Sitting of 18 April 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day

  Corneal Tissue Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: The House will have seen my provisional selection of amendments. Amendments Nos 1 and 2 are separate points and should be taken separately, not discussed together as shown on the list.

Clause 1

  AMENDMENT OF HUMAN TISSUE ACT 1961
  9.36 am
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out
  `in the employment of a health authority'.
  I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for separating these two amendments. They have nothing to do with each other, although they are both concerned with this important Bill. This is not Third Reading but I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to pay a quick tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for this Bill. I should like to say more about that later.
  In Committee we discussed health authorities and their relevance to the licence to allow properly qualified technicians to remove corneal tissue. There was some discussion, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) as to the intention of the Bill with regard to the words:
  "in the employment of a health authority".
  There was some question whether the technicians, who would be suitably qualified to carry out the task of removing corneal tissue, had to be within the public health service and, therefore, whether the private health service was excluded.
  Many of us know that many private health organisations play a valuable role, not only in health generally but in transplantation of organs, especially American Medical International which has a unique record in the transplantation of kidneys. There is no reason on earth why private clinics could not gather the expertise, as many of them do now, in the area of corneal tissue transplantation.
  The Bill's intention is to precipitate the removal of an increased number of corneas when the next of kin and the deceased want that to happen. If the body happens to be under a private health organisation, this clause might cause problems for those who want to remove the cornea for transplantation.
  When explaining this point in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that employees of private clinics
  1154
  are in the employment of a health authority, perhaps by the facility of an honorary contract. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) mentioned the honorary contract concept and the fact that all doctors and properly qualified technicians would be under either a direct contract with a local health authority or an honorary contract. I believe that this is an unsatisfactory position. I do not like to hear of things such as honorary contracts merely to facilitate what I think is a desirable intention of the Bill. Therefore, I would like further clarification on this point. If the technician is properly qualified, working under the instructions of a properly qualified doctor, I cannot see why the clause is necessary.
  We are not talking about people trying to fight for kidneys in the private sector or trying to claw their way to the front of a paying queue. I do not think that anybody believes that. All we are flying to do is ensure that the bureaucracy and difficulty currently involved in the removal of corneas is removed, so that much-needed therapeutic help can be given. I believe that this little phrase will cause confusion and should be removed.
  Mr. John Hannam: My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was a valued member of our Committee, especially because of his personal experience of a corneal transplant following the excruciating illness that he had in 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who had serious eye trouble, and was on the Committee, is also here. I very much welcome, and am grateful for, their support for the Bill.
  I have some reservations about the amendment. I fully understand the motives behind it. It would extend the scope of the Bill to cover work carried out in the private sector. In principle, I do not oppose that objective. However, I believe that the amendment will remove an important safeguard.
  As with kidney transplants, demand for eye tissue exceeds supply. Therefore, we must prevent any unethical methods by people trying to procure tissue for financial gain. All those in the professional medical organisations who have supported the change that I propose in the Bill have done so in the light of proper safeguards for the removal of corneal tissue carried out by properly trained technicians.
  In Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes said, concern was expressed about the possibility of entrepreneurial activity in the procurement of eye tissue. We must be extremely careful to preserve the integrity of the transplant system, especially at this stage. Of course, the Bill as it stands does not squeeze out the private sector, where many removals already take place. These are carried out by ophthalmic surgeons, but in future I hope that they will be carried out by skilled technicians, approved by the surgeons. Health Service employees from the eye hospitals or trained in the new eye banks will be able to carry out their work in private hospitals or at private homes, wherever the donor material is available.
  The amendment would not prove a great disaster, but it needs further consideration before it is included in the Bill. I leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to offer the expert advice that we need to assist us in our decision, so I await his comments before deciding whether I can support the amendment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I studied with great care the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) said, to whose assiduity and expertise we owe our presence here today, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has personal and important experience, so we take careful note of any amendments that he tables to this excellent and much-needed Bill.
  As we recognise, the objective of the Bill is to increase the supply of tissue for corneal grafting by removing the most significant constraint on its procurement. That is why the Government have no hesitation in supporting the main provision of the Bill, which is that staff who are not medically qualified should be permitted, subject to certain safeguards, to remove corneal tissue from cadavers. But the removal of organs from bodies, as I am sure the House agrees, needs to performed competently, safely and sensitively. Therefore, there is no doubt that there is a great need for adequate safeguards. One of those safeguards, to which we attach great importance, is that the members of staff who are permitted to undertake those procedures should be employees of health authorities.
  I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes is concerned to ensure that corneal grafting is not excluded from private hospitals. I certainly accept that. We would wish to see that procedure undertaken in private hospitals, but there is no doubt that, under the operation of the proposals that we have in mind, that will be able to happen without the beneft of my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that private hospitals that wish to perform that procedure will enter into agreements with health authorities or the United Kingdom transplant service in Bristol for corneal tissue to be supplied to them.
  There would be no objection to that, provided that the supply of corneal tissue is sufficient to meet the health authorities' own needs. If private hospitals wish to make their own arrangements for the procurement of corneal tissue, either the tissue will have to be removed by a registered medical practitioner, as now—I do not envisage that presenting any difficulties—or they will need to enter into an agreement with a health authority for the use of health authority staff. I do not believe that that provision will be an unreasonable constraint on private hospitals.
  9.45 am
  As the House will know, we recognise the contribution made by private hospitals to health care. Although it is marginal to the huge volume of care that is provided under the National Health Service, we recognise the importance of its contribution, complementing the resources of the Health Service and demonstrating that people have a right, should they wish, to dispose of some of their income in that area.
  I do no wish to turn this exercise into a party political exchange, but earlier in the week when I had the pleasure of participating in a debate on television with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is apparently determined to prevent people from spending part of their income on the provision of private health care, I was dismayed that that seemed to be the policy of the official Labour party spokesman on health. That is regrettable, and I am sure that that will be the view of most people.
  1156
  I wish to ensure that we are committed to the existence of the Health Service, complemented by private health care. I do not, however, believe that the extension of the facility, as envisaged in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, would be necessary.
  The requirement that the non-medical staff who will be permitted to remove corneal tissue be employees of the Health Service has implications beyond private hospitals. As employees of health authorities, those members of staff would be subject to whatever procedures the health authorities consider necessary. I am confident that health authorities will exercise those responsibilities wisely. As I have said, the procurement of corneal tissue needs to be undertaken competently, safely and sensitively. We would not wish it to become an entrepreneurial activity undertaken outside the control of health authorities.
  Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes will accept that we have considered the issue carefully, that we believe that there would be sufficient freedom under the arrangements that we have in mind, to implement the changes that flow from the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, and that we have the balance right between that freedom and the control that we still consider necessary in this important but delicate area. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I was not intending to speak in the debate, but I am a proud opponent of all forms of non-National Health Service provision, particularly as most of it is exceedingly heavily subsidised by the taxpayer and the NHS hospitals nearby.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will accept the Minister's advice on the matter, because the amendment could have a knock-on effect. I am not suggesting that there is any likelihood of scandalous behaviour in a private hospital. But if there were to be one scandal involving what some people have described as entrepreneurial activity, or perhaps super-entrepreneurial activity, often known as theft, the whole of the corneal transplant scene might well be set back and people would be reluctant to agree to what they readily agree to at the moment. I do not wish to be contentious, but for those reasons alone I hope the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes will accept the advice of his hon. Friend and withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to have had the opportunity of this small debate on amendment 1. This matter needs airing, because the objective of the Bill, steered so cleverly and with so much co-operation throughout by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), is intended to increase the numbers of corneas available for transplantation. I was fearful that perhaps there might be a limitation which, because of the way the clause was originally written, could be opened up by this amendment.
  The character of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and the high esteem in which he is held on both sides of the House encourages me to agree with what he said about the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister has, in effect, given a guarantee of co-operation between health authorities and the private sector, and that allays one of my major fears.
  We had some worries in Committee. As I said earlier, the fact that the health authority can employ on short term

  1157
  or honorary contracts technicians employed in the private sector was a messy way to proceed with the Bill. I now understand the reasons for the control and believe it is desirable. The private sector will not exploit a more ready supply of corneas. I trust the private sector. I know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) dislikes and distrusts the private sector. However, an increasing number of trade unionists are turning to private health schemes, and it is also for them that I moved the amendment. However, bearing in mind the comments of my hon. Friends, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful for the consideration that has been given to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Mr. Hanley: I beg to move amendment No.2, in page 2, line 13 at end insert—
  '(4B) Whenever the person lawfully in possession of a body is a health authority and the deceased person's relatives are asked by that health authority for permission for an autopsy to be performed upon that body, they shall at the same time be asked if they object to the removal of the deceased person's eyes for therapeutic purposes or for the purposes of medical education or research.'.
  This is a different matter. When we went through the Bill in Committee we were mindful not only of bureaucracy but of the fact that because of the problems associated with the bereaved a number of corneas cannot be removed even though the deceased had wished them to be removed.
  Perhaps I might outline my own experience. I cannot speak too highly of Moorfields hospital and the way that it cares of for its patients, many of whom are in extreme pain, because our pain is fairly unique. I was told that I was to receive a transplant cornea under the National Health Service and I was taken to the operating theatre and given a general anaesthetic. I came round some hours later and found that the operation had not taken place. The reason was that although a transplant cornea was available still intact in an eye, the eye was demanded for autopsy as part of a general autopsy into suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of the donor.
  The deaths of many donors are not suspicious. They are, regrettably, caused by road accidents, and there is no need for an autopsy for which all the organs must be stored and investigated. However, in the case of my donor there was a need for further investigation. I was assured by medical staff that the autopsy was a matter of procedure and would not provide any extra information to the people carrying out the autopsy.
  When coroners look into matters and receive expert advice, or carry out their own investigations, the detail they receive from the investigation of the organs can be vital in determining the cause of death. However, the information that they receive from the eye, if any, is not as important, and I seek to ensure that the wishes of those who want the corneas of their loved ones to be transplanted are carried out.
  The period between the death of the donor and the time when the eye is available for the cornea to be removed can be so long as to damage the tissue. Fourteen hours is regarded as the maximum time within which corneas can
  1158
  be removed, and in the 14 hours following death many things happen. For a start, in the vast majority of cases the donor has unexpectedly lost his or her life. That is a traumatic experience for the family of the deceased. One has to trace the family after the deceased has been identified, and there are many matters to be taken into account.
  It is sometimes a miracle that any organs are successfully removed for transplantation, but millions of people in Britain carry cards to show that the waste and futility of death should not be total, and that parts of their bodies, should they be of benefit to others, should be used for transplantation or for any other therapeutic or research purpose.
  I admire the next of kin as much as I admire the deceased. They are suffering from their bereavement and for them it is an extremely difficult time. Such people may be considering the life of the person they have created, their own child, and they are being asked to sanction what might be regarded as a defilement of the body. However, instead of thinking that it is a mere body that will be destroyed in time, one should bear in mind that life can be enhanced by something in that body, and that adds comfort to the next of kin. I know from personal experience how next of kin can feel great benefit because something of their deceased, loved one will continue to give life and continue to add to the mystery of life.
  A doctor often finds it the most difficult part of his job to speak to the next of kin. He often finds it extremely traumatic, both for him and for the next of kin. At that stage, the doctor having plucked up the courage, based on the special training he has received and the care and dedication that is inherent in those who take up that profession, it would be far better for him to ask the next of kin whether at the time of the autopsy they would like a certain part of their deceased loved one to be used in transplantation. That would help to increase the numbers. The amendment says:
  "they shall at the same time be asked if they object to the removal of the deceased person's eyes".
  As we said in Standing Committee, that is the right attitude to take. We are all put on this earth for a purpose, and what has been put on the earth should not be wasted at death. Therefore, the wishes of most individuals would be upheld if their bodies could be used for legal and limited transplantation unless the next of kin or the person himself objects, particularly if that person objects through the opting out process. That ought to be discussed on Third Reading.
  Mr. Hannam: Amendment No. 2 is especially interesting to me, as it considers how we obtain donor material and whether we should have an opting-in or an opting-out system.
  I have been involved in the campaign run on behalf of kidney patients for a long time. It is extremely distressing that medical science has produced a remedy for a disease which, 20 years ago, was nearly always fatal but that young children and elderly people still die from kidney failure because there is a shortage of donors. The Esther Rantzen television programme recently tore at our heartstrings by showing pictures of agonised parents and doctors who, if kidneys had been available, would have been able to save children's lives.

  1159
  10 am
  The shortage of donor material, not a shortage of donors, has prompted the Bill. The amendment is prompted by a desire to increase the amount of tissue available. One of my first campaigns in the 1970s was for attendance allowance to be paid to kidney patients on dialysis. We achieved that. We then got more money for kidney units. The Government responded to that challenge with substantial increases in resources, backed up as usual by voluntary contributions and voluntary organisations. We now have a large new kidney unit in Exeter.
  The Government then launched the donor card programme. Most of us carry kidney donor cards. I hope that all those present do, although I shall not challenge them. The result of that campaign has been a substantial increase in the number of transplant operations, but there have not been enough. I am afraid that the voluntary donor system is not good enough. We shall have to bite this difficult bullet and change to an opting-out system in which it will be assumed that organs are available unless people carry a card or their relatives say that the removal of organs is not desirable.
  Such a change could free us from the haunting spectre of people dying, not because we cannot save them or because people are unwilling to donate vital organs, but because the system fails to produce the organs at the crucial time. The amendment takes us a little way in that direction, but I am not sure that progress should be piecemeal. I doubt whether we should change the Bill when other organs or tissues are not covered in the same way, although I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister's advice.
  I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for giving us an opportunity to discuss an important aspect of transplantation policy.
  Mr. Whitney: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for tabling the amendment. It draws attention to an important source of corneal tissue which is all too often neglected.
  I should like to draw a distinction between a coroner's autopsy and an autopsy that is undertaken on the initiative of a health authority. Whenever a coroner is worried about the facts surrounding a death, he has the power to order that an autopsy be performed, and neither the health authority nor the deceased person's relatives have the right to stand in the way. The amendment is not concerned with coroner's autopsies.
  Autopsies may also be performed on the initiative of a health authority if, for example, doctors want to discover fuller information about the course of a patient's disease so that their understanding of it will be increased. Such autopsies can fulfil a useful function, but they can be performed only if the deceased person's relatives give their permission. As health authorities are already required to approach relatives in such circumstances, it would seem sensible for them at the same time to ask relatives whether they have any objection to the removal of corneas for transplantation.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The amendment proposes that permission should be sought for the removal of corneal tissue and
  "for the purposes of medical education or research."
  Will the Minister give an assurance that, when considering that request, relatives will be made aware of the more
  1160
  macabre and unfair aspect of the regulations relating to such activity—that those who donate their bodies to medical investigation forfeit entitlement to death grant as they no longer have a responsibility to dispose of the remains?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is going a little wide of the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will keep his reply within the terms of the amendment.
  Mr. Whitney: I am happy to follow your direction Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note the hon. Gentleman's point and do not doubt that my colleagues with responsibilities in the matter will have done so as well.
  I hope that health authorities will ask relatives whether they object to the removal of corneas when asking for permission for autopsies. It provides a straightforward way in which the supply of corneal tissue can be increased. I hope that, in the event of the Bill becoming law, health authorities will profit, if that is the most practical way in which tissue can be procured.
  I would not want health authorities to be required to do that, as my hon. Friend's amendment suggests. With some autopsies, the delay between death and the permission of relatives being obtained makes corneas unsuitable for transplantation. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes referred to the 14-hour maximum. I would not want relatives to be asked about corneal transplantation when there was no possibility of its being carried out.
  Moreover, the deceased person's eyes might have been damaged enough to make that unsuitable, and asking about transplantation could only aggravate relatives' distress. The circumstances surrounding death might render such an inquiry more harmful than advantageous. I urge health authorities to ask relatives for permission to remove corneas when they ask permission to perform an autopsy, provided that the circumstances are propitious.
  A balance must be struck. Moving in the direction which the amendment suggests—a legal obligation—is going too far. The Government share my hon. Friend's view about the need to increase the availability of all organs. We are doing everything that we can to promote the organ donor campaign and are considering the possibility of other initiatives. However, to lay down a legal duty on health authorities would be misguided and unnecessary, and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Hanley: I plead guilty to trying to introduce an opting-out system by the back door, but I believe that such a system is desirable and will dramatically increase the number of organs available for transplantation. The fact that there are only 2,000 transplants in Britain each year, of which about 90 per cent. are successful, and that there are more than 500,000 deaths in Britain each year is a poor record. I am certain that many more than 2,000 people would be willing for their corneas to be used. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the difficulty for a doctor at the time of autopsy.
  I understand, as perhaps I did not appreciate fully before, what my hon. Friend said, that it could make the position worse if there were a statutory obligation to ask permission to take tissue at a difficult time for the next of kin. I would do nothing that would make their suffering at that stage even greater. On balance, I believe that it is

  1161
  better to leave the matter to the skill, care and consideration always shown by doctors in these circumstances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  10.12 am
  Mr. Hannam: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Recent weeks have been extremely exciting for me and all others involved in disablement matters. Last Friday, the House completed deliberations on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, a major piece of legislation by any standards, especially as it was a private Member's Bill involving probably £100 million of new resources. As a sponsor of that Bill, I congratulate the Government on the major support they gave. Having been involved throughout consideration of that Bill, I can assure the House that the Government assisted with its drafting and. in the end, the financing of the measure. That Bill was top of the ballot.
  My Bill today drew number 19 in the ballot, but as a lucky coincidence of being in the right place at the right time for once when it came up for Second Reading and slipping into the airstream, as it were, of the rather larger disabled persons measure of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), this Bill received a vital Second reading on 17 January and moved up the snakes and ladders hoard into second place; we are now today putting it through Parliament. I should like to thank all hon. Members who helped make that possible.
  The basic aim of the Bill is to remove a major obstacle to successful eye transplants in this country. The obstacle is not in the actual transplant area, but in the collection of suitable eye tissue needed for the operation. The amendments we have been discussing are designed to assist in that regard. We all know that this material is desperately needed to prevent loss of sight and blindness.
  The cornea is the circular and transparent lens on the front of the eye, approximately 11 mm by 13 mm in size. When disease, degeneration or injury causes a loss of the normal tranparency of the cornea, light fails to get through to the retina and blindness occurs. So in corneal transplants we are talking about a graft of a 7 mm to 8 mm button of donor tissue being transplanted into a recipient hole in the eye.
  It is a simple graft operation performed routinely in teaching hospitals and district general hospitals with special units. Some 1,500 to 2,000 grafts are carried out in the United Kingdom each year, with a 90 per cent. success rate. However, the supply of eye tissue donor material is not great enough to satisfy the waiting list for transplants, and some hundreds of people are anxiously waiting for the time they can have an operation to save their sight. The hold-up is not due, as it is in the case of kidney transplants, to a shortage of donors. It is due to a shortage of opthalmic surgeons, the specialists required under the existing law to perform the routine cornea removals from the bodies of the donors.
  The Human Tissue Act of 1961, which we seek to amend, requires that the removal of organs from bodies for medical purposes can be carried out only by fully registered practitioners. That has undoubtedly been a perfectly proper requirement and certainly needs to continue for organs other than eyes or parts of eyes where
  1162
  a comparatively simple operation can now be carried out, as in other countries, by eye technicians properly trained and supervised.
  Our hospital ophthalmic doctors, who are under great stress these days, cannot be available day and night to interview relatives and then remove eye tissue. In the United States and other countries considerable developments have occurred and eye banks are now a standard part of ophthalmic units, under the direction of a medical board and run by eye bank technicians. In the United States, in 1984, 24,000 corneal removals were carried out, 98 per cent. of them by such technicians. In Holland and other European countries, similar eye banks are now operating, and I have received letters from the United States and Holland supporting this Bill.
  There is absolutely no opposition from medical organisations; indeed, they support the Bill and welcome a relaxation of the 1961 law so that an improved supply of corneal material can be available for transplantation. The national United Kingdom organisation promoting this change is the Iris Fund for Prevention of Blindness, ably led by its director, Susanna Burr, whom I thank most deeply for her inspired help for the Bill. The iris fund established the United Kingdom Corneal Transplant Service in 1983 with Department of Health and Social Services support and has financed it since then, although it hopes that the scheme will be taken over next year by the DHSS.
  The service is based in Bristol, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). In a letter dated 3 December 1985, the director, Ben Bradley, states:
  "The demand for donor material is always increasing, and despite having recorded more than 900 cornea grafts since we started in October 1983, there are still 316 people on our cornea waiting list.
  Your help in bringing the plight of these patients to the attention of the House will, I am sure, result in an increase in the number of corneas made available for transplantation."
  Over the whole country, 4,000 eye grafts have taken place during the past two years in hospitals from Bristol to Edinburgh. As many as 1,500 extra transplants a year could take place if this Bill were enacted. The life of the eye tissue is very short—14 hours from removal to transplant, so the need for an efficient system is obvious. Until very recently, these short-lived eye materials have been kept alive for a maximum of four days by a conventional liquid preservation technique using the MacCarey-Kaufman solution, but most transplant operations are still carried out using fresh material—removed from the donor—within that short period.
  However, a revolutionary advance has just been made by the Bristol eye hospital and the United Kingdom transplant service research team at Bristol university. Within the past week or two, a new technique for storing corneas for up to 30 days in an eye bank has resulted in the first two corneal transplants being carried out by Professor David Easty in Bristol using corneas stored in a special nutrient fluid. These organ cultured tissues can be re-checked over a period to make sure that they are suitable and in good condition, and also that their tissue material can be better matched with the patient's needs.
  In those two operations, David Easty used one cornea which had been stored for two weeks in the United Kingdom transplant bank and one from Denmark which had been stored for a month. That represents a tremendous

  1163
  advance and helps, with the Bill, to produce a solution to this long-standing problem. Both patients have been discharged and are doing well.
  Because such transplant tissue can be stored for up to a month, both the patient and the surgeon can plan when the operation will take place. That relieves the pressure on operating theatres and the patient's anxiety. Following the successful operations, Professor Easty said:
  "This means that our eye banks can now provide an instant supply of material for emergencies."
  Material will be readily available to save sight if major accidents occur. Eventually, by having a store of this tissue, there will be an end to waiting lists for corneal transplants and we shall be able to deal promptly and efficiently with major disasters. Through this legislation, we can increase and speed up the supply of corneal tissue provided by the eye banks. That tissue can be used to restore the sight of all those facing loss of vision and blindness. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood must be proud of the Bristol team's achievements. I hope that he will pass on our congratulations to all those involved.
  I thank all those who have helped to pilot the Bill through Committee and Report. Some of those hon. Members who were active in the early stages were not able to be present today. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who, following an accident, was given a corneal transplant—as was my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Walden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who has suffered from an eye illness. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his officials for their assistance in drafting the Bill. I hope that the House will now send the Bill to the other place so that it can quickly become law and end the waiting lists for eye transplants.
  10.22 am
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I welcome the Bill. There have been amazing developments in modern science and technology which will ensure that, when the Bill is enacted, cornea transplants will take their place among the other grafts and transplants which have become an acceptable part of the fight against illness and disease and the battle to make the afflicted healthy. I congratulated the hon. Members responsible for the legislation.
  The faith of hon. Members and the Minister in the medical profession is touching. The Bill states:
  "No such removal of an eye or part of an eye shall be effected except by—
  (a) a registered medical practitioner".
  I cannot imagine the eye or part of the eye being removed by anyone other than a registered medical practitioner, although the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) mentioned other people who could be involved.
  The Bill states that the registered medical practitioner
  "must have satisfied himself by personal examination of the body that life is extinct".
  Sometimes, it is not as easy as one imagines to ascertain that life is extinct. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State is well aware of that. The absence of a fully detectable pulse or heartbeat does not necessarily mean that a person is dead. I assure the public that tissues are not taken from people who have not been certified as dead. People have expressed that concern.
  1164
  We know the scaremongering about this issue. People should be encouraged to state clearly that they are willing to donate parts of their bodies. Eye tissue should be added to organs listed on the card carried by people who wish to donate.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. I hope that, before long, these transplants will take their place with the others.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I support the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said, I have a personal interest in it. I believe that all hon. Members would willingly support the Bill if they were aware of its contents.
  The legislation arises primarily from the advance of modern technology. The Human Tissues Act 1961 recognised the limits of technology at that time. Ophthalmic surgeons had to perform the operations to ensure that transplants were suitable for recipients, but that is no longer the case. Twenty-four years have passed and there have been substantial changes in medical technology. People with lesser skills—I do not want to denigrate them—can now perform these operations.
  I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter not only in introducing the Bill but in working for the disabled. Last week, he was given an honorary degree by the Open university. That is a substantial recognition of his efforts on behalf of many people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said that the service is based in Bristol. The United Kingdom transplant bank is organised from Bristol. Research is undertaken by Ben Bradley and his team and by the staff at the Bristol eye hospital to benefit people suffering such tragedies. For those reasons, I take great pride as a Member from Bristol in supporting the Bill.
  I have a direct interest in this issue because, when I was 17—regrettably, that was too long ago—I developed partial blindness, which recurred intermittently for the next four years, sometimes with total blindness. Fortunately, at no stage did that blindness continue for a substantial period. Obviously, it was disconcerting. I saw eye specialist after eye specialist, none of whom could tell me precisely what was wrong. Fortunately, when I was 22, the problem seemed to disappear and, for the next eight or nine years, I suffered no problems with my sight.
  When I was 30, the problem recurred on a few occasions to a limited extent. Again, I suffered from either partial or total blindness, but, mercifully, it was for a fairly short period. Less than two years ago the eyesight in my left lower quartile deteriorated substantially. That had the dramatic effect of stopping me from being a rugby referee because it confirmed what all players believe about rugby referees—that they are blind. The problem continued and I visited a series of specialists at a number of hospitals, both in London and Bristol, for assessment of my eyesight difficulty. At the time I was also suffering from a nervous difficulty in my hand.
  After undergoing a series of tests I was referred to the Burden institute at Frenchay hospital where I had a brain scan. I am in the unique position of being able to say that I am the only Member who can prove that he has a brain. The brain scan provided no further information about the cause of my problems. Ultimately, it was diagnosed that I had multiple sclerosis, a disease for which there is no cure. I was not over-frightened by that diagnosis. People

  1165
  live with far worse diagnoses than that. At this stage there is no known treatment or cure for multiple sclerosis. The virus was identified a few years ago. Work is being done at the moment, and people who suffer from it are given advice about the forms of diet and exercise that they might take.
  Where an illness is not treatable or curable, one learns to live with it and accept it. Surely it is far worse to know that one will go blind, and needs an operation, that the technology is available and many people can carry it out by performing a transplant, but that legislation does not allow it. That is the point of the Bill. The technology is available. Just imagine if one were a surgeon or doctor, and had to say to a patient or his relatives, "We know what you are suffering from. We could cure it, but the legislation does not allow us to do so because it is too restrictive."
  It is for that reason that I am such an enthusiastic supporter of the legislation. It broadens the opportunity for many more people to have an operation, for which the facilities and the expertise have been available for so long. For those reasons, I encourage the whole House to support this excellent and long-overdue measure.
  10.33 am
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: It is difficult not to rise with a substantial degree of humility, having heard the expertise of those hon. Members on both sides, either through professional or personal experience, who have introduced the Bill. I hope that the Bill will pass expeditiously through the other place and on to the statute book.
  I wish briefly to concentrate on the substantial technical developments which have occurred and make the Bill all the more important. We have come a long way since the early days of this century when the first transplant was performed by a doctor on his pet gazelle in Africa. In due course it was rejected.
  Now we seek tissue types for corneal grafting. Often complex grafting is required, which makes the special identification of the right type of tissue through clinical work most important. The Bill will allow the more widespread collection of the right tissue types, relieving the pressure on those in advanced clinical work, resulting in providing the right tissue in the right place and supporting the technological developments in the eye banks.
  It is important to recognise that at present ophthalmic surgeons must spend a geat deal of time collecting corneal tissues. Their clinical work has developed substantially, and the most important aspect of their work is probably the delicate issue of receiving consent. With today's legislation we can combine all three, and what is effectively the simple operation of collecting corneal tissue can now be handled by a larger number of people. For that reason, the legislation seems appropriate at this stage, especially with regard to the technical development of corneal tissue collecting.
  When I studied the Bill and spoke to some eminent surgeons at St. Thomas's, I was sufficiently convinced that the process was not so highly technical that it would require the present legislation to remain unamended. It is a simple procedure. It has the advantage of taking place in an immuno-privileged site. That means that one can remove the eye and the relevant tissue and transplant it, without facing the problem of rejection, as is the problem
  1166
  with many other transplants. It also means that much more tissue typing can be undertaken after we have received more tissue. That is important for the development of the procedure. For those reasons, I warmly welcome the developments in the Bill.
  One can describe the procedure simply to a layman as a nip in the covering of the eye, after which one hooks on to the muscles surrounding the eye, severs the nerve at the back and removes the eye. As the eye is such a sensitive part, that process may naturally worry people, especially compared with the removal of a finger nail or an operation on some less sensitive part of the body.
  Nevertheless, I recognise that the importance of good supervision is essential. The Bill ensures that only those who are properly qualified, and under proper supervision, can remove the tissue. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) gave due recognition to that when he drafted the Bill. It would have been easy to think that such a simple procedure could be extended more widely than he suggests.
  I echo the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. He was right to say that this has been an important week for health and social service issues. I was privileged to serve in Committee on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and passed in the House last week. I congratulate both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend on following up that legislation so readily, as my hon. Friend lucidly explained to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill will succeed. It will undoubtedly receive the support of the medical profession. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will also support it.
  10.38 am
  Dr. John G. Blackburn: I support the Third Reading of this important legislation, and, in so doing, I must immediately pay triple tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). First, I congratulate him on his success in the ballot. It is perhaps even more remarkable that, having been drawn 19th, he now finds his Bill before the House. That is against all parliamentary odds.
  Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend, as many others will, on his warmth, dedication and skill in selecting the subject of the Bill before us.
  Thirdly, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that, with the help of hon. Members on both sides of the House, he has skilfully steered the Bill through its Committee and Report stages. It reflects the greatest credit upon him and the constituency that he serves. He has a long, well-documented testimony of care for the disabled, with which I am glad to be associated.
  This morning sees the House at its best. When one considers the events of the past week, it is a tribute to the House that, on Friday morning, we are discussing a Bill which is so important to those who suffer from blindness.
  I was deeply humbled by the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). The House will long remember his account of his illness. We wish him good health and godspeed in his service in the House.
  Medical science has advanced greatly since the original Act, especially in the transplant of organs and tissues. There is a renal transplant unit in my constituency, and I am thrilled to be the patron of the friends of that unit.

  1167
  My introduction to blindness, no doubt like that of many hon. Members, was as a little boy sitting in Bible class and discovering, through the scriptures, how the Lord came down and made the blind see again. Close to where I worked in Liverpool, the first blind workshops in the world were established. From conversations with people in the medical profession, I know that there is a keen awareness of the benefits and blessings that can come from the transplant of tissues, especially from the eyes.
  I welcome the Bill and give it my complete support. My concern for such matters was awakened remarkably some years ago when I heard the sad news of the death of Lady Churchill, the widow of Sir Winston Churchill, and was astonished to discover that within hours of her death her wish that her eye tissues be taken and used again was fulfilled. That brought home to me in a simple but dramatic way the blessings that can come from the transfer of tissue to those who suffer from ophthalmic diseases.
  I am especially attracted to the need for speed in such transplants, and I wish to make a simple plea. This morning, I took the precaution of checking that my kidney donor card was with my credit cards and other effects. I commend for consideration the suggestion that such a card should include eye tissues—
  Mr. Hanley: Mine does.
  Dr. Blackburn: Mine does not.
  Mr. Hanley: The new card issued by the DHSS contains the words:
  "I request that after my death

  (a) my kidneys, eyes, heart, liver, pancreas be used for transplation; or

  (b) any part of my body be used for the treatment of others. (delete if not applicable)."

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to point out that multi-donor cards are now available. This might be the right time to apply for a new card or pick up a new card at one's library or citizens advice bureau.
  Dr. Blackburn: I am never too proud to accept a rebuke. Perhaps it is a reflection of my age that my card does not contain those words. However, I assure my hon. Friend that my card is not written on parchment.
  This has been a wonderful debate and a momentous occasion. In conclusion, I pray that many people will look back on this day and say, "As a result of the House of Commons and the hon. Member for Exeter introducing this Bill, I can now see." I commend the Bill to the House and wish it godspeed.
  10.46 am
  Mr. Hanley: I have already spoken on the Bill this morning, but I hope that the House will allow me a further statement before it goes to the other place. I have been moved by the contributions of hon. Members, and it is important that we consider in the calm atmosphere of a Friday morning matters that will benefit people. That is what I have always believed to be the objective of Parliament, but I regret that often the reverse seems to be true.
  This is a remarkable Bill which has been steered through Parliament by a remarkable Member. During the past three years, I have followed faithfully the legislation introduced and supported by my hon. Friend the Member
  1168
  for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), just as faithfully as he has followed me in the alphabetical list of Members, and almost as closely. Our objectives are similarly inseparable.
  The Bill does not introduce a new concept. It merely takes us back to the position that obtained before 1961. In 1961, the Human Tissue Act tightened the restrictions on those who could remove organ tissue. It was vital for the trust that the public should have in those who removed organs and tissues that it was done by those who were properly qualified and that no one could deny the right to a medical practitioner.
  Before 1961, the techniques were such that few organs could be removed and used for transplant. Indeed, corneal transplants were the only ones to achieve any notable success. But techniques developed later in the middle of the century and the possibility of kidney, liver and heart transplants meant that the legislation had to be tightened. The fact that corneas lost out because of that tightening of the legislation was wholly justifiable at the time. It is now clear that corneas should be exempted from the general rules that are still desirable for the removal of other organs, although kidneys may soon follow suit.
  The object of the Bill is an increase in donation, which could be achieved by more publicity, the issue of donor cards and educational leaflets to schools, associations and colleges, by direct publicity in newspapers and by the public reading the stories of those whose lives have been enriched and recovered through receiving organs from donors. It could also be publicised through the experiences of the next of kin of those who have donated their organs, who can explain the enrichment that results from the realisation that a part of their deceased loved one is giving life or removing pain.
  I dislike and have serious qualms about the personality cult which has recently followed some organ transplantations. If the personality cult can increase the flow of organs, so much the better, but I wonder whether it is right to subject the lives of the next of kin of those who have donated and received organs to the glare of often ghoulish publicity. I therefore ask that the sensitivity of the next of kin be remembered above all. We need publicity for the success of the transplantation programme, but ghoulish interest must be resisted at all costs. I hope that newspapers and television programmes, which have done so much good in encouraging transplantation, will remember the sensitivity that the area deserves.
  I pay a further tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. He was fortunate in his place in the ballot, but the subject that he has chosen has promoted him above the normal expectations of Parliament. That shows not only the wisdom of his choice but just how the House receives the things that my hon. Friend says and the causes he espouses. Because of his character and what he has stood for during his years in the House, the House immediately expects that his Bill will be for people's benefit and will receive general agreement. That feeling has accelerated the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
  The Bill deserves a speedy passage. I am a sponsor of no fewer than three Bills that are to be debated today. I know that the promoters of the other Bills will understand me if I say that this is the most important of them all.
  I therefore thank my hon. Friend, and I thank the Minister and his officials for their co-operation. This is a marvellous Bill; Parliament should be proud of itself and of my hon. Friend.
  10.52 am
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I will be brief, in order to facilitate the passage of the next Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and his sponsors on both sides of the House, on this measure, which is most welcome and appears to command support in every part of the House.
  10.53 am
  Mr. Whitney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on his success in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills, on choosing a Bill that will be of a great benefit to people who have lost or are in danger of losing their sight, and on piloting the Bill so successfully through the House in its early stages. I would like also to assure the House that the Bill in its present form has full Government support.
  The Human Tissue Act 1961, which governs the removal of organs for transplant purposes, requires that organs be removed from cadavers only by registered medical practitioners. In the case of kidneys, hearts, livers and pancreases, that is a sensible and indeed a necessary precaution. But corneal tissue is different from other transplantable organs in two important respects. The first is that the removal of corneal tissue is a much simpler procedure and does not require the skills of an experienced surgeon, and the second is that corneal tissue does not deteriorate so quickly and can safely be removed from a body up to several hours after death.
  The requirement that corneal tissue be removed only by registered medical practitioners is a serious constraint on the supply of suitable material that is urgently needed for corneal grafting. The requirement makes heavy demands on the valuable and limited time of ophthalmic surgeons, and in practical terms it means that it is very difficult for them to remove corneal tissue except from donors who happen to die inside hospitals that have ophthalmic surgery departments.
  This constraint on the supply of tissue means that in most departments of ophthalmic surgery, corneal grafting is still an emergency procedure undertaken only as and when the right sort of tissue becomes available for a particular patient on the waiting list. This in turn often results in a wasteful use of hosptial beds and theatre time and makes yet further demands on surgeons and theatre nurses, and creates uncertainty for patients. If more corneal tissue were to become available, corneal grafting could become a scheduled procedure and much would be gained, and the purpose of the Corneal Tissue Bill is indeed to ease the constraints so that the increase in supply which we all seek can be achieved.
  The number of people who die in circumstances where corneal donation is a practical possibility is far in excess of the number of people who die in circumstances which permit the donation of other organs such as kidneys, hearts, and livers. Corneal tissue suitable for grafting can be taken from people in older age groups whose other organs would not be suitable for transplantation, and the longer permissible period between death and tissue removal means that tissue can be taken from patients who die in hospital wards and even at home; the only patients who are suitable donors of other organs are those who die on respirators and whose functions are artificially maintained after brain death has been diagnosed. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), with his medical
  1170
  expertise, has made that point. The simplicity of the procedure of corneal removal also means that health service staff who are not qualified doctors can undertake it provided that they are properly trained. This Bill will permit them to do so.
  Yet the removal of corneas from bodies is a procedure which must be undertaken properly and sensitively, so a number of safeguards are required. The safeguards need to be flexible enough to ensure that the procurement of corneal tissue is not unnecessarily constrained, and yet rigid enough to ensure that the procedure is competently performed with due regard to the safety of patients and the sensitivities of relatives. The Corneal Tissue Bill provides four safeguards which we beleive achieve exactly this.
  The first safeguard is that the staff who perform the procedure will have to be acting under the instruction of a registered medical practitioner. This will allow a doctor to instruct them to go to a distant hospital or to a patient's home without his having to make the journey himself, but will not allow them to act on their own account. The doctor will be professionally accountable for the instructions that he gives, and he will know that he will have to answer for any instructions that are unprofessional or irresponsible.
  The second safeguard is that the doctor will be required to satisfy himself that the people that he instructs are sufficiently qualified and trained to perform the procedure competently. For obvious reasons, there are at the moment no recognised qualifications or training courses for technicians or nurses in this field, and we think that the most appropriate safeguard for ensuring their competence is that responsibility should be laid upon the doctor. The medical profession is prepared to accept this. There will, of course, be opportunity for my Department's chief medical officer to issue guidance on the matter at some later date should he consider it to be necessary and appropriate. I should perhaps add that I was pleased to learn that the United Kingdom Corneal Transplant Service in Bristol is preparing a training course on the procurement of corneal tissue which could be run in the event of the Bill becoming law. I have every confidence in the UKCTS and its training course could make an important contribution in getting any new arrangements off the ground.
  The third safeguard is that the people who will be permitted to remove corneal tissue must be employees of a health authority. In supporting this provision which was discussed earlier, the Government are attempting to achieve the same balance between ensuring that the procedures are properly controlled and allowing flexibility to ensure that there are no necessary constraints. As employees of health authorities, staff will be subject to whatever procedures health authorities consider necessary, and I am confident that health authorities will exercise those responsibilities wisely.
  Private hospitals will not be prohibited by this provision from performing corneal grafts, and I would expect that in most instances they would enter into arrangements with health authorities or with the UKCTS for the supply of corneal tissue. If they wanted to make their own arrangements for the procurement of corneal tissue, the tissue would either have to be removed by registered medical practitioners as now, or they would need to enter into some agreement with a health authority over the use of health authority staff. I do not see this provision as presenting an unreasonable constraint on private hospitals,

  1171
  and it will of course ensure that the procurement of corneal tissue does not become an entrepreneurial activity undertaken outside health authority control.
  The fourth and final safeguard is that certification of death will remain a prerogative of the medical profession. It would to totally wrong for corneal tissue to be removed before death had been certified by a doctor, but the doctor who certifies death will not under this provision necessarily have to be the same doctor as the one who gives the instructions for the tissue to be removed.
  So I commend the Corneal Tissue Bill to the House. Corneal grafting is a procedure that can safeguard or restore peoples' sight, but it is a procedure that can only be carried out if there is an adequate supply of corneal tissue. I am told that new techniques are being developed—we have heard about some of them today—which will enable corneal tissue to be successfully stored for considerable periods of time. It is not too fanciful to imagine that before long an ophthalmic surgeon will select the right sort of tissue for each patient from the shelves of a well-stocked eye bank. But this will not be able to happen unless the eye bank is well stocked, and this will require an increase in the supply of corneal tissue, which in turn will require that the present constraints be eased. So patients will benefit greatly from the Bill. The National Health Service as a whole will benefit as demands on staff time are reduced and resources are allocated more efficiently. As I have said, the safeguards that are included in the Bill are sufficient to enable these new procedures to be introduced safely and sensitively.
  After a traumatic week, the Bill reveals the House of Commons at its best and is an example of the best use of our procedures. For that we must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend and assure the House that the Bill has the Government's unqualified support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Tobacco Products (Sales Restriction)Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7 OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933
  11.3 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after '(2)', insert
  '(powers of court in respect of tobacco vending machines used by young persons)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
  Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendments and for suggesting that they be discussed together.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are technical and are intended to tidy up the Bill. It might be helpful to the House if I briefly explain their effect. They describe precisely the relevant part, in section 7(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and section 18(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, in which the word "may" is being substituted by the word "shall" in the Bill as amended in Committee. These provisions concern the powers of the court in respect of tobacco vending machines used by young people. In agreeing to the amendment, the Committee was concerned that the courts should be in no doubt of Parliament's intentions—that when it has been proved that a vending machine selling tobacco is being extensively used by young people, the owner of the machine, or the person on whose premises the machine is kept, should be ordered to take precautions to prevent the machine from being used in that way or, if necessary, that the machine should be removed.
  For the sake of consistency and coherence, the amendments that I propose describe the purpose of that clause of the Bill being alluded to, and therefore I hope clarify the value of the amendment. Hon. Members will see that the provisions in subsections (1)(a) and (c) contain similar words of explanation. In these cases the phrases in brackets describe in the case of subsection (1)(a) the nature of the proviso, and in the case of subsection (1)(c) the reference is to the definition of "tobacco". The object is to make the Bill more intelligible.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 also arise out of the Committee's wish to change the discretionary power which at present resides in the court into a duty. In supporting the repeal of subsections (1) of the 1933 Act and of the 1937 Scottish Act—making it an offence to sell any tobacco products to children apparently under the age of 16—the Committee agreed that an appropriate saving clause be included in the Bill to prevent people, who may have offended before this Act came into effect, from losing the defences which were available to them at the date of the alleged offence. An example would be that if a shopkeeper sold some tobacco product other than cigarettes to a person under 16 reasonably believing it to

  1173
  be for someone else's use, he would still be able to rely on that defence even though the case came to trial after the Bill had come into force.
  The Committee also agreed to amendments which would replace the word "may" by "shall". This in effect would remove the discretion of the courts to take into account the individual circumstances surrounding a case, and would place a mandatory power on the courts to order the owner of a tobacco vending machine, or the person on whose premises the machine is kept, to take specified precaustions to prevent the machine from being used extensively by persons apparently under the age of 16 years, or for the machine to be removed. It would seem appropriate that a similar saving clause should apply also in this instance, thus ensuring that the Bill does not operate retrospectively in relation to offences alleged to have been committed but not tried before the Bill comes into operation.
  The amendments provide for the appropriate saving clauses on these two matters to be incorporated into the Bill. Accordingly, I invite the House to support them.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister has been extremely helpful throughout our consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to him for tabling these amendments and for explaining them. I am particularly pleased about amendments Nos. 1 and 3, because they confirm the Government's acceptance of the decision taken in Committee to toughen up the legislation as it applies to tobacco and cigarette vending machines, which are known to be used extensively by youngsters under the age of 16.
  In classic Standing Committee style, we wanted to change the word "may" to "shall". This will require courts to take action when they have evidence that such vending machines are being extensively used by youngsters. The courts will have discretion about what they do about that, but something will be done. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting our suggestion and for tidying up the Bill.
  I understand the objective of amendments Nos. 2 and 4. The Minister has made it clear that the qualifications will affect only alleged offences committed before the Bill comes into effect. When the Bill is on the statute book there will be no nonsense about whom the tobacco or cigarettes are being sold for, because it will then be a question of whom they are sold to. If the person is under 16, whoever sells that tobacco will be guilty of an offence beyond any shadow of doubt and action will be taken. The House shares that objective—at least I hope so, but one does not know these days. The amendments are consistent with the Bill's objectives.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for asking me to support his Bill. The amendments are excellent. In Standing Committee it became clear that there was a great deal of cynical activity by those who sell tobacco products.
  I sometimes feel sorry for the manufacturers, who try to restrict the sale of the products by giving instructions to retailers. I feel sorry, too, for retailers, who have to live with the stigma of selling products which many people regard as not only unnecessary but downright unhealthy. However, I get particularly angry about the placing of cigarette machines in locations designed deliberately to attract a market which we know to be illegal, and with
  1174
  traders who sell cigarettes to the young, knowing it to be illegal. Sometimes, they even facilitate selling cigarettes to the young. A child might not be able to afford a full packet, and the retailer may be prepared to sell them wrapped in sweet wrappings or old newspaper. I am told that 10p a stick is common.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the efficacy or effectiveness of the present laws? More important, is he satisfied with the law being proposed under the Bill, and does he think that it is likely to be any more effective? Is not the main problem the implementation of the law rather than its text? Will the Bill enable us to take any significant steps forward?
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the greatest problems is enforcement. To discuss this matter in Parliament at regular intervals brings it to the attention of the wider public. When legislation is going through Parliament, it becomes a focus for discussion in the media. I warmly welcome the activities of the "That's Life!" programme. The presenters, in their search for consumer fraud and potential danger for consumers, have often exposed cynical practices. At the moment. the programme is doing something about the selling of tobacco to children.
  A letter sent to certain hon. Members yesterday by U.S. Tobacco International. Inc. mentioned two points. The manufacturers claim, first, that they are unaware of people breaking the laws of this land and ignoring the guidelines given by the company to the retailers; secondly, that the manufacturers' lawyers are investigating the claims made in the programme. The legislation is good in one respect, above the fact that it further enhances the law, in that it brings publicity to the breach of the law.
  As I said in Committee, when I found no fewer than seven retail outlets openly selling to people clearly under the age of 16, I was glad to have the opportunity to expose that. The opportunity given by today's debate and by the debates in Committee and the publicity associated with them is only to the good of our young.
  The amendments are a recognition of the fact that there are breaches of the law. The setting up of betting shops close to unemployment benefit offices is a cynical exercise in trying to separate those who have little from what little they have. The £1·50 for a packet of cigarettes is money that children have a fight to get, or that comes from their parent, by fair means or foul. Therefore, I welcome the amendments, which recognise the practices that retailers have used to try to get round the law. I hope that my hon. Friend feels the strength of opinion in the House and in the country.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above does not affect any offence alleged to have been committed before the date on which this Act comes into force and paragraph (b) of that subsection does not affect the powers of the court on a complaint made before that date.'.—[Mr. Whitney.]

Clause 2

  AMENDMENT OF SECTION 18 OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1937
  Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 11, after `(2)', insert
  '(powers of court in respect of tobacco vending machines used by young persons)'.
  No. 4, in line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above does not affect any offence alleged to have been committed before the date on which this Act comes into force and paragraph (b) of that subsection does not affect the powers of the court on an application made before that date.'.—[Mr. Whitney.]

Clause 3

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'Tobacco Products (Sales Restriction)' and insert 'Protection of Children (Tobacco)'.
  We have discussed this amendment in Committee, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the matter again. At present, the short title of the Bill is Tobacco Products (Sales Restriction) Bill, and on reflection I am not sure that that is entirely appropriate because it would take a broader measure than this to restrict the sale of tobacco, although many of us would like to do that. I look forward to the day when the smoking of tobacco will be seen as the unnatural and dangerous habit that it clearly is.
  11.15 am
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the latest letter than I have received from US Tobacco International, Inc. which manufactures Skoal Bandits. The company makes the point that it does not manufacture or market any cigarettes. Therefore, the present title is somewhat of a misnomer because it implies that such a company manufactures cigarettes. The Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill would be a much better name.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received letters from US Tobacco International, Inc. and I intend to refer to it, perhaps on Third Reading if we make good enough progress.
  The Bill's objective is not simply to restrict the sales of tobacco, although that would be an excellent objective from the point of view of public health, among other things. The Bill's purpose is specifically and rather narrowly to protect children and young people under the age of 16 from the dangerous effects of all forms of tobacco—both cigarettes and other tobacco products such as Skoal Bandits. We need to protect children against nicotine addiction because of their exposure to such products. It would be useful if the title could be amended in this way to make it clear to the public and everybody concerned that that is what the Bill is about.
  Mr. Whitney: When we discussed this matter in Committee, I agreed to consider an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 5. I said in Committee that a change in the short title would normally be warranted only if, as a consequence of other amendments, the original title no longer adequately described to the Bill's purpose. However, taking account of the points made in Committee
  1176
  and of assurances from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that this amendment is not intended to extend the scope of the Bill beyond that which we have considered, I was happy to say that we would not object to the renaming of the Bill. Therefore, I support the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  11.18 am
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am perhaps as fortunate as the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I enjoyed listening to his speech on the Third Reading of his Corneal Tissues Bill, with which we have just dealt. The hon. Member was 19th in the ballot for private Member's Bills and his Bill is the second to complete its progress through the House. I was drawn 12th in the ballot and, with a bit of luck, I hope that my Bill may be third on its way along the corridor to the other place. The hon. Member for Exeter referred to the business of getting private Member's Bills through the House as being like a game of snakes and ladders. I am delighted that the Government and Members of all parties have taken such a constructive view of my Bill, and that good progress has been made thus far.
  The Bill has two objectives. The first is to deal with the obvious failure of current legislation to control the sale of tobacco products, especially cigarettes, to youngsters under the age of 16. As the Minister has said in parliamentary answers and in debates, up to £90 million a year is being spent on cigarettes by youngsters under the age of 16 in this country, of which up to £10 million is being spent in Scotland, the part of the United Kingdom about which I am naturally most concerned. That is clearly an outrageous state of affairs.
  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for England and Wales and the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 are supposed to make such sales illegal, but the scale of the trade makes it abundantly clear that that legislation is, in effect, a dead letter. It may have been too complicated to achieve prosecutions so that the police and other public agencies have been unwilling to try to obtain prosecutions. As a result, the trade has grown steadily and a new generation of youngsters is becoming hooked on a very dangerous habit. The first objective of the Bill is to clarify that legislation and to make it easier to obtain prosecution where appropriate.
  I hope that when the Bill reaches the statute book there will be a crackdown on this trade. I hope, too, that the Minister will be able to tell us today that his colleagues at the Home Office and the Scottish Office intend to give directions to the law enforcement and public prosecution authorities to ensure that something is done about this. It is essential that there should be an effective deterrent to traders who blatantly and openly sell large quantities of cigarettes and other tobacco products to young people who are exposed to great danger as a consequence.
  The second basic objective of the Bill is to broaden the scope of the legislation on tobacco products to include items such as Skoal Bandits, a product resembling a miniature tea bag and containing finely ground, flavoured tobacco intended to be sucked in the mouth. Such products have been extensively available in the United States for some time and are now, sadly, being manufactured in the

  1177
  constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and marketed in this country and in Europe.
  Some countries, notably the Republic of Ireland, have banned the sale of such products altogether. The Bill does not propose such a ban, but I believe that it is to be commended in view of the insidious nature of the product. Extending the definition of tobacco products to include such items will at least make it clear that it is illegal to sell them to youngsters under the age of 16.
  The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride have referred to the letter from Mr. J. R. Walter, director of marketing for Europe of US Tobacco International, Inc., who has evidently been reading the reports of proceedings on the Bill in Committee. Mr. Walter suggests that his company would not dream of selling its products to youngsters under the age of 16, taking an almost "holier than thou" attitude to the matter. He says:
  "To the best of our knowledge Skoal Bandits are not currently offered through vending machines. The company has no plans to produce a vending machine pack."
  If potato crisps can be sold through vending machines, it should not be unduly difficult to sell items of this kind in the same way. Whether or not it is nominally company policy, it is clear that retailers are likely to use that manner of marketing as well as across-the-counter sales.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman calling into question a published letter to all Members from the director of marketing? The letter states clearly:
  "The company has no plans to produce a vending machine pack."
  Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that?
  Mr. Home Robertson: It is no doubt perfectly true as far as it goes, but it is easy enough to put a normal pack of Skoal Bandits into a vending machine which could be used by anyone entering the building or street where it is located. It may not nominally be company policy to sell the product through vending machines, but the company cannot prevent that. There is no point in merely paying lip service to the principle. Whether the company likes it or not, vending machine sales are likely to happen.
  The letter is very carefully worded. It continues:
  "Our product flavours are not aimed at children."
  I have two packets here. One is peppermint flavoured and the other is berry flavoured and very sweet, to judge by the smell. The flavours may not be specifically aimed at children, but sweets tend to be attractive to children. Whether or not the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) or the company acknowledges it, it is inevitable that such products will be attractive to children.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I am sorry to be so persistent, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather more concerned than he needs to be. My investigations show that those are normal descriptions for snuff products. The description "peppermint flavour" is a normal description used by any tobacco company manufacturing snuff products. A person buying a packet of snuff would be asked which flavour was required. The company has merely taken the names of flavours used for snuff products.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Methinks the hon. Gentleman protests a little too much. I understand that the Doorkeeper
  1178
  has some snuff. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask him for some cherry flavour. He is trying very hard, but I do not think that he is convincing many people.
  Mr. Walters continues:
  "US Tobacco does not encourage or condone the distribution of free samples of Skoal Bandits to young children."
  Again, the words are very carefully chosen. Whether or not the company encourages or condones it, there is evidence of free distribution of samples to young children, as the BBC programme showed. Whether or not it is company policy, it has been going on in other countries and it is likely to happen here.
  On promotional policy, Mr. Walters states:
  "The Company has not offered T-shirts in small sizes."
  It is not impossible for small people to get into large T-shirts. At the public swimming pool in the area in which I live with my family I have seen quite young children in T-shirts bearing the Skoal Bandit logo.
  The letter refers to toy cars. It says:
  "The Company does not utilize or authorise the production of any toy cars with our product name on them."
  One only had to watch "That's Life!" the other night and one would have been able to see a toy car with the Skoal Bandits logo emblazoned on it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members need not worry, I have nearly finished with the letter.
  The letter refers to Government grants. It says:
  "The Company has not received £1 million from the Scottish Office. As a new company establishing employment in the area, we do of course qualify for the normal grants available."
  I should be fascinated to know how much the company has got. I tabled a question to the Scottish Office last December, to which the Under-Secretary of State replied:
  "There have been three offers of regional selective assistance over the past 10 years to companies in Scotland classified to the tobacco industry in the standard industrial classification. Details of grants offered in each year cannot be given as to do so would disclose information relating to individual companies."—[Official Repot?, 16 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 62.]
  Many people would be fascinated to know how much money has been handed out in the form of public incentives to that company and other companies. It is public money and people have a right to know what is going on.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray a little from his own Bill. I am sure that he will direct his remarks to the Third Reading.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am trying to deal with some of the points raised by this company in respect of my Bill.
  It would also be pertinent to mention the advertisement and promotion of the product. The Minister was kind enough to send all of the members of the Committee a copy of the new voluntary code of conduct, the voluntary agreement between the Government and tobacco companies on the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products. Unfortunately, as I understand it, that code does not apply to Skoal Bandits. A separate deal of some kind applies to them. The comments I have been making raise some concern about the conduct of this company in respect of promoting Skoal Bandits. There is cause for concern about that.
  My concern was borne out this time last week when I was speaking to the pupils of a primary school. Kingsmeadow primary school, in Haddington, in my constituency. I was giving the standard talk to

  1179
  schoolchildren about what Members of Parliament do. I was trying to say what splendid people we all are and what a useful job we do. I cited as an example my job of steering this private Member's Bill through the House. I mentioned that the Bill would have some bearing on the product called Skoal Bandits. When I said that, many little faces brightened up with recognition and they said, "Oh yes, we have heard of that product." They were primary schoolchildren, not 16-year-olds.
  We have seen that the company producing Skoal Bandits is sponsoring motor-cycle races and we have seen the logo on various advertising material. The children already knew about the product, knew the name and found it attractive. That is getting a little close to home and I am worried about it. The first thing is to get the product name known by youngsters and others and it is only a matter of time before some of them get a little pocket money, see the product in a shop and buy it. At that stage we have the next youngster taking a potentially addictive product.
  The product is certainly addictive if it is taken repeatedly over a relatively short period. It is extremely dangerous and can cause serious disfigurement and lethal diseases, including cancer of the mouth. That is obviously a matter of concern and I hope that the Government will, if necessary, reconsider legislative control of the promotion of this type of product.
  Obviously, the British Medical Association and others will keep a close eye on the effectiveness of the voluntary agreement. We hope that they will succeed, but I am afraid that the track record of earlier voluntary agreements has not been terribly satisfactory. Obviously, we hope that this agreement will work a little better.
  It is appropriate to thank everyone who has been involved in drafting and working on the Bill, in the House, in Committee and elsewhere. I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance and for the Government's active support for the principles in the Bill. I must stress that this is not one of those Bills produced by the Government and hopped around the Back Benches. It was the result of private enterprise on my part. I am grateful to the Minister for his active support of the principle when I raised the suggestion with him. I am particularly grateful for the original suggestion from the East Lothian local health council, which deals with such affairs in my own constituency. That organisation was concerned about the possible threat to youngsters in my area exposed to the type of advertising I have been talking about. It suggested that this legislation would be useful; that started the ball rolling.
  I am grateful to the British Medical Association, to Action on Smoking and Health and to many hon. Members on both sides of the House for their assistance during the consideration of the Bill. I am also grateful for that curious commodity, good fortune, which seldom comes the way of an Opposition Back Bencher, or even an Opposition Front Bencher, these days.
  As I said earlier, the Bill started life as No. 12 in the ballot. Here we are at No. 3, with the prospect of the Bill going to the House of Lords and hopefully landing on the statute book before long. As I said earlier, I hope that this legislation will lead to genuine action and a real crackdown on this pernicious trade and that we will see a diminution in the amount of tobaco products of all descriptions being sold to young people in this country.
  11.36 am
  Mr. Roger Sims: The Bill comes before us, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) mentioned, shortly after we have seen the new voluntary agreement on advertising and promotions. Whatever one's feelings may be about its shortcomings, one certainly welcomes the emphasis that it places on discouraging young people from taking up smoking.
  The Bill also comes before us shortly before we expect to see a voluntary agreement on sports sponsorship. It is encouraging to see that, at last, the broadcasters are recognising the influence that the broadcasting of sponsored sport has on young people. They are also beginning to recognise their responsibility when the sponsoring is carried out by tobacco companies. I hope that as a result of the new agreement, when we see it, and the recognition by the broadcasting authorities, we shall see some changes. For example, snooker is enjoyed for many hours by many people, but it has virtually become a continuous advertisement for cigarettes. It is bound to influence young people.
  As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, the Bill extends the definition of tobacco products and strengthens and clarifies the law on the sale of such products to the under-16s. Once the Bill becomes law, as we hope, it will be very important that it is complied with and enforced. The essence of our system of government is that the majority will comply with the law, and that it is necessary to enforce it in only a small number of cases. That is so over the whole range of conduct, whether we are talking about speeding or—dare I mention—Sunday trading. Whatever the area, unless the majority comply voluntarily with the law, we have anarchy or we shall have to move towards some sort of police state.
  In this context, therefore, a heavy responsibility lies upon the tobacco industry and retailers. It is to the credit of the industry that a feature of the new voluntary agreement is that it will devote £1 million to a campaign in the retail trade to prevent the sale of tobacco products to those under the age of 16. One realises the difficulties that face retailers, just as they face publicans, particularly nowadays, in telling whether a young person is over or under 16, especially girls.
  It is a sobering thought that 41 per cent. of children are smoking by the age of 16. The hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned the enormous sums of money spent on tobacco products by those youngsters. In a survey, 86 per cent. of those under 16 said that they had bought their cigarettes from machines or shops. There are far too many stories, such as the ones we have heard from the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), about retailers being willing to break packs and sell single cigarettes, for us to be able to dismiss them. Although, of course, I am not making a general condemnation of tobacco products retailers, that suggests that a relatively small number are deliberately, knowingly and continually breaking the law. They must cease that practice. I hope that the campaign to which I referred will be vigorously pursued by the industry.
  Difficult though it is bound to be for the police and local authorities to enforce the law, the fact that in one year there were but 45 prosecutions for selling cigarettes to those under 16 does not suggest that there is a dynamic enforcement campaign by the powers that be. One realises that the local authorities and the police have a wide range

  1181
  of responsibilities. All of us have experience and knowledge of many of the responsibilities and problems that face the police. Of course, we must keep the matter in perspective. However, an occasional blitz on tobacco retailers, supported by exemplary sentences by magistrates, would have some effect. I hope that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say that there will be a special push on that front. Perhaps it is as well, too, to remind retailers and the courts that tobacconists need a licence to sell tobacco products, and it is possible for that licence to be withdrawn.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian on the skilful way in which he has steered the Bill through Committee and the House, and, indeed, behind the scenes. I wish it well.
  11.43 am
  Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made a thoughtful contribution to the debate.
  It gives me no pleasure to be attempting to turn away jobs from my constituency, as it may appear. I appreciate that we have fairly high unemployment and jobs are extremely important, but other matters must be considered. The health of the community cannot be jeopardised by certain occupations. One must accept responsibility in that respect.
  The Bill is relatively modest. If some hon. Members are concerned about what they consider to be people's freedom to kill themselves as they please, I can understand their being heated about that. The Bill does not ban the production of tobacco products. It does not ban the production of the substance about which we are most concerned. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the book of the Irish Republic and ban it, but that is not what the Bill does.
  Surely those who are concerned about freedom should also be concerned about the encouragement or discouragement that is given to habits that are extremely dangerous to health. All that the Bill is trying to do is discourage people from taking up habits that are dangerous to them. There is no doubt that this is a dangerous habit. According to the figures that have been produced in the United States, in the past 10 years or so the number of people using substances similar to this has risen to about 7 million. Those people are mostly children. If one takes into account the differences in population in this country, that means that 2 million young people are at risk from the use of these substances.
  Those substances are extremely dangerous. Skoal Bandit dipping snuff contains nicotine, which is a powerful agent for raising blood pressure. It also contains carcinogens, which are cancer-causing substances. The nicotine product is absorbed from the mouth and enters the bloodstream very quickly. If enough is taken, it produces a sustained rise in blood pressure. If that occurs at an early age, there is cause for great concern for the future health of the individual. The person will probably continue to have high blood pressure in adult life, with subsequent danger to the heart, and cardiac conditions will ensue. Carcinogenous substances are causative factors in various types of cancers of the mouth and jaw and other areas such as the back of the nose and the pharynx.
  We would be remiss in our duty as legislators if, however much we are concerned about the right of people to take dangerous substances, we did not take two aspects into consideration. First, we must consider the extent to
  1182
  which we should make it clear to people that these substances are dangerous and discourage them from pursuing and adopting habits that are dangerous to their health. Secondly, we should consider the fact that the substance which the Bill pinpoints is attractive to a group of people who are not of an age to be able to determine such matters. If we are not in loco parentis, perhaps we should help parents to protect their children's health.
  I have no compunction in sponsoring a Bill such as this, because I consider it my duty not only as a medical practitioner but as a legislator to take such steps that I think will assist parents without interfering too much with their rights, in their attempt to ensure that the children they have borne will grow up as healthy adults and not subject themselves to useless pastimes and dangerous habits that will do a great deal to undo—to use a tortuous phrase—the good that has been done by a century of progress in improving health.
  11.50 am
  Mr. Michael Brown; I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on his skill in presenting this measure. I have no wish to prevent it from reaching the statute book. I welcome the measure, and although it is known in the House and outside that I take a liberal attitude towards the freedom of the individual even to harm him or herself—
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Liberals are not here.
  Mr. Brown: That is typical, of course.
  Although I am known to have a liberal attitude to the freedom of the individual, I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. When talking about minors and especially about people under the age of 16, we have a duty to recognise that that freedom must be restricted. I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman—that somebody who does not smoke nicotine products is likely to be healthier and less likely to endanger his health than someone who consumes tobacco products. In the absence of being in loco parentis, we have a duty as legislators. The House has taken the view in the past through legislation about children and young persons that it has to protect children from forming habits such as smoking, and if the law is weak and is not to fall into disrepute, it should be strengthened. The Bill seeks to do precisely that.
  All hon. Members have received a letter from US Tobacco International, Inc., and the whole of that letter should be placed on record so that there is no doubt about the company's attitude towards the Bill. I have no interest to declare. I have no financial interests with any tobacco company, but I met people in US Tobacco before the Second Reading of the Bill. I had lunch with them, but the only thing I received from the company was a box of 25 cigars. One cigar was offered to me at lunch and, the box having been broken, I was given the rest. That is the extent of my financial and personal interest in any tobacco company.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who made that tobacco product if the company that gave it to him did not?
  Mr. Brown: The company that manufactured the cigars given to me is US Tobacco. It manufactures cigars and Skoal Bandits in Britain. It does not manufacture cigarettes in Britain, nor do I think it manufactures

  1183
  cigarettes in the United States. The letter, which should be placed on the record, will assist the hon. Member for East Lothian and the House to recognise that US Tobacco approaches this Bill and its responsibilities seriously.
  I assume the letter that I have is the same as the one sent to other hon. Members. It reads:
  "Dear Mr. Brown,
  Following our conversation"—
  that was a conversation that I had with people in the company between Second Reading and today—
  "I am writing to give you some factual information upon a number of inaccuracies and apparent misunderstandings concerning my Company and our product Skoal Bandits, which were voiced in the official report upon the committee stage of the Tobacco Products (Sales Restrictions) Bill.
  As the manufacturers of Skoal Bandits we support this Bill, as it not only removes any potential misunderstandings or loopholes from the law, but should also serve to reinforce our long standing Company policy on age."
  Nothing could be more categorical than that statement.
  The letter goes on:
  "All bona fide Skoal Bandit retailers are aware of our policy of only directing our product at adults. Adults in this case being defined as aged eighteen or over. With regard to comments contained within the published minutes of the committee meeting, the following are factual points responding to specific statements made.
  Vending machine sales"—
  these have been spoken about this morning—
  "To the best of our knowledge Skoal Bandits are not currently offered through vending machines. The Company has no plans to produce a vending machine pack."
  That was also touched on by an hon. Member.
  "Our product flavours are not aimed at children. Nomenclature and flavouring has followed the traditional snuff products"—
  I made that point in an intervention—
  "where, as evidenced in retail trade publication price lists, similar product names are available"
  As I said earlier, those product names are used for the sale of snuff products.
  The letter goes on:
  "Falling cigarette sales—Skoal Bandits are not designed to meet falling cigarette sales. Our Company does not manufacture or market any cigarettes."
  Mr. Home Robertson: In the course of my speech I omitted to refer to falling cigarette sales. U.S. Tobacco says:
  "Skoal Bandits are not designed to meet falling cigarette sales."
  I have a slip of paper which I understand is enclosed in every packet of Skoal Bandits. It says:
  "A new way to enjoy tobacco. New Skoal Bandits is tobacco with a big difference; quite simply, you can now get real tobacco pleasure without lighting up—Skoal Bandits is an individual portion of fine quality mint flavoured tobacco in a handy little pre-moistened pouch. So you can now enjoy the taste and satisfaction of real tobacco anywhere, anytime—even when or where smoking isn't convenient or allowed."
  If that is not suggesting that this product can replace the use of cigarettes I do not know what is.
  Mr. Brown: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says. US Tobacco is making the point that, even if, with falling cigarette sales, some companies are trying to increase revenue by the manufacture of other products, it is not doing that. This company does not manufacture, and has not manufactured, cigarettes. Yes, it is seeking to capture the gap in the market caused by a decline in the consumption of cigarettes.
  1184
  Perhaps the company is providing a signal service towards solving the problem of how to stop the habit-forming cigarette syndrome. In the past, many people have tried to devise a means of consuming tobacco or tobacco substitute products so that the danger of cigarette smoking is reduced. I accept that there is a health risk from the consumption of Skoal Bandits. I do not deny that, but—I have no medical evidence to support this and I may stand corrected by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—although there is a health risk, there is less risk from consuming Skoal Bandits than if one were regularly to smoke cigarettes.
  Dr. Miller: I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the point in the letter about falling cigarette sales. It says:
  "Our company does not manufacture or market any cigarettes."
  That is a non sequitur. No one is saying that that company manufactures cigarettes and is marketing Skoal Bandits to counter its falling sales. Cigarette sales are falling and companies which want to get into the act of selling tobacco will use other means of doing so. The disclaimer which the company makes does not make sense when related to the first sentence in the letter, because nobody is saying that the company has been making cigarettes and its sales have fallen. The company has set up an Aunt Sally and tried to knock it down. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not try to ensure that this Bill does not go through.
  Mr. Brown: No.
  Dr. Miller: The company itself says that it wants the Bill. I would not be telling the truth if I were to say that this method of using tobacco is as dangerous as cigarette smoking, because it is not. Cigarette smoking is the most dangerous form of using tobacco. I accept that this product is not as dangerous as cigarettes, but it is still dangerous and could lead to cigarette smoking. In the main, it is young children who are taking it.
  Mr. Brown: I have no intention of frustrating the Bill's progress. If I had wanted to do that, I would have used the skills which some suggest I have in Committee or on Second Reading. I merely want to correct some of the misunderstandings that were expressed in Committee. It could be argued that some regular cigarette smokers have changed to Skoal Bandits and that they have contributed to a net gain in the nation's health. Skoal Bandits might have contributed to the fall in cigarette consumption.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of tobacco consumption might be beneficial in terms of the problem of secondary smoking?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some hon. Members who support the Bill more enthusiastically than I do would be the first to argue that there are many public places where non-smokers have to endure secondary smoking. The consumption of Skoal Bandits is much less dangerous to them and, to that extent, they are socially beneficial to non-smokers. There has been much debate about the adverse effects of smoking on nonsmokers.
  Mr. Hanley: I am aware that my hon. Friend does not want to destroy the Bill, but will he explain why the Republic of Ireland has recently banned all sales of Skoal Bandits?
  Mr. Brown: The Republic of Ireland's social policy—on abortion, for example—and its economic policy provide good examples of what not to do.
  Mr. Home Robertson: There seems to be one issue on which the people of the North and South of Ireland are united. I received a letter from health organisations in Northern Ireland yesterday expressing deep disappointment at the Northern Ireland Office's failure to co-operate with the Republic of Ireland to extend the ban to the entire island.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting into another debate. We must stick to the Bill, which concerns tobacco products being sold to people under 16. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject of the Bill.
  Mr. Brown: The next paragraph of the letter deals with precisely that. It says:
  "Free distribution of samples—US Tobacco does not encourage or condone the distribution of free samples of Skoal Bandits to young children. Any employee found to be knowingly sampling anyone under the age of eighteen will be dismissed. Our lawyers are currently investigating the allegations and claims made in the BBC programme 'That's Life'."
  That programme said that Skoal Bandits were sold to a 10-year-old boy in Keighley, Yorkshire, by a woman, the implication being that she was an employee of US Tobacco.
  Mr. Home Robertson: There was no such implication.
  Mr. Brown: The implication was in an interview. US Tobacco has investigated the incident and found that the person concerned was not an employee. If she had been, she would have been dismissed. The company welcomes the Bill because it will protect the company as well. The letter continues:
  "The Company has not offered T-shirts in small sizes. During a recent promotion, which was linked soley to purchase of product, respondents were only able to secure T-shirts in medium or larger sizes.
  The Company does not utilize nor authorise the production of any toy cars with our product name on them. We maintain vigilance on these issues and in the past our lawyers have contacted companys producing and selling such toys, instructing them to desist. In the light of the recent allegations on `Thats Life!' our lawyers are again investigating.
  The Company has not received £1 million from the Scottish Office. As a new company establishing employment in the area we do of course qualify for the normal grants available. In replying to a question in the House of Commons. Peter Morrison MP, Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry stated in February that the assistance provided to tobacco companies in England, Scotland and Wales under the Industrial Development Act 1982 (as amended) in the year to December 31, 1985 was £349,000."
  That is the total for all assistance under regional development grants—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called to order the promoter when he started to develop that argument, and I must do the same with the hon. Gentleman. He must return to the content of the Bill.
  Mr. Brown: I apologise, but I am anxious to put the record straight, as selective quotation of the letter might have given the impression that the company does not favour the Bill. It was alleged in Committee that the Government gave the company £1 million to set up a manufacturing plant. That is simply not true.
  Mr. Dobson: What is the truth?
  Mr. Brown: The truth is that a total of £349,000 has been given through regional assistance to all tobacco companies in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dobson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the figure quoted by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, includes grant given by the Scottish Development Agency?
  Mr. Brown: I could find that out. The company says that the parliamentary answer said that
  "the assistance provided to tobacco companies in England"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must pay attention to my ruling. He is now going over the Committee stage, which is wholly irregular on Third Reading. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Bill. If he does not, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Brown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will realise that it is difficult to do that when the company is responding to criticisms that were made in Committee. I acknowledge your injunction, Sir, and I will have to rely on the last paragraph of the letter, which refers to the "That's Life!" programme. I hope that all hon. Members who have a copy of that letter read the last paragraph carefully.
  US Tobacco, which manufactures Skoal Bandits, welcomes this Bill, as I do, because it clarifies the matter. I acknowledge, as does the company, that this House is responsible for ensuring that the law is obeyed in relation to selling cigarette products and tobacco-related products to children under 16 years of age. Skoal Bandits are omitted from the description of "tobacco products". I accept that Skoal Bandits are tobacco products and should therefore be included in the schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act. US Tobacco is not in the business of selling its product to children under the age of 16; indeed, it does not wish to market its product to persons under the age of 18. If anything, the company is more vigilant than would be the case under the Bill.
  I submit that this company has an honourable record in the context of tobacco companies. It is not irresponsible and has a fine reputation in the United States. It provides a number of jobs in this country. The record of the hon. Member for East Kilbride in relation to tobacco and its dangers is proud and honourable. It is courageous for the hon. Member to take his principled stand on this matter, when he has within his constituency the factory that is manufacturing Skoal Bandits. I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not changed his view, even though it must be said that US Tobacco is regarded by the Government with favour to the extent that it has received a grant from the Scottish Development Agency.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing a tobacco company or regional grants. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he must take notice of what I say; otherwise I shall have to order him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Brown: I apologise once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that this company seeks to carry out its obligations and responsibilities honourably with regard to children under the age of 16. That the Government regard it in that light is borne out by the fact that the company manufactures that product in this country. Thus, I suggest that the House

  1187
  should take at face value the letter that the company wrote to all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee.
  I have made it plain that I do not want to prevent this Bill from reaching the statute book. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian on introducing it. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have strayed in my remarks; it was certainly not deliberate on my part. I normally strive to the utmost to remain in order, so I apologise for trespassing a little on your good will.
  12.15 pm
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: Having just recovered from your announcement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following the third reading of the Corneal Tissue Bill, that the Ayes had it, and having then gone on to read the Standing Committee report of this Bill, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred to the incident of caning in his youth, I thought it high time to concentrate on the important details of the Bill.
  There are three main points to make. I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), in introducing the Bill, was concerned with much more than Skoal Bandits. Many other similar products are not necessarily marketed in the same way but are coming on to the market and have tobacco as part of their make-up. They are dangerous to young people and encourage them to take up smoking.
  On this point I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes when he says he believes that the use of these products might actually reduce the habit-forming syndrome, as he calls it. I do not believe that that is true; I believe that products such as Skoal Bandits may start young people on the road to smoking. If a product is given a sweet or peppermint tobacco flavour and young people acquire a taste for that product, the step from there to the habit of smoking is smaller than going straight to smoking cigarettes. I am worried that the availability of such products will be a dangerous step towards the habit-forming syndrome and will increase the incidence of smoking among young people.
  Mr. Michael Brown: When my hon. Friend passes through the doors of this House he is subjected to temptation because there is a smell of snuff, a pinch of which I had before I came into the House. Is he suggesting that, because the snuff is flavoured in a rather delightful way, every hon. Member who is a non-smoker of tobacco, and cigarettes in particular, but who takes a pinch of snuff is increasing the risk of then smoking cigarettes?
  Mr. Moynihan: I know that, in his half-hour speech, my hon. Friend seemed to forget that the substance of the Bill is about young people under the age of 16 and the influence that Skoal Bandits and similar sweets could have on them in creating the habit of smoking cigarettes. We should be directing all our attention today to those people and not concentrating on people who later in life may decide to take snuff or to smoke. Although that is important, it is not central to the Bill.
  What is relevant to the Bill is that, unless we extend the description of tobacco products, young people will have a greater incentive to start smoking cigarettes by first
  1188
  starting on sweet and flavoured snuff. That is why I strongly support the Bill, because it extends the description of tobacco products to cover not only Skoal Bandits but a whole host of goods which are beginning to come on to the market and which will have a dangerous effect.
  Referring again to the intervention, I do not believe that we should under-estimate the extent of this problem. I understand that 30 per cent. of fifth formers are regularly smoking and that £90 million per annum is spent on tobacco products by those under 16. Thus, we have an enormous problem. While I strongly welcome the decrease in the incidence of smoking, what is particularly worrying is that at present there is an increase in the incidence of young people smoking. That is extremely important, and one reason why I warmly welcome the Bill.
  Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend not believe that perhaps the reason for increased smoking among the young is increased advertising at sporting events, although they are supposed to inspire the young to health?
  Mr. Moynihan: I do not want to be drawn now into discussing a point that is not essential to the Third reading, but I do not believe that that is true. An effective voluntary agreement is the solution to that problem, not a total ban. Much as I hate smoking—I do not smoke myself and dislike the secondary effects—I believe a voluntary and effective agreement—persuasion, not compulsion—is the solution and the hallmark of representative Government on this issue.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Moynihan: I will not give way again, because several other hon. Members wish to speak and other hon. Members who have sponsored Bills want to bring them forward. I hope they will have time to do so.
  I should like to draw attention to another main point which is relevant to the Bill. It is a key debating point because it covers prosecutions and how we can effect the implementation of the Bill. I am worried because in 1984 only 42 prosecutions for selling cigarettes to young people went ahead. There is no doubt that such sales are widespread. We must tackle the problem, but it is difficult to do more than merely persuade the retailers through debates such as this that they have a major social and legal responsibility to young people. The time has come for a well-publicised campaign by local authorities and the police. One cannot expect the campaign to run year in, year out, but I believe that a campaign similar to the television licence campaign would be effective. The problem is under-estimated both inside and outside the House, and it is vital that it should be tackled.
  I would not adopt the idea of identity cards, which was suggested in Standing Committee as one way of tackling the problem of young people buying cigarettes, and would not expect a massive increase in the policing of retail outlets, but a well-publicised campaign would reduce the considerable danger of escalation. Unless the Bill is passed, there will be more products such as Skoal Bandits. I hope that the House recognises that so much money is spent on cigarettes by those under 16 and that the dangers of cancer of the mouth and tongue from these alternative products are so serious that we should pass the legislation as rapidly as possible. The House should give the hon. Member for East Lothian all possible support.
  12.21 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I apologise to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and to the House for missing the Report stage. I came to the House as quickly as I could and was glad to be here for Third Reading.
  The Bill is right in principle, but I am not sure that it will achieve the ambitions of the Bill's sponsor and those who closely supported him. Sometimes it is difficult to identify 16-year-olds. Well-grown nine-year-olds can take in people by looking a young 16. Young people can make themselves look older than they are.
  Recently, I toured the cancer and heart wards at the Central Middlesex hospital with an eminent surgeon from near my constituency. We looked at people suffering heart disease. The surgeon was convinced that the heart disease and cancer in the patients we saw had been caused by smoking. He felt that some people started smoking before they were 16. I saw some horrific and sad cases. I am not in a position, nor do I seek, to quarrel with the medical profession. I realise from observation the dangers of smoking. I believe that widespread advertising to show people the dangers of smoking may be so agressive that it is self-defeating.
  I smoked quite a lot between the ages of nine and 16 but did not smoke much after 16. I have not smoked cigarettes, cigars or pipe tobacco for many years. In January, my 80-year-old uncle died. He has told me that he started to smoke when he was a toddler. The post mortem showed that, although he had smoked all his life and had had a ghastly graveyard cough for 60 or 70 years, he was as clean as a whistle. There was no sign of cancer in the mouth, the lungs or anywhere else. It may be a little dangerous to generalize—
  Mr. Dobson: Stupid.
  Mr. Greenway: —like that twerp on the Opposition Front Bench who makes fatuous remarks from a sedentary position on a serious and proven point.
  Mr. Dobson: Prove it, then.
  Mr. Greenway: It is proven. I have seen it with my own eyes. I am describing a member of my own family. He was one of a large number of individuals who lived and died in the way I described. He did not suffer the scourge of cancer. It has been suggested that someone who lived and smoked as he did would have died from cancer.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman should understand that the Royal College of Physicians does not believe that it is inevitable that a person will die of cancer-related diseases if he smokes. It says only that smoking kills 100,000 people a year. Anecdotes about 90-year-olds who smoke 100 cigarettes a day will not counter that fact.
  Mr. Greenway: I do not just suggest that the Royal College makes that claim. The hon. Gentleman has no basis for saying that. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would not have made such an erroneous remark. I hope that he will listen carefully because I am speaking sincerely and am not seeking to defeat the Bill. It is right to express reservations. We are not here to rubber-stamp the measures of other hon. Members, however sincere they are and however strongly they feel. Generalisations on smoking and on non-smoking abound. It is right to allay some of the fears.
  1190
  I respect the need to protect young people from smoking. I spent 23 years in the teaching profession and often punished pupils as severely as I could to try to prevent them from smoking. However, hounding people too severely can push them in the opposite direction. Seven hundred of my constituents work at Gallagher's in Northolt. They are thoroughly honourable and produce fine cigarettes and tobacco. I talk with them often about the arguments against smoking. They feel that the claims against smoking are sometimes excessive and often unproven. The onus rests with those making the generalisations, particularly about those under 16, to prove their point. I ask the Bill's promoters to bear that in mind.
  Voluntary agreements which are thought to have the power to influence those under 16 can work both ways. If agreement is voluntary, it is voluntary. Some people will voluntarily respect it, and others will voluntarily oppose or ignore it. We must accept that. If people make a voluntary agreement, hoping to achieve a complete prohibition, in this case, of smoking, but fail to do so, they should remember that the agreement is voluntary and that they cannot enforce it. One must remember the meaning of "voluntary", and either seek complete prohibition honestly or remember the voluntary principle. When a matter is voluntary, sometimes one achieves one's hope, but sometimes one does not. Almost always, one compromises.
  One must warn, advise and persuade people against smoking, but one must not take away their right to choose to do so, especially when other people are not affected, and particularly if they have been warned. Providing they know the dangers to their health, they must be allowed the right to choose. That is an important democratic principle. After all, many young and old people have far worse addictions than smoking, such as drugs. Many people, even those under 16, depend on Valium or cocaine, and others are addicted to excessive alcohol and spirits. It is important to remember that, when we rightly rail against the evils of smoking.
  Mr. Michael Brown: One of the substances which people under 16 are particularly fond of consuming and which is extremely bad for their health—I sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) is not present—is sugar. It is one of the most terrifying health risks to children under 16. Those who support the Bill should be equally worried about the consumption of excess sugar by those under 16.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill deals with tobacco products. I have been tolerant with the hon. Member, but he is beginning to widen the debate about the merits of tobacco products. We are on Third Reading, and speeches must be related strictly to the provisions in the Bill. I remind the House, yet again, that we are dealing only with those under the age of 16.
  Mr. Greenway: There is no question in my mind that we are dealing with those under 16, and I shall be careful to respond to your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I feel that I am straying.
  Shakespeare said that forbidden fruits taste the sweetest. One of the difficulties of forbidding smoking is that it makes it attractive to the young. The main reason why young children smoke is because they know that adults and teachers dislike it intensely. We have little alternative but to forbid it, but it produces the major

  1191
  disciplinary difficulty in schools of overcoming children's attraction to smoking because adults object to it, for all the good reasons. Children smoke in lavatories and behind buildings. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but I know that from my long experience. If he had more experience of wider matters, he would make more pungent, cogent speeches than he does. It is a serious matter, and if he is amused at my point, I can tell him of a school in which pupils aged over 16 were thought to have a big influence on those under 16.
  The hon. Gentleman may know the school. The example of older children on younger children is real. If those over 16 are seen to smoke it encourages younger children to do so. In this particular school a new and able head decided that he would hit hard at those under 16 who smoked, and throw the book at them. He decided to allow those aged over 16 to smoke in a sixth form room, separated for the purpose, and away from another sixth form room where there was strictly no smoking.
  The removal of the excitement felt by over-16s about defying school rules on smoking caused the practice to die. They no longer wanted to smoke. The object of the exercise was achieved much more effectively than by imposing excessive penalties on smokers, which is the approach that the House is in danger of inroducing with the Bill. I do not suggest that if we permit under-16s to smoke the habit will fade away, but excessive prohibition and compulsion make it exciting and we shall not achieve what we wish.
  The moral is obvious. Our duty to conduct ourselves properly, to remain in good health and to make the best possible contribution to society is best achieved through freedon to choose. That is always more effective than trying to get people to do the right thing by endless and often mindless compulsion.
  12.36 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I support the Bill. I apologise to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for having been absent during the earlier stages of the Bill, but it was my only opportunity to register for the London marathon.
  As a Member of Parliament for a Bristol constituency, my support for the Bill may not have been automatically expected, but there is no doubt that the tobacco industry nationwide opposes sales to young people. The extension of legislation to any tobacco product is advantageous, because I and many people believe that the best way to stop people smoking is by education. If we encourage children to smoke at an early age by providing what one might describe as ersatz products, we automatically introduce children to cigarettes.
  With many hon. Members, I have received representations on the subject of Skoal Bandits. One of my constituents, a Mrs. Smith of 3 Butler House, has written to me expressing grave concern that they encourage young people into the habit of smoking, and I share that view.
  My only reservation about the Bill—if the matter has already been explained I apologise for raising it again—is that clause 3(2) says that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The point was mentioned briefly. My first draft of the Bill included an amendment
  1192
  to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order, but the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for health advised me that that was not the most appropriate way to deal with the matter in Northern Ireland. I have been assured that the Government will introduce a parallel measure for Northern Ireland through the appropriate mechanism.
  Mr. Hayward: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. With those few comments, I express further support for the Bill and hope that it receives a fair passage through both Houses.
  12.39 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Most hon. Members recognise that we should step up the effort to stop the under-age use of tobacco products, which are undoubtedly being promoted deliberately by the tobacco companies, in some cases with the connivance of the BBC through the excessive showing of tobacco company-sponsored events, for which the companies should be charged. I welcome the additional restrictions that are proposed in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
  No one believes that an approach based solely on restrictions is likely to succeed. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the publicity campaigns held to date to induce people to stop smoking have succeeded with some groups but have signally failed with others. We need much more emphasis on publicity campaigns that will have an effect on the groups that have taken least notice to date, including young people. It has always been against the law to sell tobacco products to those aged under 16, and it is a welcome proposition that we should increase the efficacy of that law. We hope that the Government will exhort prosecuting authorities throughout the country to take the matter seriously.
  The other purpose of the Bill is to bring Skoal Bandits within the ambit of the law. I believe that these products are wholly infamous. In our discussion on the Bill on corneal tissues there were references to bringing entrepreneurs into health. In this case, entrepreneurs are bieng brought into ill health. On the very day when the company launched its product in Britain, the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security and his equivalent in Scotland advised every doctor that the use of the thing was dangerous and likely to induce cancer that could disfigure and cause death. It is a barmy society that is prepared to countenance giving Government grants to build a factory to produce a product which the chief medical officer then has to advise doctors is likely to kill some of their patients. That is plain loopy. We should resist that approach. It is regrettable that US Tobacco has been permitted to set up its plant in this country at all.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the contents of the letter from J. R. Walter, Director of Marketing Europe. All I can say is that the letter to hon. Members from US Tobacco is cant and humbug from start to finish.
  Mr. Forth: What basis has the hon. Gentleman for saying that?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman need only compare what is happening with what is contained in the letter. I do not propose to burden the House by going through it

  1193
  in detail again. Other hon. Members have already done so, some of them have been ruled out of order, and I wish to remain within the rules of order.
  We have also heard preposterous arguments that it may be less dangerous to use Skoal Bandits than to smoke cigarettes, and therefore Skoal Bandits are all right. Someone who has habitually played Russian roulette with two live rounds in the chamber might as well propose to use only one live round instead. It would be sensible to oppose playing Russian roulette at all, and we should oppose tobacco products altogether.
  The Bill is a welcome measure extending present and new controls to cover Skoal Bandits. The advertising used by US Tobacco shows at what market the product is aimed. In the very box that the stinking—literally stinking—things are sold in, we read:
  "Like your first beer Skoal Bandits can be a taste that might take a few days to acquire and get the most out of. You'll need time to work out how often to take Skoal Bandits, and how long to leave it in. Time to adjust to this new way to tobacco satisfaction. It's up to you, but whatever you do, stick with it."
  The real stuff!
  That advertising is in line with the promotional efforts of the tobacco companies, which are determined, as always, to recruit new, young users of tobacco products. The industry is unique in that it kills 100,000 consumers every year, and it is therefore obliged to encourage new recruits. I welcome the measure and its limited restrictions.
  12.46 pm
  Mr. Whitney: I have no wish to prolong the Third Reading, but I want to make a few comments.
  First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on his success in the ballot and on reaching this stage with his important Bill. I acknowledge his generosity in thanking us for the help that we have given him. We in the Department have been pleased to help him in his endeavours.
  The Bill has secured a large measure of agreement, although with some slight tepidity. We share the desire to protect youngsters from the evil consequences of tobacco in all its forms and to dissuade adults from supplying it to them. The Government are fully committed to that objective. We want to reduce the appalling incidence of preventable disease and premature death associated with tobacco, and the Bill is an important step toward strengthening the law on the illegal sale of tobacco products to youngsters under the age of 16.
  The extent of smoking among young people was referred to by several hon. Members and is of major concern to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has some doubts about the efficacy of the Government's activities in relation to the voluntary agreement, but the voluntary agreement's record has been good in significantly reducing smoking among adults. Other countries have adopted other measures, such as statutory prohibition, which have proved less efficacious than our voluntary scheme. We have even greater hopes of the new voluntary agreement.
  We share a concern about the disturbing tendency among the young to smoke. That is one of the reasons why we are spending about £2 million a year, through the Health Education Council, on health education programmes against smoking. Many of the programmes are aimed at children. The Government have funded a £1
  1194
  million pilot media campaign in two television regions to discourage teenage smoking. The campaign has a weight equivalent to spending about £6 million nationally. It is the first time that an anti-smoking promotion of this weight has been used on television.
  The new voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising includes several provisions specifically designed to protect young people, and as part of it a further £1 million is being spent by the industry in a campaign telling retailers that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to young people. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). It is a happy coincidence of circumstances that we have the new agreement, and, subject to whatever might happen along the corridor, that we will have the Bill on the statute book.
  We have also had to concern ourselves, at some risk to parliamentary convention, with the new threat posed by oral tobacco, now on sale in many parts of Britain, and the associated risk of mouth cancer. The main brand being promoted is Skoal Bandits. The Government deplore their introduction to the UK, and, as we have heard, their promotion, especially the potential attractions of the product for children, has been one of the main concerns expressed by the House. We are worried not only because of the established link with mouth cancers, but because of the threat of dependence on nicotine.
  The Government have listened carefully to calls for stronger action against this product. Since the Committee stage, officials from my Department have been in contact with the manufacturers of Skoal Bandits, U.S. Tobacco International, Inc. I am pleased to inform the House that the company has accepted that certain health warnings ought to appear on the packs and on the advertising material and that the rules governing promotion and sale of the product should be considerably strengthened. The details are yet to be negotiated, but I thought that hon. Members would wish to be aware of the new position. The precise nature of the warnings will require consideration, but our aim will be to make clear that these products may cause oral cancer and that they should not be considered a safe alternative to cigarette smoking. I hope that the House will welcome these moves as wholly consistent with the Bill's objectives, and with the speeches of most hon. Members today.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Has not the company's approach been most co-operative and shown that it does not engage in humbug? Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department has had a good relationship with the company?
  Mr. Whitney: I am happy to confirm that the statement that I have been able to make is on the basis of the exchanges that we have had with the company. I welcome that outcome, as I hope does the rest of the House. We now look forward to concluding those changes and working out the details of the negotiations on the voluntary agreement.
  It is necessary to update the seperate Acts for England and Scotland that deal with the sale of tobacco. These date back to 1933 and 1937—long before medical evidence of the dangers of smoking had emerged. Nor were they drafted with oral tobacco products in mind. Therefore, it was necessary to update the Act, and this has happily been achieved in the work that we have done on the Bill.
  The Government may seek to make a modest change to the Bill when it is considered in the other place. This

  1195
  concerns the possible inclusion of a statutory presumption in the Scottish Act to make it clear that the products covered by the Act, and so labelled, contain tobacco. This change may be necessary because of the differences between the criminal procedures in Scotland and England, and it would make it easier to obtain convictions under Scottish law. I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian in particular will recognise that point.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful for that clarification, and anything that will make it easier to deter this pernicious trade is welcome. Is it the Government's intention to institute an effective crack down against this massive trade, and is advice to be given to the prosecution authorities and the police, when and if the Bill reaches the statute book, that they should institute prosecutions where they find that such trade is continuing?
  Mr. Whitney: I hope that the Government's attitude is extremely clear from the measures that I have already outlined with regard to young people and smoking. I have no doubt at all that once a new measure is on the statute book my hon. Friends in the Departments concerned will take every necessary step to ensure that the new law is applied appropriately.
  I believe that we have reached the point at which I should again congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian and his colleagues on the way in which the passage of the Bill has been achieved so far. I have been very happy to collaborate with the hon. Gentleman, because to a large extent we share the wish to make progress in this area. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take us still further, but on the Bill we are entirely at one and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Horticultural Produce Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  12.57 pm
  Sir John Wells: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  As the House knows, the Second Reading took place without debate and rather more suddenly than we had expected. I should therefore express my thanks to my hon. Friend for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) for helping me out of a little difficulty in that regard. As there was no Second Reading debate, it might be convenient if I make a few brief remarks now, although I do not wish to go over all the ground that was covered fairly fully in Committee on Wednesday as time is short and other hon. Members wish to bring forward other measures.
  As the House knows, ever since I became a Member of Parliament I have taken a keen interest in the well-being of British horticulture and I have always been eager to support any initiative to improve its position and quality. In the past 10 years or so there has been a gradual but noticeable improvement in the marketing standards of home grown produce generally. On Tuesday of this week the Apple and Pear Development Council laid on an excellent presentation in Westminster Hall which was visited by about 100 Members from all parties. Members in all parts of the House are therefore aware of the improving quality of British produce.
  It is essential, however, that we look forward to further improvement. The more forward-looking growers are well aware that if they are to compete with high quality, well presented imports they must offer good products effectively marketed. Value for money can be offered by improving quality as well as by keeping down prices.
  One of the factors in bringing about the improvement has been the European Community common quality standards for fresh fruit and vegetables, which have brought new confidence to the market place by setting recognised standards to which all growers and traders must adhere. Broadly, the aim is to keep products of unsatisfactory quality off the market.
  In Committee on Wednesday my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), who is well known for his assiduous interest on behalf of the wholesale fruit and vegetable trade, spoke of certain anxieties expressed about the Bill by the National Federation of the Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Trade. I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and to a lesser extent myself, did what we could to allay those fears.
  One important point must be repeated on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that the wholesale trade would like closer inspection and controls at farm shops and pick-your-own stalls. I do not believe that that is strictly appropriate. At the wholesale end of the market, the ultimate customer cannot inspect every item of goods. At the farm shop, however, the buyer can see every apple, cauliflower and lettuce. In this protectionist age, I am still a great believer in caveat emptor. In a farm shop the emptor has every chance to look out. Therefore, the fears expressed by the national federation of the wholesale trade were probably misplaced.

  1197
  The farm shop movement is majoring in freshness, if the House will allow such a word. I believe that the freshness element that is being put forward by farm shops is excellent. There are one or two grotty stalls, but no customer with any sense will go to a grotty stall, or if he goes once he will not go again. Nobody buys large quantities at a farm stall. Therefore, if somebody is caught with indifferent produce, he is wise enough to avoid it a second time.
  The wholesale trade has another legitimate anxiety. It fears that the great bulk of the weight of inspection must be done in the wholesale markets, because we are, sadly, short of inspectors. There are not many of these distinguished and assiduous people, who are some of the finest public servants that we have. They work difficult hours on cold early mornings and do an extremely fine job. However, there are not many of them and they must work where there is the greatest bulk of produce. Inevitably, that is in the wholesale market.
  In Committee I stressed the fact that most traders freely give all the details requested. However, there are a minority who do not give the details and who cause trouble. It is with a view to bringing that minority into a position where the good name of the trade and the quality of British produce will be maintained and improved that we have brought this modest little measure before the House. I hope that hon. Members will give it a Third Reading.
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I acknowledge and welcome the motivation of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) in bringing this measure to the House. I am sure that we all applaud, as we must always, the search for the means to ensure quality and reliability of produce, especially home produce, when it is being bought by our own people. I fully acknowledge the correctness of those motivations, but I have one or two small reservations about the terms of the measure before us.
  One reservation was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone in Committee, when he said:
  "it is not intended that the powers should be used extensively or result in a large number of prosecutions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 April 1986; c. 2.]
  That is an admirable statement of intent or aspiration, but how it is possible, at this stage, for us to judge the number of prosecutions that may take place as a result of this measure is difficult for me to see. We all hope that very few people will be liable to prosecution, but one cannot tell, at this stage, to what extent prosecutions will take place. Therefore, that causes me some concern.
  I am even more concerned because in my constituency there have been occasions when prominent horticulturists who have repeatedly been prosecuted for offences such as overloading vehicles have felt that they were being discriminated against and unduly harshly treated. Therefore, I regard what is proposed with some trepidation. If that is the sort of case that is dealt with in a different area of the law, there might be a danger here.
  Why does one need to introduce a full panoply of bureaucracy and regulations in an area such as this? One has only to look, for example, at a body such as the Worshipful Company of Fruiterers, which has been established for some 700 years and has huge experience in this area, and ask oneself why we need such a Bill. We
  1198
  could instead look to a voluntary, charitable body with experience in an area such as this which would be well capable or, I would suggest, more capable of policing and reinforcing standards of produce and so on. It is always a source of some regret to me that we are forced to go down the road of statutory regulation rather than look to voluntary bodies, as we do with the goldsmiths or fishmongers, and many other bodies of long-standing excellence, which are allowed by us to impose standards and rules.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: The hon. Gentleman uses the goldsmiths as an example of a self-regulatory body, but hallmarking of gold and silver by Government-appointed assayists is the longest standing quality control on behalf of the consumer in the world.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The point that I am trying to make is that in our search for the best means to maintain standards, my preference is always the voluntary self-regulating approach, as far as possible, rather than going too far down the road of statutory obligations and public officials doing the work. My limited reservations about the measure revolve round that area.
  I should like to ask a few questions about the detailed provisions in the Bill. They revolve around clause 3, which refers to normal practice, which I always find slightly worrying. It states:
  "The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument make such amendments to this Act as they think fit for the purpose of changing the circumstances in which an authorised officer is required to give written consent to the movement of produce."
  Thus, there is scope for changes to be made by statutory instrument. The clause goes on to say:
  "Before making such an order, the Ministers shall consult such organisations as appear to them to represent interests likely to be affected by the order."
  That is all well and good, but one wonders, in such circumstances, what might be in the ministerial mind when searching for representative bodies to consult.
  Sir John Wells: It is my understanding that when the Bill was first thought up, before it came to me, all sectors of the trade were fully consulted. It has been given a fair wind by all sectors of the trade. The only modest reservations were the ones that I mentioned. I thought that it was important to take the House into my confidence about the small reservations, which were fully aired in Committee.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to let the House know what the Committee knew. I hope he will concede that there is always an area of lingering doubt in such matters when, as we must rightly do, we leave it to the discretion of Ministers to determine when they make alterations by statutory instrument to adjust to changing circumstances, and, more important, when it is left to them to decide who will be consulted. We all must have had experience from time to time of bodies which feel aggrieved because they have not been consulted in a particular case. However, the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has carried with him all the major elements of the trade gives the House confidence when considering the measure.
  I wanted to air those limited reservations about the Bill, because one has to accept that it is vital to the horticulture industry that we are ever more vigilant over the

  1199
  maintenance of quality and standards. The work done by the Apple and Pear Development Council is a good example. That must be done so that we can make the best case for our consumers to consume our own products. In the past we have not always been of the best. However, any measure such as this, which helps in any way to achieve that end, must be welcomed by the House. I welcome it for that reason.
  1.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) on his success in the ballot and on his wisdom in promoting the Bill. The Government fully support the aims of the Bill and believe that if enacted it will be of considerable assistance to our inspectors in seeking to improve the quality of horticultural produce on the market by the effective enforcement of the quality standards for fruit and vegetables. Therefore, I hope very much that the Bill will be given its Third Reading today and that it will be agreed in another place in due course and reach the statute book.
  Improved quality and improved marketing are essential to the success of the British horticulture industry in today's competitive environment, so any measure that will help the application of the quality standards must be in the longer-term interest of the industry. Likewise, any improvement in quality will help to ensure the availability of first-class produce, which is what today's consumers are coming more and more to expect, and rightly so.
  In practical terms, the Bill will give horticultural marketing inspectors, and the equivalent officers in Scotland, the power to put a stop order on defective produce to prevent it being moved. The intention is to stop a minority of traders moving defective produce around to avoid being caught.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) mentioned the trade's reservations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) expressed. I trust that we have reassured our hon. Friend and the trade. I listened carefully to the suggestion that we would be supporting an additional bureaucracy. We have an obligation under Community regulations, and arising from our responsibility to consumers, to enforce standards at all stages of distribution. It is clearly in our interests to do that as efficiently as possible. There is an obstacle to efficient enforcement—we cannot put a stop notice on to prevent the small minority of traders from moving produce about to avoid being caught.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire expressed anxiety about clause 3(1), which empowers us to make changes. This is a legitimate worry. We are contemplating only minor alterations. It would be a great nuisance if it was necessary to have primary legislation to achieve the same effect.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Gaming (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  1.14 pm
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am grateful for the expeditious manner in which the early stages of the Bill have been taken. It did not have a Second Reading in this House. As it was introduced in another place, perhaps I should explain its purpose. Its only purpose is to amend section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968 so as to enable a person who has bought chips by means of a cheque in a casino, during or immediately after the time during which he has been gambling in that casino, to redeem that cheque.
  The Bill has a most respectable parentage, in that it carries out the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Gambling and implements two of the proposals of that Commission. No one can say it has been brought forward with undue speed, because the Royal Commission reported as long ago as July 1978, and as long ago as 1979 the then Home Secretary said that the Government accepted the proposals for change and would be prepared to implement them when there was an opportunity for legislation. That opportunity has now arrived.
  The Bill was introduced in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, an ex-Minister of State, Home Office, and it had the important support of Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who, as Sir Philip Allen, was a permanent secretary in the Home Office at the time the original legislation was taken through. More importantly, for the last few years he has been the chairman of the Gaming Board for Great Britain.
  Gaming in Britain is strictly controlled. The Gaming Act 1968 exercises strict control over the operation of gambling casinos, and one of the important provisions of that Act deals with the granting or the prohibition of credit. The effect of the 1968 Act means that any cheque that is given in exchange for chips or cash to enable a person to take part in gaming has to be delivered to a bank for payment or collection within two banking days.
  Under the law as it stands at present, a cheque once given by a person cannot be redeemed by him when he cashes up at the end of the night, should he be successful and have chips that he wishes to return for cash. It means that the casino, having accepted that person's cheque in payment for the chips, is required to give back to him either cash or the casino's own cheque for the total value of the chips that he returns. A casino cannot give back to him his own cheque for redemption as part payment.
  The only person who can possibly benefit from that situation is a dishonest person who gave a cheque, was then successful in the casino and received either the casino's cheque or cash in exchange for the chips that he returned, and the casino then found that the person had dishonoured his cheque when it was taken to the bank to be cashed.
  In preparing its report, the Royal Commission on gaming visited some 40 casinos. I should like to quote one sentence from its report:
  "From our visits to casinos we have found that this aspect of the gaming laws"—
  that is, the inability to redeem a cheque—

  1201
  "causes more irritation than any other, both for the casino proprietors"—
  obviously, for the reasons that I have explained—
  "and for their customers who equally often wish to redeem the cheque that they have earlier given."
  This is a sensible amendment. As I say, it has been brought forward with the knowledge and approval of the Gaming Board for Great Britain. The only other matter that I should add is that it is accepted that this change in the law will require that the right to redeem a cheque should be accompanied by regulations specifying the detailed records of transactions that casinos will be required to keep for inspection by the Gaming Boards for Great Britain. Therefore, the Bill ensures that it cannot come into being until a date appointed by the Secretary of State so that one can be sure that the amending regulations are in a suitable position before the Bill becomes law.
  1.21 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thoroughly approve of this measure and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) on the skill with which he has brought it to this stage. His arguments have been heard by no one until now, but that is a measure of the success and wisdom of this legislation. I agree with the Bill, but I believe that one point is missing; it may be an extension, but it would strengthen further the power of the casino to enhance the way in which credit asked for temporarily by a customer with the deposit of a cheque could be enforced. Nowhere in the Bill does it provide that a customer, when the casino tenders back to him a redeemed cheque, has to receive it; it merely says that the casino may give back a cheque. It allows, through this change of the law, for the customer to receive his own, as it were, IOU, and to tear it up after a successful night's gambling. Nowhere does it say that the customer has to receive back his cheque.
  I believe that in this Bill we should take the opportunity not only to allow a casino the right to give a cheque back or to give its own cheque if it wishes to do so, but also to make it an obligation on the person presenting the cheque in the first place—the person who has given credit to that cheque and held it out to value—to receive back
  1202
  that cheque if the casino so requires. At the moment, it does not seem that the law forbids a customer to refuse his cheque, although in those circumstances the casino would be put upon inquiry and no doubt it would be within its rights to hold on to the cheque prior to encashment. Perhaps the Minister will explain why there has not been included in the Bill the insistence that the customer should take back his own cheque if the casino so requires.
  1.23 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): First, I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) for introducing the Bill—a modest measure, as he pointed out, in relation to a fairly complex background of legislation formed by the 1968 Gaming Act. The Bill has been recommended by, and has withstood the scrutiny of, another place and amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. In addition, I assure the House that the Gaming Board, which is the watchdog set up by Parliament to regulate this industry, is satisfied and considers that the measure is good. As has already been made clear, regulations will be made, on the advice of the Gaming Board, by the Home Secretary in relation to the content of the provisions required.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) raised a point on which I will have to take advice. However, there are two aspects to it. The first is the extent to which "may" and "shall" in legal terms are exchangeable. I realise that my hon. Friend knows about that. Secondly, there is the question whether there is indeed a material weakness, as he seems to point out, in the new emphasis placed on the conditions under which redemption takes place. It would certainly be the intent of the legislation that the casino would deal with the initial cheque in the redemption process; that is the whole point of it. However, I see my hon. Friend's point. I will look into the matter and write to him clarifying the point that he has raised, which I trust will satisfy him. I hope that the House will give this modest Bill a Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Bill
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  1.25 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I once had the privilege of introducing a Bill under similar procedures concerning milk allocation to children at school which went through all its stages in the House without one word being uttered. The value and virtue of that legislation were so self-evident that there was no need to speak to it. Had I done so, the Bill might not have been accepted.
  On this occasion, however, it might be helpful if I give the background to the Bill and explain its main purposes, because the House has been courteous in expediting progress. I thank the Department of Transport for its assistance. Those are the only kind words I am likely to say about that Department during the Government's lifetime. Therefore, they should form the first major part of my speech. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and his officials.
  The Bill is relatively modest but important. It has two aims: first, to get rid of some of the confusion about permit parking in local authority areas; and, secondly, to deal with traffic parking devices, meters, and so on.
  First, there is confusion about whether it is legal in areas of permit parking for a local authority to charge or not to charge—to have a variable scheme. Clause 1 specifically and directly gives local authorities that flexibility. This is an important measure, especially in seaside and other areas which are heavily congested for brief periods of the day, where the local authority seeks power to protect residents and to facilitate the parking of those visiting the area. The Bill gives the local authority power to charge, or not to charge, residents, nonresidents, permit holders and non-permit holders. That flexibility will enable local authorities to gauge their traffic needs and controls.
  The second aim is perhaps more interesting and important because it deals with metering devices used in arranging for parking. It concerns three aspects—in-car parking discs, parking meters and parking meters without a clock. The present legislation is rather confused. The Bill seeks merely to clear up the principles. Basically, it means that there can be in-car parking devices for rent or charge which are costed, and that will be legal. That will be important in areas of outstanding natural beauty where it would be an advantage to control and charge for parking, but where people do not want parking meters to clutter an otherwise good view, cathedral close or other part of our heritage. Therefore, the Bill will make it legal to have in-car parking devices. A number of companies, in conjunction with local authorities, are already experimenting with them.
  Some present difficulties with parking meters are the number that are often out of order, emptying coins from them, and taking them in and out of action according to traffic demands and police or security needs. The Bill will enable us to have the equivalent of a British Telecom card for use in parking meters which will register the time. A customer will insert a card and buy his time, as he does with a BT card. It will be automatic, electronic, safe, durable, and unlikely to break down. Eventually, "smart
  1204
  cards" will be able to be used which will allow a person's account to be debited directly, rather than under the arrangements with a BT card.
  It is a simple, direct system, and it is important because many of our parking meters have almost outlived their useful life. There is a large market for British firms in this area, especially in the United States. However, at present, when British firms seek to export these instruments, and they are asked, "Are they being used in the United Kingdom?", they must reply, "We cannot do so because we are not certain whether they are legal." The legislation will make it legal, so it is important for the British economy, as well as for safety, for getting the collection of money off the road, for security, for saving local authorities' repair costs, and for doing away with the necessity of having a clock device present to be seen by traffic wardens.
  The final provision deals with fraud in relation to this device. This is a minor piece of legislation. I doubt whether there will be enormous celebrations in the streets when it becomes law. However, it will ensure a degree of efficiency and tidy up the law. That must benefit those who administer the law as well as those who suffer from or have to bear it. It provides an opportunity to improve the economic prospects of some of our companies, to guarantee jobs and to introduce new technology into parking meters.
  For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House. I thank the Government and the House for their courtesy during its passage.
  1.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): This is one of the welcome occasions when the Transport and General Workers' Union is shown that it is represented on both sides of the House on a significant transport issue, although it may not necessarily be as substantial as the one to be introduced next week. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—perhaps I should refer to him as my honourable Brother, so long as it does not get him into trouble with reselection—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that no members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers will start referring to me as Brother Chairman.
  Mr. Bottomley: I hope that I was speaking indirectly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to get my marching orders from you.
  The hon. Gentleman described the purposes of the Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the Minister, who is my brother in the trade union, for dealing with me kindly and courteously, but I wish to point out that this measure may increase employment prospects. According to my brothers in the Hull municipal corporation, the measure that the Minister will support on Tuesday will create at least 300 redundancies throughout the country, because it will decimate public transport.
  Mr. Bottomley: If, in a few years' time, we have an opportunity to consider the effects of the changes, I hope that my honourable Brother will return and say that he was wrong and I was right.
  The Government welcome the Bill, which provides useful clarification of the law on parking. Although the

  1205
  Bill may seem rather technical and concerned with matters of detail, it will be valuable both in the greater freedom it gives to local authorities to select an approach to on-street parking which best suits local needs, and in the greater certainty it will give to manufacturers in the development of new equipment and methods.
  Technology is improving all the time in many areas, and parking technology is no exception to the trend. Traditional parking apparatus, especially the coin-operated clockwork parking meters, has given good service for many years—some of us might argue, too good a service, given the amount of money that we have poured into them. Nothing stays the same forever and new approaches are possible using magnetic cards and microchip technology. New systems are being developed which could revolutionise parking in the future.
  The existing legislation was prepared long before such new approaches were considered. Not surprisingly, the present law does not fit those new approaches at all well. The Bill would amend the legislation to bring it into line with what is possible and remove legal doubts which have arisen over, for example, the use of coinless equipment.
  I do not wish to give the impression that all the new approaches necessarily involve high technology. Better ways of using space on our streets can be achieved in some circumstances without the need for complex electronics. The Bill's provisions for shared parking schemes, under which permit holders and visitors can use the same road space—although not at the same time, remembering the slightly better road safety figures that we announced yesterday—are good examples of this. The Bill should remove some of the legal doubts which at present prevent many such schemes. From my constituency experience, I know that such provisions would be useful near railway stations, where commuter traffic could be kept off all-day parking and we could allow residents to park where they have their homes and pay their rates as well as allow visitors to shops and to residents to park for a reasonable period.
  The Bill should also help with approaches to parking, such as the prepaid card displayed in the vehicle. That and similar systems may not meet the requirements of the existing legislation, but doubts should be removed by the Bill.
  The Bill provides the freedom to try a range of new approaches. It should give more flexibility to meet the needs of residents and visitors. It should enable the production of more reliable and cheaper-to-operate equipment. It will permit cashless systems which could avoid many of our current problems.
  The Government are happy to support the Bill, and I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for introducing it. I hope that it will come into law soon.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Companies Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.37 pm
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has been introduced once again by me and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I wish to say a few words about it and about my intentions in the succession of Bills on company law which I have introduced since 1969.
  My first Bill was a complex measure, and I learned from the Committee stage which it successfully completed that if a Back-Bench Member is to make a significant contribution to company law reform it is important to recommend simple, workable and inexpensive measures. But I am convinced that it is possible to introduces minor changes in company law which are likely to have a powerful effect in improving efficiency, and that is the intention of this year's edition of my Companies Bill, which hon. Members will recognise is broadly similar to the measures which I have recommended to the House in every Session since 1970.
  I have said many times that the limited liability company is one of the great creations of British genius. Like cricket, it is a British invention which has been copied in many parts of the world. It is a wonderful way of bringing together human resources and material assets in a most fruitful relationship for the creation of wealth. Like cricket, it has been copied in many countries; and as with cricket, we find that some other countries now perform better than we do in the operation of limited liability companies.
  Can one improve efficiency by passing laws? That is an important issue for hon. Members to consider, because it is difficult from outside a business to see how changes in the law might make the senior management or the board of directors operate more efficiently.
  There is another question of a similar kind: do we need yet more company law? I am somewhat critical of the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry has approached reform of company law in recent years. It is giving too much attention to the prevention of fraud and gross malpractice — and in so doing producing huge slabs of legislation — but is not considering ways in which the existing framework of company law—which is broadly of 19th century origin—could be brought more up to date, so that the various parties performing their regular functions in publicly quoted companies could have a clearer idea of their rights and responsibilities within a statutory framework that helps them to operate in the most effective way.
  In recent years there have been changes in the environment in which companies operate which have brought greater pressure on managements to operate effectively. Some of the changes are highly commendable, and I welcome them. For instance, there is the much improved professional analysis by stockbrokers and the staff of the big investment institutions. This has undoubtedly brought pressure to bear on managements to improve performance. There is also far more extensive press coverage of companies affairs. Opening up companies' doings by coverage in the press tends to be conducive to greater efficiency.

  1207
  The activities of takeover bidders are less welcome. They undoubtedly frighten boards into behaving more effectively, but they have as their aim the destruction of the company rather than its cure. The current takeover frenzy tends to make managements concentrate on producing sparkling results in the short term rather than consider the interests of shareholders over long spans of time. We are also seeing much more competitive marketing, which means that all firms seeking to enter British, Community or world markets have to behave in a more competitive way if they are to survive.
  However, all those pressures can pass by companies such as those with which I am concerned in the Bill. I am thinking of companies which are beginning to show signs of decay or of declining vigour and initiative, but are not yet as obviously in trouble, as they may be in a few years time when shareholders and outsiders begin to realise that something is badly wrong. I am thinking of companies which are not as energetic and resourceful as they could well be, given the human and material assets at their disposal. In this area, minor changes in company law could be extremely beneficial without being burdensome, grossly innovatory or revolutionary.
  The Bill therefore considers the position of supervisory elements within the company which are favourable to the company's success and which, quite properly, have access to confidential material. I am speaking, of course, of the non-executive directors and the auditors. Almost all public companies have some non-executive directors, and companies in this country have had to appoint auditors for a century or more. I hope that we can find ways of improving company law in minor but effective ways so that the status of the non-executive directors and the auditors is improved, and they automatically have more authority in the conduct of the company affairs, and better knowledge of the business.
  It is not always clear to an outsider or to a shareholder who the non-executive directors are — or, indeed, if there are any who are strictly non-executive. It is very often company practice to appoint to the board someone who can occasionally be relied on for specialised advice, or someone who is well known to the board and to whom members of the board like to refer from time to time. Such people are not really non-executive directors. They are not aware that their role is to act for the shareholders in a truly supervisory way.
  Often, board members who appear to be non-executive hold themselves available to offer specialised advice when called upon to do so, but otherwise they do not interfere in the management or supervision of the company. They might be a useful element, but they do not strictly meet the requirements that I see for the role of the non-executive director.
  Companies sometimes appoint as non-executive directors people who are not particularly significant; and even if they are well known or influential, they may be unable to exercise authority for various reasons. It is worth analysing why even quite powerful figures are frustrated when they want to do something to improve the efficiency of the executive management. If they do not like what is happening in a business and resign noisily, they may damage the firm without bringing about the changes which they think necessary. They can resign quietly without a
  1208
  fuss, but that will probably not be noticed and their gesture will be ineffective. They could argue within the board from a minority position.
  In public companies in Britain non-executive directors are usually in the minority, unlike the practice in North America; but the non-executive directors may not be effective even when they raise legitimate doubts about company policy. Or they may argue on the basis of inadequate data, in which case they will be outgunned by the heads of departments—the executives on the board who might have axes to grind over particular aspects of expenditure or management policy.
  Even when there are effective non-executive directors on boards, they are not always able to give the shareholders the service that is sometimes needed. The Bill therefore requires public companies to state which directors are non-executive directors, and this is narrowly defined—that is, non-executive in the true sense. We are talking about supervisory directors who are aware of their responsibilties to act on behalf of the shareholders in the boardroom.
  The Bill also suggests a minor reform of procedure governing the election or re-election of directors which would give the shareholders more discretion over the choice of candidates to fill board vacancies. Too often, when a vacancy occurs through natural rotation, resignation or death, only one candidate is put forward and he is automatically elected to fill the space. That does not always produce the best candidates for effective management.
  I do not think that the suggestion that I have incorporated in the Bill — which I expect could be improved — would be used often. However, it might occasionally be relied upon, particularly by institutional investors, to bring pressure to bear on boards to improve the quality of candidates. If dud candidates were put up for vacancies on a board, the shareholders could organise themselves more easily than under existing company law to put up rival candidates, and so to promote meaningful elections to improve the quality of the board.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In a public limited company, each director has to stand for election on a separate ticket. It is one of the privileges of a private company that more than one director can be elected on one nomination, so that the shareholders have to take directors A, B and C all together, without having to reject one. However, in a plc, each director stands on a separate motion, so some protection is afforded to shareholders in a public company.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's advice, which I realise comes from an extremely deep knowledge of company law and procedure. What I am suggesting in the Bill, which I admit could be improved, is that members of a company, who will probably be institutional shareholders, should have the right to insist that the company circulates in advance of the annual general meeting, or any meeting at which the election of directors is due, the particulars and the name of a candidate. That candidate should not necessarily be the man preferred by the board for the vacancy, but one whom the interested shareholders would wish to notify other shareholders was available for the office together with a limited amount of data as to his qualifications.
  As with professional societies and many bodies which have a scattered membership which they reach through the

  1209
  post, this would mean that people outside the general run of company supervision would have a chance to look at the candidates and make their own selection. I doubt whether this would happen often, but the intention is that it might happen, and the fact that the names of rival candidates could be circulated in advance, together with appropriate information about their qualifications, would scare boards which were thinking of putting up unsuitable candidates — men who are too old, who have no effective qualifications to contribute to the management of firms.
  The Bill also requires all public companies to prepare their data and estimates concerning the firm, and its likely future and ability to carry on as a growing concern, in a businesslike manner; and to provide the information to all the board members, including the non-executive directors. What I am suggesting is common sense and normal prudence for every company, but unhappily one finds that when companies get into serious trouble, it is largely attributable to the fact that they have been neglecting to follow the general pattern of competent businesses in collecting data about their performance, market shares and the role and attitudes of their competitors, and in making long-term forecasts of their capital position and their ability to meet their obligations as they fall due.
  When the auditors detect that companies are not handling their internal management of the collection of data, comparisons, forecasts and future planning in a businesslike manner, they are frustrated because they do not have any statutory responsibility to warn the shareholders that there are doubts about the way in which the board is managing its business. I emphasise that I am not discussing firms which are acting fraudulently or criminally, but firms which are lapsing into sluggish or old-fashioned business methods, and which sooner or later will damage the investors, the customers and the work force, because the company is not making the best use of its human resources and material assets.
  How do we decide whether a company is handling its internal data collection and forecasting in a businesslike way? It is futile to pass a law that all companies must manage their forecasts in a businesslike way. However, this is a responsibility that has to be shouldered by some supervisory element within the firm. The non-executive directors are not necessarily the right people, but the auditors are.
  We must require the auditors to accept this responsibility. Auditors have a natural reluctance to do this work even in the minimal way that I am suggesting in the Bill. All that I am asking is that auditors should have the responsibility to warn the shareholders if, in their view, the firm is not handling data collection and forecasting in a competent manner. The Bill does not insist that the auditors should guide the firm, but simply gives them the minimal responsibility to warn shareholders if they can see that the firm is not performing this function in a businesslike way.
  On the continent a hundred years ago the development of business practice resulted in the appointment of supervisory boards, so that in Germany, particularly, but also in other countries, one finds that top management is split into an executive team, which consists of the regular heads of department, and a supervisory team, which knows that its role is to look at the effectiveness of the management as a whole on behalf of the shareholders.
  In this country we did not adopt the idea of a supervisory board which has the duty to look at all aspects
  1210
  of the running of a business, but moved instead towards the appointment of a new profession—the profession of accountancy — which would have the particular responsibility of carrying out a compulsory audit on behalf of the shareholders. I rather regret that we did not follow the German practice, which has produced a very competent business background and one which in many ways has advantages by comparison with the British system.
  However, as what we have is a highly competent professional body of supervisors whose business it is to act for shareholders in looking at the way their companies are acting, I believe that we should ask those professionals somewhat to extend their responsibilities. Under the Bill they would simply have to warn the shareholders if they thought that a firm was not dealing with the collection of data and the making of forecasts as competently as it should.
  Why, in particular, are auditors afraid of being asked to carry out even that limited function? It is because they are nervous of stepping outside their established statutory routines because they might incur a painful or even crippling liability if shareholders turned on them for falling down on their functions and obtained compensation for losses attributable to the auditors' negligence. We must understand the pressure that that fear puts on people in the auditing profession; but the growing complexity of business makes it essential that the supervisory element appointed by shareholders should now move a little further in the direction of management accounting.
  This year, therefore, I have made what I hope is a small improvement in the Bill by introducing a new clause 6. It consists of just a few lines and is, I believe, self-explanatory. It states:
  "The liability of any individual person appointed to act as an auditor under the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 or of any employee employed by an auditor so appointed to carry out work on an audit who shall be held liable in negligence, default or breach of duty in respect of his performance of that audit, shall be limited to a maximum of £50,000."
  That is a substantial sum and I hope that it will be sufficient to deter people from acting in a light headed way, but it is a figure which should also be within the capacity of most firms to insure without taking on too heavy a burden. As this is such a topical matter in the auditing profession, I hope that my suggestion—which may well be capable of improvement—will be regarded as a good subject for hon. Members to consider, perhaps in Committee on the Bill.
  The Bill would apply the changes that I have described to all public companies, but among the most important recommendations in the Bill is one which I suggest should apply only to very large companies. I have incorporated a definition of a very large company, although again it is something that might well be improved. The intention is to catch the 100 or 200 biggest British companies and to follow the North American practice of appointing audit committees.
  On the New York stock exchange a number of years ago it was made a requirement, as part of the listing agreement, that to qualify to be quoted on the exchange a company must have appointed an audit committee. I spent some time with, and learnt a great deal from talking to, officials of the New York stock exchange about the way in which the audit committee was to be appointed, how it should operate and the general public reaction to the appointment of audit committees.

  1211
  I do not think that we should require companies in this country automatically to follow the example of the New York stock exchange, because the etiquette and the procedures are not yet sufficiently widely understood. However, I should like to find a way of giving companies a gentle annual prod in the direction of appointing an audit committee. I have found a formula which I have therefore incorporated in the Bill. I simply suggest that there should be an item on the agenda of the annual general meeting that the company must consider the appointment or re-appointment of an audit committee.
  In order to make my recommendations more specific, I have taken a considerable amount of trouble to produce a schedule consisting of model regulations for the management of an audit committee. It could be a sort of addendum to table A for companies which wish to operate an audit committee. It would not be obligatory for them to follow the routine that I have suggested in the Bill, but I think that it is a businesslike start. If they want to operate an audit committee in a slightly different way, it would be entirely up to them to do so.
  As the idea of audit committees for public companies is still rather unfamiliar in this country, I hope it will be found to be a useful feature of the Bill that it carries a schedule in which model regulations are set out. People who are familiar with what is normal practice in New York will recognise that I have copied many of the features from there.
  If an audit committee is appointed, I conceive that it would make the non-executive directors more effective, because it would give them regular professional support from people who are independent of the executive management of the business. It would also put the auditors in a stronger position in their contacts with the board, because they would have a statutory procedure for keeping in regular contact with the non-executive directors.
  I do not wish to dilate on this subject any more, although I think that it is a subject of general interest. I should like to conclude by saying why I think that the Bill is especially topical and necessary now.
  I believe that it would have been good for British business if something on the lines of my Bill had been adopted 18 or more years ago when I first set out to advertise these reforms. Now, however, we are seeing the Government, quite rightly, promoting the concept of wider share ownership. This means bringing into the ownership of shares of public companies a large number of people who want to know how their companies operate. They would like to participate and ought to be given a satisfactory and worthwhile role.
  I believe that the changes that I have suggested in the Bill would involve small shareholders more closely in the way in which their companies operate and give them an opportunity to express their views from time to time over such matters as the selection of the directors. It would also give the institutions ways of acting effectively on behalf of all shareholders equally, not just of other institutional investors or their own interests, without risking the accusation of insider trading.
  We have the difficulty that so many of our large and influential shareholders are afraid to act except in the role of absentee landlords. If they see that something is not right with a company they do not seek to intervene, because they do not know how they can properly do so.
  1212
  Instead, they simply try to dispose of their holdings as quietly as possible before other investors detect the way in which the management may be allowing the business to slide downhill.
  It is the lack of shareholder pressure effectively applied to management that is one of the principal causes of inefficiency in British businesses. The institutions have a responsibility to support changes in the law which would enable them to act in a proper way, and not in a way which would lay them open to charges of insider trading.
  I also feel that the Bill is particularly topical because of the Government's campaign of privatisation—another development which I entirely support. We need to improve the qualtiy and effectiveness of the responsible supervisory element within businesses which may not be subject to competitive pressures and which may be too large to be assessed correctly by outsiders.
  The business of supervising the executive management of a large undertaking from within in a benevolent way is something which the House should encourage. There are restraints on the way in which the supervisory elements operate within businesses at present because, unfortunately, we are allowing our company law to become increasingly obsolete.
  I hope, therefore, that the Bill will proceed to Committee. On two previous occasions it has completed its Committee stage. I believe this is a useful way in which hon. Members who are interested in studying questions concerning the efficiency of business can occupy their time. I am not asking for very much time, because it is only a short Bill, but I should like it to make progress. Indeed, I should like it to complete all its stages. However, even if it only reaches a Standing Committee and does not go through all the remaining stages at this point in the Session, I am sure that it would at least attract informed attention and support in appropriate quarters outside the House. The Bill is not controversial on party lines; it has all-party support. It is not burdensome on management. I believe that it will be beneficial to all concerned with the success of British companies.
  2.5 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I hope that I may say without embarrassment to him that I have been an ardent fan of his and his regular annual Bill for the past 17 years. The reason is better explained if I declare an interest. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, a Fellow of the Association of Certified Accountants, and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators.
  When I qualified as a chartered accountant in 1969, my first job was as a lecturer in accountancy. One of my tasks was lecturing in company law. Every year one has to teach one's students existing law and some of the subjects that might be introduced over the coming year or two. Each year, as the law has changed, the forecast for the future has not. It has always been for audit committees, and it has always been with great respect that we have looked at the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend to the House.
  My hon. Friend sometimes reminds me of Lord Denning, inasmuch as a student of Lord Denning once wrote to him, "Dear Lord Denning, Please, no more law reform. I am having trouble learning what there is." All I can say is that, with audit committees many students

  1213
  qualified long ago knowing the terms of my hon. Friend's Bill in its various guises. The first time that I came to the House to see a Standing Committee was to view my hon. Friend—not a Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend—discuss a Bill very much like this one in the Committee on the Companies Bill in 1978.
  I support the Bill and wish that the Government would give it a Committee stage. I go further and say that I believe that the need for an audit committee in major companies has been proven time and again. In 1977 the Confederation of British Industry set up a working party and came out broadly in favour of the principles of the Bill. The CBI said:
  "the operation of audit committees within certain companies might be an effective method of ensuring the independent review of those companies' financial activities, of improving the existing internal and external audit procedures, and of letting it be seen that these requirements were being met".
  The CBI's working party was opposed to statutory compulsion, but it welcomed an experiment. Soon after, the Institute of Directors similarly recommended an experiment.
  Every profession is proud of its house journal. The house journal of the accountancy profession is the magazine Accountancy. No doubt the 1,000th edition of any magazine is a milestone. The fact that the editorial of the 1,000th edition cried out for audit committees shows the importance of the subject to the informed accountancy world. It was even mentioned in the White Paper entitled "The Conduct of Directors". In fact, it has been mentioned so many times that I cannot believe that it has not become law by now. In the United States audit committees have become compulsory in New York. Therefore, I should spend a few minutes saying why I believe that audit committees should be introduced.
  Audit committees can made a substantial contribution to helping directors fulfil their responsibilities. They can help directors to understand, perhaps from a different point of view, the way in which financial matters should be assimilated and then given to shareholders. They strengthen the role of non-executive directors. In the Bill, my hon. Friend expands upon the role and position of non-executive directors, and there is nothing more anomalous in existing company law than the fact that it makes no distinction between executive and non-executive directors. A difference should be drawn.
  The third advantage of an audit committee is that it strengthens the objectivity and credibility of financial reporting. The board would be more answerable to each of the various specialists within the board and a specialist within the board would have to answer to an independent committee of his peers rather than merely to the clique that so often exists in some companies.
  Fourthly, an audit committee would strengthen the independence of the audit function, and not merely the external audit function, but the internal one as well. An audit committee could choose the external auditor rather than that auditor being hired through some old boy network. I am not saying that that occurs much, but it is common for a chief executive, when moving from company to company, to take with him the firm of auditors with which he has built up an understanding and relationship. I am not saying that that reduces independence, because honourable people will act honourably, but it will help independence to be seen to be
  1214
  done if the auditor can be chosen by a fully independent audit committee. That would lead to greater control over the chief executive.
  The fifth advantage is that an audit committee would improve the quality of the audit and accounting functions, in that an independent committee of the board is more likely to be able to see what is wrong with the internal functions of a company. A sort of paternalistic pride goes with setting up an accounting organisation within a company, and it is sometimes difficult to be detached enough to see that it is ineffective. If one works full time in a company, it is often difficult to have the experience to see what is actually happening outside. The ground shifts and systems change, and the future for that company may well be in progress which cannot be seen internally.
  The last advantage of many that I could mention is that it improves communication between directors, auditors and the management of a company. It helps everybody to understand his role. The consultative committee of the accountancy bodies said that any audit committee should contain at least some of the following matters. It should contain a majority of the committee's members, including its chairman, and the majority should be non-executive directors. The chairman of the committee should also be non-executive. It said:
  "the establishment of a committee should not reduce the collective responsibility of the whole board for financial … matters".
  Indeed, it said that the committee should be totally non-executive.
  The first of the only other two points that it makes and which I should like to mention is that the committee should be required to review at regular intervals the internal control system of the business. That is something that many executive directors find they have a little time or desire to do. The other recommendation is that the committee should meet the external auditors at least once a year, and that whenever the external auditors consider that a matter should be brought to the attention of the board of directors, it should be discussed.
  The discussions between external auditors and directors should not merely take place in the office of the chief executive or the chief accountant, but should be open within the ambit of the audit committee. The remaining desirable features are helpfully set out in the appendix to the Bill about which my hon. Friend has spoken. I assure my hon. Friend that, because the appendix is not covered by copyright, it will be seen by thousands of future students and I hope that I have his permission to plagiarise mercilessly. It will certainly save me some trouble in the future.
  Another point about audit committees is that in the United States, where they have been compulsory on the New York stock exchange since 1978, they have proved to be a success. I know a number of non-executive directors who serve on audit committees, and they felt that those committees have brought real accountability to the companies.
  Audit committees have not been established under law because there are some disadvantages. It is argued that they split the board, that they would be seen to be cheating on themselves, that they would be seen to be ferreting for information to try to catch the chief executive out. I disagree. Splits already occur in boards. The point about an audit committee is that it can be properly and fully informed about matters on which non-executive directors

  1215
  are often not informed. Non-executive directors bring experience from outside. Such committees would help them to gain greater information about the internal workings of the company which they are trying to assist.
  Another disadvantage, it is said, is that audit committees tend to pre-empt two-tier boards. I know that the Opposition support the idea of two-tier boards, whereas we do not. That argument is irrelevant, however, as the committee would be a sub-committee of a main board and therefore able to exist by itself. Another disadvantage, it is suggested, is that audit committees would encroach on management responsibilities. On the contrary, they would be supervisory of, and helpful and an independent source of advice to, management. I believe that management would be proud to work in an environment in which its skills could be recognised and rewarded properly.
  It is argued that audit committees would be powerless if they could not enforce the recommendations or the report to their shareholders because they would not have executive power. I can think of nothing more powerful than an audit committee, by statute, insisting that its report be given to shareholders. That is an important element to build into the Bill in Committee.
  One of the Government's major criticisms is that audit committees are not practicable in the United Kingdom because there are not enough non-executive directors to serve on them. I submit that we have not tried to find out, In an environment in which 35 per cent. of The Times top 1,000 companies have fewer than three non-executive directors and 25 per cent. have none, it is difficult to discover who would be able to put himself or herself forward.
  One of the Government's criticisms of audit committees is that they smack of quangos. They suggest that the big companies, which my hon. Friend suggests should have audit committees, are exactly those which do not need them and that therefore to have an audit committee would be to have a quango forced on a company which is trying to be efficient. That argument is not valid, and I suspect that the public would not think it valid either.
  Audit committees would cost a little more, but savings would flow from better management of internal systems. I believe that they would be extremely effective. The experiment in America, on which we can draw, has proved their need and worth. The Government ought to introduce an experiment in the larger companies, although I should like all public companies to submit themselves to audit committees.
  That might be a dream, but I should like to conclude by drawing on my hon. Friend's analogy. He said that limited liability companies and cricket have a lot in common. Following the recent performance of the England team in the West Indies, I suggest that he is wrong. It is not limited liability, but limited ability, that worries us. It is not enterprise and expansion, but liquidation, about which we must be concerned. I strongly hope that the English team is not wound up. I believe that it needs an independent committee to which it can refer, and I should like my hon. Friend to serve on it.
  The Bill is worthy, and has been for 17 years. I hope that the Government will give it a fair hearing.
  2.18 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has mounted a long and persistent campaign to draw the House's attention to an important matter. He and the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) have shown that they believe that there has never been a more propitious moment for that 17-year-long campaign to reach fruition.
  There is an undoubted and growing anxiety about how corporate affairs are monitored. That anxiety manifests itself in many ways, such as anxiety about how corporate bodies are supervised, and proposed Government action on the role of auditors. Concern was expressed in our deliberations last session on the Insolvency Act about the way in which the privilege of limited liability can be abused. There is currently concern, through the work of the House on the Financial Services Bill, about the protection of investors, particularly in corporate matters. I am glad to say that all that is backed up by indications from the Government of increased practical action to enforce the existing rule for the filing of annual returns and so on.
  There will surely be a general endorsement of and welcome for the principles that underlie this Bill. One of the features that distinguishes to our disadvantage our system of doing things from that of rather more successful economies is that we have less disclosure and availability of information about the affairs of companies than is the case in, for example, the United States. We need that greater availability and a more efficient means of controlling, monitoring and supervising the financial administration of companies both in the interests of the investors and also of the efficient administration of companies and the business sector as a whole.
  The preoccupation of the hon. Member for Kensington could accord very well with that increasingly held perception that limited liability—although I am happy to endorse the encomium by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)— is a privilege that carries with it commensurate responsibilities. We are quite entitled to look at the way in which those responsibilities are discharged.
  The Bill is a modest provision. The hon. Gentleman has wisely stopped short of including any mandatory measures. All it does is invite companies to set up audit committees if they so wish and to rely on a statutory provision notwithstanding anything in their own articles. That is probably the right way to proceed. We can all accept that audit committees, despite arguments against them, would be a valuable step towards making information more readily available.
  I have one slight cavil about clause 6. The hon. Member for Kensington has rightly identified a problem of pressing current concern. Accountants and auditors are increasingly worried both about the scope of litigation that they face in this and other jurisdictions and about the increasing difficulty of ensuring adequate insurance cover against awards and damages. Thus, the hon. Gentleman is right to direct attention to the problem, but I am concerned whether he has found the right solution.
  I am not sure whether I know the right answer, although I have seen a range of possible answers, including limited liability. I believe that in clause 6 the hon. Gentleman may have gone for a solution that is a little odd. If we get to

  1217
  Committee, we can assess whether there might be different ways of limiting liability or in other ways meeting the real concerns of the accountancy profession.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is great concern about the level of fraud in corporate and other financial affairs and undertakings. However, an equally important matter to which we should devote attention is to ensure that the law in this field is properly drafted so as to secure the effective administration of our corporate undertakings. This Bill can contribute usefully in that direction.
  2.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): It is an agreeable although somewhat challenging task to have the duty of replying to my hon. Friend, the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who once again has brought before the House a Bill to amend company law.
  My hon. Friend's campaign on this matter has indeed been long, and I am sure that he has broken many records for such a campaign. I wish to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to him for his persistence and determination in waging that campaign. He has been reinforced on this occasion by the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who takes a close and constructive interest in these matters and who made a number of intelligent points, as did the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in his brief but characteristically eloquent contribution to the deliberations of the House.
  Since my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington began his long campaign—some 17 years ago—there has certainly been no lack of companies legislation, both in response to changing circumstances at home and to implement our European Community commitments. Without any attempt at producing a comprehensive list, I can site the Companies (Floating Charges and Receivers) (Scotland) Act 1972, section 9 of the European Communities Act 1972, the Companies Act 1976 the Insolvency Act 1976, the Companies Act 1980, the Companies Act 1981 and the Companies (Beneficial Interests) Act 1983, all of which—and more—have now been consolidated.
  In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes knows particularly well, we have the very important Insolvency Act 1985. The Financial Services Bill has received its Second Reading and has been considered in Committee. There will be secondary legislation later this year to implement the third and sixth company law directives. Thus, there has been and will be no shortage of companies and related legislation. There are times when I echo the views of those who argue that there is sometimes a little too much. Indeed, my hon. Friend recognised the existence of this disenchantment in a speech on an earlier, somewhat similar, occasion in 1982.
  It might therefore be convenient if I describe briefly the Government's general approach to proposals for change in company law. It is based on the following considerations. First, proposals for changes must be based on more than theoretical arguments. There must be a demonstrable need for change with a marked balance of advantage over disadvantage. We are most concerned to avoid placing new burdens on industry and commerce, unless there is a strong case for additional protection for creditors and shareholders.
  1218
  Secondly, because of the risk of promoting legislation which is technically defective, wherever possible such legislation should be preceded by thorough and extensive consultation with interested parties, including the professions. Thirdly, although inevitably there are occasions when the national interest requires the views of particular interested parties to be given less weight than they would wish, it is important as far as possible to attract the support of interested parties for proposed changes.
  I fully understand that the intention behind my hon. Friend's proposals is to improve the efficiency of British business by arresting what he believes to be a long-term decline in the effectiveness of shareholders and the efficiency of directors and managers. The question is whether the proposed changes are necessarily the most effective method of achieving that objective.
  I shall look in detail at the Bill's proposals. They fall under five separate heads. First, the directors' report of every public company shall state which of the directors is a non-executive director.
  Secondly, every public company shall circulate a list of candidates for election as director 21 days before the meeting at which the election will take place. If a candidate so requests, the company must circulate a statement of not more than 200 words describing his qualification for election. The list of candidates shall specify those who are seeking nomination as non-executive directors.
  Thirdly, the agenda for every annual general meeting of a major public company shall include, as a separate item, the consideration of the appointment or reappointment of an audit committee of the board. The Bill goes on to set out in some detail how such a committee would be constituted and provides a set of model regulations for such a committee.
  Fourthly, the directors of every public company are required to produce, at least once in each financial year, such data and estimates about the company's business and estimates of its future business as will allow a reasonable assessment to be made of the company's ability to carry on business as a going concern and to pay its debts as they fall due. Such data and estimates must be provided to the company directors, the company secretary and the auditors, who, if in their opinion the requirements have not been complied with, must say so in their report.
  Last, but by no means least, the Bill limits the liability of any individual appointed as auditor, or of an employee of an auditor, to a maximum of £50,000 for negligence, default or a breach of duty.
  Four of the proposals concern activities of the board. Three would be mandatory — those relating to the identification of non-executive directors, the circulation of details of candidates and the preparation of data and estimates. The fourth, that relating to audit committees, would be voluntary. I shall come to the final proposal, that relating to the liability of auditors, in due course.
  I have to say that, in the Government's view, the first, four proposals would not, either taken singly or together, have the effect that my hon. Friend hopes to achieve. There are advantages in the appointment of non-executive directors to public limited companies, particularly those which are quoted on the stock exchange, who are able to make—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 25 April.

Private Members' Bills

  TOBACCO PRODUCTS (ADVERTISING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day? No day named.

  EMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMITS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. John McWilliam: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Sir, Friday 4 July.

  HEARING AID COUNCIL ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 April.

  FORESTRY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 2 May.

  TOBACCO PRODUCTS (TELEVISION BROADCASTS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. McWilliam: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Sir, Friday 4 July.

  TOBACCO PRODUCTS (SPORTS SPONSORSHIP) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [21 February].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 April.

  RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (PROMOTIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Neubert.]

  Partnership Status (Newham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The east London borough of Newham has suffered cruelly from seven years of Thatcher government. All its problems have been aggravated and exacerbated. It faces a crisis of decline and decay, and this speech is a cry of pain. My purpose is to state the facts, and to ask the Government to face their responsibilities to help and assist the borough, not to damage it further.
  Much of Newham was built in the middle of the last century. Much of its economic life derived from the port of London and the industry and commerce that went with it. Now the port is no more, the old industries have left, much of the housing stock is decaying, and unemployment is rife. We share many of those problems with other inner-city areas, which are time bombs ticking away, threatening to explode. The better off move out, leaving behind those with fewer skills. The major employers leave, and monetarism blights the few remaining companies which are struggling to survive.
  In that vicious circle, as jobs go, incomes fall, housing becomes dilapidated, the area becomes down at heel and tatty, and graffiti, vandalism and crime grow. It is in such areas that those out of work become the long-term unemployed, the least skilled are likely to live, the old are most likely to be made redundant, and the young have greatest difficulty in finding work. Moreover, the ethnic minorities are over-represented in all those groups. The frustration from that additional layer of racial disadvantage makes a combustible mixture.
  We are becoming an increasingly divided nation; divided between the comfortable Britain of the well housed, with jobs, who live in the suburbs, and the Britain of the poor in our discarded, crumbling inner cities. There, the young are an outcast generation, shut out of society. There are also signs that we are creating a new black under-class—a phenomenon which has no parallel in British working-class history.
  Nowhere has the impact of Government economic policy been more harshly felt than in the inner cities. To make matters worse, there has been a massive switch of Government resources away from the inner cities. Nine years ago the Labour Government designated 14 of the 364 local government districts in England as areas of exceptional deprivation and need, for which additional resources had to be found. They were grouped into partnership areas. Three instruments of policy were used to help them: the rate support grant, based on an assessment of needs, the housing investment programme, and the refurbished urban programme.
  What has happened since? In real terms, the urban programme in those areas has been increased from about £150 million in 1975 to about £200 million in 1984—in constant prices, an increase of £50 million. However, the rate support grant has been reduced in constant prices by no less than £720 million. In the same period in those 14 areas, the housing investment programme has been reduced in constant prices by £270 million. Those 14 areas of great deprivation have been savaged in six years to the tune of £900 million a year.
  1222
  It is no wonder that there is an inner-city crisis, social tension, disturbances, petty theft, house-breaking and drug abuse. If there is not to be a breakdown of society in Britain, the Government must take emergency action to tackle the inner-city crisis. Several Government Departments must co-operate in a major development of urban policy. It is no good expecting the invisible hand of the market to solve the problems or addressing them in the rhetoric of the competitive race or saying that these areas should stand on their own two feet. It cannot be left to the private sector, because there is no private profit in clearing away dereliction. Those areas do not have sufficient own resources. It is a national responsibility. There can be no substitute for the public sector taking the lead in halting the downward spiral and creating the environment and conditions for the private sector to follow.
  Let me deal with the borough of Newham, which has been treated so unfairly by the Government. The people of Newham face a range of social, economic and environmental problems which are greater than almost anywhere in the country. What are the facts? Some 20,000 people—20 per cent., or one in five, of the work force—are unemployed. Since the Government came into office, 150 Newham residents have joined the dole queue every month. Sixty-five per cent. of council tenants qualify for housing benefit. Well over 30,000 are on the bread line, drawing means-tested supplementary benefit. Many thousands of children live in those families.
  Housing is a major headache. The cheaply built working-class housing of Victorian times badly needs renewal. Post-war rebuilding has added problems of high-density, high-rise estates. Newham has 112 tower blocks, including the tragic Ronan Point, and more people living above the 10th floor than in any other area of the country. There are 11,000 households without baths or inside toilets. More than half the privately rented homes do not have those facilities. There are nearly 6,500 overcrowded households and more than 5,000 single-parent households. The waiting list for council housing is 7,300―59 per cent. up on 1983. Can the Minister understand the number of housing cases with which I must deal in my advice surgeries?
  Despite those needs, which mean that Newham rates second only to Lambeth in housing need, the council receives a housing investment programme allocation from the Government smaller than that of almost all the inner London boroughs.
  A Department of Education and Science study showed that, of 104 education areas in England, Newham has the highest percentage of children from low socio-economic roots, the highest percentage of children living in poor housing, the fourth highest percentage of non-white children and the fourth highest percentage of children from large families. About 35 per cent. of schoolchildren come from ethnic minorities. This large cultural diversity needs a wide range of special curricula.
  As a result of difficult backgrounds, motivation and aspiration are low. Only 3 per cent. of children go on to university and another 5 per cent. to other forms of higher education—the second lowest in the country. By contrast, in Richmond upon Thames, 18 per cent. of children achieve university entrance. Many of Newham's schools are Victorian or Edwardian buildings lacking play space or sports fields.
  The people of Newham come from many races and cultures. Well over a quarter belong to one of the New

  1223
  Commonwealth ethnic groups. Only Brent and Hackney have a larger black ethnic population, and they both receive special urban programme resources, while Newham does not. For Newham's ethnic minority groups, the problems of inner-city deprivation are compounded by racial disadvantage and discrimination. Newham's ethnic minority communities have special requirements which need additional resources. The size and diversity of Newham's ethnic population means that we have a range of needs, aspirations and outlooks, so that the task of fulfilling them is more complex and extensive than in other areas.
  Newham has more than its fair share of social problems and of people in need of special care and attention. The frail, the elderly, single parents, families in tower blocks, the ill and the handicapped all make heavy demands on the borough's social services. Mortality and morbidity rates are above average. Many young people are disillusioned about the prospects of life on the dole and have slipped into a sub-culture of truancy, vandalism and crime. Too many get into trouble with the police.
  That is Newham's plight. It needs special urban programme support in the form of partnership status. On the positive side, Newham's communities are resilient. They showed that during the blitz. There is a wealth of talent and of ideas for overcoming the difficulties. In this spirit, public, private and voluntary agencies have joined together to produce an action plan in anticipation of partnership status and the additional funds that it would produce.
  The plan embraces six main proposals. First, we need to tackle unemployment and local employment problems, supporting existing jobs and firms and encouraging new jobs and investment. Secondly, we need to improve the physical environment. There is much to be done in improving drab local surroundings. Thirdly, we need to overcome Newham's acute housing stress. That would directly improve people's quality of life and in particular reduce the stresses reflected in the indicators of poor health and social and educational disadvantage. This would encourage skilled and qualified workers to stay in, or move to, the borough.
  Fourthly, we need to tackle racial disadvantage and promote good race relations. Newham is a prime example of a multiracial society. We want to build on our vibrant multicultural community, in which everyone participates fully in the life of the borough. Our ethnic minorities need full access to the range of local services and help in establishing their own facilities to meet the social, educational and cultural needs of their communities.
  Fifthly, we need to cope with social stress and people in need. Newham has a disproportionate number of people suffering from the stresses of low income, unemployment, old age and disability and in need of health and support. The strategy is to develop complementary statutory and voluntary services to help people to lead full lives. We want to develop care in the community rather than in institutions. In addition, the borough wants to develop intermediate treatment projects as an alternative to custodial care for juveniles in trouble.
  Sixthly — last but not least — we need to widen educational opportunity and to help people to realise their full potential.
  1224
  I have outlined the borough's problems and how local people want to tackle them. The plan and the approach to that Government have the full support of Newham council, Newham health authority, Newham chamber of commerce, the Newham voluntary agencies council and the Newham race relations association. It is also, of course, supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber. I am making a plea for central Government to stretch out their hand in partnership and to work in co-operation with Newham to solve the borough's problems. So far, the Government have discriminated against the borough. The Government's statistics show that other areas, less deprived, get more. Nor does the allocation of traditional urban aid offer a solution. Newham receives less and less from the source every year.
  Only partnership status will give an assured source of special financial resources. It is a mystery to me why it has not been granted already, and why Newham is discriminated against. When we visited the Under-Secretary of State recently, the hon. Lady said that she was mystified as to why adjacent and very similar boroughs were sometimes treated so differently. I will hazard a guess about the reason. Such decisions are often worked out by computers in the Department. I suspect that someone has fed into the computer the information that part of Newham falls within the area of the London Docklands development corporation, which is given extra resources to promote development in dockland. The computer has concluded that Newham is already being aided and therefore does not qualify for partnership status. Incidentally, Tower Hamlets has partnership status, although it is also a dockland borough.
  If this is so— it is the only explanation that I can think of—the Minister should tell the computer that it is a delusion and a misreading. Other facts should be fed into the computer. Although one third of the borough's space is in docklands, 94 per cent. of its people live outside. The non-docklands part of the borough has a population greater than the whole of Hackney or Tower Hamlets and has a range of inner-city problems of the same magnitude, but it does not receive the resources that these adjacent areas receive.
  The majority of the ethnic minorities live in the north and east of the borough. Action to meet their needs will have to be concentrated there. The computer should be told as soon as possible that the establishment of the LDDC by the Government has made it more difficult to tackle the borough's problems. For example, the LDDC's concentration on building homes for sale has depleted the land stock that had been reserved for council housing. That makes it more difficult to reduce housing shortages and retards the process of decanting young families from tower blocks. The needs of the north of the borough where my constituents live are different from those in the docklands. Partnership resources are urgently needed to meet those needs.
  I hope that the Minister will not try to fob me off by talking about the traditional urban programme. The seven partnership authorities receive an additional £10 million to £25 million each, and even the 23 programme authorities receive an additional £3 million to £6 million each, but Newham receives only £1·5 million under the urban programme. Newham is more deprived than six of the

  1225
  seven partnership authorities and more deprived than all the programme authorities. What explanation do the Government have for that unfair treatment of Newham?
  It is no use the Minister talking about urban development grants. Newham has received only one large grant, for Gunson Sortex. Such grants do not tackle social problems and are limited by the private sector's interest. Few firms are coming forward with plans.
  The Minister should not talk about other designated districts or ODD funds. Newham receives only £400,000 here. There are six applications for derelict land grants in, and we are awaiting the results.
  Traditional urban aid is the only source of special Government funding available to Newham for community and social projects, but this is actually being reduced. In 1985–86 the figure was unchanged, at about £400,000, but the 1986–87 grant has been cut by almost half, to £254,000. Why is Newham being treated so badly?
  The one-off nature of the funding contrasts sharply with the rolling programmes which are a feature of partnership authorities. Newham has only mainstream funding. Exchequer support for council revenue expenditure has been cut from 61 per cent. in 1979–80 to 46 per cent. in 1986–87. This has resulted in losses of tens of millions of pounds to the council.
  In recent years the council has been able to use internal funds to meet part of its annual expenditure. It has done that to keep rates lower than they would otherwise have been. This is sometimes called creative accounting. However, in 1986–87 it is not able to do that. Although revenue balances will be used to alleviate the final rate demand, a strong element of shortfall has to be passed on to the ratepayer. Rates are being increased by 13 per cent. this year because of Government rate support grant cuts. Newham's rates have gone up this year because, by special measures, the council kept rates down in previous years.
  The Minister has been to Newham. He knows about its severe problems. He must also know that Government action in mainstream capital and revenue finance to the borough and the absence of partnership status shows a complete disregard for the problems. The Government have made false promises to the people of Newham. If the urban crisis in Newham is to be tackled vigorously, new programmes, projects and facilities will be required. Newham's case for partnership, which the Government are sitting on, identifies a practical strategy and a plan of action for addressing these issues.
  Do we have to wait for a new Government before there is action? I look forward to hearing whether that is so. I call on the Government to work with us to help the borough to implement the new programmes, to tackle the special and severe problems of Newham by giving partnership resources and creating conditions which can offer a more purposeful and rewarding way of life to my constituency.
  2.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on his presentation of the case for Newham. If promotion to partnership status were based just on the energy, persistence and eloquence of Newham councillors and Members, Newham would have been promoted some time ago; however, the Government have to take other factors into account.
  1226
  As the hon. Member said, the case has been put to me on several occasions and, more recently, on 10 March, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I have been to Newham several times and have had a guided tour with the both the hon. Member for Newham, North-East and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Bank.). I have met leaders of the council on several occasions, and through my contact with the London Docklands development corporation, I have an insight into some of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I would not dissent from some of his analysis, although he will not expect me to endorse his criticisms of the Government.
  We accept the need for Newham to be given help to take advantage of opportunities for urban regeneration and to tackle the social, housing, economic and educational difficulties in the borough. Sadly, these problems are not peculiar to Newham. They are shared with many inner-London and a few other outer-London boroughs, but I accept that they are present in acute form in Newham; that underlines the need for priority to be given to the borough in distributing any additional resources.
  While recognising the strength of Newham's case for partnership status, we consider it important that existing partnership and programme authorities should receive support that is sufficiently substantial and long terra to underwrite a full programme of projects, so that a real impact can be made on the ground and an assessment made of the relative merits of different types of projects.
  Limited urban programme resources have meant that we have had to restrict the number of partnership and programme authorities to avoid spreading resources too thinly. Total urban programme resources are constrained and there is little likelihood in the immediate future of further partnership or programme authorities being created. I know that this will come as a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman, and to Newham, but I can assure him that this is something that we keep under review, and that Newham's case will be given priority if and when changes are made. This does not mean that we are currently ignoring Newham's problems or refusing to help the borough. Help is being offered to Newham in a number of ways.
  The hon. Member ended by referring to rate support grant and the rates, but he was on fairly thin ice there. Under the 1986–87 settlement, we were willing to increase Newham's rate support grant by £21·8 million—that is, 34·7 per cent. — over 1985–86, for spending at the assumed level of a 3·4 per cent. increase on 1985–86 levels. We estimated that Newham's expenditure would increase by 14·5 per cent. largely due to abolition of the GLC. The proposed settlement would have allowed for a rate reduction of some 14 per cent. Unfortunately, Newham has chosen to increase spending by as much as 26 per cent., and it has therefore inflicted on its ratepayers the largest rates increase— 12 per cent—in London. The hon. Gentleman must accept that that represents an opportunity lost to ease the burden on local residents and business and to encourage enterprise. I mention this only because the hon. Gentleman spoke in a somewhat provocative way in that regard.
  We are determined to help Newham to tackle its urban problems in a number of specific ways. It is an "other designated district" in urban programme language and is making good use of its powers under the Inner Urban Areas Act, with the aid of grant from the Department.

  1227
  In 1985–86 we approved 79 projects, attracting grant of nearly £360,000. Of those approvals, more than a third were rent grants for start-up businesses taking space in the Stratford workshops—the old Plessey works, which had been converted to provide 93 small managed workshop units. I recently approved a project to provide additional workshop space at the Shalom employment action centre, with grant support of £47,000. That centre is aimed at the long-term unemployed. The majority of users are from Asian or Afro-Caribbean backgrounds and special provision is also being made for the young unemployed.
  In relation to the traditional urban programme, £694,000 was allocated in 1985–86, compared with £264,000 the previous year. There were exceptional reasons, due to underspend elsewhere, and I cannot hold out any prospect of such a large increase this year. Nevertheless, that was a substantial sum to help industrial and commercial projects in Newham. Quite a few of the projects were aimed directly at ethnic minority groups. At the top of the list, approvals for children's holiday projects worth nearly £32,000 were given and the Department is making more than £500,000 available to help Newham to support voluntary bodies previously backed by the GLC.
  Mr. Tony Banks: We are grateful for the various packages offered by the Government, but does the Minister accept that, as Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in England, the resources received from the Department are inadequate to deal with our problems?
  Sir George Young: The reality of government, as compared with the aspiration of opposition, is that one has to make difficult decisions. The London borough of Haringey, for example, can make a case almost as eloquent as that made today for Newham, but if we promote boroughs such as Haringey and Newham we must inevitably demote others. If one accepts that the purpose of the partnership programme is to make a sustained attack on the problems of a borough, it cannot simply be switched off from one year to the next. We are committed to an element of continuity in the programme and it is difficult to promote boroughs such as Newham and Haringey unless additional resources are made available for the programme as a whole.
  Mr. Banks: That is up to you.
  Sir George Young: With regard to derelict land—
  Mr. Leighton rose—
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman slightly overreached his time, and I wish to say something about derelict land.
  The impression that I got when I visited the borough was one of considerable dereliction. The Department is writing to Newham today to convey approval of two projects for derelict land of some £36,000, with the possibility of further approvals to come. The two approved projects involve the reclamation of land and buildings off High street, Newham at the Bow bridge site—I do not know which hon. Gentleman has the fortune to have that site in his constituency—and off the North Woolwich road at Knights road, in an industrial improvement area.
  The first project concerns the clearance of land and the second involves the clearance of obsolete industrial
  1228
  buildings and the removal of rubble. We have also been discussing with the borough and with the gas board the possibility of supporting, through derelict land grant, a major survey of the Beckton gasworks site. We are now awaiting proposals from the gas board, which we shall consider as positively as we can.
  It is true that, so far, only one approval has been given for urban development grant — the Gunson Sortex project — but the Department is in touch with the borough about two possible further projects and I am pleased to see that good progress has been made in working up those cases.
  As the hon. Member for Newham, North-East knows, we set up an urban housing renewal until last year, with £50 million available, to tackle local authority housing problems. On top of that, resources were available for community refurbishment schemes to improve municipal estates. I am glad that, at the council's request, my Department's urban housing renewal unit was able to visit Newham on 6 February to offer advice on how to tackle some of the worst rundown housing estates.
  As a result of that visit, the borough has now submitted proposals for four schemes involving the Rathbone estate, Clements Avenue estate, James Sinclair Point and Dennison Point. The proposals are now being considered, and my Department will be in touch with Newham shortly about some of the details.
  The hon. Member touched on the London Docklands development corporation. It is not a computer which makes the decisions, it is the Minister. I am not sure whether that is good news or bad news for hon. Members. We know that the LDDC area represents a relatively small area of Newham. None the less, it has brought considerable investment and activity to the borough. For example, 1,339 homes had been built on LDDC land in Newham up to September 1985. That represents nearly two thirds of total house building on LDDC land.
  Mr. Leighton: Prices.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Prices." However, nearly half the houses have been sold for less than £40,000, which, for London, is relatively cheap. We have widened housing choice to residents of the borough. If the hon. Gentleman looks at those who have bought houses from the LDDC, he will find that a substantial number, about one third, are either tenants of existing local authority houses or those on the waiting list.
  I hope that the wide range of projects and initiatives I have mentioned in the short time available will reassure the hon. Gentleman and Newham that the Government are concerned to help the borough with the process of urban regeneration. I am impressed by the width of support for the borough's efforts to stimulate the local economy and improve the environment and the efforts of all sections of the business community and the voluntary sector. Within the resources available, we will continue to give what help and support we can in working up good schemes for further specific grant support.
  Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister not agree that the moral of what he has said is that the Government are not appraised of the seriousness of the inner-city crisis and are not putting in sufficient resources? Last year we spent half a billion pounds in the Falklands. Would it not be better to put half a billion pounds into our inner cities before they explode?
  Sir George Young: When the Govenment took office in 1979, £90 million was spent on the urban programme. The figure for the current year is £317 million. It has gone up very substantially. Therefore, it is not true that we have switched our priorities away from the inner cities. We are spending more and more on them. We have introduced the derelict land grant scheme and the urban development grant and we have a new grant in the Housing and Planning Bill, currently going through the House.
  1230
  Therefore, I reject the criticism that we are insensitive to the problems of inner cities. However, it is not just a question of public expenditure; it needs the commitment of the private sector and the voluntary sector. We are determined to harness the energy of those sectors in tackling the problems in Newham and elsewhere.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned at two minutes past Three o'clock.

ENERGY
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Selston Electricity Substation (Accident)
  Selston Electricity Substation (Accident)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Infant Birth and Death Rates
  Infant Birth and Death Rates
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  British Companies (United States Laws)
  British Companies (United States Laws)
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Discretionary Awards
  Discretionary Awards
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  York Trailer Holdings, Market Harborough
  York Trailer Holdings, Market Harborough
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Young Person (Remand)
  Young Person (Remand)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Local Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Coal-burning Power Stations (Pollution)
  Coal-burning Power Stations (Pollution)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Covent Garden
  Covent Garden
  Hampton Court
  Hampton Court
  Thames Towpath
  Thames Towpath
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cruise Missile Convoys
  Cruise Missile Convoys
  Shotgun Cartridges
  Shotgun Cartridges
  Police Authorities (Computers and Hardware)
  Police Authorities (Computers and Hardware)
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Racial Attacks
  Racial Attacks
  US Extraterritorial Controls
  US Extraterritorial Controls
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Libya (Engineers and Pilots)
  Libya (Engineers and Pilots)
  Boys (Remand)
  Boys (Remand)
  Unruly Certification Procedure
  Unruly Certification Procedure
WALES
  NHS (Hospital Staffs)
  NHS (Hospital Staffs)
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Water Industry
  Water Industry
  Nurses
  Nurses
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  UK Companies (US Law)
  UK Companies (US Law)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Diabetics (Food Standards)
  Diabetics (Food Standards)
  Opium Poppies
  Opium Poppies
THE ARTS
  South Bank
  South Bank
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  EC (Non-VAT Own Resources)
  EC (Non-VAT Own Resources)
  Budget Statement (Tax Changes)
  Budget Statement (Tax Changes)
  Private Health Insurance
  Private Health Insurance
SCOTLAND
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Education
  Education
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
DEFENCE
  Royal Navy (Target Towing Contract)
  Royal Navy (Target Towing Contract)
  United States Dassault Falcon Aircraft
  United States Dassault Falcon Aircraft
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Upper Heyford Air Base
  Upper Heyford Air Base
PRIME MINISTER
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Whisky Exports (Japan)
  Whisky Exports (Japan)
  Nuclear Disarmament (Negotiations)
  Nuclear Disarmament (Negotiations)
  Argentina (Trade)
  Argentina (Trade)
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  US Bases
  US Bases
TRANSPORT
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Furniture Companies (Liquidations)
  Furniture Companies (Liquidations)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  EC (Research Council)
  EC (Research Council)
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Start Scheme
  Job Start Scheme
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Skill Shortages
  Skill Shortages
  Miss Juliet Kent
  Miss Juliet Kent
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United States Export Denials List
  United States Export Denials List
  United States Embassy (Mrs. Nelson)
  United States Embassy (Mrs. Nelson)
  British Pensions (Canada)
  British Pensions (Canada)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Industrial Disablement Benefit
  Industrial Disablement Benefit
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Neurostimulator Implants
  Neurostimulator Implants
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Departmental Circulars (Copyright)
  Departmental Circulars (Copyright)
  Alcohol Abuse
  Alcohol Abuse
  Alcohol Concern
  Alcohol Concern
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Residential Care
  Residential Care
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals
  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals
  Psychiatric Emergency Clinics
  Psychiatric Emergency Clinics
  Neurosurgery
  Neurosurgery
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Transplants
  Transplants
  Chief Medical Officer (Advice)
  Chief Medical Officer (Advice)
  Binfield Park Hospital
  Binfield Park Hospital
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Private Contractors
  Private Contractors
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Vehicle Excise Duty: Evasion Prevention
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek to accelerate action to prevent the use of motor cars on the roads without valid vehicle licences.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, vigorous action is already in hand. The number of offenders prosecuted or dealt with by out of court settlements, over 315,000 last year, was 9 per cent. up on the previous year and 58 per cent. higher than in 1982. We are determined that VED evasion should be as unattractive and difficult as possible.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, is he aware that in some areas there are long delays before cases are brought against transgressing owners? In the meantime the cars continue to be used. Because many of these owners are also not insured they constitute a serious danger to other road users.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I note my noble friend's concern and share it, but I can assure him that further steps to deter evaders are being taken this year. These include the allocation of 75 extra posts for enforcement work and the arrangement of a record number of local intensive campaigns. Together with a new computer system coming on stream in DVLC, these developments will help to speed up the processing of excise offence reports.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the information that the Minister has given is most encouraging. He may recall that when this matter was last raised, the question was one of shortage of staff at DVLC, which I am pleased to know has been met by the increased improved machinery. But is the Minister satisfied that, in addition to having the machinery for keeping the records, there is speedy transmission of those records to those who have to enforce the provisions?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Three local offices have been selected for trial in the use of terminals linked to the central records at DVLC. It is expected that the terminals will greatly speed up the processing of enforcement cases as well as providing an instant response to inquiries. If successful the installation of terminals will be extended to the total local office network.
Earl Grey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if a car is on the road without a vehicle licence so far as
876
insurance companies are concerned the car is not insured under insurance claims?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, I do not think that is the case. If a car is found to be without a valid excise licence and is uninsured, then the matter is reported by the police.

Sunday Trading: Removal of Anomalies
11.8 a.m.
Lord Tordoff: 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 steps they will now take to remove the anomalies in the current Sunday trading laws.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Government have no further plans to introduce legislation on Sunday trading.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that unsurprising reply. Nevertheless, is he aware that the present situation is causing considerable confusion and some distress? Can he advise retailers, particularly in the leisure, garden centre, do-it-yourself areas, and the most reverend Primate of All England, whether they should be opening their shops on Sunday? Will he also advise local authorities whether they should ignore the present law, or whether they should prosecute on a wider basis than has been done in the past?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the law on retail trading hours, as on any other matters, must be obeyed. In the case of shops it is the duty of local authorities to enforce the Act.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, arising out of that answer and from the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will my noble friend bear in mind the anxieties of the right reverend Prelates who may be facing the prospect of the deans and chapters of their cathedrals being prosecuted for the criminal offence of selling a Bible on Sunday?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I shall certainly bear that in mind. I am sure that the right reverend Prelates and their respective deans will also do so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept my satisfaction with the reply he gave yesterday to my Question for Written Answer, that until the law is changed it should be obeyed? Will he now tell enforcing authorities that unless and until the law is changed they have a legal duty to enforce the law? Otherwise the local enforcing authorities will be guilty of bringing the current law into even further disrepute.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord may be interested in a Written Answer given in another place

877
on 19th December 1985. In it my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General said he considered that:
"a local authority will generally be in a better position than the Attorney-General to judge whether it is expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of its area that proceedings for an injunction should issue to restrain the breach of the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950."—[Official Report, Commons. 19/12/85; c. 252.]
That is what my right honourable and learned friend said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is a cop-out, my Lords.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the fact that many of us who opposed this Bill are extremely unhappy at the present state of the law? Secondly, that we regret that reasoned amendments tabled in this House were not found acceptable? Thirdly, will he take note of the fact that Church leaders will feel a responsibility to take some initiative to draw together those of us in this country who still believe that a compromise proposal, such as we had before this House, is still possible? Will he take note of the fact that meanwhile archbishops and bishops will take the consequences of what has transpired in our own House?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the most reverend Primate will accept the consequences of what has transpired, but I have to say that it is really a little too late to be unhappy about the turn of events. Your Lordships, very sensibly to me, and to many others as well, came to a certain conclusion, and another place in its wisdom decided that it did not agree with it. That is how things stand.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I suggest to my noble friend that he consults with the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament and the Bench of Bishops with a view to extending the Shops Act to Scotland, because then perhaps the whole country will be in a uniform state of chaos?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think I have already declared an interest in that I live in Scotland, and I do not think that I should particularly welcome that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, notwithstanding the anomalies that remain within the existing Sunday trading laws, many of us in this country are pleased that it has been possible to retain some measure of serenity on the sabbath?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that the question of serenity on the sabbath was ever at issue. What was at issue was the right of people to enjoy that serenity in any way they chose to do so.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend fully aware that it is not necessary to take any of the steps proposed in one, not insignificant, part of the United Kingdom, Scotland, where shops are free to open on Sundays and have been open for many years without noticeably damaging the spiritual welfare of
878
the residents or the nature of their Sunday? Surveys have shown that the percentage of the population in Scotland attending church on Sunday is larger than that in England.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; I entirely agree with my noble friend. As I said, I have some experience of the circumstances there. In fact, the same applies to other parts of the world as well. But nevertheless the decision has been reached in another place, and that is a decision that I think we have to accept with good grace.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that prosecutions are now bound to follow, the other place having affirmed their preference for the existing legislation covering Sunday trading? Prosecutions are bound to be continued until all DIY shops, all garden centres, the great majority of corner shops and all leisure retailing have been closed down on Sunday. Does my noble friend think that the electorate will appreciate that change in the character of Sunday?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I fear that my noble friend may well be proved right. I agree with him that I do not think that the electorate will particularly favour that.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that when the dust has settled and the Government's irritation at what has happened has had time to subside, they will recognise that there remains a problem; that there was ground for compromise; that the Auld Report was not written on tablets of stone; and that it will be possible to look at this again in a calmer atmosphere and come to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I thought that your Lordships considered it in a calm atmosphere. Yes, there is a problem. That is why we set up the Auld Committee and that is why we brought forward a Bill; and a decision has been reached which does not agree with what many of your Lordships think.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the Government had agreed to try to attempt a consensus in this House, it is almost certain that they would not have lost the Bill in the House of Commons.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord at all on that. We looked at all the issues, and so did Auld; and that is where we stood when the Bill left your Lordships' House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not correct that the Government cannot simply leave the matter there? There is considerable confusion on it. It is not a matter that they can leave to the local authorities. It is the Government's responsibility to see that the law is adequate for the purposes of the governance of the land, and the decision must rest with them to take the next step.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I really find the noble Lord's remarks surprising. A perfectly good

879
opportunity was afforded to your Lordships and to another place to consider all the possible scope for reforms within the terms of the Bill. Sadly for me, at the end of the day those were rejected. The noble Lord's suggestion has really come a little late.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the business managers in another place are not as competent as the ones in this place, the Government must not blame me.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certainly not blaming the noble Lord specifically, and I am certainly not blaming the business managers here or in another place. I certainly agree with what the noble Lord says about the business managers in your Lordships' House.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would it not have helped if the Government, at the outset, had decided to give a free vote to all their own members, and then we might have got a sensible compromise and given a lead to the other place?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government are perfectly entitled to apply whatever vote they think right, and government business is whipped in this way. As I have said on many occasions (and it has proved to be the case), even if you apply a Whip it is no guarantee that those who feel strongly about these matters will follow the Whip.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that, having opened this particular can of worms by introducing this Bill, it is really up to the Government to close the can of worms by legislation now? Or does he think that no bread is better than half a loaf?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when a Bill was introduced your Lordships and others had the opportunity to consider how we should take this forward. I cannot see that to reopen the can of worms, which is what my noble friend is suggesting at this stage, is likely to get us anywhere. As I have said, the Government have no plans for further legislation on Sunday trading.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, surely the Minister should take the opportunity of reminding the House that the decision in the other place was not to confirm the existing legislation but to reject a Bill from the Government which called for complete deregulation of Sunday trading hours.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Bill was brought forward in the light of the Auld Report, which agreed that the only sensible way forward was total deregulation. I really do not think that it profits us now to start that whole debate all over again.

Olympic Games 1992: Birmingham City Bid
11.19 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that they are giving the maximum support possible to the city of Birmingham in its bid to host the 1992 Olympic Games.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is the responsibility of Birmingham City Council to make and promote its own bid. In doing so, the city has sought Government support to enable it to meet the requirements of the Olympic Charter and to help Birmingham secure the nomination to host the Games. The Government are giving that support.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that, I believe, helpful reply. Can he tell the House whether the city of Birmingham has made any requests to the Government with which the Government have felt unable to assist them? Bearing in mind that if the Olympic Games do come to Birmingham it will be not only to the credit of the city of Birmingham but also to Great Britain, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are actively using the diplomatic service throughout the world in order to ensure that such influences in other countries as can be brought to bear to assist the bid are being brought to bear?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the chief request of the Birmingham City Council was for an indemnity against losses arising from the Games. The Government have agreed to guarantee only losses in excess of £100 million. So far as concerns the other part of the noble Lord's question, we are giving full support and will continue to do so.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it not true that Birmingham has a unique combination of facilities to offer, with its national exhibition centre sited next to the Birmingham international airport and adjacent to a London-linked railway station? Is it not obvious that if the Government will continue to give the support that has been mentioned it will bring an enormous boost for the development of sport in this country if we can secure the Games in 1992?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I totally agree with everything the noble Baroness has said. I recommend her to read the Birmingham Olympic bid publication, Heart of Gold, a copy of which I shall see is placed in the Library.

Arms Exports: Contingent Liability
11.22 a.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 was the largest sum guaranteed to exporters by them in respect of arms exports to a country whose identity they will not reveal to Parliament (H.L. Debates, 15th April 1986, col. 658) before the £100 million reported in Cmnd. 9753.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the contingent liability in question is not a guarantee of a sum of money to an exporter but an assessment of the potential exposure to Her Majesty's Government of completing the supply. The largest previous risk of this nature was the £16 million referred to in Cmnd. 9746.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is this not a very large increase from £16 million to £100 million? What is the need for secrecy? Why is it necessary to ask Parliament to approve the gift of £100 million in certain circumstances in order to ensure the sale of arms to a country which the Government are not ready to name? Even if the country itself is not ready to be named, do we wish this country to be the kind of country where you can expect taxpayers' help in secret arms purchases?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in matters of defence exports, it has been the practice of succeeding governments not to give details of specific sales. It is for the customer to do that if he wishes, and that has always been the way of it. It is right and it is necessary that the House should beware of contingent liability of this magnitude, but I can assure the noble Lord that this contingent liability, in common with all other departmental financial dealings, is subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and of the Public Accounts Committee.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate on Libya, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The usual practice is for the opening speaker to be allowed 20 minutes and for the Minister to rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the end of the debate; but I think that on this occasion the House may feel that the opening speakers for the official Opposition and the Alliance should have a slightly more generous ration. This could be achieved if all other speakers would limit their remarks to between seven and eight minutes. In parenthesis, I think I should emphasise that the figure "eight" should not therefore be allowed to appear on the clock! If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Libya: US Action
11.24 a.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw) rose to move, That this House takes note of the circumstances surrounding United States action in Libya.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House takes note of the circumstances surrounding United States action in Libya.
When I repeated my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's Statement on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as Leader of the Opposition, proposed a debate in your Lordships' House. I readily agreed, and I am glad that it has been possible, through
882
the usual channels, to arrange this debate quickly even though this allows only a limited time on a Friday. At the end of the debate, my noble friend Lady Young will seek to reply to the various points raised. Also, if there is need, she will seek to bring your Lordships up to date with any new developments there may be during the day.
However, it is my sad duty at this time—and as I understand that the news is shortly to be given I think it is proper for me to give it to your Lordships' House—that two of the bodies discovered in the Lebanon are those of Mr. Padfield and Mr. Douglas. I know your Lordships will deeply regret that fact, as do the Government. I thought it only proper to give your Lordships that information at this time. I hope that no one in this House is any longer under illusions about Colonel Gaddafi's success in promoting terrorism. Since he seized power, he has used all the resources at a government's disposal to finance terrorism, to train terrorists, and to provide them with the dreadful tools of their trade. Libyan state-backed terrorism has caused great suffering throughout the world and indeed to the people of our country.
In our exchanges on Tuesday, several noble Lords asked for the evidence of Libyan involvement. We all remember the murder of WPC Fletcher in St. James' Square exactly two years ago. But we also know that the Libyans have supported the Provisional IRA for some considerable time with money and weapons. As long ago as 1973 the SS "Claudia" was intercepted on her way from Libya to Ireland, bearing a large cargo of arms and explosives. On 26th January of this year, rifles and ammunition from Libya were among the very large find of arms in Sligo and Roscommon in the Irish Republic—the largest ever on the island. Another recent example was the bomb attack in West Berlin, which left two people dead and 230 injured. The communications between Tripoli and the Libyan People's Bureau in East Berlin about the planning for, and outcome of, this operation are now generally known, and I believe widely accepted. We also knew of Libyan plans for many further attacks. No government could stand by while they were carried out.
This is the position in which the United States Government found themselves. They had to consider, of the courses open to them in self-defence, which was most likely to safeguard the lives and well-being of their citizens. It has been asked why they did not take the matter up with the Security Council of the United Nations; why united international action could not be tried against Libya; whether economic sanctions would not have been a preferable response.
This matter has already been before the United Nations. International declarations against terrorism have been made in many different fora: for example, in the United Nations Security Council following the "Achille Lauro" hijacking; in the United Nations General Assembly in December 1985; by the European Council in Dublin in December 1984; and by the Economic Summit in June 1984.
The House well knows that notwithstanding such resolutions, and condemnations of terrorism in the plainest terms, the bombings and hijackings of state-sponsored terrorism have not diminished. And can anyone suggest that they have had the slightest impact on Colonel Gaddafi, as he pursues his chosen path of unremitting, ruthless terrorism?
I turn now to other forms of international action. The United States and ourselves have closed the Libyan People's Bureaux in Washington and London. In addition, we in this country have imposed strict controls on the entry of Libyans, have severely limited the availability of credit, and have banned new contracts for supplying defence equipment to Libya. Economic sanctions were proposed and are being proposed, but the history of such measures offers little hope of their effectiveness unless they are widely supported by many countries. But it has become obvious that securing such support was not a real prospect in the case of Libya.
In this predicament, the United States Government clearly formed the view that direct action was the only way to protect the wellbeing of United States citizens. They informed the United Kingdom Government last week that they intended to take action to deter future attacks by the Libyans on American citizens and facilities. They asked for our support. They also raised the question of using F-111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom, for which they needed our agreement.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained in another place how this approach, made under the agreement of 1952, was considered. Among the matters we raised were the importance of the principle of self-defence recognised in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and the need to limit action to selected targets related to terrorism. But after these points had been clarified, the British Government had to make a clear decision: yes or no. That is something which faces a government and of course usually does not face their critics. They do not have to give a clear decision of that nature. Whatever our decision, there would be consequences which had to be most carefully weighed: consequences for our own citizens, for our international relations, and for the fight against state-sponsored terrorism.
It was concluded that we should support the United States action in self-defence and that our agreement should be given to the use of aircraft based in this country, if that was necessary, in actions clearly related to specific targets involved in terrorist activities. It was also decided that our agreement would relate only to this one operation. We were assured by the United States that if they were not able to use these aircraft, with their particular characteristics, the risk was created of increased casualties. Surely no one could neglect such considerations.
It has been said that by our decision we have laid ourselves open to a greater threat of Libyan terrorist attack. No one can ever be sure about the reactions of ruthless terrorists. Indeed, the recent tragic events in Lebanon, and the bomb at Heathrow, to which I have referred, make plain the dangers which such people present. I hope, however, that no one will suggest that such a risk would have justified holding back from a decision we believed necessary in the wider struggle against state-sponsored terrorism. Such an attitude does not buy off terrorism; on the contrary, all experience shows that it merely emboldens those who seek to destroy our country and our way of life. I must also reiterate that if, by supporting the United States action, we succeed in seriously weakening a fount of terrorism we shall indeed do a great deal to protect
884
British citizens as well as American citizens all over the world.
I now turn to the international repercussions of our decision. Certainly there are currently differences within Europe over the American action. I do not underestimate them. But I also believe that, with time, an understanding will develop of why we took the view we did. I trust that, given added impetus from recent events, we in Europe shall work harder and more effectively together to find a better way to counter state-sponsored terrorism. We as a government shall certainly strive to promote proposals to that end, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel with his outstanding experience.
On the other hand, it is equally important that Europe and America should work together. Who could overestimate the damage to world peace and security of their drifting apart? Let us not forget that the United States maintains 330,000 troops in Europe in the interests of the combined security of the NATO Alliance. In the relationship between Europe and America, we in Britain for many historical reasons have the key role. The Americans, faced with a real and deadly threat backed by all the resources at the disposal of another government, felt themselves forced to act in self-defence and sought our support.
In these circumstances, they sought our permission for use of their aircraft with their crews in order to minimise casualties in the air and civilian casualties on the ground. I beg your Lordships to consider carefully all the implications of our withholding agreement to that request.
Having weighed up all these factors, I submit that the Government's decision was justified in the interests of our own country, of world peace, and of the fight against Libyan state-inspired terrorism. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the circumstances surrounding United States action in Libya.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
11.37 a.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his opening speech on this most important subject and for arranging this debate. He has enlarged upon the case that he made last Tuesday and defended the Government's decision to support, by words and deeds, the American action against Libya. He will know that we have grave doubts and misgivings about the Government's attitude and about the wisdom of the American action.
It needs to be made plain at the start, as did the noble Viscount, that international terrorism, which triggered off the crisis, is a major problem of our time. Like other countries, we have suffered from it, and the tragic death of Yvonne Fletcher is still fresh in all our minds. In the main, it is the cities of the democratic West which are chosen for those cowardly acts. They are the work of groups with political or ideological objectives, and most of them are well known to us. They achieve nothing save the death and suffering of innocent people. We recognise, too, that Libya is a different case. It is not a group; it is a country. It is Gaddafi and his government who have, over the past few years, caused widespread concern and misery.

885
There are several questions which arise from this crisis, and some of them are as follows. What is the depth and range of acts of terrorism planned and directed by the Libyan Government? Even if the American Government had incontrovertible evidence of Libyan complicity and responsibility, was the military action they took the best way to handle the situation? Again on this point, was the American action defensible in international law and were the British Government right to give support as they did and thus involve this country directly in the crisis? Lastly, is the international community dealing as effectively as it can with international terrorism?
The Government have said that they have irrefutable evidence of the Libyan Government's direct involvement in promoting terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries, and the noble Viscount has repeated that again today. If the noble Viscount says that the evidence is irrefutable, of course I accept that without question. But let us also get the lines of our argument clearly defined.
Over the last few days Government spokesmen, including the noble Viscount, have repeatedly stressed that terrorism must be dealt with and stamped out. Some have also implied that any opposition to the American operation, any criticism of it, is in some way a condonation of terrorism. I disagree fundamentally with this argument. I oppose terrorism absolutely, but I do not believe that the American attack on Tripoli was the right course. I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government should have supported it, and I think that there were Ministers in the Government who had grave doubts about it as well. There are now clear reservations about support for any future attacks on Libya, and these were described by the Prime Minister in her speech in the House of Commons.
Of course, we can understand American frustration, anger and impatience, but it is certainly arguable—and this is my second point—that more time should have been taken to examine the evidence over a period of time and to discuss it in detail with other countries, including our own. It may be said that there has been enough discussion in the United Nations and in other meetings, some of which have been referred to by the noble Viscount. I recall the Bonn summit, the Venice summit and the London summit when resolutions were passed about terrorism.
But it does not seem to me that there was adequate discussion during the last crucial three months between the United States and all her allies on the possibility and on the full implications of military action, proper consultation within NATO, consultation with our partners in the European Community—after all, many of them are Mediterranean countries with a profound interest in what happens there—and also consultation with other countries in the United Nations.
We have been told that there was no time for such consultation. We have also been told to remember the Falklands. With great respect, there is no comparison here with the Falklands conflict. Britain was then responding to an attack and an invasion and was, in fact, supported and sustained by a resolution of the Security Council. It is a resolution of the Security
886
Council that I should have liked to see in this crisis. If the evidence is irrefutable, substantial and clear, it should be on the table of the Security Council, for if the Libyan Government are guilty, they should be charged in the Security Council as being in breach of several conventions passed by the United Nations. The case against them has not been prepared, processed and presented either to America's allies or to the United Nations.
The fact is that the United States took the law into their own hands. They did what they and we condemn when other nations take unilateral action. It may be argued that action through the United Nations is too slow and also ineffective, and that those who advocate it are "wets" and do-gooders and never get anything done. These are dangerous arguments for, if they are carried to their logical conclusion, there will be no international law and order. To bypass the United Nations when it suits us is to ask for trouble.
We may also be reminded of the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. They are, of course, not in a position to criticise the United States because of their own record. But the tragedy is that America, by this action, have gravely weakened any moral authority they had to criticise other countries for breaches of international law. This is my third point; namely, the validity of the American attack in law. Article 51 of the charter has been called in aid and we are told that the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown was sought. The Lord President said on Tuesday that they concluded that the attack could be justified as being in self-defence. There is considerable doubt about this, to say the least, and other experts have referred to the American attack as "an act of war" in international law. I will say no more on this crucial issue now, because my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones is to wind up the debate on this side and he will deal with this aspect more fully then.
My fourth point is whether or not the Government were right to give active support to the operation. I do not believe they were. The Prime Minister, in particular, has stressed the need to be loyal to the United States; indeed, that it would be "inconceivable" for us not to respond actively to the request of the United States administration. This again is a very dangerous argument. Where does that loyalty or that obligation to co-operate end?
Governments have a right and a duty to tell their friends if they disagree with them and believe that a course of action is contrary to the national interest. They have a duty to advise and to persuade if necessary. When Britain, with France, embarked on the Suez invasion 30 years ago the United States were very quick to show their displeasure, and they were right to do so. Many of us were here at that critical time. It seems to me that the Prime Minister gave her agreement with a minimum of consultation with her allies, and without the agreement of all her Cabinet colleagues; it is said that the decision was taken by her with the knowledge of two of her colleagues only, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Defence Secretary. That is alarming and totally unacceptable.
I do not speak for myself alone or indeed for the Opposition alone, as anyone who has read the speeches of Mr. Edward Heath and Sir Ian Gilmour in

887
the House of Commons on Wednesday can confirm. Both the former Prime Ministers who spoke in that debate—Mr. Edward Heath and Mr. James Callaghan—were clear and unequivocal in their view that the operation was a mistake and that this country's involvement was wrong. Far from ending terrorism, it will place this country in a more vulnerable position than before, and the tragic events of the last 24 hours bear that out.
It will not help our relations with Arab countries who have been our friends, it will have an effect on our trade with the Middle East, and it will not help the unity of the Western alliance or the European Community. In short, the consequences of violent actions of this kind are always unpredictable. Notwithstanding what the noble Viscount has just said in his speech, against this background of violence I find it difficult to understand why the Government rejected out of hand the proposals for economic sanctions.
Libya depends on oil, and that is an uncertain commodity at this time. Surely the pressure of economic sanctions would be preferable to the bombing of open cities. To say, as the noble Viscount said, that they would not work is not enough. I think they would have been effective against Libya, and that is a view shared by many other experts outside this House. As the noble Viscount said, we do not have to make a decision; those who criticise—the Opposition and others—do not have to make a decision. That is of course true—at present; but this is the decision that we would have taken in preference to bombing the open cities of Tripoli and Benghazi—
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would the noble Lord—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the time limit makes it difficult to give way.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, surely the noble Lord would not wish to say that open cities were bombed. Mr. Heath made this same remark, and it was absolutely inaccurate. There were five pinpoint targets picked out and hit in Tripoli, and some bombers came back without releasing their bombs because they could not be sure of hitting those targets. The open city of Tripoli was not bombed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I regret that I gave way. The evidence is clear and incontrovertible that cities were brilliantly lit, that the pinpoint bombing was not effective and that residential areas were damaged and civilians killed and injured.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: And the French Embassy, my Lords.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it included, as my noble and learned friend reminds me, the damage to the French Embassy in Tripoli.
I come back to my first point; namely, international terrorism. I think everyone agrees that it must be tackled more urgently. I am glad that the Foreign Ministers have met to discuss again its implications. But even more importantly, the causes of terrorism
888
must be understood and efforts made to deal with them. The Middle East, the Palestinian issue and the emergence of militant Islam are at the centre of this problem. I cannot see that the American action will help to resolve that. After all, the United States was a key element in the moves to find a settlement. A reappraisal of the situation in the light of events is now urgently required and the fences with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the Middle East will need to be mended. The conflict between the Arab world and Israel still lies at the root of the matter.
Finally, I am deeply sorry that the United States have seen fit to commit this mistake. They are our essential allies in NATO and they are our friends as well. One of the disturbing elements of the past few years has been the growth of anti-Americanism not only in neutral and less friendly countries but in Western Europe as well. The world's greatest democracy and its generous people must work towards new policies and new understandings—this is the real lesson to be learnt from this recent crisis—and we must help them to do that; otherwise the threat to the peace of the world will become far greater.
11.51 a.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Viscount for making it possible to have this debate so soon after we called for it last Tuesday. We thank him, too, for giving us the deeply grievous news that he gave this morning about those men who have been hanged or executed by terrorists. Sympathy must go out to them and to their relatives.
When we discussed this on Tuesday we made the position of the Alliance abundantly clear. We cannot in any way support the American attack; nor can we agree that Her Majesty's Government were right to give support to the Americans in the way that they did. I repeat that this in no way implies that we do not detest terrorism and oppose it in every way as strongly as the Government say they do, and indeed as we know that they do. It is totally abhorrent. It has to be uprooted. But our arguments are—and I shall summarise them only briefly again this morning—that this is not the way to do it, and indeed that it has made the fight against terrorism more difficult and not easier than it was before.
We do not accept that the bombing itself will halt terrorism. Why should it? Where we have people who are fanatical and determined to promote their objectives, the bombing is not likely to halt them. It is indeed likely to stimulate them to further action. We also cannot agree that it was a reasonable risk that it would be possible to hit purely military targets. It is quite plain from the evidence that targets other than purely military targets were hit—surely unintentionally, but that is not the point; people are dead and people are injured as a result of that bombing, which was not pinpointed as it was hoped it would be.
We also do not accept the argument of self-defence—the argument invoking Article 51 of the treaty. There can be, and no doubt there will be, continued legal arguments about it. But all those of us who are non-lawyers can say that there is convincing evidence from

889
experts of the highest quality that the self-defence argument is not justified.
Further, we would expand on our anxiety for the wider political consequences that this attack is bound to have and is already having. We have all too few friends in the Arab world as it is. What must this have done to those who have collaborated with the West, who have attempted to work along with America and with the other powers of the West in order to try to solve what is after all the central and the most inflammatory problem in politics today—the Arab problem? What must President Mubarak of Egypt be saying, surrounded as he is by Nasserites, by fundamentalists, fighting off challenges which come from the Arab world—challenges which are of the greatest possible danger to the world as a whole? How can he defend his collaboration, as he has to do against his critics in the Arab world, when America takes action of this kind?
Then there are our essential allies in Europe—the Community Foreign Ministers. What must their reaction be? I know—and I would go along with the criticism—that they could have done a great deal more than they have done, that they could have collaborated far more to deal with these problems. But the fact remains that our Foreign Secretary was in consultaton with the Foreign Ministers of the Community on the very day that this action took place. The Foreign Secretary said in another place that those discussions,
"focused almost entirely on how the 12 should respond collectively to Libyan terrorism".
This is what the discussion on Monday was about. He went on in that speech in another place to say that he had,
"no confirmation of any decision by the President, still less of any decision to authorise raids that night".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/86; col. 950]
That is the Foreign Secretary's testimony as to what was happening while he was in discussion the very day preceding the night when this bombing took place.
What can those Foreign Ministers think? They can think only one of two things: either that the Foreign Secretary was less than candid with them, or that his information or his authority was less than they have a right to expect from the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom. But that is over. These things have been done. We cannot undo what has taken place.
What we have now to do, and what I hope will come from this debate and from the discussions that are going on up and down the country is to address ourselves to two issues. How can we overcome the damage which has been done by the actions of the past few days? But even more important, how are we going to take effective action against terrorism in the future?—because there is no question in any area in this country but that we totally abhor and are determined to fight terrorism.
My mind goes back to those years between the wars and immediately after when we were discussing again and again how the nations of the world were to deal with the appalling threats with which we were challenged in those days. It is surely true today that we have now only three possible options. The first option is that we put up with terrorism—and we are all totally agreed that we will not put up with terrorism. The
890
second is that we accept that there will be further acts such as the acts of America this week supported by ourselves. It must be plain that there is a very strong feeling throughout this country (and not only throughout this country) that that is not the answer.
So we are in the difficult position of saying that this other choice is the only one left for us to pursue. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has already referred to it. In those days, 50 years ago, we hammered out the belief, and thought that it was accepted throughout the civilised world, that the only way to deal with the threat to peace was through collective action based upon international law. Many noble Lords in your Lordships' House will remember as I do the arguments that went on in those days before the days of the League of Nations and the United Nations, and before the use of sanctions and of Article 16. We thought that battle was won. Of course we were optimistic in the extent to which we believed it would be posssible in the post war years to develop a really effective system of international law.
We have had many disappointments, but the lesson is that there is no other way. We must return with renewed energy and determination to build and abide by international law. We should have had the backing of a United Nations resolution, however ineffective an action that might have been. It would have reaffirmed our belief that the course I have described is the only one open to us.
We recognise that we also need to support that approach with action and with collaboration with regional groups within the United Nations. Surely the regional group on which we have to rely in this instance, and with which we must collaborate, is that of those countries surrounding the Mediterranean who are, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, more at risk than any American country is ever at risk. It is true that they have been laggardly in their support, but if now, in the face of what has happened, they will really come together with economic sanctions, with quarantine on Libya, with a determination to revive our belief in international law and in its application, it will give an opportunity to rebuild.
I believe that our behaviour this week has made that more difficult than is otherwise necessary. I would say this not only to the Government but also to the Labour Front Bench. You cannot expect that type of collaboration, and you cannot expect effective collective action, if, when it suits you, you say that you do not wish to collaborate and that you will not pay the price of being an effective collective organisation. If you expect to make collective action and the rule of international law effective, you must show that you are genuine in your European collaboration. That is the way that we must go. I am convinced that it is the only answer.
There is no fourth option. I have given the three choices: which do we take?
12.2 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of York: My Lords, I greatly welcome what the noble Baroness has just said and I would regard my own remarks as a kind of footnote to her very fine speech. I should particularly like to underline what was said by the noble Baroness at the

891
beginning of her remarks about our sympathy and sorrow at the news that we received at the beginning of this debate. I also apologise to the House for the fact that I will have to leave this debate very early, because I must return to an important meeting in another part of London. However, I felt it was important that there should be a contribution from these Benches, not least because the Churches have been fairly vocal on the subject of the recent American action.
The British Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches of the United States have all issued statements broadly making the same two points: questioning the wisdom of the Americans' method of combating terrorism, and questioning its legality under the United Nations Charter. There has also been the rather quieter voice in this country of Mr. Terry Waite, who knows something about Libya and who has suggested that it is, in some circumstances, possible to talk even to Colonel Gaddafi.
While I share the doubts expressed by the council of churches, I do not want to be merely critical in my remarks, because it seems to me that we have got ourselves into this mess and now we must look to the future and find a constructive way forward. Of course we all recognise that terrorism is a problem that must be tackled vigorously, and of course there is some justice in saying that Europe has been weak and hesitant. One can understand the American feeling that Europe's measures would have been ineffective and that therefore the Americans were to some extent justified in going out on their own.
I believe, however, that we must return, as the noble Baroness has said, to the basic ways of tackling terrorism. Indeed, we must ask whether terrorism is one phenomenon and whether we do not oversimplify the matter by giving it a capital "T," rather than seeing a whole different set of reasons for terrorism and methods.
Of course we must reaffirm international law, and of course we must tighten our normal security measures. Beyond that, it seems to me that three things are essential. First, we must tackle the causes of terrorism, because one will never eradicate terrorism as long as there are those who believe that they have been treated with deep injustice and that they have no other way of expressing that sense of injustice.
Secondly, one must isolate terrorist groups from their potential allies. Thirdly, one must keep the moral high ground, because terrorism feeds on a distorted sense of self-righteousness. It seems to me that the action of the United States failed on all three counts. It reflected a persistent misunderstanding of the Arab world and the long-term failure to adopt an even-handed policy in the Middle East. When a few years ago I had an opportunity to meet leading politicians in six Middle East countries, the constant complaint wherever I went was the vacuum in American policy towards the Middle East. We must say again and again that Arab terrorism willl never be cured until the Palestinian problem has been resolved.
As regards isolating terrorists, we have already seen the political consequences of the action in the Arab world. However, I want to concentrate particularly, as
892
your Lordships would expect me to do, on the question of retaining the moral high ground. I ask this question: how can an action that seems so obviously morally right to United States' public opinion seem so obviously morally wrong to those who are deeply committed to friendship with America and who have no wish to undo that friendship? The answer to that question lies in some longstanding features of United States' foreign policymaking that are becoming increasingly worrying.
It seems to me that one of the problems of an open democracy such as that of America, which we can all applaud and welcome, is that effective action on the international scene requires massive popular support. That in turn requires the leaders of the administration to inflate feelings and expectations to the point at which actions begins to seem inevitable. In order to do that, the themes have to be oversimplified into terrorism with a capital "T", or the communist menace, or whatever.
The danger of that way of operating is that it leads to a progressive loss of manoeuvrability, so that when the moment of decision comes there really is no scope left for withdrawal, apart from utter humiliation. That is the trap into which the United States' administration had fallen on the eve of their raid. One can well understand the dilemma of the British Government in wondering how to respond to an America thus trapped.
That dependence upon popular feeling has also been characteristically combined, for the past 40 years almost, with adherence to the Truman doctrine that, for all it has done positively in keeping open the free world, has had the devastating effect of constantly making the United States lose its sense of proportion about the appropriate way of dealing with threats of different magnitude.
A recent historian of America referred to the effects of the Truman doctrine as leading to hysteria at home because every threat has to be seen as a potentially worldwide threat, together with over-confidence abroad. Somehow we have to help our American friends to see that some problems can be tackled and, indeed, must be tackled, in a lower key.
If you believe that the world is simply divided into terrorists and the rest, then the Libyan raid was obviously right. If you believe that the world is made up of a whole complex set of subtle interactions between different interest groups, then the Libyan raid was obviously wrong. The United States tends to go for the grand gesture. Europe tends to get lost in the subtleties. Somehow we must explore the ground between those two and gain an understanding of the different ways in which our foreign policies work.
As has been already said, the most dangerous possible consequence of this United States action in Libya is a growing gulf between Europe and America. Hence, there is the need to understand United States feelings; and that is why I have spoken as I have. We need to understand the difficulties of acting in an open democracy, and we need in our country to be as fearful of thoughtless anti-Americanism as we are fearful, or some people are fearful, of thoughtless pro-Reaganism. It seems to me that the main lesson is the need for critical solidarity—and both words are important.

893
We must not let anybody exploit anti-Americanism as a result of this action. We must not let criticism spoil our friendship, but we must not let friendship mute the criticism. Above all, I believe we need to use the credit that we in Britain have gained by one means or another with our American friends. We also need to use our long experience of Middle-Eastern affairs to help them to repair their relationships with the Arab world, to understand its hurt pride and to work towards more even-handed policies in that part of the world.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, in another place yesterday the Prime Minister emphasised that the Government faced a very difficult decision in this affair, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House implied the same today. I have great sympathy with them in that difficulty. It is never easy in these matters to judge where the balance of our national interest lies. It often seems to be a choice between two evils.
It is the natural reaction of a military man to ask two questions. What is the aim, and is the action likely to achieve that aim? If at the time the request was made to use the F-111s based in this country the Government believed what they say they believe now, it should not have been a difficult decision. If they thought that the action which the United States Administration was planning had a good chance of succeeding in its aim—that is, of reducing international terrorism and specifically that directed against the United States and its allies; in other words, if they thought that it was politically sensible and in the interests of the West generally—why should there have been any difficulty? If it succeeded in its aim, there would be a reduction in terrorist incidents. Fears of a backlash against this country would prove unfounded. If it leads to a temporary estrangement between us and our Arab friends and European allies, that would soon be dissipated when they saw how the situation improved. Domestic critics would be shown up as wet Nellies, as they were over the Falklands.
So why was it a difficult decision? Obviously because the Government, or whoever was admitted to the conclave on the matter, had grave doubts about whether it would achieve its aim. I suspect that that would have been the advice of the professional diplomatic and military chiefs if they were consulted. I hope they were. I expect that at the back of their minds there may have lingered memories of Suez. Although the situations are different in many ways, there are some remarkable similarities. There was no reason why the military action at Suez should not have achieved its military aim; but there was never a possibility that it could have achieved a satisfactory political outcome, even if it had succeeded in its short-term aim of toppling Nasser.
I expect that the Government's professional advisers would have pointed out that it could make terrorism worse; that some of it could be directed against us and that that would pose the awkward question of whether or not the action should be repeated; that it could range Arab opinion behind Gaddafi both in his country and all over North Africa and the Middle
894
East; that it would separate us from our fellow Europeans, making it less likely that we could persuade them to take more effective anti-terrorist measures; and that in any future anti-American terrorist incidents, if they occurred, the United States would receive much less sympathy.
In the balance against that would have to be set the damage it would do both to our own interests and to the general relationship between the United States and Western Europe if we refused permission. We would be accused of ingratitude for the help given to us over the Falklands affair and it could prejudice the possibility of help on some future occasion; and it would greatly exacerbate the already delicate relationship between America and her European NATO allies.
Of course, it was a very difficult decision if the Government had grave doubts about the wisdom of the American action. If they had doubts, I ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate: did they do anything to try to discourage the United States from taking the action it did? If not, why not? If, on the other hand, they had no doubts—which from their present statements now appears to be the case—did they do anything to encourage the President to go ahead? I hope not.
The argument that I have used about the wisdom of the attacks applies equally to the morality. If the Government believed that by suppressing international terrorism innocent lives would be saved in the future, the fact that some innocent lives were lost in the attacks can be justified. On the other hand, if they had grave doubts they must have guilty consciences; and I sympathise with them in the moral dilemma in which they were placed by what I can only describe as the near-blackmail of the statement that if the F-111s were not used there would be a greater risk both to civilians near the targets and to the United States aircrews.
Doubts or not, I believe it to be both hypocritical and unwise to try to justify the action on the grounds of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter: hypocritical, as the article was clearly never intended to cover anything like that; and unwise because it opens the door to its abuse. To extend it to justify armed action in retaliation for what has happened to one's citizens beyond one's own frontiers could have very undesirable repercussions. For example, it could be used by Libya to justify a reprisal for something that happened to a Libyan in this country.
Another concern is the manner in which the decision was made. Whether there were no doubts, or many, there is no doubt that the implications of the decision reached far and wide. It was surely one which should have been discussed in Cabinet. I ask the noble Baroness: was it? The Prime Minister spoke of consultation with the Ministers principally concerned. Here again, there are some shades of Suez. It is not as if an instant decision was required. The Prime Minister said that discussion with the President covered a week. Will the noble Baroness tell the House who was consulted and who agreed?
Whatever happens to Colonel Gaddafi or to Libya, international terrorism with its base in the Middle East, aimed primarily at the Americans, will continue unless far more effective international steps are taken

895
to solve the Palestinian problem and the related appalling problems of Lebanon. There is no hope of a solution being found by leaving it all to the United States. The Soviet Union must be involved and so must Western Europe. Our influence must be exerted—and I give the Government credit for having tried to exert it—through our Western European allies and fellow members of the Community.
While pursuing that aim, we must also do our best to improve the technical means of countering international terrorist activities. Those two avenues of approach are likely to yield better results than bombing buildings in Libya. The Government have said publicly that they do not believe that economic sanctions against Libya will be effective and I am inclined to agree with them. Do they now believe that bombing buildings has been or in future will be effective? If so, do they wish to see it repeated? If not, what do they propose to do?
12.20 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House began his speech today by reminding us that, if there were any doubts before that the government of Libya were organising acts of terror on the international stage, those doubts must have been dispelled, first, by the hard evidence given by the Prime Minister to another place and, secondly, by the ostentatious claim of Colonel Gaddafi that he feels entitled to export revolution and in that process to kill. That is the new matter with which we have to deal. It is state terrorism and, with all due respect to the most reverend Primate, I do not see how you can spell that except with a capital "T". It is surely a very dangerous doctrine to try to suggest that political grievance can in any circumstance be justified by an act of terrorism.
The numbers of casualties attributable to the acts of terrorists were given to us the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. In 15 years there have been 5,000 dead and 10,000 wounded and crippled. That is a horrifying toll. It is war. It is so horrible that on all sides of Parliament we have statements to the effect that the situation cannot be tolerated and terrorism must be stopped. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said this morning that terrorism has to be uprooted. So far the cold fact of the matter is that no one other than the President of the United States has tried to do anything effective about it at all. At least he tried to stop it, and we know what the United States did and are debating that action.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded me that it seems to have become fashionable for ex-Prime Ministers to indicate what they would have done if they had been in the Prime Minister's shoes. That is rather a creaking bandwagon on which to try to jump. Nevertheless I shall not shirk the issue.
Among all the anxieties and misgivings raised by President Reagan's intention to act and about the method which he had chosen, and in the full knowledge that a British Prime Minister can veto such action relating to a base in this country, I hope I would have remembered three things. First, I would have remembered the victims of the bomb outrage in Germany which was organised by the Libyan
896
Government and which killed Americans. Those Americans were serving as part of an allied integrated army engaged in defending Europe and Britain against violence and aggression. The Libyans made them their target. The Americans were their target that night; but the target might just as well have been any democracy which is a member of the NATO alliance. In this matter of resistance to violence we must stand together or separately we shall be picked off, one by one.
Secondly, I hope I would have remembered that the main guarantee that the democracies possess against those who deal in aggression is the readiness of the people of the United States to underwrite with their power the security of the continent of Europe and of the Atlantic Ocean. Thirdly, I hope I would have remembered that Britain, but for the co-operation of the United States Government, would not possess a nuclear deterrent at all. Therefore, in all the circumstances, on that occasion and faced with that dilemma, I believe that the Prime Minister's decision was right. Americans in Europe are part of the NATO alliance.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke of international law. It seems to me that the weakness of every democratic country in this context of terrorism arises from the fact that there is no provision in international law to which a victim can appeal for protection and redress. The article concerning self-defence in which we are in hot pursuit is, so to speak, a postscript to military action which has already been taken. I shall listen carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, may say on this question of international law, but until that situation is remedied or, in the shorter term, measures can be agreed by the influential nations to check these awful crimes, one nation or another will respond to terrorism with force. When the worm turns, reason goes out of the window. Who in those circumstances can lay blame?
Following my noble friend's statement the other day, I said that we had to try to find a better way. No one has yet found it, and clearly there is no blanket cover against terrorism. In this specific case of Libya—and in each case one has to take particular measures—I believe that it would be justified to blockade all exports of oil from Libya and to refuse to accept Libyan airplanes into any of our international airports. No doubt all these measures will be considered. Everybody dislikes such sanctions and so far they have not worked, but we are now dealing with organised state terrorism, which is something quite different from anything that has happened before, and we must adapt ourselves to that situation.
My feeling is that now that they can recognise the stark penalties which the policies of the Libyan Government are bringing upon them, many people in Libya will feel that they cannot suffer those penalties much longer. Still more in the Arab and Moslem world there will be those who resent the repercussions which Libyan policy is bringing upon them. I think, too, in the wider context of international law, that the Russians must be beginning to be interested in strengthening international law against the terrorist. Certainly in these matters Britain must give a lead.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I do not think anyone will disagree with the harsh criticism of the Libyan Government which has been pronounced by the noble Lord who has just spoken, and indeed by the noble Viscount who opened the debate and other noble Lords, but we have to ask ourselves the question: was the American action wise?
I do not propose to go into the question of whether that action can be defended in international law. My noble and learned friend on the Front Bench can deal with that when he winds up. I do not feel competent to give a precise answer. However, I think we can all apply commonsense and humanity to the practical question of whether this American action was wise. The noble Lord, Lord Home, remarked that terrorism is a great evil and that the only person who had done anything about it was the President of the United States. With great respect, I think that that is the fallacy of the man who says, "We must do something. This is something. So let us do this". That, I think, is what has happened.
Yesterday when we were asking questions following a Statement, I raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the question of whether the horrible murders in Beirut were connected with the American action and the British consent to it. At that time she did not seem to be certain whether they were. We know now that they were a result of the American action. It can be said that that is something for which we must be prepared, and if we are put off by fear of such things we can always be bullied by the terrorists.
The other consideration is this. What happened there and what nearly happened at Heathrow—and a much more terrible event could have happened—indicate that if we are not careful we shall be launched on what is in effect a war that will stretch from Beirut to Heathrow and possibly further. We cannot each time say that we shall reply to terrorist acts by bombing here or bombing there. We are not on the right road. We cannot find the answer that way.
Are there alternatives? Here again, I listened with respect and with much more agreement to what the noble Lord, Lord Home of Hirsel, said about some of the actions that could be taken making in effect a diplomatic and economic boycott. Economic sanctions have not always been successful, but it is the usual case of something not succeeding because it was not wholeheartedly tried. I think that by now there are enough European nations sufficiently aware of the dangers of terrorism to make an effort to operate economic sanctions more seriously than ever before, and certainly diplomatic sanctions. I do not see why Libyan people's bureaux should be scattered here, there and everywhere to be offices for the promotion of terrorism. We all rightly break off that kind of diplomatic relation. On those lines I think that we may have a chance of success.
It was noteworthy that the Foreign Secretary spoke to our European colleagues shortly before the American action and urged a series of diplomatic and economic actions. The aspect of that meeting that sticks most in mind was the extreme feebleness of their response. Whatever one may think about the Foreign Secretary's position, which was discussed by the noble
898
Baroness, Lady Seear, he obtained from the European countries a very feeble response indeed. It is hard for Europeans to be entirely outspoken in attacking the undoubted unwisdom of the American action without searching their consciences about their inability to build up effective alternatives.
We are in danger—and this is the most serious aspect—of seeing the NATO Alliance torn in two between American recklessness, on the one hand, and European hesitancy, on the other. It is to avoid that that our efforts must be particularly directed in the future. That means bringing together ourselves, our European partners and the United States to consider effective means to combat terrorism. Some of them are in the field of economic and diplomatic sanctions; some are still in the most obvious field of all: improving security measures.
It is alarming and significant that the reason that that great aircraft with 400 people in it was not destroyed was that Israeli security measures at the airport were more effective than anybody else's. We have a lesson to learn. It is extremely foolish to be drawn into wilder and wilder military adventures when we have at hand at least the necessary job of improving security measures. That will impose inconvenience on passengers, but it would be trivial to urge that as a reason against effective security measures.
We have a chance now. Neither Europe nor the United States can look back happily on what has happened. The American people, infuriated almost beyond measure by what has been done to their fellow subjects by terrorists, will naturally back the President at the present time, but if such action were to be repeated I think that a change would come over American opinion. In Europe there may be some who will begin to doubt whether they have been resolute enough in the past. Neither side is in a position to recriminate against the other. Both are under an obligation to seek common counsel in the fields where the right answer may be found.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I start by taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and that is what nearly happened at Heathrow yesterday. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will specifically deal with the matter when she comes to reply. Only because an El Al plane was involved did we prevent 350 people being blown to pieces over the centre of London, and that despite constant reassurances from Ministers that every possible step has been taken at Heathrow and other British airports to deal with the terrorist threat.
The woman passenger passed through the only form of check that takes place for other airlines and was detected only at the second stage because she was to fly with El Al. I ask the noble Baroness when she comes to reply to the many other questions that will be put in the debate to tell the House what additional steps the Government propose to take forthwith as a result of what nearly happened at Heathrow yesterday. Passengers travelling abroad deserve an early answer to that question.
I come now to the central issue before us: the decision to authorise the use of British airfields for the

899
attack on Libya. The Government's decision deserves to be judged by two criteria: first, will it deter Gaddafi and other terrorists? Secondly, what will be the effect on the unity of the Western Alliance, which is of the highest importance to this country and to all our allies in Western Europe?
Gaddafi is a terrorist; but on what possible basis does anyone believe that as a result of what has happened this week the world is a safer place? I have heard no serious attempt made in this House or in another place to explain why as a result of the air attack on Tripoli and Benghazi we are less likely to have terrorist attacks upon us. Within 48 hours two British citizens have been murdered and 350 people were nearly blown up over London. At first glance the evidence does not appear to justify a great deal of belief in that argument.
It was a difficult decision. No one should underestimate the difficulty of the decision that the Prime Minister and her colleagues took this week. But as a result of what happened it is more likely that we shall have more rather than fewer, terrorist acts. Anyone who saw the pictures on television of small children grievously injured as a result of the air attack on Monday cannot fail, first, to be moved by their condition and, secondly, to recognise that that was probably the greatest public relations triumph that Gaddafi has had since he initiated the campaign of terrorism. What happens when the next major terrorist attack takes place? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked that question. I quote the Prime Minister on this point in the House of Commons on Tuesday, at col. 726 of Hansard:
"It was inconceivable to me that we should refuse United States aircraft and pilots the opportunity to defend their people".
That is clear; it is unambiguous; it is unequivocal. So does that mean that if a further request comes from the United States following another terrorist attack from Gaddafi, the British Government intend to authorise that attack as well? And what happens if the terrorist country involved is Syria rather than Libya? Where does one stop in this particular process?
The whole history of the Middle East in the past 40 years surely demonstrates one thing beyond question. In this tit for tat approach—the bombing by one side, the air strikes from the other, coming through at regular intervals—has anyone really suggested that one of those attacks by itself was ever likely to end the whole problem of terrorist violence? Of course not. All the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction. What is needed is not simply unilateral military action of this kind, formed on an extremely inadequate (to put it as mildly as possible) legal base, but a common approach by the democratic West.
Of course, that is difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, the response of many European countries this week was very disappointing. I believe that to be so, just as our own response to Libyan terrorist violence was very disappointing before the outrageous incidents in St. James's Square that led to the death of Woman Police Constable Fletcher. There was not much enthusiasm by the Government then for the type of statements that have been made in the past few days. What is surely
900
required is some degree of common approach from the United States and from our allies in Western Europe so that we can work through some way of responding to the threat of terrorist violence emanating from Libya, Syria, or any other source.
I recognise at once the immense difficulty of achieving that objective. I say, at the same time, that what we have seen over the past few days surely demonstrates the very questionable success that attends the type of approach to which the Government have now set their hand.
I come, lastly, to the point that I made when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House made the Statement. I believe that what we have seen this week has been a dangerous blow to the unity of the Western alliance. I believe that the tensions created in this country alone have been extremely serious. Grave questions have been raised, and it will be a long time before they are wholly dispelled. The only people who have been gratified by some of the developments this week are some of the most dedicated opponents of the United States and the Western alliance. That is a tragedy.
Over the past 40 years, as a result of the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we have managed to preserve the peace of Western Europe. A great deal of that peace is dependent on the presence in this country of United States air force bases. The fact that the dispute that we have seen this week relates so directly to the presence of those bases in this country is very damaging indeed to the interests of this country and to the whole of the Western alliance.
12.44 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, recent events have been argued and rehearsed fully, both in another place and in your Lordships' House today. I should like to concentrate on two lessons for the future that emerge, I believe, from these events. If I may be allowed to begin on a personal note, I have spent the greater part of my adult life in terrorism or, perhaps, to save misunderstanding, I should say counter-terrorism, of one kind or another. In my service in the army, I fought in three counter-terrorist campaigns. Since then, I have been involved for nearly 15 years in studying terrorism with colleagues in the United States and elsewhere. It may interest your Lordships to know that we are in the process of setting up in London an international institute for the study of terrorism and methods by which we might effectively combat it. It has, however, seemed to me for some time—this was underlined today by the speech of the most reverend Primate—that perhaps the true nature and scale of terrorism is still not fully understood. People pay lip-service to it. They say that terrorism is a great problem and that we must deal with it. And then they go on to more important matters.
I should like to add some figures to those rehearsed already today by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. In the period since 1968, when figures for international terrorism began to be collated, there have been many thousands of deaths and mutilations from international terrorism. But it is also worth pointing out the pattern of that terrorism. In that period, 60 embassies or consulates have been attacked by international terrorists, all of them the embassies or

901
consulates of free Western democracies. Of the 8,000 or more separate incidents of terrorism that have taken place in that period, only 100—a very small percentage—have taken place in the USSR, the countries of Eastern Europe or other communist countries. Sixty per cent. of the victims of terrorism in that period have been citizens of the United States and Western Europe. One draws from this—at least, I draw from it—the lesson that this is not a series of sporadic, unconnected incidents, all arising from different political and ideological social reasons, as has been suggested. It is a systematic, low-cost and low-intensity war against the West. Until we start to realise that, we shall not learn how to deal with it.
The question of state sponsorship is now established beyond all doubt. The main sponsors of international terrorism are the Soviet Union, Iran, Syria and Libya. It would be superfluous to give any more instances or to advance any more proof of the connection between Colonel Gaddafi and international terrorism. Anyone who is still in doubt about that must be living in some kind of dreamworld. Of course, the most effective way to deal with state terrorism and those who sponsor it is to isolate them by economic means, by diplomatic means through the machinery of international aviation, or the interruption of international aviation on a selective basis. These people, these states and their leaders, carry a deadly disease around the world. What we should do is to quarantine them and to isolate them from the civilised community.
It is true, as many noble Lords have said, that the application of military force is not the ideal way to deal with this problem. As already stated, one of the lessons of Suez, if we had not learnt it before, is that while armed force may have dramatic short-term effects it does not solve long-term problems. President Reagan and his advisers are not stupid, as some people seem to assume. They know this, too. If it is known in your Lordships' House, there is a fair chance that it is known on Capitol Hill and in the White House. What we must ask ourselves is: why did President Reagan feel constrained to take this action? The answer for me is that, for the United States acting alone, there must have seemed to the President at the time no other option. The reason can, I believe, be found in one of the important lessons of this crisis—that there is a real crisis of leadership and vision in Western Europe.
I would go further than the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and other noble Lords have done, in describing the action of our European allies in this case. Disappointing, someone called it. But I would go further than that. What happened was that, in the face of a problem that threatens us all, the rest of our European allies, with the honourable exception of the British Government, slunk away from the problem in the most shameful way.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, they have done so consistently when faced with international terrorism, for reasons of economic self-interest, commercial greed and short-sighted nationalism. It seems to me therefore that two grave and urgent problems now face us. One is certainly the defeat of international
902
terrorism. Our action against that must be firm, collective and determined.
The noble Lords, Lord Stewart and Lord Harris of Greenwich, have both mentioned the need for really effective security at our airports. That must be the first priority. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will assure us that she will take strong action to enforce security at our airports. It is strange that everyone speaks with such admiration of the security precautions taken by El Al. Those are the precautions that we should all be taking. We should not simply leave it to one airline.
Finally—and I shall try to get this in before the figure eight comes up on the clock—it is the disarray in the Western alliance to which we must address our full attention. It seems to me that this is not the first case of Europe, when faced with a crisis, running off in all directions, each country pursuing its narrow national interests and failing to understand that, for a threat against us collectively, collective action alone is the answer.
I would go further than other noble Lords have done. They have rightly said that the United States is the leader of the Western alliance, a great friend and our most powerful ally. I would leave this as perhaps one of the lessons of this recent crisis. Faced with all the threats that confront Western democracy at the moment, it is just possible that the United States of America could survive without Western Europe. But Western Europe cannot survive without the United States.
12.55 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should first of all like to ask this question of the noble Baroness who is to reply at the end of the debate. What is now the position of the Libyan pilots who were, until recently, under training at the air training school at Oxford airport? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell the House that they have been sent home, because there is an obvious danger in having young men who may be of fanatical views close to, and possibly in charge of, aircraft at a place not very far from London Airport.
Secondly—and I am sorry to see that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York has departed—I should like to follow up what my noble friend Lord Home said about the most reverend Primate's quite extraordinary observation as to the necessity of accepting that there should be terrorism when there were people who had grievances which were not remedied. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel dealt with that on the general merits. However, I should like to put forward this further point. How does that argument apply where the terrorism is being conducted not by individuals—who may well think, rightly or wrongly, that they have serious grievances—but by a government, a sovereign state? I should have liked, had he not gone, to press the most reverend Primate as to whether he was saying that, where there were any grievances in the world, that entitled a sovereign government, in diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, to organise terrorism in those countries. If your Lordships will allow me to say so, this is the kind of sloppy thought which is so intensely dangerous in this situation.

903
The issue before your Lordships at the moment is the decision of the British Government as to whether or not to permit the Americans to use their aircraft operating from British bases. I shall not say anything about the wisdom of the American decision. In the first place that is not a matter for us. Secondly, there is not time under our rules. The decision about which we are concerned was the very difficult one which presented itself to the British Government as to whether or not these American aircraft with these American pilots based in Britain could or could not be used to carry out the policy of their government by way of the attack on Libya.
No one pretends that it was an easy decision. No one pretends that to have said "No" would not, in the short term, probably have been—as is all appeasement—the easier course, the less likely to expose our citizens in Beirut and elsewhere to reprisals. That does not determine whether it was the right one. We are concerned not with this immediate crisis alone. We are concerned with something which I suggest to your Lordships is infinitely more important: the long-term relationship between this country and the United States. If we were to say to the United States, "Yes, we know that if you use these aircraft you will have less casualties yourself and your bombing will be more accurate but nonetheless we are not going to let you use them here,"—and we should have been perfectly within our rights legally in saying just that—I wonder whether your Lordships can reflect on the impact that that would have had not only on the American Government but on thinking opinion throughout the United States. Those men, those aircraft, are here primarily because this is the right place for them to operate in the defence of Europe against the Soviet threat. They have been sent here for that purpose. To say to the Americans, "You having done this for this purpose which we so immensely welcome, we shall inhibit you using them for your own purposes," would have been a desperately serious thing to do.
Twice in my lifetime we have gone into great wars which have largely started because the aggressor did not realise that ultimately the United States would be involved. Ultimately the United States was involved and ultimately with her aid we won. But surely the most important thing of all in our present situation is to maintain with the United States the posture of a firm and reliable ally so that they also may feel bound not to withdraw once again from Europe, with the tragic consequences that would follow.
In a debate on the Address about 18 months ago I inflicted upon your Lordships a report of the meeting which Winston Churchill held with some of his Ministers on the last day of his Premiership. We assembled that afternoon in the Cabinet Room in the light of a rather stormy sunset while he spoke to us about his long-term thoughts. He stressed—and this bit itself on to my memory—that the one thing that was really going to matter from the point of view of preserving both the freedom of our country and the freedom of the world was the preservation of close and friendly relations with the United States. I hope and believe that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and her colleagues considered this
904
difficult matter, and the balance of advantage, the dominant consideration with them must have been that long after Colonel Gaddafi has gone to wherever providence will consign him, and when all that is over, the continued alliance and co-operation of the United States with ourselves, and through ourselves with Europe, is the factor upon which European civilisation and the peace of the world will depend.
Therefore, it seems to me that our Government took what was possibly in the short term a disadvantageous decision but that in the long term it was the right thing to do. I am proud and glad that as a result we as a country can impress ourselves upon the United States as a loyal ally who helps them not only in easy times but also when they are in difficulty and in danger.
1 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the first responsibility of any government is to protect the lives and the safety of their citizens. Her Majesty's Government have signally, failed in that primary duty this week, and they have done so on two counts. First, they have endangered British lives by their collusion with the United States, and tragically we have already seen the consequences of that. We in this country have a long experience of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism goes back centuries into history. However, in my political life—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Home, is leaving the Chamber because he has had the same experience—one has only to refer to India, Malaysia, Kenya, Cyprus (and there are many other examples which one could quote) to recognise that governments of this country have a long experience of dealing with terrorism. However, one thing which all British governments have discovered is that the policy of retaliation, the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, has never worked and that in every case the only effective solution has been a political solution.
There has been a great deal of hypocrisy in this House and in other places this week over the phrase, "state supported terrorism". Is the United States not supporting terrorism in Nicaragua? Is the United States Government not supporting terrorism in Angola? If there were time, I could give many other instances of precisely the same accusation. Of course the Russians do it too; it is not just one-sided. However, it is hypocrisy to talk about state supported terrorism as though it were the province of only the Libyans.
How many British citizens feel any safer at the end of this week as a result of the killing and maiming of Libyan children? We all send our deepest sympathy to the families of those British citizens who have lost their lives in such horrible circumstances this week. I hope that we would equally send our sympathy to the families of the Libyan children and the Libyan civilians who have lost their lives this week, because Libyan blood is equally as important to us as British blood. Every British citizen at the end of this week—
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I wonder whether the noble Lord would also extend our sympathy to the families of the Americans who lost their lives, including the family of the American baby blown out of the plane. Would the noble Lord also extend his sympathy to them?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, of course I would; it goes without saying. However, nobody has yet mentioned the Libyans who have been deprived of their children and families this week. At the end of this week every British citizen is in greater jeopardy than was the case at the beginning of the week.
My second ground is that the action of the British Government in collusion with the United States has been to undermine international law and negotiations which is the only hope of security within our global society. Unfortunately over the past few years we have already seen both the Americans and the British Government undermining United Nations organisations. The noble Viscount spoke about the right of self-defence under the United Nations Charter. I would just ask this question. Why was it that when the Israelis bombed Tunisia the British Government condemned that action? What is the difference in quality between the two actions?
The noble Viscount spoke about frustration at the United Nations. There are opportunities at the United Nations, in the Security Council, for action as well as the passing of resolutions. We would have been much stronger had we been supported by a United Nations resolution, had the evidence been before the Security Council, and had we tried to persuade the Security Council to mount a campaign of sanctions. I suggest that the reason for the lack of a campaign of sanctions and the apparent absence of any intention by the United States to bomb the real heart of the Libyan economy, which is the oil fields, is that those oil fields are owned by American companies.
I want to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply two straight questions. First, who took the decision to grant the right for the Americans to use British bases to bomb Libya, and when was the decision taken? Was the decision taken by the Cabinet, or was the decision taken by the Prime Minister? I ask that question because as late as Monday afternoon the Secretary of State for Defence was publicly expressing doubts about the use of military force; whereas the Foreign Secretary did not reveal to his colleagues in Europe that that permission had been given. On Tuesday the Prime Minister spoke of it being "inconceivable" that that permission should be refused—a very dangerous word, particularly in view of the possibility of a further request for the use of those bases. It was known, and has been publicly stated in the United States, that the decision to bomb Tripoli was taken in the United States last week. Did or did not the British Government know? If they did know, they were deceiving their allies in Europe; if they did not know, they were being deceived by the United States.
Secondly, did her Majesty's Government try to persuade the United States to go to the United Nations or to NATO, bearing in mind that these are NATO bases? Did the British Government try to persuade the United States to work within the international framework? Was any persuasion used by Her Majesty's Government to get the United States to go to the United Nations or to NATO, or to both? Unless the British Government throw all their influence behind international law and international organisations, they will be jeopardising the lives and the safety of all British citizens, especially our children and grandchildren.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, contrary to the opinion of some of my compatriots, I do not regard the recent bombardment as a crime. It was undertaken because a large majority of the American people sincerely believed that Colonel Gaddafi was the enemy of all civilized society and that peaceful efforts to restrain his activities having demonstrably failed, military means had become absolutely necessary. However, it was the wise Talleyrand who observed that a certain decision of Napoleon was,
"worse than a crime; it was a blunder".
Although we must all hope that our fears will not be justified, it seems clear that in the present case Talleyrand's dictum will be justified.
The fairly predictable consequences of the United States action have already been mentioned by many speakers and editorialists. It is chiefly the reaction in the Middle East, notably in Egypt and the Sudan, that is disturbing. Just as serious, the Shi'ite revolutionary groups currently operating under the general patronage of Damascus and Tehran, to say nothing of the more terroristic sections of the PLO, are likely to exert even more influence over the Moslem masses, no doubt by further acts of terrorism represented, of course, as heroism. If so, who knows what may happen to the essentially pro-Western Arab governments in the Persian Gulf? All this is bad enough, but we must also consider the undoubted damage that has been inflicted on Western Europe political unity, even on NATO itself, and the likely setback to some kind of East-West understanding on which so much store has been placed if we are ever to make real progress to the avoidance of a third world war.
Given all this, all I now say is that it seems quite clear—perhaps the noble Baroness will contradict me—that until some time last week, when the Prime Minister had a telephone call from her friend President Reagan, the whole Government were unanimous against direct military action. It was only a day or two later that they, or rather the Prime Minister (because the Foreign Secretary was kept in the dark until the bombers were almost in the air) were put on the spot by the arrival of the President's special envoy, who obviously made it clear that the bombardment was imminent and that if Her Majesty's Government did not agree to the clearly long-planned participation in it of the UK-based F-111s the whole attitude of the United States towards NATO was likely to be changed for the worse. Faced by what I believe was a virtual ultimatum, the Prime Minister, as we believe on these Benches, mistakenly, seems to have had no option but to agree. What she is now trying to do, admittedly with some effect, is to make the best of a bad job, notably by playing up the dangers of terrorism (now alas much increased) and by seeking to justify the bombardment on legal grounds connected with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Some lawyers apparently support this contention; others do not. I am not a lawyer, but I was concerned, at the conference of San Francisco, with the formulation and eventual adoption of Article 51. As a layman, I can only say that the drafters of the charter did not for a moment imagine that this article might be interpreted as covering individual acts of terrorism. To

907
their mind, armed attack implied actual aggression of a military nature by one state against another. After all, if, under the latest interpretation, direct military action against a state accused of abetting terrorism is legal, then all states whose nationals are the victims in any country of terrorist activity and violence will be justified in bombing the capital of the state in which such an incident may have occurred or which may have been held to have instigated it. That might well be the signal for complete international anarchy.
Now what is to be done? There must be some concerted action now against terrorism; that is universally admitted. What might it be? This problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, is one of the most difficult and urgent that confronts us at the present time. No doubt the best way to check terrorism, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has repeatedly said, would be for the Americans to change their clearly disastrous Middle Eastern policy. Failing, or alongside, that, economic pressure would seem to be the most hopeful line, as has already been pointed out. The last effort of the EC Ministers in this direction was a dismal failure and to that extent the EC must bear some responsibility for the present sad situation. But now that the crisis is upon us perhaps the Foreign Secretary will be able to exercise a rather impaired authority to bring his colleagues into line. We, too, must surely abandon our opposition to what, in effect, might be some kind of economic sanction.
What has happened, has happened. The Americans have had their way. Perhaps Sir Geoffrey's best ploy might be to hint to his European friends that his Government had no choice but to act as they did, enlarging no doubt on the theme that, however misguided the action of its leader, the Atlantic alliance is still the structure on the maintenance of which our independence and our security necessarily depend. The decision of the Prime Minister, though comprehensible, was nevertheless, as we on these Benches see it, an error. What we must now consider, however, is how best to get out of the ensuing mess.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall start by taking issue with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as to whether the American raids on Libya are likely to have proved counterproductive or otherwise. Colonel Gaddafi spoke some defiant words at his press conference yesterday. But to put the matter at its starkest, for him to have made an enemy of the most powerful nation in the world, the United States—an enemy that has now twice shown that it is prepared to use military force to hit Libyan targets—must in the colonel's cooler moments daunt even him. It must certainly have brought misgiving to his more sober fellow-countrymen who have Libya's long-term interests at heart. To this extent it can surely be claimed that America's long-delayed act of retribution has probably succeeded for the first time in creating a substantial deterrent to future acts of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism.
It goes without saying that two single night bombing raids carried out with conventional weapons are not in themselves enough to destroy the Libyan people's
908
allegiance to their government, or their will to resist future such attacks. History shows that to achieve such objectives as these usually takes a long and costly war. Bombing is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with such matters, both because even with up-to-date state-of-the-art conventional weapons it is not selective enough and some collateral damage is inevitable, and also because its effects are not lasting.
The fact is that there seem to be narrow limits to what even a super power can do to impose its will on another country unless it is prepared to go to war, as in Vietnam and as in Afghanistan today. Even then success may well elude it. America's action against Libya may bring various unlooked-for results besides failing to achieve the intended ones. But to achieve the intended results even partially will be a plus, and not all the unlooked-for results may be bad and unfavourable. For instance, I shall be surprised if, despite their present fierce public criticism of the United States, Libya's friends, other Arab countries and the Soviet Union, do not now step up their private pressure on Colonel Gaddafi to avoid giving Washington further excuses to intervene.
On another point with which several speakers have dealt both here and in another place, the Prime Minister has told us that President Reagan informed her about his proposed military action. She did not say that she had been consulted by him about it, but I do not doubt that in response she pointed out to him inter alia the risks and possible disadvantages of his scheme; in other words, acted as a candid friend should. But her ability to dissuade him must have been greatly reduced by her inability to suggest any credible alternative stategy in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has rightly described as the feebleness of our European partners, and given, alas, the great unlikelihood that, whatever their attraction in theory, effective economic sanctions, including the sanction of not purchasing Libyan oil, could ever be organised.
I had some experience of trying to make a programme of sanctions work when, as a senior official in the Commonwealth Office, I tried to cope with the problems of sanctions against the Smith régime in Rhodesia—sanctions which were mandatory under United Nations resolutions and which were adopted by an overwhelming number of countries in the world, including the whole third world. Those sanctions had a partial effect, but certainly not a decisive one. They and other uses of sanctions, including the sanctions against Poland, for example, in the wake of the Polish Government's declaration of martial law, were certainly not decisive, hence it would be rash to pin hopes on that course.
Thus given the unwillingness of Western countries, other than ourselves and the United States, to take useful collective action of this kind, the situation could not just be left to drift and slide. Some resort to punitive action—by force since peaceful steps were not available—must have seemed inevitable. Peaceful means of pressure would only have worked, in fact, if applied zealously and wholeheartedly by the whole West. Since, in the circumstances peaceful means were not available, President Reagan decided and the right honourable lady the Prime Minister agreed in the light

909
of the case put to her, that action by force was necessary and inevitable. I cannot bring myself to believe that she was wrong.
My Lords, for the last eight years now I have spent some part of each year in the United States. I have a great regard for the Americans, as I am sure do the overwhelming number of your Lordships. They are decent, forward-looking, vigorous and enterprising people. They have been a major force for good in the world during the last 40 years. But like everyone else they are human; this is to say, they have their faults. Their faults are perhaps just the defects of their qualities. They include a tendency sometimes to oversimplify problems and not to think them through, or to look far enough ahead.
I should say, I am afraid, that, in matters concerning the Middle East, such is the devotion that America shows for Israel that I sometimes wonder to what extent any American Administration is a wholly free agent. Their attitude to their allies can be insensitive, and it can be demanding. Not unnaturally they believe in the primacy of American interests and are not always sufficiently attentive to ours. (I may say that this has been a feature of alliances throughout history in which one partner is disproportionately richer and more powerful than the others).
Of course it is an overriding interest of Britain's, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, so brilliantly pointed out, to preserve the Atlantic alliance. But we should do so (how shall I say?) vigilantly. We should offer America our friendship, understanding and general support but we should not offer them a blank cheque, and it is clear from what the right honourable lady the Prime Minister has told us that she has no intention of doing so.
1.25 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, like other noble Lords, throughout this crisis I have not been able to stop my mind harking back to Suez in 1956, nearly 30 years ago, when I made my second speech in your Lordships' House. I said then that as an active supporter of the Atlantic alliance I considered it to be, with at that time the British Commonwealth, the main bulwark of defence of the free world. The separate action of the British and French Governments over Suez certainly came as a shock to all those who ardently wished to maintain the integrity of NATO.
Naturally, in the case of this Libyan crisis nearly 30 years later, I have had much the same feelings, but none the less recognise, after deep thought in both cases how and why these separate military actions have had to be undertaken. I regret that it has not been possible for NATO to take up a position in support of the Americans, nor even for the EC through its mechanism of political co-operation, which has hitherto been working quite effectively, to have come to an agreed position. As a result of yesterday's meeting, on which I think we should congratulate my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, I hope that this may now come about.
My right honourable friend's admirable letter to some of us on these Benches I should have liked to read out in full had not my noble friend the Leader already made some of his points, which I am sure will
910
be reinforced by my noble friend Lady Young when she comes to wind up.
I agreed with all that my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Boyd-Carpenter said in powerful speeches, and I shall not repeat them. Like others, I do not think that our colleagues in the European Community were at the outset exactly robust in their attitude towards the admitted terrorism of Gaddafi, who, incidentally, is not a unanimously popular figure even among other, Arabs.
It is certainly to be hoped that he will be overthrown, preferably from within. He may have some support in Syria and Algeria, but I cannot believe that my friends in Saudi-Arabia—which I have visited—are really serious in their anti-Americanism or indeed anti-British attitude in this matter.
I think it is true that at the time of Suez some British and indeed French had almost as great, although certainly not quite as great, an antipathy for Colonel Nasser as the American people, and I believe many in this country, have for Colonel Gaddafi. In the case of Suez we did not go through with the action. Although some of us may have had doubts about it at the outset, I none the less felt—as well I think as several Members of your Lordships' House—that having started the action we should have gone through with it. I think we should do so now in this case. We know that economic sanctions can be quite ineffective.
I cannot help feeling that the United States' Government, and indeed Her Majesty's Government, must have had these considerations in mind during the intense consultations which must have led up to the American attack on certain Libyan targets last Tuesday morning. The question now remains as to whether this American action should not be followed up by another to help bring about the final downfall of this particular colonel, as I wish had been done in ensuring the removal of Colonel Nasser.
Whatever else one might say about this quasi-historical analogy, I must admit that I support what the United States Government have done and I am particularly glad to note that Canada also supports it: that fact has not been mentioned. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, is to speak later in the debate. I think we were justified in agreeing to American F-111s taking off from bases in this country. In any case, could we have stopped them? It must have been an appallingly difficult decision for the Prime Minister and the Government to have to take and, having served in the Foreign Service myself, I have always hesitated to take up a position in these matters without having seen or heard all the thousands of relevant telegrams, intelligence reports, official discussions and telephone conversations that must have passed between the various governments, and particularly of course our own, on this subject in recent weeks.
I was myself in the Pentagon last month and although my discussions there concerned mainly Soviet missile capability and Soviet strategic defence, it seemed to me very clear (and I thought they made a good case for it) that the United States Government were determined to take some action of the kind which they have taken over Libya. Whether this was excessive or not, so far it has certainly been more limited in scope than, say, the continuing Soviet

911
military activity in Afghanistan and the waging of continuous warfare against those inhabitants who oppose Soviet occupation and domination of their country. I was particularly impressed by the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, last Tuesday, which were reiterated by my noble friend Lord Home.
I believe we must do everything possible to deter Colonel Gaddafi from encouraging and supporting further terrorist activities. As to referring the matter to the United Nations, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, will have something to say to us on that; but I have never thought it possible to obtain a unanimous view from such an amorphous body, in which every kind of state is also represented. What can the United Nations do in these circumstances?
I hope that Her Majesty's Government, through my right honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Howe, and perhaps also through my noble friend Lord Carrington, can somehow convince our NATO allies to support us. Despite further possible reprisals, I believe we must now resolutely back up the United States Government and win this war against terrorism. We must not give any impression that we might partially surrender to Gaddafi.
1.33 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, as we look at the situation as we now see it and consider its consequences, I think we must conclude that we have been misled by the United States in this matter. It is not an isolated occasion. We have on most of the main issues in international affairs been misled—have we not?—on the question of Central America, on South Africa and on the Middle East. We have also been misled on questions like the law of the sea and questions like UNESCO. What has happened, particularly in the past few years, has been that the United States has taken a position and that our Government have said, "Me too." That is not the way, it seems to me, in which we should make our contribution to international affairs in this country. We should have a positive policy to pursue and the strength to take it to the United States and others and to seek their agreement, rather than constantly giving way to policies with which we do not agree.
In dealing with the present situation, I think that it is a mistake to go back over what has happened in the past week or two. We can disagree, we can argue and we can bitterly oppose one another. Do not let us do that: we have to consider the future. We must consider what we should do now. We must not continue in the old habit of accepting dictation from Washington. It is for us to put forward our proposals.
When we talk about the failure of the United Nations to put forward practical proposals, we do not put any proposals to the United States and we do not put any proposals to the United Nations. We merely accept what the United States says, even though we disagree with it. So let us give our minds now not to the past but to the future. Let us take hold of the problems that are of the most immediate concern and decide what we want, what is right and fair, and then press for it. Let us put forward proposals. I have not seen any British proposals before the Security Council of the
912
United Nations for a very long time. We do not approach the United Nations in that way. There was a time when we did so and many of our British proposals, with American support, were effective. But not now.
Let us now look at the problems, particularly those of the Middle East—and there are many, of course. Let us consider what we think should be done from the experience and knowledge that we have and let us put forward our practical proposals, rather than just arguing whether or not we must always accept the American lead.
We need to take a positive position in international affairs, which we are not doing. We are not doing it in Southern Africa or in the Middle East. It is essential that we should stop now, after the events of this past week, and look at the various problems, particularly those of the Middle East. Let us look at the problems which affect the people of Libya and Palestine. Yes, they must be looked at again and we must have the courage and the sense to bring forward practical proposals for dealing with these problems, which have partly led to the present miserable and contemptible situation.
I believe we should resolve that we do not argue any more about what was done and we do not seek to defend everything the Americans do. We should have British policies which we put forward with confidence. We should say to ourselves, "Now is the time when we must formulate policies and then press them on our friends and on everyone else". Then we can make the Security Council of the United Nations an alternative to bloody conflict.
We have only a few minutes for each speech, but I thought I might be bold enough to say a personal word. I have been involved all my working life with the problems which have now erupted. When I was 21 years of age I went to Jerusalem and I was in Palestine in the old days. I saw the scattered suffering of the Palestinians, not only in the occupied territories, but in Syria, the Lebanon and Jordan. My Lords, I ask you to appreciate what people have suffered so long and so badly and with such neglect by our own Government, by the Americans and by the West. Yes, we have a great deal to be ashamed of. Now surely we must give our minds to the underlying problems of the disorders that we now see and have the courage and good sense to tackle them positively and constructively. I have seen the problems of the Middle East over many years in Palestine, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon, and then for a decade or so at the United Nations. The problems have been neglected and have contributed to the miserable situation that we now see.
I should like to feel that from this House and this debate there will come a new resolve to take a positive and constructive lead in the matters which have led to the miserable position in Libya. I sometimes feel that I should go back. I know most of the people involved. I should like to see them and discuss the matter with them and what can be done to deal with the outstanding problems. All of us should feel that what is taking place is not to the credit of anyone and cannot be blamed on anyone alone. We should resolve to forget the past and take an honourable course to deal with the outstanding problems of the Middle East.
1.41 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure and honour to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, whose knowledge of the Middle East is probably unsurpassed in your Lordships' House. I speak as one who served in Libya for five years, from 1958 to 1963, with Her Majesty's Embassy. During that time I was able to travel extensively in the country and to get to know it and its people fairly well. Although Libyans have been criticised as being somewhat dour and xenophobe, when one gets to know them in many cases they are charming and helpful people. I later spent two years in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dealing with Libyan affairs. I think, therefore, that I can say with deep humility that I know something about the background to the problem.
When I was in Libya I had several meetings with King Idris. What a charming man he was! There could be no greater contrast than that between him and Colonel Gaddafi. The king was kind, gentle and courteous. He was a deeply religious man, but he was out of touch with the country. He did not realise the extent of the appalling corruption in high places. He had no knowledge—or if he had he refused to accept it—of the appalling rural and urban poverty.
It was that situation which drove Colonel Gaddafi, then aged 26, to stage his bloodless coup on 1st September 1969. He was, and is now, basically a revolutionary; but—and this is an important point to make—it is not realised in Britain that he was not initially a terrorist. He was not all that aggressive. He devoted the early years of his presidency to improving his peoples' living standards. He did that to great effect, thanks to the extensive oil revenues that he was getting. He opened schools, clinics, dispensaries and so on. Libyans all agree that he was their saviour. He transformed the country from a poor little-known country into one that had presence.
But, gradually President Gaddafi became obsessed with the idea of supporting revolutionary movements in Africa and elsewhere. At one stage the CIA said that he was supporting no fewer than 40 revolutionary movements in different parts of the world which were designed to overthrow governments. He became a megalomaniac. And one must remember Acton's famous dictum:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
As Colonel Gaddafi embarked on those wild ventures and extended the tentacles of terrorism further and further from the shores of Libya, as he stepped up his ghastly and gruesome attacks against his own subjects all over the world, so, of course, his popularity declined, and that was hastened by the worsening economic situation in Libya which largely stemmed from the fall in oil prices.
It is of crucial importance to try to assess what support Colonel Gaddafi has. I am in no way omniscient. I cannot make an accurate assessment, but I believe that it is true to say that he still has the support of most of the young people in the country. He came to power with the support of the youth, and one must remember that no fewer than 46 per cent. of the population is aged under 20. Colonel Gaddafi is also supported by certain tribal elements. There have been
914
at least two attempts on his life. One was in 1975 and another, less well documented, in 1985.
Like all your Lordships who have spoken, I condemn, in the most absolute terms, any form of terrorism, but I do not feel that that attack was justified. While it may be justifiable to attack a hijacked aeroplane or the Iranian Embassy, I do not feel that air strikes are in any way justified. I believe that the repercussions will be terrible. I would go almost as far as to say that it was the greatest blunder that we have made since Suez.
I feel rather like someone who has gradually built a house of cards, trying to promote good relations with Arab leaders. One builds with great effort and care and then, suddenly, there is a puff of wind which blows it all down. I believe strongly that those air attacks are not effective. That surely was demonstrated most forcefully in June 1982 when the Israelis launched that monstrous attack, as indeed it was, on Southern Lebanon which caused the death of 1,400 innocent Lebanese.
The same thing happened, although with less effect, in September last year when the Israelis attacked the PLO headquarters in Tunis. They failed on both occasions. Their object was to try to eliminate the PLO, to extinguish terrorism. They did not do so. They forget that the PLO is a many-headed hydra, and, as your Lordships will know, if one head of the hydra is cut off others spring up.
It is important briefly to examine Arab reaction. I have been in touch with a number of Arab sources. It seems now, as other noble Lords have mentioned, that the Arab world has reacted strongly. In some quarters it has been said that our friends in the Arab world will continue to support us. I can see no evidence of that. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis have reacted with great severity. The United Arab Emirates, which are after all some of our closest friends, have decided not to send a mission to London in the near future. The Egyptians' reaction is interesting. Shaikh al Azhar, who is perhaps the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said that it is the Arabs themselves who are to be blamed because they failed to get their act together.
Many noble Lords have said that we must consider the causes of terrorism. It is a deep and difficult problem with all sorts of political, religious and historical overtones. We must try and analyse what it is that turns a man into a monster, a boy into a beast. I conclude with a quotation from Nietzsche.
"He who fights with monsters, might take care lest he thereby become a monster".
1.50 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my reason for finding no difficulty in supporting the recent decisions of Her Majesty's Government are those which have been stated so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and with great depth, if I may say so, because he was clearly not committed in the same kind of way, in a party political way, by the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides. I therefore do not propose to cover the same ground, but propose rather to take up a point made by both the two most recent speakers in your Lordships' debate and before that by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in which it was suggested that the terrorism

915
for which Libya has now become the principal patron is to some extent the outcome of justifiable grievances on the part of the Palestinians, and that therefore the way to tackle terrorism is indirectly by the removal of those grievances.
If that were the case, things would be simpler than they are. It is on the face of it improbable, because although it is true that Palestinians in large numbers, and their descendants, have suffered from the deprivation of uprooting from their homes, this has also been the fate in our beastly world of a great many other peoples. There are more Vietnamese and Kampucheans and, indeed, Germans who have been uprooted from their homes and who have not for the most part—indeed, in some cases hardly at all—resorted to terrorism. They have tried to find and to build new lives in the lands where they have found themselves.
Why has this not been true of the Palestinians? I would put the argument the reverse way round to that in which it was put by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the other speakers. It is not that terrorism is the result of the dispersal of the Palestinians. The failure to solve the Palestinian problem is the result of terrorism, because if one looks at the history of the Middle East since the end of the first world war, it is clear that, over and over again, the possibilities of a political and territorial settlement, which would give a home and a status to the Palestinians, were frustrated by terrorism, by the assassination of leader after leader among both Palestinian Arabs and Arab leaders outside; for example, King Abdullah of Jordan. Every time there is a possibility of peace this happens, and it has been going on over and over again. The number of people in the Arab world who have lost their lives by trying to find a peaceful settlement must be taken into account when we look at the record of terrorism.
Therefore, though, of course, there are very good arguments—and on other occasions I have put them both here and to my Israeli friends—for going on trying to seek a solution to this problem, we are deluding ourselves if we believe that by doing so we will suddenly cut the ground from under terrorism. We must find out a little more about why it is that certain individuals or groups indulge in these activities and others do not.
I think we know very little about the human background of terrorism. Let us take the incident which did not happen, but which the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, reminded us might easily have happened, yesterday when there was an attempt to blow up an airliner which would have resulted in a massive explosion over our very heads. How was this done? A Jordanian seduced an Irish kitchen maid and persuaded her of the improbable thing that they could be married in Israel, provided she would go ahead—two different religions in a country which has no civil marriage; but we must take it that she was not a very intelligent woman—and then calmly placed in her luggage a bomb timed to explode when the aircraft carrying her, not him, had taken off.
We have somehow to penetrate into the minds of people who behave in this kind of way. I find it very difficult to believe that ancestral dislike or hatred of Israel and its allies in the West is a sufficient cause,
916
because we are dealing here with a man who is too young to have experienced the kind of events to which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, referred. Therefore we have to say that we must find other ways.
The Americans have understandably had criticism. Who likes seeing bombs fall on cities? They have also had a lot of clearly unjustified criticism which comes from the current wave of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, which is by far the most dangerous aspect of this matter as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out. It is perhaps understandable. Psychologists tell us that there are two kinds of people whom one learns to hate—those who have done one wrong and those who have been one's benefactors. Western Europe owes its recovery after the war, owes its prosperity, owes the maintenance of its democratic institutions to the United States, and for some people in Europe, alas, and for some young people in this country who should know better, that is not a reason for giving them support but a reason for criticising their every move.
1.57 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, as this stage of the debate I shall avoid with great care rehearsing issues which have already been ventilated with considerable enthusiasm, and the general opposition from this side of the House to the action of the American President I cordially support. What I shall do, if it is not a presumption, is to select three areas which belong to the circumstances surrounding—as, invariably, circumstances do—the action of the American President as they have come to me in contact with the man in the street with whom I am not unacquainted, and the first is this.
Though I suppose that a majority of those people to whom I had the oportunity of speaking do not regularly go to church and would not profess the Christian faith, they expect the Christian church to give a lead in matters with which it should primarily be concerned, and this issue is ultimately a moral issue. I find the disagreeable and somewhat disheartening result of trying to say something about the ultimate concept of violence, in relationship to the teaching and spirit of the Christian faith, a very considerable handicap to the prosecution not only of Christianity but, indeed, of the kind of society in which I should like my grandchildren to have the opportunity of living.
I believe it is impossible to justify terrorism by any Christian standard whatsoever and I do not need the argument of the pacifist, though I am one. I believe it could be read off from the doctrine of the just war, that though certain kinds of violence, and mass violence, are supportable, terrorism as indiscriminate, impersonal violence can never be baptised. I think it would be an excellent addition to the ultimate welfare of the Christian church if we were able to say that concordantly, enthusiastically and humbly, and I believe that such an attitude would clear the ground for a great deal that now is occupied by sheer cynicism and nothing but cynicism. I therefore believe, though I cannot claim to represent the Church, that terrorism, whether practised by the state of Libya or practised by the state of the United States of America, is equally under the total condemnation of the spirit and

917
teaching of the Christian faith. But, were I to stop there, it would be an evasion of two other issues which immediately follow upon such a declaration; for the majority of those to whom I speak and to whom I listen as well are not Christians by profession but are, I suppose, committed to the proposition that ultimately in this wicked world the end justifies the means. It seems to me that that is totally fallacious unless you believe you can prescribe an end which will be inviolate whatever may be the means and that, if you discover appropriate means, that end will stand and will be subserved by such a process.
I totally reject the idea. I should have thought that the events of the past two or three days have demonstrated to what an extent the use of armed violence by the Americans has produced results which previously were only available in the projects, shall we say? of certain people. Indeed, many of the results have been the very opposite of what would have been argued as a justification of those means—solidifying very largely the Arab communities and producing all kinds of new elements, because Gaddafi, whatever his other delinquencies—and I am no supporter of Gaddafi—is a professing Moslem. I should not be a bit surprised if the death of his little daughter was not regarded by him as an occasion at least to go into purdah for three days and to consider those spiritual ideas and beliefs which belong to that kind of family relationship.
I am not defending Gaddafi for many of the things he does—I think he is a rogue and a rascal—but I am not prepared to say that you can calculate what will be the effects of violence used even with the best of intentions and for the noblest of motives. Means do not conduce to ends—they determine ends—and the method you use is the answer to the question: what are you likely to do by that method in changing the situation?
The other and obsessive question is: what do we do? This itch for action, the sense that, whatever else happens, you must do something, even if it is the worst, rather than lie idle, also contains a profound fallacy. I want a period of such tranquility or semi-tranquility as can give the opportunity for new forces to emerge and for new processes to come to fruition. I believe that those processes are already available if we stop doing the wrong thing and entirely repudiate the idea that if what we do is wrong it is better to do those wrong things rather than to do nothing. In one sense you can in my judgment evaluate and produce new opportunities for good only if you stop doing that which creates an enveloping mist and very largely an inevitable cloud of unknowing and undoing.
My friends in the open air are deeply puzzled. They are inclined to be very cynical. They are also very frightened. The only contribution I think I can profitably make to this occasion is to say that I happen to believe that obedience to what I conceive to be the will of God is the best entrance gate to a programme by which we can solve these immensely difficult and terribly dangerous situations in the Middle East and indeed elsewhere.
2.4 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, in the sad and disturbing hours since the American strike one of the
918
things that struck me and I dare say some of your Lordships when they saw him on television was the sad face of Mr. Terry Waite. That seemed to me somehow to express the dismay which a great many people in our country must feel today and the mixed feelings with which they are struggling. Mr. Waite represents a lot of the best of British people. He is a man of courage and integrity. He has come from comparative obscurity and has come to understand a very difficult part of the world and has the courage and perseverance to try and contribute to peace in that area. I have great sympathy for him.
Having paid that tribute one needs now to move on to the subject of "terrorism", a word which really does not serve us well. It is an over-used word which has come to escalate in importance with the horror of violence used for political ends. Violence was used during the American revolution. Many of those men in the colonies who were at the foundations of the United States that we know and we love so much today would have been described in those days, had they used the word, as "terrorists". Terrorism today has all the panoplies of power. It is now adopted by states. It has been adopted by President Gaddafi and there is no arguing against that. It has all the weapons of destruction. If one takes that to its logical conclusion the consequences are very grave indeed for humanity.
I believe that it serves us ill in this country—it certainly has not happened in your Lordships' House—to quibble about the role of Libya over the past years so far as terrorism is concerned. I have witnessed it at first hand in Uganda, an area which has not been mentioned by your Lordships. Uganda and the horrifying regime of President Amin was largely supported in its later days by President Gaddafi and the Libyans. Many of the horrors and excesses of that regime must indeed be laid at his doorstep. President Gaddafi, on the other hand, is a man whose revolutionary passion is fuelled by happenings in the world which we cannot just discard or not regard seriously. What creates his passions? They are often created by real injustice and real despair. Here we come directly to something which has affected the strike of the United States and our involvement a few days ago.
We have failed, the Americans have failed, and Europe has failed—everybody has failed—to make any progress in the problems of the Palestinians in the Middle East. The Americans have failed, we have failed and the Europeans have failed generally to make any significant headway in the relationship between the Arab world and Israel. In fact, since the time of Dr. Kissinger the situation has deteriorated.
It seems to me, and I do not know whether any of your Lordships would agree because I have not sensed it in the debate so far, that American foreign policy on the Middle East has become swamped with disenchantment. It seems that the Americans have almost given up attempting to solve the almost insoluble problem, as it appears to them, of the Middle East, The turning point was when they lent their full support to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Since those days—and this is reflected in the reaction of Americans on television, who have shown such

919
dismay and surprise at the opposition to the American action—they appear in the United States to have forgotten the root causes of the terrorism and of the hatred that Colonel Gaddafi has for the United States.
Those causes are uniquely related to the Palestinian problem and the problem of the Arab world and its relationship with Israel. The United States has now gone to a more simplistic foreign policy that relegates that problem to second or third place. What has been put there instead is a pursuance of American interests in the larger, broader area of its influence directly related to that of the USSR. That has been damaging and harmful, and it has created more terrorism in the Middle East.
It was because of that isolation and disenchantment on the part of the Americans that they involved us in their action. I myself do not believe and cannot believe that the reason for using aircraft from our bases was purely related to the employment of specialist aircraft for accurate, pinpoint bombing. The results disprove that. I believe that aircraft could perfectly well have been used from the Mediterranean, if the Americans had wished to do that, without involving us. It was a political action to involve us, and the result of that action has completely changed our relationship and has forced upon us a completely different policy. It does not matter whether we deny that, because so far as the rest of the world is concerned our policy towards the Middle East has changed and we identify with the United States. We will pay the price for that in escalated terrorism and horrors of the kind that we are beginning to see in the very few hours since the attack.
What can we do now? In this country, public opinion must be awakened, as must public opinion in Europe, to the root causes of terrorism. We must take away the weapons that people such as Colonel Gaddafi have, which fuel their fanaticism. Wherever such grievances are left to lie and remain unsolved, people such as Colonel Gaddafi will find reasons to use excessive force and the cruelty that we identify with his regime.
In conclusion, I believe that we in public life must do our best to stress upon the young that force against terrorism really does not pay. We must do so particularly in the case of those who do not have the advantage of the information that we have. We in your Lordships' House and in Parliament are well informed. We must impress upon the young that force against terrorism cannot be the answer. The underlying causes of terrorism must be faced realistically, and they must be faced by us in unison with our European partners. Failure to do so will mean that the issues will be fudged and there will be more cause for more violent terrorist action from others. Gaddafi may be replaced by others if he is removed. He will not disappear, as President Reagan seems to think he will—that we can, at one go, get rid of him. If Gaddafi goes, somebody else will appear in his place. Unless we deal with the basic causes of terrorism, and unless our policy is directed towards that end, dire consequences could result for mankind.
2.12 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I propose to address myself as briefly as the complexity of the subject
920
allows to the question of the legality of the United States action and of the meaning and effect of Article 51. That may seem a somewhat arid approach to a matter of great human and political interest, but I need not remind your Lordships that, although the technicalities of the law may be arid, the principle behind it is far from arid. It is the principle of the rule of law, the cement of a civilised society and the only sure foundation for international harmony.
I come to the basic question. Was the action of the United States justified in the letter and the spirit of the law? So far as the spirit is concerned, I have no doubt at all as to the good faith of the United States or of their desire to conform thereto. The question of the letter of the law necessarily raises rather more difficult questions. The interpretation of Article 51 is notoriously difficult, and diverse opinions are held by learned men in many lands, as a glance at the bibliography in Dr. Bowett's excellent work Self-Defence Under the United Nations Charter will readily show. As I reminded your Lordships recently in a different context, law is not an exact science and international law perhaps even less so since the uncertainties there are compounded by the imprecisions of the drafting of the charter, inevitable in a product of multi-national and compromise drafting.
Within the parameters of the inevitable uncertainties I submit these propositions for the acceptance of your Lordships. The right of self-defence is deeply entrenched in international law, long preceding the charter. That right is not removed or eroded by the concept of collective security enshrined in the charter; nor, in particular, by Article 2(4) thereof. It is, indeed, expressly preserved by the opening declaratory words of Article 51. Article 51 is intended to safeguard the right of national self-defence, not to restrict it—an interpretation supported by the travaux preparatoires of the charter. The exact circumstances which permit and circumscribe action under Article 51 are not clearly defined, but the purpose and provenance of the article suggest a wide and liberal interpretation.
Nevertheless, action taken under Article 51 is provisional in the sense that ultimate legality depends on compliance with the provisions of the charter, which govern collective security and the jurisdiction of the Security Council. Against that background it is difficult to say with absolute certainty that the right of self-defence extends to reciprocal action against attacks on nationals abroad. That, of course, is the basis and justification of the American intervention. There are no words in Article 51 expressly dealing with this point, and I know of no deciding case in the International Court of Justice on it.
Nevertheless, since in principle a wide interpretation is appropriate it seems reasonable to conclude that the provisions of Article 51 would cover cases such as the intervention in Libya. Indeed, the then Lord Chancellor urged a similar interpretation in 1956 and the travaux preparatoires of that charter show that in 1948 both the Jewish and the Arab representatives invoked the principle of the protection of their own people to justify the use of armed force outside their own territory—a rare example of congruity between those people. This interpretation would, I think, appear also

921
to accord with the broad approach expressed by Goodrich and Hambro in their learned work, Charter of the United Nations.
Finally, I come to the provisional nature of unilateral national action. It is provisional in that the question of ultimate legality depends on the Security Council, as the concluding words of Article 51 make clear. A broader view is required than that of the nation instituting the action; indeed, quite apart from the charter, it is required in conformity with the principle nemo judex in causa sua. The Security Council could invite an advisory opinion from the International Court under Article 96, but that would probably be a slow business and what is required is immediate action for the suppression of terrorism.
We can, I think, confidentally assume that the United States, as a nation devoted to the rule of law and its observance, will comply with its obligations to refer to the Security Council. If the Security Council then takes the necessary measures, unilateral action as a matter of law is superseded. It is in this sense that, though lawful, it is transitional and provisional. But an obligation lies also on the Security Council. If, for political reasons, any of its members were to block or obstruct the necessary measures, then the condition is not satisfied and the right of unilateral action by way of self-defence under Article 51 remains. It is a highly unsatisfactory situation indeed, since it raises the spectre of a possible second intervention.
In summary, therefore, I believe that a triple obligation arises: on the United States to report to the United Nations and seek action by them; on thy, Security Council to devise and enforce effective measures against terrorism; and on Her Majesty's Government and the government of the EC to use their best endeavours to help bring about these results.
Against that background, let us not plough the sands of the past. Let us look to the future and seek to do what lies in us to ensure the discharge of these obligations and thereby to secure the prevention of terrorism, the rule of law and the promotion of international harmony—those great objectives which lie so near to the hearts of us all.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is understandable, as the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne has so ably demonstrated, that this debate in Parliament should confine itself very largely to the immediate questions: Was the American raid justified? Was it justified in law? Was it justifiable homicide or a murderous crime? These are the issues to which this Chamber and the other House have addressed themselves.
Again, was it a sensible way of tackling terrorism, or, as has now become obvious to many people who did not immediately foresee it, will it step up terrorism and make it the regular and normal way in which a small power fights America and its friends? Will terrorism have the effect (as many hope) of confining Americans to their own continent? Never before have so many people in all parts of the world hoped against hope perhaps that isolationism is not dead. I fear it is. Not only the American Government, but the American people, irrespective of party, now see the
922
world as a place where the United States citizen has a right to travel wherever he or she pleases, to praise or present bouquets to foreign countries, to impose American ideas, to support satraps, such as Mrs. Thatcher, and to root out and destroy anyone who acts against American world domination.
That is what we used to call imperialism. The American world empire is a fact, even though most American citizens refuse to give it that name. I speak as one who has seen himself as a friend and admirer of many aspects of American life.
A noble Lord: Oh, no.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I can give chapter and verse if there is any doubt about it, my Lords. I have experienced the generosity of American friends and I have travelled widely in that great country. It has been a fascinating experience. But I use the past tense because, like 70 per cent. of our people, I now fear America and the Americans. I fear them because of their great power and because of their invincible stupidity. I fear them because I think their rulers are guided by their emotions rather than by their intellect. I fear them because they have been corrupted to the point at which Americans as a whole must be seen as responsible for the actions of their government.
The polls say that the Americans support the mad dog of the world, "Rambo" Reagan, by an overwhelming majority, almost as large as the one by which the people of this country reject the craven complicity of Mrs. Thatcher—a fact which, though obvious to many of us, they do not even begin to understand. Dallas may hold an "I love England" week, but they will find their affection unwelcome and unreciprocated by many people here. Mrs. Thatcher may fancy herself as a gladiator crying "Ave Caesar morituri te salutant" to the American emperor—
The Earl of Halsbury: "Salutamus", my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Correction accepted, my Lords. I hoped that Hansard would deal with it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: There are too many classical scholars in this place, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: But, my Lords, the people of this country have no taste for the role which I have just mentioned.
The people of Libya are held responsible for Colonel Gaddafi, in spite of the fact, as has been pointed out this afternoon, that they never elected him; and their children are killed by the Americans to emphasise the point of the responsibility of any Libyan for what Colonel Gaddafi does. What are we to say to the Americans who elected "Rambo" and what are we to say to those Democrats whose motto seems to have become, "My country, right or wrong"?
People all over the world are angry and alarmed at the crisis that is upon us, but the sad affair may serve its purpose if it gives us such a shock that we reorganise our foreign and defence policies so as to prevent the worst from happening. That worst is that one day the Americans may unleash nuclear war from our soil. To achieve that it will not be enough, as the most reverend

923
Primate the Archbishop of York suggested, to work on American hearts and minds; it will be necessary to roll back the military domination of the United States in Europe.
Hitherto I have held the official Labour Party position which sees this country playing a non-nuclear role in NATO. I now see the strength of the obvious, however: it is the sun and not the satellite that controls the course of events. I therefore now suggest that so far as NATO is concerned we should examine the possibility of following the lead of France and withdraw, with the exception of some military co-operation. Internally that means the departure of the American forces from this country and the end of their bases and communications network.
That is necessary because in crisis it has now been brought home to us that there is no political control. The only thing that counts is operational control. It has been said that the Prime Minister had no option but to agree to the American request. That is probably true. Perhaps it was not even formulated as a request. The Prime Minister has no operational control and no dual key even over American nuclear missiles. If they ever decide to use them, they have no need to consult anyone; and under these circumstances there would be no need to consider our reactions after the event because no coherent government would be left over the mouldering corpses which would litter this once sceptered isle, this demi-paradise.
It is that fear that has turned the people of this country against the Government. They have seen that we are in peril and that only firm action, which on another occasion when there is more time I hope further to elaborate to your Lordships, will save us and in the end the Americans, too.
2.28 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I have always tried to be just in judgment of people who have yielded to temptations that I have never known or who have had to cope with situations that I have never faced. For most of us in this House, with four exceptions, terrorism and assassination are matters that we read about in the papers or see on the "box". For a United States President they are an occupational hazard. By a miracle, our Prime Minister escaped from the bomb that was placed to kill her, only to endure the sorrow of knowing that it killed, maimed for life or otherwise grievously injured close friends and colleagues. There are four Members of your Lordships' House who share the experience of bereavement through assassination. Let them sit in judgment on the Prime Minister and Mr. Reagan if they consider their reaction to terrorism too sharp. For the rest of your Lordships I beg you,
"Judge not, that ye be not judged".
So far as law is concerned, I am told by my legal friends that there is a thing called international law but that no one knows exactly what it contains. Others say that there is no such thing. It appears to be somewhat akin to our customary law based on precedent, so that, in unprecedented situations, new legal precedents have to be made. We are now in an unprecedented situation and lack a judge. I shall leave armchair lawyers to argue out to the end of time whether the recommendation of the Law Officers of the Crown to the
924
Government was that the Americans were not engaged on a lawful operation. Supposing that it was, how could we have stopped the Americans simply taking off and conducting that operation? Were we to shoot them down over our own airspace, as the French threatened to do if they violated French airspace? Do you really think, my Lords, that that was an open option available to Her Majesty's Government? That, for me, would be quite unthinkable.
I come now to my own word of criticism. I believe that bombs were the wrong choice of weapon to use in this case. I say that, not for any moral considerations, but because, in looking back on the history of bombing, I have come to the conclusion that it is an ineffective weapon. I start with Guernica in the Spanish civil war. Said the fascists, "We bombed it, and bombed it, and bombed it, and why not?" Did it make any difference at all to the determination of Spanish democrats to resist a fascist régime? Not a bit, my Lords. The sole result of Guernica was a picture by Picasso. During the last war, the Germans bombed us and bombed us and bombed us. Did it make the slightest difference to our determination to carry on with the war? No. And, in return, we bombed them and bombed then and bombed them. Did it make any difference? No.
Outside the battlefield, the bombs were ineffective. The Americans tried it against the Japanese. They bombed them and bombed them and bombed them, and the Japanese did not stop fighting. They tried it again in Vietnam. They bombed them and bombed them and bombed them, and the fighting did not stop. I am not, of course, talking of nuclear bombs. That is something else.
So, my Lords, if bombing is ineffective, why employ it? I turn therefore to the effectiveness of terrorism. There is nothing new about the nationalist terrorism. The Irish started it with the Fenians in the last century; and they keep going with the IRA today. If your Lordships look at the tonnage of explosive that the IRA has launched at this country and compare it with the tonnage of explosive that landed on this country during major bombing raids by the Germans, it is ineffective. It is pathetic. It has achieved absolutely nothing. Has Basque terrorism achieved anything? Did Israeli terrorism achieve anything in the days when there was no Israel but simply Jewish settlers in Palestine under a British mandate. They blew up the King David Hotel; they assassinated our envoys; and so on. We merely got fed up and handed the whole thing over to the United Nations to deal with. That is about the only thing that terrorism has ever achieved.
Arab terrorism against Israel has been totally ineffective. We have therefore totally ineffective terrorism on the one hand and totally ineffective bombing as a counter-measure. What, then, do I have to propose as an effective remedy? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said yesterday that we are at war and that we are in the front line. I believe that the Government should consider carefully making that official and declaring war, together with America, on Libya, for the sake of elucidating where law stands in the matter, because law relating to war is fairly definite. A blockade is lawful if effective. To blockade the coast of Libya, with no imports in and no oil out, is a very much more effective way of applying

925
economic sanctions to Libya than trying to get the United Nations, which is a thieves' kitchen in any case, to agree to do anything of the kind. That blockade could be effective. What is inexcusable is to be ineffective.
I think hack to Suez. I remember the euphoria of dictator bashing that affected everybody at the time, including myself. I also remember the verdict of history in regard to how many respects we were mistaken. We overestimated our ability to resist: not shooting it out but shouting it out. We were made thoroughly unhappy by being bawled out at the United Nations. The military operations, as my noble friend Lord Carver said, could have been carried through to a successful conclusion, but they were scuppered politically. There was a run on the pound. America would not support us. Finally, we had to call the whole operation off, for political reasons not military ones. We underestimated the ability of the Egyptians to pilot ships through the Suez Canal. We overestimated the value of the canal as the lifeline of the British Empire. It was not. It was by that time a Commonwealth. Big ships were already going round the Cape.
On this occasion we might remind the Americans that we learned from our mistakes at Suez and that they have something to learn from what I believe was their mistake, of the wrong choice of weapon upon this occasion. We have forgiven them for being fair-weather friends at the time of the Suez crisis and we can assure them that we are not fair-weather friends at the present; but what we have sanctioned once perhaps we shall not sanction again in that form.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down will he accept from me that he does not know the number of Members of this House who have suffered personally from terrorism?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I mentioned only those I know personally.
2.37 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I was tempted to muse the other day that if my father's tank squadron had not been first into Tripoli it might still be being ruled by General Graziani. That might be a good thing. It would almost certainly be better if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was still dispensing justice, as he did in the town hall in Tripoli in the 1940s.
As has already been stated, there are three questions that have to be asked: first, had the United States the right to do what it wanted; secondly, will it work; and thirdly, were we right to accept its request to use its bases? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has summed up the legal question infinitely better than I would dare to attempt, and so on that question I have torn up my notes.
Will it work, or was it wise, are questions that we have all asked ourselves. I do not think it is deniable that the problem of the destabilisation of the Middle East is the Palestine diaspora. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that the Palestinians have killed themselves and murdered their own moderates who
926
suggested that they should go elsewhere. He failed to mention that it was the Israelis who requested them to go elsewhere and backed it up by physical violence as in Deir Yassin and several other terrorist attacks.
That was brought home to me only last week over Easter when we were in Jordan. Our Arab guide, a man of enormous charm and learning, had come from a salt merchant's family in Nazareth, where he was forced to leave in 1948. He became a schoolteacher in Jerusalem, where he was forced to leave in 1967. That man, in a minor and unknown way, shows the root cause of the problem in the Middle East. It must be made very clear that all Arabs deeply feel this, from Mogador to Mosul, from Assuit to Alleppo.
The United States of America does not understand that. That is very sad. There was a congressman on the television last night who said, "Wasn't it good. Israel agreed with our attack on Libya". Anything that showed less understanding of the Middle East than that, I find hard to conceive. I think that our Government do understand the situation. In my view, Sir Geoffrey Howe certainly understands it. After all, we have an extremely good relationship with King Hussein. I am pretty certain that Mrs. Thatcher understands it, especially after her visit to the Palestinian refugee camp which she went to see in Jordan when visiting that country. That brings me to my third question.
I shall now give your Lordships a reason why I think it was right that Her Majesty's Government gave the Americans their consent to attack Libya from Upper Heyford, and so on. The only country in Europe which has allowed the Americans facilities is our own. Therefore, we are now ultra in the American good books. We have shown that when the going gets rough we shall support them. I suggest to my noble friend that that gives us an unparalleled opportunity to bend the ear of the American Government and to try to persuade them of the problem of the Palestinian people.
They will not listen to it from the Greeks; they will not listen to it from the French who, incidentally, were quite happily bombing Libya the other day because of some meandering in Lake Chad, but they seemed to get away with it without anybody complaining in the slightest; and they will not listen to it from the Spaniards or from anybody else. However, I suggest that if my noble friend and Her Majesty's present advisers take this course, the terrorism of Libya will being to recede. If the terrorism of Libya recedes, the terrorism of Syria and Iran and, above all, the stews of the Lebanon will be pushed back.
In the year 637, Jerusalem fell to the caliph Omar, after whom Gaddafi is so inappropriately named. The patriarch was walking round Jerusalem with him muttering about the desolation of holy places and quoting the Book of Daniel. As the hour of prayer approached, he suggested to the caliph Omar the Tolerant as they stood outside the Church of Constantine that he should say his prayers in that church. Omar replied, "Had I yielded to your request the Moslems of a future age would have infringed the treaty under the colour of imitating my example". It is that type of compassion, that type of subtlety, and that type of intelligence which is required in the Middle East today.
2.43 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise as the 24th speaker in this debate, and I imagine that most people believe that there can be very little new to say. However, I have listened to more than 20 speakers all of whom have made a valuable contribution to what is undoubtedly one of the most crucial debates in the House for many a long day.
I am not a performer in the field of discussions on foreign affairs. I have no deep philosophical or historical knowledge of the region about which we are talking. However, as a parliamentarian and as someone who listens to the views of others and deeply respects the views which we have heard today, I think it right that I should be afforded the opportunity of giving what I consider to be the gut reactions to the past seven days.
I remind the House that we are debating not merely, as the Motion says, the circumstances surrounding the actions of the United States in Libya, but we are also looking at the relationships with the United States, the still unclear chain of events over the past seven days, and the prospects for peace in this region and indeed in the world from now on.
I have been struck by the number of speakers who in one way or another have mostly said that there are three questions which need to be asked and answered. Undoubtedly the noble Baroness will have a major task in attempting to satisfy most of the people who have been asking the questions.
I believe that the three speeches we heard at the beginning of the debate from the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, were impressive by any measuring rod in parliamentary terms and in terms of serving the purposes of this debate. I want to pick up points that have been made by many, including myself, of those who criticise the decision of the Prime Minister (endorsed by the Government and by the House of Commons on Wednesday) that the actions of the Government were right and justified by saying that I fully support and stand by the Alliance and the special relationships that this nation has had with the United States. I fully support and stand by our relationships within NATO. I am not anti-American. I am not anti-defence. I am certainly not pro-Gaddafi and I am certainly not an appeaser.
We are seeking to evaluate whether what the United States, aided by this country, did last Tuesday, was justified and what are the consequences. From the vibes that I pick up from reading newspapers, listening to television and speaking to parliamentarians and others in the area where I live, one of the consequences is an increase in tension and an increase in fear. There is a fear of the consequences because we are considering the justification of what happened. I picked up a newspaper this morning in the tea room. The headline read "The vengeance has started". The vengeance quoted was the murder of three innocent Britons in the Lebanon.
Where does the vengeance begin and end? There are many including myself who believe that one of the strands that triggered off the action last Tuesday was vengeance and retaliation for a previous action. Already we have not only innocent Libyan men,
928
women and children being killed, but innocent British men being killed. There is the horrifying prospect that if the attempt yesterday had been successful we would have had a demonstration of the power of vengeance from the Arab world, from state-organised terrorism in Libya, by the blowing up of the aircraft over our heads.
The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, speaks with authority and clarity. He justified the action of the Americans because, as he said, no one but President Reagan has done anything about it; that is, what is to be done is what the President did. No one has done anything about it. Not only is that a castigation of the ineffectiveness of the policies of the present Government, if he is the only one to have done anything about it, but we are saying that there is only one thing that can be done and that is the kind of action that took place. I believe that is a terrible view.
I believe that in the past seven days we are moving on the margin, closer to anarchy and away from the use of the framework of international relationships and the resolution that has been built up. I believe that the solutions carried out by America and aided by this Government may satisfy the immediate cry for vengeance. But lasting peace can never be built upon such a destructive premise. Reckless, not unprovoked, actions such as the bombing in Libya, cannot be held to be diplomatic, statesmanlike or right. That is why I am saddened beyond belief that our Government, under the guise of both the special relationship and an obligation to return favours by the United States in the Falklands war, has aided and abetted this dreadful act, and the undoubted escalation in world tension. It was a squalid act which I believe this Government and the British people will live to regret and pay for.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed the way: use our alliances within the EC; within NATO; within the United Nations. Stand up to the intolerable and unacceptable hysteria from the United States administration. Diplomatic and economic sanctions must be given a chance. Standing together against the terrorism of Gaddafi means to stand with all our allies; to stand in isolation with America is to stand alone.
2.51 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, one or two noble Lords—and notably the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—have spoken as though to examine and try to remove the causes of terrorism was to exonerate terrorism. Of course that is not so. I want, if I may, to ask how did this cycle of terrorism start, and what keeps it going.
The day before yesterday in another place the Prime Minister said:
"It has not been so much a cycle of violence as a one-sided campaign of killing and maiming by ruthless terrorists".—[Official Report. Commons, 16/4/86; col. 880.]
I am not sure that that is accurate. There is an obvious cycle of violence. The appalling murders of British citizens in Lebanon seem unquestionably to have been provoked by the Tripoli raid; the Tripoli raid to have been provoked by the monstrous murders in Berlin and Vienna and on the "Achille Lauro", which were themselves provoked by the Israeli raid on Tunis when 60 civilians were killed, which was in turn provoked by

929
the Larnaca murders. So it goes on, and has gone on back and back.
If you take one of the earliest and worst acts of terrorism by the Palestinians, at Maalot in Israel, those who participated in it, as they were fighting, were shouting, "Deir Yassin". They thought they were avenging what was the worst of all terrorist massacres in the Middle East—the massacre of 259 Arab civilians, men, women and children by Begin. There is a cycle of violence.
I also disagree with the Prime Minister when she suggests that the killing and maiming is one-sided. I was fascinated by the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, produced. I cannot pretend to have made a careful mathematical study; no doubt his institute of terrorism will do so. But as a rough estimate I would judge that there are far more Arab victims of Israeli terrorism than the other way round. Indeed, if you include—and why not?—the massacres in Chatila and Sabra and the bombing of Beirut, the number of Arab victims of Israeli terrorism is one hundred or two hundred times more than the number of Israeli or Western victims of Arab terrorism. Therefore, I disagree with the Prime Minister on that too.
Some noble Lords implied too that the Arabs started the cycle of violence and are keeping it going. Well, they did not start it. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the Stern gang and Irgun. They started it. I disagree with the noble Lord. I think they were very successful.
This was not retaliation. This was terrorism directed to driving out the British, for example, by the attempt on the King David Hotel, and by sending letter bombs to the United Kingdom; and, above all, it was directed to driving out the Arabs. I would say that that terrorism was extremely successful. But perhaps the noble Lord would come back and say, "But it provoked Arab retaliation", because of course it did. The Arabs retaliated, and the cycle of violence began.
I recently turned up a report I made on a visit to an Arab refugee camp in 1953. I think this throws some light on why the Arabs retaliated. Perhaps I may quote part of what I said:
"They said: what were we British doing apart from talking? Did I not realise that it was we who were responsible for the Jews taking their land? What crime had they and their children committed that they should be driven from their homes and robbed of all their possessions?"
My report goes on:
"I saw proud innocent people subjected to intolerable humiliation and misery. I saw the refugee camps, not merely as relics of a past war but as seedbeds of future vengeance."
That is the heart of the problem. That is why yesterday a young man tried to massacre 300 or 400 people at Heathrow. I said at the time, and I have said ever since, that there will be no peace in the Middle East until justice is done to the Palestinian people. Of course that is so.
A noble Lord: I hope that includes Northern Ireland.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are the Arabs keeping the cycle of violence going? It must be said that Israel certainly wishes to end the cycle of violence. Israel wants peace, certainly. The trouble is that Israel also
930
wants the West Bank and Gaza, which belong to the Palestinians; they want Golan, which belongs to Syria; they want the control of South Lebanon, which by rights belongs to the Lebanese people. They want control of the whole of Jerusalem, which by rights should belong to three religions and should be shared between the Israelis and the Palestinians. No country which occupies large areas of its neighbour's territory and oppresses and discriminates against the local inhabitants, can expect to live in peace—or deserves to do so.
The Prime Minister said not long ago that she reckoned the Afghan people had the right of armed resistance to the occupying power; and that is right. But what about the Palestinians in the West Bank? I should like to ask the noble Baroness: does the same principle apply to the Palestinians in the West Bank?
All these things were well known to the British Government including the need for a solution to the Palestine problem. That was when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was Foreign Secretary. At that time the noble Lord understood that to stop terrorism there must be a settlement, and that settlement must include self-determination for the Palestinian people and it must include the participation of the PLO in the peace process. I only wish that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, were Foreign Secretary again today. We might have a better assertion of British interests and we might have a more sane and civilised voice on Middle Eastern affairs.
2.58 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am independent, and I do not have a party standing behind me. That has its disadvantages at times, but it also has the advantage that sometimes one manages to have friends on both sides of the House. It is the smallest of political change to get up and say, "Look, I was right at the time", but there are moments when one should. I got up at the time President Reagan liberated Grenada, and my opinions then were looked on as unpopular, but I was supported from my left hand (that is, my Right hand politically) by the noble Lord, Lord Home. Perhaps nobody in this House knows more about foreign politics than he does. From my right hand, and thus the political Left, I had support from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who, since he and his family happened to live in the island of Grenada, did know something about the subject.
I said at that time—and nobody then agreed with me—that this occasion of the liberation of Grenada would be welcome there very shortly; and, indeed, it is now a public holiday. The island of Grenada now celebrates the day when the Americans freed it from its Marxist, murderous government.
There is a parallel with what is happening today. President Reagan has made a powerful move. That move is being frowned upon by a great many nations. If it fails, failure is always frowned upon. If it succeeds, it is my strong belief that there will be a liberation day in Libya when the name of President Reagan will be joined by that of Margaret Thatcher. Although on the occasion of the liberation of Grenada Her Majesty's Government—indeed, the present Front Bench—stood against me, I am now glad to say that they are on my side. They may have learned a lesson. When that day comes, I suspect that a great many of the

931
nasty things that are now being said will be forgotten. Even now, I do not believe that they are truly meant.
I remember a play, and your Lordships may remember it, in which for various reasons the leading lady refused to go on stage. There were two gunmen behind her forcing her to act. The leading man wished the play to go on. She said, "Stop those gunmen", whereupon the leading man folded his arms, smiled, looked at the ceiling and said, "This is an outrage, gentlemen. "That is precisely what the Arab countries, the USSR and the rest of the world are doing now.
I do not believe that any of those countries want Colonel Gaddafi to remain in his present position. He is an utter nuisance to the Arab world. The Russians cannot trust him an inch, and we understand the feelings of Europe. I think I am right to say, as I did on an earlier occasion, that there will be an anniversary with dancing in the streets when the people celebrate the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi and join with that celebration the names of President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
3.3 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, the main difference of opinion in this debate and in the country is over whether the Prime Minister should have said yes or no. She said yes and the words reported at col. 879 in the House of Commons Hansard are significant:
"we would support action directed against specific Libyan targets demonstrably involved in the conduct and support of terrorist activities;"
but only on those conditions. That is why I intervened, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was courteous and gave way, to say that bombing an open city was—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it was my noble friend Lord Cledwyn.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am sorry. That is right; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will be replying. Perhaps when he answers he will be able to withdraw what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said. Lord Cledwyn talked about bombing an open city. It was not bombing of an open city. I do not know much about international law, but I know that an open city is one that declares itself to be open and is not armed. There are myriads of SAM 5s around Tripoli and Libya can deploy 150 Mig 23s and 25s. It was not an open city nor was it bombing. It was pinpoint bombing of specific targets. We shall only encourage anti-Americanism if we do not soon nail that misrepresentation.
Incidentally, people say that some of the bombs fell close to or damaged the French Embassy. I believe that to be true, though I have not yet seen the pictures. But most of the information indicates that what hit outside the target areas were the SAMs, which were sprayed straight up by rather inexperienced firers into the air when their radar was being jammed by F-111 s. They then came down and struck some civil targets. It has not been proved that the cause of the damage was the bombs, and it was probably SAM 5s.
It is surprising how little is known about the very high skills of the Americans. When we see the
932
photographs, we realise how amazing it is that in complete darkness those aircraft were able to fly over 2,400 miles, find their pinpoint targets and put their bombs on them. Those crews were under very strict operational instructions. They were told "If you do not pinpoint your target and are not confident that you will hit your target but might cause civilian casualties, will you please turn round and fly 2,400 miles back". Several aircraft landed back in this country with their bombs still on board, because they were strictly carrying out the instructions they were given.
When the Prime Minister was asked, "Will you allow us to use F-111s", the President had clearly made up his mind that he would take some military action, despairing that the free world would ever get its act together and put on other pressures. He could have said, as he did in the case of Benghazi, "Use the A7s"; but against the very well defended city of Tripoli he decided not to use the A7s which, although good, carrier-borne aircraft, are 20 years old and subsonic and are not equipped with the very highly sophisticated modern equipment of the F-111s.
It is surprising that someone like David Owen, who speaks on television and even writes articles, could say, "They should never have released bombs in darkness, because they could not see". He must be very out-of-date as an ex-Defence Minister. If he went to any airmen—and, by the way, they are never allowed on BBC television—they could tell him that infra-red and lasers have become so sophisticated and so intelligent that many of the pictures we see in our papers are taken in complete darkness.
When the Prime Minister was asked that question, I feel it was stressed, "If you want us to hit only pinpoint targets we cannot guarantee that with the A7s because their equipment is more crude and they are subsonic". Although they have night capability, they are not so sophisticated and they would probably have had to attack at dawn or at dusk. They would therefore be very vulnerable to the anti-aircraft capabilities of the Libyans and may well have had to meet some of the 150 interceptors which the Libyans have. I would mention one more sophisticated piece of equipment which the F-111s had, and that is the forward-looking infra-red radar, which is superb in its definition and which helped them to reach their targets and hit them.
It is so right that attention was drawn to the fact that there are four centres where the terrorists of this world are being trained—in the Soviet Union, in Iran, in Syria and in Libya. I do not want to deploy the argument about the others, but I want to draw the attention of the House to what Libya is doing in the training of terrorists. The Libyans have the chief bases for training, equipping and paying terrorists. There are 40 military camps there, divided into nationalities. The Arabs train in one camp, the African nations train in another camp, the Europeans, including the IRA, train in another camp and the Japanese train in another camp. The course lasts six months. These camps are very large, the two largest near Tobruk accommodating 7,000 terrorists under training.
I do not think that the world realises the extent of this new form of terrorism, this organised state-sponsored terrorism, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont said. Of the 8,000 incidents since 1968, 7,900 have

933
been against the United States or the free world and only 100 against the non-free world. Surely if this incident has done one thing it has alerted us here, in both Houses and throughout Western Europe, to the need to get our act together to co-operate in putting pressures first on Libya and on others as well in order to discourage terrorism.
I am sure that pressures can be brought. I would advocate oil sanctions. I know sanctions have not worked in the past, but the Libyan economy is totally dependent on oil. Oil is coming out of the ears of so many countries at the moment that there was never a better moment to turn off the taps to Libya. I ask my noble friend when she comes to answer whether she will try to tighten up on every single aspect—such as civil airlines and so on—in order to put pressure on Libya, so making another military attack unnecessary.
3.11 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, before we judge America or the Prime Minister, can we imagine what the position would be if Libya had the atomic bomb? Would it not be right to assume that America is conscious of the fact that within the next 10 years more than 30 countries will be capable of making an atomic bomb, albeit a small and dirty one? From the low-key and almost ritual response of the Soviet Union, which was informed step-by-step by the United States of what it was about to do, it was quite apparent that the Soviet Union did not entirely disagree with what was happening. The whole thing was not at all about Libya. It was a warning shot to Iran, to Syria and to other potential centres of danger that the Americans and the Russians have decided not to subject the fate of the planet to the whims of one man or one sect or one fundamentalist movement. That is what it was about.
In 1917, when the revolution started, the Russians were in a very fortunate position. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain. But the USSR of 1986 is a "have" nation. It is a world power. The Russians are more concerned about not losing what they have than about world conquest. They would be quite content to settle for maintaining their position, particularly with the Chinese potentially breathing down their necks. Therefore, I think we are seeing a movement internationally towards each other from the USSR and the United States of America. There is not much trust between the two but there is a lot of self-interest, and perhaps in politics in the long run self-interest is a better guarantor than morality.
Gorbachev is a new man. He did not have a past to live down. Therefore he can do U-turns, and indeed is doing them; and that is what we are seeing. In an ideal world, I should imagine that the Russians and the Americans would like to be the sole possessors of the atomic bomb if the atomic bomb could not be un-invented. As a second best, they would accept that responsible nations, such as Britain and France and perhaps even China, should share in it. In no way are the big powers prepared to have an atom bomb in the possession of people like Gaddafi or even Khomeini. That is what I believe this whole show is about. The main actors never appeared on the stage.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, my greatest concern about the events that have occurred since last Monday night is the effect that they may have upon the future of the Anglo-American partnership and the North Atlantic Alliance. I leave it to others more qualified to judge the validity of the United States action in self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and the quality of intelligence on past and future Libyan involvement in terrorist activities.
I would only submit that it is too early to make snap judgments on whether or not the military measures taken by the United States against targets in Libya will be effective in controlling the tyranny of terror One must assume, however, that the reasons put forward by the United States for following the course of action that it did were so compelling as to persuade Her Majesty's Government to take a decision—undoubtedly with some reluctance—that was fraught with such grave political risk.
If that was the case, then it seems to me that to use such pejorative terms as "supine response" and "complicity" to describe the Government's agreement to the use of F-111s based in Britain in the operation against Tripoli and Benghazi is hypocritical, to say the least. The political risk that President Roosevelt took in 1940 and 1941 in support of Britain and the Commonwealth against the scourge of Nazi Germany was, I suggest, at least as great. Despite the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I suggest that President Reagan's exposure to political risk in backing Britain's entirely justified military action in the Falklands was equally significant if one considers the United States long-standing strategic commitment in South America.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has referred to the consequential dangers of the US action. They must be taken into account, but we must take into account also, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the potential serious danger to the future of the North Atlantic Alliance had the Prime Minister said no.
I agree with other noble Lords that there will be no end to the indiscriminate spread of terrorism until a solution is found to the intractable political problems of the Middle East. I also profoundly regret that innocent lives have been lost while the situation there prevails. However, surely it is not enough to stand by idly, without taking any manner of positive action, until a solution emerges in the Middle East.
As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has mentioned the Canadian reaction to the military strike in Libya, with which he linked my name, I have to say that the prompt decision by the Canadian Government on 15th April, taken alone as a member of the Commonwealth and also as a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, to support the US action and thereby endorse the decision of the United Kingdom Government, was in my opinion wholly commendable. Indeed, it is a reinforcement to the unity of the North Atlantic community.
The Anglo-American Alliance has endured for many years. It has been subjected to severe strain on several occasions in the past and undoubtedly will be again in the future. But it has been a prime instrument

935
in keeping the peace for at least 40 years. Whatever the specific protocols governing the military arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom, the fundamental basis for this partnership must be one of mutual trust; not a blind trust but, I would say, a discerning trust. I, for one, think that we can ill afford to put that relationship of trust in jeopardy now.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, there is one advantage in speaking towards the end of such an important and so well-attended debate as this. At least I have the pleasure of knowing that all the points I wish to emphasise have already been so much better expressed by a great many other noble Lords.
I think it is quite probable that if other European countries had been firmer, if there had been an effective collective response to the growing threat of terrorism, some of the recent atrocities and the United States counter-measures they precipitated might not have happened. The weakness, indecisiveness and misguided self-interest that has typified the approach to terrorism of so many other European countries has much to answer for. In Britain the record is better. We seem to have understood more clearly the true nature of the threat and we have acted with greater vigour, determination and urgency.
Faced with this apparent reluctance in Europe to engage in decisive action to counter terrorism, Americans who found that they were the prime targets of the hijacker and the gunman not unnaturally put pressure on their government to make some move. That Libya has been correctly identified as the principal source of terrorism cannot possibly be in question. The evidence is as overwhelming as it is tragic in its manifestation. Colonel Gaddafi, even now, boasts of his determination to export revolution on a global basis.
The United States Administration first tried to win support for economic measures and other means to isolate the Libyan regime. Having failed to achieve that objective, they seem to have concluded that the only option left open was to strike, and strike hard, at the bases from which Libyan terrorism has been directed. Predictably, now, the United States for its action has earned its critics. Predictably, too, we now have to witness the obviously orchestrated outbursts of anti-Americanism.
But the issues raised are far too serious and too fundamental for sloganising. Instead of indulging in strident criticism against the Americans, people should ask themselves why it is that such a peace-loving and warm-hearted fellow nation should instinctively support—I believe in their clear majority—the action taken by their government. Perhaps then we shall see the wisdom of trying to bind the United States of America ever closer to us in Europe rather than, inadvertently perhaps, encouraging the forces of isolationism.
As has already been said, the cohesion and stability of the Western alliance is the very cornerstone on which our freedom rests. The ties which bind America to Europe and Europe to America are essential to our survival. Their continued strength depends upon the constant care and maintenance which can only come
936
from the recognition by both parties that we share common interests and are vulnerable to common threats. That is the context in which our support for America at this time should be judged.
State-directed terrorism amounts to a state of war. It is war against the innocent, the unsuspecting and the unprepared, as much as it is war against any of the more obvious and more substantial targets. Used on a global scale in the way in which it is now being done, state-directed terrorism is a destabilising force which poses a threat to Western democracy and civilisation.
In these circumstances we should be thankful that Her Majesty's Government have so clearly recognised this and, notwithstanding the difficulty in doing so, in this particular instance they have had the courage and the foresight to take up their stand alongside America in the cause of freedom and international order.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while we have been debating a report has come in that the young British television journalist who was kidnapped yesterday on his way to the airport in Beirut has been murdered. Perhaps I may express the hope that the Minister will be able to give us some authoritative news about that matter when she comes to speak in a few minutes.
My noble friend Lord Mayhew gave a spirited account of the role of the Palestinian factor in the troubles in the Middle East since the war. The history of the relations between the Jews and the rest of mankind is of course a great deal longer than that. The original mistake no doubt was made by the Emperor Titus. It would have been much better if the Jews had never been expelled from Palestine in the first century A.D. The problem for anyone seeking to understand the present situation is where to begin the history. I shall attempt to begin it only quite recently, with the physical, warlike intervention of the United States.
There were two American landings in Lebanon. One was way hack in Eisenhower's day and one was under President Reagan, where we were beside them. The first landing achieved some effect. The second had no known effect and no known purpose and may therefore perhaps be written off as a well-intentioned blunder, despite the tragic loss of life caused by the bombardment from the American battleship at the end.
The present outbreak of escalating violence—and that is what it is—began in January this year with machine-gun attacks on queues of passengers waiting at two airports. Those passengers were not waiting in the queue for an American airline and those airports were not in America, but there were Americans among those massacred. It was because of that fact, not because of any territorial responsibility for either the airline or the airport, that the United States took it upon themselves to conduct the naval operation in the Gulf of Sirte two months later; that was the case which was most frequently mentioned as the reason for the American coat-trailing in the Gulf of Sirte. This operation was legal under international law. They were allowed to go there; they were in international waters.

937
It is interesting, though, to note that if the Sixth Fleet had commenced fishing or had undertaken any scientific research, it would, under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, have been fully within the rights of Libya to see them off by force. That was not the high seas in the strictest sense; it was an exclusive economic zone. Nevertheless, the US fleet did not fish or carry out scientific research. In due course, as was no doubt intended, it was fired upon: or rather aeroplanes flew towards it and there was an apparent attack. The United States fleet fired upon the aeroplanes, opened fire on the shore batteries, bombarding the territory of Libya, and then went away.
The events in Vienna and Rome airports have not been conclusively linked in the public mind with Libya. There is a distinction between those and the most recent events where Libyan responsibility has been clearly registered in the public mind. The day after the United States bombardment of the Libyan coast the famous message was sent from Tripoli to the Libyan office in East Berlin ordering the bomb outrage in West Berlin. This may be the moment for me to pause and to repeat what should be unnecessary to repeat: that neither I nor anybody else in this quarter of the House in any circumstances do anything but condemn and abhor terrorism from all sources at all times. Nor should it be necessary for me to say that to seek to understand the causes of terrorism is not to condone it.
The bomb outrage took place in Berlin. An American sergeant and a Turkish woman were killed. It was a place where American soldiers congregated and there is no mistaking that that was the purpose. It was not in the United States, and the soldiers were not on duty. Nevertheless, the United States interpreted Article 51 as giving it the right to carry out the action that it then took.
I come now to the permission given by the Government, which is the real subject of our debate, to use the F-111s in this country. It was said immediately by the Government that the permission was given because F-111s were more likely to bomb straight, kill fewer unintended people and get home without being shot down. They killed unintended people and one aeroplane was shot down. At the same moment another American attack was being conducted on Benghazi by A-6s and A-7s from the US fleet. None of those was shot down and, so far as we know, no unintended people were killed. I am afraid that one must regard with scepticism the claim that the insistence on F-111s taking off from Britain was not political, but military.
We must note also the discrepancy between the instant condemnation by the British Government of the earlier Israeli mass reprisal on Tunisia for terrorist attacks on them, and our Government's action in regard to the American request for a reprisal against Libya. The permission given by our Government (the first such permission since the Second World War) for American bombers to fly from RAF airfields, bomb the capital city of another country, and return to RAF airfields, was given under the terms of a secret agreement and on secret and eccentric legal advice.
938
It has cast a shadow over the generally accepted good faith of our Foreign Secretary in his dealings with our European allies. It has divided us from every one of our fellow members of the European Community and thus ruined for now our hopes of constructing a European foreign policy with them. It has divided us from every one of our European allies in NATO. It has united the Arab world against us. Indeed, it has united the whole world against us except for the United States, Canada—I am aware of the list; I shall give it in my own way if noble Lords will permit—Israel and Mrs. Eugenia Charles of the island state of Dominica. I believe that that is the complete list.
It has ensured the increase of Arab terrorism against us, as we are seeing all the time. It has made more remote the prospects of a summit meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev, and of disarmament. It has been denounced by all the opposition parties in this country. It has been repudiated by the Prime Minister's last Conservative and last Labour predecessors. And it is condemned by three-quarters of the British people.
Lord Tordoff: And by the Opposition in Canada, my Lords.
Lord Kennet: And, my Lords, by the Opposition in Canada, I am prompted. That is perhaps not surprising.
But the horizon is not entirely black. I wish to look more optimistically to the future. Even in the Government there is change. On Tuesday the Prime Minister said that it was "inconceivable" that any Prime Minister should have given any other answer to the request. If it was inconceivable then, it would presumably be inconceivable in the immediate future. Yesterday, however, she was saying that if the United States wanted to do it again, it would have to be the subject of "a totally fresh application". This is radically different language.
Let us look ahead to what ought to be done. The short-term position of the Alliance has been clearly stated in this House and in the other place. I shall therefore not occupy the few minutes available to go over it again. Looking further ahead, there is a role for East-West collaboration. Instead of denouncing Mr. Gorbachev as the supposed author of a new wave of terrorism throughout the world, the West would be better advised to take up his own suggestion of talks on terrorism with the West. That is the proposal that he has made to us as well as our making it to him. We might adopt his very own suggested forum for it; that is, a special meeting of the five members of the Security Council.
This is the occasion for a reform of Western Middle East policy; an occasion out of which we may hope that the United States will once and for all make up its mind which role it wants in the Middle East—whether to be the protector of one of the protagonists in that dreadful struggle, Israel, or whether to distance itself equally from both sides and so be able to assume some kind of constructive role towards helping to find a solution. They cannot pursue both roles.
Lastly, and most important of all, is the role of international law. Many noble Lords who have thought

939
about it have made the point that international law, as we have it now, says virtually nothing about state terrorism. That is not surprising. State terrorism is not very old. It has now reached proportions, as many noble Lords have said, where something has to be done. The natural instinct of a law-abiding nation is to reach not for its gun but for its law book. When the law book is missing, its natural instinct should be to get it written quickly.
This is our profitable role for the future—to exploit, if possible, after the dust has settled, our position as a special friend of America and yet one of Europe, and to bring on a conference, or series of conferences, to get the international law written, just as international law has recently been rewritten for the seas of the world. That way lies our course—not in future violence, state or otherwise, and not in condoning future violence, state or otherwise, by anyone.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this has been a distinguished and sombre debate that began with the sad announcement by the Leader of the House of the murder of our fellow countrymen in the Lebanon in the aftermath of the action taken against Libya. There has been very little sabre-rattling in the debate, I am glad to say, and very little extremity of opinion. It may, however, be helpful for me to draw the attention of the House to certain cautionary words in the International Herald Tribune that conform with what the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, was saying. The paper states:
"One badly needs to keep a measure of detachment, no matter how outrageous the provocations. Otherwise we are drawn by these people into their own apocalyptic vision, and their madness comes to govern us as well".
That is a danger that needs to be safeguarded against.
In considering whether the action taken by our American friends, with our collaboration, was right or not, the opinion, on a count of heads, seems to be equally divided. There are men of great experience and distinction in diplomacy and in governmental affairs equally divided upon both sides of the House. I would venture to think that to embark on an operation in peacetime consisting of a bombing attack on targets, or a target, within a residential area of a big city would call for anxious study of the legality of such an operation. We have had the advantage of the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on this matter. He came down to the view that there was legal justification. Having so many friends in America, I regret that I have come to a different opinion. I am glad to think that most legal opinion that I have read on the matter is also of the same view as myself although it is not universal.
Self-defence is strictly defined under the law as an immediate protective response directed at and on the scale of the aggression which is being challenged and met. In this case it has been said that the action was justified by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter providing for self-defence.
The constituent elements of self-defence were stated about a century ago in the Caroline case by the American Secretary of State. He said that it required instant overwhelming action by the victim leaving no
940
choice of means and no moment of deliberation. We applied those tests and standards at the Nuremberg trial when the tribunal denied the argument that Germany's invasion of Norway in 1941 was legitimate, anticipatory, self-defence.
I submit that applying those elements and bases of judgment the armed attack in Libya did not comply with the necessary constituent elements. There was opportunity for deliberation. There were alternative means about which I shall venture to say something in one moment. However, there was present in the Libyan action the serious risk of injury to innocent third parties. We know that, however skilful the devices were, men, women and children wholly innocent of terrorism were killed in the course of the operation. Sympathy has been expressed, as, of course, there has been to those who were themselves earlier victims of terrorism.
In facing terrorism, self-defence, I submit, could and should take the form of special security measures and the protection of people and places most vulnerable to attack. What I submit is now required are much more energetic measures to detect and frustrate the efforts of terrorists, with more shared intelligence and police work, stricter visa control, and tighter airport security. It is good to hear, as part of our own contribution to greater security efforts, that reinforcements are to be sent to Gibraltar, consisting of four Phantom jets and a frigate with Exocets, in case of Libyan attacks on the colony.
It is wrong to take the view that Europe has been supine and ineffective in this field. There have been successful attacks on and answers to terrorists and terrorism. For instance, in July 1976 the Israeli forces raided Entebbe Airport in Uganda, and rescued 81 Israeli passengers and the crew of an Air France airbus which had been hijacked by a German-led pro-Palestinian group. In May 1977 a special aid unit of the Dutch marines liberated hostages held for 19 days on a train and at a primary school by South Moluccan terrorists.
In October 1977 a group of West German border guards released the hostages on a Lufthansa aircraft hijacked to Mogadiscio. As the House will remember, in May 1980 an assault by a British SAS detachment on the Iranian Embassy in London, following the murder of an Iranian press attaché resulted in the release of 19 of the remaining 20 hostages and the detention and death of the Six terrorists. More recently, in October last year, American forces intercepted the aircraft carrying the "Achille Lauro" hijackers over international airspace and directed it to land in Italy.
Therefore, we are not, in the face of total ineffectiveness as regards this scene, calling for the action of sending a bombing force over civilian targets. The problem we now face is: where do we go from here? Is the same exercise to be repeated by the American air force, again with our support? The House is entitled to ask the noble Baroness to tell us the positive, firm answer to that question. Are we prepared and willing to countenance similar support for the Americans in similar circumstances?
Before I move to what has been said by the right honourable lady the Prime Minister this week, I point

941
out that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, actually recommended some more bombing operations of a similar kind. He was a lone voice in the debate but—
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt so distinguished a learned friend, but I did not advocate any further bombing. I merely said, "should we follow up the present action?"; I did not say by what means.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I apologise if I have misled your Lordships about what at least seems to be an ambiguity. However, I shall look at Hansard. I am very glad to hear that there has been no voice expressed in the House in support of a further commitment to the use of British territory for a repetition of what has occurred. However, I return to the observations of the Prime Minister. She said:
"in my exchanges with the President, I reserved the position of the United Kingdom on any question of further action which might be more general and less clearly directed against terrorism".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/86; col. 879.]
However, what seemed to be implied was that if the American considerations were the same as those operating earlier this week, then support would be given to similar action, although the Prime Minister did say that further action would be the subject of a new approach. Therefore, we are faced with the sombre position that this is not the end of the bombing exercise and that we may have to face more to come.
I should have thought that the overwhelming opinion—certainly there is a considerable body of opinion to this effect in the House—has been directed against that approach and that remedy to this painful situation. I shall not repeat the catalogue of damage that it has caused to our international relations in so many ways; the confusing and weakening of the position of NATO and our relations with the majority of our friends in Europe. On that matter I should like to ask the noble Baroness what is hoped for and planned for out of the forthcoming meeting of the Foreign Ministers. At the moment, on the face of it eleven of the twelve are against us. What shall we do? What assurances shall we give, and what outcome do we hope to achieve?
At the moment our support for the American action has isolated our country, in Europe to a great extent and then in the rest of the world. The non-aligned movement has condemned it; Gandhi has condemned it; Pakistan, Yugoslavia and Uganda—the whole parade of Ministers who attended the Delhi conference of the non-aligned movement were strongly in condemnation. We, with our reputation for observance of the rule of law and our support to the forces of peace and to anti-terrorist forces, have endangered ourselves very greatly by what has taken place. The fact that we have also endangered our own people is not irrelevant.
I met someone the other night who said, "I think the world is less safe than it was before the bombing in Libya". That is an interesting thought and reflection, and it bears the most anxious study. I hope, therefore, that we shall have an assurance from the noble Baroness that pressures will be exerted in various ways and, in particular, in the direction of the United
942
Nations. It is high time that the United Nations met in emergency conference to examine practically what steps can be taken to deal with terrorism. It is all very well for lawyers like myself to say that what was done may well have been wrong, but there is still a certain element of outlawry in the world in this sphere. I greatly hope that the lesson of this grim and painful experience will be a determination to strengthen the forces of the law, to strenghten the authority of the United Nations, and to take a firm stand against the continuance of terrorist horrors.
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have had an important debate this afternoon. I should like if I may to begin my remarks by referring to two matters on which I think we are all in agreement. The first is that I should like to join those who have offered their condolences to the grieving relatives of the murdered kidnap victims. We all share their anguish. Both men, Mr. Leigh Douglas and Mr. Philip Padfield, had given many years of service to the Arab community teaching in the Lebanon. Their death is a senseless outrage for which there can be no justification of any kind. For some time we have had firm evidence of direct Libyan involvement in the kidnapping of both men and had good reason to believe that they were in Libyan hands. We have been conscious throughout of the great danger they were in, although we decided not to publicise it because of the risk to their lives. This was part of the evidence we had before us of Libyan state-directed terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked a question about the reported murder of the British journalist who was abducted yesterday. There were rumours of a fourth body found this morning. Our Embassy is investigating this urgently, but I understand that in fact no body has been found. I am sure that we should all like to express our appreciation to our Ambassador in Beirut and his staff, who are doing everything they can in a difficult and dangerous situation.
The second theme which has run right throughout our debate is the total condemnation of terrorism by every single one of your Lordships who have spoken. It was my noble friend Lord Home who talked of state terrorism, this new phenomenon. I think we were all most interested and, I dare say, horrified by the catalogue of information given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Kidnapping and murder for political ends are not a new phenomenon in the Middle East; but only comparatively recently has the terrorist been able to look for safe haven and for moral and material support to governments which are members of the United Nations and profess their adherence to the principles of the United Nations charter. Foremost among them is Libya, which has had a long history of backing groups whose sole objective is to undermine the fabric of society.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who asked at the beginning of his speech what evidence we had of particular terrorism. Hard evidence—and in the case of Libya, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, the evidence is conclusive—can

943
often be obtained only by covert means, and to publish such evidence would jeopardise the sources on which we continue to rely for timely and vital intelligence. Nevertheless, the record against Colonel Gaddafi and his government is clear. Much is already public knowledge.
In June 1980 the then Secretary General of the Libyan People's Bureau in London stated publicly his approval of the killing of Libyan dissidents in Britain. In November 1980 four Libyans were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for the poisoning of two children of a Libyan dissident. In March 1984 there were a series of bomb explosions in London and Manchester. The bombings, in which over 20 British citizens were injured, were followed by the tragic and unprecedented murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher almost exactly two years ago. Since then the Libyan campaign against dissident nationals overseas has continued, and of course its campaign against other innocent victims, and most recently the terrible outrage in West Berlin has been quoted extensively in your Lordships' House.
It is against this grim background that we decided to support the United States in its decision to carry out a carefully directed operation against military targets in Libya directly involved in the conduct and support of terrorist operations. That is why we decided also to agree that the United States should use aircraft based in Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, both asked about ministerial consultation. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed in another place on 15th April, both the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary were with the Prime Minister on the evening of 8th April when President Reagan's message arrived informing us of his intention to take military action, and seeking agreement to the use of United States aircraft in this country. The Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary were fully involved in the consultations, and the Overseas and Defence Committee of the Cabinet discussed the question on 14th April.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, went on to ask whether or not there was a risk that we have now given, as it were, the Americans a blank cheque for the future, and that we risk being drawn ineluctably into a further escalation of violence. That is not true. In the first place, as the Prime Minister made clear in her statement to the House yesterday, our undertaking to support the American use of military force under extreme provocation was based clearly and explicitly on their assurance that it would be directed against specific Libyan targets demonstrably involved in the conduct and support of terrorist activity.
In the second place, our agreement to the use of United States aircraft from bases in the United Kingdom, should that be judged necessary, was clearly and explicitly based on that assurance. In the third place our position on any question of further action which might be more general, or less directly targeted against terrorism, was clearly and explicitly reserved. That was no blank cheque.
944
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about the arrangements governing the use by United States forces of their bases in this country. The arrangements were first agreed by Mr. Attlee and President Truman in 1951. Those arrangements were endorsed by Mr. Churchill and President Truman in further discussions in 1952, and the understanding was summarised in a joint communique, which reads as follows:
"Under arrangements made for the common defence, the United States has the use of certain bases in the United Kingdom. We reaffirm the understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of the circumstances of the time."
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I did not actually ask about that, but since the noble Baroness has brought it up herself can she tell the House why it is not possible now, 35 years later, to publish the agreement itself? Why should we have a secret agreement with our closest ally? Why not a public one?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have no doubt that that is governed by a number of the rules governing the publication of documents. This understanding has applied since 1951 and it applies with equal force today and remains valid for the future. It has been reaffirmed by successive Prime Ministers and Presidents, all judging it to be satisfactory. Most recently, the arrangement was reviewed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan in February 1981. The understanding applies to bases for all United States forces in this country, both conventional and nuclear.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York both questioned whether or not the United States action and our part in it flouted our international obligations and, in particular, those under the United Nations Charter. The answer is that the Government believe the Americans took reasonable steps to bring home to the Libyan Government the need to refrain from continued hostile acts, but Libya did not desist and planned new attacks. So the United States Administration acted fully in accordance with international law and with the United Nations Charter.
I am aware that the United Nations Charter enjoins member states to settle their international disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force; but these articles do not impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence under Article 51. There is a limit to the damage, in terms of lives and property, that a sovereign state can be expected to take from the planned terrorist attacks of another state. There comes a point when protests, talking and seeking reasoned assurances of good behaviour are no longer viable options and when defensive measures are legitimate. This was the case on 14th April. The United States strikes against defined targets in Libya were an act of self-defence. Under the rules of international law, the use of force is a legitimate measure of self-defence where there has been an initial attack or series of attacks by a state on another state or where such attacks are imminent.

945
Many of your Lordships have asked quite specifically what we as a country have done against terrorism and what other means are available to us to combat it. This Government's stand against terrorism is and must remain resolute and determined. Our message to the terrorists and the states which support them is simple and clear. We owe it to our people, whether at home or abroad, and to the civilised world as a whole not to compromise and not to give into blackmail or the threat of reprisal. The terrorists must realise that we will not bargain innocent British citizens for those imprisoned in Britain by due process of law for terrorist crimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in her speech advanced the cause of collective action, something to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, also spoke, as did many of your Lordships. The fact is that Libya has not been deterred by international condemnation and peaceful pressure over the years from the support of successive terrorist outrages. Both the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council have adopted declarations and resolutions condemning terrorism and calling for greater international co-operation to combat the problem. But despite all this, terrorism has continued.
For our own part, following the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher we took a number of specific measures, including the closing of the Libyan People's Bureau in London, banning defence sales and instituting a strict visa regime, which had a direct and immediate effect on Libya's ability to export terrorism.
I have been asked about further measures and, in particular, about whether there is anything we can do about applying sanctions to oil from Libya. That point was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Home and Lord Orr-Ewing. An embargo on the purchase of Libyan oil poses a number of practical difficulties. Cargoes traded at sea and refined in third countries would be hard to identify and a wide measure of international cooperation would be required. An embargo would be hard to police and enforce. United Kingdom legislation would be required. We should need the agreement of our Community partners, and the GATT implications would need careful examination.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, also asked about United Kingdom-Libya air services. I confirm that we are keeping under review our advice to British Caledonian. Its next scheduled flight to Tripoli is due to take off tomorrow, 19th April.
I was asked about security at Heathrow by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is possible on occasions for sophisticated devices to pass the screening machinery. That is why additional procedures are in force for random searches and why certain flights have special additional searches because of the threat to them. The precautions taken by airlines must in each case depend on the threat. We are fully alert to the need to ensure adequate security. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot give precise details of the security measures now in force. The technology for searches and security procedures in general is kept under constant review not only by the aviation industry but by the Government departments involved.
946
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked me about Libyan students in Britain and the pilots training at Kidlington. I cannot give the House a complete picture of all Libyan students in Britain. The possibility of limiting their numbers was carefully looked into after the murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher in April 1984. Of the approximately 3,000 Libyan students now in the United Kingdom, some 250 are being trained at British airports. I know that that is a matter which is of great concern to your Lordships.
I am aware that a threat by a trainee pilot training at Kidlington is known to the police force involved and that the company responsible immediately took the precaution of curtailing solo flights by Libyan students. It would not be right to discuss individual cases, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not hesitate to use his powers of deportation in any appropriate case.
Nearly all your Lordships have asked about the future, and in particular, about the attitude of our European partners. Many of your Lordships have recognised the importance of collective action by Western countries. Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary held an urgent meeting in Paris with his European colleagues. They will meet again on Monday. We should like soon to see in place a wide programme of measures designed to cut off supplies of arms to terrorists, to close their command centres and to limit their freedom of movement from one country to another. Our immediate task is to agree urgent and practical steps to make our policy effective.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made a number of suggestions. They include closing the Libyan People's Bureaux in the capitals of Community countries—time and again those bureaux have proved to be centres for the planning and execution of terrorist outrages—severely tightening the issue of visas to would-be Libyan visitors and confirming that the commitment undertaken on the 27th January not to sell arms to states that promote terrorism applies specifically to Libya.
The meeting in Paris yesterday has confirmed that there is a need for further concrete measures against Libyan terrorism and it has been agreed, among other things, that this will be considered by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve in Luxembourg on 21st April. We strongly endorse this approach. We welcome the report of the working group on co-operation to combat international terrorism, whose proposals will be on the table at Luxembourg. These include recommendations for action against offending states that embrace, among a number of options, the closing of diplomatic missions of the worst offenders such as Libya.
It is very important that we look to the future, that we Europeans should agree together such a package and discuss with other like-minded countries ways of working together to cut off the lifeline between the terrorist and the state that supports him. We should then have a greater chance of preventing circumstances from arising again in which the United

947
States was obliged to resort to defending its citizens with force. That must be our collective objective.
But, in saying that, I cannot conclude other than by stressing yet again the importance of the American alliance to us all. This has been recognised by nearly all of your Lordships who have spoken in this debate. The United States is our greatest ally. The alliance has helped to keep the peace now for over 40 years. We should never allow ourselves to forget, as Europeans, the importance of that alliance to us all for our peace and for our security.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she answer the question that I asked in my speech? She has said in her winding-up speech that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence met the representative of the American administration on 8th April and were told by him that the Americans intended to make a military strike. If that is the case, how did it come about that on 14th April—that is, the afternoon of Monday before the strike was made—the Secretary of State for Defence told Radio Clyde:
"My colleagues and I are very dubious as to whether a military strike is the best way of doing this. It is liable to hit the wrong people. It will create other tensions in the area".
How could the Secretary of State for Defence, speaking presumably, within Cabinet collective responsibility, make that statement if he had already been told that the Americans intended to make a military strike?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would not presume to comment on a report of a radio programme. I can only give what I know to be the fact as stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that on the
948
evening of 8th April President Reagan's message arrived informing us of his intention to take military action.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past four o'clock.

  HAMPTON COURT PALACE: VACANT APARTMENTS
  HAMPTON COURT PALACE: VACANT APARTMENTS