of the PSBR. It does not sound a very large sum.
  If we have dual carriageway standards, the problem will be over. There will be no need to do any more. People say to me, "Well, if the traffic flows later prove it necessary, we could then build a dual carriageway." If single carriageways are built, one fears that they will stay that way, certainly for my lifetime.
  The A30 is our strategic road. It is our contact with the economic centres of the nation. As I said before, without this improvement, there can be no relative improvement in Cornwall's economic position. I therefore plead with the Minister to allow common sense to prevail, in preference to this formula. It must surely be common sense to accept that the more remote regions of Britain have as much right as other regions to expect eventually to be connected to the nation's communications by roads built to modern standards.
  If the Minister cannot be persuaded to change her mind in the fairly near future, I fear that Cornwall will feel that it is getting second-rate treatment, with second-rate roads to what those of us who live there regard as the finest part of the United Kingdom. Clearly, the decisions are not unchangeable, and I ask, in particular, that the three aspects that I raised be added to the formula. I ask the Minister to promise us to have another think. I would be pleased if she would say that she had already changed her mind, but I should be happy with at least the promise of a rethink.
  The Minister can save herself a great deal of work by agreeing with what I have said this evening. The problem will not go away. I suspect that she will have delegations from the county council, the Members of Parliament, the National Farmers Union and businesses in my county. We
  1030
  believe that we need a dual carriageway. We see that everyone else has one. The simple question, in the final analysis, is: why have the Government decided not to build one for Cornwall, ever? That is the reality of the Government's decision.
  12 midnight
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): There are several Liberal Members present who are obviously taking their holidays in Cornwall and swelling the tourist industry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on securing the Adjournment debate tonight. It is obvious that he has kept his hon. Friends here to enable him to push his case even harder.
  I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in the 22 months since I have been at the Department of Transport I have had more meetings about west country roads and the problems of Devon and Cornwall than about any other area in the country. I am well aware of all that the hon. Gentleman has said, because the issues have been raised on many previous occasions, the latest as recently as last week when Members from a neighbouring county were talking to me about their problems, during which they mentioned the problems connected with roads in Devon and Cornwall.
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed standards for the A30 from Exeter to Penzance. The Department shares the general concern of those in the area that it should have good and adequate roads for the traffic that is to use them. The Cornwall county council and many district and parish councils in the area have joined hon. Members in expressing concern about the sections where it is proposed to make improvements but maintain a single carriageway road.
  There is little that I can add to what I have already said over the past 12 months. However, there are one or two remarks that I wish to address to the hon. Gentleman because he may not have personally heard them over recent months, at least not direct from me. First, we recognise the need for good access to Cornwall for industry in Cornwall as well as tourism. That is why the A30 has top priority among west country roads as a road to be improved.
  The M4 and M5 provide good communications from Exeter to the rest of the country. The A303 in the southwest has been dualled in many sections and more dualling is planned. That will help in getting to and from Devon and Cornwall. The A38 has been dualled from Exeter to Plymouth and dualling is under construction from the northern outskirts of Plymouth to the Tamar bridge. Proposals have been published for improvement westwards from the bridge through Saltash. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) knows, the public inquiry is just starting its deliberations.
  Of the 114 miles of the A30 between Exeter and Penzance, one third have already been dualled. I have recently made announcements of decisions concerning the Okehampton bypass and the Tongue End cross to Whiddon down improvement, which is stage 3 of the Exeter-Okehampton improvement. These decisions and other schemes will increase the dualling to almost half of the 114 miles. A further 38 miles are to be improved to wide single carriageway, making over 90 miles of improved

  1031
  carriageway. These improvements will transform conditions on the A30, as improvements over shorter distances have improved roads in other parts of the country.
  Much of what the hon. Gentleman said was not new. I have read Cornwall county council's booklet "Road to Prosperity" and I appreciate the arguments that have been advanced, but the booklet does not reflect the complete picture. There are great benefits to be gained from the current and proposed improvements to the A30 which I think that the hon. Gentleman has underestimated. I think that he is underestimating the proposals that are in hand.
  In recent years we have adopted the highway link design of roads, which are especially important in Cornwall's terrain. The old design standards, which I think the hon. Gentleman has in the back of his mind, and which were used in the 1970s, aimed at providing a high standard of service for the driver. They provided continuous opportunities for overtaking. However, on long left-hand bends the practice fell short of the theory. In general the cost was high and the benefit was not always as great as we would have liked. That is why we changed to the highway link design standards in 1981. We wished to provide a good quality driving standard with opportunities for overtaking clearly indicated on a road which was interspaced with somewhat tighter bends where overtaking would be prohibited.
  The effect is that a slight drop in driver convenience is very much outweighed by reductions in cost and the impact on the environment. Consequently, we can do more for fewer resources. The hon. Gentleman knows how important I believe it is to give more bypasses to such places as Zelah, Mitchell, Summercourt and Indian Queens. Since that introduction in 1981, not many roads have been finished to highway link design standards. However, as more schemes are completed, the effect of obtaining more suitable roads for our money should be seen.
  I want to spend a moment or two on the process of economic evaluation. Cost-benefit analysis is important, but much misunderstood. It is only part of the consideration. It is part of our framework for taking investment decisions, but it does not override our discretion, and I shall not allow it to become a rod for our own backs. It must be common sense to have a consistent basis on which to work, otherwise there would be inequities between different parts of the country.
  When we compare on an equivalent basis the costs of the proposal with the benefits in time saved and accidents avoided, we come up with the COBA comparison We convert the time savings and reductions in the number of accidents to financial benefits, using factors which represent reasonable values in, for example, business travel or injury accident. We have to work from averages. We have tried in every way to avoid any subjective bias. We continually carry out research to keep those figures up to date. We can then come to a view on the benefit that will be involved in the case of any particular road, and compare it with the cost. There is nothing mystical about it. It is a process which is updated and which seeks to include all the factors concerned. We have to decide what the positive and negative effects are of undertaking any of the proposed actions.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister refer to the COBA formula, which deals with the macroeconomic effects of building high standard roads for the remoter parts of Britain?
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that time saved by the building of a new road is part of the consideration. But other savings have to be considered. Taking the land that would be needed for the higher standard of road could prove to be a "disbenefit". It may be land that could be better used in a highway link design than in a dual carriageway. Indeed, there is evidence to support that.
  The hon. Gentleman got his costs for dualling wrong. Although I accept that he wants the best roads possible for his area, the cost must be considered. They cannot be put completely on one side. Our COBA calculations justify considerable improvement of the A30 in Cornwall. The Department is giving that priority. However, we must not exceed those costs if we are not to deny another area— perhaps even part of the hon. Gentleman's area — another bypass that it needs. Our resources are finite. I have to weigh carefully the claims for increased provision beyond what is absolutely necessary and proven.
  If I were to go further, as the hon. Gentleman wishes, and go beyond the COBA analysis and what is justified and provide dual carriageways throughout, despite the fact that there is no traffic need throughout the year, I would deprive other communities in other parts of the country of any form of relief. That would not be fair.
  I told the hon. Gentleman that he had underestimated the costs. We propose to spend £50 million on the A30 in Devon, west of Exeter, and £42 million in Cornwall. We are fully justified in doing that to improve 90 miles of that 114 miles of road. I am satisfied that the proposals represent good value for money. All the schemes on our present plans give us a positive return. The hon. Gentleman may ask "Why not spend more?" He mentioned £15 million to dual throughout from Exeter to Penzance— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, he certainly mentioned the figure of £15 million as the additional cost. The additional cost is, however, £30 million for the stretch which he would like to be made into dual carriageway, and which the Department proposes to build to wide single carriageway standards.
  If we converted those single carriageway schemes to dual, we would be delaying the construction of the bypasses, because it could not be done within the time scale. We would have the further difficulty of justifying the additional land take. We would be open to the ceriticism of taking land out of agricultural use unnecessarily, and that factor has been raised at many public inquiries, particularly in the country areas throughout the land.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Irrespective of the cost comparisons, does my hon. Friend agree that, in the early 1970s, most of the road improvements were on a dual carriageway basis in Devon and Cornwall? As volumes of traffic and projected volumes have increased since then, how does she justify the fact that it was possible to do it then but apparently that is no longer the case? To defend this argument to people who use those roads is an impossibility when a road built in 1984 is single carriageway compared with one that was built as dual carriageway in my constituency in 1974.
  Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend must realise that the volumes of traffic on the more northerly parts of the southwest peninsula are much higher than beyond Bodmin, and certainly so when one gets past the turnoff to Newquay, because it is at those points that the traffic volumes decrease dramatically from the traffic volumes mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  As I have said tonight and on previous occasions, we have dualling around Okehampton in Devon and, indeed, even down beyond Bodmin. This was justified by the traffic volumes. Once the traffic tends to split up at Carland Cross, for instance, at the turnoff for Truro, the traffic volumes do not justify the dualling in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned in the scheme that bypasses Bodmin on the A30. It is the traffic on the road, and how much traffic there is likely to be from developments, that must guide the information put into the formula.
  As I said to the hon. Member for Truro, we consider such factors as the amount of tourism and the growth in certain industries. If they were not considered as factors, it would be not a wide single carriageway, but a normal single carriageway that would be proposed. I am convinced from the data that I have seen on the A30 road going down beyond Bodmin that the proposals for that area and, indeed, from Launceston onwards, are right for the road. I do not see that I would be justified in building to a dual carriageway standard a road for which there is not the volume of traffic that there is elsewhere in the country, thus denying to another community a bypass which it very much needs.
  Finally, I wish to deal with whether, at a later stage, if the traffic volume justified it, we would be able to provide a dual carriageway. That is always possible, but whether one takes the land now is a very different question. This would have to be justified at public inquiries on the scheme.
  1034
  Similarly, whether one builds bridges wider now to accommodate a second carriageway later is a very vexed question, and I can only say that the experience of the Department is that it would only be in exceptional circumstances, to overcome specific problems, that one would take to a public inquiry proposals to build bridges substantially wider, and take land substantially in excess of what was needed for the standard that was proposed for the road.
  While I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that, on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that the Department is being other than wise in seeking to give him the best roads that are justified by the volume of traffic. I want to see the benefits from the improvements come forward as fast as possible. We have already set ourselves a very ambitious task to open up communications from Cornwall with the rest of the country.
  I want to make sure that the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), for example, gets the bypasses in his county. If we were to provide dual carriageways all the way down through Cornwall, I must tell the hon. Member for Truro that some of his hon. Friends would be disappointed, because we have available only a limited amount of resources.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that if circumstances change to justify a higher standard while we are still at the early stages of preparation for some of the schemes, that higher standard will be adopted. But I remain satisfied that, on the evidence now before us, the plans will give a good return and provide a road which will cater adequately for the traffic which is expected to use it way into the early years of the next century.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Doctors
  Doctors
PRIME MINISTER
  Namibia (Apartheid)
  Namibia (Apartheid)
  Council of Europe
  Council of Europe
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Instruments of Restraint
  Instruments of Restraint
  South Africa
  South Africa
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Solicitors (Negligence)
  Solicitors (Negligence)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  India (Visit)
  India (Visit)
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Steering Location Inquiries
  Steering Location Inquiries
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Citizens Band Wavelengths
  Citizens Band Wavelengths
  Anthracite Coal
  Anthracite Coal
  Corporate Planning Management Ltd.
  Corporate Planning Management Ltd.
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Product Liability
  Product Liability
  Life Insurers
  Life Insurers
  Westland Helicopters Ltd.
  Westland Helicopters Ltd.
  Balance of Payments Statistics
  Balance of Payments Statistics
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  South-East Asia
  South-East Asia
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Youth Custody
  Youth Custody
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Humberside Police (Market Research)
  Humberside Police (Market Research)
  Doorstep Callers (Identification)
  Doorstep Callers (Identification)
  Policewomen (Public Relations Work)
  Policewomen (Public Relations Work)
  Sponsorship Undertakings
  Sponsorship Undertakings
  Sheepdog Thefts
  Sheepdog Thefts
ENERGY
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Coal (Price Increases)
  Coal (Price Increases)
  Coal Mining Subsidence (Inquiry)
  Coal Mining Subsidence (Inquiry)
  Energy Conservation Scheme (Grants)
  Energy Conservation Scheme (Grants)
  Energy Audit Service
  Energy Audit Service
  Combined Heat and Power Schemes
  Combined Heat and Power Schemes
  Wytch Farm
  Wytch Farm
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Domestic Gas and Electricity
  Domestic Gas and Electricity
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
TRANSPORT
  Heathrow Airport (Noise)
  Heathrow Airport (Noise)
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Vehicle Safety (Publicity)
  Vehicle Safety (Publicity)
  Motor Cycle Casualties (West Yorkshire)
  Motor Cycle Casualties (West Yorkshire)
  Passenger Transport Authorities (Administrative Costs)
  Passenger Transport Authorities (Administrative Costs)
  European Community (Infrastructure Expenditure)
  European Community (Infrastructure Expenditure)
SCOTLAND
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
  Mental Hospitals (Staff)
  Mental Hospitals (Staff)
  NHS Hospitals (Pharmaceutical Services)
  NHS Hospitals (Pharmaceutical Services)
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Local Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Local Authorities (Asset Sales)
DEFENCE
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
  Rear Admiral Jeremy Black
  Rear Admiral Jeremy Black
  Service Clothing (Flammability)
  Service Clothing (Flammability)
  Microwave Communications Site, Thurso
  Microwave Communications Site, Thurso
  Musical Instruments (Repairs)
  Musical Instruments (Repairs)
  Contingency Wartime Hospitals
  Contingency Wartime Hospitals
  Burtonwood
  Burtonwood
  Launch-on-warning Strategy
  Launch-on-warning Strategy
  Information and Crisis Control Centre
  Information and Crisis Control Centre
  Nuclear Attack
  Nuclear Attack
  Command-and-control Systems
  Command-and-control Systems
  Decapitation Strikes
  Decapitation Strikes
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  South Uist Missile Range
  South Uist Missile Range
  Shillay Lighthouse
  Shillay Lighthouse
  Fuel Depot, Aultbea
  Fuel Depot, Aultbea
  Military Training Areas
  Military Training Areas
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
EMPLOYMENT
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Nuclear Industry (Health and Safety)
  Nuclear Industry (Health and Safety)
  Inspectors
  Inspectors
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Vredeling Proposals
  Vredeling Proposals
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Schools Career Advisory Service
  Schools Career Advisory Service
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Turkey
  Turkey
  America
  America
  Kuwait (Bomb Incidents)
  Kuwait (Bomb Incidents)
  Angola (Mercenaries)
  Angola (Mercenaries)
  Malaysia
  Malaysia
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Passport Office, Peterborough
  Passport Office, Peterborough
  Torture Victims (Fund)
  Torture Victims (Fund)
  E1 Salvador and Nicaragua
  E1 Salvador and Nicaragua
  EEC (Arms Control)
  EEC (Arms Control)
  British Council
  British Council
  Lebanon (Syrian Forces)
  Lebanon (Syrian Forces)
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Stockholm Conference
  Stockholm Conference
  Russia (Human Rights)
  Russia (Human Rights)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Soviet Trade Inspectors
  Soviet Trade Inspectors
  British Wine and Beer
  British Wine and Beer
  MBFR Talks (Resumption)
  MBFR Talks (Resumption)
  Soviet Union (Religious Minorities)
  Soviet Union (Religious Minorities)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Poverty
  Poverty
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  General Practice
  General Practice
  Deputising Services
  Deputising Services
  NHS (Manual Workers)
  NHS (Manual Workers)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Chemists (Payments)
  Chemists (Payments)
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Outpatient and Inpatient Statistics
  Outpatient and Inpatient Statistics
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Health Authorities (Services)
  Health Authorities (Services)
  Rent Rebate Scheme
  Rent Rebate Scheme
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
THE ARTS
  Public and Private Funding
  Public and Private Funding
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation Statistics
  Taxation Statistics
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Taxpayers' Records
  Taxpayers' Records
  Unitary Taxation
  Unitary Taxation
  Civil Service Pay
  Civil Service Pay
  Community Budget
  Community Budget
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Support Prices
  Support Prices
  Decision Making
  Decision Making
  Budget Rebate
  Budget Rebate
  Financial Reform
  Financial Reform
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Policy Development
  Policy Development
WALES
  Consultant Paediatric Pathologists
  Consultant Paediatric Pathologists
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
  Mentally-handicapped Persons (Adult Training Centres)
  Mentally-handicapped Persons (Adult Training Centres)
  Health Authorities (Financial Allocations)
  Health Authorities (Financial Allocations)
  Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Wool Guarantee
  Wool Guarantee
  Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Local Authorities (Deputations)
  Local Authorities (Deputations)
  Rates Bill
  Rates Bill
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authorities (Staff)
  Local Authorities (Staff)
  Industrial Rating
  Industrial Rating
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government (Rate Limitation)
  Local Government (Rate Limitation)
  European Charter of Local Self-government
  European Charter of Local Self-government
  Third Independent (Planning Permission)
  Third Independent (Planning Permission)
  Greater London (Housing)
  Greater London (Housing)
  Sports Office
  Sports Office
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Planning Permissions
  Planning Permissions
  Refuse Disposal
  Refuse Disposal
  City of London
  City of London
  Local Authorities (Accounts)
  Local Authorities (Accounts)
  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980
  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980
  Rate Capping
  Rate Capping
  Refuse Collection (Redundancies)
  Refuse Collection (Redundancies)
  Anglian Water Authority
  Anglian Water Authority
  Local Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Local Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Haringey
  Haringey
NORTHERN IRELAND
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  School Libraries
  School Libraries
  Compensation Payments
  Compensation Payments
  Young Workers Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme

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

Magistrates' Courts: Annual Expenditure
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I ask the Minister to be good enough to read out the figures at dictation speed?
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the figures for expenditure on magistrates' courts for each year between 1979 and estimated 1985–86 at constant prices, taking 1979 at £72 million.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Government plans public expenditure in cash rather than on the basis of constant prices. The figures I shall give have, however, been adjusted by the deflator for gross domestic product at market prices taking 1979–80 as the base year. Information about plans for 1985–86 will be given in the forthcoming Public Expenditure White Paper. The outturn for 1979–80 was £72·5 million, for 1980–81 it was £79·1 million and for 1981–82 it was £82·6 million. For 1982–83 the provisional outturn is £85 million, for 1983–84 the forecast outturn is £87·9 million and the planned figure for 1984–85 is £88·9 million. The figures show that, even after allowance is made, so far as is possible, for the effect of inflation, current expenditure has increased from year to year.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for the trouble he has taken in providing me with these figures. May I ask him whether he recollects that, in reply to a Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, towards the end of November of last year, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave figures indicating a very substantial increase indeed—so substantial an increase that no less a person than the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition was disposed to call them "very impressive figures"? These figures were given in current cost terms and led the House to believe that there had been a very substantial increase in this expenditure over a period of six years, and in particular over the year being inquired into by the questioner.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Diamond: The Question, in case the Chief Whip has forgotten it, is: does the noble Lord recollect that this happened? Does the noble Lord further recollect that the figures given for the relevant years which were under inquiry by the noble Baroness showed an increase of some £6 million? On the figures now given by the noble Lord, the accurate figure is £1 million—£1 million as against £11 million.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind to give way. He is raising a number of points at some length. It is easier to deal with them one by one rather than to have a collection of points put to me at length. I cannot say that I recollect the occasion to which the noble Lord refers, because it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who answered the Question. He was good enough to do so because I could not be here. I have, however, read the account in the record and can vouch for everything that my noble and learned friend said. I have the figures before me. They were rounded down, which makes them less ambitious than the noble Lord is seeming to infer. They relate exactly to the figures I have given, which were adjusted as the noble Lord asked me to adjust them.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the question is: is it not in the best interests of this House that Ministers should be in a position to give significant comparisons rather than comparisons which lay it open for the Members of this House to be misled?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is in the best tradition of this House, which my noble and learned friend impeccably followed, to answer Questions according to the terms in which they are asked.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I recall the Question that was addressed to the noble Lord by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Prys-Davies: May I ask the noble Lord whether there is evidence of undue delay in the hearing of cases before magistrates' courts? If so, it would be a cause for concern, because justice delayed is justice denied.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not quite sure how I can relate that question to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, has the Minister any figures relating to the productivity of these courts? In other words, what is the quantity of fines levied over these periods?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I genuinely regret that I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I shall write to my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the figures are broken down between juvenile and adult courts and, if so, what is the cost of the juvenile courts?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am afraid that if I were to have the full range of information in such detail in my hands it would scarcely be portable, but, again, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord feel that our lay magisterial courts justify this expenditure? Are they not too often run by a clerk whose ego seems to outstrip his intelligence?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that magistrates who give voluntarily of their time are an invaluable feature of the British judicial system.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since my name has been raised in connection with this matter, I should like to put a question to the noble Lord the Minister. The Question which appears on the Order Paper is not entirely along the lines of that which I asked. Will the Minister therefore reiterate that he is satisfied that expenditure on magistrates' courts at the moment is achieving the purpose of the Government in maintaining the quality of law and order to which we have become accustomed?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the answer—if I may be brief—is, yes.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that lay magistrates are among the most effective and well-regarded of the institutions of this country; that they play a remarkable role in the defence of our liberties under the law; and that they should be given the necessary resources to do their work even more effectively in the future?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the whole of the first part of the noble Lord's question, I entirely agree. As to the resources devoted to the discharge of their functions, I believe they are adequate and, as both my noble and learned friend and I have sought to say, they are also increasing.

Home Industries: Fire Hazards
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hale: 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 whether the number of serious fires at domestic premises where attempts at home industry are being carried on without any special insurance against fire or accident has recently increased; and whether they will introduce regulations for increased safety with aid for additional insurance costs where practicable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, such information as is available does not suggest that there has been any increase in recent years in the frequency with which serious fires occur in these and similar premises. No information is available as to whether the premises are insured against fire or accident.
The Government believe that the present law is adequate to secure the safety of those occupying premises of this type. We are however reviewing the way in which we seek to identify and inspect small premises for fire and safety hazards in the light of the tragic fires which occurred recently in the Mile End Road and Gravesend. We have no proposals to provide aid for additional insurance costs in respect of those and other similar premises.
Lord Hale: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that information. The Question clearly relates to
236
the Fire Precautions Act 1971. We had a long-drawn-out debate and discussion during the passage of that legislation about what was being done regarding the registration of premises against fire, and about the fire precautions in designated premises. The answer to the last Question that I put down on the matter was that 11,526 premises had been inspected and that at least 10,000 more which had been partially inspected would need certificates. May I ask how many certificates have been issued and what has happened to this extraordinarily useful precaution which seems to have fallen to some extent in abeyance?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will be in a better position to reassure the noble Lord when I come to answer his next Question. I can tell him at this stage that we believe that the process of inspection is proceeding apace. In fact, about 95 per cent. of the premises to which the noble Lord is referring have already been inspected.

Hotels: Fire Hazards
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hale: 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 whether the programme of inspection of all licensed or unlicensed residential hotels within the Greater London Area, including full inspections by the local fire brigade and inspection of the emergency exists and full advice on fire proofing, is now completed; or, if not, how many premises still await inspection.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the inspection and certification of hotels and boarding houses under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is carried out in inner London by the architect's department of the Greater London Council and in outer London by the London Fire Brigade. I understand that as at 31st December 1983, out of a total of 1,866 premises known to those bodies 1,766 had been fully inspected and issued with a fire certificate; 79 had been inspected and issued with a notice of steps to be taken before a fire certificate would be issued; and 21 remained to be dealt with.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information and for what he added about the previous Question. He did get into some difficulty after about five other noble Lords in different parts of the House tried to ask supplementary questions.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, arising from this Question—and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this relates to it—may I ask the Minister whether inspections by local fire brigades are carried out at Her Majesty's prisons? In particular, are they carried out at Her Majesty's prison at Strangeways—a matter about which prison visitors have recently expressed some anxiety?
Lord Elton: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government always have the fire precautions at prisons very much in mind, particularly in the light of recent experience.

237
The fire prevention officers in that case have been consulted.
Lord Byers: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister who will be responsible for the inspections now undertaken by the architect's department of the GLC when the GLC is abolished?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the change in our proposals for the government of London will bring very little change to these arrangements. The only substantive change will be that the London Fire Brigade will probably take on responsibility for the certification of hotels throughout the whole of the Greater London area, instead of for just outer London as at present; but that should not slow down the progress of certification.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, arising from the last supplementary question, is the noble Lord aware that it is hoped in increasingly wide circles that the Government will change their minds and will not in fact abolish the GLC?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have noticed the noble Lord's optimism always, particularly in regard to what might be on the Order Paper.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, may I bring the noble Lord back to his reply to the noble Lord who asked the question about the abolition of the GLC? The noble Lord's reply sounded rather complacent to me when I understand that, if the GLC is abolished, the biggest problem for the inspection of these unlicensed and licensed premises will be in inner London. Is the noble Lord sure that sufficient provision will be made for the continued inspection of those premises?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is intended that the fire authority for London shall be a joint board drawn from the constituent borough councils. They will have exactly the same locus standi with the fire brigades as the GLC, as fire authority, now has. There should really be no difficulty in this at all.

Westminster Hospital and Medical School
3.52 p.m.
Lord Segal: 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 is their long and short term policy on the future of Westminster Hospital and its medical school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Government welcome the decision of the University of London that the Westminster Hospital Medical School and the Charing Cross Hospital Medical School should be amalgamated. I understand that legislation is being prepared to create the new school later this year. As to the Westminster Hospital, we do not foresee any major change in its role in the immediate future.
Lord Segal: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, I would like to ask him this question. Since the removal of St. George's Hospital and Charing Cross Hospital to the suburbs, is the number of beds available in the west of London able to cope with major emergencies such as the recent Harrods bomb disaster, and does not this emphasise the importance of retaining Westminster Hospital and all its departments as the utmost degree of efficiency?
As regards the second part of my question, arising out of this, would it not be better if every effort were made to allow the Westminster Medical School to retain its independent identity?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hope that I have made clear in my original Answer, so far as the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, that it has been agreed, and the Government have welcomed the decision, to amalgamate the Charing Cross Hospital Medical School with the Westminster Hospital Medical School.
So far as concerns the noble Lord's first supplementary question about the importance of Westminster in relation to the Harrods bombing, which I think is the point he makes, yes, my Lords, I am aware of the important role Westminster played in this. I should certainly like to add my voice to the many who have not only condemned the mindless atrocity of that act but also praised the excellent treatment provided to the casualties by the hospitals in the area, including the Westminster Hospital. But, my Lords, there is no present intention, no formal proposal, to close Westminster Hospital. Should such proposals be made, then, of course, every consideration will be given to them on their merits, and they will only be allowed to go ahead if we are convinced that to do so would be to the benefit of patient services within the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that when the amalgamation takes place there will be no diminution of staff, either from Charing Cross or Westminster, or diminution of pupils when the medical schools are joined together? Can the noble Lord further state quite clearly that the apprehensions which are now extant in Westminster Hospital about the future are unfounded? Will he take advantage of this opportunity to remove those apprehensions completely and say that Westminster Hospital is quite safe from any future Government intervention to destroy it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, documents have been issued by the Victoria Health Authority, but these have been of an informative nature, setting out the context in which strategic proposals need to be developed. The most recent of these, which was issued in June last year, mentioned that a variety of options had been the subject of public speculation, including closure of one or more hospitals in the district; the document made it clear that further consideration and discussion would be needed before proposals were issued for public consultation.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord's rather lengthy reply mean yes, and, if it does, would he tell us so?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the answer in Hansard, he will discover that I did not say either yes or no.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would it not be helpful if the noble Lord would pass the encouraging answer he first gave to the Victoria Health District? Is he aware, bearing in mind that they have suffered a cash cut of £1.8 million in 1984–85 and expect a further cash cut of £1.8 million in 1985–86, that the health district have informed me today that the options they were considering included the total closure of the Westminster Hospital? Another was a substantial reduction in beds, including the closing of the accident and emergency unit to which tribute has already been paid for the role that it played at the time of the tragic Harrods bombing just before Christmas. If the noble Lord is telling the House that the Westminster Hospital is safe, can he accept that, because so many noble Lords owe their lives to the skills of the doctors and nurses in that hospital, there will be a cheer from all sides of the House? But will he also tell the health district, which is responsible, that that is the situation that the Minister has decided upon?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Health are, of course, in touch with the Victoria Health Authority on these proposals. I do not think that the noble Lord's claim that it is not aware of what is going on is the case at all. For the longer term, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State awaits the strategic proposals now being developed by the Victoria Health Authority for the future of health services for which that authority is responsible, and also the strategic plan being prepared by the North West Thames Regional Health Authority.
We remain committed to the policy of securing a fairer distribution of National Health Service resources across the country. This refers to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. Significant inequalities still remain which will be greatly reduced over the next 10 years or so by differential allocations of growth money and some reductions in revenue for the most over-provided regions, such as the North West Thames. Within North West Thames, Victoria is the district with the highest level of NHS resources per head of population served, and must therefore plan on the assumption that its revenue allocations will be reduced.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, the assurance he gave in the answer to my noble friend Lord Segal, that no changes were proposed in the role of the Westminster Hospital seems now to have been changed. Can he say whether his last answer or the original answer that he gave was correct?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was asked if there were any firm plans to close Westminster Hospital and the answer that I gave was that there are no firm plans to close it, but there are proposals that are being considered which may or may not include closure. No decision has been taken. I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
Lord Todd: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister perhaps agree that had the University of London accepted the proposals in the report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education in 1968 the Question we are discussing today would have been quite unnecessary?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must confess that I am not familiar off the top of my head with the proposals which the noble Lord mentions. I will, of course, look at them, and if I can answer that question in writing I shall do so.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord wisely said, in the response to the first part of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that his answer was neither yes nor no. I very much hope that the noble Lord's answer to the second part of the supplementary question is a firm no, because the noble Lord will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Segal, asked whether we could go back to square one and have an entirely independent Westminster Medical School and that the merger between the Charing Cross Medical School and the Westminster Medical School should not take place. Is the noble Lord aware that the University of London—no doubt rather late off the mark as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, observed—has nevertheless been trying to reduce the number of medical schools in order to reduce costs? Is he further aware that this merger is the first major success which has been achieved in this programme? Does he agree that there is considerable scope for further mergers of this kind? Does he also agree that the capacity of beds as regards the needs of the medical schools in certain subjects, such as obstetrics, is sometimes twice the capacity needed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about the amalgamation. He asked one or two other questions and I may not be able to follow up all of them without reading what he said. As regards the implication that the University Grants Committee was responsible for the so-called rationalisation of the London medical schools, the answer is, "No, not at all". The proposals to combine some of the London medical schools into larger and more viable units were discussed by the University of London long before the reductions in funding referred to. I note that, despite the reduced level of funding, the London medical schools were able to expand their intake by nearly 7 per cent. between 1980 and 1982.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister simply do nothing more than acknowledge that the staff of the Westminister Hospital are perturbed when they hear statements from the Victoria Health Authority and ministerial statements which cause distress because the staff do not know which to believe? Will the Minister at least say that as soon as humanly possible he will make a statement which will clear up all the doubts and let the staff of this famous hospital, who have contributed so much, know where they stand?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I hope I explained earlier, no firm decisions have been reached and, therefore, rumours will circulate, as they always do,

241
until a decision is made. But no decision has been made and, when it is, and if it is thought proper to announce it here, I dare say I shall have an opportunity to do so.
Lord Segal: My Lords, is it not of the utmost importance, where human life is at stake, that a patient should be admitted to the nearest hospital, whether it is public or private?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, but, as I said, there is sometimes also the problem of rationalising services within the National Health Service generally.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to being made in another place on the Government Communictions Headquarters and the Employment Protection Acts.
It has become customary for me to say a brief word about the timing of speeches in the short debates. The principle adopted is that the mover shall be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. The number of speakers in the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Kimberley are such that on that basis succeeding speakers would be entitled to slightly longer than the two movers. I therefore suggest that while no formal time limit needs to be proposed, noble Lords should try not to exceed the 15 minutes customarily permitted to the mover of the debate.

Procedure of the House
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That the Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be agreed to.
The report read as follows:
1. STARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee have considered the terms of Standing Order 40 which provides that, in reckoning the period of notice for Starred Questions, no account shall be taken of any time when the House is in recess.
The Committee are of the opinion that this condition leads to a lack of topicality, particularly on the eve of the summer recess when Starred Questions can be tabled for a date more than two months in the future. In order to meet this difficulty they recommend that the period of notice should in future be a month inclusive of recesses and that Standing Order 40 should be amended accordingly. They recommend that the change should take effect in time for the summer recess in 1984.
2. TIME-LIMITED DEBATES
The Committee took note of the procedure for Short Debates limited to 2½ hours and of the fact that this procedure had been successfully applied to debates other than those selected by ballot. They are of the opinion that the procedure for timed debates should be extended to provide for the possibility of debates of a maximum duration of 5 hours. They recommend that the House should
242
exercise this option by means of an appropriate motion applying the time limit in each case. Within the overall limit, the amount of time allotted to particular speakers should be agreed in advance and announced to the House as it is at present for Short Debates.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that I need say only a few words about the first recommendation in the report on Starred Questions. Your Lordships will recall that this matter was first raised in the House in a Starred Question itself by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, on 16th November and it was referred to the Committee. The Committee was happy to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and the result is the first recommendation which we hope will ensure greater topicality of Questions when we reassemble after a Summer Recess.
The second recommendation raises rather more serious issues on the subject of time-limited debates. It arose from a joint letter which was written to me from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on 16th November last advocating the introduction of debates limited to five hours. The Committee had this letter before it. It also had a memorandum from me of a purely factual nature, and it had a memorandum from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who unluckily was abroad at the time and unable to attend the Committee. His memorandum argued forcefully against the proposal and was supported, also in his absence, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
The Committee had a very thorough debate on these proposals and took full note of the objections that were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. But in the end it was decided unanimously by those members present in the Committee—and there were, in fact, 23 members present out of the 29 members on the Committee—that the recommendation should be put to the House that we should have a modest experiment of debates limited to five hours.
I have no doubt that some of your Lordships will wish to argue the pros and cons of this proposal, but I think that I should just make one point: the proposal is a very modest one. In the first place, it would not apply to any debates on Second Reading. In the second place, it would only be proposed for a general debate with the approval of the mover of the Motion and after discussion through the usual channels. In the third place, in each case a Motion applying the time limit would have to be put to the House itself.
As far as the mechanics of the five-hour debate are concerned, if the recommendation should appeal to your Lordships, then the procedure would be similar to the procedures which have worked so successfully with short debates limited to two and a half hours, and we have heard the mechanics outlined this afternoon by the Chief Whip. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has indicated, although I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure I was not able, owing to a business trip abroad—and, if he will allow me to say so, also to the rather short notice at which this subject was brought forward—to attend the Select Committee; although in his usual

243
courteous way he allowed me to circulate a paper. But as your Lordships will be only too well aware, circulation of a paper without the opportunity to answer the arguments put forward—though no doubt better than nothing—is a fairly inadequate reply.
I rise to suggest to your Lordships that, despite the moderate and restricted terms in which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has put this forward, your Lordships should view this proposal—as I suggest your Lordships should view all proposals involving restriction on their freedom of action in debate—with a good deal of caution: indeed, perhaps even with a modicum of suspicion. I know—and the House will in a few moments be taking part in two such debates—that we have a system of short debates in which an analogous system operates even though its consequences, as appeared from the statement of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, are sometimes rather comic in their effect.
There is, of course, an enormous difference between those short debates. which the House accepts, I think—because it is only with that limited allotment of time that those debates are possible at all—and the general debates to which in certain cases the proposal of the Select Committee would extend this restrictive process. I am sure that I do not need to say that the general debates which your Lordships' House puts on on occasions are a major part of the activity of the House. I think that their standard and quality account for a good deal of the very high reputation that your Lordships' House has outside. I suggest that we want to be very careful indeed before we do anything by way of restriction which might adversely affect the conduct of those debates. I also pray in aid the traditional historic right of a Peer to give expression to his views in debate, without let or hindrance, although subject of course always, if he seeks to abuse that right, to a Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard—a Motion which is from time to time necessarily proposed. Subject to that, your Lordships have an ancient right to address the House without restriction.
If one comes then to this specific proposal, it has one rather paradoxical effect. If only a small number of Peers put their names down to speak in a debate, as apparently has happened in respect of this afternoon's short debates, an ample allocation of time is made. But, as the amount of time allotted is, as I understand it, simply a mathematical process of taking the amount of time, apart from that allocated to the Minister and to the opener, and dividing it by the number of noble Lords who have given notice that they wish to speak, the effect is that, if a subject is popular and of very great importance, the shorter is the time allotted to each noble Lord, and there is indeed no minimum guaranteed length at all.
There are other substantial difficulties which I shall not weary the House with at this stage, save to mention two. First of all, these general debates—in some of which I have taken part—raise matters of controversy among the parties. This proposal makes no provision for extra or additional time for those who speak for the political parties, with the exception of the Minister. There is no provision for extra time for those who speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box or indeed for those who represent the other parties in the House.
244
If I may quote an example of that from a debate which I had the privilege of opening on 23rd November, there was a speech in that debate which raised very serious party political issues affecting public and private ownership. It was a speech from that Dispatch Box made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. It lasted 28 minutes, and every minute of it was worthwhile, because it was a closely reasoned and powerful exposition of a point of view with which I wholly disagree. If we adopt this proposal, and it is applied to that sort of debate, a speech like that of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, would have to be cut in two, if not in three.
The proposal also militates against what one might call the debating type of speech. If a noble Lord decides simply to read or to speak from something that he has prepared, he does not have to give way and he can probably limit the length of his speech in accordance with the time allotted to him. But if he makes a debating speech, it is the very proper convention of the House that he gives way to an intervention, particularly from another noble Lord opposite to whom he has referred. Under the proposed system, how is that time to be handled? Either the intervention simply comes out of the time of the noble Lord who is speaking or it comes out of the time of some subsequent speaker to whom it has been allotted.
With very great respect to a Select Committee of which I happen to be a member, it seems to me that this somewhat hurried recommendation has not been thoroughly thought through in all its implications in its application to these general debates. Therefore, I would counsel considerable caution. I add only one further comment. The report, which is not unduly full of information, ends with the sentence:
"Within the overall limit"—
that is the five hours—
"the amount of time allotted to particular speakers should be agreed in advance and announced to the House as it is at present for Short Debates".
I ask this question: agreed in advance by whom and on behalf of whom? If it is on behalf of all those taking part who have given their names in to speak, it may well be that agreement can be reached or that it cannot be reached. If it cannot be reached, I assume the Motion would not be moved. But if it is—in accordance with, I think, the practice in other directions—simply to be agreed between the Whips, I would see the very greatest objection to that.
I speak as one who is an almost passionate admirer of my noble friend the Government Chief Whip and an almost equally passionate admirer of the Opposition Chief Whip. It is naturally in the interests of the Whips to have such limits in the arrangement of business. They then know exactly by when the business will be concluded. They will have a natural temptation to move such a Motion, and—although they are of course not like Oscar Wilde, able to resist anything except temptation—they might perhaps yield to it on occasions. Therefore, I should like to hear from someone who speaks on behalf of these proposals whose agreement would be required if such a Motion were to be moved.
Subject to that, I rise simply to express doubts and a belief that the adoption of this proposal, even in a

245
limited number of cases—from which it might spread—would be harmful to the conduct of our general debates which are to some extent the pride of this House. In the words of Lord Melbourne, I would say to your Lordships: why not leave it alone?
3.17 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I am surprised at the heat engendered by this proposal. It is very modest. It does not try to take away any of the procedures of debate that we have at the moment. At present it is possible to make a recommendation to the House that on such-and-such a day there will be two debates of two and a half hours each, instead of a general debate without a time limit. That is possible at the moment, and it is done. The proposal is merely that, in addition to that, it should be possible to propose that a debate be a five-hour debate, and that would also need the formal approval of the House. The House will decide, not in general, but on each occasion. The proposal would never be put to the House without the support of the person moving the Motion before the House. Whether it should be a five-hour debate or a debate without a time limit depends upon the subject. We are merely proposing to have facilities available so that we can adopt one course or the other. It is a very modest proposal.
I submit to the House that the possibility of a five-hour debate offers several advantages. First, it would encourage noble Lords with specialised knowledge and experience but who are short of time to be prepared either to propose Motions to the House or to speak in debates because they would know the time for which they were expected to sit. In that respect it would be a considerable advantage. Secondly, in accordance with our experience of two and a half hour debates, there is every indication that speeches would tend to be shorter without their value being seriously diminished.
I would remind the House that the length of a speech depends not so much upon the speaker's knowledge of the subject but upon the extent to which he has marshalled his thoughts so that he can convey them to the House logically and concisely. If we encourage that, we shall get somewhere, will we not, my Lords?
I would also suggest that if as a result of the change we have shorter speeches, it is likely that there will be more Peers in the Chamber during the debate; the debate will be more interesting if there are more speakers making shorter speeches. Then, very occasionally there is a Division after a debate. If there is to be a Division, everybody will know the approximate time when it is to take place; and that, of course, will be an advantage.
I come to the final advantage that I can see. One of the treasured procedures of this House is the Unstarred Question, which enables Members of the House to probe and debate policy and to put forward alternatives and amendments to policy without embarrassing anyone. There is never any Division on an Unstarred Question; it is a debate, a discussion. Unfortunately, Unstarred Questions come at the end of the day and sometimes not at the end of the day, but at the beginning of the next day. With a time limit on
246
debate there will be the advantage that if an Unstarred Question is to follow, everyone will know the approximate time it is to be asked and there may be a little more time available for those who want to take part in the debate.
I feel that what is being proposed will be a worthwhile experiment. There were 23 members of the Committee present. They agreed unanimously to submit the recommendation to the House, and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, but there is one matter that I should like to point out. As we all know, I hope, in this House order is supposed to be kept by the Back-Benchers. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that all Back-Benchers make themselves thoroughly familiar with the Standing Orders and with the Companion to the Standing Orders, and the leaders of each party should impress this on the "new boys".
Secondly, with regard to the first part of the report of the Procedure Committee, I wonder whether the Procedure Committee would consider having one Starred Question at a week's notice. I cannot believe that I am alone in having wanted to ask a Question on a highly topical matter, only to find that I could not do so for a month, all the Starred Questions being booked up. By that time there would be no point in asking the Question. If the Procedure Committee could agree to my suggestion, more Starred Questions would be asked for information only, in accordance with Standing Order No. 31, and there would be fewer with the thinly-veiled object of chivying the Government on a pet subject.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly support the case made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because, like him, owing to the short notice given, I was unable to attend the meeting of the Procedure Committee on 8th December. I think that the only major point I wish to add to the admirable case which he has put is as follows. In the nature of things a debate lasting five hours will be a more important debate than one lasting two and a half hours, it will have a wider scope, and the subject itself will be a bigger subject. Therefore, during any such debate there will be some Back-Bench speeches which should not be limited by the mathematical accident of dividing the number of minutes available by the number of Back-Bench speakers. There should be scope for those Peers with special knowledge to make a contribution to the debate which may exceed the average length of time.
For example, we have had interesting debates on the Falkland Islands. Very few of us have had the advantage of going there, but those noble Lords who have been there have been given—and should always be given—a fairly extensive hearing. I give that as but one example. So I most warmly support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in what he has said in this matter.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I rise in support of what my noble friend has said. I think that I now have very nearly 40 years of parliamentary experience, and I am still waiting for one new

247
experience: that is, to hear the speech which is too short. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to an admirable speech made by my noble friend Lord Barnett, and he said that it took 28 minutes. I am sure that it was an admirable speech. I heard most of it. But I believe that there are very few speeches, and indeed very few arguments, that cannot with benefit be reduced in length. So far as writing is concerned, one can go through an article 20 times and still find a word that can with advantage be omitted. That is a discipline which is of value if it is imposed upon us.
The other point which seems to have been put as a criticism is that the Whips have a special interest because what is proposed would enable them to know how long a debate would last and when the next business would be taken. I venture to say that that is not an advantage to the Whips, it is an advantage to us. That is what we want to know, and it is a great advantage to us if we do know.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is going to push his argument to the vote. I hope that he does, because I believe that we have heard a division of view which justifies the House as a whole coming to a conclusion. I believe that the fundamental point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter at the end of his speech was one that we ought to take into account.
If I really felt that both Houses—and this House in particular—would always be full of angels who would never do anything wrong, and that there was no possibility of anyone in future taking advantage of anything, I would accept the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, without question. But I do not think that this House will always be full of people of that kind.
If we add this extra restriction to the mechanics of the House we shall be giving an extra power to the Executive, to the detriment of the freedom of the Back-Bench; and I do not believe that we ought to do that, I consider that the ultimate freedom lies in the fact that the Back-Benchers who have no Government axe to grind, who have no vested interest, should have no unnecessary restrictions placed upon them.
One does not want to be at all critical of the Whips system, which has been practised to very good effect in the whole of Parliament for a long time. But we know that the Whipping system gives them power in influencing people much beyond any power held by ordinary Members of this House. If a certain subject which is important enough to be considered for more than five hours does not suit the Executive, they could keep it down. We know that they can bring to bear influence by the issue of a Whip, or by a nod and a wink, to get the matter through. I do not believe that that extra power ought to be given to the Executive.
I have no problems in this regard at the moment; I should be very happy to hand over almost all my powers to the present Executive. But we do not know how long that is to last. The essence of our Parliament is that it changes, and that means that the Executive changes, too. I can envisage circumstances—and I am not being melodramatic about this—where it would suit the Executive to truncate the kind of debate that
248
would be of interest to the nation and which the Back-Benchers would like to pursue but would not suit the Government of the day.
The very modest nature of what is proposed shows that it is not all that important. It does not affect Second Readings. Motions would have to be moved, and possibly it would have the effect of shortening the speeches. These pluses are not fundamental points, but I believe that the removal of ultimate freedom from the Back-Benchers is fundamental, and it ought to be resisted. That is why I hope my noble friend will push the matter to a vote, so that the House as a whole can express its views on it.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee, I was present for the whole of the time. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, that every possible consideration was given both for and against this particular suggestion. I do not think that if they had been present they could have crossed any t's or dotted any i's. If I may say so, it has nothing to do with the question of power. It is a question of providing a new length—a definite length—for debate. Many of us who have sat in this House for some years have known occasions when halfway through a debate for which there is a list of 30, 35 or 38 wishing to take part, those who have spoken have gone and, for the rest of the evening—sometimes for several hours—there have been not a dozen people in your Lordships' Chamber.
Surely, the limit of five hours will concentrate people's minds—because people's minds in your Lordships' House can be concentrated. It has not happened often enough. I believe that the limit would be an asset. I only hope the House will realise that the proposal was not simply passed without any consideration at all. It was, in fact, discussed in very considerable detail. I feel, along with all the others, that it will be to the ultimate advantage of the House. It has nothing to do with the power of the Whips. It is to do with good debating in your Lordships' House.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I suppose that I should apologise for pursuing this debate. I am not going to offer an apology because what has occurred is something that has bothered me ever since I became a Member of this Assembly. In my judgment—I have expressed it both here and elsewhere—the House of Lords is the most remarkable Assembly in the world. It contains, I believe, 13 Members who are Fellows of the Royal Society. That is a great achievement itself. We have remarkable scientists, educationists and philosophers, some of whom regard themselves as philosophers but who are not very philosophical. I shall mention no names. I have no desire to indulge in any offence or criticism.
Like my noble friend Lord Paget, who is sitting beside me, I have been a Member of this House for 14 years and have taken part in many debates, probably to disadvantage. That cannot be helped. It depends upon one's opinion, one's objective and one's purpose in life and how one regards this Assembly and what use can be made of it. I think great use can be made of it. More use can be made of it than hitherto has happened. I am much concerned about procedure. If

249
I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of Committees, I am not so much concerned about the report from this Committee; I am concerned with the implications arising from this discussion, initiated largely by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose experience and judgment we hold in high respect.
This is what I wanted to say. It will not take long. We can talk our heads off until we are black or blue in the face. We can have speeches that are short and long. We can have speeches that are remarkable in an oratorical sense or in a logical sense. We understand all that. It is a matter of judgment whether a speech is illogical. It is not so much whether the matter is really logical or how it appeals to one. One could say a great deal about that. What concerns me is this. We have remarkable debates but we never come to a decision. There is no implementation. What is the purpose of this Assembly if we talk our heads off but there is no actual implementation of any sort?
This is not a criticism of the present Government. It is a criticism of every Government that I have known. I know this myself because I have been a member of them. Governments pay not the slightest attention. The Government Front Bench, the Whips and those with authority listen, but the matter is completely ignored. Nothing happens. There is the odd reference in the press—hardly anything at all.
All of us know that what matters for the reputation of a politician is not his speech but whether he gets an item in the newspapers. That is what counts—and there is little of it. However, I set that aside. I conclude on this point. Let us have our debates long or short, starred or unstarred. I am not particularly concerned whether they are starred or unstarred, this way or that. I am concerned that when a speech is made by some of the best and ablest Members—I say best but there is no such thing as best in this House—when some of the ablest Members have participated, the Government have to take notice.
This is an appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who is not present. I am sorry about that. But the Chief Whip is present, and so is the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Other members of the Government are present. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, might take note of this because it affects her very much indeed, as a former Leader of the House. I beg the Government to pay attention to what is stated by Members of your Lordships' House and not completely to ignore a variety of oratory.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, we are going to debate before we have a debate, how long it should last, would we not be in great danger, in the light of what has happened this afternoon, of spending an hour or two deciding whether it should be five hours or two and a half hours?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has provided a very good answer to the remark of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that this matter would not still be in the hands of Back-Benchers. Of course it would. When a Motion is put before the House to introduce a time-limited debate in this way, it would be for the House to give its
250
approval or not. So the House could decide, if it felt it was inappropriate, that it was not right to do so. Personally, I have rather more confidence than my noble friend in the good judgment of the Whips in this matter. I have no doubt that if it were a subject of great party controversy then discussion through the usual channels would almost certainly decide that it would be better not to have a time limit and to allow it to run its full length.
There was one point to which I should like to reply. It was made cogently by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who felt that the liberty of noble Members of the House and their right to speak would be limited by this sugestion. In fact, the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and myself, as instigators of this idea—it was previously ventilated five years ago by myself on the Procedure Committee—is quite the reverse. It is for the convenience of the House. There is no doubt that a number of Peers are deterred from putting down their names for major debates because they know that the debate will continue for a long time. There could be over 30 speakers.
The individual Peer feels that he must be present at the end of the debate but he has, perhaps, some other engagement or the hour will be too late. One way or another, he is deterred. There are also some noble Lords who have outside engagements and who have to make their apologies, if they choose to take part in the debate, for not being present at the end. One of our most important duties, as I see it and as, I am sure, most noble Lords see it, is that if we take part in debates, we must be present at the end. That convention is not always observed.
This suggestion would make it very much easier for everybody and distinguished noble Lords, if they knew that a limited time debate was going to end somewhere around 8 o'clock or 8.30, would be encouraged to put their names down and give us very valuable contributions which we should not otherwise get. So there is a point of convenience here and, taking the practical logistics which we all well understand, when debates go on to 10 or 11 o'clock at night a number of Peers will be deterred from taking part because it is too late for them in one way or another. To that extent, Peers are limited as to when they can take part, but if we had this arrangement they would not be so limited because they could come in and make their contribution and we should all be very glad of it.
I felt that it was worth making the point that this is proposed as an arrangement of convenience for your Lordships. It might be suitable in certain cases and would thus give us the benefit of contributions from Peers which we should otherwise not get. We should have limited the debate in time, for the benefit of everybody. I most certainly agree with noble Lords who have said that we have never yet heard a speech that is too short, and, with that, I will sit down.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, I think it is just possible that I may be the oldest sitting Member in the House today, because I have been here for 45 years. I have seen a number of changes in the House. Our numbers have increased enormously. We have far more natural orators than we used to have, and we have a great many people from another place who are pregnant

251
with speeches that were never made there and who are naturally very pleased to be able to exercise their privilege to utter them here.
Therefore, I think that we ought to impose the limit which is proposed. I may say that, when I was a member of the General Synod and the Church Assembly, there were always limits of this kind on the debates. The general saying among the most eminent of divines was, "If you can't say it in 10 minutes, its not worth saying at all". Many a time I and others have proposed as the debates have gone on—and there is no list of speakers there—that speeches might be limited to five minutes, and speeches have been limited to five minutes as people have learnt to be short. I think that we ought to support this proposal and that we ought to have a vote now.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, consider making it clear when he replies to this discussion that any such restriction as is contemplated is subject to two conditions?—first, the agreement of the usual channels of all the parties and, secondly, the Motion before the House decided by a majority of the House if necessary. I think it is necessary that these two conditions should be clearly understood in order to eliminate the, perhaps at this moment, academic possibility (but the one that has been raised) of a party majority in this House using its majority for the purpose of restricting debate against the wishes of the other parties.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should just like to put one matter to your Lordships. If the openers in the batting order speak too long and the time for debate is limited to five hours, those of us who are put in as nightwatchmen or whatever it may be, may be forced to speak for one and a half seconds. That may be a good thing—I quite concede that. But what your Lordships are then suggesting is that those at the top of the batting order can make 100 and those at the bottom of the batting order have all got to be out for one. How will that be controlled properly? If, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has suggested, everyone were limited to a set time as at the party political conferences, it would be very fair and very correct. But it seems to me very difficult for those at the end of the batting order who may be being bullied while those at the top of the batting order take advantage of it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to make one point and that is simply that if your Lordships' House contained a higher proportion of noble Baronesses, noted for their brevity, this proposition would never have arisen.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as one who first took his seat in this House in 1938, I have never made a long speech, and I do not intend to make one now. I do not believe that there is any subject on earth—except something in which there are enormous complications, which is possibly a matter for a Government speech—on which anybody need make any speech longer than a very few minutes. Therefore, I thoroughly support the present proposals.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, in the interests of brevity perhaps I may intervene at this moment. I do not think that it is really up to me to elaborate any further on the merits of the proposals. Your Lordships have heard those who support the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, and those who do not do so, put their case most eloquently and briefly this afternoon. I am sure that your Lordships are willing to come to a decision.
I should like briefly to make two points. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me a specific question. I thought that I had made it clear. but I shall repeat that any debate that was going to be subject to the five-hour limit would, indeed, have had to be agreed through the usual channels, which comprise all the parties; it would have had to be agreed by the House itself on a special Motion: and. in addition, it would have had to have the agreement of the mover of the Motion. So in the case of the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred, he would of course have had to agree to the debate being limited to five hours.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? He has referred to that particular debate and it may be relevant to this issue to note that, with no limitations on that debate, it took four hours and 40 minutes.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, it was an excellent debate and we are hoping that others may be kept as brief.
The other point was raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who mentioned Starred Questions. I can assure the noble Lady that the Procedure Committee keeps this matter under constant review. We discussed the whole matter of Starred Questions only last February, but of course it is open to any Member of the House to put proposals to the Procedure Committee, should he so wish.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, will the noble Lord clear up the point made by the right reverend Prelate? Would the decision of the House be taken without debate?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, the proposal would be put in the normal way, exactly as it is now in the case of a two and a half hour debate when the two and a half hour limit is applied specially to a debate which is not otherwise limited to two and a half hours. This happens occasionally now. The Motion would be put, presumably by the Leader of the House, that a certain debate should be limited to five hours. There would be no debate on how long it would be—it would be limited to five hours if this proposal is accepted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GCHQ and Employment Protection Acts
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned

253
friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on Government Communications Headquarters and the Employment Protection Acts.
"As the House knows, the Employment Protection Acts contain provisions which enable the Government to except Crown employees from the application of the Acts. These provisions can be used only for the purposes of safeguarding national security, and reflect the acknowledged need for particularly sensitive functions of Government to be protected so far as possible from the risk of exposure or disruption.
"Government Communications Headquarters is responsible for intelligence work of crucial importance to our national security. To be effective this work must be conducted secretly. Moreover, GCHQ must provide a service which can be relied on with confidence at all times. It is clear, therefore, that the conditions envisaged in the special provisions of the Employment Protection Acts exist in this case.
"The House will wish to know that, for these reasons. I have today signed certificates under Section 121(4) of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and Section 138(4) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, excepting GCHQ employees from the application of the relevant provision.
"The certificates have immediate effect and new conditions of service are at the same time being introduced at GCHQ. Under these new conditions, staff will be permitted in future to belong only to a departmental staff association approved by their director.
"The very special nature of the work of GCHQ will be apparent from what I have said. The action which I have taken stems directly from that. The Government fully respect the right of civil servants to be members of a trade union, and it is only the special nature of the work of the GCHQ which has led us to take these measures. I can assure the House therefore that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside the field of security and intelligence.
"GCHQ staff are being informed of these measures this afternoon. Those who decide to remain at GCHQ will each receive a payment of £1,000 in recognition of the fact that certain rights which they have hitherto enjoyed are being withdrawn from them in the interests of national security. Those who do not wish to continue to serve at GCHQ will be offered the opportunity of seeking a transfer to another part of the Civil Service."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We recognise the crucial importance of national security, but as this Statement has been presented without notice, clearly we shall need more time to consider the full implications of the proposals which the noble
254
Baroness has just read out, and to consider especially whether or not there are adequate grounds to justify them.
We should be told why this serious step is being taken now. Is there some special reason to make this necessary at this stage? If there is, that should be made known. Can the noble Baroness comment on the industrial record of this group of employees? What is their record on industrial disputes? Have there been any industrial disputes over the last few years and, if so, can the noble Baroness say how many and what was their nature? May I assume, as would normally be the case, that there has been full consultation with the parties concerned, and will the noble Baroness tell us their reaction? For example, was the £1,000 compensation an agreed sum with the parties in question? Finally, are the Government proposing to invite the Security Commission to consider the matter?—as the commission seems to me to be ideally suited to inquire into it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having repeated this Statement. Clearly the Government are taking a very serious step this afternoon and, like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, we shall need to give it further consideration.
Our first reaction—perhaps somewhat like the noble Lord's—is that, although we can understand that there may be considerations of security which justify the Government withholding from employees engaged on work as sensitive as that referred to in this Statement the right to withdraw their labour, in the absence of more information than we have been given we are indeed reluctant to concur in a step which has the effect of denying the employees concerned the right to belong to a trade union. Indeed, the process under which the people concerned are, it seems, to be "bought out", if I may use that expression, at £1,000 a time merely serves to increase our qualms.
The only other point that I can usefully raise at this short notice, in support of what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said in this House, is also to inquire of the noble Baroness whether, in what we must acknowledge is a very delicate field, nevertheless there is any further information that she can now give us which may help to resolve our doubts as to the wisdom of the course which the Government have decided to take.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful that both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Rochester, recognise that this is a particulary delicate situation. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked the reason for this decision. Of course, it is a decision which puts the employees of GCHQ in exactly the same position as other employees in security services in the Government and the armed services.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about industrial disputes at GCHQ. Since 1979 there have been industrial disputes, and strikes took place between 1979 and 1981. On the question whether or not there was discussion about the compensation of £1,000 for those who decide to remain at GCHQ, I confirm that it would not have been appropriate to

255
engage in extensive consulations with the staff on this matter, and the unions represented at GCHQ were not consulted. But, in parallel with the announcement, letters are being sent to GCHQ staff, and the non-industrial civil service trade unions are being informed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the Security Commission. The Security Commission has not been consulted. This is not a matter for the Security Commission itself. The commission is normally involved only when there has been a breach of security.
I hope that the answers that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, cover the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, because I believe that they were of a similar nature.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many noble Peers will be disturbed at receiving such an important announcement at such short notice, and that they would have preferred more notice in order to understand the implications of the Government's action? Is the noble Baroness aware that the way in which trade unionists have been ignored on this matter carries undertones which suggest that to be a member of a trade union could indicate some disloyalty to the Crown?—in spite of the fact that past efforts in this country, certainly as recent as the Falklands affair, have shown that that is not the case and that trade unionists are as loyal to the Crown, the Government and the people of this country as any other sector. I am amazed that the Government have become involved in such action without discussing the matter. I am not suggesting that they are not entitled to take the decision—that is their prerogative. But I am amazed that they have taken such a far-reaching decision without consulting the responsible trade unionists who have represented these people over a number of years. I hope that I shall not be proved right if I say that in some respects they may regret the decision they have taken.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has made. I should like to make it quite clear that this in no way implies disloyalty among trade unionists. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the purpose of the decision which the Government have taken in this matter is to bring GCHQ into line with other security services.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who in the past have had responsibility in the field of Civil Service administration realise better than most what a difficult step this must have been to take, and are therefore the more reassured by the firmness and determination of the Government to preserve national security by resolute action?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for what he has said, and I entirely agree with the points that he has made.
4 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would be good enough to
256
deal with one of my questions, which she inadvertently overlooked; namely, was there any specific reason for taking this step now, given that, clearly, there has been no unusual difficulty, and especially given her assurance that there is no doubt about the loyalty of trade unionists in this country? Indeed, given the history of the last 50 years, the trade unions stand out as about the most loyal section of the community.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should be glad to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that this is in no sense an attack on trade unions or on their members. I should like to repeat the assurance that I have already given in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. The Government believe that special conditions apply in security and intelligence work, and that, in the case of GCHQ, they are bringing the employees in line with the same conditions as apply to those employed at the present time in other security establishments.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would be kind enough to dwell a little more closely on the question troubling the noble Lord who asked the previous question and, I am sure, many others of your Lordships? Although we well understand the view of the Government that this particular department should be brought in line with other intelligence departments, what is difficult to understand, in the absence of anything which has triggered this off, is why a decision should be made so precipitately and so unusually without consultation with the parties involved.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the decision was taken for the reasons that I have already given to the House. The Government, because of the difficult nature of the decision and the particular circumstances, felt that it was not a matter that could be discussed before the final decision was taken.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to believe that some of us feel some doubt about this but at the same time we realise that if there was a particular reason for taking this decision at this moment—and I do not say whether there was or there was not—it would not have been appropriate for us, in the nature of security circumstances, to demand to be told what that reason was. It seems to me quite obvious that in this field, when you have to take a decision of this kind, you do not reveal the reason at the time for taking that decision. I find this consideration completely overriding, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with me in this case.
I do not know whether my noble friend could tell the House how many members of trade unions are involved in this. I do not know that it would do more than put the matter in perspective; but, for my part, I am quite satisfied that it is not appropriate to demand to know the reason why this decision has been taken at this moment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for his understanding of the particular circumstances and of the answers which I must, of necessity, give under these circumstances. My noble friend asked how many

257
staff are affected. I should like to confirm that all staff at GCHQ are affected by the Statement.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to come back so soon, and I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy and the way she has answered the probing questions that have been put. However, there will be no doubt in my mind—I may be wrong, but I have an idea that I will not be—that it will be taken by outsiders that somebody's loyalty was in question. I do not think you can draw any inference other than the fact that the Government have taken a decision that people in certain places, in certain jobs, cannot be totally trusted.
I have to cast noble Lords' minds back to the last war, when I was employed as an apprentice and when the trade unions, at the request of Winston Churchill, literally tore up their own rule books in order to defend this country and what it stood for. It is sad if the Government have taken this precipitate action. It may have been necessary at the end of the day, but to have done it without discussion of the full implications with the people representing those responsible is a disaster. It will be a disaster for the Government in their industrial relations with people in sensitive jobs.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can appreciate the strong feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, because he has only just heard the Statement. But I hope he will reflect upon what has been said this afternoon and no doubt read Hansard. I hope that he will consider first what I have said, that this is in no sense an attack on trade unions or trade unionists, whose loyalty is not in doubt; and, secondly, that the arrangements that are being made in GCHQ are precisely those that apply now, and have applied, to other security establishments—no more, no less—and that no one is being singled out in this way.

Salmonella Infections
4.7 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to call attention to the danger to animals and man posed by salmonella infections; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my task this afternoon to set the stage for subsequent speakers. This short debate does not concern, as one might surmise from the title, diseases of game fish, however interesting that might be to some noble Lords interested in fishing, and that includes myself. As everyone participating in the debate and others listening are aware, we are considering the problems caused by bacteria of the genus salmonella which can inhabit the intestines of nearly all animals. The genus is named after the American pathologist Daniel Elmer Salmon, who lived from 1850 to 1914, and he first described the culprit. Now, 130 years after his birth, more than 2,000 strains of salmonella have been identified in animals and man.
The leading member of this international intestinal Mafia is salmonella typhi, the causative organism of typhoid fever—a disease peculiar to man, though often spread through food products. Today, however, we are
258
not considering the chief Mafioso himself but a group of bacteria in the same genus, or gang, which can cause food poisoning in man and scours—that is diarrhoea—and abortion in cattle, pigs and sheep, particularly young animals.
There are a number of strains of salmonella which can cause disease, or are carried in both live animals and in man, and are thus classified as zoonoses. Other zoonoses with which noble Lords may be familiar are bovine tuberculosis, which is milk-carried tuberculosis, and brucellosis, also shared between cow or goat and man, about both of which there has been legislation which has been debated in this House and another place. There are many other zoonoses, some interesting but rare, and some of great importance especially in tropical areas—yellow fever, to name one important disease.
The topic of salmonellosis is important because diarrhoeal disease is a world problem, and it appears to be increasing in this country and in some other developed countries as well. According to the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre at Colindale there were 14,325 identified cases of human salmonella infection in 1983 compared with only 8.500 in 1979. Every year there are about 40 human deaths affecting mainly the vulnerable age groups—that is, those under five and those over 65, particularly the latter, although it is an important cause of outbreaks particularly in hospitals, more particularly in maternity hospitals.
This figure is a gross under-estimate of the real incidence because only a very small minority of the episodes of gastrointestinal infection are investigated to the extent that a specimen is sent for laboratory identification. This low notification rate of salmonella is partly because the disease is, luckily, relatively mild and usually lasts less than a week, yet it is still the major cause of sickness absence from work, quite apart from the unpleasantness, pain and suffering that it causes. Few attempts to calculate the economic costs are made, but in a recent outbreak in Scotland, in which 31 cases were notified, a costing estimate of more than £6,000 was made which amounts to some £200 per case. If extrapolated to the 14,000 notified cases in the country, this could add up to £2·8 million. Since we know that the identified cases may be only one-tenth of the total, it is possible that we are dealing with over £20 million of economic cost to the country as a whole.
This does not consider the agricultural losses. In agriculture salmonellosis is of considerable importance. For instance, some 4 to 5 per cent. of all calves die. That is, one in 20 to 25. About half these deaths are due to scouring, that is a diarrhoeal disease in which salmonella species are the most important identifiable pathogens. Sheep also suffer from serious scours due to samonella which can also cause abortion in both cattle and sheep. Pigs and other farm animals are also affected.
Salmonella is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. But of the 2,000 known strains very few concern man and his food animals. Ten strains alone cause about 75 per cent. of the recorded incidents. As I said, some strains cause disease in both man and animals. One of these is salmonella typhimurium, so described because

259
it causes a typhoid-like disease in mice. This is a worrying one because of its ability to develop resistance to most known antibiotics. Other strains can cause disease in man and are carried in animals without causing them very much harm. Most of the salmonellae which are found in poultry fall into this category.
For the purposes of today's discussion I shall confine my remarks to the salmonellae strains which affect cattle and hence dairy products, and poultry, since some 70 to 80 per cent. of the human food poisoning outbreaks can be traced to infections from these two sources—poultry being the commonest. Other noble Lords may have information on salmonella as it affects sheep and pigs; it is still an important economic problem for them but it less often leads to disease in humans.
As far as human disease due to salmonella is concerned, it should be said at this point that adequate cooking of meat, which implies proper defrosting of frozen meat and heat-treatment of milk, renders the product safe. But as long as the animals and poultry carry pathogenic bacteria, there is always a danger, due to human error, that disease can occur. The object of our discussion today is to try to identify ways in which pathways of infection can be reduced, thus reducing disease both in humans and animals.
Inevitably somebody along the line will have to alter their behaviour, and costs will be incurred. As with any other public health measure, they will say, "There is no money. It will ruin us", as the London water companies did after the 1853 cholera outbreak. However, when the health of the people of this country is at stake and legislation is introduced, they have a habit of coming round.
Before considering what can be done to control the problem, it is worth considering the original sources of infection and their spread among food animals. There is existing legislation which aims to control the problem; but, as I hope to point out, we are not sure how effective it is and its application may need to be more rigorous. I refer here to the Zoonoses Order of 1975, the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order, the Importation of Processed Animal Protein Order and the Poultry Processing Order, all of 1981, as well as various other prior regulations affecting animal marketing and processing. I am not a legal beagle and it is a complicated area. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will be more well versed in this legislation.
Another important consideration is the effect of EC regulations and how our legislation may mesh with these. There are certain areas, apart from these orders and the existing legislation, where new measures may need to be enacted. The problem is highly complex and highly technical and I do not think we can more than skate over the surface of the problem in a debate such as this. We are hoping that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government also take these problems seriously and might, for example, set up a small working group of experts to look further into the matter and to make more detailed recommendations; and that the Government would act—not sit—on these.
As a first example, I should like to consider salmonellosis in calves. Calves born to dairy cows are separated from their mothers very soon after birth; often after 24 hours or less when they have obtained only a small proportion of the colostrum they need. This is different from ordinary milk, being very rich in globulins, the protein fraction which contains antibodies against disease. It is secreted by the cow for four to five days after birth and gives the calf immunity to the numerous pathogens—bacterial, protozoal and viral—which are present in the environment, during the critical first few weeks when its own immune defence system is immature and not fully functioning.
The male calf, thus vulnerable to infection, is taken to market, often when it is only a few days old, where, if it is lucky, it will be bought directly by a beef producer and go to its new home with minimal stress or mixing with other calves. More commonly, however, it will be bought by a dealer who may take it to another market a few days or a week later, in hope of a profit. The calf is stressed by the journeys and its abrupt weaning and it is brought into contact with other calves from different farms with different bacterial flora. The less healthy the calf, the more likely it is to be resold and subjected to these multiple stresses.
Sometimes these very young calves are sold three, four or five times over in one month. The lorries and pens at the market may be contaminated with the faeces of the previous occupants so that infection of the calf is very likely from these sources as well as directly from other calves from different farms with which they have mixed. It takes only one calf with salmonella typhimurium or salmonella dublin—the two commonest salmonella pathogens in cattle—to initiate widespread infection and this often happens.
Measures to cut down cross-infection in the market could be applied more vigorously. One which the British Veterinary Association is vigorously promoting is a prohibition on the marketing of calves more often than once in 28 days. Their coats could be clipped in an identifiable way at the time of sale so that they could be recognised if they were presented for sale again within the 28-day period. Another measure, apart from careful disinfection of pens at markets, would be the compulsory cleaning out and disinfection of lorries at markets which at present take several lorry loads of calves without being adequately cleaned between loads. Only a minority of markets at present have adequate facilities for this.
A further interesting suggestion is that the farmers or auctioneers offering calves for sale could have a simple haemaglutination test done on each calf which would be able to identify whether the gamma globulin level in their blood was high enough to give good resistance to infection. This level would be provided by adequate colostrum intake from the cow. This would require at least three to four days suckling after birth and before weaning. A better price could probably be obtained for the calf with a satisfactory level, and this would encourage dairy farmers to keep the calves with their mothers for a few days longer. This measure would, I think, appeal to those noble Lords who are interested in animal welfare as well as animal health.
The second example that I am going to take concerns poultry farming and processing. It has been shown that up to 79 per cent. of frozen chickens offered for sale in this country contain potentially pathogenic salmonellae. One may ask how this unpleasant situation has come about. I do not find it altogether reasssuring that proper defrosting and cooking will kill the infection. I hope that other speakers may point out how easy it is for mistakes to occur in cooking and especially in large-scale catering.
The original source of the salmonellae concerned is most often the feedstuff given to poultry. Sometimes the infection is "vertical"—that is, passed from chicken to egg to chick. This type of transmission could be reduced by various methods of treatment of the eggs which hatch into chicks which are subsequently raised for human consumption. Sometimes the infection is "horizontal"—from external source to chicken and from chicken to chicken via faecal contamination.
The villain of the piece is imported, processed, protein feed, against which the 1981 orders that I mentioned were aimed. This product contains animal or fish protein obtained from knackers' yards and other unmentionable sources of animal or fish which are unfit for human consumption. This product often comes from countries where there is an overall protein deficiency in the population, so that the protein that is deemed unfit for human consumption must be very unfit indeed. The archetype of this type of infection is salmonella agona, which first began to appear in this country following the importation of large quantities of Peruvian fishmeal.
The orders that I have mentioned go some way to remove this source of infection, but doubts have been expressed about their effectiveness, especially the adequacy of the sampling requirement for imported feeds. This, it is felt, could be tightened up or the feedstuffs themselves might be required to be treated to render them sterile. This is an area which needs closer examination, as I hope the noble Lord the Minister will agree.
Once the infection has reached the young birds, the intensive methods of rearing lead to cross-infection once the infection has reached the chicks. Although the young birds are not noticeably ill, the infection level is often very high at eight weeks of age—possibly before they, like the young calves in the previous example, have developed fully their immune defence system. If they are left a further four weeks, the infection level becomes very much less and nearly all birds will have eliminated the salmonella bacteria. However, so intensive and competitive is the poultry industry that it is not economic to wait this extra month since maximum growth takes place in the first two months.
But it is in the processing of the slaughtered birds that salmonellae are spread most effectively. Plucking and disembowelling (or cleaning) the dead birds is an obvious area where this can occur since it is very difficult and expensive to sterilise equipment between the processing of each bird. The worst part of the chain, however, occurs in the spin-chiller, in which large numbers of killed and disembowelled birds are immersed in cold water together prior to freezing. It
262
has been shown that infection rates are multiplied several times during the chain of processing prior to freezing.
I think that I have said enough now about the problem. I have learned a great deal myself while doing the groundwork for this debate and I must thank all my informants for the time and hospitality that they have given me. I should particularly like to mention Dr. Gibson of the British Veterinary Association, Dr. Tony Andrews of the Royal Veterinary College and Dr. Rowe of the Central Public Health Laboratories at Colindale. I have been able to give only the bare outline of the subject. For instance, I have not discussed the possible important role of vaccines to prevent infection and the treatment of infected animals or poultry with antibiotics. Other noble Lords are perhaps better qualified to speak on this matter, especially the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who chaired the important committee which looked into the role of antibiotics in agriculture and which reported in 1969.
I think that improved measures to deal with salmonella will also help to cut down other infections which may follow some of the same pathways. I refer particularly to the genus campylobacter which has recently been shown to be even more important than salmonella as a cause of human gastrointestinal infection. In each year since 1981, the number of laboratory isolations of campylobacter has exceeded those of salmonella. This disease can be equally, if not more, unpleasant. Its epidemiology is not yet fully worked out but it is already clear that animal transmission plays a major role in its spread.
I look forward greatly to the contributions of other noble Lords and to the Minister's reply which I hope will indicate the Government's concern and willingness to initiate action in this area, which is of great importance both to the health of animals and humans in this country. I beg to move for Papers.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most grateful—as, indeed, should we all be—to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for drawing the attention of your Lordships to this very important and somewhat neglected subject of food-borne infections. I am grateful to him for doing so with such deep professional knowledge and understanding. Perhaps I should say at the outset to the noble Lord that as a professional medical colleague of his I have not, to my knowledge, had close contact with a case of salmonella for a very long time, although I agree with the noble Lord that many cases go undiagnosed. In fact, the last positively-identified case of salmonella typhimurium with which I was concerned arose at Eskdale, very close to the home of the noble Lord's kinsman, the last Lord Rea, who lived there. I hasten to say that there was no connection between the residence of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the occurrence of this particular case. I mention it merely so that the noble Lord will know how long it is since I have had personal professional involvement in a case of this kind.
No doubt, as the noble Lord has made clear, there are many lines of defence available to us against food-borne infections, and, equally, in my view—and, I

263
think, in the view of the noble Lord—perhaps the first line of defence, and one of the most important lines, rests in the hands of the veterinary profession. I speak as an honorary vice-president of the British Veterinary Association. I must emphasise the word "honorary" very carefully to make it utterly clear to noble Lords that, while I am very glad to advise them and assist them on matters of their own health from time to time, I am not professionally competent to advise them professionally about the health of their dogs, their cats or even their racehorses. But I keep in close contact with friends and colleagues in the veterinary profession, and I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has brought to the attention of your Lordships' House some of the points made by the British Veterinary Association on this issue. I do not want to go over them again, but I would emphasise one or two.
We are discussing human infections which have resulted from the consumption of contaminated milk, meat or eggs. We must agree, I am sure, that the control of salmonella infection in food animals is, therefore, a matter of the utmost importance. It should be looked after, and we should listen to the advice given to us by the veterinary profession. It seems to me that much of the advice falls into a number of different areas, which the noble Lord himself has dealt with.
Firstly, there are matters to do with the sale of food animals. There is no question at all, I believe, that the presence of sick or scouring calves at markets poses a certain threat. Steps should be taken to ensure that sick calves are not presented for sale, and certainly not presented for sale on a repetitive basis from one place to another. There might be an opportunity for infection being spread. The veterinary profession, I think, would like an assurance that no calf should be offered for sale more than once in any period of 28 days. I believe that the British Veterinary Association has given certain advice to the Ministry of Agriculture as to how that aim might be achieved.
The next important point after the sale is the time of slaughter. That is the time when there are opportunities for infections to be conveyed from one infected animal to another, and when the animals are under stress. The veterinary profession believe that perhaps standards of hygiene in the slaughterhouses are not always maintained with the degree of thoroughness that they ought to be. They maintain that the protein processing order of 1981, to which the noble Lord referred, might be applied with greater rigour than is now the case.
The noble Lord referred to another matter about which the veterinary profession are concerned, and that is the important matter of the transportation of food animals. There are many opportunities here for infections to be transmitted from one animal to another in these circumstances. The Transit of Animals (Rail and Road) Order 1975 surely should be applied more stringently to require the disinfection of all animal transporters after off-loading at a market. That really means that vehicles conveying food animals should not make a number of stops and take new passengers on board, as it were, without some kind of sterilising or cleansing process being conducted in between. The noble Lord made these points very
264
strongly, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord the Minister is well aware of them and that there is discussion about them within his department.
I turn now to the area which is perhaps the last line of defence. Certainly it is the most important line of defence in relation to food-borne infections; that is to say, the whole question of hygiene in the kitchen and in the home. In this country we are very fond of believing that hygiene is something which begins and ends here, and that once you cross the Channel you find immediately that typhoid and cholera are raging. That is very far from being the case. There is no question in my mind that many other countries in Europe have much higher standards of hygiene than we have ourselves. Indeed, there are some Eastern countries which I think are a little more particular about hygiene in relation to animals than we are. But there is this tendency for us to think that we in this country are very hygienic.
I think there have been many changes in recent years, possibly brought about by the fact that many of the men and women in our country can no longer cook. I do not in any sense blame that fact on the feminist movement—there is no element of chauvinism in what I have said—but I do believe that people are eating more and more heated-up food. I think the noble Lord would confirm that the danger periods for the infection of food occur at certain critical temperatures. Food can become infected on the way up in temperature and also infected on the way down. There is a vast difference between eating recooked food which has once again been brought to a temperature at which contaminants and infections and various pathogenic organisms are destroyed, and eating food which, once having been cooked, is allowed to cool and then is warmed up again later.
I think the time has perhaps come when health educationalists should be thinking a little more about reminding our population of the basic elements of human hygiene in the kitchen, in the home and in the cooking process. We have all seen these notices everywhere which say, "Now wash your hands". We take about as much notice of them as we do of the notices which say, "Keep Britain Tidy", and, "Take your Litter Home". Many people take no notice at all of those. So let us not forget that there is a very important role in this field for the veterinary profession and a very important role to be played by all engaged in agriculture, together with the Ministry of Agriculture.
There is also a very important role for the medical profession as and when people contract some kind of food-borne infection. But, fundamentally, the crucial line of defence is in the home, and that is an area which I think in recent years we have come to neglect more and more because of different eating habits and different methods of preparing food which are no longer perhaps so safe as they were in days gone by.
The time has come for a new reminder about hygiene in the home, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having given us an opportunity to discuss this important question. It is one of which we often get sharp reminders ourselves in cases of so-called food poisoning. It is not poisoning, but nearly always an infection; and I think the realisation among

265
the British public of the extent to which food can become infected has diminished and is not sufficiently acute. I hope this debate today will have done something to stimulate a greater understanding of the matter.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising this matter. I am sure, like him and others, that this is quite a serious hazard. When one talks about food poisoning, one tends to think of a few days or weeks of discomfort, and very often no more than that. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, a number of people, although not many, die from it. The reason is usually that the salmonella bacterium has gone out of their intestines and into their blood. One might normally expect that to be controlled by antibiotics but, as the noble Lord mentioned, it is becoming increasingly clear that quite a lot of the salmonella bugs have become resistant to bacteria, and indeed some of them have become alarmingly multiply resistant.
May I quote a couple of instances? I refer to this same tiresome bacterium, salmonella typhimurium, which has a great many different types. Type 204 is resistant to chloramphenicol, the main antibiotic used against typhoid, and also simultaneously streptomycin, the sulphonamides and the tetracyclines; and Type 193 is resistant simultaneously to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, neomycinkanamycin, streptomycin, sulphonamides and tetracyclines.
The situation in one sense has indeed got worse, and it was because some 15 years ago or more this phenomenon of resistance to antibiotics was being noticed that the committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred and which I chaired was set up. We did not know as much then as we know now about bacteria and antibiotics, but we knew quite a bit. We realised that a fair degree of antibiotic resistance was inevitable unless you were simply going to stop using antibiotics; and that, of course, is not a practical proposition in much veterinary work, for both welfare reasons and economic reasons.
On the other hand, there are certain uses of antibiotics in veterinary medicine which we looked at rather closely, and we came to the conclusion that they should be much more rigorously controlled. That was the practice, which still goes on, of using small amounts of antibiotics in animal foodstuffs to get better growth. Exactly why small doses of antibiotics give better growth in certain circumstances was not clear, and indeed it still is not clear now. In essence, what we decided to recommend and what was accepted by the Government of the day was that certain antibiotics which had no great therapeutic use in human medicine should be allowed to be used without a prescription, but that those which did have a therapeutic use could be put into foodstuffs only on a veterinary surgeon's say-so, when dealing with the animals that he had under his eye. We were not certain whether this would work, but it seemed to be the only practical method of controlling antibiotics which we thought was a political starter.
At the same time, we made a lot of recommendations about husbandry and hygiene, but the report
266
has generally become associated with the recommendations about antibiotics. A year or two after this report and following various Government actions, the use of antibiotics in animal feedstuffs actually dropped to about half. But such is human nature that within a few years it was back again where it was when we first deliberated on it. Therefore the recommendations were never given a proper chance to work. However, I now think—and so do all the experts in it—that they probably would not have worked anyway.
I became rather forcibly aware of this some three or four years ago. I should explain that Government reports are generally designated by the name of the chairman. My eye was caught by a headline in the British Medical Journal: "Has Swann failed?" A year or so later there was no element of doubt about it. Another headline read, "Why has Swann failed?" More recently still, another headline said, more woundingly than the others, "Need for a new Swann".
The reason that the initiative failed, and perhaps was doomed to fail, was that the other forms of using antibiotics in human medicine and veterinary medicine for therapeutic processes themselves generate a great deal of antibiotic resistance. The second reason relates to the very peculiar—what, for want of a better word, one can only call sexual habits of bacteria. They are not like the sexual habits of any higher animal, but they are complicated. They result in genetic capacities shifting around the population of bacteria with alarming speed and in complicated and now much better understood ways which can all get together and give multiple resistance.
The situation is reasonably under control in this country but it is far from being totally under control. It is very much not under control in a great many countries of the world, particularly in the underdeveloped countries and in a number of the developing countries where, among other things, antibiotics are almost totally uncontrolled and available over any counter if one cares to buy them. But even the highly developed and, one assumes, highly hygienic countries occasionally have major disasters. There was a notable disaster in Philadelphia in the United States. The Americans, being given to doing total costings, came up with a total costing which was alarmingly much greater than the one which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, quoted for Scotland, but the Americans put absolutely everything into the costing. The epidemic of salmonellosis in Philadelphia in the 1960s was reckoned to have cost about £100 million dollars, the equivalent now of much more than £100 million. So there is an economic angle. There is also a very considerable health hazard. With some strains showing increasing virulence and with quite a lot of strains showing multiple resistance to antibiotics, it is by no means inconceivable that there could be major hazards even in this country.
What can one do about this? It is probably too late, and perhaps was always a lost cause, to think that you could do much about it by controlling antibiotics. The only kind of control which might do good would be so drastic and draconian that it would in effect hamstring both veterinary and human medicine. Therefore one comes to the conclusion (both noble Lords have spoken in this sense) that the old-fashioned methods of

267
controlling disease—isolating it where we can, and so on—are what we need to do.
Perhaps I can do no better than quote one very distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society, who was a Professor of Microbiology and who is now Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University, Professor Mark Richmond. This is how he sums up his views on the question. He believes that Swann succeeded by being a failure:
"The report focused attention on the growing problems of antibiotic resistance and by its failure has forced the opinion that the control of infection by multiply resistant pathogens must be pursued along conventional epidemiological lines and not solely by imposing more stringent restrictions on antibiotic use."
Both noble Lords have already referred briefly to the kind of action that can be taken. There is a list of possibilities as long as your arm and I shall not weary your Lordships with the details. Let me, however, return to the article that had as its headline, "Need for a new Swann". I want to quote another veterinary expert. Professor Walton of Liverpool, who concludes another learned article by saying:
"It may be said in summary that the overall situation with regard to salmonellosis in man and animals is not showing any real improvement. There are still too many people looking only for different salmonella isolates. The time is long past for a full reassessment of all the information available on salmonellosis to enable weak links in the environmental recycling of salmonellae to be identified and rigorously controlled".
Some of the "recycling", as Professor Walton calls it, is obvious enough. We have heard about what happens to cows in the market context. Many noble Lords know about what goes on in farms. There is lack of hygiene. Slurry is seeping along public highways from farms. One knows what goes on in slaughterhouses, food packaging factories and so on. Very stringent precautions need to be taken if salmonellosis is not to escape and cause sometimes mild infections but occasionally very serious infections indeed.
A new report of some kind is needed. Of that there can be no question. A new investigation needs to be carried out by experts, in the light of the much greater knowledge that we have now than we had 15 years ago. There are developments in the technical laboratory-science world which need to be looked at. The epidemiology of these infections needs to be investigated. There is also a need to look at the variety of ways in which the disease can be isolated and controlled and possibly dangerous links in the recycling discovered. All this needs to be investigated in the light of present knowledge. How much at the end of the day will depend upon Government initiatives—legislation, orders and so on—I do not know. At the same time, a major educational effort is required by everyone, from the farmer direct to the housewife who cooks the meal. Once again may I emphasise that—though, Heaven help me, it shall not be me—another Government committee ought to look at this problem.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and my noble friend Lord Rea, I rise with diffidence to speak in this debate. Both noble Lords have dwelt upon what I would call the animal side of salmonella infection. I
268
shall not try to equal their expert knowlege. It would be beyond me. First, I have not had their education. Secondly, some of the words are so technical and so difficult to pronounce that I should get into great difficulties. However, may I emphasise another aspect of the debate—the point Lord Rea mentioned when he began his speech, that salmonella food poisoning is an important cause of sickness in human beings as well as in animals. The noble Lord followed up that statement with certain figures.
May I remind noble Lords that the district councils and the metropolitan districts have a statutory duty to look after food safety for the consumer. This is achieved by the environmental health officers who carry out routine spot checks on all food premises under their control. There is regular monitoring of what they call "at risk" foods by sampling for microbiological levels. There is the closest contact between the environmental health authorities and the Public Health Laboratory Service at Colindale. I understand that the Institute of Environmental Health Officers conduct what are described as cleaner food courses.
I am sure they go a very long way in providing education for food handlers who work outside the home environment. The noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Swann, emphasised how important it is that housewives themselves should be aware of good food hygiene. Perhaps it would be a sensible proposition to extend that service so that it could be provided to women's organisations and possibly in schools' home economic courses.
There is ample evidence that the type of catering normally arranged in the form of a buffet and sandwiches for those types of gatherings which attract large numbers of persons shows an increase in the risk of salmonella infection; gala days. sales presentation lunches, wedding receptions and. on certain other occasions, even mayoral banquets are instances of events which have been publicised as being those where salmonella infection has occurred.
I am fully aware that strict hygiene conditions are required in food preparation areas and that standards are laid down. I feel sure that they are readily understood by those who are constantly engaged in food preparation for the consumer, but it is of the utmost importance that these procedures are related also, in no uncertain way, to the temporary, untrained catering staff who are very often employed for special occasions. One has to deplore the practice of laying out meals containing turkey and poultry, especially many hours before it will be eaten. That is a very bad practice, and it is one that should not be tolerated under any circumstances because it is bad for public health. Perhaps there needs to be more regular medical surveillance of those food handlers who are engaged in the more vulnerable sections of food preparation. I have given as one example mass catering.
We have just left the festive season behind us—and with it, the public announcements which were made on TV and radio giving advice on the thawing, roasting and storing of the traditional turkey. That advice was very much welcomed by housewives and other consumers—but in my view it needs to be reinforced regularly throughout the whole year and not just at the

269
Christmas season. Frozen poultry now comprises a large part of the food intake of most families. Perhaps the Government will ask the trade to consider displaying suitable notices on the deep freezers which are in most supermarkets these days, emphasising the specific points to remember in the storage, thawing and cooking of poultry.
I know that the turkey and poultry producers' organisations are well aware of the problems of salmonella contamination in respect of their breeding methods. They are most important, but those precautions will be negated if the consumer is not constantly reminded of the correct methods of thawing and cooking, and of refrigeration if the commodity is to be used at a later date.
Turning to another aspect of the debate this afternoon, can the noble Lord who is to reply provide a date by which legislation will become operative making it compulsory for all milk sold in the United Kingdom to be pasturised? Government grants are available to provide financial help to farmers, towards the cost of heat treatment of milk, but my information is that raw milk is still sold. That continuing practice is a cause for concern in respect of the possibility of salmonella infection.
I should like to pose two other questions to the noble Lord the Minister. First, when did the Department of Health and Social Security last update their instructions on the control of food poisoning, and are fresh guidance notes now necessary? Secondly, are food importers subjected to any regulations which need strengthening?
I know that there are many very reputable food importers, wholesalers and retailers, but cheap imports do find their way into this country and to the kind of markets which can be found in one place on one day and in another place the next, and which sell food at what are called "bargain prices". There was a report of a serious outbreak concerning some form of chocolate bars which were imported from Italy, and which caused illness among a great number of children. Those chocolate bars were sold at markets in the south of England. They were removed by environmental health officers and returned to the supplier when the cause of the infection was traced. It is in respect of that kind of food import that I particularly ask the Minister to review whether the regulations are tight enough.
Although I said at the outset that my own knowledge of this subject is not a medical one but purely that of a consumer, I have in fact had a medical involvement as a patient. What I am now going to say follows on the point that I became a patient after visiting Kenya. It may be advisable for people taking holidays abroad and returning to this country with some form of gastroenteritis to consult their GP, so that checks can be made that will rule out any possibility of the human carrier element in salmonella infection. I had to be in solitary isolation for three weeks when I returned from that particular holiday in Kenya.
My noble friend Lord Rea has raised an important issue concerning public health this afternoon. He has shown that deaths from salmonella food poisoning are by no means rare. They occur, as he said, primarily in
270
the older age group and among the very young. It is in respect of the older age group that I wish to comment in support of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, regarding the problem of recooked and rewarmed food. It is important that elderly members of the community are told quite clearly that rewarming food is dangerous.
It is an understandable and common practice for many elderly people to cook more food than they need to eat on one occasion and then to store it for another day. It should be emphasised more clearly to those who have greater experience of working with elderly people that it is a dangerous practice, and one that can cause diarrhoea and serious intestinal problems. I am, perhaps, speaking a little too long—especially following the debate we had earlier concerning how long one should speak. I do want to emphasise what Lord Rea said, that salmonella food poisoning is a very unpleasant complaint for the individual concerned, and of course it results in loss of wages. But I would also point out that it is costly in terms of investigation.
This service provided by the local authority, though generally considered a Cinderella service, must be maintained at high levels, and, I would hope, not considered as suitable for cutting as a result of rate reductions. Proper control work and thorough investigation must be undertaken by local authorities when an outbreak accurs. I would appeal to the general public, to medical practitioners, and to hospitals as well, to realise that as soon as outbreaks occur it is important that the environmental health officers come quickly to the scene to try to control the outbreak and find the source. Although environmental health officers sometimes feel that they are a Cinderella service provided by local authorities, let us remember that public health was one of the first and original items of legislation in relation to local government, and although this has changed many times over the last 50 or 60 years their work in relation to control of food standards is still very important and must not be underestimated.
Constant vigilance and constant reminding of good practice in food production and food handling are necessary to reduce outbreaks of food poisoning. Any measures designed to lessen the hazard are worthy of consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has given us the opportunity of this debate. I hope it has contributed to the realisation of the need for constant vigilance and perhaps to an extra effort on the Government's part to maintain the very good health standards necessary to make quite sure that the consumer has good food produced and good food sold.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rea for choosing this subject for debate and for his careful opening analysis. I would also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Swann, for his distinguished contribution to the debate. I recall the day that he presented to me the report of his Committee on Antibiotics in Animal Feedingstuffs, as I was the Minister responsible at the time. I had the task of reading his report and absorbing it, and indeed answering questions on it in another place, and

271
subsequently deciding what to do about his report. As he has said, I accepted his recommendations and sought then to implement them. I do not think the noble Lord's report was a failure, as he has sought to say. I believe it was an important report, and if it was overtaken by subsequent developments that does not mean that it was unnecessary or that it failed in any way. As he has advised the House, the time may now be ripe for a new investigation into this subject, and I would certainly be very glad to support him in recommending that to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his important contribution. I always listen to him with great respect because of his authority and experience in these matters, and I much enjoyed his speech. Again, my noble friend Lady Fisher has made what one has come to expect of her, namely, a sensible and a practical speech from the consumer viewpoint. On this occasion I think nothing could be more important. I think her point about the pasteurisation of milk was particularly timely.
It is an opportune moment for the House to consider the incidence of this disease and its implications; and also what may be done to deal with it. I would like to repeat the tribute which my noble friend Lord Rea paid to the British Veterinary Association. They have shown a particular concern in salmonellosis and its spread in Britain, and have publicised ways and means of keeping it under control, and, if possible, eradicating it. They arranged a symposium here in London on salmonellosis some two years ago and over the last few days I have read the report with great interest. Shortly after that symposium, on 18th November 1981, it is interesting to note, we had a short debate in this House on the report of our Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs Committee on Poultry Meat Hygiene, which as chairman of the committee at that time I had the honour to open. It was made clear to the committee in evidence, and subsequently in the report, that salmonellosis is a growing danger, and that Government, local authorities, poultry producers, meat processors, and especially the individual consumer must be made more aware of its insidious growth and of the steps which should be taken to counter it.
In the developed world, where medical services and sanitation are good, salmonella food poisoning affects between 10 and 70 individuals per 100,000 of the population every year. The disease is costly to the patient in loss of wages and physical and emotional stress. It is costly to the health and social services for treatment, investigation, and social security benefits, and it is costly to the food industry due to had publicity and sometimes litigation which follows. These losses appear not to have been estimated in this country, but the World Health Organisation report for 1980 states that losses due to salmonellosis in the United States amount to 480 million dollars a year for medical expenses alone. The statistics are disturbing, as I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would agree.
The Public Health Laboratory Services communicable disease report issued on 6th January last records that the laboratory received 14,325 reports of salmonella food poisoning during 1983, the
272
number having risen to that total from 3,898 reports in 1966—a sharp increase. Salmonella food poisoning, although unpleasant, is not usually fatal. My noble friend Lady Fisher referred to deaths, and there are indeed an average of six deaths per 1,000 cases, which occur primarily but not exclusively in persons between 60 and 80 years of age. The majority of human infections are derived from food of animal origin, mainly by the consumption of contaminated milk, meat and eggs. Some outbreaks, however, are the result of person to person spread, and 11 per cent. of outbreaks in hospitals in Scotland were caused in this way.
In the domestic animal a high proportion of infections are non-clinical, although they form an important source of human infections through the food chain. Overt disease is commonly precipitated by stress, such as transport, crowding, exposure in markets, recent parturition, and they can result in heavy losses due to unthriftiness and death. Recovered animals often remain sources of infection for other animals and for man.
As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, poultry are an important source of salmonella food poisoning in man. That was the subject of our report in this House. Over the last six years records show that between 30 and 40 per cent. of food poisoning incidents were caused by poultry. It is well established that between 30 and 70 per cent. of broiler chickens purchased in shops in England and Wales are contaminated with salmonellae. Chickens may derive infection in various ways, but the most important is apparently the feeding of compounded food containing contaminated animal protein, a subject dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Swann. The problem has been increased by intensification of the industry. Broilers are now slaughtered earlier, before they have had time to throw off their salmonella infections.
As my noble friend said, supported by my noble friend Lord Winstanley, the important point for the consumer to realise is that food poisoning will not follow the consumption of contaminated birds if cooking is thorough. The majority of chickens sold nowadays are accompanied by thawing and cooking instructions which, if properly followed, will result in the destruction of any salmonella present. However, contamination of kitchen surfaces and chopping boards may occur during the preparation of the bird for the oven. Unless these are thoroughly cleaned the cooked bird or other food may be reinfected from the contaminated surfaces. There is an important job still to be done in stressing the dangers to housewives in this country so that simple precautions are taken to reduce the hazard of food poisoning from chickens.
Many cases of salmonella food poisoning occur in catering establishments. Practices such as partial cooking and finishing or reheating can be dangerous, as has been mentioned, and when contamination occurs many more people may be exposed to infection at banquets and other functions than in the home. The initiative of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers in issuing a news release on this subject in December last is to be warmly commended.
My noble friend mentioned legislation. As the House will be aware, important weapons in the fight to

273
reduce salmonella infection are the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981 and the Importation of Processed Animal Protein Order 1981. These orders, which became effective in April 1982, require all animal-based or fish protein for animal feed to be processed to render it free from salmonellae. This will reduce the flow of salmonellae to farmstock and correspondingly reduce the incidence of non-clinical infections in farm animals.
There are, however, problems in implementing the orders because of the large volumes of food to be sampled and unless this is pursued relentlessly the main effect of the orders will be lost. Protein feed which has been made salmonella-free may, however, be recontaminated during transport and handling so the pelleting of food is an additional safeguard. It has been put to me that this pelleting safeguard should be given greater publicity.
When swill feeding is practised the treatment of swill as required by the Waste Foods Order 1974 will ensure that the food is free from salmonella. The use of irradiation, which I shall mention later, could also be used to ensure that farm animals receive salmonella-free food. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to confirm that he and the Ministry vets are satisfied that the orders are being implemented thoroughly and that adequate sampling is taking place.
Much work has been done in recent years to reduce the contamination of poultry carcases after slaughter, especially by improvements to the spin chiller, referred to by my noble friend. The exposure of batches of birds to the chilling process in the spin chiller is an obvious cause of contamination unless the equipment is operating properly. Other methods of chilling are not without their problems and there is need for all concerned to continue their efforts to minimise contamination at the processing stage.
My noble friend referred to calves. I merely say that the calf trade is responsible for widespread dissemination of salmonella infection. The dairy farmer often disposes of his surplus calves through the market to rearers. The calves are exposed to stress during transport and some may be exposed in markets several times in as short a time as a week before they find a buyer. I said earlier, and others made the same point, that stress is an important factor in triggering salmonella infection and the marketing of calves is a prime example.
My noble friend has described the steps which the BVA are recommending should be taken. I was interested to read in the Farmers' Guardian of 13th January that auctioneers at the Derby livestock mart have yielded to pressure from the farmers to sell only farmers' calves and not those from dealers. I believe that to be a central point. This is a welcome step to reduce the risk of spreading salmonellosis in calves at that market.
Vehicles used for animal transport have great potential for the spread of salmonella. More stringent application of the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 would ensure that all animal transports are disinfected after off-loading at a market. It is a fact, however, that over one-third of all livestock markets in Great Britain lack vehicle washing facilities, and so vehicles must be washed and disinfected elsewhere,
274
with consequent risk of spreading infection. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. It is surely the responsibility of all market proprietors to supply such an essential facility as a vehicle wash. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would say whether he agrees with this and can say what steps he has in mind to ensure that these facilities are provided widely in the markets of this country.
Sewage, whether of human or animal origin, contains salmonellae and its careless disposal on agricultural land is liable to spread infection. This has been the subject of investigation at the Institute for Research on Animal Diseases at Compton, Berkshire, following which guidelines to reduce the dangers of application of sewage and slurry to pasture and other herbage crops have been formulated. They should be rigorously followed.
I mentioned irradiation. Looking to the future, the use of gamma-irradiation may have a place in the control of salmonellosis. Irradiation has been used to sterilise the diets of laboratory animals for at least 20 years without any ill-effects being observed in animals as a result. Irradiation can be applied after the food is packed. Thus the chicken inside its plastic bag can be sterilised at a small cost per bird, however heavily contaminated it has become. But the acceptability of this process to the consumer has yet to be ascertained. It must be investigated fully. I understand that the Department of Health and Social Security has a committee inquiring into this and other aspects. The findings are awaited with great interest. Again, I hope the noble Lord can give us some indication of when this report may be expected.
But whatever innovations may lie ahead, it seems to me clear that the damage from salmonellosis could be considerably reduced if the knowledge that is already available is fully used and the existing legislation rigorously applied.
Shortage of staff is too often the reason given currently for shortcomings in applying the law. If that reason is valid, then it is time that the shortage was remedied. Close co-operation between the medical and veterinary staffs and the environmental health officers also is essential. The arrangements for such co-operation which the Zoonoses Order provides are a welcome step in this direction. They must be fully applied. If this debate is to serve a purpose it must be to inspire all concerned to press ahead with determination to cut down the ravages that salmonella can cause. I ask the House to support my noble friend's Motion.
5.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising the problems of salmonella poisoning today. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that we have to thank noble Lords for coming to make a series of very well-informed and interesting speeches on a subject which is a cause of worry and concern. It is a subject on which the Government have maintained increasingly close surveillance in recent years.
As has become clear from this short debate, the issues are, however, complex. The problems affect the

275
food chain both of human beings and of a variety of animals and birds, and lead researchers through a maze of causes and effects. It seems doubtful in our modern living conditions whether the complete answer to this problem will ever be found. On the other hand, encouraging progress has been made, especially with poultry. I am advised that the incidence of salmonellae in poultry reported under the Zoonoses Order has been reduced from 1,784 incidents in 1980 to 664 in 1983. We shall have to continue chipping away within the limits of available resources. Certainly there can be no prospect of significant further progress being made without parallel action being taken by the food industries and individuals concerned in trade in human and animal foodstuffs. These are all matters which have been mentioned during the past hour and a half.
I wonder whether I may, literally in the space of a minute, follow the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who at the beginning of the debate mentioned the current legislation, by mentioning it again briefly at the end. The principal instrument is the Zoonoses Order 1975 made under the powers available in the Animal Health Act. For this purpose, I should explain that zoonosis is a disease transmissible from animals or birds to man. The order provides powers to control salmonellosis in animals if there is a serious threat to human health. As your Lordships have made clear that you know, the other orders are those relating to protein processing. There is the domestic order and the importation order, but each has the same objective—to minimise the risk of salmonella infection being transmitted through animal feeding stuffs. I hope that what I have said follows the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in setting the scene.
In talking about legislation, the noble Lord asked me whether I would say a word about how the European Community meshes in with all this. The situation in regard to animal health legislation in general is that the United Kingdom participates in the Standing Committee in Brussels which formulates European Community directives, regulations or recommendations. As such, we have the opportunity of expressing our views and tailoring our legislation to suit our particular circumstances. That applies equally to legislation applicable to meat hygiene.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me whether the Government believed that the work of monitoring and sampling under both the orders was being carried out effectively. I have some details on that but I shall not weary your Lordships with them now. My answer is simply, yes. I am absolutely convinced from what I have read that good work is being done. In particular, what I have noticed from the advice that I have received is that there is a decline in the number of exotic stereotype incidents in food animals since the importation order took effect.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for mentioning the specific arrangement which is made under the auspices of the Zoonoses Order, under which local liaison groups have been established, comprising directors of public health laboratories, medical officers for environmental health, environmental health officers and nominated members of the
276
State Veterinary Service. Thus we have an arrangement under the 1975 Order to ensure the fullest possible exchange of information at what may best be termed working level. As a previous Minister of Agriculture, the noble Lord also expressed the hope that the veterinary and medical services build upon that statutory basis. I believe that they do indeed. Furthermore, all incidents of salmonellosis in animals reported under the Zoonoses Order to the State Veterinary Service are notified to the medical and environmental health authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke specifically about salmonellosis in calves and calf marketing, as did other noble Lords. Although I am advised that salmonellosis in calves has little impact on human health, it is a serious and increasing animal health problem. But, as is so often the situation, the answer is not clear-cut. The Government agree that the notion that the prevalence of infection might be reduced through introducing a limitation on the number of times calves may be marketed within a given period—and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned 28 days as being the right kind of period—is good in principle. However, the problems of calf identification and enforcement in markets are equally apparent. I should like to give an assurance this afternoon that this is an issue which the State Veterinary Service has already discussed with the British Veterinary Association. The problems of identification to which I have referred remain to be further considered. The Farm Animal Welfare Council also is currently considering the question of the repeat marketing of calves.
In this context, both the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Winstanley, referred specifically to the cleansing and disinfection of lorries, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, but he carried the argument on to whether the correct facilities are provided in the markets for disinfection. So that there is no misunderstanding, I ought to make it clear that it is an offence if any vehicle used to carry farm livestock is not cleansed and disinfected afterwards. That must be done as soon as practicable after the unloading of the last animal and in any case before any animal or carcase is subsequently loaded into the vehicle. Local authorities are the bodies responsible for enforcing these provisions. As so often in this difficult field, the means to improvement is by underlining the need for enforcement of the rules. I very much hope that this debate will assist in that objective.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I would say that subordinate legislation under the Animal Health Act provides that cleansing and disinfection of markets and lorries should be undertaken to minimise the risk of animal disease and that the appropriate facilities to undertake cleansing should be available. Again, local authorities are responsible for the supervision of this work. The noble Lord asked me whether the Government were satisfied. We are not, but constant efforts are made to improve market facilities within the financial and physical constraints—for instance, the limitations of the site in question in a particular case. In addition to the efforts of local authorities, members of the veterinary profession, and in particular those belonging to the State Veterinary Service, are undertaking all the time a supervisory function. I

277
assure the noble Lord that this is a matter which we keep constantly in mind.
I wonder whether I may turn to the subject of salmonellosis in poultry. Before I came to this debate I thought that that was perhaps the most common form of the danger of salmonellosis infection. I was particularly pleased when I discovered that there had been this improvement in its incidence which I mentioned to your Lordships at the beginning of my speech. I think it is fair to claim that at least part of the improvement in the situation is the result of a number of measures which have been taken. The Ministry of Agriculture has promoted a development farm project on S. hadar in turkeys which enabled control methods to be developed in breeding flocks, for instance, by the introduction of special nest boxes and improved methods of hygiene.
Secondly, the industry has been very ready to agree codes of practice in its work. In addition, the Department of Health and Social Security has publicised the need to ensure the thorough cooking of poultry meat—a matter which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, among other noble Lords. It is now common practice for frozen poultry to be labelled with cooking instructions. Indeed, in 1977 the DHSS issued a health notice and local authority social service letter on the safe preparation of turkeys. I have already referred to the work being undertaken on protein processing.
Every noble Lord in the debate has spoken on aspects of salmonellosis in human beings. The figures that I have are a little different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Mine show that in 1982 there were nearly 14,000 known English cases of food poisoning from all causes originating in England. I admit that this was more than in 1981 and 1980 but it was less than in 1979. Overall there has been a slight increase in the number of cases due to S. Typhimurium and to other salmonellae, which is of course the most common food poisoning organism.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who identified hygiene in the home as a crucial factor in the debate. Education of food handlers and kitchen personnel in good food hygiene was one of the three lines of attack on the problem of control of human salmonellosis suggested in the World Health Organisation conference on food poisoning in 1980. The noble Baroness asked when did the Department of Health and Social Security last update its advice on food poisoning. I think I am right in saying that that was done in 1982, when the department published a revised edition of Memo 188/MED on, Food Poisoning—The Investigation on Control of Food Poisoning in England and Wales, as guidance for medical officers for environmental health officers and other medical personnel. The Institute of Environmental Health Officers has also published guidance, and it holds courses on food hygiene.
With respect to the noble Baroness's warning about precautions being particularly necessary at large gatherings of people when untrained staff are involved, I would point out that the World Health Organisation booklet on mass catering, by Dr. Charles of the DHSS, is intended for health officials who may have little
278
knowledge of commerial catering, and for food, trade and other officials and representatives of commercial interests who may have little knowledge of public health.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred briefly to the economic aspects of this whole subject, and the Government certainly agree that there are indeed economic aspects. As your Lordships will probably be aware, a World Health Organisation working group meeting held in Trier in September 1981 produced a report on Economic Aspects of Communicable Diseases. In that discussion, the economic aspects of salmonellosis were given particular emphasis and further areas for future research were outlined.
Before I conclude my remarks I should like to try to answer one or two questions with which I have not yet dealt. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, who I realise has done very valuable work in this field, made a most interesting speech, and I wish that I could be more forthcoming in the reply that I have to give him. I fully appreciate the noble Lord's commitment on the issues which he raised. The difficulty is that though we agree with so much of what the noble Lord says, we are most hesitant about the appointment of a new committee to look at the subject. As I have tried to indicate in my remarks, we believe that the problems associated with salmonella infection are of a continuing nature and clear-cut solutions are not possible. We have to do our best to try to press forward on all fronts. But the nature of the problems, as opposed to their solution, is not unclear. It will certainly be possible for consideration to be given by the Government and other organisations concerned—notably the British Veterinary Association—to such matters as the use of antibiotics in animals and the questions of resistance to them which arise. As I have already said, we are considering whether any steps can be taken in relation to calf marketing practices.
Without going into any detail, and, incidentally, without in any way trying to reflect criticism on much of the admirable and extremely hard work that goes on in our slaughterhouse systems, I should like to mention that, at the request of the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Government are planning to set up a thorough review of the meat inspection system.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and other noble Lords, mentioned the spin chiller system in poultry slaughtering. I should like to say that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 were, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, amended in 1979 to prescribe conditions which must be satisfied when poultry carcases are chilled in water. The spin chiller is such a method of chilling poultry. Published work shows that the improvements prescribed in the amending regulations have dramatically reduced cross-contamination occurring in the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked me a direct question about raw milk. It is a fact that the arrangements for the selling of raw milk were changed in 1980, when the Government took the view that those people wishing to purchase raw milk—green top milk—should be allowed to do so, provided that they were aware that they were buying untreated milk. Since 1983 virtually all cows' milk sold for human

279
consumption in Scotland has had to be pasteurised. It is the intention in England and Wales to prohibit the sale of raw milk through outlets such as schools, shops, and institutions from May 1985. It is believed that these measures will significantly reduce salmonella infection in humans from this source. I know that I have not answered two of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, and perhaps I may write to her.
Finally, I wish to take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made about food irradiation, which I am advised is in some countries recognised as an effective measure to reduce levels of pathogens and spoilage organisms in certain foodstuffs, including poultrymeat. The process, which I understand does not induce radioactivity in the food, is not permitted in the United Kingdom at the present time. The noble Lord asked about the report of the advisory committee which is currently reviewing the safety of irradiated foods for the consumer. Health and Agriculture Ministers expect the report during the summer.
I hope that what I have said will indicate the degree to which the Government have involved themselves in these difficult problems. I very much welcome today's debate, even though it has raised difficult questions and in some cases has put me in the position of having to try to answer them. However, I hope that the debate has provided for your Lordships an assurance that the Government will continue to monitor the situation closely, and would be prepared to take further action if it became clear that that would be useful or necessary.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we have had a most interesting, instructive and, I hope, useful debate this evening. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord the Minister that there has been some improvement on the poultry side, though I must admit to a certain disappointment over his reply. I have a feeling that the Government are being somewhat complacent in this area when the actual figures for salmonella infections are going up. I do not think that it is quite enough to expect that this debate in this House itself will change matters very much, but I can assure the Minister that we on these Benches will continue to remind the Government of the problem from time to time when figures are presented to us. It only remains for me to thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have contributed to this evening's debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Airbus A.320
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to call attention to the need for Her Majesty's Government to assist British Aerospace in the development of the Airbus A.320; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords. Her Majesty's Government must decide very soon—perhaps in the next few days—whether or not to accede to British Aerospace's request for launch aid for the Airbus
280
A.320 project. The decision will be a crucial one for our entire aerospace industry.
Since the last war the aerospace industry has had its ups and downs, but over the years the country has invested heavily, and in many cases I would say wisely, in this high technology industry. It is probably true that we once had too many civil aircraft projects. We are now in danger, however, of going to the other extreme, particularly if we should opt out of the A.320. Should this happen, Boeing would be laughing all the way to the bank as it would be given a virtual monopoly in the civil aircraft market.
Four and a half years ago, in June 1979, I said in your Lordships' House:
"Today France has the major share in European civil air transport". [Official Report; 28/6/79; col. 1669.]
Times do not change very much, but we must remember that we are partners in Airbus Industrie, so I think we can add ourselves to France in that instance. I maintain that there is a market for the A.320 and that it is being presented to us on a platter if we have the foresight to take it.
Today, in Britain, I think we can take a great pride in our air industry, which ranks second only in the Western world to that of the United States. The French might argue that they are our equal in aerospace, but I will claim that our industry's demonstrably superior strength in aero-engines and electronics systems puts us well ahead of them. Our aerospace industry employs 200,000 highly-trained workers. Its annual turnover, I believe, amounts to more than £6,000 million. Over half of this output is sold abroad, and its contribution to our annual trade balance currently exceeds £1,000 million.
The Prime Minister herself, speaking at the 1980 Farnborough air show dinner, said:
"Our aerospace industry is a great national asset. Its importance to our economy cannot be overstated."
It has also been said that the Prime Minister is concerned not to have another Concorde on her hands. Let us get one fact straight. Concorde, of which I was a supporter and still am, was an investment in the then unknown. The A.320 is quite the reverse. The A.320 is not a technological leap in the dark. It will be a match for anything that Boeing can produce in the timescale, and will be far superior, more economic and more efficient than the thousands of aircraft it is intended to replace. It is merely a rational development of Airbus Industrie's larger and now well proven A.300 and A.310 airliners.
The crux of the matter is this. The Government, not unnaturally, wish to be sure that the A.320 will, in due course, provide a satisfactory return on the monies invested in it. British Aerospace believes that the A.320 is, indeed, a sound commercial proposition. The company is asking for launch aid; that is, a loan—a loan that British Aerospace is quite convinced it will be able to repay.
British Aerospace is certain that there is a large market for a new 150-seat medium-haul airliner such as the A.320. Those who are best able to judge these matters agree that this is so: Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Merrill Lynch and others confidently predict that, by the end of this century, some 2,500 to

281
4,000 aging, noisy, fuel-thirsty, medium-haul, 150-seat-class airliners will just have to be replaced. The general estimate is 3,000 in the next 15 years.
British Aerospace believes that Airbus Industrie will be able to attract at least one-third of this market, for at the moment only two manufacturers are now competing for it, Boeing and Airbus Industrie. I believe that Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas have bowed out of this competition, at least temporarily.
Airbus Industrie needs to sell only some 400 A.320s to break even on the project. It has good reason to be confident that it will sell at least twice that number. The company has already established its reputation with the airlines with the A.300 and the A310, which have sold well. Airbus Industrie has already received orders and options from the airlines for 88 A.320s and this is a more than adequate launch base for the project. It has been established despite the recent recession in the fortunes of the airlines.
One might ask why Airbus Industrie needs to launch another enormously expensive project when it is doing so well with the A.300 and the A.310. The answer is that the Airbus Consortium needs to broaden its product base. Individual airlines operate a range of airliners—small, medium and large—but they prefer that their fleets should be supplied, if possible, by one manufacturer, for good commercial reasons. Boeing offers the airlines such a range of aircraft. By being able to offer the small A.320 as well as the medium-capacity A.310 and the larger A.300, Airbus Industrie can satisfy the needs of most airlines. Moreover, the availability of the A.320 would enhance further the sales prospects of the A.300 and the A.310.
The A.320, in my opinion, is a sound commercial project with every prospect of success. That the market for such an aircraft up to the year 2000 is there, even without growth, cannot be denied. British Aerospace, which has a 20 per cent. stake in Airbus Industrie, with several thousands of its workers producing high technology wings for these aircraft, is surely right in wanting to buy into the A.320 project.
Furthermore, British Aerospace makes the point that if it were possible to take on the 20 per cent. share of the A.320 programme without sensible long-term loan arrangement—in this case, launch aid—then the company would be the first to wish to do so. The company has, however, already made enormous investments in developing its space and communications business and other product lines such as the British Aerospace 125–800 business jet—an outstanding success from the outset—and the Jetstream 31, which is beginning to show signs of following the 125 in its success story. In fact, only last Friday another order came from California for more Jetstreams. The new British Aerospace 146 is demonstrating that it will sell well; and, yet again last week, Air Wisconsin ordered two more 146s.
The A.300 and the A.310 are already commercial successes. Since British Aerospace rejoined Airbus Industrie in 1977 it has financed the launch, development and initial production of the A.310, the A.310–300 and the A.300–600 a total of about £400 million entirely from the company's own resources. If one adds to this the company's other massive investments at the bottom end of the civil aircraft
282
range, one judges that it is reaching a prudent financial limit for the civil part of the business. If it were forced into excessive borrowing, the high cost of finance would eventually erode profits and undermine the business.
If Britain is to capitalise on Airbus Industrie's success and opt into the A.320, British Aerospace needs Government launch aid to tide the company over. The other European partners in Airbus Industrie already have similar support from their Governments, and have had on all previous airbus projects.
In the case of British Aerospace, launch aid will not cover all the costs. Much will still be borne by British Aerospace itself, which will fund all of the production work in progress while continuing to provide development funding for other airbus wide-body aircraft programmes. British Aerospace's investment in the A.320 alone will be worth some £200 million. Government launch aid, which relates to start-up costs comprising research and development, jigs, tools and education, will, in fact, represent approximately 70 per cent. of the total—in other words, some £430 million spread over several years, with peak annual requirements in the region of £97 million per annum in the years 1986 and 1987.
Without launch aid British Aerospace is adamant that it just cannot participate in the A.320 project. Let us be quite clear on that point—and on another. With or without Britain, France and her other European partners in Airbus will go ahead with the A.320. But what will be the consequences of Britain opting out? First, to opt out will be taken very badly by our European partners in the consortium, particularly by France and Germany, who will feel very badly let down. This could have a serious impact on our chances of involvement in future major collaborative aerospace projects such as, for instance, the future experimental fighter aircraft programme.
Secondly, a negative decision would spell the end of the United Kingdom industry's participation in the large civil aircraft, just as Europe is breaking down the stranglehold of the United States in this field. Britain will have no hope of retrieving the situation in future. Thirdly, if Britain opts out the chances of Rolls-Royce getting its engine accepted for the A.320 will be seriously affected. It is perhaps interesting to note here that the decision of British Airways on whether to order A.320s eventually will very largely depend on the aircraft having Rolls-Royce engines, as it makes a considerable economy on the maintenance of its power plants if they come from one manufacturer. I know that my noble friend Lord Bessborough is going to say a few words about that.
Finally, if Britain opts out, our aerospace industry will suffer reduced employment—some 10,000 jobs could go in British Aerospace and its subcontractors, and in the associated equipment industry. The industry's exports and its contribution to the nation's trade balance would inevitably decline. I repeat: since the last war Britain has invested heavily in aerospace. Today, we possess the technological know-how, the skilled workforce and the productive capacity which, together with our European partners, can be a challenge to the United States. Airbus Industrie, with British Aerospace, has already blazed the trail with the A.300 and the A.310.
So I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree with me that now is the time to capitalise on success and support our European partners. The risks are not as great as some would have us believe. On the other hand, the benefits of the A.320 being successful—which it almost certainly will be—to those who work in the industry and to our economy as a whole could be enormous. Britain must take up this challenge, as our European partners surely will. Not to do so would be sheer folly. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, it is almost 20 years since I lost my virginity in another place. I must confess that it seems to me that this is one of those experiences where familiarity does not yield assurance and therefore it is with at least as much trepidation as then that I crave your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon. I think that a maiden speech in this House has at least one advantage over a maiden speech in the other place—certainly at the time when I made mine—in that in those days, at any rate, it was considered wise or prudent to devote at least one-third of one's speech to praising the beauties, perceptiveness and intelligence, first of one's constituents for sending one there and, secondly, of one's predecessor who, by his death or other indisposition, had made your journey possible. As I understand it, those problems do not arise in this House, and so one can turn at once to the subject of the debate.
First, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley for raising this matter this afternoon. Certainly his timing could not have been more perfect, for, as he reminded your Lordships, we know the Government are poised on the very brink of decision in this matter. Moreover, as a result of my noble friend's judicious choice of subject this afternoon my noble friend who is to reply to the debate will be able to participate in the making of that decision fortified by the wisdom and advice of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley spoke with an experience and knowledge of this industry which I cannot begin to match. He made a most powerful and effective case. Inevitably, I suppose, like my noble friend who is to reply to this debate, I am inclined to approach issues of public investment tarred with the Treasury brush. In fact, I must confess to having been a sort of "Treasury toady" long before I was summoned by bells to Great George Street in 1981—a "Treasury toady" at least in the sense that, while I recognised that the Treasury was often wrong, I had an inclination to feel (as I still have) that if we had accepted all the Treasury's judgments, right or wrong, over the years we might have been a somewhat richer and more prosperous country than we are today.
Of course, I have no idea whatever what will be the Treasury's judgment in the matter of the A.320 which is before your Lordships tonight. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Cockfield will be able to tell us that: perhaps not. But if one were looking at this proposition from within the Treasury, one might perhaps pause to consider the history of our support
284
for civil aviation in this country and certainly at least to ask a few questions about the present proposition.
I have made some inquiries, but it is extremely difficult to tell precisely what has been the total of our expenditure on civil aviation support over the whole of the post-war period, not least because, of course, during the period of the nationalisation of British Aerospace the concept of launch aid did not apply and it was the discipline of the external financial limit which counted. But the figures that I have obtained from the Library suggest that some sum in the range of £1,800 million may have been invested in all forms of support for civil aviation in this country over the last 30 years, and of that some £400 million or so is estimated to have come back. I must emphasise to your Lordships that that is not a dividend: it is more akin to a distribution by the receiver to the extent of 22p in the pound, because the total investment did not come back by any means.
We also know that of all the civil aircraft projects launched in this country since the war only one, the Viscount, has been in a position to return the initial capital investment in it by the taxpayer. As far as I know—and other noble Lords will be able to correct me on this—so far the Boeing 727 is the only civil jet in the world which has in fact made a commercial profit.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley rightly drew attention to the impressive success of Airbus Industrie in obtaining orders for its first two models. He also rightly drew your Lordships' attention to the large market which awaits the A.320 worldwide. However, I suggest to your Lordships that sales, like loyalty, are not enough. Sales must be achieved at a price which receives a commercial return. Sometimes that is an obligation which perhaps some of those in the civil aviation industry need to consider more closely than they always do.
Like others of your Lordships, this afternoon I have received some interesting briefing material from Airbus Industrie. I looked anxiously through it before this debate began, and my eyes seized on an item:
"A.320—new dimensions to profitability".
But unfortunately the new dimensions to profitability, to which it refers, are the prospects of profitability for those who will buy the A.320 rather than the prospects of certain profitability from the A.320 itself. Sometimes one could wish that Airbus Industrie had produced some figures to show what profits it is making from the aircraft that it has already developed.
Furthermore, it occurs to me that, if the prospects for the A.320 are so encouraging, is it really beyond the capacity of the City of London, unaided by Her Majesty's Government, to produce the finance which is required in this instance on the terms which British Aerospace says is essential—that is, with servicing and repayment deferred until the moment of cash flow in the 1990s? After all, the City of London was capable of generating thousands of millions of pounds for investment in North Sea oil at a time when, long before the first oil shot, the prospects of a return from that investment were at best highly hazardous. At the other end of the scale, it is worth recalling that no less than £12 million was generated for a most surprising project called Nimslo in just half an hour in the City.

285
Therefore, I should have thought that if, indeed, the prospects are so glittering, there is no reason on earth why British Aerospace should not be able to raise the finance that it needs, on the terms that it needs, within the City of London.
I also note—and it seems to be a matter for small preoccupation in this context—that at the present time the airframe manufacturers of the world seem to be awash with aircraft which they are unable to sell. We read that Boeing has actually been reduced to purchasing back from one of Airbus Industrie's respected customers Airbus aircraft that have not yet been delivered, so that the customer will buy Boeing instead. Apparently there is a dramatic crop of aircraft on the shelves awaiting customers going by the elegant name of "white-tails".
Again, as I understand it, sales in this area are conducted in dollars. At the present time this is, of couse, tremendously to the advantage of the European aircraft industry owing to the enormous soaring strength of the dollar. But will that last? Will the rate for the pound be 1·40 dollars when the time comes for Airbus Industrie to be paid, or will it be 2 dollars, or will it be 2·20 dollars, and, if it were, what would be the implications of that for the profitability of the whole project?
I know it is pointed out that, if we were not to proceed with this launch aid, we would expose the airlines of the world to a monopoly supplier in Boeing. But, as my noble friend reminded us, it has also been pointed out very clearly that, if we were not to proceed in this country, our partners would do so. I can appreciate that one or other of these propositions must be correct, but for the life of me I find it difficult to believe that both of them can be correct at the same time.
Finally, of course, I realise only too well that there is a vital issue which we cannot possibly ignore of the security of employment which would be achieved by making this public investment. However, at the same time we must recall a subject which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, introduced before your Lordships not very long ago about the desirability of public investment. Of course, the essence of investment is that it makes a commercial return, and I sometimes wonder whether perhaps one of the reasons for our uninspiring relative performance over the past 20 years or more may not be that the return which we have achieved on public sector investment, not least in the aircraft industry, has hardly by any means always been at commercial levels.
On 2nd December at column 1175 the Minister of State at the Department of Industry said in another place that the Government must:
"examine the prospects of the project yielding a commercial rate of return".
As my noble friend Lord Kimberley pointed out to your Lordships, that is the criteria which we would all accept. If the verdict of that examination is positive, let us proceed with a high heart. But if the verdict of that examination is negative, I am bound to suggest to your Lordships that our children, who would have to foot the bills in their taxation, would not necessarily thank us in years to come if we proceeded on that basis.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, before thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, it falls to me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, for his contribution. As he said, he is an ex-Treasury Minister, and those of us who listened to him today who were not Treasury Ministers will "recognise the breed", if I may put it that particular way. I should like to tell the noble Lord—and this has nothing to do with his speech this evening—how much I personally have enjoyed his articles in The Times between last June and today. I have not had time to digest his article on freeports today, but I am quite sure that I speak for the House when I say that we are very glad to have him. I hope that sometimes he will be able to speak to us with the authority of an ex-Treasury Minister, but not as an ex-Treasury Minister. In other words, I am trying politely to say that, although I have been delighted to hear him, I do not know whether I entirely agree with what he says. As we move on, perhaps I shall be able to say that.
I thought that the noble Lord must have been a journalist when I read his articles in The Times, and having chased up further details about him this afternoon I see that he was also the Paris correspondent for the Financial Times. Therefore, we welcome him: we are glad to have him. However, in spite of his last remarks, I do not think I would be wrong in assuming that really and truly he is not in favour of what we seek to obtain today by means of this Motion. To be perfectly fair, perhaps I should say that if it can be proved otherwise, I believe that the noble Lord would go along with it.
In common with everybody else, I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising this matter today. I think that his timing has been impeccable. We shall only know when we come to the end of the debate whether or not it has been successful. However, I should like to comment on something which the noble Earl mentioned in opening. He spoke of Concorde and I believe he said that the Prime Minister had said she did not want another Concorde on her back. Obviously, if the Prime Minister said that—and I have seen it quoted in several places—she would mean that she does not want such a financial burden, because, even to the layman, Concorde is a brilliant example of British aeronautical engineering.
I should only like, if I may—and I brought this in quite by chance—to quote two paragraphs from a letter in The Times of 16th January by Mr. James Moorhouse, MEP, who, as many Members of this House will know, is the Conservative spokesman on transport in the European Parliament. I have met Mr. Moorhouse several times. Whether or not one agrees with him, there is not the slightest doubt that he knows his subject. In case anybody else mentions Concorde, I should like to quote these twoparagraphs, if I may:
"It is very fashionable to say that the commercially unsuccessful Concorde is positive proof of the folly of all major projects. But it needs to be appreciated that the A.320 and the Concorde are two very different animals.
"While the supersonic Concorde was designed, as indeed was the de Havilland Comet, to push back the frontiers of knowledge and technology, the subsonic A.320, cast in a more conventional mode, will aim fully to exploit known technology while offering super-fuel economy and minimal maintenance costs.".

287
If it can do all those things I hope that it will win the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, on to our side.
I hope that the Government will support by offering launch aid to British Aerospace, which I believe has a 20 per cent. share in this, and which British Aerospace itself hopes will be 26 per cent. I think we are talking in terms of some £400 million plus as a loan. I thought that the Economist of 27th August carried a salutary warning in the article War in the Air, when its opening sentence read:
"The risk is that airlines will soon be able to buy any long-distance passenger aircraft so long as it is a Boeing."
That has worried quite a few of us during recent months.
That fear spreads much wider than readers of the Economist. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when he comes to reply on this aspect, can say whether it is correct that the Americans want to oust Britain from the European airbus project? It would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, could help us there, because this is something I have heard repeated on very good authority from several sources.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Butcher, made an encouraging comment in another place on 19th December, when he said at column 87 that:
"the orders and options for the A.320 are at the largest pre-launch level achieved."
An encouragement in more than words has come from three airlines, and there are probably others. British Caledonian—and all credit to it—led the way in October last year by ordering seven A.320s for delivery in the spring of 1988, with options for a further three. Earlier this month the president of Airbus Industrie announced a contract to build 10 A.320s for the French domestic line Air Inter. And the Yugoslav airline, Inex-Adria, has ordered five of the aircraft, with options for a further three.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when he comes to reply can also answer this point. I personally wish, and I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House would wish, that British Airways could have been on that list—I should have liked to add them to those names—instead of feeling that it could only place an order when the airbus was safely launched. Arising out of that, I should like to ask the Minister whether he feels that British Airways' decision to lease rather than buy American jets outright at the present time really gives them more scope for endorsing the A.320 in the future? I should be grateful if he feels able to comment on that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has pointed out to us, obviously any new aircraft must carry some degree of financial risk where large sums of money are concerned. But the general feeling seems to be that the A.320, seating 150, will justify the optimism of those who have placed orders already, rather than the reverse. For one thing, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said, this aircraft does not stand by itself. It stands with a group, or family, which includes the A.300, seating 265, and the A.310, seating 210.
288
In the summer, I returned from a civil aviation conference in Frankfurt and was fortunate enough to fly on the A.300. Personally, I have never experienced such comfortable seating and configuration on any economy flight. I do not know what it was like in the grander aspects, but I thought it was wonderfully comfortable. As of course is known by the industry—and I am sorry to keep going back to the noble Lord. Lord Bruce-Gardyne, but as an ex-Treasury Minister he is worth coming back to—the A.300 has been a success and it has reached a financial break-even point. It is important that we should remember that.
I for one, and very much as a layman, am prepared to accept the opinion of people well qualified to know that the A.320 will offer super-fuel economy and minimal maintenance costs, besides of course satisfying the new noise regulations. Some of those spare aircraft, which I was about to say are running around the world but they are lying around at the moment not being used, would not meet those minimal noise regulations which we know will come into force in 1986. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, can tell me whether it is true that the A.320 is British Aerospace's only major civil aircraft?
I feel that all of us who strongly support the European Community believe that an additional asset in all this is that in these matters we have a proven partnership with the French, German and Spanish industries and including, I believe, Belgium. Surely we would not wish, and the Government would not wish, that the A.320 should continue with new partners and minus Britain. As the House knows, we aim to build the wings plus, I am told, for the first time, virtually all the complicated wing flaps, securing some 4,500 jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know a great deal more about this than I do, but it is useful that lay Members know something. Then of course there is the opportunity which will be offered to Rolls-Royce. Others besides myself will have noted the comments made in another place on 19th December, by those particularly interested in this project, to the effect that it is just possible that the new Rolls-Royce engine may be ready in 1988 at the same time as the launch of the airbus.
I would not be competent to comment on a further point concerning Rolls-Royce, but I think it should be referred to. As I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, only three simple points, perhaps he will comment on this also when he comes to reply. It was said how unwise it would be for the United Kingdom not to get its Rolls-Royce power plant certificated for the A.320. Indeed, the point was made that Rolls-Royce must now bitterly regret the fact that it never got the RB-211 certificated for the B2–B4 and the A.310 airbus. The man who spoke to me, who was very knowledgeable, said that he was sure that the company feels today that it would never make the same mistake again.
I hope that the Government will provide financial aid for this project. If they do not feel able to offer the full amount, perhaps they could do two other things in addition to their own contribution: first, they could persuade others in Europe to help; and, secondly, they could demand some means of independent private

289
sector finance. My Lords, we all know really that the A.320 will be built with or without British participation. Airbus, British Aerospace and the Government have an opportunity here to seize the initiative, and I hope that we do not miss the bus this time.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, on his maiden speech in this House. I should also like to offer my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for his informed and persistent advocacy of all that is good in aeronautics. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, gave some figures about the amount of public moneys put into the aircraft industry in the post-war period. I remember that some time ago I wrote a pamphlet about these moneys and I think if the noble Lord were ever to read it he would probably not disagree with a good deal of what I said.
If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, since public ownership no launch aid was asked for, none was given and, on the publicly-owned capital in British Aerospace, a proper dividend was declared each year. I am not unhopeful that that good practice will be continued in the future.
I am not absolutely convinced that the strictly commercial case for the A.320 airbus can properly be discussed in a Chamber of this kind. But I agree with the noble Baroness and with the noble Earl that there are wider issues which are properly the concern of Parliament and which should be taken into account if a decision is made to advance public funds.
On the strictly commercial side there are obviously facts and figures which are confidential. I can imagine that the method and amount of payment by Airbus Industrie to the constituent companies for work done are probably relevant to any commercial decision, but they cannot and should not be brought into public discussion.
However, as I have said, there is a wider national interest here. It will be bad for Britain if we do not build our share of the A.320 airbus. British Aerospace is a member of Airbus Industrie. We paid £50 million for our share of the assets when we joined. It was not a political decision to join; it was a commercial decision. In so far as there was Government pressure at the time it was to stay out, but BAe decided that it was better to be an equal partner of a European consortium rather than a sub-contractor of an American company—which latter option our embassy in Washington at the time was not backward in canvassing.
I have said that it will be bad for Britain if we back out of an Airbus Industrie decision to go ahead with the A.320 and I will give three broad reasons why I say that. First, it would be contrary to the Government's declared policy of supporting new industry based on modern technology. We are here talking about a growth industry. We are only on the threshold, as yet, of transport and communication in air and space. I have known the time when the military side of the aircraft industry was supported by the civil side. I can well see in the next decade or so that we could return to that position, given the right decisions now.
290
My second reason is that it will seriously weaken the position of the British partner in Airbus Industrie if we cannot take our share of what could be the most important project so far. We joined Airbus Industrie late and I always saw the need to develop our influence and the contribution of British personnel. Improvements were possible, but we shall reverse that process of development and slip back into a second-rate partnership if we cannot keep up with the others. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that the British position as a partner of Airbus Industrie will be near impossible if we have to withdraw each time the A.320 project comes up for discussion at board or technical committee level.
Thirdly, following from what I have just said, a negative decision by us would reflect upon our standing in Europe. I have always maintained that membership of AI was a much more realistic and cost-effective exercise in European co-operation than the bureaucratic extravagance in Brussels.
I firmly support the Government's refusal to continue an open-ended subsidy for the production of overpriced commodities which we cannot sell, but if at the same time as that refusal the Government also refuse to support precisely the kind of joint industrial ventures which they advocated at Stuttgart in June then their credentials as Europeans will be derisory.
I hope the Minister will agree that those three reasons will carry some weight in the Government's consideration. But I would agree with him, with others and with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, that those reasons should carry weight only on the understanding that over an appropriate period the A.320 project is judged to be a profitable venture showing a real return on the investment.
That leads to the question of who shall be the judge of potential profitability? I know of no better qualified authority than the manufacturers. I do not believe that British Aerospace would want to go ahead unless it was satisfied about the eventual return. Some will say—and I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, saying, as has been said in the press—that such a judgment is made easy if it is not one's own money at stake. In this case BAe will have its own money at stake. It will have a great deal of money at stake in production costs. My understanding is that the company will be committed to repaying the loan now under discussion. The precise nature of the repayment terms is no doubt a matter for negotiation, but I hope the Minister will make clear for the benefit of the critics that no one is here talking about the old style launch aid. I hope that he will make it doubly clear that there is not the slightest resemblance to the Concorde contract.
Commentators have made the point, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, that, in the past, very few aircraft projects have proved profitable. That is absolutely true, but it is the principal reason why the number of aircraft manufacturers has gradually dwindled. We are now nearing the situation when there will be only two major manufacturers of mainline aircraft in the Western world. In that situation profitability for the manufacturer becomes possible, together with a degree of competition which I should still like to see, to benefit the operator. A

291
decision to go ahead with the A.320 will mean that Europe will have one of those two remaining potentially profitable manufacturing bases.
Another commentator has suggested that the decision to launch should wait until enough machines have been sold to guarantee break even. I suggest that that is a formula for closing down the industry. It is about as sensible as saying that a motor manufacturer should not lay down a production line until enough drivers have paid a deposit on cars to guarantee success. As the noble Baroness said, and as I believe the noble Earl has already said, more A.320s have been sold than most marketeers had thought possible in today's depressed conditions. But to expect a break-even order book is just talking nonsense.
It is this very fact of the exceptionally long timescale between design study to a positive cash flow that makes it necessary and justifiable for the company to turn to the Government for funds. In that respect we are dealing here with an exceptional industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us reason for believing that funding will be forthcoming to enable British Aerospace to maintain its position in Airbus Industrie. I hope that he will be able to see—and I hope that the Treasury especially understand—the need to relate repayments to this long timescale which is necessarily involved. I am bound to add that if this Government, who are selling off thousands of millions of pounds of public assets accumulated over the years by successive Governments, cannot find the money for this promising venture, then it is a pretty bad outlook for Britain.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne on his most interesting contribution, even if I could not exactly agree with him. He is clearly a great asset to your Lordships' House. His eloquence and humour this evening made it clear that we shall all want to hear him again very often. It is also clear that he is no longer, at any rate, just a "Treasury toady". I do not think that he ever was; but I agree with him that if the City were to invest in this project that would be ideal. I hope that inquiries are still proceeding in the City to see whether some risk capital cannot be raised there.
I am very glad indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I have discussed these matters with him at crucial moments. I remember especially 1970, when I became Minister of State responsible for aerospace. Over a period of seven years—for a short time in Government and at length in Opposition—I was a spokesman for the Conservative Party in these matters. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, this evening, and I agreed with every word he said. I shall tell your Lordships later why I find that a little surprising. I agreed also with every word that my noble friend Lord Kimberley said in introducing this Motion; and also with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. We certainly are at one.
All the arguments have already been deployed, and I shall not detain your Lordships for too long. But, having been spokesman on aerospace for all those
292
years, and especially at the time when, in 1969, Mr Benn, as Minister for Technology, withdrew Government support for the original A.300 airbus I recall that we, the Conservative Opposition, opposed him strongly. I remember in this connection my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and others. We greatly regretted that withdrawal, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—almost my noble friend—probably regretted it as well. Certainly he gives the impression of regretting it now.
My point is this. I should not like to see the present Government do what I might call "another Benn" in not granting launching aid to enable Britain to make its fair contribution to this aircraft, which, as already made clear, will be the only European wide-bodied aircraft to compete with Boeing and, perhaps, McDonnell Douglas. Having visited Seattle more than once, I need hardly say that I have the greatest admiration for Boeing's remarkable achievements in aerospace and their domination, more or less, of the world airline market. I am glad, too, that Boeing accept Rolls-Royce engines in their machines. They are our friends. Nonetheless, I should not like to see them gain a virtual world-wide monopoly which, in a curious way and in view of the anti-trust laws in the United States, I do not think that they themselves really want. European airbus or no European airbus, Boeing will do all right.
I believe strongly that Europe, the European Community, and perhaps its associated states, should be capable of putting up some kind of competition with our American friends and allies. Therefore, I support very much the arguments so ably deployed by my noble friend, by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and by the noble Baroness. I will not repeat all their cogent arguments, with which, in general and in principle, I agree. I hope that British Airways will keep its options open to order the plane, as British Caledonian and others have done, even if as a stop gap and in the interim they have to order some Boeings.
Although, as a Minister and as an Opposition spokesman, I was one of those who supported the building of Concorde from the very outset and hope that a larger and more economic "Son of Concorde" will ultimately be produced with our French, American, Japanese and maybe other friends, I must emphasise, like my noble friend, that this airbus is not another Concorde. As my noble friend has said, it represents a known technology in which it should be well worth investing. As he says, it is, indeed, merely a development of the original A.300 and the A.310, which have proved themselves to be highly successful as commercial aircraft. I hope, of course, that the A.320 will eventually have a Rolls-Royce engine. I was glad to see in the Sunday Times this week that the Government will support Rolls-Royce's participation in the five-nation project to develop the new V-2500 engine. I hope, too, that the Government will support Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace in building the engine, the air-frame and, particularly, the wings—and the flaps, as the noble Baroness has said—of the A.320.
I agree very much with all that the noble Baroness said and with the letter that she read out from Mr. James Moorhouse, MEP in The Times. If we really

293
wish to be wholehearted supporters of European economic (and, to some extent, industrial) unity, I think that the Government should provide this support. This does not mean that we should not co-operate with the United States in other ways, including perhaps the building of other aircraft such as the Harrier jump jet and, particularly, as I have said, a more economic supersonic transport. In the mid-1960s, when Boeing were given the contract, later cancelled, to build America's first supersonic transport, I was in favour of bringing in Lockheed as a partner in Concorde, but neither BAC (later British Aerospace) nor Sud-Aviation (later Aerospatiale) would agree. They thought that if we did so Lockheed would take over the whole project. However, if we had had an American partner in that project, then perhaps there might have been a modest market for Concorde in the United States.
The A.320, the European airbus, is a very different proposition for there is, as your Lordships have already said, a recognised market for it in the United States and in other parts of the world. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cockfield, for whom I have a great admiration, recognises this. If we do not give Government launching aid, then, as I see it, the wings as well as the aero engine will be built in the United States. As a result, there will be unemployment, as has already been said, to the extent of some 10,000 jobs in a number of British Aerospace establishments and their sub-contractors. That unemployment will be considerable. I agree with my noble friend that Britain must take up this challenge.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in giving congratulations upon the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and I join them too in hoping that we shall hear from him again many times during the process of our business. I particularly want to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley—I join other noble Lords in doing so—for the timing of this debate and I would seek the understanding of your Lordships in having discarded the few notes that I had prepared to participate in this timely debate.
What I want to do is to emphasise, alongside the urgency and the importance of the contribution that is being sought from the Government for the aerospace contribution itself, to underline in a complex situation the importance of viewing the whole canvas that was presented so ably by the noble Earl. Almost everything that has been said in the debate contributes towards my assessment that this is a unique debate and a unique situation which has developed, if one looks at the positions taken up by so many of us at other times. I have a feeling that the Treasury are right on some things it is possible for them to be doing at present and in some attitudes. One needs to be careful, although purposely I do not want to be word perfect in speaking off the cuff. It would be churlish of me not to indicate that perhaps the position emerging as a result of the matter before us does not lead me to say that for once I would be on the side of the Treasury position too, because everything is tied up.
294
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned one of the things I had made a note of: how does this question affect the wider issues of European unity? I had a position which was very doubtful, to say the least of it, concerning the prospects of Europe as a whole. Here is the very essence and test as to whether things go on in a positive way or not. This is not a question of milk or mutton; it is a question of the very essence and future of the possibility of progress on the front we have in mind.
I do not submit to your Lordships that my contribution is other than a lay contribution, but I would direct your attention from the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, which reminded me of the maiden speech I made seven years ago. The attitudes I was seeking in that maiden speech for the RB.211 are being met in the prospects we have before us in the technology that has developed since that time—the silence of the Rolls-Royce engines and such factors. And if one were to look hack at the record of the time, seven years ago, it would be worth two minutes' reading.
I have sought to see whether I could use my short time in this debate to set pointers, and particularly one pointer, which is the importance of what is involved in our connections with Europe, whatever one's views are. Secondly, certainly it is an international competitive situation, a struggle—and I use the word advisedly—that we are involved in. One cannot complain, when one talks of Boeing, that the Americans are pro-American and that the aircraft groups are patriotic. What I do complain of—at least I suspect it—is that we are not pro-British enough in a robust assessment of what we need to do. Some of the factors that came out in the noble Earl's presentation carefully drew attention to this. I would hope that Government Ministers will bring their weight to bear on these important factors, rather than worrying too much about commercialism.
The future employment situation has been brought out by your Lordships in many ways. All the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, drew attention to are involved in looking at the whole canvas, and if in the few minutes I have been able to address your Lordships I have been able to stress that, my purpose will have been served.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Marley: My Lords, I also should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley for introducing this subject. It is an absolutely vital one and this debate was impeccably timed, as others have said. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne on his excellent contribution to this debate.
I have myself travelled a fair amount throughout the world and in various types of aircraft. I should like to agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in that I have never travelled in a more comfortable, quiet and smooth-running aircraft than the current A.300. I really think it is a very, very fine aircraft. It is one of the few European-built aircraft to penetrate the impregnable fortress of the United States air network and I think that is most important to the European Community, particularly because of the number of countries contributing to the airbus.

295
Eastern Airlines is the airline I am referring to. They have in use at the moment 34 A.300s, and I had a report this morning from their headquarters in America. They are very pleased and satisfied with this aircraft. They find it has great "passenger appeal", as the Americans put it. They find that its operation is efficient and economical, and I think that they should be encouraged in every way, if possible, by our Government to take an option on the new A.320.
It is vital to speed up the promotion of the new A.320, particularly in view of the announcement a couple of days ago of the new Boeing 737-300 which, as reported at its inauguration, will be in direct competition with the airbus. It is very important that the Government should take note of the announcement. I hope that they will support British Aerospace in the development of this aircraft. If it does not happen now—and I mean now—it may well be too late.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, for his maiden speech. As other noble Lords have said, it sounded a cautionary note, which was welcome, although I did not agree with its general tenor. All noble Lords who have taken part in the debate are, with perhaps the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, of one view. Help is needed for the launching of the airbus. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for opening the debate with a well-informed speech, based upon his experience and knowledge.
This issue has been debated on five occasions in the two Houses. Two Adjournment debates were held in the other place in December of last year. A great deal of information is already available about this vital issue, therefore. My noble friend Lord Beswick, with all his experience of the industry, opened debates in your Lordships' House on two Unstarred Questions. They were held on 26th April 1982 and 5th July 1983. In the debate on 26th April 1982, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, speaking for the Government, said that an assessment of the commercial viability of the A.320 project had not yet been completed; therefore it would be premature to take a decision. Further information from British Aerospace was awaited; however, the Government certainly intended to reach a decision with the minimum delay compatible with a proper appraisal of the case. That debate took place nearly two years ago. In the debates which took place last December in the other place, Government Ministers said that it was hoped to deliver a decision by the end of January 1984. This, therefore, is the time for decision.
Ministers have said time and time again that the A.320 is vital for the future of the civil aviation industry in Britain. I shall not give the references. There can be no disagreement that Airbus Industrie is an outstanding example of productive European co-operation. The way in which Airbus Industrie brought on stream the A.300 and the A.310 is clear evidence of that fact. I do not possess detailed knowledge of the aircraft manufacturing industry, but it is claimed that
296
the A.300 and the A.310 are the most economical and operationally reliable of any of the wide-bodied aeroplanes. I have not heard anybody deny those facts.
As has been stressed by other speakers, both the A.300 and the A.310 have had a successful sales programme. May I remind your Lordships that over 352 firm orders have been placed for the A.300 and the A.310 aircraft by 46 airlines, with options for another 100 aircraft? It is important to note that 70 per cent. of these aeroplanes have been bought by airlines which are not partners of Airbus Industrie. This is a very important point. About 200 of the A.300 and A.310 aeroplanes are operating successfully in various parts of the world.
In the last debate, on 5th July 1983, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at col. 553 said:
"We are most gratified by the successes—I stress 'the successes'—which Airbus Industrie has achieved in establishing a position second only to Boeing as a manufacturer of wide-bodied civil aircraft and also in demonstrating that a European collaborative venture can rival the major United States manufacturers".
That was obviously an agreed Government statement. Almost precisely the same words were used by Mr. John Butcher, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in a debate in the other place on 19th December 1983. Therefore the Government recognise the success which has already been achieved and the importance of the programme to the British civil aviation industry.
There seems to be no argument that there will be a demand throughout the world for the replacement of many of the ageing and noisy aircraft. Government Ministers agree that there will be a demand for new aeroplanes in the next 20 years. Airbus Industrie have carried out research with airlines throughout the world into the type of aircraft that is required to meet these needs. Airbus Industrie claim, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the A.320 fully meets the requirements of the world's airlines, as expressed in the survey they have carried out. They have also carried out a survey which suggests that, even at the lowest figure, only 30 per cent. of the possible demand for aircraft would mean that about 700 of the A.320 aeroplanes would be required.
Reference has been made to the 88 orders and options which have already been secured for the A.320. I understand that until today there were 47 firm orders and 41 options, but I was told only this morning that another four firm orders have been placed and that another four options have been taken up by an existing A.310 customer. I should like noble Lords to keep that point in mind.
In the debate on 19th December in another place, Mr. John Butcher joined in the congratulations upon an order for five A.320s having been placed by the Yugoslavian State Airline. He said:
"It is further evidence of the commercial appeal of the A.320".
He agreed that it was absolutely right to say that orders and options for the A.320 were at the largest pre-launch level achieved. Mr. John Butcher recognised that an unusually large pre-launch order had been placed.
Airlines do not place orders on grounds of sentiment. Reference has been made to British Caledonian Airways. Sir Adam Thomson and his

297
board did not place that order merely on grounds of sentiment. I was present when Sir Adam Thomson was asked whether British involvement in a European enterprise was a factor in their decision. He said that the decision was taken almost solely on the commercial needs of British Caledonian and that it was necessary for them to have the A.320. I hope, as other noble Lords have already said, that British Airways will also place orders for aircraft. Airbus Industrie should be mentioned, as they offered to provide interim aircraft to BA on the same lease arrangements as those offered by Boeing.
In passing, perhaps I should say that many countries would love to enjoy the British situation of having a very efficient aeroplane manufacturer, as we have in British Aerospace; one of the world's leading aircraft engine manufacturers, as we have in Rolls-Royce; and one of the leading state airlines, as we have in the form of British Airways. I regret that we do not have all the collaboration between those three bodies which I should like to see, but there is not the slightest doubt that an order from British Airways will greatly enhance the prestige of the whole Airbus Industrie programme. As other noble Lords have said, there is already development in progress at Rolls-Royce on an engine which will be suitable for use in the A.320 programme.
My noble friend Lord Beswick emphasised the position of British Aerospace; that they believe this is a good aeroplane. As laymen, we must take note of those people who understand what is required in the production of an aeroplane. I should like to emphasise, as other noble Lords have done, that up to now there has been no development support given to British Aerospace, or required by British Aerospace, for their part of the production of the A.300 and A.310 programmes.
As more than one noble Lord has said, if the Government do not help with this matter, and if British Aerospace have to withdraw, nevertheless the A.320 programme will continue with the share of British Aerospace being offered to other members of the partnership. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, asked a question about returns. When my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede spoke in the debate in July last year, he referred to the loans towards production costs incurred which Airbus Industrie had already repaid.
Airbus Industrie have made it quite clear that the share of the A.320 programme falling on British Aerospace might be nearer 26 per cent., rather than the 20 per cent. they had in the previous programme. I have heard Government Ministers echo that that could be so. We must bear in mind that British Aerospace and Airbus Industrie buy equipment from some 40 other British companies. We have also possibilities for Rolls-Royce engines because Airbus Industrie have made it clear that they will welcome the opportunity to offer the alternative Rolls-Royce engine to customers instead of that which is currently used.
Ministers have time and time again expressed the view that the success of the A.320 is vital for the future of our aerospace industry. One can refer to numerous speeches to prove that fact. If that is so, and if
298
Ministers do consider it vital for the future of our aerospace industry, then what will be the situation if we do not participate in the A.320?
It is essential that our participation in this great European construction effort should continue. It is generally agreed that production of this type of aircraft is far too large a project for any single European country. Therefore, if we did not participate and there was not the Airbus Industrie effort in our programme, then there would be sole reliance upon Boeing production. The Government decision could give a considerable impetus to Airbus Industrie. It could give great impetus to the A.320 programme, and it could have a considerable effect upon sales. There is clear evidence that the A. 300 and A.310 programmes have been successful and are continuing to be successful. There are no reliable grounds for believing that the A.320 programme could not be the same.
Perhaps I may conclude by quoting what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said on 5th July 1983, speaking on behalf of the Government:
"The Government recognise that the future of British Aerospace as a civil aircraft manufacturer is now very closely linked to participation in viable new air industry projects. The valuable opportunities which the A.320 could present to British engine and aircraft equipment manufacturers is also clearly recognised".—[Official Report, 5/7/83; col. 554.]
What I believe noble Lords are asking tonight is that that recognition should now be backed by real, positive assistance to the launch programme.
7.10 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, may I start by congratulating my noble friend and former colleague Lord Bruce-Gardyne on a thoughtful, well-argued and well-documented maiden speech. He brings to this House great experience in economic affairs, a penetrating insight into the activities of government, and a facility of expression which makes even the most trenchant criticism a pleasure to listen to.
As my noble friend Lord Kimberley, who initiated this debate, will readily appreciate, I am not in a position to make any announcement of the Government's intentions this evening. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend recognises that that is so. Nevertheless, the debate has served the valuable purpose of enabling us to survey the field as a whole, and it has given your Lordships an opportunity to make your views known. I can assure all noble Lords who have spoken that very careful consideration will be given to everything that has been said.
When British Aerospace was privatised in February 1981, it was stated that the company would have the same eligibility for Government finance as other companies in the private sector and as its predecessor companies had prior to nationalisation. That remains the position. We have made it clear that we are prepared in principle to consider launch aid for participation by British Aerospace, and indeed by other aerospace companies, in viable new projects. The present application by British Aerospace for launch aid is in respect of its share of the development costs of the A.320 airbus, and this will need to be judged on its merits.

299
It is important that I indicate the basis on which we approach these matters. Launch aid is not a subsidy—at least, it is not intended to be a subsidy, although it has very often ended up that way. Its intention is that when an enterprise operating in a field of public importance has a commercially viable proposition, the development costs of which are very heavy and which have to be incurred before—and sometimes long before—revenue from the project accrues, then in appropriate cases Government will assist by providing launch aid which will help to meet development costs and which will be repaid out of revenues when they accrue.
There is a parliamentary requirement that one should vote in accordance with one's voice. There is a commercial equivalent. One of the prime tests of commercial viability must be whether the enterprise promoting the project is prepared to back it with its own money. That is why when launch aid is sought the company concerned is usually expected to bear at least 50 per cent. of the cost itself. This risk sharing between the company and the Government means that the company still has a real incentive to ensure that the project does make sufficient money to meet the full development costs, including repayment of launch aid, as well as making a reasonable profit. To cover the whole of the development costs by launch aid would leave the company with no such incentive.
As my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne has said, the history of launch aid to the aerospace industry over the last 30 years or so has been far from a happy one. On the airframe side only the Viscount has been sold in sufficient numbers for the Government aid to have been repaid in full. Of the total launch aid or equivalent provided, revalued at current prices, only about one-seventh has been repaid. On the civil aero-engine side, only the Spey, Avon and Tyne have repaid the Government investment.
This is not in itself an acceptable situation, and the position is made even more difficult by the enormous escalation of the cost of new aircraft development and the competing claims which exist in the field of public expenditure. It is essential to realise just how large the sums sought for aerospace programmes are. The total development cost of the A.320 at outturn prices is put at something like £2,000 million. British Aerospace are now seeking some £460 million at outturn prices in launch aid. This is 100 per cent. of British Aerospace's share of the total development cost.
In addition to the launch aid now being requested by British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce in their turn have submitted an application for launch aid of £113 million at 1983 prices for the V.2500 engine programme. The amount at outturn prices will, of course, be substantially greater than that. Nor is this the end of the story. Launch aid of £70 million has been approved for the Rolls-Royce 211.535/4 engine and £41 million for the Westland WG.30 helicopter. Still to come is the EH. 101 helicopter, a joint Anglo-Italian project. The amounts of money involved, both applied for and already given, are therefore very substantial.
Firm orders for the existing A.300 and A.310, including deliveries already made, have totalled some 350 aircraft from 46 airlines around the world. This
300
gives Airbus a valuable customer base on which the A.320 can draw. This, I imagine, is one of the points my noble friend Lord Kimberley had in mind when he said that there was a market for the A.320 which is presented to us on a platter. But we must equally face the fact that the United States manufacturers who currently dominate this section of the market will offer the strongest competition. The rolling out of the new Boeing 737.300 last Wednesday amply illustrates that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, asked whether it is true that the Americans want to oust Britain from the Airbus consortium. Obviously there will be those in the American industry who would prefer to see the United Kingdom industry not participate in the A.320 project, but I am assured that Boeing themselves have denied that this is their view. It follows that with the development costs of the Airbus 320 likely to come out at some £2,000 million, as I have said, high volume production running at the level achieved in recent years only by the major United States companies will be essential to recover the investment involved.
Of key importance for the A.320 will be improvements in productivity to match the levels achieved in the United States aerospace industry. The question whether such improvements can be achieved must be one of the major factors in deciding whether launch aid should be given. What we have to face is that the civil aviation market is almost wholly denominated in United States dollars regardless of where the aircraft are built or sold. The selling price of the A.320 will, therefore, be conditioned by the dollar price of competing United States aircraft. The economic viability of the A.320 will thus be influenced by the pricing policies of United States manufacturers and by movements in currency exchange rates. We need to match United States levels of productivity if we are to have a product saleable in world markets.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He is emphasising this point of productivity and the importance of the exchange rates. To what extent is the situation with the proposed 320 any different at all as compared with the 300 and 310, where we have matched the Americans? Why does he not accept the fact?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord is supporting the point I am making, no doubt much to his surprise. It is very important that we do match the United States levels of productivity, and I am glad that he entirely agrees on this point. I do not understand really what the noble Lord is arguing about, because this is clearly one of the factors that have to be taken into account. The evidence produced by British Aerospace on this point is being considered very carefully.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, it is obvious that the noble Lord did not understand what I was talking about, otherwise he would not have given that answer. The noble Lord was advancing that the difficulty with a positive decision on the A.320 arises because, he said, we have to match productivity; and he said it in such a way as to suggest that there was doubt about this. I am asking him, will he not accept as evidence the fact that we have matched them in productivity in the 300 and the 310?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am not in a position, off the cuff, to give actual figures for productivity on the A.300 and the A.310. It nevertheless remains absolutely true that one of the crucial issues is that we must match productivity. The noble Lord is saying that he is certain that we will match United States levels of productivity. If we do, that is splendid, but it must be, and it must continue to be, a matter of considerable concern in this field. This is particularly so because we are looking at a 20-year programme, and it would be quite wrong to believe that United States levels of productivity will remain exactly where they are. The point I am putting to the noble Lord—and I really do not know why he is disputing this—is that we really need to look at all of the factors involved; and this we are doing. We look at them with an open mind, and I hope the noble Lord does the same.
May I go on to a further point here. The share of the A.320 programme for which it is proposed British Aerospace should have design responsibility is about 26 per cent., which is somewhat larger than their 16 to 18 percent. stake in the current programme. Although the work share is based primarily on the design and manufacture of the wings, as was the case with the A.300 programme, British Aerospace would have overall control of the complete wing design, and in addition responsibility for the undercarriage and load alleviation system.
As a full partner in Airbus, the United Kingdom is entitled to look for a share of equipment broadly proportionate to our partnership share. We recognise that there are historical and commercial reasons for the low levels of participation by British equipment suppliers in the original A.300 programme. There have been some modest improvements in our share in the A.310 and A.300–600. However, there is scope for further improvement in this area, and if Government support for the A.320 programme is given we should want to ensure that British equipment companies, which can offer commercially and technically competitive products, have a fair opportunity to participate in the programme.
The depth of the recession which the air transport industry has recently experienced and the consequent financial problems facing the great majority of the world's airlines have inhibited them from committing themselves to purchases of new generation aircraft for delivery some five years or so from now. Airbus Industrie has therefore faced difficulties in obtaining launch orders for the A.320. But the A.320 does have the advantage that it is aimed predominantly at replacement of existing aircraft rather than on a market sector dependent upon future traffic growth.
The British Caledonian order for seven A.320s is encouraging; and it is the response of the airlines like British Caledonian operating in a highly competitive market environment which will determine whether the A.320 will be commercially attractive, In all, 47 orders and 41 options have been obtained to date. I gather that the additional orders and options mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not, in fact, be finalised and announced until mid-February, but that does not significantly alter the total figures.
302
However, it is important to remember the sort of numbers involved in the successful United States civil aircraft programmes. The Boeing 727 production line has just closed after the sale of some 1,800 aircraft: the one-thousandth Boeing 737 has just been completed. Over 1,000 DC9s have been sold. The A.320 will likewise need to achieve very substantial sales if it is to provide an adequate return on investment.
Initially the A.320 is being offered with the derivative CFM56–4 engine. But we believe that the aircraft's sales potential will be maximised by the availability of an advanced technology engine to complement the advanced technology airframe specification. The V.2500 engine, in which Rolls-Royce would have a 30 per cent. stake, thus offers valuable prospects for the A.320 in a new technology engined version. The companies concerned are studying whether the V.2500 could be available to match the A.320's projected 1988 entry into service date. That answers the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry.
Rolls-Royce have submitted an application to the Government for launch aid in respect of their participation in the V.2500 engine programme and a decision on this will be taken broadly on the same timescale as on the A.320 application.
There is one further point, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, relating to British Airways. The British Airways statement which announced the Boeing 737 short-term leasing arrangements specifically pointed out that these provided the airline with the flexibility to review, without long-term commitment, its aircraft requirements for the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when the next generation of short-haul aircraft such as the A.320 are expected to become available.
Of the four prospective partners in the Airbus 320 consortium, France and Spain—and Spain has a relatively small share—have specified their willingness to support the project. Germany, like ourselves, has not yet reached a decision but is likely to do so very shortly. I appreciate the concern and hopes of all those involved in the civil aerospace industry about this matter. These concerns and hopes have been expressed in your Lordships' House this evening, as they have on previous occasions. I assure my noble friend, and all your Lordships who have spoken, that the most careful consideration will be given to what has been said this evening. My noble friend's felicity of timing means that your Lordships' views will form part of the input into the decision.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne on his maiden speech. I also thank him for the very kind words he said about me. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we all hope we shall hear a lot more from him. I agree with him that sales must achieve a commercial return and, like that noble aeroplane the Viscount, I am sure that the A.320 will. I agree with every word said by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Would that I had her gift of oratory, because she puts my case much better than I can. I was very encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said about the money which has gone to British Aerospace in the past four years. I thought he

303
was completely right in emphasising that what is needed is a wider national interest. We joined Airbus Industrie perhaps too late, but at least we got there. Whatever we do we must not reverse the decision now. The noble Lord asked, "Who is to judge?" and "Who better to judge than the manufacturer?" If noble Lords will bear with me for a moment, I should like to quote what Sir Austin Pearce said in his New Year message to British Aerospace in British Aerospace News:
"So we have to demonstrate we've got a good product and are prepared to produce it in a way that makes it really competitive with Boeing, because that's who we're up against. I think we can. I am optimistic we can.
"We do, however, require an awful lot of support from the work force, and provided we can get that then I am quite clear that the outlook for the A.320 will be encouraging. But we've also got to convince the Government to help us with launch aid. If we can't do that, then we've got problems, very severe problems.
"I'm hoping that it won't be too long into the New Year before we hear the Government's decision, and then I'm hoping—but, of course, I can't guarantee it now—that we shall be able to go ahead.".
I think that those are probably very prophetic and true words, because Sir Austin Pearce is a very capable, commercially minded and able business man.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough again emphasised how right we must be about Europe. It is only if we stay with Europe that we can have any competition with the United States. There is no doubt that competitiveness is a good thing.
I particularly liked the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw. I thought he made a wonderful speech. He hides his light under a bushel in saying that he is a layman. He knows a lot about Rolls-Royce engines and a lot about Europe. He is right to say that the only people who will be pro-British are us, the British. We must be more pro-British. I liked what was said by my noble friend Lord Marley. He has flown all over the world in many types of airliners. He knows a lot about the airbus, and is right in what he says.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the five debates we have had in the two Houses. We must have productive European co-operation. He mentioned what my noble friend Lord Lyell and the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. Mr. John Butcher, said on 19th December 1983. I want to emphasise what he said. He spoke about the importance of the A.320 programme. He went on to say that we have the largest pre-launch level for an aeroplane. I think that we should have a much larger pre-launch level if the industry knew that we would give British Aerospace the launch aid that it requires. We must not forget that 40 other companies are affected by this.
I did not expect my noble friend the Minister to give me an answer tonight. I am sure that he and many others will have noted the feeling in your Lordships' House tonight. Last night as I was leaving the House I saw my noble friend and said, "We are going to do battle tomorrow evening". He said, "No. We are going to bandy words". I think that we have done that fairly successfully this evening.
I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House who have participated in the debate for their support. It can leave no possible doubt in the Government's mind that, if democracy is to work and the House of Lords
304
required that launch aid be given to the A.320, it would be. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

UNESCO Conference
7.31 p.m.
Lord Vaizey Lord Vaizey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the outcome of the 22nd session Of the UNESCO General Conference.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, so far as I can discover, this is the first time that the subject of UNESCO has been raised on the Floor of either House for a considerable time. As the organisation is at a turning point in its affairs, I think that it is an appropriate occasion to put a number of specific questions to the Government about British participation and policy. They may well welcome the opportunity to take counsel with your Lordships on the matter. May I say how much we welcome back to the Front Bench from her journeys my noble friend Lady Young. She has been to Grenada and the Falkland Islands. Every troubled island in the world seems to have received a visit from my noble friend this Christmas and New Year.
The five specific questions that I want to put to my noble friend—and I have given her notice of them—are as follows. First, are the Government satisfied that, with other like-minded Governments, we have exerted sufficient pressure to contain the budgetary expansion of UNESCO? Secondly, are they satisfied that every effort is being made to restrain the extravagance and inefficiency at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris? I do not speak about the work in the field. Thirdly, are they satisfied that Mr. M'Bow has proved an effective director general of this United Nations agency, and what attitude will they take to his forthcoming campaign for re-election? Fourthly, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the threat to the free flow of information caused by UNESCO's proposed third world censorship programme has been staved off? Lastly, are the Government satisfied that the serious damage to human rights entailed in UNESCO's support of so-called people's rights has also been limited?
Behind these five specific questions lies a more general anxiety. It is this. Successive Western Governments have not taken UNESCO seriously. It has been allowed to become a major centre of anti-Western agitation and propaganda. When Israel was expelled from UNESCO in the mid-1970s the United States, under the then presidency of President Carter, withdrew its support and Israel was promptly re-admitted. Now the United States has finally announced that it will resign from the organisation.
I speak with 25 years experience of UNESCO. Many of us feel that, on balance, other Western Governments, including our own, should also cut their losses—though I must admit that the Foreign Office has already, announced that we shall not withdraw. I wonder whether that decision is correct and whether it is not a bit precipitate.
The Glasgow Herald, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Spectator and the Economist have all argued that the United Kingdom should also withdraw. I know that many other knowledgeable people share that view. I have had a great many letters from people of great distinction and authority asking me to suggest in this House that the Government should seriously consider withdrawal. I shall listen with particular interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with his many years of experience of United Nations work, has to say, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who is probably the country's leading expert on overseas aid to the third world.
If I may take us back a little to the origins of UNESCO, it was set up in London in 1946 and then transferred to Paris. It is now a significant item in the French balance of payments, because three-quarters of its budget is spent in France. Its first director general was Sir Julian Huxley, a distinguished man but no great shakes as an administrator. The Soviet Union joined in 1956. Sir Julian was then followed by two short-lived directors general. UNESCO then had a very distinguished French director general, M. Maheu, who has recently died. The director general now is from Senegal. Mr. M'Bow administers a sizeable programme, to which our annual contribution is rather less than £5 million, which is not an insignificant sum. If I may give a comparison, it is almost enough to save Calke Abbey, as it is half the annual grant to the National Heritage Fund.
That bit of UNESCO's expenditure which is not spent in Paris has shifted heavily towards the third world. The push in that direction was given by the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, when he was education Minister. I think that it is increasingly realised that he was the most distinguished education Minister that we have had since the war, and his views will be particularly important and relevant. Mrs. Castle, when she was Minister for Overseas Development and the responsibilities for UNESCO were transferred from education to overseas development, also tried to push effort into work in the field in education. I shall listen with care to what the noble Viscount has to say. Those two important efforts by British Ministers have not been carried through.
UNESCO is governed by biennial conferences, to which we send small delegations. It is also governed by an executive board on which a British subject usually sits. Customarily it has been a retired middle-level civil servant. I think it is fair to say that, with the exceptions to which I have drawn attention—the noble Viscount and Mrs. Castle—there has been little ministerial interest in the organisation over the years. Of the three surviving former British executive board members, I think that the most distinguished also favours withdrawal. It is fair to say that the Labour nominee, Mr. Matheson, who left the executive board in 1974, does not. He thinks that we should definitely stay and that one of the reasons for the weakness in UNESCO is the lack of interest by the United States delegation. That was true in the Carter years but it is not true now. The United States has a distinguished delegate in Paris, as we have had, too.
UNESCO's constitution, governed as it is by this biennial conference and the transient body of the executive board, gives enormous power to the director
306
general. It must be said that he increases that power by political manipulation. The present director general, for whom the United Kingdom has twice voted, both when the Labour Government were in office and during Mrs. Thatcher's first Administration, was described forcefully, accurately and most impressively by Mrs. Rosemary Righter in a brilliant article in the Sunday Times. She described the arbitrary tyranny which is exercised in Paris over the staff. Only 4 per cent. of the staff said that they had confidence in the director general. He has tried to disband the staff organisation and dissuade people from joining it. This tyranny also extends over many delegates. There is deep dissatisfaction indeed.
These are strong words, but I can assure your Lordships that those of us who go regularly to Paris to see the organisation think that the words are just and fair. The director general will be seeking re-election for a future term of six years. It is most important to find an alternative candidate if we are to stay in the organisation. There are very few constitutional checks on his power.
I should like to ask the Government to take steps to initiate an inquiry into the functioning of the organisation at headquarters and the dissatisfaction to which Mrs. Righter draws our attention in her thoroughly well researched article in the Sunday Times. Mrs. Righter, and many other journalists of great distinction, have gone on to say that UNESCO is overwhelmingly inefficient and extravagant. I believe that that assertion would be backed up by almost everybody who has served in a British delegation to UNESCO. The question which is really before the Government is whether or not the rot has gone so far that the organisation is no longer remediable. On balance, I would think that that is so; I think that it has gone so far.
The one section of the organisation for which I had great respect was the International Institute for Educational Planning, which did very valuable work; but the independence of the governing board of that body has been destroyed and the independence of its staff put under the control of the secretariat, which means that the last section that was outstanding has diminished.
I must say that if inefficiency and extravagance were the sole charge, it might be said that UNESCO was a fairly cheap way for the British to meet and influence third world delegations. Personally, I think that that is a weak argument. There are plenty of other places for our diplomats and experts to meet people from the third world—notably, of course, from the Commonwealth, where we have an admirable record in educational aid and scientific collaboration. UNESCO's small programmes in marine biology and archaeological preservation could certainly be far more cheaply performed by properly constituted scientific bodies.
It is not just extravagance; it is not just inefficiency. There are two areas where the torrent of anti-Western propaganda represents a real danger to Western values, which are upheld in all parts of this House. The first concerns human rights, which is the one issue about which I feel absolutely passionately. UNESCO has got into the human rights act on the somewhat

307
spurious ground of education for human rights and research into the question. The Swiss national who is responsible for this part of UNESCO's programme has resigned on principle and has been replaced by a Trinidadian, Mrs. O'Callaghan, a far Left Marxist, who has pursued the director general's concept (borrowed from the Soviet Union) of people's rights.
People's rights are the direct opposite of human rights. Human rights are, of course, dismissed as a bourgeois fantasy, and people's rights are based on the concept of tribal and racial purity. They are, for example, the basis of virulent anti-Semitism and bitter hostility to the state of Israel. Those people who have not listened to the debates at UNESCO ought to go and listen to them, because they are quite horrifying.
The usual anti-apartheid resolutions are also passed, but there is never any serious attempt to understand or to interpret the roots of apartheid. The propaganda is so one-sided. There is never any reference to the Ayatollah and the position of people in Iran, for example, let alone any references to other parts of the third world; nor, of course, to the Soviet empire.
The development of the concept of people's rights is a most sinister and deplorable aspect of United Nations activities. Those of us who are deeply concerned with human rights now regard UNESCO not as a neutral party but as a dangerous enemy of the rights of the individual. I may say that the rights of individuals, whatever the colour of their skins, are equally important, and they must not be dismissed merely as a package of Western values which the imperialists are trying to impose on the ex-colonial people. But that is the way they are dismissed at the moment by the Soviet bloc and its supporters.
The other aspect of UNESCO's programme which is deeply sinister is the communications programme. The UNESCO proposals have been doubling up for some years. They come, of course, from the Soviet Union, via Cuba and the so-called group of non-aligned states, and they start from the premise that all world information is biased in a pro-capitalist direction because Reuters, the Press Association, Agence France-Presse, and so on, are part of the capitalist superstructure.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, with all his great authority, is to speak on this aspect of UNESCO's programme, but I would say that this whole programme has been the immediate cause of the United States decision to withdraw. What is being proposed is the setting up of a series of third world agencies, sponsored by Governments, and the licensing of journalists, so that the third world receives more favourable coverage, Western journalists are curbed, and in relation to the press and the media Governments assume the role which they have in the Soviet empire of rewriting and inventing the news.
There was some movement at the conference which ended in November because people were getting wind of the fact that the United States was going to withdraw and so reduce the UNESCO budget by 25 per cent. I think that the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in a very important pamphlet, that,
"UNESCO may be approaching a tragic situation in which free countries can compromise no further",
308
is something to which we must pay very great attention. Every responsible person in the press in the West is terrified of this activity which is taking place in Paris.
The evening is drawing on, and I shall bring my remarks to a close. I want very much to hear what other noble Lord have to say. The Government may take the view that our subscription and the costs of our delegation, at about £5 million a year, are negligible. For myself, I do not think that that is an appropriate attitude to take to any public expenditure, large or small, and I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will not take that line. It is true that other Western states, excepting the United States, will not leave UNESCO. Obviously, France will not leave. If it receives 300 million dollars each year, that is a very concrete reason for it to stay in UNESCO. I think probably the rest of the Common Market, for one reason or another, will also stay in.
However, I believe that there is a possibility that New Zealand will withdraw; and, if the Conservatives win the election in Canada, I should certainly be surprised if Canada stays in. This is an occasion, I think, when the United States has acted on behalf of the free nations, following intolerable acts and words by the agency and the group that dominates it. I believe that, in this particular instance, we should pay great attention to what the United States has decided to do.
Above all, we are reaping where we have sown. This is not in any sense an attack on the present Minister, nor on the delegations which we have sent out there. They have been very small, but extremely impressive. However, we have treated the election and re-election of people such as Mr. M'Bow casually. We have allowed the situation in Paris to deteriorate until the staff has become frightened and is now of low calibre. We have not seized the political opportunities of replying to the constent torrent of Soviet propaganda by a sober recital of what they are really up to. I hope very much that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to reply strongly on our behalf.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, tabled his Unstarred Question before the United States announced its intention to withdraw from UNESCO, but that decision and the controversy that has arisen as a result of it, I suggest, makes the noble Lord's Question this evening all the more significant and timely, and I congratulate him at least on that aspect of his inquiries. It is important in the light of the American decision that we should learn what the attitude of our own Government is, and therefore we look forward with more than usual interest to the reply at the end of the debate from the noble Baroness.
Of course, during the recess we had a brief preview both of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on this matter and of the Government's attitude, because Lord Vaizey wrote to The Times on the 2nd January casting doubt on whether the United Kingdom should continue its membership of UNESCO. I think this evening he has expressed himself on that point even more strongly than he did

309
in his letter. As he has said, we also had at that time a statement from the Foreign Office indicating that the Government had no intention of following the United States in this matter.
I certainly welcome the Government's view—if it still is the Government's view—that it is better to seek improvements (and improvements there undoubtedly need to be) within an organisation than to walk away from it. I hope the Minister when she replies this evening will firmly reiterate that that is still the Government's attitude. In my view, it is highly regrettable that the United States has proclaimed its intention of abandoning UNESCO in a year's time, and, in my view, Britain must not follow suit. If we are dissatisfied with some aspects of the performance of UNESCO—and I share some of the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has put forward—we must use our membership to remedy those defects rather than give up membership.
It was my privilege some 15 or more years ago to lead the British UNESCO delegation to Paris. I do not begin to claim that that qualifies me to speak with any special authority on the present situation, but it does enable me to recall certain general impressions, particularly in relation to the debate about which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, spoke. I remember that I was dissatisfied, particularly in the debates in the General Session, not only about the views expressed by some delegates but that it was simply a platform for making set speeches for consumption at home. That is a weakness which one recognises in many international organisations, and I am not at all sure that we can avoid it. After all, in the history of the human race the very few decades that we have had in these international organisations should mean that we do not expect too much too soon; but certainly I think there is room for improvement in these matters, and for economies. I recognise that the way things are conducted at headquarters could be improved. I would stress that that kind of problem and that kind of expense are not easy to avoid. Certainly, simply throwing in the sponge and walking away does not seem to me to be a helpful attitude.
What are the major criticisms of UNESCO which the noble Lord has put forward this evening, and which I think have been put forward by the United States in its explanation of why it proposes to withdraw? First, the criticism is that the organisation is spendthrift and financially irresponsible. I recall that even 15 years ago the budget was hotly disputed. I ask: what is the yardstick by which the size of the budget of such an organisation as UNESCO should be assessed? UNESCO's mandate covers, after all, all the activities of the human mind and spirit, and its geographical coverage is worldwide, including the vast population and cultural heritage of the Republic of China. Any sum of money can be said to be totally inadequate for such a task.
In cultural matters, where tastes and judgment are of the essence, it is easy for one person to condemn something as wasteful which another person regards as vital; so we are in a very difficult area when we try to measure value for money in these matters. It should be recalled, as I am sure the Minister opposite will recall, because it was made clear in the Foreign Office statement earlier, that the British delegation has been
310
diligent in these matters and has helped to reduce UNESCO's budget, and the much criticised director general himself proposed a reduction in the growth over the next two years. The executive board recommended a growth of something like 6 per cent., and he recommended 4 per cent. I do not think that can be taken as an irresponsible attitude to UNESCO's finance.
Secondly—and again the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, made this point—UNESCO has been accused of meddling in politics beyond the confines of its mandate. I think we need to look carefully at this question. What are the issues that are involved here? The noble Lord drew attention to some of them. He particularly instanced the question of the attitudes to Israel, and I, as a committed friend of the state of Israel, echo some of his sentiments. What, after all, UNESCO is basically concerned with in its resolutions on this subject is the education of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; and other matters, I agree. I see the noble Lord shakes his head, but that is one of the things with which they are concerned.
UNESCO also concerns itself with the maintenance of peace and, as the noble Lord has said, with the question of human rights. Of course, all these questions are political issues; that cannot be in doubt. The question is: does UNESCO exceed its mandate when it deals with subjects such as these? I suggest we need look no further than the preamble to its constitution, and I will quote from it:
"Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed, and peace must be founded on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind."
What are termed political issues, I suggest, fall within the purpose of that preamble.
I suggest that such subjects cannot but comprehend conflicts of ideology. Indeed, where else in the world is there some hope of reconciling these ideologies in a rational spirit other than in UNESCO? It may be open to all sorts of criticism, but I suggest that, on a worldwide scale, it is the organisation that we have for these purposes and we should use it to the best of our ability.
Another UNESCO proposal which has been criticised—and again the noble Lord took up this point—is the proposal for a new world information and communications order. It is perfectly understandable to me that the Western delegations have been very defensive on this point. I am always very wary of such sweeping worldwide concepts as "new world orders", et cetera. I endorse what I understand to be the Government's position on this matter and I should like to quote from the journal of the Overseas Development Administration which is entitled, Overseas Development. It says:
"She"—
that is, Her Majesty's Government—
"would find it unacceptable for UNESCO to adopt objectives which could be interpreted as eroding the organisation's cardinal commitment to freedom of expression, or as enhancing government or international control of the media".
I also welcome another comment that I read in that same journal:
"Any NWICO [new world information and communications order] would be of an evolving nature"—

311
there is nothing wide-sweeping in this approach. It goes on to say that it:
"should move towards practical measures for specific problems—not towards imposing international norms and constraints".
I personally have seen the training courses which the ODA supports and I believe them to be entirely on the right lines. The only point I would make in that connection is that I wish that they were on a much larger scale which would begin to meet the problem of the media so far as the developing countries are concerned.
We ought at least to note the motivation for the UNESCO proposal. Without accepting it one should look at what I believe to be the motivation, and one should look at it for a moment through the eyes of the Governments of developing countries who are, after all, the poor relations in every sense in terms of information techniques and machinery. Perhaps I may quote a domestic example. We in the Labour Party on this side of your Lordships' House know only too well what it is like to be the poor relations as regards newspapers and broadcasting, because we are faced daily by a a huge barrage of anti-Labour press and we have no press of our own. Money and resources talk in these matters, both at home and abroad. I believe that that is the position in which the developing countries feel themselves to be and it is that imbalance which they are anxious to overcome. I agree that it may be that they are going about it in the wrong way, but at least one can understand why they are concerned about this matter.
So much for the criticisms of UNESCO. However, I suggest that those criticisms are in danger of concentrating on the lesser parts of UNESCO's activities and underrating UNESCO's overall achievements. For instance, UNESCO's impact on educational development in the third world, particularly in the field of literacy, has been significant. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am advised otherwise. The noble Lord quoted from an issue of The Times and I am glad to quote from, I think, the very issue which contained his letter. It is therefore a particularly interesting edition, and the following quotation is a very good assessment. It says:
"About thirty seven per cent. of its budget goes towards educational programmes, thirty per cent. to science and eleven per cent. to culture. The more objectionable activities take a very small part of the budget".
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, the central point is not whether the dollar is labelled "education", but where the dollar is spent. Of course the dollars are not spent in Botswana and places like that; they are spent in Paris, producing enormous documents, and I have a large number here from which I could read. It is totally incomprehensible. That is the criticism. It is as though the entire education budget or the entire National Health Service budget were spent in the headquarters of the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education. That is the point I am making.
Lord Oram: My Lords, it is a point that I accept. It is a top-heavy organisation. However, in the opening sentences of the noble Lord's speech he did hint that he certainly approved of the activities of UNESCO in the
312
field, and it is that which is dealt with by The Times. The noble Lord not only interrupted me but he more seriously interrupted a quotation from The Times. Perhaps I may continue. It says:
"If the United States wants to make a persuasive case for leaving it must explain why it thinks that the main core of practical programmes is not worth supporting. Would someone else take over UNESCO's role in teaching Cambodian refugees to read? Would someone else send scientists to hold back the encroaching deserts of northern Kenya? Would someone else have rescued the temple of Abu Simbel? Would someone else take over UNESCO's attempts to restore the Buddhist temples of Java and conserve the Valley of Katmandu?"
That is a very cryptic and effective summary of some of the work in the field for which UNESCO can take credit.
If the criticisms that the United States puts forward are to be taken at face value, then I believe that those criticisms should be met within UNESCO. But it is my belief that there is a stronger motive underlying the complaints—namely, that the United States feels frustrated at not being able to control the organisation. UNESCO, after all, is not the only example. We have had the recent example of the reduction of the United States' contribution to the International Development Association, and there have been other examples. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to read another quotation from the same article in The Times. It says:
"Great powers tend to lose dignity when they appear too thin-skinned or too upset when a joint enterprise does not go entirely their way".
I would like to conclude by asking the Minister what the British Government are proposing to do following the announcement from the United States in respect of UNESCO. I saw it reported that France, West Germany and the Netherlands all tried to dissuade the United States from withdrawing. But I did not see any mention of activity by the United Kingdom in that respect and I would like to ask the Minister whether the United Kingdom did join with our European colleagues in making those representations. It is, after all, a substantial and urgent matter, because the United States' contribution is one quarter of the total UNESCO budget. In practice I suppose this means that out of every four staff members, one must have been given notice by now. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, may say that there is plenty of scope for that kind of activity. But I suggest that it is rather drastic and rapid surgery that is being applied, however corpulent the body that is being dealt with.
On the other hand, it is only notice of withdrawal that the United States has given. As I understand it, the actual withdrawal takes effect at the end of the year, so something like 12 months remain. I understand that steps are being taken to persuade the United States to change its mind, as, indeed, it has in the past in connection with other international organisations changed its mind after representations. If the Minister confirms, as I fully hope she will, that we intend to stay in UNESCO, I hope that we will go a bit further and try to persuade the United States to stay in as well. As I say, this kind of representation has had good effect in the past and I hope that the British Government will again put forward the reasons for their own continuing membership as reasons for the United States also staving in membership.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, so kindly suggested, I fear that I am no expert on UNESCO; in fact, I know practically nothing about it. I would just say at the start that, if what is reported in the article on the director general, Mr. M'Bow, which appeared in the Sunday Times on 8th January, is true, this organisation, as at present organised, is something of a scandal. I repeat, I just do not know enough; I simply do not know whether or not such a conclusion is justified. It may well be that some of the projects which it undertakes are worthy of support; as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, suggested: quite likely they are.
However, at the risk of boring your Lordships, I shall, by way of trying to put into perspective what our attitude towards this organisation might now be, just venture a few reflections on the general philosophy which I believe lay behind the creation of this organisation after the war and on how far this would still seem to apply.
As it seems to me, whether one thinks that UNESCO serves a useful purpose largely depends on whether one believes that, what one might call "Western" values, or at least some of them, are fully applicable to non-Western and, indeed, older civilisations, such as those of Asia—to say nothing of those states which only in the last century have emerged from the millennia of tribalism. Even this belief surely depends on whether the Western world itself is still firm in its faith in, for instance, the universal applicability of human rights; in what is known as "pluralistic" democracy; in industrialisation; in the essentially beneficent effect of progress; and in the ultimate ability of science (to say nothing of some divine purpose) to solve the problems and to avert the appalling dangers that continue to confront the human race.
I must say that one has to be rather optimistic to hold that these values now generally apply, except in the countries where they originated—that is to say, Europe and North America—and in a few other places where they have, so to speak, been transplanted. Can we really—always in the presumed absence of nuclear war—envisage, for instance, a fully industrialised and democratic China, or even India, complete with modern cities of some 30 million to 40 million people, not surrounded by appalling shanty towns but constructed rather on the model of Dallas or Los Angeles, the peaceful and humane inhabitants of which, all duly exercising their right to vote for the party of their choice and linked together by motorways extending over the entire extent of the Yangtze or the Ganges valleys, with agriculture in the intervening space, when not covered by concrete, being operated technologically by some 5 per cent. of the enormous population?
Even if we could, would such developments be possible without some impossible drain on natural resources? Nor would they seem to be in accordance with the ancient beliefs and practices of the people inhabiting these great sub-continents. No, the plain, if distressing, fact is that Western values—always supposing that they are maintained in their homelands (and even there they are now challenged)—are not of worldwide application.
314
Let us simply look about us. Out of some 160 existing independent countries, not more than 30 (if one excludes a few dots on the map) can be said to be genuine industrialised democracies in the Western sense, with a literate population of no more than 36 per cent., which would seem to exclude a democratic, though only a very partially industrialised, India. In all, they merely account for some 700 million people, or only about 18 per cent. of the entire population of the world. The remainder, other than India, are either totalitarian, containing about 1,400 million people, or dictatorships of one kind or another, mostly military, which account for another billion or so.
In spite of the Argentine—which I think has been rather cancelled out by Nigeria—there are few signs that this situation will change. Certainly it will not unless we revive world trade and improve the conditions of the so-called third world. If it did change, I am afraid that it would probably be in the direction of more dictatorships. It need scarcely be added that only in pluralistic democracies can human rights be fully exercised; in totalitarian countries for all practical purposes they are non-existent.
What, then, are the prospects of success of an international organisation which I believe is supposed to arrive at world agreement on means to promote education, science and culture (whatever culture may be deemed to be)? On the face of it, its role should be modest, concentrating on simple measures that might conceivably be generally acceptable, such as the exchange of scholars, the formation of libraries, the best means of promoting literacy, ways of teaching subsistance farming with new techniques, and so on. For as long as the background of the various nations differs so immeasurably, it can hardly with success do anything else.
However, even in such spheres, things being as they are, politics will no doubt raise its ugly head. For instance, as I think has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, attempts to compel the more advanced nations—that is, advanced in the application of Western values—to accept restrictions on the dissemination of ideas and news by any of the media will simply give rise to battles which nobody will win, as will suggestions that the richer nations are simply clinging to power at the expense of the poor.
That is not to say that the richer, or Westernised, nations have no responsibility for doing what they can to raise the standard of living of the many states that are now existing—often through no fault of their own—below the poverty line, even if that might result in some fall in their own standard of living. But such efforts should surely be made either directly or within the framework of new, agreed economic policies, mostly concerted with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund among other organisations. To endeavour through yet another international agency to lessen disparities and to create harmony by urging, as I understand it, the adoption by a great majority of Governments of Western values, which on the whole mean little or nothing to them, does not seem to make much sense, more especially when attempts to do anything of the kind are usually denounced as "cultural imperialism."

315
I do not, of course, mean to say that the states concerned may not want to be Westernised. On the contrary, most of them are probably spellbound by what they see on TV, such as soap operas, and would like nothing better than to achieve the sort of standard of living that they imagine is typical of Europe and the United States. Originally they thought that they could attain this end by immediately investing in heavy industry, but that has not proved to be very satisfactory. In any case, it is not at all certain that they would really be happy in a completely Westernised society. The magic of industrialisation is probably therefore wearing off. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the dreadful drift to the cities will necessarily stop.
Though, as I say, my personal experience of UNESCO is virtually nil, and though I am quite prepared to change my mind after hearing the views of really well-informed noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, in this debate, for which we are all so greatly indebted to Lord Vaizey, I must say that my present inclination is to think that failing reform—I say, failing reform—it would not matter very much if UNESCO did fold up.
I see, of course, the disadvantages of withdrawal. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to wind up will dwell on them. The Soviet Government would no doubt try to dominate the institution, and might even, I suppose, agree to make up much of the 25 per cent. reduction, or whatever it might be, in its income, all the time professing support for "Western" values, which in practice it repudiates. It might also perhaps have some success in using UNESCO for purposes for anti-Western propaganda, more especially if the world slump—to say nothing of the present deplorable American financial policy—persists. But whether we ourselves can successfully combat such tendencies from within if the Americans do withdraw is perhaps open to some doubt. I should like to be reassured on that. In any case, I look forward eagerly to hearing the views of the noble Baroness when she winds up.
What is perhaps more important is what we in the West think that we stand for and what we now ought to do. I suggest that if we ourselves really want to promote education, science and culture we ought to aim at least at less state control, less centralisation of individual energies, less concentration of scientific effort on nuclear arms, star wars, and the eventual colonisation of planets, to say nothing of genetic engineering, and more on how best to make use of the leisure enforced by our latest inventions for the production of goods and indeed of food. In this way we might at the same time set an example to the underdeveloped nations and do much to safeguard our ancient liberties against "Orwellian" tendencies during 1984 and beyond.
If your Lordships will permit me to continue for another minute or two, I will end with a personal experience. At the famous conference in 1945 in San Francisco the Soviet legal advisor was a charming, highly competent and even friendly lawyer of a rather old-fashioned type, called Professor Golunsky. Luckily I can tell this story because he is long since dead. The professor, who would occasionally dine with us without a "minder", was, in spite of his
316
friendly charm, the most pessimistic man that I have ever met.
According to him the human race could, since the Industrial Revolution, be compared to a proliferation of bacilli which normally exist in a state of symbiosis with their surroundings but which occasionally, as it were, collectively explode, eventually eliminating themselves altogether owing to a failure of the means of subsistence and poisoned by their own excreta. Even so, said the professor, the human race, which until comparatively lately had lived in a state of symbiosis with nature—in other words, the rest of God's creation—was at present engaged in rapidly destroying it. Soon all the forests would go, the oceans and the air would be polluted, and if nothing but uninhabitable deserts were to be left, the "proliferation" of the human race must somehow or other be impeded.
You do not have to be as pessimistic as the professor—I am sure none of you is—but all the same it does look as if there was at least something in his thesis. I know that Malthus has (for the time being at any rate) been proved to be wrong by "science", but unless we look out I think the old boy may be proved right in the end. True, industrialisation results—it seems after a pretty long period—in stabilisation at a low birth rate, but there also results a huge increase in the exploitation of what are probably irreplaceable natural resources.
Should this general process be extended to the 75 per cent. of humanity which is not yet fully industrialised, then surely we may expect the worst. If we were to have a really high-powered and preferably nonpolitical institution that dispassionately considered these great issues, and proposed solutions, such as ways and means of enforcing a fall in the birth rate, that might indeed be a good thing. But I must say I cannot believe that UNESCO as at present organised—I repeat, as at present organised—is likely to fill any such role.
We must, after all, take things as they are and face realities, however unpleasant. A vague belief in "progress" is not likely by itself to get us out of the present mess, and it requires a great effort of imagination to believe, as some scientists believe, that humanity will eventually be saved by the peaceful application of nuclear fission or fusion.
So—and this is my final word—I repeat, what seems in practice to be needed, apart from getting trade with the third world going, is some worldwide scheme for the management of good subsistence farming and local industries, coupled perhaps with some new and hitherto unthought of means of lowering the birth rate and thus checking the ghastly development of the shanty towns. If UNESCO by any chance can help towards that end, then surely it is a good thing and must be preserved, but I rather doubt it. Whatever defects there may be in the latest Chinese policies for encouraging small development and restricting the population, they seem to have had some success in both these directions. When I was in China a little while ago I urged all my Chinese friends not to go in for industrialisation on the lines of Japan. Who knows? Perhaps it will eventually be a case of ex oriente lux! Let us hope so.
8.27 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vaizey has raised a very sad question. Anyone who cares for education and culture must regret that UNESCO has been so great a failure. The rot set in long ago, and it has really become intolerable. The United States, having lost patience, has given notice to withdraw, and I am going to urge upon the Government that we do the same and withdraw and then rejoin when the organisation has accepted a root and branch reform. So what are the prospects of such a reform?
We paid dearly for a mistake made at UNESCO's birth, and made I think by Sir Julian Huxley. Science was included as one of the three then equal objectives. It should not have been. Science had many strong supporters both public and private, whereas education and culture, which are allied subjects, had no other international umbrella. The inclusion of science, as I saw very well for myself on the many occasions when I led our delegation, fragmented and weakened the whole organisation. Therefore, let us make it a condition of rejoining UNESCO that science should be dropped; and I shall say something more about that presently.
I am sure your Lordships know how UNESCO recruits its staff. A quota is allotted to every one of the 160 member states. The secretary general fills, or sometimes leaves partly unfilled, these quotas with an eye, especially for the senior jobs, on those who share his views. He did not fill the United States' quota of 3 per cent. out of a staff of over 2,700, and that is to be compared with their subscription of 25 per cent. The result is that many of the staff never have and never will have adequate qualifications for their jobs. Most of them mill round the headquarters in Paris. Again, as your Lordships know, French food and wine, French nightclubs and Parisian pleasures can add up to a rich reward for a political friend or a member of one's family, especially if he or she comes from one of the smaller member states.
So what happens? The new arrivals, knowing little about science, education or culture, look round for similarly misplaced colleagues with whom they can talk about perks and politics. Recruitment after that fashion has ruined the budget. I believe my noble friend Lord Vaizey told us that 75 per cent. of every dollar in UNESCO's income—that is the real answer to Lord Oram's list—is spent in Paris. It was 70 per cent. in my day, so it is now even worse. The big subscribers should have moved in long ago to stop this folly. Think what we could do at the British Council if we had the millions which we subscribe to UNESCO. Every possible dollar of UNESCO's income should have been spent outside Paris. One has only to remember the millions of children scattered throughout the world without adequate schools, books or teachers. Now I shall be told that UNESCO has undertaken some worthwhile projects in the educational field. Yes, that is true, but the bias has been towards jobs for the intellectual élite and not towards the humble needs of the uneducated.
In any case, what stares one in the face is the scandalously small proportion of the whole budget which has not been spent on overheads in Paris. If we
318
cite those projects which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, cited, let him add the cost of those projects and compare it to the total budget. He will then see how the money has been wasted.
In the cultural field it is the same story. I give one example. Why has UNESCO neglected crafts? Many of the less developed countries have no tradition of fine arts as we define them in Europe. Their national heritage, their cultural identity, lives or dies by the exercise of such crafts as pottery, wood-carving, weaving and printed fabrics. I myself warned Mr. M'Bow that the tourist trade and airport shops were destroying the traditional skills of Africa—from which, incidentally, he comes—of the Pacific and of a large part of Latin America. UNESCO did almost nothing for the World Crafts Council while it went on subsidising arts in Paris.
The first mistake is the method of recruitment and the second is the poor priorities. Those are faults which the large subscribers, if they stand together, should be able to put right. What about the third defect? What about the infiltration of Marxist politics throughout the whole range of the organisation? Mr. Gregory Newell, in his report to the United States Government, finds that the attack has been steadily and increasingly viciously prosecuted against both the economic and political systems of the West.
On the first count I have often heard the Left Wing members of UNESCO insisting that their countries are poor because the industrialised countries are rich and that the industrialised countries are rich only because they have exploited the third world. That is manifestly untrue. Where would the less developed countries be without Western capital, medicine and technology? We can win that argument if we send the right people to represent us at UNESCO and other Western countries do the same.
However, the infiltration of political ideas is another matter. Let us take, for example, the belief that the truth will make individual men and women free. The Communists do not share that view. In their countries and in some military dictatorships the interests of the power of the state are put in front of human rights. In UNESCO the Marxists have been attacking subjects such as freedom of speech quite openly.
I remember the beginning of this. The Soviet bloc began this battle about 10 years ago when the Russian delegation to a cultural conference at Helsinki was led by a brilliant, aggressive, splendidly attractive woman, Ekaterina Furtseva. I was her opposite number and we argued in public and in private about the free circulation of information and the right of artists to criticise their Governments. Furtseva foresaw the coming of satellite broadcasting which the Soviet might be unable to jam. "This," she said "would be an interference with the internal affairs. It must be stopped. No properly constituted Government had a duty to give its enemies a sporting chance to destroy its basic philosophy." I reminded Furtseva that for many years the Soviets had been trying to undermine our philosophy inside our borders. "Yes," she said, "We have, but our system is so obviously right that it is above criticism and yours is so rotten that it deserves to be buried."

319
Here we have a fundamental difference of view. We cannot, by changing the rules of UNESCO, keep it out of the debates. Education and culture cannot be fenced off from such political questions as free speech and censorship. What is taught in schools and how much freedom artists have to say what they like reflect and mould the society in which we live. Therefore the argument must go on, but we should see that it is fairly conducted. It is not fairly conducted in UNESCO.
Britain, like the United States, is financing an organisation which is using our taxpayers' money to attack our way of life. Our beliefs and our proposals are deliberately flouted by organised political opponents. Clearly, on that sort of issue agreement will be very difficult to reach unless we are seen to be in the closest alliance with the Americans and others who think like us.
UNESCO may have been the easiest of the United Nations agencies to sabotage, but let no one think that if we accept defeat there the rot will not spread to other parts of the United Nations. I beg Her Majesty's Government not to fudge the truth about UNESCO. Together with the Americans, let us think about dropping science from the organisation's objectives, so that the resources can be concentrated on education and culture. Out of the total of those resources, let us undertake that the major part—let us say 75 per cent. not including the overheads—shall be spent on projects in the less developed countries. If we want a reform of UNESCO, we must propose a new system which is seen to be of real interest to the majority of the countries in the third world; and that is easy to do if we can persuade UNESCO to chop its expenses in Paris and spend most of its money where it is really needed.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would say that, by refusing to withdraw and staying inside, it is going to be much more difficult to negotiate a reform. With the Americans outside, we are going to have very little influence inside. The right policy for us, therefore, is to withdraw, to bargain hard with the help of all the friends that we can muster and then to rejoin on conditions which guarantee the less-developed countries a much better deal than they are getting now out of the squandered resources in Paris. That is really not very difficult to do. So I ask this question: Is it too much for our Government to take a leading part in cleaning up this sorry business? I await with great anxiety what the noble Baroness is going to say.
8.41 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, like other speakers, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this significant, very important and, I think, very difficult question. I speak with great hesitation because my knowledge of UNESCO is slight and recent, as compared with that of other speakers. My involvement has arisen in respect of Lord Vaizey's fourth and fifth questions about the threats to the free flow of information and human rights.
Some six years ago an informal group was brought together by the International Press Institute under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Pickering, who, among his other dignities, is the chairman of the Commonwealth Press Union. The function of the
320
group was to combat what were then felt to be developments in UNESCO dangerous to a free press. This group has sustained a steady quarrel with UNESCO on many of the discontents stated so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. These discontents, as far as freedom of expression and the independence of the media were concerned, stemmed (as the noble Viscount has just said), in the early to mid-1970s, in part from fears voiced by the nonaligned movement supported by the Soviet bloc that their dependence upon the industrialised West for news, information and entertainment constituted a subjection to cultural imperialism—a new form of colonialism, in the widely-used phrase.
This dependence was regarded as the more repugnant because those services were mostly delivered by multinational corporations; that is, by organisations which came high in the third world's demonology and were set against the peevish nationalism which forms an important part of such beliefs. The result was a declaration from a UNESCO conference in Nairobi in 1976 which placed upon the media the duty to mobilise international opinion behind concurrent demands for a new world information and communication order and for a new international economic order. The non-aligned movement has always spoken of these two new orders as being verbal Siamese twins.
The declaration also gave approval as a matter of principle to the use of media by Government and declared:
"States are responsible for the activities in the international sphere of all mass media under their jurisdiction".
This so-called principle of state responsibility has been widely promulgated, and has exacerbated the conflict over the media within UNESCO and beyond. What is acceptable to Governments which control media may be abhorrent to those with independent media; and one should remember that, of the member states of UNESCO, some 130 use their media, as a matter of course, as an instrument of government for promoting economic development, national unity and cultural identity. On most ratings, there are within UNESCO only about 30 member states with media independent of government and performing the function which democrats allot to the press of criticising all concentrations of power, including government. Nevertheless, the principle of state responsibility became central to discussions in 1982 at the United Nations General Assembly, when possible controls over direct broadcasting by satellite were being considered, and they came under discussion for the reasons which the noble Viscount has given us.
In 1977 the director general of UNESCO set up an international commission for the study of communication problems under the chairmanship of Mr. Sean MacBride, Nobel and Lenin prizewinner and, I believe, sometime chief of staff of the IRA. The report of this body alerted Western Governments, which had been very slow to respond effectively to these developments. Most newspapermen and broadcasters were uninterested and treated attempts to alert them as alarmist over-reaction. They thought that there was very little to worry about, but that UNESCO possessed neither real power nor any means to enforce the declarations in which it indulged.

321
In the early days of the campaign for a new world information and communication order they underestimated the legitimacy which UNESCO approval could confer on proposals to impose restrictions on the international media. They also failed to weigh the moral authority upon which Governments could thereby draw when abolishing freedom of expression or resisting demands for it.
Belatedly, the free world media have now begun to stand their ground collectively in order to oppose such developments, which will take place whether we remain in UNESCO or depart from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, rightly pointed out, the attack on the free flow of information through the demands within UNESCO for a new world information and communication order has been extended by demands for people's rights to be informed and people's rights to communicate, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, laid considerable stress.
These newly-asserted rights in the field of communication and information add nothing to existing declarations. For example, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 states that—
"everyone has the right to freedom of information and of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
How then, one may ask, does a people's right to communicate or a people's right to be informed differ from a right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, other than in the fact that the right in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is an individual right and the new rights that are being asserted are collective rights?
I suspect that the emphasis which is now being placed in UNESCO upon collective rights will lead to a move for a codification of all the old and new rights to communicate and the code thus derived will then become a new legal order, buttressing the new world information and communication order; and UNESCO will then set itself up as the enforcement agency for a body of collective as well as of individual rights. And when that happens, very little further will be heard about individual rights.
The British role in maintaining the importance of an independent press and the integrity of a system of human rights has been most effectively and forcefully performed at the general conferences of UNESCO in recent years; and I wish to pay a tribute, which I know will be echoed by many practitioners in the media, to the vigour and skill with which Ministers and officials have made the British case. One is bound to say that Ministers have not always been assisted by the sometimes frequent and sudden changes in policy by the United States in this field. At the General Conference in Paris last year, which I attended, it was clear that the new world information and communication order juggernaut, which was rolling fast from the previous grotesque conference in Mexico City, had been halted at least for the time being and it now seems that our position, at least on the media, has been considerably improved.
322
Against that background, I find the question, "Ought we to leave?" so finely balanced as to be very hard to reach a decision on and there is a strong temptation to take refuge in delaying tactics. It is right that UNESCO should be put on serious notice that if it continues along its present lines we shall depart. I have no doubt about that; and such statements seem to me to be a proper sanction by means of which we might hope to secure a radical reform within UNESCO. Whether, as the noble Viscount suggested, we should leave first and hope to secure the improvements afterwards, or whether we should stay in and seek the radical changes before we depart, is a matter of policy on which I could not attempt to make a judgment.
However, certain considerations point to caution, at any rate in the short run. In the first place, an early withdrawal would save us nothing. We have paid our subscription for this year and we can resign at any time up to the end of the year, so there will be no financial saving from leaving now. Might we not therefore use the next six or nine months to assess the advantages and disadvantages and the likely consequences of leaving or of staying in and also perhaps to stimulate a public debate?
Many questions need to be answered. What do like-minded countries think? What of the Commonwealth? What of our partners in the Community, with whom we have been seeking, as I understand it, to establish effective Community political action? To be the only member of the Community to leave would not contribute to that endeavour, and it seems clear that no other member of the Community is going to leave. What of the interests at home of those who will be most affected?
Finally, from the point of view of the Western media, may we not gain more from staying in and arguing and battling on? We shall then at least know what are the trends of opinion and what is the nature of the criticisms we have to meet—and we shall have to meet them whether we are in UNESCO or out of it. I am more optimistic about the magic of industrialism, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, called it, than he is. But to discuss that would be to embark on another debate in order to answer yet one more unanswerable question. I should like to conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for putting his Unstarred Question down and giving us this opportunity to discuss it.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, it is with conviction and pleasure that I endorse the questions and arguments of my noble friend Lord Vaizey, and those of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We should not censure the American notice of withdrawal from UNESCO, but follow it. That step was not an act of pique or isolationism but an appropriate and long overdue reaction to an anomalous situation. My noble friend Lord Vaizey, who is highly qualified on this subject, has listed some of the anomalies of UNESCO. But he could acquaint this House with only the tip of the iceberg. Noble Lords who wish for fuller information will find it in an illuminating article by Mr. Tom Bethell in the spring 1983 issue of Policy Review, an American quarterly, and also in an editorial in the Spectator of 14th January.

323
The central anomaly is, of course, that the countries which provide most of the budget have no control over the organisation, which serves as platform and instrument for sustained and virulent attacks on them. The handful of Western countries which supply the bulk of the funds are outvoted by the hosts of third world and Eastern bloc delegates, many of countries whose contributions are a mere few thousand dollars. They can vote even if they do not pay their contributions. And the organisation and its activities are pervaded by hostility to the West. The United States is by far the largest contributor to UNESCO, and simultaneously the principal target of its enmity.
Is it possible to remove these anomalies? They may be slightly modified, or made less obvious by cosmetic changes. They will not be much diminished, let alone removed. They are endemic in major United Nations affiliates, notably UNESCO, FAO, UNCTAD and the United Nations Development Programme.
Hostility to the West is long-standing in UNESCO. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has reminded us, the advocacy of a new world information order emerged in the early 1970s, emerged simultaneously with that of a new international economic order. The latter is designed to tax Western citizens for the benefit of third world governments. The new world information order is designed to eliminate what is left of honest reporting of third world affairs, especially of the anti-Western stances and of the domestic conduct of despotic, totalitarian governments.
One example will show how long-standing is the bias of UNESCO against the West and its institutions. In 1970, on the occasion of the centenary of Lenin's birth, UNESCO called on all member governments to pay tribute to his memory as a great humanitarian. Lenin's achievement was indeed momentous. He made himself master of a large country which, partly through him, became a super-power. But to term him a great humanitarian is a perversion of the language, especially inappropriate to an organisation purporting to serve education, science and culture.
Does UNESCO promote international goodwill or nourish fruitful cultural contacts? The persistent hostility to the West does not promote international amity. The so-called new world information order would restrict international contacts, not expand them. Scholars, writers and journalists do not need UNESCO for contacts with their opposite numbers elsewhere. My own experience over decades, and that of my colleagues in academic life and related activities, both in the West and in the third world, makes this clear. The vast volume of outpourings from UNESCO—more than 300 million pages a year, according to the Spectator article, much of it hollow or biased rhetoric—impairs, even smothers, worthwhile cultural relations.
UNESCO's contribution to third world literacy—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oram—is also dubious. Much of the growth of literacy under its programmes is purely illusory, statistical; and in any case the value of literacy depends on the content and purpose of the instruction. In this realm bilateral aid is far more effective. The activities of the British Council are greatly appreciated by many ordinary people in the
324
third world. This is conspicuous, for example, in India. And scholars from this country, as distinct from pedlars of political causes, find the British Council far more helpful than UNESCO.
A useful reform of the organisation would be to transfer it from Paris to a third world city such as Calcutta, Addis Ababa or Caracas. This would reduce the attraction of UNESCO for those who take part in it only for what they can get out of it. It would also help the host country by providing income and employment there.
My Lords, until well after the Second World War it was a firmly established principle that the modest grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare schemes should go only to governments for whose conduct the Secretary of State was answerable to Parliament. We have descended a long way down the wrong road since then. Parliament can know little about the activities of UNESCO, and has no control over them. Would it not be better to divert our contribution to the British Council which, whatever its shortcomings, is far more helpful to this country and to the citizens of the third world than is UNESCO?
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, given the current interest in UNESCO arising from the American announcement of withdrawal at the end of 1983, this is a timely Question. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey for asking it. He is particularly at home with the subject, because he is one of the members of our national commission which provides us with valuable advice on the workings of UNESCO. I am also grateful to my noble friend for having given me notice of the questions he was to ask. However, I shall begin by saying something about the outcome of the general conference, the subject of the Unstarred Question.
The answer to this Question is a qualified affirmative. For the United Kingdom this was a fairly successful conference. Apart from a few outbursts, political excesses of the sort we have known at previous conferences were markedly absent. Before the conference, we had identified three areas of particular concern to the United Kingdom. These were issues concerning the media, the size of the budget, and questions of human rights. These three issues were specifically referred to tonight by my noble friend Lord Eccles and by the noble Lords, Lord Oram and Lord McGregor of Durris.
At the conference, we and other like-minded countries successfully resisted any further advances towards an unsatisfactory new world information and communication order or any other attempt to shackle the freedom of the media. The proposed budget was reduced by some 10 million dollars, although the final approved figure still contained an element of real growth difficult to accept in today's economic climate. The outcome on human rights was less clear-cut—but even here, no lasting damage was done to the Western position.
The main focus of the conference was on UNESCO's core programmes in education, science and culture, where there were welcome signs of increased support for our long-held policy of seeking

325
to make UNESCO's programmes more relevant to the needs of developing countries. This was a theme well expressed by my noble friend Lord Eccles.
Here, I should like to pay tribute to the efforts which have been made by previous British Ministers in this respect. In his speech, my noble friend Lord Vaizey referred to the lasting impact made by my noble friend Lord Eccles at the 1960 General Conference, when he urged UNESCO to concentrate its activities on education in the developing countries. I know, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, when he was responsible for relations with UNESCO, pursued this line with vigour. And it has over the years had an effect. This is what really matters. A UNESCO General Conference can only be judged by the effects the discussions and decisions have on subsequent UNESCO programmes. In this case these should, to a considerable extent, be positive.
I will turn now to the five specific questions posed by my noble friend Lord Vaizey. First, the budget. Obviously we cannot be fully satisfied that enough was done before and during the conference to contain the budget, as the final approved figure was larger than we should have liked. But some progress was made and I believe that we can build on this in the future.
The director general had proposed a figure of approximately 385 million dollars for the two years 1984 and 1985. This was based on a real growth rate of 6·1 per cent. which was not acceptable to the main Western donors, who had, in 1981, issued a statement arguing for zero growth in real terms for the United Nations agencies for the first half of the 1980s. The Minister for Overseas Development wrote to the director general in September expressing our deep concern. We also took the lead in preparing and submitting a draft resolution proposing an alternative figure based on zero real growth. This was cosponsored by five other member states; the U.S.A., the Federal German Republic, Netherlands, Canada and Switzerland. This was the first time that such a step had been taken in UNESCO for many years.
In a search for a compromise solution, the Nordic countries introduced a proposal for 374.5 million dollars, which represented approximately 4 per cent. growth. Somewhat to our surprise, at the last minute the director general indicated that he would adopt this proposal as his own. It was a long way from the British proposal but represented a saving of more than 10 million dollars. Moreover, we were able to keep our own resolution on the table. Our only concession was to abstain in the vote on the director general's formal proposal, rather than vote against.
As regards the use to which the money is put—that is, the question of possible extravagance and inefficiency in Paris to which several noble Lords have referred—this is a very complicated issue to which it is difficult to do real justice in a speech of this nature. May I say first of all that, on the whole, I agree with the criticisms which have been voiced. One of our major doubts about UNESCO is that it represents such poor value for money compared with bilateral aid programmes; a point made by my noble friend Lord Bauer. In the past, we have argued consistently for decentralisation, better management, and, above all,
326
effective evaluation. This has had some effect, but much more needs to be done. Our hope is that the shock administered by the United States withdrawal will produce a climate of opinion in which reform is seen as both desirable and necessary.
The biggest obstacle in the past has been inbuilt inertia and reluctance to change in both other delegations, and the secretariat. We have already started discussions in Paris with like-minded countries, and are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of drawing up well before the spring meeting of the executive board, which is to discuss the implications of the United States withdrawal, an agreed list of changes that we could then press to be introduced as soon as possible. We will also consider the possibility of seeking the involvement of some outside agency, such as management consultants, in the process of improvement.
My noble friend's third question concerned the key figure of the director general, Mr. M'Bow of Senegal. He was elected to the post in 1974 and re-elected in 1980—in both cases, unopposed. I do not feel able to comment in detail on unsubstantiated press criticism of him. As regards our own attitude, our general unease and dissatisfaction with UNESCO's performance in recent years must to some extent reflect upon its chief executive. But he is responsible to the executive board and General Conference and cannot fairly be blamed for implementing decisions of those bodies of which we disapproved, even if we had joined, reluctantly, in a consensus. Ever since he became director general, Mr. M'Bow has promoted the principle of consensus in decision making wherever possible. This has on balance worked in the interests of the Western minority. We have always found him ready to listen to our views, even when he clearly disagrees with them.
In any case, UNESCO's failings are deep rooted and cannot be blamed on any single individual. His current term of office does not expire until 1987, so it is premature to consider what attitude we will take if he seeks re-election (which at this stage is by no means certain). The question of who should be the next director general of UNESCO is, however, one that we shall be pursuing in our discussions with a broad range of other member states in the fairly near future.
The fourth question was on the media. Media issues have been a source of controversy at successive UNESCO General Conferences since 1972. As I said earlier, we consider the outcome of the recent conference as broadly satisfactory. In particular, no attempts were made to define the concept of the so-called new world information and communication order under the acronym NWICO, which has overshadowed UNESCO's recent work in this field. The United Kingdom, in common with most Western countries, views the demands for any new order as a practical problem of development, no different for communication and media requirements than for any other sector.
On the other hand, a minority of countries have argued that a NWICO should be a new international code of conduct governing the operations of the media, with an implicit assumption of increased state supervision. Within these arguments, certain member

327
states have sought to gain legitimacy for practices of repression and control over the media, including those to which my noble friend referred, and those referred to at length by Lord McGregor. These are anathema to us; we are firmly committed to media freedom and we have consistently warned UNESCO that such a move would be wholly unacceptable. The threat of codification of a NWICO has in fact receded as a result of the General Conference. There is now agreement that any NWICO must be seen as an evolving and continuous process within the context of development. The United Kingdom efforts played a major part in achieving this.
The conference also agreed that political barriers to the free flow of information, including censorship by Governments, merited study by UNESCO on an equal footing with those barriers of a technical or financial nature. UNESCO will conduct research into this and other critical areas, such as the concept of the "right to communicate". We will ensure that the United Kingdom's opinion on these topics is made known to the organisation. The focus of attention for developing countries was the International Programme for the Development of Communication, which they view as a welcome new multilateral aid source. They requested substantial voluntary financial contributions from the developed countries into the IPDC fund. The United Kingdom has declined to contribute to the IPDC, stating its preference for working through its bilateral aid programme. I should like to stress the active part traditionally played by the United Kingdom public and private sector in media development and training through organisations such as the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association, the Commonwealth Press Union, the Commonwealth Journalists' Association, the Thomson Foundation and the Commonwealth Foundation. Our professional experience has much to offer.
The fifth question that my noble friend asked was on the subject of human rights. These have been a proper concern of UNESCO since its foundation.
The current key issue is the extent to which UNESCO should become involved with research into the concept of the "rights of peoples". At the General Conference, the USA argued strongly for the deletion of this aspect of the programme. But this was a difficult argument to sustain, as it had been accepted a year earlier in the consensus agreement on the Medium Term Plan. At that particular conference, the main theme of the British keynote intervention was that the guiding principle for all UNESCO's future activities should be that the interests of the individual are paramount and should never be overlooked. The Africans took a lead in these discussions, basing themselves on a recent OAU Charter on Human Rights and the Rights of Peoples. The Soviet bloc were firmly in support. Eventually an uneasy compromise was patched up; the US withdrew their objection but insisted on a revision of the text of the relevant resolution to the effect that there was a distinction to be drawn between universally recognised individual human rights and the rights of peoples, but that the relationship warranted examination.
This is an issue to which many developing countries attach considerable importance. It also provides a
328
platform for the Soviet bloc to promote values which are anathema to the West. The outcome was uncertain, and there are obviously major battles to be fought in this area in the future if the trend towards the strengthening of collective rights at the expense of individual rights is to be halted and turned back.
This is certainly an aspect of UNESCO's programmes to which we shall devote greater attention in future, and which we shall be discussing with our friends. Our main aim will be to deflect UNESCO's energies in this area into activities which will have the effect within its fields of competence of promoting those universally recognised human rights defined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948.
Turning now to our general attitude towards UNESCO, we had for some time been concerned about certain trends in UNESCO. We had taken a leading role in criticising the organisation's performance in many areas. In addition to the specific concerns on media and human rights, we were above all not satisfied that we and other member states received good value for money. We had achieved some limited successes up until the middle of 1983, but were far from satisfied. Before the conference we had decided that we should seriously consider withdrawal if the results were in some major way unsatisfactory.
In the event this was not the case, and, with the exception of the United States, our informal contacts with other delegates indicated that there was little prospect, if any, of other withdrawals. On that point, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked whether we sought to dissuade the United States from leaving. I can only say that we regard it as a matter for each country to decide for itself.
Shortly after the conference my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is responsible for United Kingdom relations with UNESCO, held a meeting—that is, last December—with the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO (an advisory body consisting of some 70 people eminent in the fields covered by UNESCO) to consider the outcome of the conference and to seek the views of members on UNESCO.
The meeting was frank and revealing. A few members argued for United Kingdom withdrawal, but the clear majority, of those who spoke were in favour of our staying in on the grounds that to leave would be to turn our back on an important channel of communication and co-operation with developing countries. Most argued for continuing to fight for improvements from within. The point was made that we had had a fair measure of success over the years, both in defending British interests—that is, in communication and media issues—and also in obtaining better value for money. But there was widespread recognition that much remained to be done. There was much trenchant criticism of such issues as the growth in overall resources; budgetary techniques and practices; political aspects of certain programmes—for example, communication and human rights—staffing; management; effectiveness; and the need for more and better evaluation.

329
In the light of all this Ministers gave careful consideration to the possibility of United Kingdom withdrawal. The balance of argument was a fine one. On the one hand, there were the sums of money we spend on UNESCO. I hope that by saying that I answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, who asked whether we thought this was just a small sum. We recognise the sums of money that we spend on UNESCO, which we feel could be better spent in other ways, and the misuse of UNESCO for political purposes. On the other hand, there was a natural reluctance to breach the principle of universality, particularly for an organisation which, rightly or wrongly, is highly valued by many developing countries; and a recognition that most of UNESCO's activities remain in principle worthwhile.
Here may I say that I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's suggestion that much of the more worthwhile of UNESCO's activities could be undertaken through some different, and cheaper, mechanism. This is something we shall be discussing with our friends during this year. It could also be argued that we can best defend important British interests, in such areas as freedom of the media and human rights, by continuing to argue from within. Nor could we ignore the fact that none of our European partners had, so far as we know, seriously contemplated withdrawal.
We eventually decided that the right course for the United Kingdom, at least for the time being, was to stay in UNESCO and fight for reform from within. We indicated this decision to the United States authorities before they decided to withdraw. We fully understand the reasons which led the United States to take its decision.
The United Kingdom will continue to make every effort to improve significantly the organisation's programme and management. We are seeking to coordinate our actions with those of like-minded countries. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write in due course to the director general indicating to him that we think radical changes are necessary and spelling out those areas of UNESCO's programmes and management in which we seek improvements. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Finally, I can assure noble Lords that the situation will be reviewed carefully towards the end of 1984, and if satisfactory progress has not been made United Kingdom withdrawal will again be seriously considered. Since withdrawal takes effect at the end of the calendar year following the year in which formal notice of withdrawal is made, there is no point in reconsidering our decision earlier.
I started by thanking my noble friend Lord Vaizey for introducing this Unstarred Question this evening. I think that we have had a very valuable debate. We have had most interesting speeches from a number of noble Lords who are very knowledgeable on the subject of UNESCO. I think that it has been a valuable occasion. I shall certainly draw the debate to the
330
attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past nine o'clock.

  THE ARTS: REPORT
  THE ARTS: REPORT
  INVESTMENT: REPORT
  INVESTMENT: REPORT
  GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: STAFF REDUCTIONS
  GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: STAFF REDUCTIONS