Sitting of 17 December 1990

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

    Social Fund
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to meet representatives of voluntary organisations to discuss the social fund.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We frequently meet representatives of voluntary organisations on social security issues, including the social fund.
    Mr. Clarke: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the excellent article in The Scotsman this morning, written by Ruth Wishart, on the social fund? Does not it concern the Minister that she found it necessary to quote Mr. Jack McGregor, the chairperson of the Disability Income Group, saying that the fund had been catastrophic for people with disabilities? Given that it is a fund based on loans rather than grants, that it is immensely complicated to apply and that it is as mean-minded as the poll tax, will the Minister get rid of it as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Scott: No, I am afraid that I have not yet had the chance to have my daily read of The Scotsman. I should in any case disagree with Mr. McGregor, although I am a considerable fan of the contribution that he makes in Scotland, and particularly to the workings of the Disability Income Group, but that is not an accurate description of the social fund. It is a mixture of loans and grants—2·5 million loans and 500,000 grants have been given so far. As I think that hon. Gentleman knows, in some 35,000 cases in 1989–90, those who applied for loans were in practice given grants because it was thought that that was more appropriate.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under its previous rules, the social fund was escalating out of all control? Is he aware that my local office in Lancaster is operating within proper bounds and has had no problems in operating the new rules?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend. Single payments were running at £40 million in 1979–80 and had risen to £335 million by 1985–86. I do not believe that single payments in the old form would have been sustainable, whatever party was in government, and the social fund has proved to be flexible and fair.
    Mr. Frank Field: Is the Minister aware that some of my constituents who have literally nothing, not even a single stick of furniture, are refused help from the social fund? Does he consider that to be satisfactory, and if he does not, what does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Scott: The vast majority of those who are turned down for community care grants are turned down because they do not fulfil the basic eligibility conditions for community care grants.
    Mr. Field: They have nothing.
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt write to me about individual cases as they come to his notice. He knows that, in the longer run, we are looking forward to the result of the work that is being done for us by the social policy research unit at York. We shall then be able to have

    3
    a proper assessment, on a clear and broad statistical basis, of whether the social fund is fulfilling the needs for which it was established.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to make any changes in the regulations for poll tax rebates.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We are currently consulting the local authority associations on regulations for changes to the community charge benefit scheme from next April, largely of a technical nature, and on two other instruments relating to subsidy matters.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that we want changes that are more than of a technical nature, because, until the poll tax is scrapped, we need to improve the rebate system to help those least able to pay it? Welcome steps would include abolition of the need to pay 20 per cent., an increase of the level at which rebates are payable and changing the tariff income on savings.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, during the introduction of the community charge benefit scheme, the taper was made substantially more generous than under the old rate rebate scheme, which extended help a good deal further up the income scale. My right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, made a significant improvement in the capital rules at the time of the Budget.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it the case that half the people receiving community charge rebate receive a discount rate of 80 per cent., which is no small beer? Is not the remaining 20 per cent. no more than the cost of a pint of beer a week?
    Mr. Newton: Certainly, many of those receiving community charge benefit—including all those who are on income support—receive an 80 per cent. rebate.
    Mr. Kirkwood: May I press the Secretary of State on the 20 per cent. community charge? A cause of some of the worst hardship in my constituency is the abolition of the old 100 per cent. rate rebate and the introduction of the 80 per cent. maximum rebate that is available to community charge payers. Is the rebate for community charge payers part of the review? Is it possible that it will he abolished as well as the poll tax?
    Mr. Newton: Rebates, or community charge benefit, as it currently is, follow on from the consideration that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is giving to the system in a wider sense. The hon. Gentleman knows that the basis of the present arrangement is the view that it is right that everyone should make a contribution. Benefit rates were adjusted to take account of that when the scheme was introduced.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to business if employers' national insurance contributions were levied at 5 per cent. on all employees with earnings below the national insurance threshold.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): On the limited information available, I estimate the cost to employers at around £200 million a year in national insurance contributions. In addition, employers would have to bear substantial administrative costs from the extra record keeping involved.
    Mr. Paice: May I first, say that it is a great pleasure for me to be able to welcome my hon. Friend to his new ministerial position, which brings him to the Government Front Bench—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hearl I count him as one of my most long-standing friends in this place. It is a great stroke of personal good fortune that I am able to congratulate him.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the burden of the £200 million to which he referred would fall especially heavily on businesses such as those that are run by horticultural growers and packers in my constituency, who rely on part-time and casual workers for their labour force? If the proposed Labour party tax on employers were to be implemented, it would mean that those businesses would lose their competitiveness and their work force, with the result that unemployment would increase even further.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous and warm words of welcome to me at the Government Dispatch Box. I shall take up the more general point that arises from his comments and not respond directly to his question on agriculture. The proposal to amend national insurance contributions on the basis of the lower earnings limit would be a positive disincentive to the creation of part-time employment that is valued by so many, especially by women who want to return to the labour market.
    Mr. Skinner: When will the Minister deal with the question that was raised by the Audit Commission and others about employers of various descriptions taking as much as £400 million out of the pockets of employees in tax and national insurance contributions and not handing them over to the tax authorities and Government Departments? When will the Government take steps to ensure that proper auditing takes place and that the money that is paid over by employees goes to the right accounts and not into employers' pockets?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. Efforts are being made to strengthen auditing procedures by the fraud investigation section of the Department. More inspectors are being employed, and I am certain that they will address themselves to the matters that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to my attention.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra support has been directed to lower-income pensioners in the last two years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Income-related benefits for pensioners have been increased substantially over the past two years. In addition to the normal annual upratings we directed an extra £200 million to less well-off elderly and disabled pensioners in October 1989 and will be directing an extra £80 million to pensioners aged 60 to 74

    5
    from next April. Taken together, those increases will bring the total annual extra help for pensioners since October 1989 to over a quarter of a billion pounds.
    Mr. Janman: May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Government Front Bench? She and I have had offices near to each other for the past three years.
    May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her answer to my question? She will be well aware that there are some, including some Labour Members, who often try to imply that the United Kingdom is rather behind its European neighbours when it comes to support for the elderly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is far from the truth and that Britain is near the top of the league when it comes to supporting its elderly in terms of the percentage of public expenditure that is spent in that direction? Does my hon. Friend agree that any massive across-the-board increase, as proposed by the likes of the Pensioners Protection party, would not reach those who need help the most because of the loss of benefit entitlement that would occur if such a policy were pursued?
    Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous welcome. The real Pensioners Protection party is the party that has brought about a 31 per cent. growth in pensioners' income during its time in office. The European figures clearly demonstrate that the richer countries spend a larger share of national income on social protection. That underlines the Government's view that only a successful economy can generate the wealth to pay for the welfare state. There are aspects of the pension arrangements in other EEC countries that we would not welcome, such as the link with earnings, which means that low earners receive low pensions.
    Mr. Winnick: Pensioners, and especially pensioner couples, have been cheated out of £20 a week because of the break in the link with earnings. Is the Minister aware of our deep concern about the health of so many poor pensioners who, at this very moment, are in great danger because they simply do not have sufficient financial means to heat their homes to an adequate level? Do not the Minister and the Secretary of State realise that the cold weather payment regulations are far too inflexible and bureaucratic? Is not it absolutely scandalous that millions of pensioners on small incomes are forced to live in inadequately heated homes because they are denied any extra help from the Government? When will the Government take action on that?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is because we recognise the importance of pensioners—and, indeed, others—being able to heat their homes adequately that there have been many reviews of cold weather payments. We made improvements in the winters of both 1988–89 and 1989–90. We are now having further consultations with the Meteorological Office about weather station areas because there are local variations that need to be examined.
    Mr. Winnick: What a farce.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Miss Widdecombe: I cannot believe that those who are trying to heat their homes in some of the areas most severely affected would share the amusement of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about that process.
    Mr. Winnick: It is not amusement. I am furious.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my hon. Friend noted that next year all pensioners will receive a rise in their pensions in excess of the current level of inflation, and which by next April will be substantially in excess of inflation? Will not that be of great advantage to all pensioners, and especially those on lower incomes?
    Miss Widdecombe: That rise, together with the uprating in income support, our review of cold weather payments and other measures, shows clearly that we are directing our resources to pensioners most in need. They will certainly benefit from the uprating—
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If an hon. Member is described by the sort of term that one hon. Member has just used to describe me, should not that hon. Member be forced to withdraw?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear anything disorderly.
    Ms. Short: I also welcome—
    Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that we all clearly heard the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) as a rat. Will you confirm that that is an unparliamentary expression—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) call the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) a rat?
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I made no such reference.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear it.
    Mr. Paice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that the proceedings may continue, I withdraw the remark that you did not hear.
    Ms. Short: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. As we shall be seeing rather more of each other now, I hope that she will manage to say something with which I can agree.
    Will the hon. Lady confirm that the figures that she cited do not in any way make up for the massive cut in the value of pensions that the Government imposed when. they broke the link with earnings'? As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, that amounts to £12 a week for a single pensioner and £20 a week for a pensioner couple. Is she aware that that is causing real hardship for many pensioners? Is she further aware that Labour is committed to restoring that link and to an immediate increase, in addition to the uprating, of £5 a week for a single pensioner and £8 a week for a pensioner couple?
    Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the House should be aware that the costs of restoring that link—about £6 billion—mean that the average employee would face an extra £2·78 on his national insurance contributions and his employer an extra £5·34. Before we believe that the restoration of a link with earnings would substantially improve a pensioner's lot, perhaps we should reflect on the fact that the Labour Government linked pensions with earnings and brought about a 20 per cent. increase, which was

    7
    eroded to a mere 3 per cent. increase because of their other policies. Surely it is better to have a 31 per cent. increase in real terms than a 3 per cent. increase against a totally false base.
    Mr. Brazier: May I also extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box? I very much enjoyed campaigning with her on many issues. In supporting her view that the Government have a much better record than their predecessor in looking after less well-off pensioners, may I draw her attention to the plight of one particular group—pensioners who are on modest incomes but also have savings? I suggest that, although the increase in capital limits was welcome, so long as we have a concept of notional income, we shall have a marginal rate of benefit withdrawal that makes saving unattractive to people approaching retirement.
    Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome. Although I have some sympathy with his concerns, I should point out to him that, through the notional tariff and taper, those with very small savings benefit. It would be difficult to persuade those with little savings and little income that it was right or socially equitable to exempt large savings completely.

    Income Support
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current level of income support.
    Mr. Newton: There are many levels of income support corresponding to the needs of particular groups, such as pensioners or families, and their individual circumstances. Our policy in replacing supplementary benefit was to create a clearer structure with a greater capacity to focus extra help on those most in need. Since 1988 we have given such extra help, over and above upratings, to families and children, disabled people, carers and pensioners.
    Mr. Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Is he aware that 87,000 households still have not had a penny increase in their benefit since 1987, despite inflation being 28 per cent. since then? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those people form a special case? If the Government are determined to make the poll tax marginally less offensive, why will not the right hon. Gentleman remove from those 87,000 households the liability to pay the 20 per cent. statutory minimum of their poll tax?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman understands the basis of the transitional protection, which was extended in 1988. I think that he will acknowledge that one of the many helpful effects of the substantial increase in benefit rates, which is to take place next April, is that it will considerably reduce the number of people who will then be subject to transitional protection.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that income support is a much more flexible and effective way of targeting help towards vulnerable and needy groups than the old supplementary benefit system?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree and I suspect that that view is generally shared, even by those who wish beneift rates to be higher still.
    Mrs. Mahon: The Secretary of State will be aware that one group of people—youngsters over the age of 18 in full-time education that does not attract a grant—are excluded from income support and have no income whatever. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that group?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady understands the position clearly. The Government's view is that, generally, if it is thought right that someone should be supported while he pursues his education, that is a matter for the local education authorities, which have adequate powers.

    Sick and Disabled People
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual real increase in spending on the long-term sick and disabled in the periods 1973–74 to 1978–79 and 1978–79 to 1989–90.
    Mr. Scott: We have increased spending on the long-term sick and disabled by £4·1 billion in real terms over the past 11 years—an increase of 98 per cent.
    Mr. Gregory: Now that my right hon. Friend has announced those excellent results, will he confirm that help for those who are disabled will be increased even further as a result of the steps announced in "The Way Ahead" earlier this year?
    Mr. Scott: We are making progress in Committee on the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, which will introduce those two benefits. Extra resources—over and above what was planned before we published "The Way Ahead"—will be spent in each year until the end of the decade.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that, for most disabled people, the last time Good King Wenceslas looked out was when their benefits were linked to average earnings? How much have the Government saved by breaking that link after 1979? Is not it totally unacceptable that the Minister makes no mention of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the increase in expenditure since 1979 has been for further beneficiaries of allowances introduced by the last Labour Government and their predecessors?
    Mr. Scott: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman more than once, he must surely welcome, as I do, the fact that we have extended the coverage of benefits—some of which were introduced by a former Labour Government. The same number of disabled people existed when a Labour Government were in office; there was no sudden dramatic increase when we came to office. We have not only marketed the benefits and encouraged the highest possible take-up—in the teeth of some criticism from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I may add —but have substantially improved the coverage of attendance allowance, mobility allowance and invalid care allowance. In addition, we have introduced the carers' premium and added age-related benefits to the severe disablement allowance. In several significant ways, we have extended and improved the coverage of those benefits.

    Maintenance
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average maintenance assessment under the current system; and what is the average cost of supporting a mother and child through the benefit system.
    Mr. Jack: The White Paper, "Children Come First", confirmed that the average award for child maintenance under the current system was £25 a week. About £2 billion a year in income support is currently paid to lone-parent families. The average payment is just over £50 per week. That figure is higher than it would otherwise be, because less than one quarter of lone parents on income support are receiving the maintenance that is their due.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that that answer is clear evidence that more must be done on assessment and enforcement, to ensure that more absent fathers contribute to the upkeep of their children? What hope or help can he offer to a mother of two in my constituency who cannot receive the child support that a court has granted to her because her former husband has absconded to Australia and refuses to pay any money? That mother cannot take her former husband to court in Australia because she cannot get hold of his home address.
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on pursuing his interest in the subject. He was one of the hon. Members who contributed, on his constituents' behalf, to the response to our White Paper "Children Come First". He is absolutely right that we need to deal more effectively and consistently with child maintenance. That is precisely why the Child Support Agency will be made the subject of a Bill for which we shall seek all-party support.
    My hon. Friend asked about his constituent. He will be aware that liable relative work is already undertaken within the social security system. I cannot comment specifically on the case that he raised with me, but, if he cares to write to me, we shall do our best to assess it and to give advice. Finally, the new Child Support Agency will have powers to pursue people for maintenance liability wherever they go.
    Mr. Flynn: Did the Minister see the report at the weekend by Anne Searle, the Birmingham child employment officer, which stated that the epidemic of child employment throughout the country stems not from children working because they want to, but from having to as a result of the low incomes of their families? Does he recall the case of a 12-year-old child who was discovered working an 11-hour shift in a bakery and the 15-year-old who was killed returning from her job selling kitchen equipment door to door? Is he aware that in a school in my constituency, 75 per cent. of the sixth form work part time and that half of them have jobs both at the weekends and during the week? Is not he concerned that that will lead to a deterioration in their health and that it is also a threat to their education?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman highlights the point about "Children Come First", whose aim is to ensure that when families should be receiving income in the form of maintenance, that money is obtained and given to them. We are aware of the problems about family income. That is why the White Paper, which I hope the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read, pays particular attention to improving the availability of family credit for women
    10
    who want to return to work and raise their income. That is why, in any maintenance payments that are obtained, the first £15 will be disregarded. We take the hon. Gentleman's points seriously, but I argue that "Children Come First" is a testament to the way in which we have approached the issue.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister agree that the present system for the enforcement of maintenance orders is totally inadequate and that it is important that maintenance arrears should not be allowed to accumulate in the magistrates courts? Does he also agree that everything must be done to pursue the absent parent to ensure that he looks after his children and is responsible for their maintenance?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point that led to the publication of the White Paper. The Government realised that the present position was inconsistent. The liable relative work carried out by the Department of Social Security also needs bolstering. To that end, we are not simply waiting until the House, we hope, approves the Bill on child maintenance; steps are already being taken to improve the liable relative work of the Department and to strengthen it through the legal enforcement Bill which is in the other place. We have also published in the White Paper a clear formula by which maintenance will be pursued and the amount of maintenance determined.
    Ms. Short: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. Has he yet had time to read the National Audit Office report on lone parents which is very critical of his Department? Is he aware that the report shows that under this Government, the percentage of lone parents on means-tested benefits has grown from 38 per cent. to a shocking 72 per cent. and that the number of those receiving maintenance while on benefits has slumped from 50 to 23 per cent?
    Will the Minister take a fresh look at the issue and drop his colleagues' outrageous proposal to punish, with a 20 per cent. fine, women who are too frightened to name the absent parent and pursue him for maintenance? Will he instead attend to his Department's deficiencies that have led to the enormous slump in the number of women on benefits claiming maintenance?
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words of welcome and I look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. However, her final point illustrates why "Children Come First" was published and the need for the Bill that will follow. Only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive maintenance and that is precisely why we want to take action in that area.
    We are aware of the sensitivities raised by the central part of the hon. Lady's question. As she will know, the period of consultation on those elements in the White Paper on which comments were invited ended last Friday. A number of organisations have drawn our attention to that important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he understands the sensitivities. He also understands that rape will be allowed as a reason for not fining people. However, there will be other issues and officers will be trained to deal with them sensitively. We are also taking into account in framing legislation the comments that have arisen from the consultations.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in real terms since 1979 of the value of income from occupational pensions.
    Mr. Newton: Pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions grew by 77 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987, the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pensioners are among the most deserving of groups and, alas, among the least powerful in our society? Does he agree further that, in financial terms, those who have occupational pension cover have done extremely well, but that, by definition, people with only state pension cover have done somewhat less well? Therefore, is not the way ahead for the Government and employers to continue to encourage occupational pensions and, for that matter, portable pensions, and in the interim to be particularly generous at the next uprating of the state retirement pension?
    Mr. Newton: It is the aim of our policies–they have been successful—to encourage the continued development of occupational and personal pensions. In referring to the substantial growth in pensioners' average incomes that has taken place, largely as a result of increased occupational pensions, I have never shied away from acknowledging that quite a number of pensioners still have not benefited. That is precisely why, in October 1989, we steered additional help to those least well-off pensioners through the income support system; we shall do so again next April.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree that some people on fixed occupational pensions have not benefited from the increase of latter years and that they may have been penalised most in the pension scheme? Has any study been done of that sector?
    Mr. Newton: Some of that group will be among those, depending on how small their occupational pension is, who may benefit or have benefited from increases in income support rates. We sought to tackle the underlying problem in last year's Social Security Act, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, by extending the provisions requiring in many more circumstances the uprating of occupational pensions.
    Mr. Favell: The group that suffers most from a high community charge is pensioners with small occupational pensions who are just over the capital or income limit. Those people are patently honest and nothing hurts them more than seeing others refuse to pay their community charge. Has not the time come to ensure that everybody registers for the community charge and to say that, unless they can prove that they are registered, they should not receive social benefit of any kind, whether it be child benefit, income support or any other?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend takes me a little wide of the responsibilities that bring me to the Dispatch Box today, but I have no doubt that suggestion will be noted in the appropriate quarters.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who will pick up the £5,900 million bill for the Government's error in forecasting the
    12
    costs of switching from the state earnings-related pension scheme to private occupational schemes? Will it be the taxpayer?
    Mr. Newton: There is no such error. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me who in the next century would pick up the bill for the unsustainable promises made by his party.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average pensioner's income from savings over the periods 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to 1990.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will wish to note that the latest available data show that, at 1987 prices, the average pensioner's income from savings fell from £10·70 per week in 1974 to £9·10 per week in 1979. But, by 1987, it had more than doubled to £20·90 per week.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming my hon. Friend to the Front Bench? Is not it most important that we encourage companies and all employers to pay occupational pension schemes? Is not one of the most important events since 1979 that private pensions have increased by more than 130 per cent. in real terms? Is not that a way in which to make sure that people are better-off and more self-sufficient? Private pension schemes mean that state pensions will be only the supernumeraries instead of the mainstay of families in the generation to come.
    Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is, of course, absolutely right. The House will wish to note that the average income from an occupational pension has grown in value by 77 per cent. since 1979. In addition, 52 per cent. of all pensioners and 73 per cent. of recently retired pensioners now have occupational pensions. That is testimony to the Government's determination to encourage savings by that route.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an official visit to the York house residential home, Plaistow, to meet residents and staff to discuss levels of residential care attendance.
    Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that although he will still be welcome there, York house residential home is closed? Is he further aware that that is because the Government have neglected to act on the findings of the Price Waterhouse report, which showed that the income of residential homes from social security is between £40 and £60 a week less than the general requirement? Will he now consult not only Price Waterhouse, but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and Age Concern over this very important national problem? Does he understand that more homes will be closed, not only in east London but throughout the country, unless he acts quickly?
    Mr. Newton: I am, of course, aware of the problems that have been reported in connection with that home. However, I am also aware that it appears that the problem

    13
    in that case and, for all I know, in many others, is somewhat more complicated than the hon. Gentleman allowed in his question. In particular, I understand that of those currently remaining in the home—
    Mr. Spearing: There is no one there.
    Mr. Newton: I am told that there are still a number of people in the home, not on income support but fully supported by the health authority, which must mean that they are in need not of residential care, but of nursing care. That, in turn, raises questions about whether the home was properly registered. If it had been registered as a nursing home, it would have received substantially more money each week for those residents and they would be facing a large increase next April. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not dismiss his comments out of hand, but he should recognise that some of these problems are a great deal more complicated than is sometimes suggested in the newspapers.

  THE ARTS

    Royal Opera House
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will provide the management of the Royal Opera house with the funds required to undertake remedial construction tasks at that establishment.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): Development of the Royal Opera house will be funded principally from the proceeds of the development of land and commercial properties gifted to it by successive Governments. As my right hon. and learned Friend the former Minister for the Arts recently made clear, the Government are unable to make a further capital contribution. I am in close touch with the Royal Opera house management, which is now reconsidering the phasing and content of the project.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that although many people in this country admire the work of the Royal Opera house, there is nevertheless the feeling that the additional funds that are being made available for the sort of schemes which the Royal Opera house management wants to pursue will simply mean that additional precious funding will go towards putting some of the best-clad backsides in this country on some very expensive seats for a night out at the opera and that that will be done at the expense of many arts groups and organisations in other areas, especially Wales and the English regions?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair. The Royal Opera house has increased its revenue both from sponsorship and from the box office sale of tickets in the past year. The amount of revenue that it receives in subsidy from the Arts Council has fallen as a percentage of its total revenue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking especially of the Welsh National Opera, for which he must naturally have a good deal of sympathy and support, which receives more than £2·5 million in grant from the Arts Council and £1·7 million from the Welsh Arts Council. I do not think that any other major organisation has its funding split in that manner.
    Mr. Cormack: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post and wish him every success in it? I thank him
    14
    for the answer that he has just given, which showed a greater appreciation of the problem than did the questioner. Will he pay an early visit to the opera house to discuss the plans with the chairman and director, remembering that there is enormous earning potential from that development?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I realise that he has had a strong interest in the arts and heritage for many years. One of my first onerous duties as Minister for the Arts was to visit the Royal Opera house, where I had the great pleasure of seeing the Scottish Opera production of "Les Troyens". I was taken backstage after the performance not only to meet members of the cast, but to have pointed out to me how much the backstage area needs repair and redevelopment.
    Mr. Fisher: May I welcome the Minister to his new job as the third holder of the office this year? I wish him well in his endeavours on behalf of the arts. He will be aware of the problems that he inherits from his predecessors, not least in general remedial construction—the crisis in our cultural buildings. There are holes in the roof of the Tate, the Victoria and Albert museum needs £100 million spent on it and the chairman of the Arts Council, Mr. Peter Palumbo, guesstimates that at least £1,000 million needs to be spent on our cultural buildings. In that new situation —at least it is new to him—will the Minister have the courage that his predecessors did not and face up to the evidence and the facts? Will he commission a national audit of arts buildings so that people round the country and hon. Members on both sides of the House can know the real position and how great is the task to be undertaken over the next 10 years?
    Mr. Renton: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks at the beginning of his questions. Secondly, he may have noticed that I have already answered a parliamentary question on our cultural buildings. I said that I was commissioning a survey to be carried out by a multi-faceted professional company into the building requirements of the major museums and galleries. I have asked for the company to report to me by summer next year. The hon. Gentleman should not underrate the settlements that both my predecessors obtained in the public expenditure rounds. In both cases, the settlements were well ahead of the rate of inflation and were welcomed as that.
    I had been warned that in his questions the hon. Gentleman would almost invariably use the word "crisis." I suggest that he takes a leaf out of the book of Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army" and, instead of always throwing his arms in the air and shouting, "Crisis", he shouts "Don't panic!"
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that a commitment to the arts will be met if he takes on board the recommendation of the National Campaign for the Arts on the proportion of public spending which should be devoted to the arts—a modest 1 per cent. of gross domestic product, substantially below that of other European countries with comparable populations and revenues?
    Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking that. I have looked briefly at that survey and at the campaign. But as a fair-minded person the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is extremely difficult to compare like with like in this matter. As I understand it,

    15
    the comparative figure given for France, for example, does not take into account either the business sponsorship or private patronage that we have in Britain. The matter is well worth close study, but I doubt that whether is a case for leaping ahead in the manner in which the NCA suggests.

    Young Musicians
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what support he provides to encourage young musicians.
    Mr. Renton: I understand that the Arts Council, through which Government funds are channelled, supports a number of schemes such as Music for Small Groups to help young musicians, and Youth and Music to encourage young people to attend concerts.
    Mr. Bowis: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on escaping to the best possible job in the "House of Cards"? Has he had a chance to look at the quality of music in Britain and the standard of our young musicians, not least on those excellent occasions, the schools proms? Does he recognise that there is some anxiety in that world as a result of the problems in peripatetic music teaching? Will he take an early opportunity to discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
    Mr. Renton: 1 thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am advised that in view of the slightly open-ended ending of the fourth episode of "House of Cards" the BBC is planning a sequel. However, I do not yet know whether the BBC intends to entitle it "Minister for the Arts". I warmly applaud the schools proms season. I hope that that excellent season, organised by Music for Youth, will continue. It is an organisation funded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. As my hon. Friend clearly knows, it gives schoolchildren a chance to play in the best concert halls up and down the land.
    I see no reason why the peripatetic music service to schools should suffer. I hope that valuable positions of that nature will not be threatened if local education authorities decide to delegate funds to schools. Schools might even choose to enhance music provision from their budgets—a move which I would support.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he manages to last at least until his next Question Time. He is welcome to come to Newham to see what we are doing. We have the Newham Academy of Music, which the local authority supports. I read in the newspapers that the Minister was looking carefully at local authority expenditure on the arts. Will he be prepared to talk to the Department of the Environment to make sure that adequate resources are put at the disposal of local authorities so that they can continue to give the support to the arts which the arts merit?
    Mr. Renton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question. He will realise, probably better than I do, that local authorities' arts spending is discretionary, not mandatory. Certainly, if I received strong evidence that arts budgets were being cut wholly disproportionately, although I have no statutory powers I would seek to
    16
    discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether he could bring to bear any gentle persuasion.
    The hon. Gentleman's first point was his hope that I might be here for a long time. I remind him of the Latin tag, vita brevis est ars longa. I realise that my turbulent life as Chief Whip was short and I hope that with his help my life as Minister for the Arts will be longer.

    Business Sponsorship
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on progress of the business sponsorship incentive scheme.
    Mr. Renton: I am delighted to have inherited such a successful scheme which has raised over £37 million in new money for the arts, including £12·28 million in Government awards. Recent research by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts shows that over 90 per cent. of sponsors contacted intend to continue. That is excellent news.
    Mr. Butler: How popular is the business sponsorship incentive scheme outside the great metropolis?
    Mr. Renton: I understand that about 75 per cent. of business sponsorship schemes are located outside London. Indeed, one of my first pleasant duties as Minister for the Arts was to hand over business sponsorship awards in Glasgow to Scottish companies.

    Natural History Museum
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if, pursuant to the answer of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) of 26 November at column 619, he will make a statement on ministerial meetings with Sir Walter Bodmer in relation to staffing problems posed by the IPMS in connection with the natural history museum.
    Mr. Renton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) met the chairman of trustees and director of the natural history museum on 1 November 1990 to discuss a wide range of issues concerning the museum. I share the view that the recent agreement between the natural history museum and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists should be welcomed. It serves the best long-term interests of the museum and all concerned.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister visit the museum officially and meet IPMS representatives?
    Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that I should add that to my list of travels and I shall think carefully about it. On Friday I had the opportunity of meeting the director of the natural history museum.
    Mr. Dalyell: Members of IPMS.
    Mr. Renton: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I thought that he said the chairman of the museum. I had discussions with the director and he is satisfied with the agreement that has been reached so far, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in this matter. Only one redundancy is likely to occur. The proper course is for the management to sort out the details of the agreement with IPMS. It is no

    17
    part of my work to interfere in this dispute. Clearly, if I found reason to believe that the agreement was not working, I would consider visiting the museum.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Morale and Conditions
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to meet civil service trade union leaders to discuss morale in the service.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements he has for discussing conditions with civil service trade union representatives; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I intend to follow the practice of my predecessors and look forward to meeting civil service trade union representatives whenever necessary.
    Mr. Allen: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. When he meets civil service trade union leaders, will he consider extending the terms and conditions that apply to their members to those who work in this House but are not members of civil service unions? He will be aware of the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for adequate staffing levels and payment, particularly for staff in the Refreshment Department. Will he discuss changing their terms of tenure to those which apply in the civil service, for which he is responsible?
    Mr. Renton: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will be aware, however, that terms and conditions relating to pay in the civil service are not my responsibility but that of Treasury Ministers, particularly the Minister of State. I believe that the specific conditions in the House are more the responsibility of the Services Committee or the Commission rather than mine. I shall bring his comments to the attention of my colleagues.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister have a word with the Chairman of the Commission, who sits behind me, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—
    Mr. Beith: Mr. Speaker is the Chairman.
    Mr. Skinner: I mean the one who speaks in the House. The hon. Gentleman answered the letter that I sent to him and the Lord President of the Council about people in the Refreshment Department who will be paid the paltry sum of £3·50 an hour for working on Christmas eve and new year's eve. They will get no extra payment for that work. Surely they should not have to come in here on days when no Members will be here. If they do come, they should be given unsocial hours payments. Get something done about it and knock their heads together.
    Mr. Renton: One of the pleasures of my time as Patronage Secretary was to listen to business questions and I remember that the Leader of the House regularly answered questions much along those lines, usually from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). No doubt that hon. Gentleman knows to whom to ask such a question, even if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not.
    Mr. Jessel: As the question on the Order Paper refers to morale, can my right hon. Friend tell us why it is that, whenever people in the public sector want to be paid more money, they always talk about their morale?
    Mr. Renton: I suspect that the same applies in the private sector. I assure my hon. Friend that, from my office, I have seen no sign that there is anything wrong with morale in the civil service. The introduction of the executive agencies and, in many cases, pay related to performance and bonuses following good performance have been welcomed by the civil servants involved. I am responsible for the Civil Service Commission and applications through its competitions for fast-stream vacancies are 75 per cent. up on the same time last year. The European fast stream that we launched recently has proved extremely popular with applicants. I believe that morale in the civil service is fine.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that morale in the civil service is extremely high? We have a dedicated staff who are courteous and efficient and who obviously represent the best civil service in the world. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that those who are asking questions and shedding tears for people in the Refreshment Department should study closely what contribution they made to the Christmas bonus fund for the staff this year because many people have given little money?
    Mr. Renton: I note with great pleasure what my hon. Friend said. No doubt colleagues on both sides of the House will follow his observations and rush promptly to make certain that they have made a good contribution to the staff fund.
    Dr. Marek: Why, after all these years, will official Government advice to new entrants to the civil service no longer say that they should join a union to ensure that their views are represented and heard? Surely the Minister should put such puerile, Thatcherite games behind him. Does he at least recognise that a good and efficient union is in not only his interests, but those of the country?
    Mr. Renton: I do not understand the background 1 o the hon. Gentleman's question. After all, we have moved away from the closed shop. Union membership has become more and more voluntary and discretionary in the past 11 years of Conservative Government and we intend to continue in that direction in the civil service as in the private sector. There is no problem for me, because, as the hon. Gentleman might know, I have been a member of APEX—the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff—for the past 11 years. I am always delighted to meet other members of that union. The hon. Gentleman's comments are surprising, because we are not in the business of enforcing closed shops either in the public or the private sector.

    Private Industry (Secondments)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants were seconded to private industry in the last two financial years.
    Mr. Renton: The figures on a calendar year basis are 432 in 1989, up from 311 in 1988. I welcome that trend and look for it to continue.
    Mr. Marshall: May I join my hon. Friends in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post? I also welcome the trend, because such cross-fertilisation can only be mutually beneficial.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind opening remarks. I wholly agree with his comment about cross-fertilisation. The figures have risen well. Secondments to industry have increased from 63 in 1977 to 432 in 1989. I am sure that much can be gained by both sides from the interchange of experience and knowledge of working practices. I share my hon. Friend's view that the trend should be greatly encouraged.

    Press and Information Officers
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has any plans to co-ordinate the work of press and information officers in the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: The existing longstanding arrangements will continue to operate.
    Mr. Beith: Now that there is a new press officer at No. 10 who does not have the service-wide responsibilities acquired by his predecessor, will we enter a new era in which the line between Government policy and party matters is clearly drawn and the press office at Downing street does not blacken the character of, and put the knife into, Ministers, or will old habits come back quickly?
    Mr. Renton: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman asked that supplementary question, although I thought he might because he has a gift for turning a silk purse back into a sow's ear. I have no doubt that both the gentlemen who have been appointed—Mr. Devereau as head of the
    20
    profession, as he is technically called, and Mr. O'Donnell, as No. 10's press officer—will fulfil their duties and responsibilities very well.

    Race Relations
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if his office has circulated the race relations employment advisory service report on the Department of Employment to other Departments.
    Mr. Renton: The report was circulated to Departments in 1986. More recently my office has published a programme for action on race to ensure equality of opportunity throughout the civil service.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there is regular monitoring? One of the best things that the civil service can do is to show how to overcome indirect as well as direct discrimination.
    Mr. Renton: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, the aim of the programme for action on race is to ensure that we recruit, develop and retain the best available civil servants totally regardless of race or colour. We regularly monitor the figures, which show an increase in ethnic minority staff at senior grades over the past year —from 1·5 to 1·7 per cent. I hope that that trend continues.

  BILL PRESENTED
    REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
    Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to abolish the House of Lords as presently composed and to provide for a new directly elected membership based on Parliamentary constituencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

  Gulf Crisis (Conscription)
  3.33 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you, Mr. Speaker, had any requests from Ministers to make a statement on reports about the possibility of conscription because of the Gulf crisis? There were widespread reports in the newspapers yesterday. Have the Government made any requests along those lines?
  Mr. Speaker: Over the weekend, one frequently reads speculative articles. I have not received representations from the Government on the matter. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to pursue the issue in the debates on the Adjournment motion if any fresh information becomes available.

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill

    (NEW CLAUSES RELATING TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT)
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

    New Clause 1

      PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER
      'A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of the murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'.—[Mr. John Greenway.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.34 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 2—Terrorist Murder—
      'A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed as, or in pursuit of, an act of terrorism shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'.
      New clause 3—Punishment for murder—

      '(1) Subject to the following sub-sections the penalty for murder shall be death.

      (2) No person aged under 18 years shall suffer the death penalty.

      (3) As soon as practicable following a sentence of death, a special sitting of the Court of Appeal shall be convened to consider whether the circumstances of either

      (a) the commission of the offence or

      (b) the offender

      whether or not such circumstances were adduced in evidence at the trial, are such as would justify the substitution of a sentence of life imprisonment in place of the sentence of death.

      (4) This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland.'.

      New Clause 4—Abolition of death penalty—

      '(1) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1790, for the words "hanged by the neck until she or they be severely dead" there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".

      (2) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1814, for the words "hanged by the neck until such person be dead", there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".

      (3) In section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837, for the words "suffer death" there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".

      New clause 5—Death penalty for murder—
      'A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed by means of firearms, explosives or an offensive weapon, or for the murder of a police or prison officer, shall on conviction be sentenced to death, unless the court determines that the circumstances of the case, including any extenuating circumstances, make it more appropriate for a life sentence of imprisonment.'.
      New clause 6—Punishment for murder of prison officer ߞ
      'A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of the murder of a prison officer acting in the execution of his duty shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'.
      New clause 7—Punishment for other indictable offences—

      23
      'A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed during the preparation or commission of any other indictable offence shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'.
      Mr. Greenway: I should also like to voice my support for new clause 3, standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
      Some have questioned why the House should debate this issue for the second time in this Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and I understand why the question has been asked. The Committee is considering an important Criminal Justice Bill that goes to the heart of sentencing policy and contains a number of important new measures, which we are debating constructively in Committee and which are based on the well-known maxim that the punishment should fit the crime.
      In the eyes of many outside this House, many cases of murder these days do not attract punishment that fits the crime. The public would have found it astonishing if the House had not debated this matter as part of our detailed scrutiny of the important legislative changes that we are introducing in this Bill.
      It must also be acknowledged that the sentencing of murderers and terrorists continues to demand our attention and concern. Statistics suggest that, since the House last debated this matter two and a half years ago, more than 1,500 people have been unlawfully killed in the United Kingdom—not including those who, only two years ago, were blown out of the sky over Lockerbie. I am sure that the House will want to extend its sympathy at this Christmas time to the families of the Lockerbie victims and of the victims of many other recent acts of murder. Above all, we extend our sympathy to the family of our great and dear friend Ian Gow, whose brutal murder remains very much in our minds, especially today.
      As the House knows, I served for almost five years as a policeman here in central London in the 1960s. I should like to recall two incidents which, if I remember correctly, took place in 1966 while I was a uniformed constable at West End Central police station. Shortly after eight o'clock one morning. I was called to a jeweller's shop in Mayfair. Two men had lain in wait for the proprietor to arrive and open the shop. They dragged him to the basement, where they savagely beat him to death before stealing what amounted to no more than a few hundred pounds' worth of silver. His battered head and body made an appalling sight, which will live in my memory for ever. Yet his murderers could not pay the ultimate price for their premeditated savagery, because the House had abolished capital punishment less than a year before. I knew then that that was a mistake, and I have always believed so since.
      The second incident occurred in the early hours of a Sunday morning. A call came that there was a man brandishing a gun in Berwick street in Soho. I ran to the scene, and seeing a crowd on the street corner, I continued to approach them; but shortly before I reached them, a gun was fired. I then heard the sound of a gun being thrown on the pavement, and a man ran off. As one says when giving evidence in the police force, I gave chase and apprehended him.
      The man's fingerprints were found on the gun recovered from the scene, and forensic experts later removed a bullet from the frame of the door that I had run past. The man
      24
      pleaded guilty to the illegal possession of a firearm, but was acquitted of all other charges. I did not see him point the gun at me or anyone else. I could not swear on oath what I had not seen—tempting though that might have been to some officers. Other witnesses, consisting of the usual assortment of deadbeats and riff-raff who frequent Soho in the middle of the night, were, as one might expect, unreliable.
      These two experiences point up what I believe to be the five crucial questions that the House must answer when considering the restoration of the death penalty. First, in abolishing the death sentence for all and any murder, have we given the armed criminal too great an advantage over the innocent victim? I think that we have, and that that is the view of the great majority of the British people.
      Secondly, is society today more violent than it was in the past as a consequence, if only in part, of the abolition of the death penalty? That is also the perceived view, and later I shall suggest why I agree with that view. Thirdly, are we placing too great a burden on our police, either by asking them to face the intolerable pressures of a split-second decision when facing armed criminals or in seeking to secure the conviction of those whom they know or believe have committed serious crimes such as murder or acts of terrorism? Fourthly, has Parliament done enough to check or reduce violence by way of the sentencing powers that it has given the courts? The Bill recognises that it has not.
      Finally, what more must we do or can we do to prevent miscarriages of justice which, understandably, are cited as the fundamental reason against the restoration of the death sentence? I dare say that that argument will be advanced in the debate. The new clause tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) seeks to address that point by referring all convicted murderers to the Court of Appeal. If my hon. and learned Friend speaks in the debate, I am sure that he will wish to address that issue.
      Mr. David Winnick: Although the hon. Gentleman has rightly anticipated the point and despite the other new clauses, may I ask him whether he thinks that there is something illogical in trying to bring back the death penalty, bearing in mind the fact that the Guildford Four were released after many years in prison? One almost certainly expects the Birmingham Six also to be released. In the face of those cases and in view of all the other arguments that will be deployed in the debate, how can we possibly think of bringing back capital punishment?
      Mr. Greenway: I am sure that the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will be the crux of the debate. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is in two parts. First, are we saying that the sentencing policy for offenders must be determined by whether we believe that the verdicts of juries are reliable? That is a serious matter, which must be considered.
      Secondly, throughout the last eleven and a half years, the Government have repeatedly brought to Parliament measures which seek to make our criminal justice system better. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, when we last discussed this matter, are both in force. If I remember correctly, those

      25
      measures were opposed by the Opposition. We must ensure through the criminal justice system that miscarriages of justice do not take place.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence is that 49 people who had committed murder did so a second time, and that if those people had been executed they would not have been able to commit murder again?
      Mr. Greenway: That valid point is often made, and if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Walker, he may wish to elaborate on it.
      Mr. Tim Janman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if capital punishment were available to the courts, it would be far less likely that bombs such as the one at Guildford, whoever planted it, would be planted in the first place? Does he futher agree that policemen would be far less likely to perjure themselves in court if they knew that the result could be a life wrongly taken by the state?
      Mr. Greenway: Much as I should like to agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure that he is correct. I hope that the Committee will agree that my experience, which I have described to the Committee, shows that there are pressures on our police force. One cannot ever forgive or sanction officers who perjure themselves, in whatever circumstances. However, as I have said, we must ensure that our criminal justice system does not allow the opportunity for that, particularly when the evidence is in the form of confessions, which are now recorded by tape or video. There are provisions on that already in the Bill, which shows that we can improve our criminal justice system, and that we are right to do so.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend has accepted that it is impossible to be certain that police officers will never perjure themselves. Does he extend that argument to saying that it will always be possible that an innocent person may be convicted and hanged? Do not the two arguments come to the same logical conclusion—that we should not reintroduce capital punishment?
      Mr. Greenway: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Parliament, the House of Commons and society have to strike a balance in protecting innocent lives. Since we last debated this matter, over 1,500 people have been unlawfully killed, even though our society is less violent than those of other countries, even within the European Community.
      Society is more violent than it was 25 years ago.
      Sir John Wheeler: That is not true.
      Mr. Greenway: It is true. In particular, the use of firearms in crime has risen sharply—more sharply than crime generally.
      A recent incident provides a clear focus of what is at stake. Police officers and armed criminals exchanged fire only two weeks ago in a peaceful Surrey village. One of the gang was left dead and another seriously wounded, but it could so easily have been the other way round, with either policemen or members of the public being killed.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that, when capital punishment existed,
      26
      experienced criminals invariably frisked their younger colleagues to make certain that they were not going armed? Now, arms are a tool of the trade.
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend has touched on a point that I shall make in a moment.
      In the incident that I mentioned, those policemen in Surrey had a split second to decide how they should react so as to protect the public and their colleagues. I pay tribute to their bravery, but we in the House of Commons, with all the time at our disposal, seem not to have the nerve to do what might have prevented those officers from being confronted as they were, and sadly so often are.
      The facts speak for themselves. In the 25 years preceding the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, 22 policemen were killed in the execution of their duties. In the 25 years since abolition, 53 police officers have been killed in such circumstances. How many more would have been killed but for the skill of doctors and surgeons or the presence of mind of police marksmen?
      One accepts that crime in general has increased and at a faster rate than that for murder of policemen. However, it is deeply disturbing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, that the nature of crime in Britain has changed. The use of firearms was noticeably absent from the culture of crime in the 1950s and early 1960s. Now, the use of firearms is commonplace. "Criminal Statistics"—this is the only other statistic to which I shall draw the attention of the Committee—shows that whereas in 1972, 539 crimes of robbery involved the use of firearms, in 1989 that had risen to 3,390—an increase of more than six times—and that they accounted for much more of the crime in Britain than they had before.
      My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Waddington said at the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth in October that, in his view, the death sentence would deter some—not necessarily all—murderers. I agree with that, but I believe it to be especially true of the murderers of police officers. Parliament has provided the courts with stiffer powers of sentencing for violent criminals. There are specific measures for that purpose in the Bill. There is little appreciable difference, however, if there is any, between sentences for murder, attempted murder, firing a weapon or merely brandishing one in pursuit of a crime.
      What is more, the inexorable rise in the commission of crimes by armed criminals shows that it is not unreasonable to conclude that current sentencing does not deter. We are left with a choice of concluding that there is no deterrent or accepting the inevitable argument that Parliament was wrong to abolish capital punishment altogether, and that only the death sentence can provide the deterrent which society is demanding to reverse the tide of violence of recent years.
      I shall refer to a passage that appears in the report of the Royal Commission on capital punishment of 1949–53 that is often ignored by those who are in favour of abolition. In considering whether capital punishment, had failed as a deterrent, the report states:
      "We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes. No one can ever know how many people have refrained from murder because of the fear of being hanged."
      There is so much more that I could say on this issue. I shall not add greatly to my remarks, because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I shall try to set an example by being as brief as possible. As I have already said, my hon.

      27
      and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a view to explaining the thinking that lies behind new clause 3, which establishes the principle which we ought properly to adopt to avoid miscarriages of justice. The new clause goes beyond what has already been achieved.
      I have referred already to the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
      I commend new clause 1. It seeks to provide our policemen with the protection that they deserve. If the House rejects the clause, it will bring us nearer to the day when all our policemen may need to be armed.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is advancing a most interesting argument. Before he goes into the details of individual new clauses, will he give us his views on whether capital punishment and its reintroduction or otherwise should be decided by the nation by means of a referendum, as many of us think it might be?
      Mr. Greenway: I understand the arguments that are advanced in favour of a referendum. I take the view that a referendum would tell the House only what it knows already. The results of a survey were published in the Daily Star. With no disrespect to that newspaper, it is one that would not normally be quoted in the House of Commons, but it is the views of 6,200 readers of the Daily Star who took the trouble to telephone the newspaper to tell it of their views, not the views of the newspaper, that I draw to the attention of the House. Of the 6,200, only 200 were against the death sentence. Obviously, the other 6,000 were in favour of it. If that does not tell us what a referendum would tell us, I do not know what would.
      Many of us have taken part in phone-in programmes on television. I have done so on two occasions. The public telephone to give their views, and overwhelmingly they have been in favour—
      Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock rose—
      Mr. Greenway: I have given way several times already, and I should like to bring my remarks to a conclusion. As I have said, I want others to have a chance to contribute to the debate.
      Unless we accept and implement new clause 1, all our policemen may inevitably have to be armed. That is something which younger police officers feel, with reluctance, to be inevitable.
      I loathe and detest all violence. It saddens me greatly that there is now so much violence in our society, whether in the real world or on our television or cinema screens. I believe instinctively, however, that sometimes the only way to defeat violence is through the use of violence. All killing is evil, but do we not on occasions have to resort to evil to defeat evil? If not, why have we sent thousands of our soldiers to the Gulf? The public believe instinctively that the availability of capital punishment must be an essential element of the fight against premeditated violent crime. Can this House for ever remain out of step with that view? By voting for new clause 1 tonight, the House would restore to the police a protection that it should never have removed.
      Mr. Peter Archer: This is the 19th occasion since 1955 that the House has debated this topic. We debated it fully two years ago. We can all bring to the House recollections of what we have detected outside it. I believe that I have detected a feeling both in the House and in the country that our nation has some very real problems which should be dealt with in the House, but for which no time can be found, and the House might have been better occupied in debating them.
      Of course I respect the right of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to his opinion, and I do not for a moment question his sincerity. But I hope that he will forgive me if I say that none of his arguments burst upon us for the first time, and I do not believe that I can adduce any new arguments. We have both been around the course many times before.
      I wish mainly to speak to new clause 4, and I shall leave it to other right hon. and hon. Members to deploy arguments on the general question. I say only that two arguments are uppermost in my mind. The first is the reflection to which the hon. Member for Ryedale adverted, but which he dismissed rather lightly—that is, that if capital punishment had been retained for the offence of murder, the guilt or innocence of the Birmingham Six would now be academic because we would have hanged them 13 years ago. We would also have hanged the Guildford Four for an offence for which we are now agreed the conviction cannot safely be allowed to stand. The hon. Gentleman replied to that with the optimistic view that perhaps our legal system would never perpetrate another mistake; that perhaps we had achieved perfection. I wish that I could believe it, but I am bound to say that I do not share his optimism.
      New clause 3 makes another attempt to deal with that issue. I find it logically perplexing, because it proposes that, if the Court of Appeal finds that there is a doubt about the validity of the conviction, that would be a reason for sentencing people to life imprisonment. No doubt, when the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) speaks to his new clause, he will try to elucidate that. I am still persuaded by the argument that the legal system may perpetrate mistakes and that we would all bitterly regret it if we reinstated capital punishment. Secondly, I do not believe that it enhances respect for human life solemnly to break the neck of a human being on behalf of the state.
      Turning to new clause 4, my hon. Friends and I simply want to say that, as the House is called on again to decide the question of principle—whether we think it right to regress to capital punishment—that principle should be applied consistently. I am not clear why the matter was not dealt with on earlier occasions. I do not believe that Parliament ever decided, on the merits, to retain capital punishment for treason and piracy. They are anomalies which were overlooked in earlier debates because, understandably, the House was concentrating on the offence of murder.
      I am grateful to Amnesty International for reminding me that those inconsistencies remain. That has added to the debt which we all owe that organisation. I am somewhat prejudiced, because I was a founder member of Amnesty International, and for some time I was chairman of the British section. I have never invested time to better purpose.
      The case for new clause 4 is simple. The question of principle, which the House will be deciding once again,

      29
      applies equally to these remaining offences. I know of no argument applicable to the penalty for murder that does not apply equally to the penalty for treason and piracy.
      I should like to spend a few moments making clear what we are not seeking to do. Some observant commentators have noticed that we have not sought to abolish the death penalty for offences against the Army Acts, re-enacted in the Armed Forces Bill. They relate to offences such as mutiny in time of war. I do not believe that our nation would be any safer because we have capital punishment for mutiny in time of war, but I recognise that the arguments are different. It may be better not to complicate the debate by introducing those considerations. I shall be satisfied for the present if we can achieve consistency in time of peace.
      4 pm
      I should like to turn to the second thing which we are not seeking to do. We are not addressing the content of the law of treason or of piracy. I have heard a rumour, which may be entirely without foundation, that, when the Home Secretary addresses the Committee, he will argue that, because the substantive content of the law of treason is in need of revision, that should be regarded as a reason for retaining capital punishment. If he says that, it will be a curious argument—that anyone who is convicted under a law which admittedly is in a muddle should for that reason be hanged. You and I, Mr. Walker, might have thought that it would be an argument in the opposite direction.
      If it helps, I agree that the substantive law of treason is much in need of revision. Much of it still stems from the Treason Act 1351, and consists of such a strangely assorted list as compassing or imagining the death of the sovereign; violating his eldest daughter, provided that she is unmarried, so it does not apply to Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, and slaying the Chancellor or the King's justices, provided that they are in their place undertaking their offices—so they are not protected by the law of treason if they are having dinner or walking the dog.
      In 1977, the Law Commission published a working paper inviting comments, and it became clear, if it was not blatantly obvious already, that the law was in need of a wash and brush-up. The project did not go any further, which was not in any way the Law Commission's fault.
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The argument that treason is a particularly evil thing is a complex matter to many of us. Treason means that a British subject betrays his own kind. It is said, even by the Russians in their perestroika and glasnost days, that George Blake helped to kill 45 agents. The Gulf has been mentioned today. If someone betrayed British troops, resulting in the loss of the lives of hundreds of those troops, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that it was terrible for the state to say, "This has been a heinous crime and that person should give up his life"? Are we really going to say that anyone who betrays other people can cause the death of those people without that costing his life?
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I hesitate to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but the Committee will know that, at the end of Question Time, I asked Mr. Speaker whether he had had any request from the Government to make a statement about the introduction of conscription. He replied that he had
      30
      received no such request. We now know that a written question gives a substantive answer, reintroducing the principle of conscription to this country—
      The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentle man that we are in Committee, and that this is not a matter for the Committee.
      Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Walker. My point of order is very simple. Surely such an important decision should be revealed to the House in an oral answer or a statement. To introduce the principle of conscription in a written answer is absolutely unacceptable—
      The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but I am sure that he will recognise that, because we are in Committee, I cannot deal with this matter.
      Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Walker. Surely, even if the House is in Committee when something as important as this happens and when the House is treated in this way, there must be a way in which we can ask for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement.
      The Chairman: A Minister cannot come to the House and make a statement on such matters while we are in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless use his experience and ingenuity to seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on a more appropriate occasion.
      Mr. Archer: The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was on an important matter, but I think that it was addressed to you, Mr. Walker, rather than to me, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I return to my argument.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) asked me to respond to the suggestion that treason can be a terrible offence. I agree—
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Not "can be"; it is.
      Mr. Archer: It depends on all the circumstances.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Treason is a terrible offence.
      Mr. Archer: That depends on what someone has done. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I readily agree that treason can be a terrible offence—so, I believe, can murder—but that is not what we are debating today. I do not believe that our country would be any safer if we retained capital punishment for the offence of treason—any more than individuals would be safer if we reintroduced capital punishment for the offence of murder.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Archer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed. He will no doubt have the opportunity to develop his argument in due course in a speech of his own.
      I was about to make a confession, Mr. Walker. Purely inadvertently, I failed to include in the new clause a reference to the Treason Act 1775, dealing with compassing the death of the sovereign. The fault is entirely mine. I noticed it myself and I understand that the Home Secretary's advisers noticed it subsequently. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not consider that a reason to deprive the House of the right to make a decision

      31
      on principle. Clearly, any defect for which I am responsible can be rectified at a subsequent stage in the consideration of the Bill.
      Mr. Wilshire: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a confession and offering the House an apology, may I say that there is only one issue on which I have disagreed with him so far? He keeps referring to the list of hon. Members who have signed the amendment as "we", and he makes it sound as though they are all Labour Members. Does he accept that many Conservative Members, myself included, would have liked to sign the amendment, and fully support the arguments that he is advancing?
      Mr. Archer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially as he is a fellow Methodist. I confess that I did not specifically invite him to sign the amendment, but it would certainly have pleased me had I seen his name on the list of those who did.
      If the offence of treason were abolished, the people to whom I have referred—members of the royal family, the Chancellor and the judiciary—would still be protected by the ordinary law relating to murder and other violent offences. Clearly, if anyone offered violence to a member of the royal family or a judge, they would be prosecuted under provisions quite different from those of the 1351 Act. Our criminal law is in need of some reform, but I do not believe that we have been reduced to that.
      I agree that there is a need to review the position relating to the substantive law of treason. But the new clause is not about the substantive law; it is about the penalties. The statutes which the new clause proposes to repeal were intended to civilise the penalties. The Treason Act 1770 was not concerned with the substantive law. It provided that a woman convicted of treason should be hanged instead of being burned. The Treason Act 1814 extended the same leniency to men by providing that a penalty of hanging should be substituted for the penalty of disembowelling.
      If the Secretary of State promises to review the law on treason, many Opposition members would say, "Not before time." However, that relates to the substantive law and not to the penalty. We believe that this debate is about penalties and that the arguments which persuaded the House two years ago, and which will no doubt be deployed again today, apply with equal force to the offences of treason and piracy.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Is this debate solely about penalties? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that one cannot open a newspaper on any day of the week without seeing accounts of horrific crimes or of murders of women and children? The statistics point clearly to a decline in society and a growth in violence. What has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say about that?
      Mr. Archer: If I understood the relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's question to what I was saying, I would endeavour to answer him. Horrific crimes are committed and some of us have complained that the Government should be doing more about them. Many things could be done to reduce the number of horrific crimes, but, as I was saying, this debate is about penalties.
      32
      If the rumour that the Secretary of State is proposing to use the argument that I have described transpires to be justified, I would be disappointed, because that would not be characteristic of him. It might conceivably be characteristic of the Home Office: it would not be the first time that we have heard the argument from the Home Office that, if a thing is worth doing, it is worth delaying until we are all dead. however, I hope that we do not hear that from the Secretary of State.
      The last person to be executed for treason was William Joyce, known affectionately as Lord Haw-Haw, immediately after the second world war. Capital punishment for piracy is dealt with under the Piracy Act 1837 and the last person to be executed for piracy was executed in the 19th century.
      So some people may ask whether it matters greatly that we retain capital punishment on the statute book if it is not likely to be used. I believe that it matters for two reasons. First, what the state prescribes about this is a test of our civilisation. If we have a death penalty on the statute book, we will be virtually the only democracy in western Europe to have one, and we will be resisting the tide of civilisation.
      Secondly, under the sixth protocol to the European convention on human rights, the member states of the Council of Europe undertake to abolish the death penalty. That protocol has not even been signed, much less ratified, by the United Kingdom. Apart from the United Kingdom, only Cyprus, Ireland—I understand why in Ireland's case —Malta and Turkey have not signed the protocol.
      I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would be relieved if he could inform the Community that the United Kingdom was no longer on that list. If the Foreign Secretary cannot remove our name from that list, I hope that the Home Secretary will explain that our name is there not because Parliament is in favour of capital punishment, but because he advised the House not to make up its mind on the issue.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the sanctity of human life should apply in particular to innocent human life, such as those that are destroyed by the million by abortion?
      Mr. Archer: Certainly the sanctity of human life applies to innocent human life, including, for example, the Guildford Four, as my hon. Friends have said. I happen to believe that it applies to all human life. One of the most important ways in which we can establish that, as a community, we condemn the taking of life, is to abstain from doing it ourselves.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that Ireland is one of the countries that still have capital punishment on their statute book for the murder of policemen. As the principle applies just as much to the Irish position as to what we are debating, is this not an ideal opportunity to ask the Irish Government also to remove capital punishment from its statute book, so that such offensive legislation would not exist either here or anywhere in Ireland? I take the opportunity of publicly asking the Irish Government to do that, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in doing so.
      Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to make that point. If it helps him, not for the first time, I

      33
      would join him in representations that he addresses to the Government of the Irish Republic. But I would prefer for the moment not to introduce a further complication into the debate. I want to keep the argument simple.
      Perhaps I have been doing the Home Secretary a total injustice, and he does not intend to introduce that rather spurious argument at all.
      It remains for me to give one other explanation. I have been asked why I am seeking to replace capital punishment with a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. It has been pointed out, as I already knew, that many senior judges believe that judges should have some discretion in relation to that sentence. Obviously, some cases fully merit life imprisonment, and no doubt that is what would be decided in that event. Some cases may be better disposed of by a determinate sentence which relates to the seriousness of the offence. In some cases, it might be better if a judge had a discretion to make a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1984. I am aware of the debate on that matter and of the helpful discussion in the book entitled "Responses to Crime" by a former Conservative Home Office Minister, Lord Windelsham. I spare the Home Secretary that issue, because this is not the occasion for the House to embark on that debate.
      We are seeking to ensure consistency in the penalties that apply to the law of murder and which, by the end of the debate, will have been considered by the Committee. If, one day, Parliament decides to give a discretion to judges, that will be another matter for another day.
      I apologise for the length of time that I have taken, but I have had several interruptions. Meanwhile, I shall be content if today the House rectifies what I believe is simply an oversight and takes a decision that it would have taken on previous occasions if its attention had been called to the matter, applies the same arguments to these offences as persuade the House in relation to capital punishment generally, and if we place the United Kingdom squarely among the company of civilised nations.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I shall deal later with the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
      I wish to state at the outset of this debate that I yield to no one in my detestation of violent crime. When there are tears to be shed, they should be shed for the innocent victim, not the guilty perpetrator, so I want to assure the House that a determination to protect the innocent is my overriding concern as Home Secretary.
      The arguments that I shall advance in this debate are arguments about the efficacy of capital punishment. Of course there is ample room for passion in these debates, burl want to put forward a case based upon reason and fact.
      I do not underestimate the strong feelings held by the supporters on the two sides in this debate. On one side, many argue—some interventions have demonstrated the passion with which the view is felt—that it is possible to contain the innate violent tendencies in society and protect the innocent only if the state is empowerd to take the life of a murderer. Some crimes are so repulsive to society, displaying such depths of cruelty and inhumanity, that it is only right for society to exact the ultimate penalty.
      34
      Indeed, the ultimate penalty is a duty to be exercised by society. The argument is that, to protect life, one must be prepared to take life.
      On the other side, there are those who believe, either from deep religious or moral convictions; that it is wrong for the state to take away the life of anyone; that no circumstances can justify the deliberate and elaborate process that ends on the gallows. They feel passionately that such a brutal reaction to the very crime of brutality defeats its object by dehumanising society. Although not expressed in exactly those words, those views were expressed with feeling a few moments ago by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). These views are deeply held, and I respect them; but I recognise that they are irreconcilable.
      A tradition has developed during these debates that the Home Secretary should offer the House some analysis of the background to the factors which hon. Members will wish to take into account, and then say something about his personal views. I intend to follow that tradition.
      Since capital punishment was abolished for murder in November 1965, the House has returned to this matter on at least 12 occasions. There have been 22 votes on this issue, with majorities against restoring capital punishment varying from 170 to 81. Nonetheless, the House wishes to return to this subject, since it concerns many hon. Members and it also concerns the general public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said in his very good speech.
      There is a long history of parliamentary interest in and concern about the death penalty. In the early 19th century, over 200 offences were punishable by death, and there was a prolonged campaign to confine the death penalty to only the most serious offences. By 1861, the death penalty was available only for high treason, murder, piracy with violence, and the destruction of public arsenals and dockyards. Today it remains available for treason, piracy with violence, and for some treasonable and mutinous offences under the Armed Forces Act 1971.
      Since 1861, treason apart, there have been no executions except for murder. Public executions came to an end in 1868 as a result of a campaign whose supporters included Thackeray, Dickens and Thomas Love Peacock. Only in 1868 was the death sentence abolished for children under 16, and the age limit was raised to 18 in 1933.
      Since the war, the Homicide Act 1957 restricted the death penalty to certain categories of murder. This proved unsatisfactory in practice. Some heinous crimes escaped the death penalty; others, arguably less heinous, became liable to the death penalty if a firearm was used rather than a knife. I am sure that many hon. Members will recall the Ruth Ellis case. Finally, Sydney Silverman's private Member's Bill abolishing the death penalty for murder became law in 1965, and the House reaffirmed the position in 1970. So much for the history.
      Despite the British parliamentary interest in this issue, I have to say that similar debates do not seem to occur elsewhere in western Europe. There is no campaign to restore the death penalty in other western European countries. Although most of them have higher homicide rates and higher records of violent crime than we do, there is no campaign to restore the death penalty. The death penalty remains available in Albania, Bulgaria, Russia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Japan, the majority of states in America and also South Africa—where it is suspended—Singapore and south America.

      35
      I turn now to the incidence of homicide. In England and Wales in the past 10 years, some 500 to 650 offences have initially been recorded as homicide by the police each year. This, of course, includes the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. In the past 10 years, the number of people convicted of murder has varied between 130 and 230 a year. The number of homicides has been increasing in the last 30 years or so. In the 10 years from 1976 to 1985, the average number of homicides has been 580; in the 10 years before that—from 1966 to 1975—the average was 450 per year, and in the 10 years from 1956 to 1965, the average was 294.
      However, I noted as I looked at those figures that the number of offences initially recorded as homicide per 100,000 of the population was almost the same in 1989 as it was in 1857. The rate then was 1·26, and the rate for 1989 was 1·25. The highest rate of homicides was 1·96, in 1865. But there was a long period of 70 years, from 1902 to 1974, when the homicide rate was less than one for every 100,000 of the population. Since then, the rate has varied between 1·0 and 1·3, although it fell to just below one in 1977.
      In the United States the rate is much higher—over eight for every 100,000 of population. Yet the death penalty is available in 37 states in America. It is interesting to consider the American experience in the past 20 years. In 1977, the first execution took place after a gap of 10 years. Since then, there have been 120 executions in America up to the end of last year. I believe that an execution took place last week, but it may have been postponed until this week. In 1977, the homicide rate in the United States was 8·8; in 1980—three years after the resumption of the death penalty—it had risen to over 10; but by 1986, it had fallen to 8·6, which was roughly its previous level.
      Numerous studies have shown that there seems to be no relationship between changes in the homicide rate and the availability of the death penalty. For example, from 1980 to 1985, the homicide rate fell by 20 per cent. in Georgia and Florida which both had the death penalty, but it fell by 26 per cent. in New York, which did not have the death penalty.
      The conclusion reached by a distinguished British academic, Professor Roger Hood, in his report for the United Nations "The Death Penalty: a Worldwide Perspective" is that different methods of study
      "failed to support the hypothesis that the death penalty is marginally a more effective deterrent than lengthy imprisonment".
      In the Scottish parlance, the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is "not proven".
      So one cannot draw an absolute conclusion that the death penalty is a deterrent. This is a point on which I know that hon. Members will wish to exercise their own judgment, but there is no evidence from other criminal jurisdictions that the existence of the death penalty reduces murders or other crimes of violence.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. He has gone through the statistics from his Department and drawn on the views of other analysts. Can he explain to the House why, in the 20 years following the second world war—that is to say, from 1945 to 1964, the year in which the death penalty was abolished—the number of killings made known, according to his own table of figures, fell from over 300 to about 296?
      36
      Almost from the day of abolition, the number of killings rose sharply and the number of crimes involving the use of firearms increased dramatically. He may quote figures to show that there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime but will he accept that the figures for Britain at least seem to be clear, precise and convincing?
      Mr. Baker: I have not sought to disguise those figures from the House or from my hon. Friend. With respect, I mentioned the increases in the rates of homicide over the past three decades. I told the House that the rates had increased.
      Mr. John Greenway indicated assent.
      Mr. Baker: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) nodding. The reasons for the increase are indeed complex. It is difficult to conclude from all the evidence available that the increase is associated with the suspension of the death sentence for most crimes in 1957 and its abolition in 1965.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Baker: If I may finish this passage, I shall give way to my hon. Friend. I shall deal later with the point about firearms referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
      Another factor relevant to the debate is the method of execution. We cannot seriously discuss the restoration of the death penalty unless we are prepared to consider how it should be carried out. Lethal injection is the preferred method in the United States. The procedure is similar to a general anaesthetic, but the drugs are injected in fatal quantities. It is considered to be the most humane method—less likely to involve severe pain. But there can be difficulties in administering the drugs. In Texas, one prisoner took at least 10 minutes to die. There has been an intense debate in the medical profession about the ethics of doctors using their medical knowledge in the administration of death. In Florida, the doctors have refused to administer the fatal injections.
      Hanging is not much favoured in America, although it involves fewer preliminaries than electrocution or lethal gas. One state in America still has execution by shooting. The speed and painlessness of death is not thought to differ much between the three methods, apart from shooting. But hanging—although it requires more skill from the executioner—is simpler and may be quicker. It used to take less than 30 seconds between the executioner entering the condemned cell and pulling the lever. But with all three methods, there have been difficulties which have considerably prolongued the condemned person's death.
      Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, except for the few intent on self-immolation, the death penalty will not encourage murder, and that, on balance, common sense tells us that it is likely to discourage murder?
      Mr. Baker: I am coming to the question of deterrence. I take my hon. Friend's point that many people feel that the relationship is one of common sense. However, where a country has restored the death penalty, the evidence is inconclusive. One cannot say that, as a result of America restoring or implementing the death penalty from 1977, there has been a significant reduction in crimes of violence in any of the states in which it has operated.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the statistics, all of which are open to varying interpretations, will he agree that his Department has recently given me one statistic, the interpretation of which cannot be disputed, and that is that, since the abolition of the death penalty, almost 60 innocent people have died at the hands of killers who have been released from prison?
      Mr. Baker: In reply to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—sorry, my right hon. Friend; all former chairmen of the Conservative party have an umbilical cord binding us—offences of homicide committed by those who had previously been convicted of a murder are rare. We have known of only nine cases. I state that because other figures have been circulated dealing with people convicted of murder after the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 who have later killed again. On the information available to us, we judge that six out of those nine and perhaps more would not have been treated as capital murders under the Homicide Act 1967. That is the key point. Had those offences occurred before abolition, in only a handful of cases, at most three, is it likely that life would have been saved by the execution of the murderer.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Baker: I have given way, and I shall give way again. I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend when I come to deal with the new clause which stands in his name. If I may, I shall proceed and answer the questions raised.
      Mr. Lawrence rose—
      Mr. Baker: All right, I am happy to give way to my hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I do not want to impede his speech. Is it not a fact that, in 11 out of the 12 states in the United States where capital punishment has been restored and executions have been carried out, there has been a reduction in the murder rate?
      Mr. Baker: Yes, but there has also been a reduction in the murder rate in states which have not introduced the death penalty. I am happy to make available to my hon. and learned Friend all the reports which flood into the Home Office on the analysis of what has happened in America since 1977. I am happy again to give way to my hon. and learned Friend when we reach his new clause.
      I turn now to the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rydale, asking that the death penalty should apply to someone who is convicted of murdering a police officer. Connected to that is the clause making it also available for the murder of a prison officer.
      May I make it absolutely clear that we all deplore violence directed against the police? The murder of a police officer is a particularly heinous crime. We all recognise that the work of police officers makes them particularly vulnerable. That is why the Government have always been determined that the police should be adequately protected in carrying out their vital task of preventing crime and protecting all of us.
      The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the normal sentence for any assault on a police officer involving the deliberate use of force, even where it has not been severe, will be imprisonment.
      38
      The greatest risk to the police is from firearms. However, in the past 10 years, the proportion of all notifiable offences involving firearms has remained at about 0.3 per cent. We have introduced new laws to tighten up the control of firearms, offensive weapons and knives. The Firearms Act 1988 banned private ownership of some of the most lethal guns. We hope that that has gone some way to making the streets safer for the police and the public.
      I can assure the House that I shall continue my predecessor's policy of requiring those responsible for the worst categories of murder, including those who kill police officers, to serve at least 20 years in prison. I must emphasise that 20 years is the minimum; many murderers will serve longer. For some, life will mean life. I believe that the length of the sentence is critical. There are 2,300 prisoners serving life sentences for murder. Some 175 murderers have served 15 years or longer, and 54 have served more than 20 years. Of that 54, some 40 have served between 20 and 25 years, nine have served between 25 and 30 years and five have served more than 30 years. In the decision whether to release such murderers, the overriding consideration must always be the risk to the public. In reaching such a decision I must take account of the considered advice of the Parole Board, the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice.
      In considering the proposal, it is also important to consider the views of those most closely involved. The Police Federation believes that capital punishment should be restored for the crime of murder—I believe that hon. Members have received a letter from the federation. In recent weeks, I have spoken to many police officers and I have found that younger officers in particular are not in favour of the death penalty. I do not believe, however, that that in any way reduces the strength of the Police Federation's view. There are differing opinions among chief officers and the Association of Chief Political Officers [Interruption.]—I meant the Association of Chief Police Officers—which has no collective view. I understand that the Police Superintendents Association is more or less evenly divided.
      Similarly, we rely on prison officers to protect the public from those in custody. Prison officers were also covered by Leon Brittan's statement about the worst kinds of murder. The Prison Officers Association has long supported capital punishment as a discretionary penalty. The Prison Governors Association has not taken a collective view, but governors have opposed it in the past. They have been especially concerned about the effect on the staff who had custody of the condemned prisoner.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) spoke about deterrence. For me, the key argument at the end of the day is whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent. The restorers have no doubt about this. They claim that natural common sense would appear to make it so, but there is considerable doubt. In well over 70 per cent. of murders, the victim and the murderer are known to each other. Some 62 per cent. of all female victims are either related to or the spouse or lover of their murderer. Many of those victims die as a result of sudden, uncontrolled anger by their killers. I think one can legitimately doubt whether the existence of the capital sentence would have any bearing upon such actions.
      I accept, however, that, for some murders, and by far the greatest majority of crimes, there must be effective and strong deterrents. No one should underestimate the effect

      39
      of a long prison sentence. If anyone doubts that, let them visit a prison. In the three weeks that I have been Home Secretary, I have so far visited three prisons, and I will be visiting another one this week. I must tell the Committee that all prisons are grim, and some prisons are much grimer than others. To deprive someone of their liberty for 20, 30, 40 years, or even the whole of their life, will in some cases be fully justified, but let no one underestimate the severity which that punishment represents.
      Mr. Roger Gale: Lord Scarman, one of the most eminent lawyers in the country, is an arch opponent of capital punishment. This morning, on radio, he conceded that, for a certain number of murders, capital punishment would be a deterrent. Are those lives not worth saving?
      Mr. Baker: I am as concerned as my hon. Friend to ensure that the lives not only of police officers but of everyone are protected as well as possible in our country. I imagine that Lord Scarman—I did not hear the report—had in mind those murders involving firearms. As I said, we have considerably tightened the laws in that sector. In 1988, the Criminal Justice Act made carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime punishable by life.
      New clause 2 proposes the death penalty for murder committed in the pursuit of terrorism. I do not know whether it will be called tonight, but nonetheless I think I should deal with the argument behind it, since many Members feel very strongly about this. The Government are utterly determined to tackle the crimes which are committed in the name of terrorism. We can never tolerate this evil. The murder of Ian Gow left me, as it did many others, utterly shocked, deeply distressed and very angry. It is a quite understandable reaction to want to see the perpetrators hanged.
      However, nearly everybody who has had direct responsibility for dealing with terrorism has the gravest misgivings about the reintroduction of the death penalty. They have been concerned about the desire for martyrdom by terrorists. Those who have been prepared to starve themselves to death are not likely to have any fear of the gallows. They have also been concerned that, quite callously, terrorists would be prepared to use young people under the age of 18 in their dastardly crimes.
      Nor can we overlook the fact of the possibility of hostages being taken later while the execution is awaited and society being subjected to blackmail. The Government could never yield to that sort of blackmail—the sentence would have to be carried out—but one has to recognise that the result of reintroducing the death penalty could be that more innocent lives may be put at risk.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. Friend must exclude from his list of those who he claims oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty, those who are in the front line in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland—the Police Federation of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Baker: I shall come on to Northern Ireland in a moment.
      Mr. Mullin: Does the Home Secretary agree that we have been most unsuccessful in catching the perpetrators of terrorism, no doubt partly due to the outrage felt at the
      40
      time and the pressure on the authorities to get results quickly? We now know that, in 1974 alone, at least 10 innocent people would have hanged.
      Mr. Baker: I do not intend to deal with particular cases, but I disagree with the basic proposition with which the hon. Gentleman began his intervention.
      However, my real objection to singling out terrorism in this way is that it recognises terrorism as a special crime to be punished in a special way. I want to make it clear that, when we are fighting terrorism, we are not engaged in a political war: we are engaged in a war against criminality by evil and callous men and women. That point is recognised across the world. Terrorism, however terrible, is a criminal act. Those who perpetrate it must be treated as common criminals.
      Today's debate is concerned mainly with England and Wales. But we need to keep in mind that the largest proportion of terrorist murders in the United Kingdom is committed in Northern Ireland. The same is true of the proportion of murders of policemen.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to say that it is his view that the imposition of capital punishment in Northern Ireland would make the defeat of terrorism in the Province more difficult. He would draw particular attention to the following dangers of restoration of the death penalty. It would create martyrs; it would make the special legal processes which exist in Northern Ireland for the purposes of dealing with terrorism more difficult to operate; and it would damage the prospects for the trust between the security forces and the community, which is essential if information about terrorist activity is to be collected and acted upon.
      I understand that the Chief Constable and the most senior officers of the RUC, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, are of the view that the reintroduction of capital punishment would make the task of the police in Northern Ireland more difficult in combating terrorism. The prison authorities in Northern Ireland consider that it would be a setback to their successful policy of denying prisoners and their supporters any issue upon which to mount a campaign.
      4.45 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the weapon in the armoury of the IRA is capital punishment? Is it not a fact that in that way, the IRA have punished people throughout Northern Ireland—Protestants, Roman Catholics, and members of the security forces and their families? Does not the Home Secretary agree that there is no way to deal with this matter but the method used in the other part of Ireland when there was similar trouble there and a rigorous campaign of capital punishment was introduced?
      Mr. Baker: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has dealt with such matters in a more intimate way than many other hon. Members over the years, but the advice that I have relayed to the House, given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, senior RUC officers and the prison services, does not accord with his views. They consider that it would not help them to deal with the utterly vile crimes. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman in his

      41
      condemnation of those who perpetrate such crimes and of the way that they have tried to destroy society in Northern Ireland during the past 20 or 30 years.
      Mr. Winnick: As the Home Secretary may know, my loathing of terrorism is second to none; but is there not a wider issue involved? Is it not a fact that, although they would never admit it, the Provisional IRA would like the death penalty to be applied simply because the execution of terrorists would invoke sympathy in the United States and Ireland? In the Republic of Ireland, Provisional Sinn Fein has been unable to get more than 2 per cent. of the vote in general elections, but reaction to the hunger strikers demonstrates that execution would invoke the sympathy on which the IRA relies for its sordid and murderous ends.
      Mr. Baker: I do not think there is any evidence that the IRA would welcome the return of the death sentence. However, I am absolutely certain that, if it existed, the IRA would do everything it could to exploit it.
      For all these reasons, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not believe that capital punishment should be made available in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Mallon: I welcome the information that the Home Secretary has given in relation to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable and the Army authorities, because it concurs with the view I hold, having had discussions with them. Does the Home Secretary agree that the one thing that the Provisional IRA cannot deal with is normality, both in law and society, and that to create an abnormal place in law in relation to capital punishment for them could be successfully used by the IRA for propaganda purposes?
      Mr. Baker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but many of the victims of terrorism would certainly say that the terrorists are creating a state of abnormality by the acts that they perpetrate against society in Northern Ireland.
      The amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West would, as he said, make life imprisonment the mandatory sentence for treason and for piracy with violence. It would mean that the death penalty would still remain for some offences under the Armed Forces Act of 1971. I am advised that the amendments as they stand are defective in that they do not cover one of the statutes relating to treason, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman invited me to rest my opposition to his amendment on the fact that it is defective, but I shall not do so. Should the House pass the motion tonight, it would be the responsibility of the Government to remove the defect of the amendment.
      I have some sympathy with the view that the death penalty should be abolished for piracy, especially as there is some doubt about the circumstances in which it would apply. Life imprisonment is the maximum penalty for the equivalent offence of hijacking an aircraft. However, that is a somewhat academic question, since the last execution for piracy was in 1830.
      The question relating to the penalty for treason is, however, more complex. In 1977, the Law Commission's working paper on treason, sedition and allied offences pointed out that, apart from some cases in wartime, there had been no modern instance of prosecution in English
      42
      courts for the offence of treason. In practical terms, therefore, the law of treason is important only in time of war.
      The paper concluded that the present statutes dealing with treason and treason felony should be repealed and that there should be an offence of treason applicable only during the existence of a state of war. The deficiencies were recognised during the last war through the passing of a special Act in 1940.
      Clearly, what is needed is a complete revision of the law relating to treason and the appropriate penalties that would attach to any new provision. It would therefore be inappropriate at this stage to amend solely the penalty without consideration of the offence giving rise to that penalty. I have discussed that with the Lord Chancellor, who considers that it would be appropriate for the Law Commission to continue its examination of this law in the context of its work on the codification of the criminal law. This will allow Parliament in due course to consider the complex matters surrounding the law of treason. Merely to amend the present law by substituting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment would give the wholly erroneous impression that, apart from that change, Parliament was content with it.
      Mr. Archer: So it is the right hon. Gentleman's argument, as I anticipated, that, because the statutes should be repealed, we should retain the death penalty for them—on the face of it, a curious argument. In any event, will he seize this opportunity to say that, since the working paper of the Law Commission was issued in 1977, he will at least ask it to press on with the matter and, once it has reported, give us an early opportunity to debate it?
      Mr. Baker: I have great sympathy with that point of view, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that his new clause raises complex issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman several questions which—I do not want to be offensive to him—he did not answer convincingly. In any case, the new clause raises important matters which, as a former Law Officer, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister referred rather curiously to the work of the Law Commission on codification. The Law Commission has produced a Bill codifying English and Welsh criminal law and it has been available to the Government for some years. What sort of time does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind for the completion of the work to which he has referred?
      Mr. Baker: I appreciate that it would be sensible to draw this matter to a relatively speedy conclusion. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know what "speedy" means in legal terms, but it is clear that the law should be revised fundamentally. I shall draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: I am anxious to get the Home Secretary's view on this clear. He told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) had asked my right hon. and learned Friend questions that he had not answered convincingly. The

      43
      question asked by the hon. Member for Selly Oak was: is not treason such an horrendous crime that a capital sentence is appropriate for it? I hope that the Home Secretary is not using that argument in defence of his position. I hope that he will make it clear that he does not share that view, even though he chose to quote it for some reason.
      Mr. Baker: That is a fair point, but my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak raised practical considerations about what constitutes treason in time of war and in time of peace. The House should have time to reflect on that, rather than coming to a snatched decision over the course of a prolonged weekend.
      Mr. Dicks: Should not the same logic also apply to terrorist activities? My right hon. Friend cannot have it both ways to suit his convenience: if a terrorist has killed 30 or 40 people and it is wrong to hang him, it must by definition also be wrong to hang a man for treason. I am in favour of capital punishment. Terrorists should be hanged for murder, and so should those who commit treason.
      Mr. Baker: The two matters are different; I have already dealt with terrorism. I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's opinion on these matters. He has forcefully expressed them over the years, and he will continue to do so. Such arguments as I have adduced today my hon. Friend will not accept, I fear, but I ask him to consider that terrorism and treason are very different.
      I emphasise that there is a free vote on the new clause but that it would be much more sensible to leave the penalty as it is until wider consideration of the law of treason is completed.
      Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend suggests that it is right to leave well alone until he has had a chance to deal with this matter. Will he accept that some of us, if we are to agree with his argument, will have to vote against the abolition of the death penalty? We accept that the law needs thorough revision but we will find it impossible to give it that revision tonight, so we shall have to vote for the new clause if it is put to the vote.
      Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. That is why we have always had free votes on these matters. I do not suggest that he should vote one way or the other. I have placed before the House certain considerations which it is my duty as Home Secretary to place before it. If my hon. Friend does not want to follow that advice, that is up to him, but I shall vote against the new clause for the reasons that I have set out.
      The new clause tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is important and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale referred to it. It is the nub of the debate today. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend will catch your eye later, Mr. Walker, but I spoke in his constituency on Friday night—in his support, I hasten to add—and he was then able to tell me the gist of his arguments—
      Mr. Lawrence: My right hon. Friend spoke very well.
      Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend—he was very good, too.
      44
      The effect of the new clause would be that juries would continue to decide whether a defendant would be convicted of murder. Death would be the mandatory sentence for defendants of 18 or over, but, as soon as practical after a sentence of death, there should be a special sitting of the Court of Appeal to consider whether the circumstances of the offence or of the offender would justify the substitution of a sentence of life imprisonment for the sentence of death.
      This is an important idea, which I have no doubt will be the focus of today's debate. It makes a proposal which the House has not considered before. My hon. and learned Friend proposes that there should be no distinction between different types of murder at trial. Neither the jury nor the trial judge should be asked to differentiate between different types of murder or to decide between different penalties. The House will recall that the Homicide Act 1957 was found to be most unsatisfactory because it sought in practice to do exactly that—to draw distinctions between different types of murder.
      Such distinctions run into difficult problems in logic or in practice. It is extremely difficult to distinguish between different categories of murder. That has been the greatest weakness of the case of those who have wanted the restoration of capital punishment since 1965. The degree of heinousness of a crime can be considered only in the unique circumstances of each offence. There are difficulties in trying to categorise according to the status of the victim, the weapon used or the relationship of the offender to the victim. Many would say that it is just as heinous of someone to poison his wife or mistress over a long period as it is to shoot someone in the furtherance of crime—I notice my hon. and learned Friend nodding at that. However, he recognises that there is in practice a wide variation in the culpability of offenders and in the seriousness of different murders.
      We may think of examples—the murder of a child in gruesome circumstances, or multiple murders—and contrast them with someone who kills after suffering years of violence and abuse from another member of the family, or with someone else who feels it right to put an end to the life of a much loved relative who is suffering acute pain in terminal illness. Society recognises that there are differences and that not all these cases would permit a sentence of death.
      The position of juries, given mandatory death sentences for all charges of murder, might change. Faced with such mandatory sentences, we would or could experience a marked reluctance on their part to convict the accused—
      Mr. John Morris: Would.
      Mr. Baker: Perhaps, but there is an area of doubt. There would also be an increased demand for the level of proof brought by the prosecution to be utterly convincing.
      The new clause also raises the question whether a majority verdict would be appropriate for the death sentence. We could well end up not only with more acquittals but with fewer murderers being brought to trial. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will deal with that point if he catches the Chair's eye.
      Secondly, the new clause would place on the Court of Appeal the onerous responsibility of deciding whether the death sentence should stand. The responsibility would be placed not on the single judge but on the Court of Appeal.

      45
      This is such a major change that I thought it right to consult the Lord Chief Justice, as one of my predecessors had done in a previous debate. He told me that he continues to take the view that a death sentence should be imposed not by the judges, whether at the trial or on appeal, but by Parliament. He has also authorised me to point out that, under this arrangement, the Court of Appeal would not have heard the evidence or seen the defendant or the witnesses, and would accordingly usually being a worse position than the trial judge to make the decision that the new clause would require. The House will want to weigh the advice of the Lord Chief Justice carefully.
      This process would also add a further stage in the appeal process, because another court could still be asked to consider whether the verdict itself was sound. Presumably there would also be an appeal from the sentence decision of the Court of Appeal. In the 19th century, the gap between trial and execution could be very short, in some cases as short as a week. In 1950, the average period between sentence and execution in England and Wales was about five weeks. In some cases where there was an appeal, it rose to more than six weeks.
      5 pm
      But this, of course, is nothing like as long as the time in the United States, where condemned persons spend, on average, nearly eight years awaiting execution or reprieve. Even if we avoided delays of that length, there is no doubt that all opportunities for appeal and delay would be exploited. They might include attempts to get the issue considered by the European Court of Human Rights. During that period, media interest in the convicted prisoner, his family and friends would increase, and the family and friends of the victim might well be drawn into that. The public's attention would more and more focus on the fate and demeanour of the murderer and less and less on the poor victim. One can well imagine the field day that the media would have in such a situation, and I have little doubt that much of it would be in favour of the murderer rather than the victim.
      The Committee will wish to consider very carefully the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Any criminal justice system makes mistakes. We must try to minimise the risk of error, but all experience in this country and abroad shows that mistakes can happen. The Committee will not expect me to comment on particular cases. I say only that it is very hard for someone to serve years in prison on the basis of a conviction that is subsequently found to be unsafe. Release from imprisonment and financial compensation cannot really make amends for the lost years, but even those are better than a posthumous free pardon.
      I recognise that murderers care nothing about the innocence of their victims, but one must not compare the responsibility of the state as the deliberate instrument of justice with the evil-intentioned actions of criminals. Those who favour the reintroduction of capital punishment must address this issue. The possibility of an innocent person being hanged by mistake canot be dismissed with a shrug. If the concept of British justice is to mean anything, we must retain the possibility of rectifying a mistaken verdict. Capital punishment denies that redress. There is no appeal from the grave.
      Each of us has to make up his or her own mind on this issue. There will, of course, be a free vote on each new
      46
      clause. I do not take it for granted that every hon. Member has set and unchangeable views on this matter. I have found in my time in Parliament that colleagues have changed their views as new circumstances have arisen. I have tried to set out various considerations that provide grounds for hon. Members to re-examine their views.
      We all agree that murder is the worst of all crimes, because it takes away that most precious gift, the life of another human being. But we should remember that murder accounts for just one tenth of 1 per cent. of violent crimes, and less than one hundredth of 1 per cent. of all recorded crimes. One of the critical issues in the debate is whether capital punishment is a deterrent, and I have shown that the evidence on this is far from conclusive. It does not point clearly one way. The most important deterrent for most criminals is the likelihood of detection and arrest, and the knowledge that, for a serious crime, a long spell of imprisonment is not just a possibility but a certainty.
      I fully understand that, in the aftermath of a particularly shocking murder, society is angry and demands revenge, but as Francis Bacon said:
      "Revenge is a kind of wild justice".
      Justice is not weakened by the absence of the capital sentence. Justice is strengthened if the public have confidence in the ability of the police and of the judicial system to detect, to arrest, to secure the conviction, and to see the imprisonment for long periods of criminals who are dangerous to society. That is the positive and necessary alternative to capital punishment.
      Public confidence also depends upon a judicial system that is capable of recognising and making good errors that may appear from time to time. The restoration of capital punishment would preclude the making of such amends, and would therefore contribute to a lessening of public confidence in our judicial system. That is another reason why I shall vote against the amendments.
      The right of all citizens to live their lives free from the fear of crime and peaceably to go about their business is one of the oldest rights that any Government must uphold. Let us concentrate all our efforts on a relentless and unremitting fight against crime and do all that we can to adopt policies that will aid the forces of law and order in that task.
      Mr. Hattersley: I have already had the privilege of congratulating the Home Secretary on his assumption of such high office. It is now my pleasure to congratulate him on what I am sure the Committee will agree was an excellent speech. The one qualification in my congratulations is the clause to be moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). However, that does not detract from the quality of the Home Secretary's speech. He held the Committee's attention for almost an hour and his speech was a cliffhanger in that none of us knew whether at the end of his judicial analysis of the pros and cons of the argument the right hon. Gentleman would be for or against. I hope that I can match his persuasiveness and lucidity in what the Committee will be pleased to know will be a rather shorter speech.
      Our debates about capital punishment, especially general debates on the subject which in a sense we now undertake because of the new clause tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), usually have two ingredients. The first ingredient is what I shall

      47
      call the argument in principle: on the one hand the belief that the state does not possess the right to kill its citizens under any circumstances; and on the other the conviction that some crimes are so intrinsically wicked that they must be punished by nothing less than death.
      The second ingredient is more pragmatic: it is the effect of the death penalty on the community. Opponents argue that its existence debases and literally demoralises society while its supporters insist that it is a deterrent to murderers, prevents murders and by stiffening the criminal code reduces the number of offences.
      I think that most hon. Members made up their minds on those issues before they entered the Chamber for the debate and I suspect that most will agree that there is little new to be said about either ingredient. Our recent debates on the subject all cover the same well-trodden ground. Because of that, some of us were somewhat surprised that the Government thought it right to devote another full day this year to this subject. I understand that it is the result of an assurance by the previous Home Secretary which the present Home Secretary felt obliged to honour.
      Perhaps the subject can never be fully put to rest, but I hope that in future we can at least avoid debating it twice in the lifetime of a Parliament. The Committee's judgment on the significance of this occasion is already clear. During previous debates on the subject, the Benches were packed and today's absence of participants in the debate, although not when we come to vote, demonstrates the clear view in all parts of the Committee that the subject has been dealt with, finished with, and cleared up. I hope that we can accept the Government's assurance that, however long this Parliament lasts, we will not have another debate of this sort before the general election.
      I begin in this debate as I began in previous debates by asserting my belief that the death penalty is wrong in principle. The state has no right to take the life of one of its citizens. Even if there were evidence to demonstrate that the State's possession of that power was a deterrent to murder, I would still hold to that principle. I accept that that fundamental belief, like all such beliefs, is difficult to justify in hard logic. However, I can offer some supplementary justification for my position. There is the obvious example of the belief that a society which sanctions the taking of life is more likely to encourage violence than to discourage it, and that by killing murderers we become too like murderers ourselves. The whole community is reduced to at least part acceptance of the view that in some circumstances violence is justified. That is only the second—the subsidiary—part of my case against capital punishment. In my view, it is simply morally unjustifiable.
      Anyone who doubts the debasement that society would suffer were hanging to return need only read the features page article in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, which refers to a statement made in the House in 1988 by the then Home Secretary. He offered as one of his objections to capital punishment the way in which it would be treated by the newspapers. He said that a circus would be created and that the circus, which would revolve round every judicial hanging, would soon come to sicken society. I have no doubt that would happen, but equally I have no doubt that the blame would rest with society as much as with newspapers.
      48
      Some of the so-called deep thinkers on this issue demonstrate their views on how they believe that society should react to such a situation. Yesterday in The Sunday Telegraph, a Mr. Robin Harris, commenting on the previous Home Secretary's fears about media treatment, said that he would welcome the creation of a media circus round the judicial hanging. He said:
      "The full horror of capital punishment, the practical preparations, the awfulness of the drama which unfolds and the cold finality of the execution itself are the only response which society can ever make to taking of human life."
      I cannot see how the circumstances that he described could be anything other than debase society and, by debasing society, make it more violent, and by making it more violent, make crimes of every sort, including murder, more likely.
      Mr. Maclennan: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the abolition of public executions in 1869 followed a point in our history when homicide was at its highest level, but that, after the abolition of the circus associated with public executions, the offending rate fell noticeably in the next two decades?
      Mr. Hattersley: It is important on these occasions not to carry any of the arguments to their logical or even illogical conclusions. The argument that we have to make a great show of the execution so that we demonstrate it in all its brutality and show in formal horror what executions are like is an argument for making the whole affair more public. Those of us who believe that the existence of judicial death debases society would take the opposite view and the fact that we are allowed by the fiat of society to kill people is more, not less, likely to create the violence that, in its turn, produces murder.
      More important even than that in the article by Mr. Harris yesterday was his view that execution is the only possible response. I do not understand what justification is ever possible for the assertion, usually unsubstantiated, that judicial killing is the only possible response to murder.
      Two years ago, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made on television what can loosely be described as the ethical case for capital punishment, and did so, as the House would expect, with extraordinary passion. I quote her today simply because of the clarity with which she argued her case. She said that it was "only right" that some murderers should die. She did not go on to say why it was "only right", or indeed what "only right" means. The only possible interpretation is that she meant that one violent unnecessary death should be matched by an act of parallel violence sanctioned and carried out by the state in conditions of grotesque formality. In effect, that is the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth—a moral judgment that was subsequently qualified out of existence by the highest authority.
      On the same television programme, the right hon. Member for Finchley then insisted that some murderers have
      "forfeited the right to live".
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Hattersley: My notes say that I am sure that that opinion will be repeated here today and I might even have put in brackets that it would be likely that the hon.

      49
      Gentleman would say, "Hear, hear". Talk of the right to live and deserving to die is no more than the belief in retribution and revenge. There is no other way to justify it.
      Mr. Dicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a philosophical explanation of what is meant by
      "forfeited the right to live",
      I will gladly give way.
      Mr. Dicks: With every right goes responsibility. With the right to life goes the responsibility to act reasonably. If one decides not to act reasonably, then one's right to live is in question. Most people would not share the right hon. Gentleman's concern if the perpetrators of the murder of Ian Gow had to suffer execution. There would be a mass welcome if such people were found and executed.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall come on to the point of terrorism and terrorist murders later—the Home Secretary also dealt with them—but if the hon. Member thinks that that is a philosophical explanation of what is meant by the right to live, he misunderstands the principles that we are debating. In my view, and I believe in that of most hon. Members, the right to live is an inalienable right that the state does not have the power to withdraw from any of its citizens. The moral judgment inherent in taking the opposite view is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I do not believe that the Committee is about to pass that principle into English law.
      In the opening speech, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) talked about the punishment fitting the crime. I have not the faintest idea what that means in this context. If a man brutally and wantonly kills a child, if a man committing a robbery kills a policeman, if a drunken driver kills an innocent pedestrian, what is meant by the concept of the punishment fitting the crime? One of the features of debates on capital punishment is the reckless abandonment of logic that characterises so many speeches in a way that it would not characterise speeches on any other subject.
      In other parts of the debate, the logic is more acceptable, although the evidence on which it is based is questionable. People have argued, will continue to argue and will argue today, that capital punishment can have a positively beneficial effect on society in that it deters murder. The statistics of crime give no support to that view. Certainly, in the recent past, the murder rate has increased, although it is nothing like it was, by coincidence, exactly 100 years ago and slightly less than it was 120, 130 and 150 years ago, but the increase in murder has been nothing like the increase in other crimes of violence over the past 20 or 25 years. In debate after debate, successive Home Secretaries have made the same speech about the conclusions that it is reasonable to draw from the statistics.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way, but I shall first give the Home Secretaries' conclusions and then the hon. Gentleman can argue with me and them simultaneously.
      In 1988, the Home Secretary said:
      "The statistics can and no doubt will be used both ways." —[Official Report, 7 June 1988; Vol. 134, c. 748.]
      50
      In 1983, the Home Secretary said:
      "We should be making a great mistake if we expected them to give us an unequivocal answer."—[Official Report, 13 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 886.]
      In 1979, the Home Secretary said:
      "The only sensible conclusion to reach is that their evidence is inconclusive"—[Official Report, 19 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2047.]
      The Royal Commission on capital punishment said very much the same in 1963.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's strong feelings and his opinion that the evidence is clear, will he explain why he thinks that, over the 20 years from 1946 to 1964, in which general crime has more than doubled, the number of killings fell? In addition, why does he think that, whenever capital punishment is abolished, the situation changes dramatically? What does he think was the important factor around 1965 that led a static and declining rate to become a rising one?
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that when capital punishment is abolished the murder rate increases. The Home Secretary told us, and the hon. Gentleman can check for himself, that in many other countries where capital punishment has been abolished, the murder rate has not increased. In some places, it has gone down. Comparison between the retentionist and abolitionist states in the United States does not give any credence to the hon. Gentleman's view.
      I cannot say why the figures for the brief period that the hon. Gentleman chose moved in the way that they did, but I can tell him the nature of his error. It is called post hoc ergo propter hoc. He is assuming that, because two things happen simultaneously, or one follows the other, the two are connected. There is no reason to assume that that is so. I repeat that that has been the judgment of successive Home Secretaries. It was the judgment of the Royal Commission on capital punishment in 1983. All international comparisons come to the same conclusion. Crime statistics confirm the judgment that the case for capital punishment as a deterrent is—at best, I speak from the point of view of those who want it returned—entirely unproven.
      I recall what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West said when I made the same point in 1988. He asked me to agree that once it was established that the statistics leave the matter open, it does not leave the argument neutral. He said that, if capital punishment were a deterrent, and given all the research that has been carried out, the case for its being a deterrent would have been clearly established by now. In my view, the logic of my right hon. and learned Friend's assertion is irrefutable.
      All the evidence shows that it is impossible to demonstrate that capital punishment is a deterrent to any form of murder. Therefore, it is only reasonable to assume that it is not. Yet the proponents of capital punishment refuse to accept that. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is no longer in his place, interrupted my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West to ask him whether he had noticed that many horrible crimes are being committed day by day. He assumed that, by having our attention drawn to those crimes, we would accept a connection between their existence and the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: The right hon. Gentleman is on an important point. Does he agree that there is a widespread belief in our society that reintroducing the death penalty will be a panacea for many forms of crime that are entirely unconnected with capital offences? In fact, that is untrue. Capital punishment is a deterrent for only one type of offence, not for the entire range of offences that come before the courts.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that it is my fault, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is refuting my case or supporting it. In my doubt, I shall comment on what he said. One of the detriments of the capital punishment argument for society as a whole is the emphasis that it places on deterrence rather than prevention. It encourages the belief that, as long as penalties are sufficiently severe, crime will be reduced. There is hardly any evidence to support that. One of the problems of our society is that we spend too much time thinking about punishment and not enough about prevention. The capital punishment debate has concentrated too much attention on retribution, which is part of punishment, as compared with, and distinct from, prevention.
      Mr. Archer: I fully accept what my right hon. Friend has just said. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that, in addition there appears to be an argument that if capital punishment is restored for murder, it will somehow reduce the incidence of grievous bodily harm? That is clearly a fallacy.
      Mr. Hattersley: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall come to that in a moment. It is a fallacy that is associated with the idea that crimes which take place now, especially burglaries, involve firearms whereas in the past they did not. The evidence is on the side of my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Is capital punishment a general deterrent to crime? That is what we would have to believe if we were to find sympathy with new clause 3, to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will speak. The fact that capital punishment is not a deterrent in most instances becomes obvious when we consider the background to murder in the United Kingdom. More than half the murders that are committed here are the result of sudden impulse or loss of temper. Three quarters are committed within the family or a close circle of friends.
      It appears that 15 per cent. are committed by individuals who are defined clinically as mentally disturbed. Perhaps as many as 50 per cent. more are committed by men and women who could claim diminished responsibility before the courts. It is clear that for them capital punishment cannot be a deterrent. They would believe that they would be acquitted of the capital offence, and perhaps it is more likely that they would not even think about that when committing the offence.
      Notwithstanding that consideration, I know that some hon. Members will argue that statistics and logic may show one thing but hard evidence, self-evident principles—common sense, as it has been described—demonstrate something quite different. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) used to refer to the hypothetical burglar in these debates. He would argue that, before the days of abolition, that burglar forbade his partner to carry a gun. I believe that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame
      52
      E. Kellett-Bowman) quoted that example today. I have no doubt that we shall hear more of that burglar as the debate continues.
      I have no doubt, either, that we shall be asked some hypothetical questions—for example, what now prevents a man serving a life sentence from killing a prison officer in the hope of making good his escape? We shall be asked how, except by capital punishment, the criminal who is already facing a long prison sentence can be deterred from killing a policeman to escape arrest. I think that it was the hon. Member for Lancaster who raised these questions during the previous debate on capital punishment. The then Home Secretary answered her by saying that in all the hypothetical cases—the burglar with a gun, the criminal attempting to avoid arrest and the prisoner trying to effect his escape—the length of the additional sentence was in itself a potent deterrent. That was said in 1988.
      I wish to underline and endorse something said by the Home Secretary in a passage of particular eloquence. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that, for some crimes, a long prison sentence is right, just and inevitable. Anyone who has visited one of Her Majesty's prisons, as I have and as he has, cannot doubt the consequence and severity of a prison sentence, the feeling of hopelessness that ensues and the erosion of personality and character that it involves. The idea that imprisonment for 20 or 30 years is a soft option is patent nonsense. When I visit a prison I always leave it, hearing the door clank, believing that anyone of a normal disposition who has seen a prison would be so concerned never to be incarcerated therein that he would be determined never to commit a crime again. It is enormously important in this debate not to dismiss a long prison sentence as something of no consequence and no punishment.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that one of the factors that disturbs criminals is certainty of detection and arrest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one reason for a criminal carrying a firearm is to wipe out witnesses so that he is never arrested and never has to suffer the degradation of 20 years of imprisonment?
      Mr. Hattersley: No, I do not agree with that at all. The evidence suggests—this is an indication of the mentality and the morality of many members of the criminal classes—that criminals carry firearms in the real belief that they will never use them. That is a disastrous, reckless and wicked misjudgment of the situations in which they find themselves. The idea that criminals go out with the intention of burgling premises and of killing anyone who sees them is, on the evidence, a fallacy.
      The hon. Lady leads me to another consideration—
      Mr. Sayeed: As carrying a firearm in the commission of an offence attracts a life sentence, why should that deter a criminal from using a firearm to stop himself being caught? He will still get no more than a life sentence.
      Mr. Hattersley: As the Home Secretary made clear about an hour ago, a life sentence is a variable term of imprisonment. He said that on some occasions it could be 20 years and in others 30 years. He added that in many other cases there should be imprisonment for the duration of natural life. The man who commits a second crime must know that 20 years is bad enough, that 30 years is 50 per

      53
      cent. worse and that entire life is total. There is an additional punishment. The hon. Gentleman does his case no good by pretending anything else.
      Mr. Gale: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further?
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall mention the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He should wait until I refer to an amendment which he tabled in a previous debate.
      I emphasise that I believe that the Home Secretary was right that an additional prison sentence is in itself a deterrent to all the hypothetical cases of which we shall hear as the debate continues. If we are once or twice a year to hang a human being from his or her neck until he or she is dead, we must justify doing that by something more than vague suspicion, ancient anecdotes, long-held prejudices and bits of evidence that are dredged up from heaven know where.
      The problems of dealing with the subject ad hominem were demonstrated by the hon. Member for Rydale. With respect to him, I am not sure that the description of killings witnessed is the best background against which to make a general decision on the reintroduction of capital punishment. By dealing with it in that way, it is easy to fall into the sort of errors which the hon. Gentleman made. He spoke of the 1,500 unlawful killings since we last debated the issue. That is a large and awful number, but he must know that the number is irrelevant to the debate, because most of those unlawful killings could not conceivably be covered by any of the new clauses.
      Equally, there is the irrelevance of mentioning Lockerbie. It was a hideous crime, for which there has been no charge, let alone conviction. The likelihood is that the crime was perpetrated by a terrorist of foreign origin. The idea that the return of capital punishment might have prevented Lockerbie is the sort of fantasy that we hear only in this sort of debate. Having referred to Lockerbie and to terrorist crimes, and in talking about the deaths of policemen and prison officers—
      5.30 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I wish to make it clear that in no part of my speech did I suggest that. I said that the number of unlawful killings justified the House debating the matter again tonight. It was in that context that I used those arguments.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to take passionate issue with the hon. Gentleman, because the subject must be debated calmly. If he did not think that quoting a figure of 1,500 was relevant to the debate, I am not sure that it was right for him to try to plant that figure in our minds and in the public's mind. If he did not think that Lockerbie was relevant, I am not sure that he was right to treat it in the same way.
      I want to deal with the specific point of the killing of policemen and prison officers, as best I can, item by item. Almost everyone, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton, accepts that capital punishment is appropriate only for a limited number of murders in a limited number of categories—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept that. He is therefore excluded from the difficult question, for those who want capital punishment for certain categories, of how we categorise the wickedness of murder on the one hand and the deterrent effect of capital punishment on the other.
      54
      I have no idea how those who take a theological view of murder—that it is so wrong as in some cases to justify the death of the murderer—make an evaluation of the moral difference between killing a policeman and killing a child. I do not understand how we can evaluate different degrees of morality, one of which justifies death and the other of which does not. I emphasise that my objection to such a distinction is not that I minimise the horror of either sort of violence, but that I do not want the horror of homicidal violence to be extended to judicial execution.
      That being said, I repeat the view that it is difficult to distinguish between one category of murder and another. It has been generally agreed since the 1957 Act, at least among supporters of hanging, that a distinction should be made between one form of murder and another. The application of that principle culminated in 1988 in an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) which, incredibly, amounted to the introduction of a local option in these matters.
      The attempts to differentiate between one murder and another demonstrate the difficulties of defining some hanging categories and excluding others. Until today, I had hoped that we had ruled out the notion that judges should be asked to make decisions between capital punishment and life imprisonment. We know from the Gower report that judges simply would not make that distinction. Gower was explicit in saying that capital punishment must be a mandatory offence for stipulated classes of murder because judges would not make a decision between life and death.
      As I understand it, new clause 3 almost imposes that obligation on the Court of Appeal—three judges deciding whether a man should hang or whether a woman should be reprieved. I have severe doubts whether the judges would accept that obligation. I understand from the Home Secretary that the Lord Chief Justice is explicit on that point—he does not regard it as an appropriate function for judges to perform, especially in the circumstances that the Home Secretary described only in part. If every mail or woman convicted of murder is to be sentenced to death, every man or woman so convicted will appeal. The idea that the Appeal Court should go through every murder re-examining the evidence to decide between life or death would be an intolerable burden to place on the judges, and one that they would be right to refuse.
      The difficulties of characterising one offence as suitable for the death penalty and another as not suitable are best demonstrated by the proposal in new clause 2—that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for people convicted of murder as part or in pursuance of an act of terrorism. The objections against selective murder indictments resulting in capital punishment in some cases but not in others are overwhelming, and they are especially overwhelming when they apply to the special category of terrorism. When consulted by the previous Home Secretary—
      Mr. Archer: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for intervening again. Reverting to new clause 3, does my right hon. Friend understand the significance of the Court of Appeal being invited to consider what evidence was adduced at a trial? As it will not be open to a jury to make a distinction between capital and non-capital murder, the only significance of the evidence can be whether the conviction was safe.
      Mr. Hattersley: I heard my right hon. and learned Friend make that point during his speech. Although I feel great trepidation in arguing with him, I do not think that that is the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Burton. It is not that the Court of Appeal should examine the appropriateness of the conviction and whether it is safe, but that it should consider such matters as extenuating circumstances. My right hon. and learned Friend's question comes from a logical legal mind. I do not believe that the answer shows such characteristics.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton is saying—I put this in the crudest layman's language—that everyone who is convicted of murder must be condemned to death. The Court of Appeal might then say, "This is a premeditated murder intended to result in vast financial gain. He should die." On the other hand, it might say, "This was a sudden act of passion. He will not die." The Court of Appeal will consider the circumstances of the murder. It is a bizarre proposal, and it is that bizarre quality that has made my right hon. and learned Friend misunderstand it. I believe that that is the bizarre intention of the hon. and learned Member for Burton. By drawing attention to it, my right hon. and learned Friend has demonstrated how impossible it would be to implement such an idea.
      On the matter of terrorist crimes, the previous Chief Constable of Northern Ireland told the then Home Secretary that the extension of capital punishment would increase the difficulties in the Province. The present Chief Constable told the present Home Secretary that it would not be helpful. However, despite those pragmatic and practical objections, there are three much more powerful reasons for opposing the idea that terrorism should attract capital punishment.
      First, as the Home Secretary said—it is right that this should be said from both sides of the House—to single out terrorism in that way would give the IRA something that it has wanted for years—special status. We have always insisted that IRA members are common criminals, and to treat them differently from other murderers would be to differentiate between them and the man or the woman who committed murder for other reasons. To differentiate in that way would be a prescription for creating martyrs.
      Secondly, if the rule applied to Northern Ireland, we should be sending to the gallows men and women who had been convicted not by a jury of their peers, but by Diplock courts. Surely that would be intolerable in a democracy. Thirdly, we should be requiring the courts to make absurd distinctions between two classes of crime. If a man killed a postmaster while robbing a post office and gave the money to the IRA, presumably he would be hanged. If he killed the postmaster in the same circumstances but gambled the money at the Curragh or Leopardstown, presumably he would be sent to prison for life. One has only to describe such anomalies to see why the application of the death penalty to limited categories would be absurd.
      Mr. Hunter: The right hon. Gentleman again makes the familiar point that one should not differentiate between IRA criminal activity and other ordinary criminal activity. We have done that for many years, starting when the Labour party was in government. We have proscribed organisations and scheduled offences. We have prevention of terrorism Acts. Surely this argument has worn thin over the years.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not believe that it has. I remember that, in the summer, the previous Prime Minister talked about being "at war" with the IRA. I was asked to comment and I said that occasional slips of the tongue should not be held against us, because that was not the Prime Minister's view of the IRA's status, and that members of the IRA were common criminals who must be treated in the same way as other criminals. I recall the Prime Minister saying in a broadcast that she did not believe that the members of the IRA were special people with special status about whom special laws should be created. That is the proper, necessary position if we are to defeat terrorism. We cannot deviate from it when, temporarily and emotionally, it seems convenient to do so.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is another aspect. It is not enough to say that there is a proscribed organisation. In the recent legal history of Northern Ireland, people have tried to prove that a particular person was a member of a proscribed organisation. I was advised that proscription hardly helped in that respect at all. It was almost impossible to prove it. It always ended up being a makeweight. I hope that the argument that there are proscribed organisations will not be called in aid, because the biggest organisation is the UDA, which is not proscribed.
      Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend should not provoke me to say what I did not propose to say—that Labour Members are anxious that in no particular should there be special criminal laws governing the conduct of and prosecution of the IRA. I shall not particularise our differences on that point, because I want to be as emollient as I can in this rational—I hope—debate. That may be slightly more difficult as I turn to the proposal by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West that we should no longer have the death penalty for treason and piracy.
      Despite the compliments which I paid the Home Secretary, which were genuinely meant, I feel that the passage of his speech dealing with that matter was wholly unconvincing. I do not deny the propriety of inquiring into and examining the need to retain these ancient laws in principle. There is much to be said for examining the reasons why the laws of the 18th century—unused and unloved—have remained on our statute book for so long, but inquiring into them does not in any way justify the notion that we should not here and now abandon their attachment to the capital sentence.
      The Home Secretary gave no convincing description why, for instance, the law on piracy, for which the last execution was 160 years ago, should not be modified to remove capital punishment. He gave no convincing explanation why a complete revision of the laws relating to treason would make it inappropriate to remove the capital punishment sentence now. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman talks about giving the erroneous impression that all we need to do is to change the sentence.
      I believe that we could give the opposite impression were we not to remove the capital sentence. I suspect that hon. Members are united in believing that those laws need examining and eventually revision and, in part, abolition, but that is not an argument for retaining capital punishment while they are on the statute book. I shall vote

      57
      for the new clause tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same.
      Many of us—I believe everyone on the Opposition Benches—regard the arguments against capital punishment in principle and in practice as overwhelming, but there is one argument which this year must be regarded as the strongest argument of all: the risk that innocent men and women will be hanged if capital punishment is retained. It is no good the hon. Member for Ryedale saying that that is an argument for improving the law. It is, and we must all struggle to improve the effectiveness and justice of the law. But some errors will occur, as they have occurred in every judicial system.
      This punishment is distinguished from other punishments by the fact that, once the error has been made, there is no prospect of redress. Again, I share the Home Secretary's view that, after 15 years' wrongful imprisonment, a large sum of money is nothing like compensation for the period of life that has been lost. But compare that with hanging a man or woman who has been wrongly convicted and one begins to understand why a civilised society should not even risk that happening—not in 10 or 20 cases since the war, but in one case in a lifetime.
      5.45 pm
      When we last debated this subject, the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) told the House that, since the war, there had been 10 cases of men and women convicted of murder who subsequently were found to have been convicted without appropriate evidence and their sentences and convictions were quashed. He told the House that nine of them had been subsequently released and one had been executed. This time the total is certainly 14, although it may be more. We know that the Guildford Four were wrongfully convicted. I have no doubt that, had the capital sentence been in operation, the Guildford Four would have been hanged.
      Mr. Dickens: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, because evidence was found to be unsafe and sentences were overturned, it does not necessarily follow that people were innocent? All those who escaped from the Maze prison to bomb again and murder other people, including one of our colleagues, did not have a trial by judge and jury. That is a silly argument.
      Mr. Hattersley: Knowing the propensities of some Conservative Members, I was careful not to use the word "innocent" but to say "wrongfully convicted". I am opposed to hanging people who are wrongfully convicted. The question of evidence is important. Innocence is, in one sense, irrelevant. If a man or a women is wrongfully convicted by a court, clearly that person should not hang. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mrr. Dickens) tempts me to go on longer than I had intended because he made a point which other hon. Members raised earlier and which, no doubt, will be raised later: the idea that we may have to pay the price of hanging the occasional innocent man to deter others.
      Let us assume that capital punishment is a deterrent. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth will recall that I do not accept that assumption, but even if that is so, the idea that we might say, "It is worth it to deter a few murderers," and that we should hang a man or a woman who has been wrongfully convicted is barbarous.
      58
      I am sorry to put it in such dark language but it makes us too like the murderers themselves for me to be comfortable with such an idea.
      Were capital punishment in place in general or for terrorist crimes, the Guildford Four would be dead. It is no insignificant fact that today the so-called, once-alleged Birmingham bombers come up for the second appearance before the Court of Appeal. I have no doubt that those men would be dead as well had capital punishment been in operation during that terrible time in 1974 when they were caught, prosecuted and convicted—in my view, wrongly for the crimes in the two Birmingham public houses. I do not understand how, with those examples of wrongful conviction and possible wrongful executions hanging over us, anyone in the Chamber can vote for the return of capital punishment in any of its forms.
      I shall certainly vote against all the new clauses, other than that tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West, which I shall support with great enthusiam. It is a matter of privilege and pride for me to think that all my right hon. and hon. Friends who go into the Lobbies tonight will vote against the return of capital punishment.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I remind the Committee that the House has determined that our proceedings should conclude no later than 10 o'clock. I have the names of at least 20 right hon. and hon. Members who seek to catch my eye. Unless speeches are reasonably brief, I am afraid that some will be disappointed.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not see the slightest reason why those of us who advocate capital punishment should be on the defensive in this debate. Judging by the speeches made so far, we appear to be outnumbered, but it is time that we went on the attack nevertheless.
      Why are we having another debate on capital punishment? We are having another debate because Parliament is the sounding board of the nation and because, if the public opinion polls are right, the nation is overwhelmingly in favour of the restoration of capital punishment. Those whom we represent are entitled to hear us discussing and debating the issue, giving our reasons for and against and taking the matter seriously because it goes to the heart of our fundamental security and stability that law and order should be preserved. We are taking the opportunity presented to us by the Criminal Justice Bill to suggest new provisions. That is why we are here.
      Since we last debated the matter some two years ago, 1,500 people have been murdered. I believe in capital punishment because I believe that a substantial proportion of those 1,500 people would still be alive had the deterrent of capital punishment remained. That is what the debate is all about; it is about whether capital punishment would save the lives of innocent victims. If it would not, there is no excuse for it. If it would, it is a live issue. Moreover, the majority of people in Britain regard that as the reason for the restoration of capital punishment.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend has intervened on several occasions. He will forgive me if I do not give way, because I must try to be brief.

      59
      It seems to those who think that the debate should not be taking place are those who oppose capital punishment. Those of us who are in favour of it take every reasonable opportunity to raise the matter in the House and to ensure proper discussion. Whether we win or we lose, those whom we represent will know that this Parliament is taking the subject seriously.
      Those who oppose capital punishment wish life imprisonment to remain the ultimate deterrent. Let us examine that proposition. Has not life imprisonment been the most utter failure as a deterrent? Five years before the abolition of capital punishment, there were 290 murders a year on average. In the past five years, there have been 647 murders a year on average. Since the abolition of capital punishment, the number of murders has more than doubled.
      In 1972, 2,000 crimes were carried out with guns and weapons. Last year, 10,000 crimes were carried out with guns and weapons. That means that there has been a fivefold increase.
      In the 24 years before the abolition of capital punishment, 14 police officers were murdered: in the 24 years after its abolition 53 police officers were murdered. That means that there has been a fourfold increase.
      Between 1963 and 1989, 59 people in England and Wales were killed by people who had previously been convicted of homicide. Had capital punishment remained, many of those criminals would not have been there to murder their second victims. So it cannot be said that life imprisonment—the alternative to capital punishment—has been a success; it has been a failure.
      It is argued that one cannot prove that capital punishment is a deterrent. I concede at once that that cannot be proved conclusively and scientifically as it would be preposterous to suggest that one could ask 10,000 people whether they were in fact deterred from committing murder by the fact of capital punishment. However, much of the evidence tends to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary put an unfavourable interpretation on the United States statistics, but let us examine them. In 11 of the 12 states where capital punishment has been restored and where executions have been carried out, there has been a reduction in the murder rate. Of the 12 states without capital punishment, the majority—seven—have seen an increase in the murder rate and four a reduction. In one, the rate has remained the same. That suggests that the existence of capital punishment in American states has been responsible for the reduction in the murder rate.
      Mr. Janman: My hon. and learned Friend has been describing the murder statistics for Britain and the United States. As he rightly said, the murder rate per million of the British population rose from 6·3 to 12·7 between 1964 and 1989. In other words, the number of murders more than doubled. In the United States—a country which I do not think many would regard as less violent than Britain; it is probably more violent—the murder rate per 100,000 of the population rose from 7·1 in 1970 to 8·4 in 1988. Capital punishment is available in many parts of the United States. We have abolished it. The statistics are clear.
      Mr. Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for making a further point in favour of the United States statistics. I realise that the causal links are not always clear, that hand guns are readily available in the United States and that that is a complicating factor.
      I concede that there is some conflicting evidence, but the trend is clear: in the parts of the United States where capital punishment has been restored and implemented, there has been a fall in the number of murders committed and in the murder rate. That is also consistent with the analyses made in universities. Professor Erlich of Chicago university showed that there was evidence of capital punishment having had a deterrent effect in the United States up to 1969. I know that that has been challenged, but the challenge has also been rebutted. At any rate, there is a respectable, logical, sensible, scientific argument to support the deterrence proposition. Kenneth Wolprin of Yale university drew the same conclusions using United Kingdom statistics dating from before the abolition of capital punishment. It is true that the evidence can be read both ways, but it cannot be said that there is no statistical evidence to support the deterrence theory.
      Japan, a country whose achievements we admire, has the lowest murder rate in the developed world—one can almost call it the western world. Along with 50 other countries, Japan has not only continued to use capital punishment, but has extended it to other offences to which it did not apply before—to drug trafficking and rape in particular. Those countries have done that precisely because they believe that it is a deterrent. The IRA certainly believes that it is a deterrent. I have heard it suggested that that is not so, but when, in December 1975, I moved a motion in favour of the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist offences, the then head of the IRA issued an ultimatum. He said that, if the House reimposed capital punishment for terrorist offences, he would hang three British soldiers for every member of the IRA who was convicted and hanged. If that was not a threat, I do not know what it was. The head of the IRA made that threat because he believed that the existence of capital punishment would seriously undermine the effect and influence of the IRA. What other justification could he have had for threatening the House?
      Before I came to the House, I spent much of my time as a criminal lawyer. In the 1960s, I defended a number of serious villains and I asked all of them whether the existence of capital punishment had deterred them from committing more serious crimes. Invariably the answer was yes. They said, "When we thought there was a risk of being hanged, we did not take guns with us when we committed a crime, and we did not take mad tearaway juveniles with us in case they pulled the trigger and people died as a result." I know that this evidence is anecdotal, but it comes from an impeccable source. I was told by people in the 1960s who had committed serious crimes that, when capital punishment had been available, they were deterred from committing such offences.
      We must also consider common sense. The simple fear of being caught is not enough to deter people from committing crimes. People must be afraid about what might happen once they are caught. No one is much worried about being caught if, once he is caught, he gets only a pat on the head and tuppence out of the poor box. He will continue to offend for as long as he wants. The size of the sentence is the deterrent, and the real deterrent is the ultimate sentence of death.

      61
      6 pm
      The ordinary people know as much as any expert about what deters people from committing serious crimes. The overwhelming majority are in favour of the restoration of capital punishment precisely because they believe that it would deter people from murdering innocent people and that innocent lives would be saved.
      The police are at the sharp end. They have to fight in the streets with the murderers. The Police Federation has stated that capital punishment would be a deterrent to the criminals who use violence and kill. The Police Federation's view is good enough for me.
      Taking all my evidence of deterrence together, there should be no more nonsense spoken in this place about there being no evidence that capital punishment deters.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in Northern Ireland, the Police Federation, which represents the men on the ground who must work on when their colleagues are murdered, believes that capital punishment should return, but the senior, high-ranking officers who have been referred to today, and those of similar rank who have never been under attack or murdered, claim that there should not be a return to capital punishment?
      Mr. Lawrence: It is clear that there is more evidence that capital punishment deters than that it does not.
      If we do not have capital punishment, we must have life imprisonment, but that has failed. There is some evidence that capital punishment deters some people from committing murder. We need not ask how many people would be deterred, although that number might be significant. Bearing that in mind, what are the objections to the restoration of capital punishment?
      It has been said that capital punishment is wrong in a civilised society. However, with so much lawlessness, why do we presume to have a thoroughly civilised society?
      It has been argued that human life is sacred and that that is a reason to resist the restoration of capital punishment. But the life of the murder victim is also sacred and we should care about that person as well.
      We are also told that retribution is wrong. If retribution were the reason for restoring capital punishment—and it is not my reason—I should rather we had retribution organised by the state after laws of evidence and proper court trials than retribution in dark alleys and streets at night because the law is incapable of protecting the innocent.
      It has been said that capital punishment is contrary to God's teaching, but that depends upon which page of the writings concerning the Almighty we consider.
      It has been said that capital punishment will create martyrs, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is afraid of that. But if we are to have martyrs, I believe that it is better that their martyrdom is celebrated once a year than that they be perpetual martyrs while they serve life imprisonment. That is what has happened to many people who are serving life imprisonment.
      Mr. Roland Boyes: What about the Guildford Four?
      Mr. Lawrence: I shall consider the Guildford Four in a moment.
      62
      It has been said that, if we had capital punishment, there might be reprisals, particularly with respect to terrorist offences. If we give way to such blackmail, the law breakers will be making our law, and that would be utterly unacceptable to society.
      It has been suggested that the reintroduction of capital punishment would lead to hostages being taken. But in recent years, the taking of hostages—I include aircraft hijacks—has occurred in respect of people who are prisoners, not in respect of people who have been subject to capital punishment.
      The objectors claim that most murderers know their victims. So what? Why should a victim who is known to the offender have any less right to protection than the victim who is not known to the offender? I do not see the logic in that argument. If the cause of the offence was only passion and there was no premeditated calculation or any time span before the formulation of the desire to kill and the killing, that would not be murder. The jury would acquit of murder. It might convict of manslaughter, but there would be no question of the death penalty being imposed.
      If someone is contemplating murder, he might bear in mind the fact that, with capital punishment, if he is caught he may die. If we are talking about the murder of someone who is known to the murderer or of someone in a family, if there is an element of premeditation or calculation by which that person would be convicted of murder, there is time for the deterrent aspect of capital punishment to take effect.
      Mr. Hattersley: We have now established that the hon. and learned Gentleman's new clause is intended to provide an omnibus provision for capital punishment, so that everyone convicted of murder, of every category of murder—nothing relating to the 1957 categories—should be sentenced initially to death. If the new clause is accepted, can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us and the Court of Appeal any guidance about which categories he wants to hang? Under the new clause, everyone would be sentenced to death and some would hang and some would not. Until a moment ago, I had assumed that only a small number would go to the gallows, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that his new clause will send virtually every murderer to his or her death. Is that what he means?
      Mr. Lawrence: No, not at all. The right hon. Gentleman came closer in his speech to appreciating the value of my new clause. The point of the new clause is that if, following a death sentence for any offence there is some reasonable argument why the death penalty should not be carried out, in that particular case, the Court of Appeal would say, "Not death, life imprisonment."
      It is not a matter of categories—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) may laugh and shake his head, but it is not a question of categories. I am not putting down a list of categories under which someone will or will not die. I am describing a situation in which, according to ordinary common sense—and our judges exercise common sense —if anything can be said as to why a person should not die, whatever the category of offence, the sentence of Fife imprisonment should be substituted.

      63
      It has been said that hanging is too horrible. If that is the case, we could develop other methods, such as those that exist in other countries.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook commented adversely on an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Robin Harris. I do not believe that what Robin Harris said in that article was as absurd as the right hon. Gentleman made out. The more people who are aware of, and feel the horror of, the punishment and the taking of life that caused it, the more respect will be engendered in our society for human life and the greater will be the element of deterrence. That is what Robin Harris was saying; he was not glorifying the circus that surrounds some murders.
      Finally, we must consider the possibility of mistakes. That is the most powerful argument against the restoration of capital punishment, and it has been discussed at length in our debate today. I shall address that issue as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary demanded that I should.
      To avoid mistakes, as far as humanly possible, is one of the main purposes of the review tribunal in my new clause 3. In essence, I repeat that the purpose of the review tribunal, once the death sentence has been passed, is to ask, "Is there any sensible, humane reason in this case why the death sentence should not be imposed?" The Court of Appeal would consist of three, five, or as many High Court judges as is thought prudent, and they would sit as soon as practicable. I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will listen carefully to this point, as it answers some of his questions. I have his rapt attention so far. They would consider any circumstances, not just the circumstances that had been admitted in evidence at the trial, circumstances that surround both the offence itself and the offender.
      I must inform the right hon. Gentleman that there are exclusionary rules of evidence. Not everything that emerges during the investigation of a murder case is admissable in a trial. All sorts of details and all sorts of facts about a person and the circumstances are ruled out as inadmissable. From my reading, I cannot remember whether what I am about to say applied to Timothy Evans, who has been found to have suffered one of the miscarriages of justice. It was nobody's fault that Christie, whom everybody believed to be an honourable person, turned out to be a mass murderer. But Timothy Evans would not have hanged if—[ Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will allow me, Timothy Evans would not have hanged if the Court of Appeal, sitting afterwards, had heard evidence that he had the mental age of a child of 12, below the age at which one would expect anybody to have moral culpability. The Court of Appeal would have said, "Even though he did it, he should not hang."
      Hanratty is another example. He was convicted because he put forward a false alibi. If he had run the defence of diminished responsibility, he would not have hanged; he would have been found guilty of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal sitting after that could have heard that there was an alternative defence that he could have run. The court could have called evidence to see whether it was satisfied by it, and if it had been satisfied that he was suffering from diminished responsibility, he would not have hanged.
      64
      I now refer to Craig and Bentley. Bentley was hanged despite the fact that Craig was the one who told him to shoot. Craig could not hang because he was 16. There is a manifest injustice, is there not, in having two parties, both of whom are equally to blame, and one hangs because he is a little older and one does not hang because he is a little younger? That is the sort of matter in which—
      Mr. John Maxton: It is the other way round.
      Mr. Lawrence: No, it is not. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not heckle. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. It is not the other way round. Craig lived and Bentley died. Bentley was the elder of the two. That is precisely the sort of extraneous matter that the Court of Appeal would consider.
      One could go further and say that, even if the evidence of identification were so positive that a jury would accept the identification evidence of one witness, the Court of Appeal might say, "Even one positive identification that satisfied the jury is open to the possibility of error, and there should be no death penalty." Even if somebody confessed to the police in circumstances that were utterly impeccable—one could not criticise them—and said, "All right, I did it," the Court of Appeal might say, "That is not enough; there must be more evidence than one confession before the man will die." He was undoubtedly guilty because he was convicted by a jury and because the evidence was impeccable, but whether a person should die when there is an outside possibility that just one piece of evidence might have been wrong is a matter that the tribunal could take into account.
      I now refer to the Guildford Four. It is preposterous for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook or anybody else to assume that, if there had been the death penalty, all these terrorist offences would have been committed. Because the death penalty deters terrorism, it is one of the reasons why we advance the cause of the restoration of capital punishment. It is equally preposterous to assume that, if there had been the death penalty, police officers would have lied about the circumstances in which they took a statement. Perhaps they would have done, but there cannot be the certainty with which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have invested so much of what he says.
      If there were the penalty of death and the only evidence against the men were confessions, there is no certainty that a jury would ever have convicted them.
      Anyway, the situation has changed—it can no longer occur. These convictions took place in relation to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six 15 years ago, since when we have introduced the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act safeguards the interrogation of suspects. There is absolutely no reason why every interrogation of a murder suspect should not be tape-recorded and video-recorded, so that there could be no question about the integrity of such investigations. If we had those safeguards, it would be almost impossible for the mistake that happened 15 years ago to happen again.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in that particular. If what happened in Birmingham and in Guildford occurred again, the men who were immediately arrested would not be subject to all

      65
      the protections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; they would be initially cross-examined under the prevention of terrorism legislation, which excludes those protections.
      Mr. Lawrence: That is all the more reason why the Court of Appeal in considering the matter—[Laughter.] It is no use laughing. The Court of Appeal considering the matter could say, "If these alleged terrorists have not been afforded the normal protections of the court, then we cannot be 100 per cent. sure about the confession evidence". In the case of the Birmingham Six, there is more evidence than the confession to be considered. In the case of the Guildford Four, there was only confession evidence. Even if the confession evidence was beyond reproach, as it might have been under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about that, although there may be different circumstances in regard to the Birmingham Six—there might not have been capital punishment if there was no corroboration of the confession.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am somewhat confused by the line of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He made the case that there was a substantial inherent deterrent in the death penalty, and he referred to terrorism, especially Irish terrorism. The death penalty has existed for the greater part of 800 years, and it has proved to be anything but a deterrent. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take on board the fact that the real sea change in Irish life came about as a result of the use of capital punishment in 1916? It changed the course of Irish history from then until now.
      Mr. Lawrence: If I can be forgiven for leaving the Irish aspect of this dispute to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I shall save time, because I am taking up rather a lot of time in dealing with these important matters. To conclude on this point, the possibility of mistake is not a valid reason for refusing to protect the lives of innocent people who would otherwise die if we do not have the deterrence of capital punishment.
      I refer now to another attraction—if I may be so bold as to suggest that anything that I have said has attractions —of new clause 3 than the avoidance of mistake. Only if all murder was subject to the death penalty would it be an effective deterrent. The murderer contemplating murder would never know in advance whether he was likely to be reprieved. He would have to assume that he would not be reprieved and that he might suffer the death penalty. That is the secondary importance of the Court of Appeal and the requirement that the penalty for murder shall be mandatory death.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has analysed new clause 3 and has made four criticisms. First, he said that juries would be more likely to acquit. That may be so, but not where the crime is so heinous that everybody feels that death is the only appropriate result that should follow. If there is doubt about the case, it is absolutely right that the jury should acquit. We could have no possible objection to that. If the existence of capital punishment makes juries more concerned to look for doubts and to give the verdict according to any doubt that they find, we should welcome that, not object to it. However, even were the jury to acquit against the evidence, there would often be the possibility of a manslaughter alternative. In any event, no would-be
      66
      murderer would know in advance that the jury was likely to acquit and the deterrent value of capital punishment would still exist.
      Secondly, my right hon. Friend says that the Lord Chief Justice has said that life or death should be a decision taken by this Parliament. If new clause 3 is accepted, Parliament will indeed have decided that death shall be the punishment for murder. The judges' role will be to be merciful in a proper case. Parliament would have given judges the power to be merciful. I find it difficult to believe that the Lord Chief Justice would be against giving judges the power to be merciful once Parliament had decided that the death penalty shall be mandatory unless there are grounds for mercy. I can see no objection in the Lord Chief Justice's response to what I have suggested and to what my right hon. Friend has said.
      Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary objects that the Court of Appeal would not have seen witnesses. That is no argument because, in any event, the Court of Appeal seldom sees witnesses before an appeal. However, it does see witnesses in some circumstances and it could in this instance. If there was an argument that required the calling of evidence that was not admissible in the lower court of trial, such evidence could be considered by the Court of Appeal. I remind my right hon. Friend who has come to the position of Home Secretary after Parliament passed these provisions into law, that the Government never considered the fact that the judges in the Court of Appeal had not seen the witnesses to be a valid reason for refusing to allow the Court of Appeal the right to increase sentences. I do not understand why, if it is not necessary to see a witness in order to increase the sentence, it is necessary to see a witness in order to reduce a sentence.
      Fourthly, in criticism of new clause 3, my right hon. Friend has said that there would be the possibility of delays in carrying out the sentence and then a media circus would take place. If there are unacceptable delays, the Court of Appeal will have to sit more often. If there are so many murders, it will have to sit every day. Why is it so impossible for the lawyers and the judges of this land to sit regularly and frequently to consider such matters?
      As for salacious media interest, why does my right hon. Friend assume that the media would always be in favour of the murderer, never the victim? Why does he assume that such coverage day after day would be good copy? Why does he assume that there would be nothing else on the front pages day after day except murderers—no politics, nothing about the state of the world, no bimbos and nothing about the sexual activities of anybody in public life? Why does he assume that murderers and their victims would always be on the front pages? That is taking that assumption far too far. Avoiding saving innocent lives simply for reasons of bad publicity seems a wholly bad reason.
      We shall, of course, vote tonight where our consciences lead us, but I shall vote for capital punishment because the alternative has failed and because too many innocent people have died and too many innocent people will go on dying unless there is an effective deterrent, which life imprisonment is not. I shall vote for capital punishment because I believe that it deters some murderers—perhaps many. I believe that we should not only, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, "shed tears for the victims rather than for the offender"; I believe that we should take steps to save the lives of the innocent victims,

      67
      not simply cry tears for them. By "innocent victims", I include all those who are maimed through the carrying of firearms and not necessarily only those who are murdered.
      I shall vote against new clause 4 because treason involves the death of many. It is exceptionally serious and the law should not be reformed only as a side wind in another debate. It also involves the monarch and there should be a proper examination of her interests, which I am sure has not taken place in the short time since the tabling of the new clause. I shall therefore vote against that new clause.
      But I have tabled and seek this opportunity to speak to new clause 3 because I want to see the lives of the innocent saved. That is my only purpose. I shall therefore support new clauses 2, 6 and 7 because they are steps towards that end.
      Mr. David Trimble: My colleagues generally take the view that a person who deliberately takes a life forfeits his or her right to life. That is a fairly simply and straightforward view that would apply to all murders. However, I feel somewhat uneasy with that position, for two reasons. First, as has been said, most murders occur within a domestic environment where right and wrong do not separate as absolutely as the proposed penalty of capital punishment.
      Secondly, as has also been said, there is the danger of a mistake—the danger that innocent people may be hanged. Undoubtedly, that has happened. As has been suggested, that consideration could lead to the conclusion that the courts should do their job better. It has also been suggested that procedural reforms might assist in that regard. Other reforms have been mentioned recently about the operation of the Court of Appeal, and I have tabled some amendments to the Emergency Provisions Bill which are not irrelevant to this, but that is by the way.
      The danger of a mistake and the nature of its consequences are such that there must be some additional compelling reasons to justify a risk, however small, to the innocent. For that reason, I do not favour new clause 3, which has been tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) because of its general nature. In addition, referring cases to the Court of Appeal is undesirable because, although they may be decisions on matters of fact, the decisions of the Court of Appeal are likely to be treated as precedents. That would be unfortunate and inappropriate in this context.
      Having said that there should be some additional compelling reasons to justify the risk of hanging the innocent, I am sure that the supporters of new clause I see that additional reason as the need to protect certain persons; they have mentioned policemen. The supporters of new clause 6 have mentioned prison officers. Those persons are called upon to risk themselves in the defence of the community. I emphasise the words "called upon" because there are circumstances in which it is the duty of police officers and prison officers to expose themselves to risk, and they do so in defence of the whole community.
      I have no doubt that there are occasions when the greater good of defending the whole community can justify capital punishment. In saying that, I accept that there may be a risk to other persons, and that it is a matter of balancing the risks. Nevertheless, there may be occasions
      68
      when the greater good of defending the community justifies the resort of capital punishment. For that reason, I support new clauses 1 and 2.
      Short of war, the need to defend the community is greatest when we are confronted with terrorism, which is an attack on the whole community. The need to defeat that form of warfare against the community should and does provide a compelling reason for supporting new clause 2. It should be compelling to all but committed pacifists. I disagreed with the Home Secretary on that. It is not right to regard terrorism as an ordinary form of crime, however attractive it may be to do so. Its motivation and character are different.
      Terrorism is indiscriminately directed against the community. It is a form of declaration of war on society by a group of people. We should not suffer by recognising that that is what it is. That does not make it legitimate. It is a particularly loathsome form of warfare. Indeed, if the international conventions on the conduct of war applied, most terrorist activities would be war crimes and if those who were caught were not wearing a uniform, they would be persons whom, under the prevailing laws of war, the authorities would be perfectly entitled to execute out of hand. One does not suffer by recognising what terrorism is.
      It has been suggested that, in the context of terrorism, capital punishment would be counter-productive. I am not sure that the record supports that. There were some interesting precedents in what happened in Ireland this century, particularly in the 1920s. In May 1922, the newly established Northern Ireland Government became responsible for security in the midst of a terrorist war which had started in 1919. The first Ulster premier, Sir James Craig, decided as a matter of policy that he would not invoke the death penalty, and, indeed, he did not do so. He considered that reliance on the death penalty would deepen and prolong the bitterness that existed in the community.
      6.30 pm
      In the same year, civil war broke out in the Irish Free State—what is now the Republic of Ireland. The Government of the Irish Free State took a different view from that of the Government of Northern Ireland. About 80 persons were officially executed, and it is believed that about double that number were unofficially executed in killings which were not admitted by the forces of the Irish Free State but were carried out under the direction of the Government.
      Conventional wisdom among historians and politicians is that those killings permanently embittered the politics of the Irish Republic. But since then, a comparatively liberal Ulster has been racked by successive outbreaks of terrorism while, in what was a repressive Republic, the provisional IRA has a standing order which forbids violence. So one must admit that the Republic's security policy has been more successful.
      Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman referred to official and unofficial executions. Perhaps he should amend that and describe both sets of executions as unofficial. The executions were the result of cases brought, not before the courts but before kangaroo military tribunals.
      Mr. Trimble: I do not wish to be drawn into a semantic argument on that point. The executions were official in the sense that they were carried out by the lawful authorities of the Irish Free State, acting under the law in force at the

      69
      time, according to the procedures under which the Government operated. Admittedly, the executions were carried out under a regime of martial law, but that does not change the fact that they were official executions at the time. The unofficial executions were those which were not admitted and were carried out by what journalists today would call death squads sent out by Ministers in Dublin for that purpose.
      I was examining the contrast between the positions taken in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Free State. In Northern Ireland, the death penalty was not resorted to, yet we have continuing terrorism. In the Irish Republic, the death penalty was resorted to on a massive scale, and it has had peace since the 1920s.
      New clause 4 reminds us that the death penalty is available for many of the terrorist crimes committed in Northern Ireland. Many of those crimes come within the definition of treason. One could invoke the death penalty, if only people were charged with treason. Clearly, we must ask why, in such cases, people are not charged in the appropriate manner. The charge is available.
      It cannot simply be the decision of the Law Officers of the Crown exercising their discretion not to charge people with treason, because that discretion has been exercised in an identical way under successive Governments. It is more a matter of Government policy. Indeed, there was some hint of that in the Home Secretary's speech, when he said that the charge of treason was used only in the case of war. That may explain why no one has been charged with treason in Ulster in the past 20 years.
      The Government's inconsistency would be resolved if they supported new clause 4 and removed the death penalty for treason. However, the Home Secretary said that the Government do not intend to do so. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who spoke to new clause 4, that the answers given were rather poor on that point. Some of us suspect that there are other reasons. It seems that the Shakespearean couplet might apply:
      "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
      For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
      One wonders whether the reason why the Government dare not call it treason is that some members of the Government expect, or even intend, that treason to prosper.
      That would be in line with the recent speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which he described the objectives of the IRA as "legitimate". I wonder how one of Her Majesty's Ministers can defend that. Nothing is more likely to encourage terrorism than to describe its objectives as legitimate. Nothing is more likely to discourage it than making it clear that the state will use all the legal weapons in its armoury to combat it.
      It has been said that terrorism in Ulster, particularly republican terrorism, is a high-status, low-risk occupation. We can do nothing to lower its status, because its status is conferred on it by the community in which it operates, but we can do something to increase the risk, and we certainly should do so.
      Sir John Wheeler: The arguments presented to the Committee this evening have, predictably, covered both the moral and practical issues and have been rehearsed many times in the Chamber in previous debates. This is a subject on which many hon. Members on both sides of the arguments have particularly strong and absolute views.
      70
      They are not to be swayed by continued argument, even of the magisterial nature of the arguments delivered to the Committee a few moments ago by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
      I shall not repeat all the points that have been made. I shall make some points of my own. It would be utterly wrong to reintroduce capital punishment without the most conclusive evidence that the death penalty is a unique deterrent. I contend that no such evidence exists. Worldwide research suggests that the death penalty would not reduce the murder rate but would simply lead to a greater coarsening of attitudes to human life. Little can be proved by citing offence rates over a long period since abolition because over such periods crime rates can vary a great deal for reasons which have no connection with the death penalty. Nevertheless, during the 20 years from 1969 to 1989, the percentage rise in the number of homicides in England and Wales was less than half the percentage increase in all other indictable offences, for most of which there was no comparable change in penalty.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Sir John Wheeler: With reluctance.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I merely wish to point out that a dead body is more obvious than the consequence of any other form of crime. The reporting of other types of crime may have increased, but the reporting of murder is unlikely to have increased because it is such an obvious crime.
      Sir John Wheeler: As I said at the beginning of my speech, those in favour of the restoration of capital punishment are unlikely to be persuaded by anything that I or anyone else may say against it. That will be especially true if we bat the various statistics to and fro across the Chamber or between ourselves.
      I contend that some tentative conclusions—I state it as marginally as that—can be drawn from the figures for crime shortly before and shortly after the abolition of capital punishment in 1965. Before then, there were two categories of murder: capital and non-capital. The former included murder in the furtherance of theft, murder by shooting and the murder of a police or prison officer. Following the abolition of capital punishment, there was an increase in the number of murders judged to be capital. However, the increase began before abolition, so cannot have been caused by it. There was a corresponding increase in non-capital murder, for which there was no change in penalties, and in crimes of violence generally, for which there was no change in penalties.
      The evidence from abroad also casts doubt on the unique deterrent value of capital punishment. For example, many studies in the United States of America have compared the murder rates of abolitionist and neighbouring retentionist states, murder rates in states which abolished and later restored capital punishment, the number of homicides just before and just after a sentence of execution, killings of police officers in cities of abolitionist and retentionist states and the incidence of fatal assaults in prison. They contain no evidence that the absence of the death penalty increases murders or that its presence deters capital offenders.
      Even many advocates of the death penalty recognise that most murders are emotional and impulsive, and

      71
      largely within the family or among close associates, thus not susceptible to the deterrence argument. Therefore, most advocates of capital punishment favour restricting it to certain types of murder. Yet any attempt to make such distinctions in legislation would produce invidious and morally indefensible results in the future just as it did in the past.
      New clause 1 refers specifically to police officers. Yet the figures for murders of police and prison officers before and after the abolition of capital punishment suggest that capital punishment has no unique deterrent effect. The number of killings of police officers resulting in murder convictions has varied between nought and six every year since 1958. In the 31 years from 1957 to 1989, 27 police officers were murdered on duty out of a total of 51 police homicides, with no killings in 1957, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1968 and 1976.
      New clause 6 refers to prison officers, and for them the argument is even less sustainable. In a period of nearly 50 years, when the prison population has more than doubled and more high-risk offenders have been in prison than ever before, only two prison officers have been killed—one in 1948 and one in 1965. New clause 5 refers to firearms. In the 10 years from 1977 to 1988 the average number of homicides by shooting was 48 with considerable annual variations, as one might expect from small figures. There is no case that gun killing has changed in any way to necessitate a special penalty.
      New clauses 2 and 3 relate to terrorism in Northern Ireland. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and it is understandable that there should be strong feelings about the death penalty for at least terrorist murders. In fact, terrorists are even less likely to be deterred than other murderers. They are fanatics who are perverted in their thinking and feeling and who see themselves fighting for a cause higher than themselves. They are willing to live in a state of dangerous exaltation in which they hold even their own lives at a relatively low price.
      First, it would be necessary to define what a terrorist murder is. Would it be a murder committed by a known member of the provisional IRA or of a middle east terrorist group? Would it apply to a known terrorist engaged in an ordinary crime, such as a bank robbery, where killing occurs? Given that political status for the inmates of the Maze prison has long been withdrawn, would not a working definition of terrorism produce irresistible demands for the restoration of that status on the grounds that the criteria of political crimes had at last been set out?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friend is making a fundamental mistake in overlooking the fact that we already have definitions of terrorism and terrorist activities on the statute book. We have proscribed organisations and scheduled offences.
      Sir John Wheeler: I gave way to my hon. Friend because his name leads those who propose that the death penalty should be applicable to people who are called terrorists. He proposes a special and separate penalty for
      72
      a category of offenders who would have to be separately defined within this Criminal Justice Bill. That would be a fatal mistake.
      It is incredible that new clause 3 would make the death penalty apply in Northern Ireland. No one has been hanged in the United Kingdom for hundreds of years except on the verdict of a jury. As is well known to the Committee, the degree of intimidation in Northern Ireland is such that it has not been possible to try such cases by jury. They are tried by the Diplock, one-judge courts. Has anyone asked the Northern Ireland judiciary whether it is prepared to act as judge and jury in capital cases?
      There are other important reasons arguing against the introduction of capital punishment for terrorist murder, many of which have already been mentioned. In the stages leading up to an execution, a terrorist would have a strong motive for taking and threatening to kill hostages and for intimidating all those taking part in the trial, particularly jurors. There would be the expectation that executions would be followed by reprisals. Informers would be less likely to help the police.
      Since capital punishment would not apply to those under 18, the death penalty would reinforce the trend for terrorist organisations to recruit increasingly young members. Capital punishment would create martyrs and there is considerable evidence that martyrs stimulate support for and recruitment to terrorist organisations. For all those reasons, I agree with many senior Army and police officers that the reintroduction of capital punishment would hinder rather than help the fight against terrorism.
      A substantial proportion of homicides in England, Wales and elsewhere are committed by people in an abnormal state. Most murder victims are killed as a result of rage, quarrels or jealousy. In more than 70 per cent. of homicide cases, the victim was a member of the suspect's family, such as a spouse or lover. The deliberately planned and carefully executed murder, on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton touched, is relatively rare. Deterrence in the form of capital punishment would work only for those who think before killing.
      The best protection for the public remains the certainty of detection. Most of the more serious offences are cleared up. In 1988–89 the clear-up rate for crimes of violence against a person was 75 per cent., for frauds and forgeries it was about 70 per cent. and for theft and burglary overall it was about 30 per cent. Remarkably, the clear-up rate for homicides is 96 per cent. That is the best form of deterrence.
      In concluding, I should like to touch briefly on new clause 4 proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He renders a great service to the House in bringing to our attention the technical availability of the death penalty for offences in archaic Acts of the late 18th and 19th centuries.
      It is perhaps relevant to say that the 18th century saw the greatest use of capital punishment, but controversy over its use was as sharp then as it is today. By 1820, there were no fewer than 200 offences for which, in theory, capital punishment could be imposed, but such was public opinion that juries would often refuse to convict regardless of the evidence. It is also relevant that even in those cases where the death penalty was given, only about 10 per cent. resulted in execution—so much for the deterrent argument.

      73
      I have great sympathy with what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West has proposed, but I regret that I cannot support him in the Lobby because I believe that those old Acts and the offences they create are in need of repeal. I do not want to substitute a sentence of life imprisonment for an offence that could be abolished or at least reformed to suit the modern age.
      I believe that the House should invite the Law Commission to give urgent consideration to the abolition or review of those archaic Acts, when I would wish any penalty to be available to the courts to be anything other than the death penalty.
      Mr. Rees: I liked the reference of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) to the 18th and 19th centuries. A study of the statistics on the recent upsurge in crime in comparison with that committed in the 1920s and 1930s might suggest that the explanation is a sociological one. At one time I read about the middle years of the 19th century in great depth. The vast number of murders then committed seemed to have nothing to do with the number of people hanged in London at the time. There is no relationship between the two.
      The hon. Member for Westminster, North also referred to the Diplock courts and the no-jury trials. I agree that that makes new clause 3 extremely defective. Terrorism is at large in Northern Ireland, but the new clause does not appear to understand that.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised a number of historical issues to explain why there was relative peace in the south of Ireland rather than in the north. We do not pay nearly enough attention to Northern Ireland in the House because most of us know little about it. When we talk about crime and punishment we do so in terms of England, Wales and Scotland.
      I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] I notice that he is occupying the seat of the Chief Whip —no doubt doing what he would like to do, but has not yet achieved. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there would be 1,500 fewer murders if capital punishment had been available in the past 20 years. That can only be a guess. I believe that he has misread the statistics on murder and probably confused them with those on homicide. I do not believe that anecdotal evidence will do about the use of guns. The trigger point to determine which cases should go to the Court of Appeal should be given far greater attention. I shall vote against the hon. and learned Gentleman's new clause.
      I appreciate the point behind the new clause on piracy tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). Whatever happens tonight, I hope that the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence will consider that part of the Armed Forces Act 1971 that relates to sedition and mutiny. I have a personal interest in that, because men were charged with mutiny at Salerno. I shall not rehearse the story, but I understand what those men and other people felt. Those men could have been sentenced to death and it would have been wrong. My noble and learned Friend Lord Elwyn-Jones played a part in preventing those men from being shot. In common with the legislation on piracy, the death penalty for mutiny should be reviewed because it is as misplaced today as it was 40 years ago.
      I intervened earlier in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.
      74
      Hattersley) to say that proscription and membership of a terrorist organisation are insufficient evidence when it comes to sentencing people to death. I remember when the last detainee came out of the Maze as a result of the House's decision. The last man out made it clear to television reporters that he was a member of the IRA. I mentioned that to the police and said that I thought that one could be brought to court for such membership. I was told that it would be extremely difficult to prove in court that someone was a member of the IRA, the Red Hand Commandos, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or the Ulster Volunteer Force. To seek to impose the death penalty when the evidence rests upon membership and proscription is a mistake.
      It is only those who do not know Northern Ireland who could argue that martyrdom is something with which one could live. That country is shot through with stories of past martyrs. That is one reason why killing and shooting still takes place. We are not talking about England, Wales or Scotland. Such martyrdom is part and parcel of the life of Northern Ireland and to ignore that flies in the face of Ireland's history.
      I have my own anecdotal evidence about martyrs. My father, a Welsh coal miner, was a soldier at the Easter rising. He belonged to an Irish regiment then in France but he was brought back to go to Ireland. To some extent, I was brought up with the story of that rising. The fact that the British, as a result of military courts, shot people involved in that uprising—some of them sitting down, including James Connolly—broke the Irish parliamentary party. It was finished because of the way in which the British had acted towards the Irish. We forget about the history of Ireland when we talk in terms of England and the new clauses.
      Mr. Trimble: If one carried the right hon. Gentleman's point about martyrdom to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the police and soldiers would be prevented from using lethal force in circumstances where they are entitled so to act. Martyrs would also be created in those circumstances. The 1916 executions did not cause the break-up of the Irish parliamentary party, the home rule party, but the opposition to that party from Catholic bishops. That opposition was first manifest in June 1916, but was repeated in forthcoming years.
      Mr. Rees: I must give in on the argument about the Catholic bishops. That intervention illustrates the nature of the problem in Northern Ireland far better than anything that I might say.
      Why did the Conservative Government before 1974 amend legislation so that there was no capital punishment in Northern Ireland? Many right hon. and hon. Members now present voted in favour of that decision. A note prepared for me at that time outlined that the death penalty came under two pieces of legislation, section 6 of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) (Northern Ireland) Act 1972 and section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 1966.
      The first step was to do away with the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) (Northern Ireland) Act 1922. The second was to leave in section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 1966. Albert Brown, a Protestant and a member of the UDA, was found guilty of murdering a member of the RUC with a licensed gun and sentenced to death. Lord Whitelaw reprieved him because he was told

      75
      by the security authorities in Northern Ireland that, if Albert Brown was hanged, they could not hold Belfast. What is the use of bringing back capital punishment and flying in the face of what happened as recently as 1973? As a result, Lord Whitelaw, who was in favour of capital punishment, came to the Dispatch Box and said that he had changed his mind, not because he had read books but because he had learnt in Northern Ireland that he could not allow the death penalty to be carried out.
      7 pm
      The same thing happened shortly afterwards when, after an amendment had been passed in the House, a man called William Gerald Holden, a Roman Catholic 19-year-old chef, was sentenced to death for the murder of Private Frank Bell of the 2nd Parachute Regiment. The then Secretary of State, Lord Whitelaw, also reprieved that man. Therefore, the same law applied on both sides of the community.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Whitewash.
      Mr. Rees: It is no good saying "Whitewash", which is what some of the majority community called Lord Whitelaw. The advice given from a Conservative Minister was that capital punishment could not be carried out in Northern Ireland. Capital punishment would be a mistake for Northern Ireland. I happen to think that it would be a mistake in the whole of the United Kingdom, but it would certainly be a mistake in Northern Ireland.
      If capital punishment were returned to Northern Ireland, I would radically change my views about policy for Northern Ireland. I do not believe in pulling out of Northern Ireland, but if there were capital punishment, I could no longer support staying there. I would not be prepared to say to the soldiers—many of whom come from my constituency and constituencies in the north of England and Scotland—"Go to Northern Ireland," because the reprisals would be enormous and would be based on the martyrdom of the past. There would have to be a complete reappraisal of policy in Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told us the interesting story of what happened in the Republic in 1922–23, when 81 people, perhaps more, were executed by military tribunal—that is the origin of the two political parties in the south. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are born of the six counties and the 26 counties by the killing of 81 people—I thought the figure was 78. In the election in the south in 1978, chalked on the pavement was the figure 78. It was held against Fine Gael that it was the 26-county party that had initiated—I had better be careful what word I use—the deaths of those people. That was still remembered all those years later.
      If our forces were not in Northern Ireland, I concede that similar action would have to be taken there. Regardless of legislation passed by the House, there would be killing because the hatreds born in the north of Ireland as a result of the activities of the provisiona IRA and others lie deep, but we do not know that here. We could have that view. I do not believe that a British Government could execute without trouble a Protestant, Catholic, Unionist or Loyalist—call them what one will. If we were not in Northern Ireland, the story of 1923 would be written again in the north.
      76
      The hon. Members representing both sides of the community in Northern Ireland represent a district where murder matters, where they see it and have heard about it for 20 years. The rest of us are different and that is why we are acting as we are. I could not possibly support capital punishment in Northern Ireland in particular or in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Gale: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to the debate held in 1988, which I sponsored, and my amendment. He said that the motion referred to what he called a "local option", which was quite incorrect and a misrepresentation of the motion before the House in 1988. That motion sought to reintroduce capital punishment as the maximum available sentence for murder. It is correct that, at that time, it would have been left to the court and the judge to determine whether capital punishment was a suitable sentence. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has refined that motion and turned it into something more legally acceptable, and I shall most certainly support him tonight.
      The argument in favour of the restoration of capital punishment must turn upon whether the House believes that for even a small number of murders, capital punishment is a deterrent. I believe that that is so, and for that reason alone I have consistently supported restoration and will continue to do so.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the hopelessness of a life sentence. He said that it was a terrible punishment to inflict on a man or woman who had committed murder, which was why the Government recognised, and it was now on the statute book in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, that murder should be penalised by life sentence. I believe that the life sentence has made the task of our police force immeasurably more dangerous.
      It is an absolute fact that, before the abolition of capital punishment, the professional criminal, as a matter of course, did not carry weapons. This afternoon we have heard anecdotal evidence about how the professional criminal would not only not carry a gun or a knife himself, but would search his colleagues before going out on a job to make sure that they were not "tooled up", because it was recognised that, if one used a weapon, all were liable and would face a capital sentence.
      Since abolition, it is an absolute fact that the incidence of armed crime has risen dramatically. My argument in support of new clause I is simply that we have a stark option. It is no longer possible to ask the men and women of our police force to go out and face armed criminals when they themselves are unarmed. I do not believe that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, would ask a young soldier to go out in Northern Ireland and face the IRA without carrying a gun, but that is exactly what we are asking the men and women of our police force to do.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an incentive for the armed robber to commit murder because, if he is arrested or confronted by an unarmed police officer who asks him to lay down his weapon, the criminal knows that, under existing sentencing policy, he is bound to get 20 years. Therefore, the incentive is for the criminal to shoot his way out of trouble.
      Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the incentive is there and I regret that it has been heightened by legislation passed by this Government. The last Criminal Justice Act and successive Home Secretaries have made it clear that the murderer will face life imprisonment, so the murderer carrying a gun has no disincentive to use it.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear from the evidence of recent cases that the criminals concerned went out armed with an arsenal of weapons and with every intention of using them? That is so clear that it is extraordinary that it has been suggested in this debate that robbers go out with guns but with no intention of using them.
      Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend makes the point more succinctly than I could have done.
      If 1—as I do—believe that we can no longer ask the men and women of the police to go out, unarmed, and face armed criminals, the choice before my right hon. Friend is to acknowledge either that we must afford the police the maximum possible protection and the deterrent of capital punishment, or that we must arm our police. It is as stark as that. I find the latter wholly unacceptable, and that leads me inevitably to the former.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) rested his case principally on the predicament of the police and of our soldiers in Northern Ireland—a theme that has run through several of our debates. I prefer the view of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who speaks with great authority as a former Secretary of State both of Northern Ireland and for the Home Department. He rightly drew attention to the views of Lord Whitelaw who, when in a position of responsibility, spoke forcefully about his change of mind:
      "I am … absolutely convinced …that in the days immediately before and after any proposed execution the police and the soldiers would be at increased risk. As a result, the effort to protect the lives of policemen and soldiers by making an example in the case of a death which cannot be reprieved would be likely to provoke more shooting and more risk of death than to reduce it."—[Official Report, 14 May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1029.]
      Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence, but of a kind that has commended itself to every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since the troubles started in 1969. We could almost begin and end the debate with Northern Ireland, because, if it is not possible for these reasons to espouse capital punishment in Northern Ireland, then for what crimes can we espouse it?
      As long ago as 1953, Sir Ernest Gower's Royal Commission on capital punishment pointed to the extraordinary multiplicity of crimes that go under the name of murder:
      "There is perhaps no single class of offences that varies so widely both in character and in culpability as the class comprising those which may fall within the comprehensive common law definition of murder."
      Few of us would regard any crime as more culpable than that of terrorism. If, for the practical reasons that have commended themselves to successive Secretaries of State, we are debarred from invoking capital punishment in terrorist cases, we are driven by logic and by the difficulty of these moral connections to the view that we must exclude capital punishment for all murders.
      It is strange that we have returned to this debate yet again. We last considered it within the lifetime of this
      78
      Parliament, and we decided, comprehensively and by a very large majority, that the case, which has been considered about 15 times since capital punishment was abolished, had not substantially changed. Of course it is right to reconsider these matters when public opinion is persistent in believing that capital punishment offers some way out of the problem of serious crime and of murder in particular, but I fear that the public, in espousing this commitment to capital punishment, may be looking for an easy answer to a very difficult problem.
      7.15 pm
      I accept the Home Secretary's analysis that the evidence of deterrence is inconclusive. Those who seek to argue that we should reintroduce capital punishment must discharge the onus of proof. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) attempted to do that, I thought unconvincingly, by referring to a number of articles about the American experience. I thought that the Home Secretary had already demolished that argument quite effectively, by looking at examples of American states that have retained or reinstated capital punishment and comparing them with those that have not, following the 10-year gap in its use. I am sure that he drew the right conclusion: that the evidence does not support the view that capital punishment is a uniquely effective deterrent.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton did not rest his case only on deterrence. He also invoked the argument of retribution—heard perhaps not so commonly in this House but often outside it. For my part, I regard retribution as a matter for the Divinity, not for the legislature of this country.
      I also find it hard to accept that those of us who have objections, not only of the practical kind that I have mentioned but also of principle, to capital punishment should be asked to bend our consciences a little to accept it in certain cases, some of which are set out in the new clauses. It is not as though we have no experience of trying to operate with categories of murder, drawing distinctions between moral turpitude of one sort or another. The Homicide Act 1957 ran for long enough to bring that notion into disrepute, and materially contributed to the abolition of capital punishment.
      Who can say that murder using explosives or firearms is morally more culpable than a long-planned poisoning for gain? But such a distinction could be the consequence of accepting at least one of the new clauses. It is impossible to draw up these nice categories and to apply capital punishment to some of them but not to others.
      Perhaps the newest argument advanced by those who want to reintroduce capital punishment relates to the proposal in new clause 4—that we should pass the ultimate decision from this House, and even from a jury, to the Court of Appeal. Capital punishment would be exacted in most cases—this was the burden of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton—but the Court of Appeal would have the right—indeed, the duty—to intervene and assess the evidence again. That is a strange proposition, bearing in mind the part that the court played in the Guildford cases, which must have given rise to some doubt about its suitability for a role of this sort, even if it wanted it. The Court of Appeal would not have heard the evidence which led the jury to convict. It would not have heard the witnesses and would have no sense of the trial. It would be quite wrong to impose upon a group of judges the duty of making a life-or-death decision.

      79
      I was surprised to learn from the Home Secretary that the Lord Chief Justice has categorically stated his view, and that it does not contain the kind of qualifications suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. The Lord Chief Justice has said that it would be inappropriate for judges to exercise that sort of discretion, and I take it that that is also the view of his fellow judges.
      It is bound to be a discretion. The hon. and learned Member for Burton says that it is Parliament that would have decided, but judges would have to exercise a discretion in life-and-death cases and it is not appropriate for us to ask them to do that. In 1953, the Royal Commission on capital punishment considered that proposition and was strongly against it. The Commission's report stated:
      "The responsibility of deciding whether a person convicted of murder should be sentenced to death or to a lesser punishment is too heavy a burden to be inflicted on any single individual. The sentence of death differs absolutely, not in degree, from any other sentence and it would be wholly inconsistent with our traditional approach to such issues to lay on the shoulders of the judge a responsibility so grave and invidious."
      That has always been the case in this country. There have been variations of the extent to which capital punishment has been applied, but in modern times they have added nothing to the variability of the judges.
      The new clause tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) raises new issues. As some hon. Members have said, that new clause is a welcome innovation, because it has brought to our attention the anomaly of the retention of capital punishment for treason and piracy. The repeal of capital punishment for those crimes should not depend on a review of the substance of the law. If we are persuaded, as I think most hon. Members are, of the inappropriateness of capital punishment, we need not wait for the decision of the Law Commission on the review of the substantive law.
      In an intervention during the Home Secretary's speech, I said that the codification of the criminal law, to which he had referred, is a task to which the Law Commission set its hand a long time ago and effectively completed. As the law rolls on, and as Parliament intervenes to amend the law, the task of updating that work of codification remains and will continue. The Committee has not been asked to give effect to the findings of the Law Commission on codification. No one could pretend for a minute that such matters are pressing. In future, they will simply slip out of the Home Secretary's action tray.
      I regret that the Home Secretary concluded his speech on a depressing and negative note, because the rest of his speech was entirely in accordance with the views of most Home Secretaries since 1965 and reflected his careful consideration of whether the settled mind of Parliament should be shaken by new factors. In this matter, Parliament's mind is settled, and there is no case for continual reconsideration of the issue. [Interruption.] I have had an experience which I do not think the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) has had. One of my opponents at the last general election stood with the sole intention of demonstrating the strength of feeling about capital punishment. That independent candidate attracted 686 votes.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclennan: I shall give way when I have finished my point.
      Mr. Boyes: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has only been here for 10 seconds.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady's views are well known, and she has intervened already. I shall be delighted to let her intervene again.
      Some people hold a strong view on the issue, and that was reflected in those 686 votes in my constituency. We must decide the issue ourselves, not by reference to popular opinion polls or plebiscites. We have been sent here to represent our constituents and to do our best in their interests as we conceive them.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: With the exception of the last 10 minutes, I have been here for the whole debate.
      I may well have had an experience that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has not had. After capital punishment had been abolished, I was defending a man charged with a particularly unpleasant murder of which he was subsequently convicted. Because capital punishment had been abolished, he was not very concerned about whether he would be convicted. If capital punishment had still been in force, he would have said to me, "I didn't do it, Miss." However, when I went to see him in his cell, I was staggered when he said to me, "I want two ounces of Cut Golden Bar, 10 Craven A cork tipped and a paper with the latest racing results." He would not have said that if capital punishment had been in force.
      Mr. Maclennan: Hon. Members can consider whether the hon. Lady has strengthened her case by that intervention.
      The main argument that must weigh with the Committee in reconsidering the issue is the fallibility of human judgment, the evidence that is presently in our minds that juries have made mistakes which, had the law remained as it was prior to 1965, would have resulted in innocent men being hanged. That is an overwhelming argument against reversing the settled view of Parliament.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The general sentiment that I have taken from the debate on this serious issue is that most hon. Members seem to think that those who spoke before them spoke for far too long. I shall be brief, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate.
      Hon. Members have said that having another debate on the issue is a bit of a nuisance. They say that we have decided on the matter and that there is not much point in debating it further. We have to impress on those who are opposed to capital punishment that the argument cannot go away, because on the basis of firm evidence many of us feel that innocent lives are being put at risk almost every day because there is no effective deterrent.
      Secondly, many of believe that the law in its present state is such that some determined criminals, especially armed criminals, almost have an incentive to use their weapons if they are caught on a job. No judicial system can prevent murder, but I and many reasonable people are convinced that the evidence clearly shows that many people could be deterred from committing murder.
      We have heard a great deal about people's views of the evidence and we have heard their assessment of the situation in America. I appeal to those who have doubts

      81
      about the clarity of the evidence to look at the splendid paper produced by the House of Commons Library. Page 9 is astonishingly clear and precise. It shows that, between 1945 and 1964, the year before abolition, there was not an increase but a reduction in the annual rate of murders from 346 to 296, and that from the moment when capital punishment was abolished, there was a sharp increase in the rate of murder. Those are not my opinions: they are clear, established facts.
      One can look at the figures in certain ways. One can look at convictions, which would be misleading because there might be more conviction when we had capital punishment than there were after its abolition. However, when one considers the number of bodies—the number of murders made known—the situation seems clear.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Rees: After the abolition of capital punishment, the classification of murder and manslaughter were changed, by virtue of the courts, so the hon. Gentleman may not be comparing like with like.
      Mr. Taylor: I have the greatest of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not matter how one classifies murders or manslaughters. 1 have here a table of the number of bodies—the number of people who have been killed—and the categories include manslaughter, infanticide and murder. The position is clear. The opponents of capital punishment cannot deny that total. From almost the moment of abolition, the number of bodies increased sharply.
      I challenge those who say that there is no evidence to explain why it was that, in the 20 years after the second world war, when there was plenty of uncertainty in life, including plenty of unemployment, we had a stable or reducing murder rate. Why was it that, after that, under Conservative and Labour Governments, when there was more prosperity, there was a sharp rise from under 300 a year in that 20-year period to 650 murders a year in the next 20 years?
      There is another piece of evidence that we cannot ignore. I appeal to those who are opposed to capital punishment to explain to me and to people outside why there has been an enormous increase in the use of guns in the commission of crime. It is not just a marginal figure of 10 or 20 per cent. We know that, with capital punishment, criminals in Britain rarely carried guns, but since abolition, guns have been used for quite petty offences. We are talking of enormous increases of hundreds of per cent.
      I hope that nobody will say that the figures for the murder of police are not relevant. The figures are clear. In the 25 years before abolition, 22 police officers were killed but in the 25 years since abolition, 53 police officers have been killed—a doubling of the figure. People may look at Japan and the evidence there for certain years in different categories, but the evidence is clear. For us, since we abolished capital punishment, there has been a sharp and sudden alteration in the situation.
      The one argument that must haunt every supporter of capital punishment, and the one argument from which we cannot run away, is that of the possibility of a mistake. Is there a likelihood that an innocent person could be hanged? However, even though that is desperately important, we must not forget that, since abolition, 59
      82
      people have been murdered by someone who has already been in prison to serve a sentence for homicide. We do not know what category they would be in.
      Another factor may arise in such cases. I have studied carefully the case of poor Timothy Evans. Although it appears from the evidence that he did not murder the person whom he was convicted of murdering, there is evidence that he may have killed somebody else.
      However we look at the figures, I ask hon. Members to think about the matter in terms of defence policy. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and even our delightful and splendid Home Secretary talking about the dangers to society of treating individuals in such a way. What on earth are they doing supporting our defence policy? Why do we have these terrible bombs, rockets and atomic weapons which can fry people alive, vaporise them or give them devastating long-term illnesses, and which cost so much money? We have them because we want to save life and we want to deter. These chaps are out in the Gulf now to deter war.
      I accept that it is important that we show great humanity in all we do, but it makes me think that there is something very strange when people who support defence policy to the hilt, remembering that pilots can make mistakes, bombs can drop in the wrong place and innocent people may be killed, change their ideas with capital punishment.
      I hope that hon. Members will support new clause 5. In it, I have tried to identify clearly those who can be deterred. If someone is carrying a weapon, he should not be, as he should not be carrying explosives, or going out with a clearly defined offensive weapon. Those who might kill a police officer or a prison officer can be deterred. My new clause has tried to deter such people and to leave the judge an escape clause if he feels that there are extenuating circumstances.
      Hon. Members are trying to kid themselves when they say that there is no evidence. The evidence is as clear as anything. Some Ministers at Conservative party conferences have tried to explain how well things are going on the basis of figures that are difficult to interpret. Those figures make the argument clearer than do many of the figures that I have heard quoted at Conservative or, dare I say it, Labour party conferences. We all know that if we do not agree to the reintroduction of capital punishment we shall, as a Parliament, deliberately be sentencing some innocent people to die. For that reason, we should support reintroduction.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I shall try to be brief because I realise that many hon. Members still wish to speak and it is important that they speak in this important debate.
      I shall concentrate on two points. The first is concerned not with Ireland or the situation in Northern Ireland but with Britain, because I happen to believe that the loss of human life is a tragedy whether the person is killed in Northern Ireland, Birmingham, Glasgow, or wherever. We are talking here about how we best express, through legislation, our regard for the sanctity of human life and for that which will protect the life of those who are charged with enforcing the law and those who happen to break it. The responsibility of society for those who break the law is as great as it is for those who enforce the law.

      83
      It is morally wrong, publicly and through legislation, to take away a person's life. It debases the legislation that allows it to happen. One of our problems in relation to the spill-over from terrorism not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the world is that it has comprised the law. Legislation has danced to the terrorists' tune. The Acts that the House has passed in the past five or 10 years show that the integrity of the law has been debased by the very people to whom we are addressing our message.
      One cannot defeat terrorism by the use of more stringent law. If it could have been done in that way, the problems of Northern Ireland would have been over long ago. Instead of damaging terrorism, it has damaged the law and people should be aware of that. Sooner or later, the Northern Ireland problem will be over—sooner, we all hope. The British system of law will have to be put together again and, if we agree to the new clauses, the ultimate sufferers might be people here who will have sacrificed what was an excellent system, based on the highest integrity, to pursue something that cannot be achieved by those methods.
      Capital punishment also dehumanises the society within which it is used. It uses the method of the terrorist because it takes the brutality of vengeance and violence, which are the hallmarks of the terrorist, and puts them into the court room and legislation. That debasing and dehumanising element is one that can become greater.
      When I heard about Japan's approach to these matters, I was astounded. What we heard about that country is not good. However Japan's approach is quantified in material terms, such legislation will lead to its ultimate detriment. Alarm bells should ring in this country. It is not so long ago that we saw what stemmed from Japan when the ethic of violence existed throughout its entire body corporate. As we all know, the results were horrific. The conclusions that the Japanese have appeared to draw could rebound on the very values that we want to protect and retain. We should be extremely wary about drawing the same conclusions.
      There is another reason why we should consider these matters clearly and with compassion within the Irish element. Many mistakes have been made. One of those mistakes was made in 1916, when people were executed. The poet, William Butler Yeats, summed up the situation better than most when he wrote
      "All changed, changed utterly:
      A terrible beauty was born."
      That was not because a few men took over the general post office in Dublin and started a shooting war. It was because they were executed. As Padraig Pearse said at the funeral of O'Donavan Rossa:
      "The fools; the fools; they have left us our Fenian dead."
      That martyrdom is the most potent factor within Republicanism in Ireland and always has been. To argue now that we should introduce martyrdom by reintroducing capital punishment is bad law and extremely faulty thinking.
      References have been made to Albert Brown. I agree with the decision not to execute him. If it had not been taken, it would have been impossible to control Belfast at that time. It would be impossible to control parts of Northern Ireland if a Republican were executed now. That applies to the Protestant community and the Catholic community. It would be deeply wrong if such an execution
      84
      were to take place. Lives would be lost—lives are always being lost in Northern Ireland—but something that is perhaps much more important would be lost, too—the ability to retain or sustain any semblance of peace or stability.
      Once that happened, the complexion of all that is happening in the north of Ireland would change. It would not change in the way that many Members of this place may wish it to change. In such circumstances the north of Ireland would become completely ungovernable, no matter what laws the Government of the day passed, no matter what army they had and no matter what force they were prepared to use. The change would be to the detriment of us all. We must never consider reintroducing capital punishment in Northern Ireland. If the House of Commons ever decided to do so, there would be enormous suffering for the entire community, and the results would be counter-productive.
      We have heard much about the execution of 80 people when the Irish Republic was in its infant days. Please let us not make a virtue out of that. It would be wrong to do so. Those who undertook the execution of the 80 were killing British soldiers only a few weeks before as they then fought against the British presence. No great virtue should be attributed to those who undertook the executions. They did not become involved because of decisions that were made in the courts. They carried out the executions as a result of the decisions of insidious military kangaroo courts.
      I happen to know something about the executions, because one of my relatives was a victim. That is Irish history. Irish history has not come to an end because of some of the things that have happened. Do we want more executions to take place? Do we want to draw political or legal conclusions from something of that sort, which was entirely illegal in any terms? We surely cannot draw any conclusions from such events.
      7.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) drew an entirely spurious conclusion when he said that the IRA had not been able to function properly in the Republic of Ireland since the executions. That is wrong. Whatever stringent methods were adopted—the actions taken were wrong and illegal—they were implemented by Irish people. The actions taken were not replicated in the north of Ireland because that was not a new, emerging Irish nation. In Northern Ireland the forces of Britain remained. That is why the decisions of the Republic were not taken in the north of Ireland. The right decision overall was taken in the north of Ireland, but whether that was for the right reasons is another matter.
      Capital punishment is not a deterrent. I do not want to draw any conclusions from cases that are pending. I have expressed my views on those cases on several occasions in the Chamber. I leave what I think is the most pertinent observation on the Guildford Four decision, and what I hope will be the right decision in respect of the Birmingham Six, to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). On 24 October 1989, in the context of the Guildford Four, The Guardian reported the right hon. Gentleman as saying:
      "My immediate reaction to Guildford was that this puts the kibosh on capital punishment … I was in favour of its retention. It took this case to tell me, 'Look. Pause. Reflect. What if they hanged innocent people?"

      85
      Those are the words, as I have said, of the Father of the House. He said that he had always been in favour of capital punishment, but that people should pause, look and reflect.
      Mr. Shersby: As the Committee knows, I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. It is right that I should declare that interest in speaking in support of the provisions that are set out in new clause 1. My remarks will be confined to that new clause, which concerns the murder of a police officer in the execution of his duty.
      Although I have the outside interest that I have declared, I wish to make it clear that my purpose is to express what I believe is the view of a large majority of my constituents, as well as that of the police in the federated ranks. The view is that, if Parliament and the people of our country have a claim on the police to protect them and to risk their lives on their behalf, the police have a claim, and a special one, on Parliament for protection. That claim is for a penalty which would deter all those who would consider killing a policeman to avoid the consequences of their crime.
      It is the view of many police officers to whom I have talked that the penalty which would achieve that end is a capital sentence. That has been confirmed by recent surveys of members of the federation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who referred to the federation this afternoon, will take account of that.
      This is not a debate about hanging. We are debating whether the state is prepared to take the life of those who kill in the course of crime, by whatever method is considered the most humane in the closing years of the century.
      As we heard form my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. and learned. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), it is a matter of fact that, in the quarter of a century that has elapsed since the abolition of the ultimate penalty, the number of police officers murdered has more than doubled. In recent years the Police Federation, at its central conference—which is attended by some 2,000 officers—has called for the restoration of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. That will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who speaks on police matters. There has been no attempt to establish different categories, in which some murderers would be liable to execution and others not, because, in the period before abolition, when the law made such distinctions and anomalies, the position was most unsatisfactory.
      The position is different today. The Police Federation supports new clause 1, which would restore the death penalty for the murder of police officers. That is based on the experience of three attempts to establish special deterrents for armed criminals as an alternative to capital punishment. All those attempts have failed and, in practice, there is no difference between the maximum penalty for the armed criminal who kills a citizen in the course of a crime, or one who wounds someone, or one who fires a weapon, or even one who carries a firearm. Both the Government and the House have, on each occasion, recognised the very serious nature of a crime involving the use of firearms, but there is little concrete evidence to suggest that the increased penalties have had any real deterrent effect. On the contrary, there has been
      86
      an inexorable rise in the commission of crimes by armed criminals. There can be no hon. Member who is not aware of that.
      I wish briefly to cite an example. On 13 April 1989, two armed robbers were shot dead in a shoot-out with police after an attempted raid on a post office in Rayners lane, West Harrow, which is only a couple of miles from my constituency of Uxbridge. Police called on the men to stop, but they did not do so. As a result, between 20 and 30 shots were fired in the gun battle that followed in a quiet, suburban, English street. The men fired on the police, using a Colt 45 pistol, a Luger automatic pistol and a sawn-off shotgun—a deadly armoury of weapons.
      One of the robbers killed had just been released from prison, having been sentenced to 17 years for armed robbery. So much for the deterrent penalty of a long sentence. He had escaped from Chelmsford prison in 1971 while serving 13 years for robbery and possession of firearms. Another dead robber had served several years for kidnapping a bank manager in the 1970s. What nice people. It is clear that prison sentences did not deter those men from carrying and using firearms in the commission of a crime—not even 17 years in one case.
      In extending sympathy to the relatives of the dead robbers, the acting deputy assistant commissioner saitd:
      "I have to say that we are dealing with a hard core of ruthless and sophisticated criminals."
      He said that those who armed themselves to shoot at the police would "face the inevitable consequences." Those armed robbers were not deterred by prison sentences, and they could be prevented from shooting the police only by the police returning fire. Because of the skill of the police, no innocent bystander was injured or killed, but the risk was there, and it had to be taken. It will have to be taken again and again and again unless Parliament resolves to deter those ruthless men.
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is making a clear statement of the increasing dangers and risks that our police face at a time of rising violent crime. Whatever may be felt in the Committee, there is no doubt about the apprehension that is felt outside it. If nothing is done and the trend continues, is it my hon. Friend's conclusion and that of the police who safeguard the public that, sooner or later, the police will have to be armed? What will be Parliament's answer to that?
      Mr. Shersby: My right hon. Friend has raised an important point, which I shall deal with in a moment.
      Hon. Members may remember that, only a matter of days ago, in a quiet Surrey suburb of Woodhatch, another armed robber was shot dead as his gang tried to hijack a security van thought to contain £1 million in cash. Again, the PT17 squad returned fire when under attack from the criminals. The police seized a veritable arsenal of guns, including a sawn-off shotgun, a revolver and two self-loading pistols. Can any hon. Member honestly say that those men took those weapons with them simply to give themselves a sense of security? Of course not—they were prepared to shoot and kill if they were caught.
      Hon. Members should not show any sympathy towards those who engage in such premeditated crime and who will kill, kill and kill again to resist arrest. Were those men deterred by the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which increased from 14 years to life imprisonment the penalty for possessing a firearm or imitation firearm when committing a crime or having been arrested for

      87
      criminal intent? Of course not. Parliament took that step after the most careful consideration, but raising the penalty from 14 years to life imprisonment did not stop such men, and it will not stop others.
      There can be no doubt that the job of a police officer in protecting the public—protecting us—is much more dangerous than it was in 1965, when the death penalty was abolished. The result, not sought by the police but caused by the stark reality of the position, has been to transform the police service from one that was almost wholly unarmed—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—to one in which firearms are part of the standard equipment of every force.
      Whether we like it or not, hundreds of police officers are trained and authorised to use firearms. Many officers, such as those engaged in specialist duties, have to carry them regularly. Is that what hon. Members want? I think not. Is that what the law-abiding citizen wants? I am certain that it is not. Is that what the average police officer wants? I can assure the House that it is not.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said, it has now become clear to the leaders of the Police Federation, 25 years after the abolition of the death penalty, that there is a significant change in the attitude of police officers to the carrying of firearms on duty. From the almost unanimous position taken a few years ago, there is now a small but significant body of police opinion, especially among the younger officers, that the regular arming of the police is inevitable.
      We need only look across the channel to France, where the carrying of sidearms is a fact of life, as it is in Spain, Germany and many other countries. It will be a fact of life in Britain before very long. The Police Federation very much hopes that that will not happen, but it cannot ignore current developments. Nor can we lightly dismiss the very real risks taken by unarmed police officers on our behalf.
      I wish to deal with one important question. It has been said several times this evening that there is no conclusive evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent. That may be so, but we must make our judgment based not on statistics that any clever advocate can use to argue the case one way or another, but on the use of our intelligence and our own eyes to see what is happening.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: I know of the hon. Gentleman's close relationship with the Police Federation. Does he agree that we should also judge something in which the police have expressed interest—what our European partners do? As the hon. Gentleman knows, all our European partners have given up capital punishment. He knows that the sign of liberation—[Interruption.] I should like to make my point. As a sign of liberation and of the rise of democratic and decent values, eastern European countries get rid of the death penalty as soon as possible.
      8 pm
      Mr. Shersby: The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully but, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, all police officers in those European countries are armed, and they are prepared to use their weapons as and when necessary.
      The moral question which we must consider is, does the state have the right to take the life of a citizen who murders
      88
      a police officer in the execution of his duties—those officers whom we have appointed to protect us and the great British public? I suggest that the answer is yes.
      If the Committee decides to reject new clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and others, only one solution will be available to the Police Federation and its members. In Committee or on Report, several of my hon. Friends and I will table a further amendment calling for life imprisonment to mean imprisonment for the rest of an individual's natural life.
      That is a little different from the situation described by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It would mean that no Home Secretary would ever have the ability to release, after a long period in prison, any individual who had been convicted. I put it to the Committee that there is a powerful argument for that measure, because successive Home Secretaries have told the House that they will not release those who kill a police officer in the execution of his duty. I see no objection to putting that provision into statute so that at least the police can be assured that the House of Commons supports them in their difficult job and that, if we are not prepared to restore capital punishment, at the very least anyone who kills a police officer in the execution of his duty will never again be free to do so.
      Sir Charles Irving: I am grateful to you, Miss Boothroyd, for giving me a few minutes in which to speak in the Chamber. I do not take much of its time. I do not particularly enjoy speaking in it. I have spent 40 to 50 years in and out of prisons, and I have ended up here. The issue has been fully debated over the past 10 years and I have had the privilege to be called in every debate. I have with me the speeches in five major debates. If anyone would like a copy, I should be happy to sell one.
      I have listened with great care and sympathy to those who take a totally different view to the one that I have held all my life, and I have no intention of changing it. In fact, it would be easier to change one's views than to go along with the crowd who would welcome hanging or whatever form of capital punishment is introduced. It is always easier to go with the throng, but I could not follow that course in any circumstances. Those of us who firmly believe in that view have a right to it just as much as other people have a right to the view that capital punishment should be reintroduced.
      Over the years, as I have gone in and out of various prisons in England and America, I have seen men and women in the condemned cell. I have been there on the Friday night of the fry-up, when the electric chair was to be used. The atmosphere, the terror and the misery, not just in the condemned cell but throughout the whole prison, were absolutely appalling.
      Mr. Janman: What about the terror of the victim?
      Sir Charles Irving: One of my colleagues asks, "What about the victim?" I sympathise with the victim. I was probably the first in this country to think it prudent to have a victim support scheme, and I started one in Bristol. Much more is now being done to help victims than was ever done during the formative years of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). If he wants to speak, he should stand up.
      There is no evidence in this or any other country that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. It simply leads to a coarsening of attitudes to human life. A 1965 royal

      89
      commission concluded that there was no deterrent effect. Recent surveys in the United States, where some states have the death penalty and some do not, show the same results.
      Terrorists are even less likely to be deterred than other murderers. They are fanatics, seeing themselves as fighting a cause higher than themselves, holding their lives at a low price. In the stages leading up to an execution, terrorists would have a strong motive for taking hostages, threatening to kill them and to intimidate all taking part in a trial, especially jurors.
      The fact that some supporters of capital punishment do not call for it in every case is an admission that it is not necessarily a deterrent. I find it particularly offensive to have a selection of whom one will or will not execute. We must not forget how difficult it was to differentiate between the types of murders that qualified for the death penalty under the Homicide Act 1957 and those that did not—poisoning and strangling were surely not notably morally better than shooting, but one carried the death penalty and the others did not.
      Under the 1957 Act, the murder of a policeman was a capital offence, but the murder of security guards, bankers and post office workers was not, even though they were also at risk because of their employment. Murder in the course of theft was a capital offence, but not other murders for gain. The problem of distinguishing between capital and non-capital murder would inevitably prove intractable if done on a selective basis. For example, a policeman chasing someone armed with a gun may be joined by a member of the public. If the criminal turns and shoots the policeman, some would argue that he should be executed, but if he shoots the member of the public, he should not.
      I accept that homicide rates have risen, and I sympathise with hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have expressed concern about the rise in violent crime. The published Home Office statistics include manslaughter and infanticide as well as murder. We cannot restore life to a man wrongly convicted and executed. There have been appalling miscarriages of justice in a land that prides itself on its rule of law and is the admiration of the world. But in the cases of Timothy Evans, the Guildford Four and many others, there is no pride in thinking what has happened in the name of justice.
      The reintroduction of the death penalty would place an intolerable burden on the jury. There is evidence that juries would rather acquit than have on their conscience the responsibility for sending a man to the gallows who might ultimately be found not to have committed the offence. Some argue that juries should have the power to recommend life imprisonment in capital cases where there are mitigating circumstances. For the first time, that would place on the jury and not on the judge the function of influencing the sentence. If a husband poisons his wife because she is dying a painful death from an incurable illness, a jury in one place may find that evil and recommend the death penalty whereas, in another area, a different jury may find otherwise.
      So many inconsistencies would arise from the proposals before the Committee. Suppose that a jury is allowed to make such a recommendation. Must it return a unanimous verdict? To do less would be to undermine the awesome nature of the punishment. If the verdict had to be unanimous, it would require only one juror who was opposed to capital punishment in conscience to refuse to
      90
      convict for the trial to be stopped and the jury discharged. Would it be right for the accused to stand trial again, and again to fear for his life?
      A far more constructive approach would be for certain categories of murderer to serve very long, determinate sentences with no parole. Personally, if I were in that position and had the choice, I should rather leave this world and go to a better one than serve a minimum of 20 years—perhaps 30—in prison, especially in the prisons that we have in Britain today, which are still a disgrace in Europe. One must congratulate the Home Office on doing its utmost, under extremely difficult circumstances, to improve the prisons, but there is a long way still to go.
      There can be no longer sentence than a mandatory, life sentence, which is a lifelong surrender of liberty. The existence of such a sentence would allow the Home Secretary, in deciding when a prisoner should be released —or whether he should not—to take into account the circumstances of the offence and the risk to the public. The Criminal Justice Bill proposes stricter criteria for the release of prisoners on parole, focusing on the risk of serious harm to the public. The proposed criteria make it likely that many offenders convicted of violent crime will not be released on parole.
      I urge the Home Secretary—if that is necessary, and I do not believe that it is—to continue his predecessor's policy of requiring those responsible for the worst categories of murder to serve at least 20 years. I would include those who kill policemen or prison officers, those responsible for the sexual or sadistic murder of children, terrorist murderers and those who use guns to kill in the course of robbery. Some murderers should never be released. I believe that that point has been fully taken into account by the Home Secretary and his advisers already, without the need for any further discussion in the House. Of the 26 adults convicted of police murders since 1965, none has yet been released. Of the life sentence prisoners convicted of homicide since 1966, eight have been convicted of homicide offences while on licence.
      The arguments against capital punishment are well known. They are so strong that they persuaded Parliament to abolish the death penalty in 1965. That has been confirmed by the House as the right decision every time that we have debated the issue since. This may well be my last speech before I retire. I hope that I shall find the vote acceptable.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) will not want me to follow him, as I take a completely different view from him. Nevertheless, we will be sorry to lose him. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman will not change his mind about capital punishment, he will change his mind about his retirement and decide to stay among us. I take a different view because I have been in prison—not just as a visitor—and I know something of what prison life is like.
      8.15 pm
      There is a part of Irish history that hon. Members need to get in perspective. We have heard a worthy speech from the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and also served at the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman gave his view—a Welsh view—of Irish history. We heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) give a different view. We heard the hon. Member

      91
      for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) give yet another view. I am entitled to put my view, and my view is a simple one. It has never been answered, and I urge those three right hon. and hon. Members to think about it.
      In the south of Ireland, after the signing of the treaty, there was a similar situation to that which prevails in Northern Ireland today. Under De Valera, the irregulars were killing their own people. Fathers were set against sons and sons against fathers. Total catastrophe lay ahead for the Irish Free State. There came into office a man called Kevin O'Higgins. He knew what Irish republican terrorism was about because he had been brought up in the school. He knew that the only way to deal with it was to introduce capital punishment for anyone who held a weapon to do murder. He proceeded accordingly. What happened? Peace was established. De Valera disbanded the irregulars and went into politics and there was a great change in the Irish Free State, which started on the road to democracy. There is no doubt about that.
      Mr. Mullin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not very concerned about the possibility of innocent people being convicted in the Guildford and Birmingham cases, but is he concerned about the four UDR men convicted in Armagh of a murder for which many people, including him, say they are not responsible? Would it trouble him if those people went to the gallows?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman had studied my remarks about the Guildford Four, he would know that he has totally misrepresented my view.
      Mr. Mullin: Tell us, then.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall develop my argument and, at the end of my speech, the hon. Gentleman will understand where I stand.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh painted his picture, saying that, if capital punishment came again in Northern Ireland, there would be an ungovernable, uncontrollable bloodbath. I heard similar speeches from members of the Social Democratic and Labour party when the hunger strikers died, the position would be uncontrollable and that the police and the Army would not be able to handle it. In other words, it would be curtains for everyone.
      Many voices were raised in this House in an attempt to stop the hunger strikers. However, they continued with their hunger strikes, and they died. I do not know how many hon. Members could name those hunger strikers. Indeed, very few people on the streets of Belfast could name those hunger strikers. The real martyrs in Northern Ireland are the police officers, the Army personnel, the UDR men and all the innocent people who have been murdered there. They far exceed in number those other martyrs.
      So far, 3,000 people have been killed and 30,000 have been maimed in Northern Ireland. Who are the martyrs? There are so many of them that the only people who weep after the funerals are the immediate family circle.
      Let us consider what has been said in the debate. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made an amazing statement. He said that the state does not have the right to take a life. If we believe that, we do not believe in the Army and we do not believe in those policemen who are trained to shoot. When those policemen face criminals or terrorists, they shoot and there
      92
      will be killings, because it is impossible for them to shoot to maim. People are going to be killed, and the House should be aware that the state has the right to take away a life.
      I recall a debate on this subject when I first came to the House 20 years ago. At that time, an Opposition Member said that no Christian could believe in capital punishment.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: No real Christian.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: All right, no real Christian.
      I asked that Opposition Member whether he thought that the Apostle Paul was a Christian and he said he did. Paul said that, if he had committed a crime worthy of death, he "refused not to die". The Apostle Paul believed in capital punishment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) who used to attend meetings in Europe with me, will agree that the Apostle Paul was a real Christian.
      I believe in the Christian philosophy of Government. The state has the power of the sword. The Government have an ordinance of God to deal with the evildoer and to defend those who do well. I believe with all my heart that the state has the power under God and under a system of justice to execute someone who takes away another person's life. I am not distinguishing between people now: I believe in capital punishment for all who commit murder.
      The majority of hon. Members are not living under the conditions that exist in Northern Ireland. They do not follow the coffins or try to help the widows and orphans. That is the daily lot of all of us in Northern Ireland, of all classes and creeds. I represent the whole of Northern Ireland in another place. I know how the votes were cast under proportional representation, and I know the number of Roman Catholics who voted for me. I sympathise with them, and I know that the tears of a Roman Catholic mother are the same as the tears of the Protestant mother. I know, because I have been to their homes. Letters have appeared in the press in Northern Ireland stating that I have visited those places. When that young women was murdered at Warrenpoint, I was one of the first politicians to visit her home.
      Those people who are suffering are calling on this House to do something. The prime weapon in the terrorist's armoury is to kill. They have that great weapon. They shoot to kill. Unless Parliament wakes up to the fact that we have to have the supreme deterrent to tell the terrorists that if they kill, they will be killed, the murders will continue.
      I regret what the Home Secretary said tonight and I also regret what has been said by the chiefs of police. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who is the spokesman for the Police Federation of Northern Ireland, is not here tonight to give the federation's official view that it is in favour of capital punishment. The spokesman for the Police Federation of England and Wales has put that view here tonight. I know that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone does not believe in capital punishment, but he should have been here to put the official view to the House. The Police Federation of Northern Ireland represents the policemen who are suffering and being murdered, and they believe that they need that deterrent.
      Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that the widows and orphans in Northern Ireland will find not one crumb of comfort from many of

      93
      tonight's speeches? If the House refuses to take a definite stand against the murderers who have struck in one part of the United Kingdom, the only folk who will find any comfort in Northern Ireland are the terrorists, who will know that the House is not willing to do the job that it should do—to defend the innocent.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with my colleague.
      I have been a Member of this place for 20 years. I recall that Frank Macguire was elected as hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He only came to the House on special occasions, but he always attended when there were votes on capital punishment. I asked him why he came here on those occasions, and he used to tell me, "You know the pressures that I would face if I was not here to vote against capital punishment." Those pressures came from the Provisional IRA.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: The House has a duty to listen with special care to what Northern Ireland Members have to say about this issue. Whether or not we agree with them, they are in the most literal sense in the firing line and it is absolutely right that they should express their views with clarity and force. I believe that the idea that every person who commits murder should be executed goes far beyond the bounds of anything that has been suggested so far. I do not believe that much support could be found for that proposition anywhere in the country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), in his strongly felt speech, told us that it was two and a half years since we last debated the subject and he felt that it was high time that we debated it once again. I must confess that it does not seem like two and a half years since we last debated it and when I learned of the debate, my first reaction was to say, "Oh, not again." It seemed pointless to go once more through the debate and the votes that will be similar to those that occurred on the previous occasions.
      I consoled myself by thinking that the impact of these repeated debates and repeated votes would make the public recognise that Parliament will not change its mind on the issue. Many people might regret that, but there is a growing awareness outside this place that continuing these debates is a little barren.
      When I counted my correspondence about this debate, I found one letter in favour of reintroducing capital punishment and one against. There is clearly a change of attitude among the public on the issue. Nevertheless, although an abolitionist, I have always thought carefully about the arguments that make up the subject of our debate. Two aspects in particular have made me think most carefully. One is deterrence and the other is terrorism. It is in those respects that the argument must be reheased most carefully.
      I am not one of those who dismiss the notion that deterrence can have an effect in penal concept. By and large, criminals are often more rational, or a t least calculating, than some people are prepared to accept. If one looks at the literature, as I have tried to do, one will see that—although the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seemed to be inclined to the opposite view—there is no clear-cut picture showing that deterrence simply does not work.
      94
      8.30 pm
      Perhaps the most balanced and authoritative assessment that I can find was by the doyen of British criminologists, Nigel Walker, in his book "Crime and Criminology". He said:
      "Naive beliefs both in the effectiveness and in the ineffectiveness of a policy of deterrence have been replaced by the less exciting realisation that for some length of time some people can be deterred in some situations from some types of conduct by some estimation of likelihood that they will be penalised in some ways; but that we do not yet know enough to enable us to be very specific about the time, the people, the situation, the conduct, or the subjective likelihood or nature of the penalties."
      That is very far from a clarion call, but it is a fair assessment of our state of knowledge about the impact of deterrence, and we should recognise it as such.
      It follows that it is very clear that the onus of proof lies with those who wish to change the present situation and move back to capital punishment. It is for them clearly to make out the case that the reintroduction of capital punishment would have a deterrent effect. I do not believe that they have been able to do so in this debate. I have never denied that there may be some cases in which a murder might not have taken place had we had capital punishment, but, overall, the argument must still be made strongly to move away from our present situation. Deterrence needs careful thought.
      The other matter that needs careful thought is that of terrorists. It is not true that all terrorists are fanatically oblivious of the risk of death. After all, they do not carry bombs on to aircraft on which they themselves are flying. The whole basis of aircraft security is that proposition. We must also accept that, in Northern Ireland, the criminal law is finding it hard to deal with terrorism. We have had some interesting discussion about the experience of the 1920s. The hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) argued that the execution by the Irish free state of a large number of IRA members had a deterrent effect that lasted for years. However, against that, we heard the views of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Those are important and difficult arguments to make.
      Against that, I firmly believe that, whatever we think about those points, other potent arguments should lead us to say that the restitution of capital punishment would be a great disaster. The first must be the possibility of error. At this stage, nothing much can be added to what has been said about the possibility of error. However, it has become vivid over the years that people have been convicted and that they would have been sentenced to hang, and we now know for certain that they did not commit those crimes.
      Even if some people would have been deterred from murder because of the threat of capital punishment, we must set that against the innocent people, or at least the people whose cases have not been adequately proven, if we are to make a fair judgment. I simply do not believe that public opinion, however initially sympathetic it may be to the idea of bringing back capital punishment, would welcome a succession of occasions on which mistakes of that gravity were made. If we refer back a generation, the Timothy Evans affair had a devastating effect on capital punishment at the time. Inescapably, the Guildford affair and those of other people who have been wrongly convicted would mean that public opinion simply would not tolerate the conviction of people who are not guilty.
      Mr. Janman: It it not the case that the reverse applies? The vast majority—99.99 per cent.—of convictions would be accurate. It certainly would not be the case that the public would see a succession of wrongful convictions. If the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) is correct, jurors are even more careful to make sure that, when they convict of murder, the evidence is absolutely clear. Surely, even compared with the 1950s and 1960s, that would reduce even more the chances of wrongful convictions.
      Mr. Raison: Jurors are as careful as they possibly can be. It cannot be argued that they have been light-hearted in their approach to such matters. The impact of even a limited number of cases in which convictions have proved unsound would be of devastating effect. As I said, that was so in the case of Timothy Evans. It is perhaps the strongest single argument.
      There are also arguments about practicalities. When one mentions practicalities, one is talking not only about technical details, but about matters of major substance. The first is who would ultimately decide whether somebody should be executed. That question has recurred in the debate. Should it be the jury, the judges or the Home Secretary? Somebody must make the decision. Already, new clause 3 has been shot to pieces by the position of the Lord Chief Justice and by the common sense of a situation in which one is asking the justices of the Court of Appeal to make decisions when many of them would come to those decisions with a passionate disbelief in the rightness of capital punishment. It would be an appalling burden to put on to those judges.
      At the same time, there is inherent in new clause 3 the idea of an instant retrial. The new clause includes the notion of a special sitting of the Court of Appeal which would be allowed to look at matters which had not been considered in the original trial. That is an extraordinary idea. I can see why it would sometimes be necessary, after the passage of time, but to have it as an instant sequel to those cases would be very difficult. It would pose tremendous problems for the Home Secretary to carry the decision. Many of our Home Secretaries have been strongly opposed to capital punishment.
      In every respect, those arguments are most difficult. There is then the matter, which I shall not embellish, of who would carry out the execution, and how. Tremendous problems flow from that.
      We must recognise the prospect of an appalling, morbid, bizarre public interest in the sequence of events. We have seen on television American criminals in death cells. I do not think that that would necessarily happen here, but there would be a tremendous hyping-up. Our popular newspapers would go to town in the most lurid way. There would be demonstrations and pickets, and possibly public disorder. We should not be blackmailed by such activity, but it would create a climate that would make it extremely difficult in practice to carry out more than a few such executions.
      Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend says that we should not be blackmailed by the arguments. Does he accept that it might not be blackmail and that it might be a very good thing not to allow that to happen? We could be looking at blood lust and the dehumanising of society rather than
      96
      being put under pressure to opt for capital punishment. I do not think that we should be apologetic. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree with me.
      Mr. Raison: I come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend. Capital punishment in the modern world would be deeply repellent in many ways.
      There is also the difficult question of what would be deemed capital murder. Two of the new clauses propose that the killing of a police or prison officer should be deemed sufficient to bring back capital punishment. I find it hard to accept that the law enforcement services should be singled out in that way. We owe a tremendous amount to them—I owe a tremendous amount to the police in my constituency and have great respect for them—but it does not make sense to pick out one group in the population. Let us consider, for example, a bank robbery in which both a Securicor guard and a policeman were shot dead. The killer of one would be liable to execution, but the killer of the other would not. If that sort of nonsense happened, it would tear apart the proposition we are considering.
      I do not believe that the police themselves are strongly committed to that proposition. It is not for me to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who ably represents the Police Federation, but I am absolutely certain that many policemen in this country would dislike the idea that they and they alone should receive that special protection. That proposition is no more sustainable than the argument that it is worse for a service man to be killed in war than a civilian.
      Finally, we return not to questions of formal logic or rationalisation, but to one's own profound beliefs in the kind of society and world for which one is working. These are the things that are hardest to put into words. One knows what one believes and one knows that, with equal conviction, honesty and sincerity, others believe the opposite. However, to take the step of bringing back on to the statute book the execution of those who have committed murder would be to retreat from the peaceable kingdom that we want to see. Therefore, I hope that the House will once again reject the new clauses.
      Mr. David Mudd: Tragically, murder is no stranger to my constituency. By a bizarre coincidence, today is the 27th anniversary of the very day in 1963 when two men were hanged—one in Bristol and one in Winchester—for the murder of a farmer in my constituency. The motive for their crime was robbery, and the sum they gained was £4. For £4, three people died—the farmer and the two murderers. One of the two men later claimed to have been a victim of the supernatural. Having been cautioned, he asked the interviewing officer, "We are over 21, so I suppose we can hang?"
      During the 20 years that I have represented my constituency, we have, since the abolition of the death penalty, had four more identified murders. In the case of one, the offender was committed to an institution. In the second case, the offender used what is known as "the Portsmouth defence"—which I understand is a polite way of saying that he used undue and unnecessary violence in responding to an improper sexual advance—and, as a consequence, received what many people would regard as a light sentence. In the third case, the Director of Public Prosecutions was reluctant to proceed because he was not

      97
      happy with the evidence, and in the fourth case, the magistrates decided that there was no prima facie evidence against the accused on which to commit him for trial.
      The point that I wish to make is that, in the case of the murder for £4, the two men—on the admission of one—still proceeded with the crime, despite their awareness that the gallows was the logical and inevitable consequence of the commission of that crime. To them, the death penalty was not a deterrent. Nor could it have been—had it existed —at the time of the four more recent murders. Therefore, in my opinion, the death penalty per se is not a deterrent to anybody embarking on an act that can result in an unlawful killing. Indeed, if from the works of Hogarth and Rowlandson we can see that, when public execution was the penalty for something as minimal as stealing, pickpockets stood in the crowd near the scaffold and plied their skill and trade while a felon was dangling before them as a solitary example and deterrent.
      Again, the suggestion would seem to be reinforced that the criminal's mind does not, at the time he is committing the crime, dwell on the penalty likely ultimately to be inflicted by society. Indeed, it could be argued that the real deterrent for somebody embarking on any crime, be it a civil "crime", a non-violent crime or an unlawful killing, is probably based more on, first, being seen; secondly, being informed against; thirdly, being detected; fourthly, being convicted; and only then, fifthly, as a last consideration, the question of the possible penalty.
      8.45 pm
      Yet having said that, my own gut reaction is still that capital punishment has an important role in the armoury of law and order. The public want it; the public call for it and they feel that they would be much more secure with it. The police and prison services believe that their front-line task of detaining and then containing violent and vicious people would be made more secure and safer were the death penalty still to exist in this country.
      The House disregards at its peril the joint cry of people, police and prison officers for what they see as the ultimate protection rather than the ultimate deterrent. Therefore, tonight, as in every similar Division since 1970, I shall support the reintroduction of capital punishment, as encompassed in new clause 5.
      Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I intend to be brief. This is either the 22nd time that we have discussed this matter—according to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—or it is the 19th time, but as we come back to this subject time and time again, I want to make one protest. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that perhaps the public are beginning more and more to realise that this House is not minded to change its view. I know not whether that is actually happening, but it would be a benefit.
      However, something else is happening at the same time. We are cheating those of our constituents who think that we will change our view. In fact, it is very unlikely that the House will change its mind. I have no doubt that the majority tonight will be similar to those in the past. It should be noted that that majority will be led by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—and will include the whole Cabinet, with one possible exception. It would be interesting if the House were to change its mind.
      98
      What would the Government do? What would be the constitutional position? We have a free vote only when the Government know what the result will be.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we have had free votes in the past, but that has not always been the case. There was trouble with the Homicide Act 1957, which was driven through on a three-line Whip. The Government needed it and used it. My protest is simple. By constantly returning to this subject, we do no good —and we do no good to many of our constituents also.
      If I had been minded to change my mind, that would have been made impossible for me by what has happened in the past few years. When I last addressed the House on this subject, I gave the House a list of 10 cases that had been referred, by Home Secretaries over the years, back to the Court of Appeal. With varying degrees of certainty, but in each case, the cases were rejected, and it was said that those previously found guilty were not guilty. We should now add to that the case of the Guildford Four, on which I have just one brief comment. Nobody could conceivably read the summing up or look at the evidence given 16 years ago—this is not criticism of either the judge or the jury—without inevitably concluding that we would have used capital punishment at that time if it had been available. We did not use the death penalty.
      It is noticeable that when the case came before the Court of Appeal on the final occasion, the Director of Public Prosecutions did not fight the case. He said, "1 have looked at the new evidence and I have decided that I am not even prepared to ask the court to continue with this case. I ask the court to quash the conviction." Those men were wrongly convicted. That is the phrase I use. If we had used capital punishment, they would have been murdered in our name.
      Mr. Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief speech in this debate but regret that I follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), with whom on this occasion I find myself in profound disagreement.
      I wish to speak to new clause 2, tabled in my name, to which there have been many references in the past almost three and a half hours debate. It is supported by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who is the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and others.
      When my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) opened the debate, he said that there had been criticism that the debate was taking place. That sentiment was echoed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is argued that only two and a half years ago the general subject of capital punishment was well debated and on that occasion the House rejected the reintroduction of the death penalty. I do not apologise for tabling one of the new clauses that led to the debate. I remain wholly unrepentant. It is right that the Committee should consider the broad theme which—I agree, in an amateur way—I have sought to convey in the wording of my new clause. The death penalty should be imposed on
      "A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed as, or in pursuit of, an act of terrorism.".
      Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hunter: Not for the moment.

      99
      Not all hon. Members realise that, in the two and a half years since we last debated the theme, over 500 people have died in the United Kingdom as a result of terrorist activities. Almost 2,500 have been injured. As far as I have been able to discover, that is a macabre and unwanted United Kingdom record for any two-and-a-half year period. Therefore, I make no apologies for introducing the theme of capital punishment.
      After a terrorist outrage, the reintroduction of the death penalty is high on the agenda in pubs, clubs and homes throughout the country. It is entirely right that, during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill the Committee should debate capital punishment and I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate.
      As the arguments for and against the reintroduction of the death penalty are so well known, one can be extremely brief. One can speak more in paragraph headings than in substantive detail. I shall concentrate on two things. First, I wish to explain why I am convinced that the death penalty should be restored for murder committed as, or in pursuit of, an act of terrorism. I use the word "convinced" advisedly, because for me this is conviction politics. I have not always believed in the reintroduction of capital punishment. During my adult life I have changed my views and I now believe that it should be reintroduced. Secondly, I shall refer briefly to one argument that is often used against the reintroduction of capital punishment, an argument that we have heard this evening.
      Let us have no illusions. By any diabolical criteria of judgment, terrorist murder is among the most cruel, calculated, callous and deliberate of all murders. In general, the modern terrorist is a highly sophisticated, highly trained and highly equipped dealer in death. In the United Kingdom, the terrorist effectively declares war on a free, open, liberal and democratic society. That is far removed from the armed struggles of liberation movements in countries with oppressive regimes.
      I stress immediately that, in describing terrorism as war waged against society, one makes no concession to any claim for recognition of status, which the terrorist often makes. "War against society" is merely the appropriate description of the terrorist's use of the bomb and bullet.
      To return to fundamentals, the state exists to promote and protect the interests of the individual. It is the state's duty to fight terrorism. I argue that the death penalty is an essential weapon in the armoury of the state in its on-going fight against terrorism and that, by failing to use it, as is now the case, the state fails in its twin obligations of fighting terrorism in the most effective way and protecting and promoting the interests of the individual in the most effective way.
      First and foremost, the reintroduction of the death penalty for terrorist murder would be a moral statement of our total and utter repugnance of terrorism. It is surely right that our repugnance should be demonstrated by reserving for terrorist murder the ultimate sentence that courts can pronounce.
      Secondly, the reintroduction of the death penalty for terrorist murder would bring due retribution to the terrorist murderer. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggested during his interesting speech that retribution should be left to the divine. Neither of us is fully qualified to pursue the debate, but I have always
      100
      understood that an essential part of Christian theology is that the state has its part to play in the divine ordering of things. The blood of the innocent cries out for vengeance. We should be able to look to the state with confidence for that vengeance. The murdered and the maimed deserve no less.
      Thirdly, the terrorist most emphatically sees the death penalty as a deterrent. To fail to understand that is to fail to understand the psychology of the terrorist. If any hon. Member believes that the IRA, for example, does not regard the death penalty as a deterrent, I respectfully suggest that he or she is profoundly mistaken.
      If the IRA does not regard the death penalty as a deterrent, why does it inflict the death penalty on its members who break its code? It does so because it believes that by so doing it will deter others from following that course of action. If the IRA would welcome the reintroduction of the death penalty, as some hon. Members have argued this evening, why did it plead against the death penalty when Joe Cahill, the last member of the IRA to be in this position, was under sentence of death in the Republic of Ireland? The IRA did so because it was frightened of the impact that the execution would have on its movement.
      9 pm
      If the IRA does not fear the reintroduction of the death penalty, why did it threaten that, were capital punishment reintroduced, three British soldiers would die for every member of the IRA hanged? If the IRA does not fear the reintroduction of the death penalty, why did it try to intimidate this House against making such a decision by the brutal murder of six people on the day when we debated this subject in July 1983? It was because the IRA was frightened that we might vote for reintroduction.
      Remember, the death penalty has never been abolished in Northern Ireland. It continues to this day in the form of tit-for-tat, sectarian murders. The greatest terrorist threat to the United Kingdom in Great Britain and Northern Ireland comes from the IRA. My straightforward plea and heartfelt conviction is nothing other than that IRA murderers should hang.
      What about the Guildford Four? Every Member of Parliament and everyone who addresses the subject must come to terms with that. Let us keep the matter in perspective. There is no compelling evidence that the Guildford Four would have hanged—[Interruption.] Neither the police nor the jury would necessarily have behaved as they did had the death penalty been in existence. The death penalty did not exist in the 1970s, so the argument about whether innocent people might have hanged is purely academic. The relevant question is whether the Guildford miscarriage of justice could happen again. Much has been said and written about that. In my opinion, it could not.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hunter: In a moment.
      Recently, a senior police officer said:
      "One thing is certain, no juror will ever forget Guildford."
      In the aftermath of Guildford and, perhaps, Birmingham, which Crown court jury in a trial brought on the basis of confession evidence will set much store by that evidence? Certainly, jurors will be mindful of the possibility that what is being presented to them is what Lord Lane described as a "choreography of perjury".
      Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if, following the reintroduction of capital punishment, no jurors will forget Guildford, the likely logic is that they will fail to convict?
      Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and those of us who propound the reintroduction of the death penalty must come to terms with it. I concede that convictions would be harder to secure. The Guildford and Birmingham cases are salutary experiences for our process of justice. Because of that, we can have more, not less, confidence that justice will be done.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: Our great anxiety is that nobody can know what the court would have said to the Guildford Four if capital punishment had existed. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, his is wishful thinking. He does not know. At the end of the day, there was a risk, although how big it was is debatable, that those convicted by the courts could have been hanged by the neck.
      Mr. Hunter: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is more important that I proceed. I sense that other hon. Members wish to speak.
      The tragedies of Guildford and, perhaps, Birmingham, coupled with the reintroduction of the death penalty, will make it virtually certain that such miscarriages of justice never occur again.
      In conclusion, let me summarise my argument simply: I have no hesitation in saying that our fight against terrorism, most especially IRA terrorism, will be stronger and more effective if the death penalty is restored.
      Mrs. Peacock: I should like to confine my remarks to new clause 3. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the new clause was not compatible with British justice. In that case, he should introduce a suitable clause that is compatible and technically correct, so that the death penalty is returned to the statute book.
      This subject generates more heat than light, and deeply held personal convictions are rarely swayed. Capital punishment is a moral question as well as a practical policy matter, and one strand cannot be separated from the other. In the short time available to me, I cannot hope to change views and I believe there will be precious few floating voters in the Lobby tonight. I shall, however, set out some of the arguments for and against capital punishment while suggesting, on balance, that those in favour are more convincing.
      Whatever the Committee decides, if we had a national referendum today it would demonstrate overwhelming support for the reintroduction of capital punishment—to be used as and when necessary rather than for a specific category of crime. I should explain that I have had for many years deeply held convictions about capital punishment that have not been arrived at lightly or without serious consideration of the moral issue involved. I can merely recount my personal views, but I believe that they are widely supported in the country, as they are in my constituency.
      There have been 17 debates in the House in the past 30 years, all of which have resulted in an abolitionist stance on capital punishment. It was removed from the statute book for a trial period and then absolutely in 1969. The arguments for and against have been well rehearsed and
      102
      are widely known. We all agree that there is little new that one can add to the argument, but it is right that we should respond to the many people who feel that this matter should be debated from time to time.
      I believe that capital punishment would be the supreme deterrent. In evidence, I draw attention to the fundamental changes that have taken place in society since the partial abolition of the death penalty in 1965 and its full abolition in 1969. Recent tragic events, many in Ulster, and the recent murder of two consultants at Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, are graphic examples of the fact that the possession of and resort to lethal weapons has become commonplace in Britain. Only this year, an elderly lady constituent of mine, aged 92, was murdered in her house, which was part of a terrace, at 6 o'clock at night, but nobody heard the attack and, as yet, no one has been found responsible for that dreadful crime. At one time, such attacks were associated with metropolitan areas only, but now they are widespread.
      Figures on crime can be made to say different things. It is true, however, that those figures reflect the general increase in the level of crime and the fact that, in the past couple of years, there has been an increase in willingness to report crime. No absolute proof for or against capital punishment can be obtained from figures. The deterrent effect of capital punishment cannot be proven by statistics. It is impossible to calculate how many people would be deterred from carrying and using firearms if capital punishment was available to the courts.
      I do not accept the argument that many criminals in the course of a burglary carry arms just in case—if they do not intend to use them, they should not carry them. A misleading argument that is often advanced by abolitionists is that the reintroduction of capital punishment would encourage a nothing-to-lose attitude among certain sections of the public, but I assure the House that such an attitude already exists on our streets.
      So far, the undercurrent of my speech has been that murder has become commonplace. There are those who argue that the absence of capital punishment is the mark of a civilised society, but the hacking to death of a policeman in our streets in recent years or the gunning down of security guards or other innocent people who come between thugs and their goal surely cannot be the marks of a civilised society. The criminal law in this country simply no longer provides credible sanction for the most heinous form of wrongdoing. Surely we are all agreed that something must be done.
      The majority of people in this country are in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty. According to polls conducted in recent years for national newspapers, a steady 90 per cent. of the large samples interviewed support the substance of the measure. The strength of feeling in constituencies where I have spoken around the country has not, and does not, alter. There is a strong feeling that the death penalty would act as a deterrent.
      Only this past weekend, the Yorkshire Evening Post—a well-known evening newspaper in Yorkshire—carried out its own referendum. The result was that 2,505 callers were in favour of capital punishment and 444 were against. That referendum was conducted between the newspaper coming out on Friday afternoon and midnight that evening. BBC Radio Leeds carried out a poll this morning during a short 20-minute programme, when 327 people

      103
      phoned in in favour of the death penalty and 37 against. They are only small samples, but they show the general feeling throughout the country today.
      I realise that we are here as Members of Parliament and not delegated to put forward the exact views of our constituents, as trade union representatives might do at a conference. However, we have a responsibility to represent our constituents' views in debates in the House. We should do the best we can to protect our constituents' interests. If people in this country decide that their interests are best protected by the death penalty as a sanction for murder, who are hon. Members to decide differently? Do we all have secret information that persuades us to decide otherwise?
      Mr. Wilshire: We have our consciences.
      Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend says that we have our consciences—we should have a conscience for the victims. We have heard a great deal today about what happens to the actual murderers, but little mention in the House about the victims, their families or the follow-on from such tragic events. We have a right to look at those responsibilities.
      We should not take a paternalistic or arrogant attitude to matters in this debate just because we have been elected and have two letters after our names. That does not make us different from other people; it does not mean that we should not listen to the views of our constituents. It is high time that we as Members of Parliament came down from our ivory towers, did what the people of Britain want us to do and supported the reintroduction of the death penalty—as we should do in the Lobby tonight.
      Sir John Stokes: I shall speak briefly on new clause 4. We all agree that treason is one of the most horrible and foul crimes—that has always been so in England and in any civilised society. It seems utterly extraordinary that the movers of the new clause have chosen this time to bring forward the new and revolutionary idea of letting off traitors with a prison sentence. Have they no knowledge of recent history? Do they not know the immense damage that a catalogue of traitors has caused to the country since the war, from Blunt to Blake and from Philby to any number of lesser traitors? What sort of signal does the new clause send to any evil-minded person who might consider becoming a traitor? Why reduce the sentence for the most heinous of crimes just at this time because of a liberal, wishy-washy idea that has no support from our constituents except among the chattering classes and possibly readers of The Guardian?
      The people whom we represent are troubled today as never before by crimes of violence. They are troubled by terrorism and, from time to time, by treason. Have the movers of the new clause any idea of how ordinary people feel about these grave matters? Listening to the speeches of some hon. Members today, I have been amazed by how out of touch with their constituents they seem to be.
      9.15 pm
      We are sent here to represent ordinary, decent, law-abiding people who look to us to uphold the full rigour of the law. We have all English history behind us. This afternoon, I looked up in the Library the Treason Act 1351, which in part states:
      104
      "When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen, or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King's … Daughter … or if a Man do levy War against … the King … they ought to be judged Treason".
      We would all say amen to that.
      Those who support the new clause stand opposed to centuries of English history. Their views are those of a tiny minority, completely out of touch with public opinion. The new clause deserves to be decisively rejected.
      Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I shall vote in favour of new clause 1 and have lent my name to it because I believe in the sanctity of life and I am in favour of saving life, not taking it. It is only by having a deterrent that life will be saved. It is particularly appropriate that I should have been called this evening, since I am the only Birmingham Member to have spoken apart from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and the word "Birmingham" has occurred time and again in the debate and been used for various purposes.
      The terrible explosions that night took place in New street at the Tavern in the Town, a pub kept by one of my councillors, and at another pub. Both were blown up. Incredible carnage was wrought, not by accident or mistake but by design—and not against the state, but against innocent people, whose blood ran through the gutters of Birmingham that night.
      The people of Birmingham are in no doubt whether they believe in capital punishment as a deterrent. This evening's Birmingham Evening Mail, which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will not have read yet, announces that it has just conducted an in-depth analysis of its readers' views. They have overwhelmingly, knowing all the facts of this and other matters, declared that more than 85 per cent. of them are in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment at this opportune time for a debate, when there is a new Prime Minister and a new Home Secretary.
      I am a comparatively new Member of the House, having been here only since 1979. I have taken part in seven debates on the subject and have voted in favour of the death penalty in all 15 votes—as I shall again tonight. Let us not denigrate the views of the people whom we represent. They are the views of the democracy that we are supposed to translate into this Chamber. They are expressed concisely in this evening's Birmingham Evening Mail editorial, which says of Members of Parliament:
      "They claim to consider matters on a higher plane than the gut emotional reaction of voters who put them there in the first place. The arguments mainly ranged against reintroducing the death penalty are that it is inhumane, that it does not act as a deterrent and that miscarriages of justice cannot be rectified. This last point is likely to weigh heavily on MPs … But the man in the street clearly remains unconvinced. Unfortunately for public opinion, MPs are not."
      My views and those of my constituents are crystal clear. Britain has rejected a policy that has been successful in other areas, the philosophy of the deterrent. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wishes to speak, he should ask you, Sir Paul. He has not been here very long and I should be obliged if he would allow me to proceed.
      The philosophy of the deterrent has been successful in the other areas in which it has been used. Without the deterrent of the nuclear bomb, we should not now be disarming and seeing peace and diminishing aggression.

      105
      We are told that the figures are unclear. The homicide statistics are palpably clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has explained. The number of homicides decreased substantially from 1946 to 1964, but they doubled between 1969 band 1989. Such points are made elsewhere in an excellent book that I have—the Government statistics. The Spanish figures on page 16 show that, after capital punishment had been abolished, homicides per million of the population rose from 5 per cent. in 1978 to 23 per cent. this year. Similarly, the Japanese percentage declined by half when capital punishment was in force.
      The last page shows the American statistics, which reveal that the percentage per million is lower where capital punishment is in force than where it is not. That is sustainable country by country, perimeter by perimeter, sector by sector. When I last moved and spoke to a new clause in 1983 which proposed capital punishment for the murder of a policeman while performing his duty, it failed by only 81 votes, the smallest margin by which such a new clause has failed since I entered Parliament.
      I hope that hon. Members will look not only at their consciences but at the statistics. I hope that they will bear in mind our responsibility to the people whom we represent. Overwhelmingly they tell us that there is a tremendous case to do what they, under our democratic system, have asked us to do, and reintroduce capital punishment for specific types of crime, including murder.
      Mr. Sayeed: The last judicial execution occurred 27 years ago today in Horfield prison, Bristol. Some of the older residents of Bristol remember it well in a variety of ways. They view capital punishment with either repugnance or great anger. We can all understand the repugnance. For the state to kill a person is repugnant. We must also understand what their anger is about: it is caused by their feeling that this Parliament of the people neglects the people's views. It does so partly because the format for our debates is too rigid. We have to codify, to use clear legal language and to be specific. We have to vote on a specific legal measure, and this can be limiting.
      We should have the opportunity to debate the principle of capital punishment before deciding on any aspect of it. We should have the opportunity to answer this question: does the state have the right to authorise its servants to take life outside times of war or to save life? Put simply, is judicial killing right? Only when that question has been answered can we answer the questions about what methods may be used or to what crimes capital punishment should be applied or what safeguards are necessary.
      Many arguments have been adduced for and against capital punishment, but they fall into three groups. First, the suggestion is that it is never right to take life. That is a perfectly honourable and respectable view to hold, but it is naive.
      Secondly—I am using shorthand terms—is capital punishment a deterrent? We have been told both that it will and will not deter terrorists. I believe that the first terrorist who is judicially executed may be a martyr, but the following ones will be mugs. To support that argument, I ask who remembers the names of those who died through the hunger strikes. Bobby Sands is probably the only one who will be remembered.
      People also query whether capital punishment will deter the domestic murder. Although there is no proof, it is said
      106
      that it will not. Thirdly, we come to one of the most serious arguments—one that should not be ducked—against capital punishment, and that is the possibility of making mistakes.
      My answers to the queries are as follows. First, the state has the right to take life. Secondly, except for those who are intent on self-immolation, and there are only a few of them, we can be certain that the death penalty will at least not encourage murder. I believe, and common sense tells me, that it is likely to deter some murders. On the third point, there is a possibility—it may be only theoretical—given appropriate safeguards, that mistakes can be made, as men are not infallible. Mistakes have been made in letting murderers out from gaol. Some 59 people have been murdered by people who have been let out of gaol after committing other murders.
      A society that treats life, rather than how life is led, as the most precious thing, should demonstrate its utter repugnance of the actions of certain individuals. It can do that by exercising the ultimate sanction of judicial killing.
      I do not agree with all the new clauses. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has tabled an interesting new clause. I agree with its aim, but not with its specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has suggested that the murder of police officers should attract the supreme penalty. I disagree with him. Why should police officers be singled out as those who should be especially protected? After all, they enter a profession—it is one that we value—knowing the risks that are involved. They are paid to be police officers. Why, as others have asked, should a police officer who tries to apprehend a criminal and is shot make that criminal liable to a capital sentence when he would not be subject to that risk if an ordinary civilian tried to apprehend him?
      Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend give way on that?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: No, I shall not give way. I have little time available to me, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
      I support capital punishment. I shall support the cause of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale but only because I support the principle behind it and believe that that principle should be implemented.
      This is an important debate. As we are discussing an issue that will not go away, it would be for the benefit of the House of Commons if in future we could come to a decision on the principle of capital punishment before arriving at decisions on related specifics.
      Mr. Janman: I shall speak to new clause 3 and then turn to some of the wider arguments that stem from it. At this stage in a debate it is almost certain that I shall be repetitious, and I apologise in advance should that prove to be so. It is interesting that new clause 3 answers some of the concerns that have been expressed about the reintroduction of capital punishment. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have asked, "If we believe in the deterrent effect of reintroducing capital punishment, why should the deterrent apply only to certain categories of murder?" The new clause does not suggest in its provisions that prison officers, policemen or any other members of society will be protected by the deterrent effect and that others will not. It will apply to all cases of murder.

      107
      As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, the new clause would mean that someone who committed murder would not know what the eventual outcome would be. Thus, while providing a deterrent effect, the clause provides a safety net or a second hurdle. It means that, after the case has been heard and the initial court has convicted, or found the defendant guilty, and imposed a sentence of capital punishment in accordance with legislation placed on the statute book by Parliament, there will be a period of review. The new clause would ensure that the Court of Appeal would have an opportunity to ensure that there were no mitigating circumstances that should lead to the sentence being commuted to life imprisonment.
      New clause 3 is the most comprehensive of the proposed new clauses that we are considering. It is the most logical, and it is the one that will take us nearest to the position that pertained before abolition. There was capital punishment then, but it was used judiciously and not merely for the sake of using it.
      I support capital punishment because it provides a deterrent. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) quoted statistics, and others have repeated them. It is worth homing in on the statistics, because they are so important. They are British statistics that relate to the experience and history of our country and to those whom we represent. It is a fact that the murder rate has more than doubled from about six per million to over 12 per million since abolition. There are those who say that crime generally has been increasing—I accept that the rates of many different types of crime have increased—but between 1945 and 1964, when the murder rate stayed on a plateau, the background to that was a doubling of crime rates generally. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was perhaps being optimistic when he said that, during that period, the murder rate declined.
      It was not against a background of crime in general remaining static. The fact that crime has been rising from 1965 does not nullify the fact that, between 1945 and 1964, the murder rate was on a plateau, but that since the abolition of capital punishment it has more than doubled.
      Much use has been made tonight of foreign statistics. As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), in the United States as a whole—we must remember that many of its states retain capital punishment—the murder rate between 1970 and 1988 rose only from 7·9 per 100,000 of the population to 8·4 per 100,000. That country has many communities and cities which, unfortunately for them, are some of the most violent and homicidal in the world, yet its murder rate has risen only marginally while Britain's has more than doubled.
      Statistics for individual states in the USA can be used to draw all sorts of different conclusions by any person with good powers of analysis. The figures for individual states conceal more than they reveal. For example, the ratio in one state may be different from that in another simply because of an influx of people to that state, none of whom has committed murder. We cannot draw too much on the statistics for individual states, but the overall murder rate for the USA as a whole has hardly changed since 1970 because many individual states retain capital punishment.
      108
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) pre-empted some of what I had intended to say when he referred to Spain and Japan. However, it is worth recording that Japan has retained capital punishment for murder. Unlike previous speakers, I do not propose that we should extend the remit of the courts to impose capital punishment for other sorts of crime. The number of murders in Japan since 1974 per million of the population has fallen from 17·4 to 13·8. In Greece—a country that my hon. Friend did not mention—where capital punishment was abolished in 1972, the murder rate increased from 8·7 per million in 1974 to 15·4 in 1986.
      I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) say that there was no evidence to prove the deterrent theory. I could accept an hon. Member saying that it is difficult to conclude from the statistics whether there is a deterrent effect, but my close study of the statistics leads me to believe that it is without foundation for anyone to say that the statistics do not, at the very least, leave room for doubt. If the statistics from various countries point to anything, they point to the fact that capital punishment deters.
      Let us talk not just about statistics, but about real life. In the east end of London—which is near my constituency—and in some parts of Essex, it would be optimistic to suggest there there is not a large number of people who embark on criminal activity. My constituents tell me all sorts of anecdotes about what used to happen and what happens now. In days gone by, when capital punishment existed, criminals checked each other to ensure that they were not carrying what is known in my part of the world as a shooter. They knew that, if one of their colleagues carried a gun, they could all swing for it. That self-policing and that desire to reduce the enthusiasm of their criminal colleagues to carry guns have been negated by the fact that the ultimate deterrent, capital punishment, does not exist.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) said that, if he were faced with the option of a 20-year sentence or capital punishment, he would choose the latter. I wonder whether he would still say that if death were facing him. Death is and must be the ultimate deterrent. I do not believe that any man who was sentenced to death would refuse the possibility of his sentence being commuted to life imprisonment, and that is the real test. A legal historian last century, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, explained why. He said:
      "All that a man has, will he give for his life. In any secondary punishment, however terrible, there is hope; but death is death; its terrors cannot be described more forcibly".
      That historian summed it up in a nutshell. A person sentenced to life imprisonment will always have the hope that some do-gooder will come along and convince the Establishment and the authorities that he should be let out and that at some time he will again have his liberty and see the light of day.
      Another main reason why I support bringing back capital punishment is public opinion. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he did not believe that the state should have the power to take a person's life. What did he mean by the "state"? Did he mean the British nation state which, as many of us observe, is gradually being undermined? Did he mean the Government? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, if he means the Government—I assume that he does—he is talking about a Government acting on behalf of the citizens of the state.

      109
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley put it so eloquently, lucidly and passionately, every opinion poll has shown that the citizens of the state, the people who should decide what the state does on these issues, are wholeheartedly in favour of bringing back capital punishment. The support for bringing back capital punishment is just as strong in Thurrock as it is in the fine city of Birmingham.
      I do not like reading out long quotes, but I should like to quote a letter that Enoch Powell wrote to The Daily Telegraph in 1974. I choose that man because he was an abolitionist and voted against capital punishment. He wrote:
      "I should be the last to imply that a Member of Parliament ought to subordinate his judgment of what is wise or right to even the most overwhelming majority of opinion. If he believes a thing harmful, he must not support it; if he thinks it unjust, he must denounce it. In those judgments the opinion of those he represents has no claim over him. But capital punishment is not for me in that category: it is not self-evidently harmful, nor self-evidently unjust. I cannot therefore deny that in this context a settled and preponderant public demand ought to be taken into account or that at a certain point it would have to prevail.
      I do not believe that point has been reached; but it would be disingenuous for me to deny that it could exist."
      I contend that we have now reached that point. If the views of people in my local pub are anything to go by—we have all heard views put to us in our local pubs—people are even more in favour of reintroducing capital punishment than they were in 1974. Several people said to me, "Ten years ago, Mr. Janman, we did not support capital punishment, but now, with terrorist offences and the increase in the number of child murders, we believe that this must be looked at again. We believe that Parliament has got it wrong."
      Let me return to the comments of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He said that the state should not have the power to take a person's life. He was very honest about it; he said that, even if he thought that the deterrence argument was correct, he would still hold to that view. But who is the right hon. Gentleman and who are those who vote against capital punishment to impose their moral and ethical views of capital punishment on the majority of people in this country? The majority of people—and, presumably, if the polls are correct, the majority of those whom the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook represents—want capital punishment back. The general view of people in this country is that it is not immoral to vote for capital punishment. Given the proven case for the deterrent effect, I contend that it is immoral to vote against something which would save a large number—probably hundreds—of innocent lives every year.
      I had intended to speak for longer, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) and others wish to speak. Parliament must reflect on the fact that the vast majority of people in this country, who live in the real world and with the real consequences of abolition—a vastly increased murder rate—want capital punishment back. Let us vote to bring it back tonight.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Without mincing my words, let me say that the House of Commons always fails to reflect public opinion on this matter. Every opinion poll and every radio survey tells us that the people of Britain would like the
      110
      ultimate deterrent to be put in place. When I came to the House, I vainly thought that my small influence on the Back Benches would produce a country where women could walk to their friends' and relations' houses and to the shops without fear of being raped or murdered, where the elderly could go out after dark and were safe in their own homes and where children could play without fear of being molested or murdered. That is not the sort of society that we have produced, and I will tell the House why: we do not have the ultimate deterrent to the most evil offence.
      The police, who are at the sharp end of the game, have to detect and apprehend criminals. They want capital punishment restored. Who are we to deny our unarmed police that facility? It is absolutely disgraceful. Does anyone in the Committee know how much it has cost so far for Myra Hindley and Ian Brady to be kept in a mental hospital and in prison? It has cost £250,000. Much of that money is paid out of the taxes of the bereaved whose little children they murdered and buried one mile above my house in Saddleworth moor. Today, we would have to find something like £500,000 to sustain someone convicted of murder in prison for 30 years. That is absolutely disgraceful.
      What sort of people are we? I will tell the House. Our armed forces are the envy of the world. General Eisenhower said that he would rather serve next to a British soldier than any other service man in the world. If we are strong on defence—if we are the sort of nation that will not be pushed around—why are we so woolly-headed and mealy-mouthed about capital punishment?
      We should take note of the speech made by the reverend Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who sees his people being killed day after day and visits the bereaved whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. For the murder of a police officer or prison warder, for going to commit a crime with a weapon, and killing, and for the murder of a child, people ought to suffer the rope. It is retribution—perhaps it is revenge—but, my goodness, it is the ultimate deterrent. Dr. Johnson once said that nothing concentrates the mind like the imminent fear of death.
      Sir Winston Churchill said, "Trust the people." Why does Parliament not trust the people? Whatever papers we read, the public demand capital punishment.
      Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dickens: No, the hon. Member made a long speech earlier.
      It is absurd that we are having this debate today. There have been only a few by-elections since 1988. Those of us who want the reintroduction of capital punishment are on a hiding to nothing, because we know the stance that most hon. Members will take. The debate keeps the ball in play, but it encourages people to believe that we might be successful tonight. We should really have held fire and allowed my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to settle in a bit. We should have had time to work on him. We should have waited for the next general election and an increased Conservative majority. We would then have got capital punishment through Parliament.
      It gives me no great pleasure to vote for someone's death. That is against all my beliefs as a Christian. However, I am prepared to vote for it, because the state has a duty to protect its citizens. Parliament is a long way

      111
      from protecting the citizens. If we do not control the most evil of crimes and set a tough tariff, judges will give carpet-slipper sentences instead of using hobnail boots.
      Whether we win the vote or not, we need capital punishment. Those who say that we do not need it are weak. When those people were selected, they were asked where they stood on capital punishment. Most of them said that they supported it, but they do not support it once they became hon. Members. They only said that they would support it because they were grovelling for a seat in Parliament. Right hon. and hon. Members should follow me into the Lobby and vote for the restoration of capital punishment.
      Mr. Wilshire: I can agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) only to the extent that this debate is a little premature. If we are to re-run the debate, the circumstances should have changed. I accept that a general election leads to a change of personnel in this place, and it would then be appropriate to re-run the debate. However, since 1988, only one thing has changed. The list of those who might have been hanged has been extended by four in the case of the Guildford Four. If we take that change into account, the majority against the reintroduction of capital punishment tonight should be higher than it was last time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) both said that Christianity calls on the state to kill. They said that as if it was the definition of what Christianity said. I hope that they and others will accept that other people reach the opposite conclusion when they consider the Christian approach to capital punishment. Some believe that the state should kill, but I believe that the state should never kill.
      Deterrence has been debated at great length, but it has not been proved. If we are to restore capital punishment using deterrence as the argument, that argument must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt before we start once again to kill people in circumstances in which the facts can be taken one way or the other.
      No one took up my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he referred to the process of killing. He asked the House to consider, if we were to approve the new clause, which method of killing we would prefer. He asked us to consider which would be the most efficient method. Should we inject, should we electrocute, or should we gas? With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, whichever method we were to choose, some of us would consider every single method barbaric. If efficiency is to be one argument—again, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, if we are ever again to hear the argument that the economics of keeping people in jail is one reason for capital punishment—I shall despair of the future of the House and of democracy in this country.
      The debate started with the argument that the punishment should fit the crime, as though that somehow justified capital punishment. Many people from whom I hear argue like that because life does not mean life. There are plenty of ways of making the punishment fit the crime. That is not a logical argument that leads only to capital punishment.
      112
      We also heard the argument that we have now somehow refined the system and that we have now somehow changed the Acts of Parliament so that mistakes will never be made again. If you look at Hansard, Sir Paul, you will find that, after every mistake, it was said in this place that we had changed the system and that it would not happen again. Even if there is a 1 per cent. risk of just one more innocent person in this country ever being killed by the state, that is the most powerful reason for not reintroducing capital punishment.
      On new clause 4, hon. Members heard the debate about whether we should abolish capital punishment for treason. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—I am afraid I do not follow his logic—said that, if we were to vote to change the law on treason, we would somehow indicate that we accept that law and want to see it operate. The opposite could just as well be true. If we were to reject the call to abolish capital punishment for treason, it could be argued that the House indicated that it wants that Act to be enforced and that it wants capital punishment to stay on the statute book and to be used. The choice is clear.
      The only point on which I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was his statement that he could understand why the Armed Forces Act 1971 should be left out. I cannot see any reason to leave on the statute book anything that requires capital punishment for crimes under that Act. If we have an opportunity for the Armed Forces Act to be amended, that is what should happen.
      The last point that I want to tackle is the comment that has been made to me when hon. Members have given way and allowed me to intervene. It is summed up by the hon. Member who asked, "Who are we to ignore our constituents?" We must never confuse disagreeing with ignoring. There is a great difference. I do not ignore my constituents, I just profoundly disagree with them. What do we owe our constituents? We owe them not only our enthusiasm and hard work but our integrity. If we were to listen to some constituents, we would be listening to the mob. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, on these issues, we would. I have a horrible feeling that, if we were to listen to opinion polls and act accordingly, we would have some nasty conclusions about the coloured population of this country and some nasty conclusions about people with alternative life styles. I hope that we shall never follow the route of the mob. We owe our constituents our integrity.
      If, like me, Sir Paul, for all your adult life you had been opposed to judicial killing, and if you had believed that it was obscene for the state to take life in that way, you would agree that it was a pretty shoddy thing and a shoddy way in which to treat your constituents to say, "I will curry favour with you and abandon my principles." You should stick to those principles, Sir Paul, and remember, as I said last time—it bears repeating—when you shave in the morning, make sure that you like what you see in the mirror. If we abandon our self-respect, we are of no use to our constituents.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): The Chairman of Ways and Means said at the beginning of the debate that the Chair would listen to the arguments used and then decide on which new clauses Divisions would be available. The first Division will be on new clause 1. After that, if the Committee so desires, Divisions can take place on new clauses 3, 4 and 5.
      The first Division is on new clause 1.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [13 December], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 350.

      Division No. 30]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Fry, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Allason, Rupert

      Gardiner, George

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Atkinson, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Beggs, Roy

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gregory, Conal

      Bendall, Vivian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Grylls, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hague, William

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hannam, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hayward, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hill, James

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hind, Kenneth

      Brazier, Julian

      Holt, Richard

      Bright, Graham

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Burns, Simon

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Butcher, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Butler, Chris

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jack, Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Cash, William

      Jessel, Toby

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Chapman, Sydney

      Key, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Kilfedder, James

      Churchill, Mr

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Knapman, Roger

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Colvin, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Lang, Ian

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Cran, James

      Lightbown, David

      Davies, Q. (Stami'd & Spald'g)

      Lord, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Day, Stephen

      Maclean, David

      Devlin, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Dicks, Terry

      Malins, Humfrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mans, Keith

      Dover, Den

      Marland, Paul

      Dunn, Bob

      Marlow, Tony

      Durant, Tony

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Eggar, Tim

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Evennett, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Fallon, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Favell, Tony

      Mills, Iain

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      French, Douglas

      Mudd, David

      114

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stokes, Sir John

      Neubert, Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Norris, Steve

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Page, Richard

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Paice, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Thorne, Neil

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thurnham, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Redwood, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Trimble, David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Trippier, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Trotter, Neville

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Viggers, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Ward, John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Watts, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Sims, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Speed, Keith

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Stevens, Lewis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mr. Teddy Taylor.

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Adams, Mrs. Irene

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Alton, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Amos, Alan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Anderson, Donald

      Buckley, George J.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Burt, Alistair

      Ashby, David

      Butterfill, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Caborn, Richard

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cartwright, John

      Battle, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Beith, A. J.

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Bellotti, David

      Clay, Bob

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Benton, Joseph

      Cohen, Harry

      Benyon, W.

      Coleman, Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Corbett, Robin

      Blair, Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blunkett, David

      Couchman, James

      Boateng, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cox, Tom

      Boswell, Tim

      Critchley, Julian

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Crowther, Stan

      Bowis, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Boyes, Roland

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      115

      Curry, David

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dewar, Donald

      Illsley, Eric

      Dixon, Don

      Ingram, Adam

      Dobson, Frank

      Irvine, Michael

      Doran, Frank

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Janner, Greville

      Douglas, Dick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Fatchett, Derek

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Knox, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lambie, David

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Latham, Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Flynn, Paul

      Leighton, Ron

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Foster, Derek

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Foulkes, George

      Lewis, Terry

      Franks, Cecil

      Lilley, Peter

      Fraser, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Livingstone, Ken

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      George, Bruce

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McAllion, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      McCartney, Ian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McFall, John

      Gordon, Mildred

      McGrady, Eddie

      Gorst, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gould, Bryan

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Graham, Thomas

      McKelvey, William

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McLeish, Henry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Grist, Ian

      McMaster, Gordon

      Grocott, Bruce

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ground, Patrick

      McWilliam, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Madden, Max

      Hardy, Peter

      Madel, David

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harris, David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mallon, Seamus

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Maples, John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Marek, Dr John

      Haynes, Frank

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Henderson, Doug

      Martlew, Eric

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Maxton, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Meale, Alan

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Mellor, David

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Home Robertson, John

      Michael, Alun

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howells, Geraint

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoyle, Doug

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      116

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Short, Clare

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Sillars, Jim

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Needham, Richard

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Nellist, Dave

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Snape, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Squire, Robin

      O'Brien, William

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steen, Anthony

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Parry, Robert

      Stern, Michael

      Patchett, Terry

      Stott, Roger

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Strang, Gavin

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Straw, Jack

      Pendry, Tom

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Price, Sir David

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Radice, Giles

      Turner, Dennis

      Raffan, Keith

      Vaz, Keith

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Randall, Stuart

      Walden, George

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Redmond, Martin

      Wallace, James

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Waller, Gary

      Reid, Dr John

      Walley, Joan

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Richardson, Jo

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Robertson, George

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rooney, Terence

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wilshire, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wilson, Brian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ryder, Richard

      Worthington, Tony

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wray, Jimmy

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Peter Bottomley and

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Stuart Bell.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the said Order, to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour.

      New Clause 3

        PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER
        '(1) Subject to the following sub-sections the penalty for murder shall be death.

        (2) No person aged under 18 years shall suffer the death penalty.

        (3) As soon as practicable following a sentence of death, a special sitting of the Court of Appeal shall be convened to consider whether the circumstances of either

        (a) the commission of the offence or

        (b) the offender

        whether or not such circumstances were adduced in evidence at the trial, are such as would justify the substitution of a sentence of life imprisonment in place of the sentence of death.

        117

        (4) This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Lawrence.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 367.

        Division No. 31]

        [at 10.15 pm

        AYES

        Adley, Robert

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Alexander, Richard

        Grylls, Michael

        Allason, Rupert

        Hague, William

        Arbuthnot, James

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Hannam, John

        Arnold, Sir Thomas

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Hayward, Robert

        Atkinson, David

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Hill, James

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Holt, Richard

        Beggs, Roy

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Hunter, Andrew

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Jackson, Robert

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Janman, Tim

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Jessel, Toby

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Key, Robert

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Kilfedder, James

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Knapman, Roger

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Butcher, John

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Butler, Chris

        Knowles, Michael

        Carttiss, Michael

        Lang, Ian

        Cash, William

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Lightbown, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Lord, Michael

        Churchill, Mr

        McCrea, Rev William

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Conway, Derek

        Malins, Humfrey

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Mans, Keith

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Marland, Paul

        Cormack, Patrick

        Marlow, Tony

        Cran, James

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Day, Stephen

        Mills, Iain

        Devlin, Tim

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Dicks, Terry

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Dover, Den

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Dunn, Bob

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Durant, Tony

        Moss, Malcolm

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Mudd, David

        Evennett, David

        Neubert, Michael

        Fallon, Michael

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Favell, Tony

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Norris, Steve

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Paice, James

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        Pawsey, James

        Forth, Eric

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        French, Douglas

        Redwood, John

        Fry, Peter

        Riddick, Graham

        Gale, Roger

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Gardiner, George

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Gill, Christopher

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Shelton, Sir William

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Sims, Roger

        Gregory, Conal

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        118

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Trotter, Neville

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Speed, Keith

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Viggers, Peter

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Stevens, Lewis

        Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Ward, John

        Sumberg, David

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Summerson, Hugo

        Warren, Kenneth

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Watts, John

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Whitney, Ray

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wilkinson, John

        Thome, Neil

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Thurnham, Peter

        Wood, Timothy

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Tracey, Richard

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Tredinnick, David

        Mr. Ivan Lawrence and

        Trippier, David

        Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Canavan, Dennis

        Adams, Mrs. Irene

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Allen, Graham

        Carrington, Matthew

        Alton, David

        Cartwright, John

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Amos, Alan

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Anderson, Donald

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Ashby, David

        Clay, Bob

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Clelland, David

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Ashton, Joe

        Cohen, Harry

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Coleman, Donald

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Colvin, Michael

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Corbett, Robin

        Barron, Kevin

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Battle, John

        Couchman, James

        Beckett, Margaret

        Cousins, Jim

        Beith, A. J.

        Cox, Tom

        Bellotti, David

        Critchley, Julian

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Crowther, Stan

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

        Cryer, Bob

        Benton, Joseph

        Cummings, John

        Benyon, W.

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Curry, David

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Darling, Alistair

        Blair, Tony

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Blunkett, David

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Boateng, Paul

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

        Body, Sir Richard

        Dewar, Donald

        Boswell, Tim

        Dixon, Don

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Dobson, Frank

        Bowis, John

        Doran, Frank

        Boyes, Roland

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Bradley, Keith

        Douglas, Dick

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Dykes, Hugh

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Eadie, Alexander

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Eastham, Ken

        Buckley, George J.

        Eggar, Tim

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Burt, Alistair

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Butterfill, John

        Fatchett, Derek

        Caborn, Richard

        Faulds, Andrew

        Callaghan, Jim

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        119

        Fisher, Mark

        Lambie, David

        Flynn, Paul

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Latham, Michael

        Foster, Derek

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Foulkes, George

        Leighton, Ron

        Franks, Cecil

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Fraser, John

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Freeman, Roger

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Lewis, Terry

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Lilley, Peter

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Litherland, Robert

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Livingstone, Ken

        George, Bruce

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        McAllion, John

        Gordon, Mildred

        McCartney, Ian

        Gorst, John

        McCrindle, Sir Robert

        Gould, Bryan

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Graham, Thomas

        McFall, John

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McGrady, Eddie

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Grist, Ian

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Grocott, Bruce

        McKelvey, William

        Ground, Patrick

        McLeish, Henry

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Maclennan, Robert

        Hardy, Peter

        McMaster, Gordon

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        McNamara, Kevin

        Harris, David

        McWilliam, John

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Madden, Max

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Madel, David

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Haynes, Frank

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Mallon, Seamus

        Heath, Rt Hon Edward

        Maples, John

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Marek, Dr John

        Henderson, Doug

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

        Martlew, Eric

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Maxton, John

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Home Robertson, John

        Meacher, Michael

        Hood, Jimmy

        Meale, Alan

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Mellor, David

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

        Michael, Alun

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Howells, Geraint

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hoyle, Doug

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Morley, Elliot

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Mullin, Chris

        Illsley, Eric

        Murphy, Paul

        Ingram, Adam

        Needham, Richard

        Irvine, Michael

        Nellist, Dave

        Irving, Sir Charles

        Nelson, Anthony

        Janner, Greville

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        O'Brien, William

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        O'Hara, Edward

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Kennedy, Charles

        Page, Richard

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Parry, Robert

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Patchett, Terry

        Knox, David

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        120

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Soley, Clive

        Pendry, Tom

        Spearing, Nigel

        Pike, Peter L.

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Squire, Robin

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Prescott, John

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Price, Sir David

        Steen, Anthony

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Stern, Michael

        Radice, Giles

        Stott, Roger

        Raffan, Keith

        Strang, Gavin

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Straw, Jack

        Randall, Stuart

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Rathbone, Tim

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Redmond, Martin

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Reid, Dr John

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Richardson, Jo

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Robertson, George

        Trimble, David

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Turner, Dennis

        Rogers, Allan

        Vaz, Keith

        Rooker, Jeff

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Rooney, Terence

        Walden, George

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wallace, James

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Waller, Gary

        Rowe, Andrew

        Walley, Joan

        Rowlands, Ted

        Walters, Sir Dennis

        Ruddock, Joan

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Ryder, Richard

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Sheerman, Barry

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Wilshire, David

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wilson, Brian

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Winnick, David

        Short, Clare

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Sillars, Jim

        Worthington, Tony

        Skinner, Dennis

        Wray, Jimmy

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Mr. Peter Bottomley and

        Snape, Peter

        Mr. Stuart Bell.

        Soames. Hon Nicholas

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 4

        ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY
        '(1) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1790, for the words "hanged by the neck until she or they be severally dead" there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".

        (2) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1814, for the words "hanged by the neck until such person be dead", there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".

        (3) In section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837, for the words "suffer death" there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".'.—[Mr. Archer.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 289.

        Division No. 32]

        [10.30 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N)

        Ashby, David

        Allen, Graham

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Alton, David

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Amos, Alan

        Ashton, Joe

        Anderson, Donald

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        121

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        French, Douglas

        Barron, Kevin

        Fyfe, Maria

        Battle, John

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Beith, A. J.

        George, Bruce

        Bell, Stuart

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Bellotti, David

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Gordon, Mildred

        Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

        Gould, Bryan

        Benton, Joseph

        Graham, Thomas

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Bitten, Rt Hon John

        Grocott, Bruce

        Blair, Tony

        Ground, Patrick

        Blunkett, David

        Hardy, Peter

        Boateng, Paul

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Body, Sir Richard

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Bowis, John

        Haynes, Frank

        Boyes, Roland

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Bradley, Keith

        Henderson, Doug

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Hinchliffe, David

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Home Robertson, John

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Buckley, George J.

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Caborn, Richard

        Howells, Geraint

        Callaghan, Jim

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cartwright, John

        Illsley, Eric

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Ingram, Adam

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Janner, Greville

        Clay, Bob

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Clelland, David

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Cohen, Harry

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Coleman, Donald

        Kennedy, Charles

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Corbett, Robin

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Knox, David

        Cousins, Jim

        Lambie, David

        Cox, Tom

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Critchley, Julian

        Leighton, Ron

        Crowther, Stan

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Cryer, Bob

        Lewis, Terry

        Cummings, John

        Litherland, Robert

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Livingstone, Ken

        Dalyell, Tam

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Darling, Alistair

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        McAllion, John

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        McCartney, Ian

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

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Dewar, Donald

        McFall, John

        Dixon, Don

        McGrady, Eddie

        Dobson, Frank

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Doran, Frank

        McKelvey, William

        Douglas, Dick

        McLeish, Henry

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Maclennan, Robert

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        McMaster, Gordon

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        McNamara, Kevin

        Eadie, Alexander

        McWilliam, John

        Eastham, Ken

        Madden, Max

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Mallon, Seamus

        Fatchett, Derek

        Marek, Dr John

        Faulds, Andrew

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Fisher, Mark

        Martlew, Eric

        Flynn, Paul

        Maxton, John

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Meacher, Michael

        Foster, Derek

        Meale, Alan

        Foulkes, George

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Franks, Cecil

        Michael, Alun

        Fraser, John

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        122

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)q

        Sheerman, Barry

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Short, Clare

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Sillars, Jim

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Skinner, Dennis

        Morley, Elliot

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

        Mullin, Chris

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Murphy, Paul

        Snape, Peter

        Nellist, Dave

        Soley, Clive

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        O'Brien, William

        Steinberg, Gerry

        O'Hara, Edward

        Stott, Roger

        O'Neill, Martin

        Strang, Gavin

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Straw, Jack

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Parry, Robert

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Patchett, Terry

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Pendry, Tom

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Pike, Peter L.

        Turner, Dennis

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Vaz, Keith

        Prescott, John

        Wallace, James

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Walley, Joan

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Radice, Giles

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Raffan, Keith

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        Randall, Stuart

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Redmond, Martin

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Reid, Dr John

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Richardson, Jo

        Wilson, Brian

        Robertson, George

        Winnick, David

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Rogers, Allan

        Worthington, Tony

        Rooker, Jeff

        Wray, Jimmy

        Rooney, Terence

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Rowlands, Ted

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Ruddock, Joan

        II Mr. David Wilshire.

        Sedgemore, Brian

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Burns, Simon

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Burt, Alistair

        Alexander, Richard

        Butcher, John

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Butler, Chris

        Allason, Rupert

        Butterfill, John

        Arbuthnot, James

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Arnold, Sir Thomas

        Carrington, Matthew

        Atkinson, David

        Carttiss, Michael

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Cash, William

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Baldry, Tony

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Batiste, Spencer

        Chope, Christopher

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Churchill, Mr

        Beggs, Roy

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Benyon, W.

        Colvin, Michael

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Conway, Derek

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Boswell, Tim

        Cormack, Patrick

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Couchman, James

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Cran, James

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Curry, David

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Day, Stephen

        Brazier, Julian

        Devlin, Tim

        Bright, Graham

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Dicks, Terry

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Dover, Den

        123

        Dunn, Bob

        Latham, Michael

        Durant, Tony

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Eggar, Tim

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Evennett, David

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Fallon, Michael

        Lightbown, David

        Favell, Tony

        Lilley, Peter

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lord, Michael

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        McCrea, Rev William

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        McCrindle, Sir Robert

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Forth, Eric

        Maclean, David

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Freeman, Roger

        Malins, Humfrey

        Fry, Peter

        Mans, Keith

        Gale, Roger

        Marland, Paul

        Gardiner, George

        Marlow, Tony

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gill, Christopher

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Mellor, David

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mills, Iain

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Gregory, Conal

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Grylls, Michael

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Hague, William

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Hannam, John

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Moss, Malcolm

        Harris, David

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Mudd, David

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hayward, Robert

        Needham, Richard

        Heath, Rt Hon Edward

        Nelson, Anthony

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Neubert, Michael

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Hill, James

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Hind, Kenneth

        Norris, Steve

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Page, Richard

        Holt, Richard

        Paice, James

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Paisley, Rev Ian

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

        Patnick, Irvine

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Pawsey, James

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Price, Sir David

        Hunter, Andrew

        Redwood, John

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Irvine, Michael

        Riddick, Graham

        Jack, Michael

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Janman, Tim

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Jessel, Toby

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Rooney, Terence

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Key, Robert

        Ryder, Richard

        Kilfedder, James

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy360

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Knapman, Roger

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Shelton, Sir William

        Knowles, Michael

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lang, Ian

        Shersby, Michael

        124

        Sims, Roger

        Tracey, Richard

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Tredinnick, David

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Trimble, David

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Trippier, David

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Trotter, Neville

        Speed, Keith

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Viggers, Peter

        Squire, Robin

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Walden, George

        Steen, Anthony

        Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

        Stevens, Lewis

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Walters, Sir Dennis

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Ward, John

        Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Stokes, Sir John

        Warren, Kenneth

        Sumberg, David

        Watts, John

        Summerson, Hugo

        Wells, Bowen

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Whitney, Ray

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wood, Timothy

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Yeo, Tim

        Thorne, Neil

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Thurnham, Peter

        Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        and Mr. Peter Bottomley.

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

  DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER
  'A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed by means of firearms, explosives or an offensive weapon, or for the murder of a police or prison officer, shall on conviction be sentenced to death, unless the court determines that the circumstances of the case, including any extenuating circumstances, make it more appropriate for a life sentence of imprisonment.'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
  The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 349.

  Division No. 33]

  [10.43 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Allason, Rupert

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beggs, Roy

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Conway, Derek

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Day, Stephen

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Devlin, Tim

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dicks, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bright, Graham

  Dover, Den

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Dunn, Bob

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  125

  Favell, Tony

  Neale, Gerrard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Neubert, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Forth, Eric

  Norris, Steve

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Paice, James

  French, Douglas

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Fry, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gale, Roger

  Pawsey, James

  Gardiner, George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Riddick, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gregory, Conal

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Grylls, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hague, William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Hannam,John

  Shersby, Michael

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Sims, Roger

  Hayward, Robert

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hill, James

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Holt, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Jack, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Janman, Tim

  Summerson, Hugo

  Jessel, Toby

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Kilfedder, James

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Knapman, Roger

  Thorne, Neil

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lang, Ian

  Tracey, Richard

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Tredinnick, David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Trimble, David

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Trippier, David

  Lightbown, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Lord, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  McCrea, Rev William

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ward, John

  Mans, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Marland, Paul

  Warren, Kenneth

  Marlow, Tony

  Watts, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mills, Iain

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wood, Timothy

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Mr. John Greenway and

  Mudd, David

  Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Adams, Mrs. Irene

  Ashby, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Allen, Graham

  Ashton, Joe

  Alton, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amos, Alan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Anderson, Donald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  126

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Battle, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beith, A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bellotti, David

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joseph

  Flynn, Paul

  Benyon, W.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foulkes, George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Franks, Cecil

  Blair, Tony

  Fraser, John

  Blunkett, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bowis, John

  George, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gorst, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gould, Bryan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Graham, Thomas

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grist, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Ground, Patrick

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Harris, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haynes, Frank

  Cartwright, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clay, Bob

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

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

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howells, Geraint

  Crowther, Stan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dewar, Donald

  Illsley, Eric

  Dixon, Don

  Ingram, Adam

  Dobson, Frank

  Irvine, Michael

  Doran, Frank

  Janner, Greville

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas, Dick

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Kennedy, Charles

  127

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Morley, Elliot

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Knox, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Lambie, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Latham, Michael

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mullin, Chris

  Leighton, Ron

  Murphy, Paul

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Needham, Richard

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Nellist, Dave

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Lewis, Terry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Litherland, Robert

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Livingstone, Ken

  O'Brien, William

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Parry, Robert

  McAllion, John

  Patchett, Terry

  McCartney, Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  McFall, John

  Pendry, Tom

  McGrady, Eddie

  Pike, Peter L.

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  McKelvey, William

  Prescott, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Price, Sir David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McMaster, Gordon

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Radice, Giles

  McWilliam, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Madden, Max

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Madel, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rathbone, Tim

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Redmond, Martin

  Mallon, Seamus

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Maples, John

  Reid, Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Richardson, Jo

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Robertson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Maxton, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Rooker, Jeff

  Meacher, Michael

  Rooney, Terence

  Meale, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mellor, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rowe, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Rowlands, Ted

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Ryder, Richard

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Sedgemore, Brian

  128

  Sheerman, Barry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Turner, Dennis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Short, Clare

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sillars, Jim

  Wallace, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Joan

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

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Snape, Peter

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Soley, Clive

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Squire, Robin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wilson, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stern, Michael

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Gavin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Tellers for the Noes

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Petter Bottomley and

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Mr. Stuart Bell.

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill reported in relation to certain clauses, none of which had been added to the Bill.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

  POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 1990, dated 8th November 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th November, be approved.—[Mr. Putnick]
  Question agreed to.

  MISUSE OF DRUGS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick]
  Question agreed to.

Roads (Bury)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
10.57 pm
Mr. David Sumberg: We are constantly told that we live in a new, environmentally aware, era. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would have to be far more persuasive than me to convince my constituents that that is so. They face several threats to their local environment, ranging from planned supermarkets to a takeover bid from Manchester city council. But undoubtedly the greatest threat to that local environment is a possible new motorway, weaving its way through the heart of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
The news which came to light last summer that the Department of Transport, under its 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" was planning a motorway—the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road—to connect the M62 and M66 motorways was greeted with anger, and incredulity by my constituents. They greeted the news with anger, because the possible route—I stress that no final decision about the principle or detail of such a route has yet been taken—would cut through the beauties of the Croal Irwell valley which is so loved by walkers, ramblers and naturalists, would continue through some prime agricultural land and Stand golf club—a much used and popular sporting facility—proceed to destroy some lovely homes and gardens, and would finally damage and disrupt the commercial premises of the James Holstead group, the leading employers in my constituency and the largest manufacturers of PVC sheet vinyl flooring in the British Isles. Taken in toto, the proposed route represents an intolerable intrusion into the countryside, the leisure and sporting facilities and the home and business life of my constituency.
I accept that the proposals for the proposed route are still at the earliest stages of consultation and that alternatives, of which I am not aware, are being considered. I understand that the public's views will be taken into account and that, even if a relief road is constructed, that will not happen until after the approval of a full public inquiry, and that construction will not take place, subject to the public money then being available, until well into the next century. I accept all those valid points, but the possibility of such a proposal or of equally unsatisfactory alternatives has mobilised public opinion in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North right across the political divide.
I said that the news of a possible new motorway was greeted by my constituents with anger and incredulity. I have described the reasons for their anger. Their incredulity arises from the fact that the idea for the motorway seems to have been based on guesstimates by the Department of Transport. They are guesstimates about the amount of motorway traffic that there will be in 20 years' time; guesstimates of the effect, or lack of it, of the proposed widening to four lanes of the present M62; and guesstimates about the consequences of the planned completion of the M66 between Denton and Middleton. Guesstimates are all very well, but they do not justify the havoc that those proposals would cause for my constituents.
130
I want to pay tribute to my constituents who are doing so much to oppose the proposals and, in particular, to pay tribute to SWARM. That is not a collection of bees, although it comprises very busy people. SWARM stands for Stop the Whitefield and Radcliffe Motorway. It is an action group that has been formed to co-ordinate opposition to any relief road through my constituency. Its members have worked hard and long to alert public opinion, and I salute SWARM's diligent and dedicated officers: Ken Forman the chairman, Fiona Hanlon the secretary, Robin Gibson the treasurer, and Lorraine Palastrand the publicity officer. They, together with their fellow SWARM members, are owed a deep debt of public gratitude for what they are doing, and I am glad of this opportunity to place my thanks on the public record.
When putting my thanks on the public record, it is only right that I should thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for visiting my constituency at short notice over the summer to see for himself the area that will be damaged, and even destroyed, if the proposals ever see the light of day. However, my hon. Friend's welcome visit is not enough. My constituents and I want far more from him than that.
In the short term, we need clarification of when consultation and discussion with the public will take place. Rumour is about that it was planned for the spring of next year but that it has now been postponed until the autumn or even later in 1991, or possibly even in 1992. Signs have been given that any public inquiry, if it is needed, will not be held until 1995 at the earliest. Will my hon. Friend specifically and in terms confirm whether those dates are accurate? My constituents need some certainty in these matters.
Certainty is needed not just for peace of mind or for the planning of the campaign; it is needed for a practical and important reason. As my hon. Friend knows, once the proposal for a relief road became public knowledge, the effect on property values and house sales was little short of disastrous. Despite the fact that no decision has yet been made on any motorway route, despite the fact that any road will not be built for another 15 or 20 years, or perhaps never, a widespread housing blight has been created in the Whitefield and Radcliffe parts of my constituency.
I can do no better than to refer to one of the many letters that I have received from constituents, or, in this case, from their solicitors. They state:
"Our clients have asked us to write to you to confirm that they have had their house on the market, but purchasers have specifically withdrawn because of the prospect of the motorway proposals. Our clients are having to move for business reasons but are unable to do so because of the blight to which their property is subject."
I appreciate that, until a specific route is announced by the Department of Transport, no legal entitlement for housing blight compensation exists. I appreciate, too, that, to avoid the situation that I have described, confidentiality of consultation with local authorities and others at the early stages is necessary because such proposals may never proceed. I appreciate also that the Department of Transport is not responsible for that breach of confidentiality. However—this is the important point—neither are any of my constituents, who now have to pay a very heavy price for the housing blight that has been created.
The Minister has told me that he will look sympathetically at the problems once the public consultation stage has been reached. I had hoped that he

131
could have done that before that stage. However, if that is not legally possible, it is vital that we get on with the consultation exercise as quickly as possible so that some help can be given to those constituents who simply cannot sell their homes. In the short term, an announcement on those lines from the Minister would be most welcome, but, in the long term, an announcement that the proposal is to be abandoned completely would be even more welcome.
As one of the local newspapers circulating in my area put it,
"The environmental squalor such a scheme would cause, with stilted roads, destruction of property and the carving up of scarce green areas and recreational land, including two golf courses, is too nightmarish to contemplate. Bury already has more than its share of motorways. Because there is peak time chaos on one of the routes it is no excuse for heaping more motorways on those living in the area. Pollution inflicted by motor vehicles is well documented. It cannot continue at the present rate without poisoning the atmosphere to a dangerous level. Because one road is choked-up it does not follow another should be provided."
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies sooner or, probably, later, will lift the threat that now hangs over so much of my constituency.
11.8 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) has allowed me a few minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Has the hon. Member who has the Adjournment informed the Minister?
Mr. Sumberg: I have, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has not informed the Chair. It is courteous to inform the Chair of such an intervention. I am sure that he will do so in future.
Mr. Sumberg: I am very sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was my error. Please forgive me.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is Christmas. I call Mr. Alistair Burt.
Mr. Burt: I share the error of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), Madam Deputy Speaker.
First, I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me some time at the end of his speech. I should like to associate myself with everything that he has said, much of which relates to my constituency as well as to his. Secondly, I thank those in my constituency who have already taken up the cudgels in the manner that he suggested has happened in his own. I thank those residents who have been involved in work, especially Mrs. Reay, Mrs. Foran and my two councillors, Des Eccleston and Sam Cohen for their work.
The proposed route of the new road in my constituency first enters the constituency close to Blackford bridge, which is the site of the busy main road between Bury and Manchester. Unless the road is in a tunnel at this point, it will presumably cross that main road by way of a viaduct, which would be highly visible, obviously intrusive, and massively detrimental to the surrounding housing, of which there is a great deal.
In common with my neighbour's constituency, it is then envisaged that the route will go through a golf course—in
132
this case, through Bury golf club, which this year celebrates 100 years of existence and which is one of the finest playing courses in the north of England. The golf course outlook is well known by the Minister. Like my hon. Friend, I thank the Minister for taking the time to come to my constituency in the late summer to see the area for himself. He knows how beautiful it is and how much of a feature the golf course and open land is in Hollins and Unsworth. Even the most casual glance at a map will show what an oasis of green it is in a suburban landscape.
As then envisaged, the route will cross a road and head over fields, close to some properties, to join the existing M66 motorway and head out of my constituency. I share the concern of the villagers of Birch at the effect that it will have there.
As soon as the plans for the new motorway became known, in circumstances that I deplore, the concern of my constituents was obvious. Over 150 packed a small community centre in Hollins, and my postbag and surgery suggested their worries, which I share. Now is not the time or the place for a full debate of the issue; that will come at the full inquiry, but some pertinent questions will, I hope, dominate the arguments.
First, is the answer to congestion in urban areas always to build yet another road? Secondly, when will the great debate about road and rail in this country get a proper airing? I caution those who believe that rail is a simple answer to the problems of large-scale freight movement around the country; it is not. However, to my mind, the matter has never been properly and publicly addressed in such a way as to produce any consensus about the answer. We need to do that urgently—either to prove the claims for rail, to dismiss them or—most likely—to come to some agreement about the role of each which most ordinary straightforward people think acceptable. Thirdly, the problems of east-west traffic in this country cannot be treated as a series of isolated problems.
Perhaps we should consider the plight of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South on a much bigger stage, taking into account the possibilities of a northern route across the Pennines, and a more southerly one away from Merseyside towards the main north-south routes, in each case upgrading existing roads.
All these are wider issues, but of particular concern to my constituents. The more narrow issues of their homes, fields, and leisure facilities—and the destruction of them—will rightly occupy them over the next few months. This is a proposal with few if any benefits for my constituents as a whole and none whatsoever for those directly affected. It will be strongly opposed as much by the constituents in my part of Bury as by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and his constituents.
11.13 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on securing this important debate. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) for their kind remarks about my visit to their constituencies this September, which was helpful in the context of the discussion on this road.
I am glad to have the opportunity this evening to explain Government policy on roads in general, and the

133
latest position of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road. It is fair to say that one cannot have a good quality environment, a good quality of life for our citizens and a prosperous community without effective communications. National trunk roads, as well as local roads, form a major element of that.
Major national roads serve the borough of Bury. The M62 motorway provides an important link across the Pennines. It connects the three conurbations of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, which in total comprise one fifth of the population of the United Kingdom. The route occcupies a fundamental place in our transportation network. Even on the isolated moorland section, the road carries over 70,000 vehicles every day of the year, and almost 30 per cent. of those are goods vehicles.
Just as important to the area is the M66 motorway to the east of Bury. At present, it provides a link between the A56 at Edenfield to the M62 at Middleton. On 11 March 1988, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the go-ahead for the extension of the M66 motorway to Denton. This section, when built, will complete the eastern section of the Manchester outer ring road. The northern, western and southern sides are formed by the M62 and M63 motorways.
While the Manchester outer ring road is not a ring road in the true sense—two thirds of the 2·5 million people in the area live outside it—its job is every bit as important as that of the M62. Locally, it provides a route between the major centres of population in the Greater Manchester area. When it is completed, it will certainly make travel between Bury and Stockport easier, and there will be a route to Manchester airport which avoids the congestion at Worsley. As my hon. Friends will recognise, good communications between these districts are important, because without them business cannot prosper and areas cannot develop to their full potential.
While completion of the ring road might appear to be the answer to all the problems, one major drawback would still remain. Because the northern side of the ring road is provided by the M62 motorway, that piece of motorway to the south of Bury has to satisfy two discrete functions: as a long-distance through route and as a more local distributor. Not surprisingly, conditions on the road are poor: indeed, to describe them as dreadful would not be an overstatement. Delays, frustration, congestion and accidents are all too commonplace. It is a road which causes stress to those who use it.
Weekday traffic flows on the M62 between junction 20 at Rochdale and junction 16 average 100,000 vehicles, with almost 140,000 vehicles per day on the busiest sections. The high levels of traffic are the result of increased levels of economic activity and prosperity. As this part of the network is already congested, further forecast traffic growth is certain to make conditions worse. Traffic figures are predicted to grow by up to one third by the end of the 1990s, and could well double by 2020. While uncertainty is associated with forecasts for so long a period ahead—the Department prepares high and low forecasts to test both ends of the range—we cannot simply put our heads in the sand and hope that the forecast traffic will disappear. Indeed, many of today's road problems are attributable to the fact that politicians did just that in the past.
Congestion on parts of the M62 will become worse, and a responsible Government must respond to it. Congestion reduces the efficiency and reliability of road transport for
134
industry and increases the cost to consumers. It is also bad for road safety. Congestion harms the environment, because slow-moving vehicles burn more fuel and hence give off greater quantities of harmful emissions. Against that background, the Government announced in the 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" a major expansion of the trunk road programme. Among the major new road schemes announced then was a proposal for the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road running from the M6 in Cheshire to the M62 and M66 east of Bury.
Before announcing the expansion of the road programme, the Government considered several ways of dealing with unacceptable levels of congestion, including the contribution that could be made by the railways, or, indeed, by other innovative ideas, such as the light rapid transit system soon to operate within the Greater Manchester area. We shall continue to invest heavily in public transport. Current investment is at record levels, but it is wishful thinking to believe that we can solve problems of congestion simply by investing more in public transport.
The vast differences in the scale and characteristics of the markets served by road and rail mean that even if rail traffic could be increased by 50 per cent., which would impose significant environmental penalties, road traffic would only be reduced by about 5 per cent., which is in line with an average year's growth. Public transport will not solve the needs of industry and business, or of people who use their cars regularly.
I fully understand my hon. Friends' anxiety about the effect of the Greater Manchester northern and western relief road within their constituencies. I commend them for the way in which they have spent so much time and effort on pursuing this concern on behalf of their constituents. As my hon. Friends know, our proposals for the sections of this scheme between the M56 and M66 are at the very first stage of what will necessarily be a lengthy process of development.
The initial investigations of options for any new road take place with minimal publicity. This is not because of a desire to deny anyone the opportunity to study and comment on what is being proposed: it is because, at this early, fact-finding stage, the consultants' investigations are extremely wide-ranging. Many options will be considered and eliminated in the search for a viable solution. To release details of routes or corridors under investigation can lead to widespread and unnecessary blight, for which there is no statutory remedy. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, that, sadly, is the present position with this relief road.
Our confidential consultations, which form a standard part of the fact-finding process, have led a leak of information. My hon. Friends and people in the area are well aware that that leak emanated from a local councillor who is the prospective Labour party candidate for Bury, South. Whatever the motives for the leak, it has done a great disservice to the community. It has led directly to the blighting of properties and to disruption within the community.
In assessing the options for dealing with traffic congestion, one of the obvious first steps is to look at improvements to the existing road. That is why we have done so. Without the new road, we should have to consider carefully closing several junctions on the M62. Although it would help the flow of traffic on the motorway, it would

135
have a severe impact on the local road network. The area would suffer increasing congestion with worsening conditions for residents.
I should like to say something about the next stages in the development of the scheme. I was asked specifically when we could go out to public consultation. I can do no better than to say that it will be as soon as possible. I understand that the delay is causing frustrations, as a direct result of the premature disclosure of confidential information. However, it would be wholly wrong for the Department to publish proposals which have not been properly worked out, do not contain the best information based on detailed consultation which has taken place informally and confidentially, and which have not taken into account the various route options.
My hon. Friends will be pleased to hear that that is necessarily a large-scale and wide-ranging process. It means that we will not be able to publish the proposals for consultation before next spring. I must warn my hon. Friends that it may be later than that. It depends on the progress made in the interim. Once the proposals are produced for consultation, there will be ample opportunity for people to visit exhibitions, ask questions and present their views. I can reassure the House that no decision will be taken on any route to be advanced until public consultation has been held.
The consultation process is non-statutory and gives people an early opportunity to have a say in the development of the scheme. At a later stage, when orders are published, they will be able to exercise their statutory rights of objection. At that stage, the matter would be considered by an independent inspector at a local public inquiry.
I fully understand the concerns of local people that have been put to me so ably by my hon. Friends. I hope that they may be reassured as to the opportunities for public input into our proposals. A balance must be struck between the positive advantages that any new road offers for the relief of congestion and the impact of that road on the environment and the community. As time goes by. I hope that my hon. Friends become satisfied that we have got that balance right.
The issue of consultation relating to new road schemes is not a party political one. It might help if I reminded the
136
House of the contents of the "Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures", published in April 1978 under the previous Labour Government. Paragraph 57 of the conclusions of that report states:
"It is nevertheless inevitable that the benefits of a new road will generally be more widely distributed, and thus less apparent, than its disadvantages. Thus, although the most careful consideration is given to the social and environmental effects in the immediate locality of a proposed new road it is hardly possible to build it at reasonable cost without causing inconvenience and disruption in its immediate vicinity. The Government is concerned that those who are affected in this way should be treated with the greatest possible fairness. An equitable and efficient public inquiry procedure is essential."
That was the policy under the previous Labour Government, and it is our policy. We would not have had this debate and the people in my hon. Friends' constituencies would not be alarmed but for the premature disclosure of information that should never have been disclosed and which had been made available on a strictly confidential basis.
Mr. Terry Lewis: That is not true, and the Minister knows it.
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman may barrack me, but he would be unable to persuade people in that area that their alarm has been caused by anything other than the irresponsible behaviour of someone who has strong political motives.
Mr. Lewis: The Minister knows how the information got out.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the debate should end on a note of acrimony, but that is a fair account of what has happened. The Department's best endeavours to proceed in an orderly and responsible fashion have been frustrated and thwarted by the irresponsible behaviour of one individual.
I assure my hon. Friends that we shall come forward as soon as possible for consultation on the proposals. At that and subsequent stages, I know that my hon. Friends will act as vigorously as they always do on behalf of their constituents' interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Latent Damage Act
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Latent Damage Act 1986 in the light of recent House of Lords judgments.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have no plans to bring forward proposals to amend the Latent Damage Act 1986.

  National Union of Mineworkers
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Serious Fraud Office has yet received a report from the Metropolitan police fraud squad of its inquiries into the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers following the Lightman inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. The Metropolitan police have been advised that the case does not fall within the statutory criteria for investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Law Officers since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  The Attorney-General
  There has been one public opinion survey since January 1985.

  Between December 1988 and January 1989 a poll of 1,000 members of the public was conducted by Public Attitude Surveys Ltd. on behalf of the Law Commission. The survey sought to identify public attitudes to the current law on intestacy; and on the current grounds for divorce.

  Information about internal opinion surveys is not held centrally in my Department or the Lord Chancellor's Department and the information could be acquired only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Forces
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what bids for increased manpower have been made by the chief constable of Derbyshire since 1987; and how many additional police officers have been appointed as a result.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Derbyshire police authority has made two applications since 1987. It applied for 34 additional posts for 1990–91 and was informed that it 2
  could have 19 extra posts subject to confirmation that it would meet its share of the cost. The police authority, however, declined to meet its share of the cost following community charge capping of the county council. The offer of the posts was, therefore, withdrawn. The police authority has made an application for 15 extra posts in 1991–92. This is being considered.

  Homosexuality
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many men were(a) convicted and (b) cautioned for the offence of procuring the commission of homosexual acts contrary to section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967; and of those convicted and cautioned, how many were convicted or cautioned because the procuration related (i) to male homosexual prostitution, (ii) to the facilitation of homosexual acts not involving prostitution, and (iii) to the facilitation of homosexual acts which were otherwise lawful, in each year from 1980 to 1989;

  (2) how many men over the age of 16 years were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned for the offence of committing a consensual homosexual act in private, but where one or more other persons were present in another part of the house or flat, contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967; and of those men convicted, how many were (i) fined, giving the 10 highest fines imposed, (ii) given a suspended sentence, giving the lengths of these suspended sentences in each case and (iii) imprisoned, giving the length of these custodial sentences in each individual case, for each year from 1980 to 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1980 to 1989 for males convicted and cautioned under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 is given in the table. Information is not collected on the circumstances of the offence. It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify the number of convictions and cautions for homosexual acts which were done when more than two persons took part or were present.

  Number of males cautioned and convicted for offences under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 1980–1989: England and Wales

  Year

  Cautioned

  Convicted

  1980

  —

  2

  1981

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  1

  2

  1984

  1

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  1987

  1—

  —

  1988

  1—

  4

  1989

  —

  —

  1 unavailable.

  Relate
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider increasing the grant to Relate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  As I announced in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on 15 November at column 216, marriage guidance organisations, including Relate, will receive an increase of approximately 10 per cent. of their existing grants in aid for the next financial year.

  EC Citizens (Franchise)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend the franchise to citizens of EC countries who are permanently resident in the United Kingdom in both local and general elections.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to bring forward legislation to introduce 24-hour opening in public houses.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training has been given by United Kingdom police officers to police officers in Bangladesh in the last five years to date; what training has been received by Bangladeshi police officers in the United Kingdom over the same period; what was the nature of such training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no central record of any training having been given by United Kingdom police officers to police officers in Bangladesh in the last five years. The centrally recorded training received by Bangladeshi police officers in the United Kingdom in the same period is as follows:

  1986
  One officer attended the Overseas Command Course—Police Staff College, Bramshill.

  1987
  One officer attended the Senior Command Course and five officers attended the Overseas Command Course—Police Staff College, Bramshill.

  1988
  One officer attended a Scenes of Crime Course—Durham. One officer attended the Overseas Command Course—Police Staff College. Bramshill.

  1989
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss Community Policing and Consultative Committees.
  One officer attended a Fingerprint/Photography Course—Durham.
  One officer attended a CID Course—West Yorkshire.
  Two officers attended the Overseas Command Course—Police Staff College, Bramshill.

  1990
  One officer attended a CID Course—West Yorkshire.
  One officer attended a Drug Detection Course—Lancashire.
  One officer attended the Senior Command Course and three officers attended the Overseas Command Course—Police Staff College, Bramshill

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require a reduction of 10 per cent. per annum in the number of animal procedures carried out in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Provided that the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are fulfilled, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will continue to 4
  grant project licences authorising particular programmes of work under section 5. The controls of the Act have themselves given continued impetus to the consistent decline in the use of living animals in scientific procedures which has taken place for a number of years. Overall reductions in the numbers of animals used depend heavily on scientific advances in the development of acceptable alternatives.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now develop a strategy for the promotion, development and use of non-animal research methods with a view to reducing the number of animal procedures.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Much work is already being carried out by commercial companies, academic bodies and charitable concerns to find acceptable alternatives to the use of living animals in research. The Home Office has been funding research in this area since 1984 and established its own research scheme with the passing of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This scheme is administered by the Animal Procedures Committee which advises my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the priorities for research and assists in the selection and evaluation of proposals. Details of projects which have been funded by the Home Office may be found in the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 28 November at columns 416–17.

  Football Grounds (Licensing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the date by which he expects the Football Licensing Authority to be in a position to issue licences for football grounds at which designated football matches are played.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Criminal Records
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all Home Office circulars which provide guidance to chief officers of police on the disclosure of information from criminal records.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Current guidance to chief officers of police on disclosure of information from criminal records is contained in Home Office circulars 45/1986, 8/1988, 101/1988, 102/1988 and 58/1989.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of staff required to administer the football licensing scheme; what is the current staffing complement of the Football Licensing Authority; and what stage has been reached in filling any further vacancies required by the Football Licensing Authority.
  5
  Mr. John Patten
  The number of staff that the Football Licensing Authority requires is a matter for the authority itself to determine. I understand, however, that the authority plans initially to employ a total of nine administrative staff and the equivalent of nine full-time inspectors; a complement which will be reviewed as the authority begins to discharge the full range of its statutory functions including the administration of the football licensing scheme. Three administrative staff are in post; the recruitment of inspectors and other administrative staff is in hand; and the authority expects all these staff will be in post by next spring.

DEFENCE

  Helicopter Rescue Operations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received over the availability of Royal Navy and RAF helicopters to rescue people or animals on Exmoor, the Bredon hills, the Quantocks and the Blackdowns in extremely adverse winter weather conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training has been given by United Kingdom military personnel to military personnel in Bangladesh in the last five years to date; what training has been received by Bangladeshi military personnel in the United Kingdom over same period; what was the nature of such training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Training provided for members of the Bangladeshi armed forces over the last five years, both in country and on training courses in the United Kingdom, has covered a variety of military subjects. Further details are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Bangladesh.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A list of opinion poll surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence since 1985 is given in the table.

  Subject

  Date

  Public Attitudes to Defence

  Annual/six monthly

  Army Officer Recruitment: Strategy of Communication Research

  1985

  Navy Officer Communication Check 1985

  1985

  Territorial Army Monitor Stage 2 & 3 (later called 1 & 2, August and November 1985)

  1985

  Territorial Army Qualitative Research

  1985

  Telephone Response to TA Advertising: Communication Research

  1985

  Junior Leaders Recruitment—Advertising Communication Check

  1985

  1986 Army Officer Communication Research

  1986

  Navy Officer Films Research

  1986

  6

  Subject

  Date

  Territorial Army Monitor Stage 3 & 4 (August and November 1986)

  1986

  Territorial Army Officer Communication Check

  1986

  Territorial Army Advertising Campaign Communication Check

  1986

  RAF Computer Game Research

  1986

  Soldier Qualitative Research

  1986

  Survey of Armed Forces Resettlement Services 1986

  1986

  Scottish Infantry: Press Advertising Communication Check

  1986

  Soldier Recruitment Advertising—Qualitative Research on Strategy Development

  1987

  Territorial Army Recruitment Literature Development Research

  1987

  RAF Officer Recruitment Literature

  1987

  RAF Engineering Officers Campaign

  1987

  RAF Officer Advertising Research

  1987

  Army: Territorial Army General Press Campaign 1987–88

  1987

  Army: Terms of Engagement

  1987

  Survey of Armed Services Youth Training Scheme

  (ASYTS)

  1987

  Army Officers Press Advertising

  1987

  Britain in NATO: A study of Exhibition Visitors at 4 County Shows

  1988

  Potential Officers—Strategic Qualitative Research

  1988

  MOD (Navy) Trailer Crew Questionnaire Territorial Army: Advertising Research (Monitor

  1988

  Stages 5 and 6 January and March 1988) Territorial Army Officers Press Advertising

  1988

  Communication Check

  1988

  Army Interactive Video Assessment

  1988

  University Undergraduates—Service Officer Target Market Study

  1988

  Attitudes of the General Public—NELC 1988 Campaign Evaluation

  1988

  Managers' Attitudes—National Employers' Liaison CMTE Campaign Evaluation

  1988

  Soldier Concept Testing

  1988

  Army Officers Image/Strategic Planning for Advertising

  1988

  Army Engineers—Advertising Concept Testing

  1988

  Public Images of the RAF-Quantitative Stage (and Qualitative Study)

  1988

  WRAF Concept Testing Qualitative

  1988

  RAF Ground Trades Other Ranks Recruitment Qualitative Research

  1988

  Ulster Defence Regiment—Qualitative Research (Spring 1988)

  1988

  National Employers Liaison Committee Advertising Communication Check

  1988

  Navy Qualitative Evaluation and Strategic Research

  1989

  Army Officer Advertising: Communication Research

  1989

  Army Tracking 1989–90 (Stages I and II)

  1989

  One Army: Pre and Post Evaluation of Awareness and Attitudes

  1989

  Territorial Army Advertising Monitor

  1989

  National Employers Liaison Committee Campaign Tracking

  1989

  Regular Army Creative Development Research

  1989

  Royal Navy Tracking

  1989

  NELC Qualitative Advertising Campaign Evaluation

  1989

  RAF Officer Recruitment Creative Development Research

  1989

  Other Ranks Planning Research

  1989

  Royal Navy Ratings Recruitment (Advertising Research)

  1989

  Army Information Fulfilment: Follow-up Research

  1989

  Royal Navy Research Monitor 1990

  1990

  Queen Alexandra Royal Nursing Corps Officer Research

  1990

  Army Tracking Stages HI and IV

  1990

  Survey of Undergraduates Attitudes to Careers

  1990

  7

  Subject

  Date

  Territorial Army 1990 Campaign Evaluation Research

  1990

  Territorial Army Advertising Review Part One

  1990

  National Employers Liaison Committee Advertising Tracking Stage 3

  1990

  Royal Navy Communications Check

  1990

  Army Recruitment Advertising Research

  1990

  RAF Creative Development

  1990

  Naval Vessels (Women Reporters)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Navy commander in the Gulf has had any instructions on allowing women reporters on naval vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No such instructions have been issued. Both female and male reporters are permitted, depending on the facilities available, to go on board Royal Navy vessels serving in the Gulf.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet completed his consideration of the selective use of reservists in connection with Operation Granby, following his remarks in the House on 11 December,Official Report, column 908.

  Mr. Tom King
  Up to about 1,500 reservists with specialist skills will be required in support of British deployments to the Gulf. There has been a most encouraging response to my call for volunteers with relevant medical training and experience, but this has fallen short of our requirement. Many have felt unable to commit themselves because there is no legal protection for the jobs of those who volunteer.

  It remains my aim to meet our requirement for reservists with individuals who express a willingness to serve, but I believe that it is essential that those volunteering should have their jobs protected. To this end, Her Majesty the Queen, in exercise of the powers conferred upon her by section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, has today, by order signified under my hand, authorised the calling out of the reserve forces. This will enable the selective call-out of members of the Army Reserve, the Territorial Army, the Air Force Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the Royal Navy Reserve including the Royal Fleet Reserve and the special class of the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Marines Reserve.

  I intend now to call again for volunteers in the necessary categories, either to serve in the Gulf, or in the United Kingdom or Germany, in order to release other personnel for the Gulf. It will be made clear to those who volunteer that they will be formally called out under the Reserve Forces Act 1980, which will provide a call-out gratuity and legal protection for their jobs. As an additional measure, a supplement of up to 20 per cent. —and more in special cases—will be paid to those reservists called out to make up any difference between their civilian earnings and their military pay.

  If, in spite of these measures, insufficient volunteers come forward, I will need to call out individual ex-Regular reservists compulsorily. Most of the reservists will be required to report at the beginning of the new year. In view of the Christmas period and my desire to provide the
  8
  maximum possible warning, individual reservists will be notified now of the possibility that they may be called out compulsorily.

  In addition to this requirement for medical reservists, a small number of reservists with other specialist skills may be needed. I would also aim to meet this requirement with volunteers, although those coming forward would be called out formally under section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act so that their service could be placed on a similar basis.

THE ARTS

  Arts Expenditure
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how proposed expenditure on arts in 1991–92 relates in real terms to that in 1978–79.

  Mr. Renton
  The central Government arts programme for 191–92 will be £559 million, a real terms increase on 1978–79 of £214 million, or 62 per cent. I welcome this trend and hope it will continue.

  Pocket Theatre, Keswick
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he will visit the Pocket theatre in Keswick in the next month to discuss arts funding.

  Mr. Renton
  I will not be visiting Keswick in the next month. However, I intend to travel widely in the coming months to visit arts organisations around the country.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Arts Board
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether it is his intention personally to appoint the chair of the Yorkshire and Humberside arts board.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has to fund arts in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I am currently considering this matter following lengthy meetings with the chairmen and secretaries—general of the Arts Council, the local authority associations and the regional arts associations. I hope to make a statement before the Christmas recess.

  Haymarket Theatre, Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he proposes to visit the Haymarket theatre in the city of Leicester.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no firm plans to visit the Haymarket theatre, Leicester, at present. However, I intend to travel widely in the coming months to visit arts organisations around the country.

  Ballet
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last paid an official visit to the ballet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  My predecessor attended a triple bill of ballet at the Royal Opera house on 15 November. I attended a performance at the Royal Opera house on 29 October in a private capacity.
  9
  Tomorrow evening, I am attending a performance of "Cinderella" by the London City ballet at Sadler's Wells.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if, in the light of worldwide representations concerned with the taxonomic, palaeontological and scientific work of the natural history museum, he will review funding plans for the museum.

  Mr. Renton
  My predecessor took full account of the natural history museum's corporate plan, and the worldwide representations received in the past six months, when he made his funding announcement on 9 November. The museum has now been asked to prepare a further corporate plan, covering the period to 31 March 1995: this will be the subject of discussion with my officials when it is submitted next spring.

  Music Funding
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of national symphony orchestras in Britain to discuss funding for music.

  Mr. Renton
  I have not yet met representatives of the symphony orchestras, but look forward to doing so in due course.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when calculating changes in the retail prices index what allowance is made by his Department for community charge rebates.

  Mr. Maples
  Following recommendations of the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee, subsidies and discounts to selected groups of consumers which are funded by central Government are not taken into account in the index as they are regarded as subventions on income which help certain households to meet the price in question rather than reductions in the price itself. In accordance with this principle no allowance is made for community charge rebates.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial help is made available to civil servants whose jobs are transferred from London to other parts of the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A range of financial assistance is available to civil servants who are relocated from London to other parts of the country. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster-General gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on 15 November 1990, col. 188. All assistance is in the form of reimbursement of reasonable costs that have been necessarily incurred.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps have been taken to ensure that the criteria applied by Customs and Excise officials in deciding the 10
  appropriate value added tax assessment on leaflets are sufficiently clear that traders can comply with value added tax law without the administrative burden of seeking individual rulings from Customs and Excise on each individual case;

  (2) what steps are taken to ensure that the criteria used by local value added tax offices in deciding whether value added tax is applicable at the standard rate on leaflets are applied uniformly and do not cause a distortion of trade;

  (3) if he will instruct Customs and Excise officials to give a precise definition of paper and card so that traders can have certainty that they are complying with the value added tax law in so far as it applies to leaflets.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Recent VAT tribunal decisions have affected the definition of leaflets for VAT purposes. This has meant that the guidance set out in the Customs notice "Printed and similar matter" needs to be expanded. A new version of the notice will be available early next year. Meanwhile appropriate guidance has been provided to local VAT officers, who will refer cases of difficulty to Customs headquarters for advice.

  Drug Budgets
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to exempt hospitals from the requirement to pay value added tax on their drug budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Any value added tax on drugs purchased by National Health Service hospitals which cannot be reclaimed under the normal value added tax rules is provided for in the public expenditure funding of the National Health Service.

  Exports
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications of the decline in exports of goods and services in constant price terms between the second and third quarters of 1990 for the level of the exchange rate within the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Mellor
  It has no implication. Imports fell by more than exports and the balance of trade in goods and services at current prices improved by £1·2 billion.

  The Government have made it clear beyond question that they have entered into the commitments of the exchange rate mechanism knowingly; it will do whatever is necessary to maintain sterling's position in the exchange rate mechanism.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for, or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985, giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested could he collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Sports Bodies (Taxation)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of implementing a system of tax exemption for sports bodies responsible for the encouragement, development and governance of their
  11
  sport at a national level, where those bodies are representative of sporting or recreational activities deemed to have clear benefits for the health and welfare of participants; if he will make it his policy to implement such a system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: The cost would depend upon the details of the tax exemption the hon. Member has in mind. As regards the possible implementation of such a system, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Sports Bodies (Taxation)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount paid in corporation tax by representative sports bodies in each of the past 10 years and as a total over the same period.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: I regret that the information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in descending order the 10 representative sports bodies that paid the highest amounts in corporation tax over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: No. Information on individual tax payments is confidential to the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue.

  Utilities
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give the contribution to public funds made by the electricity industry for each year between 1979 and 1990;

  (2) if he will give the contribution to public funds made by British Gas plc for each year between 1979 and privatisation;

  (3) if he will give the contribution to public funds made by British Telecom for each year between 1979 and privatisation.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 13 December 1990]: The table sets out the external financing requirements (EFRs) of the electricity industry in Great Britain between 1979–80 and 1989–90; of British Gas between 1979–80 and 1986–87; and of British Telecom between 1980–81 and 1985–86. Nationalised industries' contribution to the public expenditure planning total is measured by their EFFts (net cash flows); a negative figure indicates a net repayment of loans or increase in deposits within the public sector.

  Electricity Industries1

  British Gas

  British Telecom

  1979–80

  945

  -447

  2—

  1980–81

  214

  -409

  -109

  1981–82

  -153

  39

  250

  1982–83

  -29

  -230

  -323

  1983–84

  -252

  -45

  -225

  1984–85

  850

  -189

  -341

  1985–86

  -278

  -190

  —

  1986–87

  -1,101

  -684

  —

  1987–88

  -1,132

  —

  —

  1988–89

  -1,650

  —

  —

  1989–90

  -1,536

  —

  —

  1 Comprises the sum of the EFLs of the electricity industry in England and Wales, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

  2 British Telecom was not constituted as a separate body until 1980–81.

ENERGY

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what lessons were learnt from the emergency exercise at Trawsfynydd power station.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The annual demonstration of arrangements for dealing with an emergency affecting the Trawsfynydd power station site was held on 22 November 1990. This was witnessed by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and found to be satisfactory.

  Berkeley Power Station
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the Government have decided where they intend to store the irradiated sections of the Berkeley nuclear power station after it has been dismantled and decommissioned.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a management matter for Nuclear Electric, subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with the conditions attached to the nuclear site licence.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has so far been made by Nuclear Electric in dismantling and decommissioning the Magnox reactor and its associated systems and buildings at Berkeley in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc. However, I understand from Nuclear Electric that defuelling of the reactors is progressing well and is expected to be completed in 1992. The company tells me that the extent and timing of dismantling of plant and buildings is currently under review and the results are likely to be announced in the next few months.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications were made for shares in the electricity distribution companies on behalf of children aged(a) under five, (b) under 16 and (c) under 18 years; and what proportion were successful.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is not available.

  Nuclear Research
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the mode of operation of the levy on the nuclear industry to enable the Health and Safety Executive to be resourced to undertake nuclear research.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1989, the Health and Safety Executive recovers from nuclear licensees the cost of the safety research for which responsibility was transferred from my Department to the Health and Safety Commission on 1 April this year. This arrangement covers the cost of the research and HSE's costs in managing it.

  Opinion Survey
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985, giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Central records do not separately identify which of the surveys conducted by the Department included questions seeking opinions and which did not. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the cost to the public purse as a result of land purchases in the area within a 30-mile radius of Sellafield by British Nuclear Fuels; what acreage of land has been purchased since 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Nuclear Fuels plc's business is financed by borrowing on the commercial markets. Land purchases are a commercial matter for the company.

  Sourgas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research he has undertaken to establish the safety of sourgas as a power source for gas-fired power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None. Health and safety at power stations, including appropriate research, is primarily a matter for the employer. The Health and Safety Executive is the public body responsible for ensuring compliance with statutory requirements in this area.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Objectives
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the objectives of Her Majesty's Government for the rest of this Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's objectives remain to carry forward the programme outlined in the Queen's Speech,Official Report, 7 November 1990, columns 4–6.

  Poland
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will hold an early meeting with the president of Poland; and if he will make a statement on British-Poland relations.

  The Prime Minister
  I certainly hope to meet the Polish President—whose election I warmly welcome—before too long. No date has yet been fixed. Our bilateral relations with Poland are excellent. We hope that President Walesa will maintain the IMF-backed economic reform programme, which is vital to Poland's future prosperity. We will continue to give substantial help to ease the transition to democracy and a market-based economy.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people have been killed and how many injured(a) in Great Britain and (b) in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist activity each month since May 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is given in the tables.

  (a) Great Britain

  Deaths

  Injuries

  1988

  May

  0

  0

  June

  0

  0

  July

  0

  0

  August

  1

  8

  September

  0

  0

  October

  0

  0

  November

  0

  0

  December

  270

  15

  1989

  January

  0

  0

  February

  0

  1

  March

  0

  0

  April

  0

  0

  May

  0

  0

  June

  0

  0

  July

  0

  0

  August

  0

  0

  September

  11

  16

  October

  0

  0

  November

  0

  2

  December

  0

  0

  1990

  January

  0

  0

  February

  0

  2

  March

  0

  0

  April

  0

  0

  May

  1

  9

  June

  1

  41

  July

  1

  0

  August

  0

  0

  September

  0

  4

  October

  0

  0

  November

  0

  0

  December

  0

  0

  1 The figures for December 1988 result from the Lockerbie incident. All other figures result from terrorist activity connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

  (b) Northern Ireland

  Deaths

  Injuries

  1988

  May

  5

  90

  June

  9

  64

  July

  11

  67

  August

  26

  159

  September

  4

  117

  October

  8

  67

  November

  4

  67

  December

  2

  56

  1989

  January

  3

  49

  February

  10

  64

  March

  12

  61

  April

  4

  102

  May

  3

  103

  June

  4

  91

  July

  5

  99

  August

  2

  109

  September

  3

  56

  October

  5

  76

  November

  9

  60

  15

  Deaths

  Injuries

  December

  2

  89

  1990

  January

  8

  70

  February

  0

  122

  March

  6

  66

  April

  9

  54

  May

  1

  84

  June

  5

  59

  July

  8

  111

  August

  1

  71

  September

  6

  77

  October

  19

  1—

  November

  9

  1—

  1 These figures are not yet available.

  Advertising
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will review the percentage increase in the expenditure on advertising in the press, television and other forms of publicity in each Department of state in the last five years and institute an inquiry into the reasons for any departmental increases which are in excess of the rate of inflation over the period.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on advertising in the press, television and other forms of publicity is a matter for departmental Ministers within the Government conventions on the use of paid publicity and advertising.

  Downing Street
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to re-establish the public right of way through Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Access to Downing street has been controlled for security reasons for many years. This does not stop the many people who come to Downing street for meetings, receptions or to present petitions.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what message he has sent to the newly appointed President of Bangladesh; if he will place the text of any messages in the Library; and if he will make a statement about relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Bangladesh.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary sent a message of good wishes to the acting President, Mr. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed and looks forward to working with the new interim Government of Bangladesh to reinforce the friendly relations which already exist between our two countries.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of the Cabinet Office and Management and Personnel Office since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Corlan Housing Association
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he expects to receive a copy of the investigation by Tai Cymru into the financial collapse of the Corlan housing association; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library;

  (2) when he expects to meet the chairman of Tai Cymru to discuss his report on the financial collapse of the Corlan housing association.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Housing Association Consultancy and Advisory Service's report has been received in the Department and is being studied. It is not customary to publish reports of inquiries carried out under section 28 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, but 1 will make a further statement when the legal and other implications of the report have been considered.

  Pontypridd-Treforest Rhondda Ring Road
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Pontypridd-Treforest Rhondda ring road scheme is to begin and proceed along the agreed construction time tables announced earlier this year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It was not possible to accommodate in full Mid Glamorgan county council's 1991–92 bid for transport grant support for the Pontypridd inner relief road scheme. The transport grant settlement announced on 5 December will enable the county council to continue with substantial expenditure on advance works. The timing of the scheme is for the county council to consider in the light of the settlement.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policy towards single homeless people in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Local housing authorities are responsible for assessing housing needs within their own areas including those of single people. Working in partnership with housing associations and the private sector, it is for them to secure appropriate accommodation for single homeless people in the Principality, making sensitive use of the substantial resources we are making available to assist in tackling homelessness generally. I am considering what further action might be taken to help assist the single homeless.

  Single People's Accommodation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new units of accommodation for single people were constructed in Wales in each of the years 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, figures for one-bedroomed houses and flats from 1979 to date, may be found in table 6.8 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1979–1989" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policy on the introduction of new village speed limits on trunk roads in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Requests for new village speed limits are judged against the criteria and guidance set out in

  Year

  Introduced

  Removed

  30 mph

  40 mph

  30 mph

  40 mph

  1985

  A40 Crickhowell, Powys

  A470/A4060 Abercynon-Pentrebach

  A470/A4060 Abercynon-Pentrebach

  —

  A4232 Capel Llanilltern-Culverhouse Cross, South Glamorgan

  A494 Llanferres, Clwyd

  A55/A494 Ewloe Interchange,

  Clwyd

  1986

  A40 Whitland, Dyfed

  —

  A55 Bodelwyddan, Clwyd

  A55 Bodelwyddan, Clwyd

  A55 Holywell, Clwyd

  1987

  —

  —

  A470 Dolfach, Powys

  —

  A477 Llanteg, Dyfed

  1988

  —

  A5 Pentrefoelas, Clwyd

  A487 Cross Hands, Dyfed

  —

  A487 Dinas, Dyfed

  A40 Whitland, Dyfed

  A48 Cheps:tow, Gwen

  A48 Chepstow, Gwent

  A55 Holywell, Clwyd

  A483 Ruabon, Clwyd

  A458 Middletown, Powys

  1989

  —

  A40 Prendergast, Dyfed

  A55 Penmaenmawr, Gwynedd

  —

  A55 Llanfairfechan, Gwynedd

  A55 Holywell-Northop, Clwyd

  1990

  A477 Kingswood, Pembroke Dock

  A470 Rhayader, Powys

  A55 Travellers Inn, Clwyd

  —

  1990

  A487 Cardigan By Pass

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list against each of the centres established in Wales as part of the treatment centres initiative(a) its name, location and specialty, (b) its commencement date, (c) the budget allocated to that centre for 1989–90 and 1990–91 and (d) the number of patients treated at that centre since it started work.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  1. Orthopaedic treatment centre, Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, South Glamorgan:

  (a) Opened December 1989

  (b) Funding: £223,500 in 1989–90

  £598,000 in 1990–91

  (c) Number of patients treated: 285 at end November 1990.

  2. General surgical; treatment centre (various veins and hernias) Bridgend General hospital, Mid Glamorgan:

  (a) Opened March 1990

  (b) Funding: £197,000 in 1989–90

  £342,000 in 1990–91

  (c) Number of patients treated: 394 at end November 1990.

  3. Ophthalmic treatment centre, Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, Gwynedd:

  (a) Opened June 1990

  (b) Funding: £88,000 in 1989–90

  £263,000 in 1990–91

  (c) Number of patients treated: 172 at end November 1990.

  18
  Welsh Office circular 10/80. Consideration is also given to whether engineering or traffic signing measures would be appropriate instead of or in addition to a speed limit.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the new 30 and 40 mph speed limits respectively introduced and removed on trunk roads in Wales in each of the years from 1985 to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is given in the table:

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will take steps to strengthen the ability of local authorities in Wales to bring the standard of the worst landlords in the private sector up to that of the best;

  (2) what fresh initiatives he intends to take to protect the most vulnerable tenants in the private rented sector from harassment.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 14 December 1990.

  Advertising
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those headings of Welsh Office expenditure, including grant in aid or funding of agencies, which include, or may include, some element of expenditure on advertising in the press, on television or radio or other expenditure on advertising and promotion in addition to the figures given in his answer of 11 December,Official Report, columns 332–33.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figures provided in my anser of II December to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) cover all identifiable items of publicity and related expenditure incurred directly by the Welsh Office in each of the years shown.
  19
  Information about publicity and related expenditure of the many bodies which receive funding from the Department is not collected centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report, for each standard region, the number of pensioner-only households, specifying those with only one pensioner occupant and those with two or more.

  Mr. Key
  Estimates of the numbers of pensioner-only households for each standard region are given in the table. These estimates are based on family expenditure survey data from 1987, 1988 and 1989 and "pensioners" is taken to be persons of pensionable age.

  Thousands

  Region

  One pensioner households

  Two or more pensioner households

  Northern

  235

  115

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  380

  215

  North-West

  410

  240

  East Midlands

  250

  185

  Region

  Yield from 1 per cent. £ billion

  Children un-der 18 (thousands)

  Persons of pension age (thousands)

  Adults (all 18+) (thousands)

  Northern

  0·7

  697

  566

  2,376

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·0

  1,136

  906

  3,805

  North-West

  1·3

  1,491

  1,154

  4,889

  East Midlands

  0·9

  915

  712

  3,084

  West Midlands

  1·2

  1,216

  912

  4,000

  East Anglia

  0·5

  468

  397

  1,577

  Greater London

  2·6

  1,510

  1,172

  5,246

  Rest of South-East

  3·4

  2,408

  1,974

  8,219

  South-West

  1·2

  1,009

  982

  3,643

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to establish constitutionally independent local authorities in the United Kingdom which would be able to raise their own revenue, go bankrupt, and be free from central Government capital controls.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has announced that we are initiating a thorough review of local government finance and structure. No options have been ruled in or out at this stage.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates revenue support grant and non-domestic rates will be paid to local authorities in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  Details of the profile of revenue support grant payments for England for the next financial year have been sent by my Department to local authorities. A copy of the Department's letter has been placed in the Library. The profile, which was determined after consultation with the local authority associations, should ensure that authorities who are diligent in collecting the community charge and non-domestic rates will be able to maintain an adequate cash flow.
  20

  Region

  One pensioner households

  Two or more pensioner households

  West Midlands

  350

  215

  East Anglia

  145

  135

  Greater London

  410

  190

  Rest of South-East

  650

  485

  South-West

  300

  240

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the proceeds for each standard region of a levy of 1 per cent. in the estimated value of dwellings together with the number of (a) children under the age of 18 years, (b) disabled persons, (c) retirement pensioners and (d) other adults.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is given in the table. The estimated value of dwellings in each region is based on recent data on house sales prices and numbers of domestic hereditaments in each region. This is the best information available but is of limited accuracy. Population data is taken from the Office of Population Census and Surveys 1989 mid year estimates.

  Household Sizes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each standard region the number of households with one, two, three and four or more adults.

  Mr. Key
  Estimates of the numbers of households with one, two and three or more adults for each standard region are given in the table. These estimates are based on family expenditure survey data from 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Thousands

  Region

  One adult households

  Two adult households

  Three or more adult household

  Northern

  455

  745

  200

  Yorks and Humberside

  745

  1,175

  270

  North-West

  920

  1,420

  375

  East Midlands

  530

  945

  225

  West Midlands

  690

  1,220

  345

  East Anglia

  285

  545

  115

  Greater London

  1,075

  1,285

  305

  Rest of South-East

  1,310

  2,580

  560

  South-West

  585

  1,145

  255

  Radiation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to implement the recommendation of the National Radiological Protection Board to reduce the maximum exposure to radiation for members of the public to 0·5 mSv per annum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The recommendations made by the National Radiological Protection Board are firstly that the dose limit for members of the public should be 1 mSv in a year and, secondly, since individuals may be exposed to more than one radiation source, that the maximum dose from any single source should not be more than 0·5 mSv in a year. Since 1984, authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 have been based on these recommendations.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to exempt from the community charge the British wives of United States service personnel resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Key
  The Government have not sought such an exemption because we concluded that these United Kingdom citizens need not be treated differently from other United Kingdom citizens.

  Rechar (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning additionality in relation to the Rechar programme application by the Easington district council.

  Mr. Yeo
  In setting annually the level of public expenditure programmes for local authorities, including Easington, account is taken of anticipated European Community receipts including initiatives such as Rechar. Consequently, these programmes are larger than they would otherwise be. In addition, for 1990–91 the other services block was "top sliced" by £25 million for distribution as supplementary credit approvals to local authorities in receipt of European regional development funds. In the light of representations from local authorities it is proposed to increase the top slice to £45 million for this purpose in 1991–92.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the impact on disabled people of the use of domestic rate relief.

  Mr. Key
  Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 local authorities were required, on application from the occupier of a dwelling, to grant rate rebates in respect of facilities provided for the disabled. With the abolition of domestic rates, these provisions of the Act have been repealed.

  Ecological Experts (Norway)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who represented his Department al: the lecture by Professor I.S. Gray of the university of Oslo on 22
  ecological advice and the law in Norway; what report has been made in relation to the system whereby Government White Papers in Norway are sent to ecological experts before presentation to the Norwegian Storting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The chief scientist of my Department was present at this meeting of the British Ecological Society, at which Professor Gray's presentation, among others, was made. I understand that a report of the meeting is being prepared by the British Ecological Society.

  Anchor Complex Inquiry
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the report of the inspector appointed to consider the Anchor complex inquiry, Penryn, Cornwall; if he has consulted English Heritage on the contents of that report; when he intends announcing his decision; and if will make it his policy to deal with the matter with the utmost urgency.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend received the inspector's report on the inquiry into the proposed development at the Anchor warehouse complex, Penryn on 28 August 1990. He has not consulted English Heritage on the contents of the inspector's report because he has no locus to do so. His decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Used Tyres
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number and location of sites in England that have been used for the underground burial of used tyres; how regularly these sites are inspected to check on their safety and any general environmental implications that they may have; if he will make this information available to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the number and location of sites used for the underground burial of used tyres is not held centrally. Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services wrote to the Chief and Assistant Fire Officers Association in May about the problem posed by tyre dumps. Responses from chief fire officers gave some indication of the number of tyre dumps in particular areas. My Department will be writing to local authorities in the new year to seek further information on the location of tyre dumps.

  The disposal of waste by landfill is licensed by waste disposal authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Individual site licences may set down conditions relating to the disposal of used tyres. Used tyres which cannot be remoulded or retreaded are commonly shreded prior to disposal by landfill where they are mixed with other waste.

  The monitoring of licensed waste disposal sites is carried out by waste disposal authorities. These authorities have a duty to maintain a register of all disposal licences issued by them which are in force and to make this register available to the public.

  Rental Deposits
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has had concerning the National Consumer Council report on rental deposits; and if he will make a statement.
  23
  Mr. Yeo
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) when he was Minister for Housing and Planning, met the chairman of the National Consumer Council to discuss the report, and discussions have also taken place at official level. We have agreed to explore with the National Consumer Council and other bodies the possibility of a voluntary rental deposit scheme.

  Sellafield
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the geological investigations of the land forms in the environs of British Nuclear Fuel's plant at Sellafield have indicated with respect to their suitability for deep dry storage of irradiated waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Site investigations for UK Nirex Ltd's deep repository for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste are currently under way at Sellafield. It is too early to say whether the site is suitable for the construction of a repository. Phase 1 of the site investigations is expected to be completed by the end of 1991.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy for owners of land to be made legally responsible for offences committed by people in their employment in respect of offences relating to endangering wildlife and keeping pesticides illegally under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no plans at present to introduce legislation to amend the relevant provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The keeping of pesticides is governed by regulations made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible. It is an offence for any person, without reasonable excuse, to cause or permit another to contravene those regulations.

  West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority on his proposed financial settlement for 1991–92; if he will publish details of those representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have received a number of representations from the West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority on our proposals for the revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92, including those put to me when I met a delegation from the authority on 28 November. It is for the authority to make public its representations if it so chooses.

  We are proposing to increase the authority's standard spending assessment by £6·2 million to £44·1 million, which we believe to be an appropriate assessment of the costs of providing the fire service in West Yorkshire. We shall carefully consider all the representations received before taking our decisions on the settlement.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give details of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1991–92.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the then Secretary of State, announced on 8 November the allocation of additional resources to the Housing Corporation to enable housing associations to provide more subsidised housing, with special emphasis on meeting the needs of the homeless. Gross expenditure by the Housing Corporation is expected to exceed £2 billion in 1993–94, a 65 per cent. increase over the current year, with a target of 40,000 completions in that year.

  This is a clear indication both of the Government's commitment to the housing association movement as the main providers of new subsidised homes, and of our determination to tackle the problem of homelessness.

  I have today approved the Housing Corporation's proposals for the overall shape of its approved development programme for 1991–92. A further announcement will be made early in the new year about the regional allocation of resources, once I have received the corporation's detailed proposals.

  The broad outline of the corporation's proposals confirms the priority that is being accorded to the problem of homelessness by the Government and their agencies. About half the total number of new homes for rent will be targeted on the homeless. The corporation's rural programme will also be maintained and increased in future years.

  It is important that the large investment which the Government are making in the housing association movement should be employed efficiently. The programme shows a further increase in the proportion of schemes for rent funded jointly with the private sector, providing greater leverage of resources for the public sector input. The corporation is also committed to achieving efficiency gains of at least 5 per cent. over three years through, among other things, greater attention to cost competition in the selection of bids.

  The introduction of the new grant regime under the Housing Act 1988 has been a major task. The corporation's early problems in programming its expenditure are now being resolved, and I am confident that it is able to respond positively to the enhanced role it now has in implementing the Government's housing policy.

  The breakdown of the approved development programme—ADP—for 1991–92 and provisional plans for the following two years is as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92 ADP

  1992–93 Plans

  1993–94 Plans

  Housing for rent1

  1,385

  1,512

  1,714

  Major repairs and other works

  53

  71

  84

  Mini-HAG

  7

  8

  9

  Tenants incentive scheme

  32

  34

  36

  Low cost home ownership2

  105

  110

  159

  Other expenditure3

  6

  3

  3

  Total gross expenditure

  1,588

  1,738

  2,005

  Receipts

  -93

  -97

  -103

  Total net expenditure

  1,495

  1,641

  1,902

  25
  Notes:

  1 Includes public expenditure on mixed funded for rent schemes and 100 per cent. publicity funded rented schemes.

  2 Includes shared ownership and rehabilitation for sale.

  3 Includes right to buy mortgages and self build.

  Programme targets for 1991–92 are as follows:

  Approvals (units)

  General needs—rent

  26,500

  Special needs—rent

  3,000

  Rural housing (rent and sale)

  1,500

  Low-cost home ownership (non rural)

  New build

  2,700

  Rehabilitation (including outright sale)

  1,000

  Tenants incentive scheme

  2,500

  Mini-HAG

  1,800

  Total

  39,000

  Amenity Trees
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures the Government intend to take in order to ensure the continued safeguarding of amenity trees.

  Mr. Baldry
  Jointly with the Welsh Office, my Department has today issued a consultation paper setting out our proposals to enhance the effectiveness of the tree preservation order system and to clarify and streamline the relevant statutory provisions and procedures. The paper also gives details of the Government's proposal to give powers to local planning authorities to make hedgerow management orders to safeguard key hedgerows, with payment to farmers or others for upkeep. I have arranged for copies of the paper to be placed in the Library of the House.

  School Facilities
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to bring forward amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1990 so that capital investment in schools' facilities by a commercial concern or major voluntary club as part of a dual-use agreement is not treated as a capital receipt to the local education authority.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: No. There is no reason why this type of investment should necessarily result in a capital receipt for the local education authority.

  Science Parks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the available EC resources for science park development has been taken up by local authorities in Britain.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: Local authorities have utilised EC resources in support of science park development, but precise information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Peterlee Tertiary College
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to make available funds for the repair, renewal and maintenance of the Peterlee tertiary college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department received bids from the Durham education authority which included a bid for the repair, renewal and maintenance of Peterlee tertiary college. Durham's bids have been considered alongside those received from other education authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend today announced the following allocations for Durham education authority:

  £

  Minor works

  273,000

  Equipment

  128,000

  Teachers
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average number of(a) holidays and (b) sickness days taken by teachers in each of the years 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1989.

  Mr. Fallon
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers were employed in local education in(a) 1970 and (b) the latest available year; what was the number of school pupils in these years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested for local education authority maintained and grant-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England is given below:

  January

  Teachers (FTE thousands)

  Pupils (FTE thousands)

  1970

  328·7

  7,514·9

  1990

  398·5

  6,753·2

  Schools (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will visit the schools in the Easington constituency.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Teachers (Language Training)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been spent in the last five years on the training of teachers in ethnic minority languages; and what are the languages currently being studied by those teachers.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Student Expenditure
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide figures to show expenditure per student across the whole range of taught subject areas at polytechnics(a) in England and (b) in Wales in 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  For the financial year 1988–89, the latest year for which data are available, net recurrent expenditure per full-time equivalent student in English polytechnics is estimated at £3,565. Non-university higher education in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide figures to show expenditure per student across the whole range of taught subject areas at universities(a) in England, (b) in Scotland and (c) in Wales in 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the 1990 volume of "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators", produced by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Universities Funding Council, a copy of which is in the Library. This draws on 1988–89 data: detailed figures for university expenditure in 1989–90 are not yet available.

  University Colleges, Wales
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide figures listing the numbers of staff teaching full-time in the following departments at university colleges in Wales in 1980 and

  Students studying courses in specified subject groups

  Chemistry

  Physics

  Biology

  Management studies

  Engineering

  Mathematics

  Undergraduates Full-time and Sandwich

  1980

  317

  195

  443

  263

  2,219

  475

  1988

  397

  205

  422

  620

  1,631

  321

  Undergraduates Part-time

  1980

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1988

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Post-graduates Full-time and Sandwich

  1980

  157

  57

  130

  72

  249

  99

  1988

  154

  160

  144

  248

  500

  84

  Post-graduates Part-time

  1980

  15

  11

  6

  11

  47

  14

  1988

  39

  38

  18

  115

  207

  21

  Source: Universities Statistical Record.

  Note: A new subject classification was used for university statistics from and for 1985–86. Data prior to 1985–86 are not comparable with those for subsequent years.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out for 1979–80, 1983–84 and the latest available figures the number and standard of A-level passes for students entering initial teacher training.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information is given in the table:
  28
  1990: (a) chemistry, (b) physics, (c) biology, (d) management studies, (e) engineering and (f) mathematics.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The latest information is as follows:

  Full-time academic staff in specified cost centres at university colleges in Wales

  1980

  1988

  Physical sciences

  274

  251

  Biological sciences

  264

  355

  Businesss and management studies

  24

  71

  Mathematical sciences

  164

  173

  Engineering and technology

  329

  308

  Source: Universities Statistical Record

  Universities statistics 1980 Volume three Table 11

  Universities statistics 1988–89 Volume Three Table 9

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the departments which have been removed from university colleges in Wales over the past 10 years, by college.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for individual university institutions, within the total resources at their disposal, to determine their academic provision and its organisation. Information on local changes in these matters is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide figures listing the numbers of students studying in the following departments at university colleges in Wales in 1980 and 1990(a) chemistry, (b) physics, (c) biology, (d) management studies, (e) engineering and (f) mathematics.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The latest available information is as follows:

  United Kingdom domiciled first year undergraduate students with A level entry qualifications:

  Initial Teacher Training in England

  Academic Year

  Total number2

  Average A-level points score3

  1979–80

  UDE1

  300

  6·3

  Polytechnic/College

  6,390

  5·3

  Total

  6,690

  5·3

  1983–84

  UDE

  407

  7·8

  Polytechnic/College

  5,580

  5·5

  29

  Academic Year

  Total number2

  Average A-level points score3

  Total

  5,987

  5·7

  1988–89

  UDE

  734

  7·3

  Polytechnic/College

  5,600

  5·2

  Total

  6,334

  5·4

  1 UDE—University of Education.

  2 Covers students studying BEd., Cert. Ed. and other undergraduate ITT.

  3 Refers to the average A level points score of those who were recorded on USR and FESR as having A level entry qualifications.

  Notes: A level points score has been calculated in the customary way, by allocating 5 points for an A grade, 4 points for a B grade etc.

  Sources:

  University Statistical Record for University Departments of Education.

  Further Education Statistical Record for Polytechnics and Colleges.

  Schools, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has been notified under Education Act procedures of the decision of Northumberland education committee to move Netherton county first school into Thropton county first school; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  I understand that pupils attending Netherton county first school have been temporarily relocated at nearby Thropton county first school, following concern by Northumberland county council about the structural condition of Netherton school. The council acted in the interests of the safety of the children concerned.

  There are no statutory procedures which require the county council to inform my right hon. and learned Friend of its actions in these circumstances. Nonetheless, the Department has been kept informed of developments.

  Special Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of pupils belonging to other local education authorities attending special schools maintained by each local education authority in January 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  The number of pupils belonging to other local education authorities attending special schools maintained by each local education authority as recorded on returns made to the Department of Education

  January 1989

  January 1990

  City of London

  0

  0

  Camden

  331

  223

  Greenwich

  188

  170

  Hackney

  189

  198

  Hammersmith

  285

  271

  Islington

  110

  101

  Kensington

  89

  94

  Lambeth

  372

  352

  Lewisham

  117

  115

  Southwark

  212

  175

  Tower Hamlets

  63

  61

  Wandsworth

  361

  360

  Westminster

  110

  100

  Barking

  6

  10

  30

  January 1989

  January 1990

  Barnet

  69

  59

  Bexley

  10

  14

  Brent

  44

  35

  Bromley

  46

  50

  Croydon

  25

  27

  Ealing

  26

  15

  Enfield

  45

  46

  Haringey

  61

  48

  Harrow

  15

  13

  Havering

  9

  8

  Hillingdon

  8

  3

  Hounslow

  27

  36

  Kingston

  51

  31

  Merton

  9

  8

  Newham

  22

  18

  Redbridge

  31

  28

  Richmond

  16

  18

  Sutton

  42

  33

  Waltham Forest

  277

  363

  Birmingham

  184

  162

  Coventry

  45

  42

  Dudley

  7

  8

  Sandwell

  20

  20

  Solihull

  12

  6

  Walsall

  32

  25

  Wolverhampton

  37

  34

  Knowsley

  40

  41

  Liverpool

  97

  66

  St. Helens

  37

  14

  Sefton

  34

  31

  Wirral

  9

  7

  Bolton

  35

  34

  Bury

  14

  22

  Manchester

  199

  176

  Oldham

  99

  105

  Rochdale

  14

  19

  Salford

  111

  97

  Stockport

  6

  6

  Tameside

  17

  11

  Trafford

  11

  14

  Wigan

  52

  59

  Barnsley

  22

  2

  Doncaster

  6

  5

  Rotherham

  8

  9

  Sheffield

  101

  76

  Bradford

  60

  70

  Calderdale

  3

  3

  Kirklees

  14

  39

  Leeds

  64

  51

  Wakefield

  14

  13

  Gateshead

  38

  25

  Newcastle

  66

  91

  North Tyne

  8

  10

  South Tyne

  2

  3

  Sunderland

  29

  33

  Avon

  47

  39

  Bedfordshire

  4

  1

  Berkshire

  66

  70

  Bucks

  31

  31

  Cambridge

  27

  51

  Cheshire

  44

  41

  Cleveland

  45

  35

  Cornwall

  7

  2

  Cumbria

  4

  0

  Derbyshire

  32

  34

  Devon

  30

  29

  Dorset

  69

  50

  Durham

  29

  29

  East Sussex

  45

  43

  Essex

  52

  37

  Gloucester

  23

  10

  31

  January 1989

  January 1990

  Hampshire

  47

  81

  Hereford

  56

  60

  Hertfordshire

  139

  142

  Humberside

  31

  19

  Isle of Wight

  4

  2

  Kent

  75

  45

  Lancashire

  43

  41

  Leicester

  6

  5

  Lincolnshire

  38

  37

  Norfolk

  25

  25

  North Yorks

  42

  38

  Northants

  13

  6

  Northumberland

  33

  28

  Notts

  46

  30

  Oxfordshire

  45

  45

  Shropshire

  11

  8

  Somerset

  18

  5

  Staffordshire

  34

  19

  Number of pupils with statements of special educational needs January 1989

  Pupils with statements in

  Primary schools

  Middle schools

  Secondary schools

  Special schools1

  Barking

  48

  0

  29

  195

  Barnet

  106

  0

  53

  366

  Bexley

  160

  0

  125

  279

  Brent

  46

  0

  46

  366

  Bromley

  307

  0

  124

  413

  Croydon

  202

  0

  153

  507

  Ealing

  53

  55

  30

  496

  Enfield

  31

  0

  13

  436

  Haringey

  23

  0

  18

  335

  Harrow

  73

  33

  56

  258

  Havering

  124

  0

  63

  299

  Hillingdon

  51

  0

  33

  369

  Hounslow

  185

  0

  108

  487

  Kingston upon Thames

  36

  0

  40

  258

  Merton

  45

  29

  10

  257

  Newham

  111

  0

  67

  494

  Redbridge

  36

  0

  23

  400

  Richmond upon Thames

  68

  0

  37

  179

  Sutton

  69

  0

  27

  309

  Waltham Forest

  53

  0

  81

  730

  Inner London

  1,389

  0

  747

  6,432

  Birmingham

  344

  15

  382

  2,929

  Coventry

  85

  0

  86

  907

  Dudley

  161

  2

  74

  557

  Sandwell

  44

  0

  51

  899

  Solihull

  127

  0

  89

  264

  Walsall

  102

  0

  56

  594

  Wolverhampton

  173

  0

  94

  494

  Knowsley

  41

  0

  59

  638

  Liverpool

  97

  0

  36

  1,709

  St. Helens

  56

  0

  48

  469

  Sefton

  146

  0

  87

  466

  Wirral

  259

  0

  147

  830

  Bolton

  63

  0

  61

  464

  Bury

  203

  0

  127

  275

  Manchester

  41

  0

  77

  1,813

  Oldham

  133

  0

  81

  599

  Rochdale

  92

  18

  78

  536

  Salford

  44

  0

  20

  747

  Stockport

  292

  0

  168

  368

  Tameside

  213

  0

  34

  415

  Trafford

  146

  0

  111

  415

  Wigan

  111

  0

  44

  740

  Barnsley

  108

  4

  42

  227

  Doncaster

  64

  31

  28

  731

  Rotherham

  139

  0

  41

  603

  Sheffield

  206

  82

  233

  909

  32

  January 1989

  January 1990

  Suffolk

  32

  28

  Surrey

  145

  144

  Warwickshire

  166

  152

  West Sussex

  45

  43

  Wiltshire

  11

  3

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of pupils in each local education authority in England with statements of special educational need in(a) maintained primary schools, (b) maintained middle schools, (c) maintained secondary schools and (d) maintained special schools, in January 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Data for 1990 are not yet available. Information for 1989 is given in the following table.
  33

  Pupils with statements in

  Primary schools

  Middle schools

  Secondary schools

  Special schools1

  Bradford

  81

  69

  88

  1,040

  Calderdale

  86

  0

  44

  262

  Kirklees

  331

  37

  166

  649

  Leeds

  528

  338

  399

  1,260

  Wakefield

  85

  22

  31

  667

  Gateshead

  41

  0

  40

  443

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  149

  25

  145

  619

  North Tyneside

  85

  29

  66

  415

  South Tyneside

  83

  0

  59

  319

  Sunderland

  131

  0

  71

  633

  Isle of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  937

  0

  1,049

  2,122

  Bedfordshire

  186

  87

  97

  1,148

  Berkshire

  338

  29

  110

  1,486

  Buckinghamshire

  291

  266

  397

  1,545

  Cambridgeshire

  442

  2

  319

  1,063

  Cheshire

  1,083

  0

  948

  1,478

  Cleveland

  270

  0

  412

  1,652

  Cornwall

  706

  0

  525

  321

  Cumbria

  485

  0

  456

  469

  Derbyshire

  878

  0

  1,037

  1,492

  Devon

  808

  72

  793

  1,705

  Dorset

  164

  123

  268

  1,174

  Durham

  279

  0

  165

  1,035

  East Sussex

  50

  0

  45

  1,377

  Essex

  809

  0

  785

  2,620

  Gloucestershire

  83

  0

  85

  1,226

  Hampshire

  488

  152

  552

  3,850

  Hereford and Worcester

  98

  8

  35

  1,314

  Hertfordshire

  760

  46

  508

  1,985

  Humberside

  383

  18

  305

  1,356

  Isle of Wight

  36

  26

  27

  286

  Kent

  665

  16

  345

  3,391

  Lancashire

  657

  0

  554

  3,247

  Leicestershire

  485

  52

  268

  1,193

  Lincolnshire

  337

  0

  379

  1,191

  Norforlk

  407

  263

  475

  890

  North Yorkshire

  495

  0

  272

  1,084

  Northamptonshire

  243

  52

  169

  1,215

  Northumberland

  134

  98

  46

  558

  Nottinghamshire

  50

  2

  55

  2,342

  Oxfordshire

  42

  0

  61

  837

  Shropshire

  335

  16

  505

  660

  Somerset

  467

  98

  450

  602

  Staffordshire

  381

  23

  186

  1,982

  Suffolk

  584

  295

  443

  766

  Surrey

  527

  319

  272

  1,862

  Warwickshire

  126

  39

  75

  1,434

  West Sussex

  122

  48

  111

  1,187

  Wiltshire

  671

  64

  721

  745

  England

  24,608

  3,003

  19,651

  95,660

  1 All pupils in special schools are assumed to have statements.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of pupils belonging to each London education authority attending special schools maintained by other local education authorities in January 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  34

  The number of pupils belonging to London education authorities attending special schools maintained by other local education authorities as recorded on returns made to the Department of Education

  January 1989

  January 1990

  City of London

  6

  5

  Camden

  125

  123

  Greenwich

  119

  115

  Hackney

  222

  213

  Hammersmith

  103

  100

  Islington

  167

  149

  Kensington

  208

  196

  Lambeth

  273

  240

  35

  January 1989

  January 1990

  Lewisham

  195

  194

  Southwark

  237

  236

  Tower Hamlets

  114

  111

  Wandsworth

  206

  181

  Westminster

  161

  151

  Barking

  32

  31

  Barnet

  77

  89

  Bexley

  81

  75

  Brent

  76

  74

  Bromley

  34

  25

  Croydon

  56

  55

  Ealing

  71

  74

  Enfield

  117

  101

  Haringey

  92

  91

  Harrow

  52

  46

  Havering

  47

  47

  Hillingdon

  43

  42

  Hounslow

  25

  26

  Kingston

  18

  17

  Merton

  78

  64

  Newham

  59

  61

  Redbridge

  61

  74

  Richmond

  36

  35

  Sutton

  52

  49

  Waltham Forest

  23

  19

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities who have(a) developed most or all of their special needs budget to schools in the local management of schools policy and (b) retained most of their special needs budget centrally.

  Mr. Fallon
  Of the 87 local education authorities operating statutory schemes for the local management of schools in the current financial year the following 10 have delegated to school level some or all resources for pupils with statements of special educational needs attending ordinary schools and special units:

  Bexley

  Buckinghamshire

  Bury

  Derbyshire

  Hampshire

  Hounslow

  Leeds

  Redbridge

  Sefton

  Staffordshire

  The other 77 local education authorities have retained resources for such pupils centrally as an excepted item.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what was the number of pupils with statements of special educational need in non-maintained special schools and independent schools under the arrangements of each local education authority in January 1989 and 1990;

  (2) how many pupils belonging to each local education authority attended non-maintained special schools and independent schools for the purposes of special educational treatment in January 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Data for 1990 are not yet available. The information requested for 1989 is given in the following tables.
  36

  Number of pupils with statements of special educational needs in independent schools and non-maintained special schools January 1989

  Local education authority

  Non-maintained special1

  Independent schools

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  0

  5

  Bexley

  0

  0

  Brent

  0

  0

  Bromley

  40

  2

  Croydon

  0

  10

  Ealing

  0

  40

  Enfield

  0

  1

  Haringey

  0

  1

  Harrow

  0

  9

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  98

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  Merton

  0

  0

  Newham

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  21

  78

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  68

  Waltham Forest

  0

  1

  Inner London

  0

  28

  Birmingham

  64

  12

  Coventry

  0

  0

  Dudley

  0

  2

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  1

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  153

  0

  St. Helens

  0

  20

  Sefton

  183

  95

  Wirral

  118

  1

  Bolton

  40

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  Salford

  0

  0

  Stockport

  345

  16

  Tameside

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  337

  125

  Rotherham

  0

  31

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  Bradford

  0

  1

  Calderdale

  91

  27

  Kirklees

  39

  0

  Leeds

  208

  21

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  141

  6

  North Tyneside

  133

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  52

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Avon

  0

  204

  Bedfordshire

  0

  2

  Berkshire

  231

  48

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  101

  Cheshire

  178

  3

  37

  Local education authority

  Non-maintained special1

  Independent schools

  Cleveland

  0

  2

  Cornwall

  0

  37

  Cumbria

  0

  324

  Derbyshire

  147

  255

  Devon

  340

  500

  Dorset

  92

  163

  Durham

  0

  1

  East Sussex

  440

  465

  Essex

  187

  95

  Gloucestershire

  83

  138

  Hampshire

  283

  401

  Hereford and Worcester

  166

  228

  Hertfordshire

  62

  87

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  48

  0

  Kent

  483

  181

  Lancashire

  221

  16

  Leicestershire

  0

  60

  Lincolnshire

  0

  60

  Norfolk

  0

  196

  North Yorkshire

  183

  46

  Northamptonshire

  36

  63

  Northumberland

  0

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  80

  57

  Number of full-time pupils in maintained schools by local education authority January 1989

  Primary schools

  Middle schools

  Secondary schools

  Special schools

  Barking

  12,988

  0

  8,805

  186

  Barnet

  20,473

  0

  17,575

  366

  Bexley

  16,298

  0

  14,400

  276

  Brent

  19,464

  0

  10,891

  364

  Bromley

  18,888

  0

  15,506

  412

  Croydon

  23,868

  0

  16,349

  503

  Ealing

  23,792

  6,791

  11,067

  491

  Enfield

  20,035

  0

  15,940

  436

  Haringey

  15,037

  0

  8,358

  334

  Harrow

  17,135

  5,121

  7,797

  255

  Havering

  18,039

  0

  16,268

  292

  Hillingdon

  16,161

  0

  13,000

  365

  Hounslow

  16,258

  0

  12,102

  487

  Kingston upon Thames

  8,456

  0

  7,193

  257

  Merton

  7,755

  5,425

  11,111

  251

  Newham

  18,514

  0

  13,062

  484

  Redbridge

  16,137

  0

  13,150

  390

  Richmond upon Thames

  8,464

  0

  6,756

  178

  Sutton

  10,648

  0

  10,471

  297

  Waltham Forest

  16,174

  0

  11,602

  707

  Inner London Boroughs

  City

  547

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  9,185

  0

  9,788

  555

  Greenwich

  17,587

  0

  13,483

  742

  Hackney

  13,947

  0

  7,544

  665

  Hammersmith

  7,932

  0

  6,433

  493

  Islington

  12,809

  0

  6,914

  347

  Kensington & Chelsea

  5,793

  0

  3,679

  95

  Lambeth

  16,493

  0

  6,228

  952

  Lewisham

  16,865

  0

  11,248

  474

  Southwark

  18,128

  0

  9,297

  592

  Tower Hamlets

  15,321

  0

  10,554

  443

  Wandsworth

  14,738

  0

  10,341

  819

  Westminster

  7,897

  0

  6,865

  224

  Total Inner London

  157,242

  0

  102,374

  6,401

  Birmingham

  96,385

  3,243

  64,728

  2,916

  Coventry

  25,997

  0

  18,865

  904

  Dudley

  26,031

  750

  16,880

  556

  Sandwell

  25,816

  0

  19,216

  889

  Solihull

  16,896

  0

  14,432

  263

  38

  Local education authority

  Non-maintained special1

  Independent schools

  Oxfordshire

  154

  45

  Shropshire

  91

  229

  Somerset

  64

  239

  Staffordshire

  0

  140

  Suffolk

  0

  119

  Surrey

  656

  68

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  102

  258

  Wiltshire

  66

  18

  ENGLAND

  6,404

  5,597

  1 All pupils in special schools are assumed to have statements.

  Pupil Numbers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of full-time pupils in(a) maintained primary schools, (b) maintained middle schools, (c) maintained secondary schools and (d) maintained special schools in each local education area in England in January 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  Data for 1990 are not yet available. Information for 1989 is given in the following table.
  39

  Primary schools

  Middle schools

  Secondary schools

  Special schools

  Walsall

  23,283

  0

  19,189

  580

  Wolverhampton

  20,965

  0

  16,097

  Knowsley

  15,237

  0

  9,709

  630

  Liverpool

  42,491

  0

  29,599

  1,675

  St. Helens

  15,716

  0

  13,176

  464

  Sefton

  24,034

  0

  19,043

  461

  Wirral

  28,046

  0

  21,316

  779

  Bolton

  23,675

  0

  17,810

  463

  Bury

  14,612

  0

  10,366

  275

  Manchester

  40,138

  0

  24,921

  1,795

  Oldham

  21,428

  0

  15,171

  599

  Rochdale

  18,395

  3,511

  14,973

  531

  Salford

  20,401

  0

  13,763

  743

  Stockport

  23,256

  0

  18,063

  362

  Tameside

  19,163

  0

  14,286

  405

  Trafford

  15,941

  0

  11,278

  395

  Wigan

  26,938

  0

  21,948

  739

  Barnsley

  17,519

  731

  14,501

  223

  Doncaster

  24,338

  9,233

  20,924

  725

  Rotherham

  21,582

  0

  18,221

  587

  Sheffield

  38,782

  7,848

  26,476

  891

  Bradford

  33,640

  22,310

  42,873

  966

  Calderdale

  17,604

  0

  12,983

  253

  Kirklees

  30,810

  3,433

  26,997

  642

  Leeds

  45,982

  18,971

  53,310

  1,229

  Wakefield

  23,435

  6,669

  21,432

  666

  Gateshead

  16,249

  0

  11,974

  441

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  19,878

  3,198

  16,884

  619

  North Tyneside

  13,727

  4,971

  14,527

  403

  South Tyneside

  13,047

  0

  9,323

  309

  Sunderland

  27,181

  0

  19,332

  631

  Isles of Scilly

  153

  0

  110

  0

  Avon

  72,332

  0

  53,911

  2,078

  Bedfordshire

  35,680

  16,061

  42,957

  1,121

  Berkshire

  55,335

  4,836

  45,492

  1,434

  Buckinghamshire

  56,522

  16,626

  34,125

  1,525

  Cambridgeshire

  53,853

  178

  40,271

  1,039

  Cheshire

  81,523

  0

  64,934

  1,426

  Cleveland

  50,954

  0

  39,956

  1,597

  Cornwall

  35,740

  0

  29,616

  310

  Cumbria

  39,300

  0

  31,650

  458

  Derbyshire

  73,280

  0

  58,889

  1,432

  Devon

  71,730

  3,527

  56,243

  1,659

  Dorset

  38,179

  10,351

  39,109

  1,150

  Durham

  50,408

  0

  37,363

  1,027

  East Sussex

  43,127

  83

  34,412

  1,357

  Essex

  118,256

  0

  99,795

  2,572

  Gloucestershire

  40,619

  0

  32,604

  1,194

  Hampshire

  121,013

  20,394

  84,996

  3,612

  Hereford and Worcester

  44,228

  14,651

  48,794

  1,277

  Hertfordshire

  73,300

  2,964

  66,077

  1,962

  Humberside

  72,142

  4,702

  59,292

  1,319

  Isle of Wight

  6,626

  5,030

  10,069

  259

  Kent

  111,574

  3,961

  100,296

  3,359

  Lancashire

  118,539

  0

  86,053

  3,230

  Leicestershire

  72,541

  5,167

  60,405

  1,158

  Lincolnshire

  44,695

  0

  36,399

  1,159

  Norfolk

  57,410

  15,993

  41,278

  868

  North Yorkshire

  51,502

  356

  43,712

  1,052

  Northamptonshire

  46,225

  8,654

  44,214

  1,155

  Northumberland

  18,237

  14,157

  27,823

  552

  Nottinghamshire

  73,994

  2,555

  64,724

  2,324

  Oxfordshire

  36,227

  3,736

  33,633

  780

  Shropshire

  31,555

  1,073

  28,028

  633

  Somerset

  33,199

  3,837

  28,124

  594

  Staffordshire

  82,983

  6,128

  69,738

  1,980

  Suffolk

  39,440

  15,330

  46,703

  716

  40 41

  Primary schools

  Middle schools

  Secondary schools

  Special schools

  Surrey

  70,735

  26,764

  44,709

  1,845

  Warwickshire

  42,448

  14,136

  26,323

  1,371

  West Sussex

  48,619

  9,442

  39,549

  1,173

  Wiltshire

  42,462

  1,202

  33,983

  734

  England

  3,667,129

  334,099

  2,944,722

  93,726

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Eggar
  The policy evaluation projects which have been or are being through the Department's research budget since 1 January 1985 and which have included, among other elements of investigation, gathering opinions are:

  Year started and project

  1985 Expectations of Higher Education

  Survey of Special Educational Needs in Further and Higher Education

  1986 Survey of Careers Graduates

  Study of Management Education, Education and Training

  1987 Education and Training of Craftspeople

  Undergraduate Income and Expenditure Survey

  Youth Cohort Study—3rd Cohort

  1988 Demand for Qualified Labour; Employer Interviews

  Demand for Highly Qualified Manpower: Survey of Employers

  1989 Under Fives Research

  Student Income and Expenditure Survey 1988–89

  Youth Cohort Study—4th Cohort

  National Child Development Study—Phase 5

  Charging for School Activities

  1990 Surveying Out of Service Teachers: Pilot Study

  Young People's Intention to Enter Higher Education

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the directors' report and financial statements from the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Yes, following the company's annual general meeting which was held on 5 December 1990. Copies of the report and financial statements are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on capital expenditure for 1991–92 on schools and further education establishments, including the voluntary aided sector.
  42
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Local education authorities have today been informed of their annual capital guidelines for 1991–92, and of the allocations for capital spending by the governors of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools in their area. These figures again amount to a big increase in local authorities' borrowing power for education capital expenditure and in grant for the governors of voluntary aided schools after substantial increases last year.

  Annual capital guidelines (ACGs) for education will total £538 million compared with £485 million in 1990–91, an increase of 11 per cent.

  £472 million is available for schools—an increase of 15 per cent.—and £66 million for further education.

  Within the schools sector, I have again given priority to: committed expenditure on work covered by allocations in earlier years; new projects to provide new school places in areas of population growth; new projects to implement cost-effective schemes to remove surplus places.

  All remaining resources have again been distributed by formula to contribute towards remedying deficiencies in existing school buildings and for work needed for effective delivery of the national curriculum. £109 million has been distributed in this way, an increase of over 50 per cent. on last year.

  Within the FE sector, after meeting commitments of £42·6 million, I have given priority to equipment, where this year's allocations are nearly 50 per cent. higher than last year's.

  These education ACGs represent only the minimum level of expenditure which I consider desirable. They are not grants and do not themselves give authorities the power to borrow money for capital purposes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will issue credit approvals to each authority which will give authorisation to borrow for capital spending on all services. ACGs include a small element in respect of spending from capital receipts on top of the spending which can be financed by borrowing. In addition, authorities will be able to spend futher sums from capital receipts and from their revenue budgets if they so choose. Local authority expenditure, including that on loan charges resulting from capital expenditure, is assisted by central government through revenue support grant.

  I am also announcing an increase of over a third in grant available for spending on new building projects by the governors of aided and special agreement schools. I have authorised 67 new starts for major projects compared with 59 last year, and an increase of 37 per cent. in the allocation of minor works. A further 31 projects have been put on to the design list to enable detailed costed plans to be drawn up and LEAs and governors can apply for projects which require statutory proposals to be added to the list in the course of the year.

  My distribution of annual capital guidelines and allocations to voluntary-aided schools should provide a

  43
  substantial boost to improvements to our school buildings and help equip them for effective delivery of the national curriculum.

  Attached are lists of annual capital guidelines to individual local authorities for 1990–91 and 1991–92. Also attached are allocations for voluntary aided and special agreement schools, which include major new projects at voluntary-aided schools accepted for a start in 1991–92.

  Local education authorities

  Total annual capital guidelines (£ thousands)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Barking

  485

  573

  Barnet

  888

  803

  Bexley

  1,242

  1,891

  Brent

  687

  1,233

  Bromley

  1,684

  3,656

  Croydon

  1,061

  1,996

  Ealing

  889

  1,362

  Enfield

  1,315

  1,971

  Haringey

  1,132

  1,018

  Harrow

  1,073

  1,057

  Havering

  5,881

  1,945

  Hillingdon

  1,140

  1,005

  Hounslow

  539

  1,516

  Kingston

  268

  1,303

  Merton

  3,608

  1,304

  Newham

  5,572

  8,587

  Redbridge

  1,577

  752

  Richmond

  1,390

  954

  Sutton

  2,974

  3,364

  Waltham

  6,661

  3,386

  City

  0

  2

  Camden

  1,421

  885

  Westminster

  380

  624

  Greenwich

  3,849

  676

  Hackney

  2,605

  1,992

  Hammersmith

  1,047

  1,235

  Islington

  1,079

  1,010

  Kensington

  2,145

  1,846

  Lambeth

  1,480

  1,152

  Lewisham

  1,232

  2,512

  Southwark

  5,429

  1,258

  Wandsworth

  1,677

  1,374

  Tower Hamlets

  7,778

  10,856

  Birmingham

  10,494

  11,083

  Coventry

  1,962

  2,180

  Dudley

  3,608

  9,508

  Sandwell

  1,647

  1,313

  Solihull

  1,511

  1,383

  Walsall

  1,369

  1,410

  Wolverhampton

  783

  2,067

  Knowsley

  2,080

  1,173

  Liverpool

  9,742

  5,763

  St. Helens

  5,066

  2,823

  Sefton

  4,176

  4,208

  Wirral

  3,354

  3,379

  Bolton

  802

  899

  Bury

  815

  1,254

  Manchester

  3,062

  4,697

  Oldham

  3,429

  8,522

  Rochdale

  4,078

  8,071

  Voluntary-aided and special agreement schools—1991–92 allocations

  LEA

  Total allocation 1991–92

  Commitments

  Minor Works

  Major Works

  Starts list (major projects to start 1991–92)

  Design list Projects (major Projects to initial design work 1991–92)

  Project category

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  226

  219

  —

  7

  —

  Maria Fidelis RC S

  IR

  Greenwich

  36

  —

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  195

  4

  191

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  Local education authorities

  Total annual capital guidelines (£ thousands)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Salford

  3,899

  3,433

  Stockport

  1,300

  1,919

  Tameside

  1,410

  1,744

  Trafford

  9,448

  3,683

  Wigan

  4,378

  7,462

  Barnsley

  1,883

  806

  Doncaster

  860

  375

  Rotherham

  1,589

  1,039

  Sheffield

  2,428

  1,371

  Bradford

  9,731

  9,355

  Calderdale

  1,514

  1,661

  Kirklees

  1,216

  3,797

  Leeds

  2,562

  16,372

  Wakefield

  5,394

  2,275

  Gateshead

  1,082

  2,840

  Newcastle

  1,564

  2,332

  North Tyneside

  1,265

  729

  South Tyneside

  1,894

  1,988

  Sunderland

  1,883

  3,072

  Isles of Scilly

  221

  16

  Avon

  5,653

  4,945

  Bedfordshire

  2,409

  1,974

  Berkshire

  4,500

  3,282

  Buckinghamshire

  4,544

  7,124

  Cambridge

  13,229

  8,536

  Cheshire

  5,814

  5,257

  Cleveland

  3,329

  2,979

  Cornwall

  6,522

  6,242

  Cumbria

  7,930

  9,629

  Derbyshire

  14,653

  21,330

  Devon

  12,984

  7,715

  Dorset

  3,853

  2,605

  Durham

  4,924

  6,911

  East Sussex

  8,613

  16,761

  Essex

  13,895

  22,210

  Gloucester

  7,917

  6,442

  Hampshire

  13,325

  16,517

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,248

  6,774

  Hertford

  6,526

  6,524

  Humberside

  9,004

  8,371

  Isle of Wight

  1,912

  2,263

  Kent

  16,210

  23,773

  Lancashire

  18,524

  22,789

  Leicester

  11,154

  6,922

  Lincoln

  7,387

  10,016

  Norfolk

  2,880

  2,779

  North Yorkshire

  4,105

  4,575

  Northampton

  6,182

  8,641

  Northumberland

  1,961

  3,545

  Nottinghamshire

  3,716

  5,167

  Oxfordshire

  3,751

  6,601

  Shropshire

  6,319

  6,582

  Somerset

  4,837

  4,979

  Staffordshire

  6,375

  8,644

  Suffolk

  7,921

  9,989

  Surrey

  3,718

  5,538

  Warwick

  1,507

  1,644

  West Sussex

  3,633

  3,508

  Wiltshire

  6,256

  4,973

  45

  LEA

  Total allocation 1991–92

  Commitments

  Minor Works

  Major Works

  Starts list (major projects to start 1991–92)

  Design list Projects (major Projects to initial design work 1991–92)

  Project category

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,295

  1,295

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  173

  —

  173

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,640

  2,552

  —

  88

  —

  St. Thomas More RC S

  IR

  Lambeth

  70

  43

  —

  27

  —

  La Retraite RC S

  IR

  Lewisham

  65

  —

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  861

  804

  —

  57

  —

  St. Peter's CE P, Walworth

  IR

  Tower Hamlets

  334

  80

  171

  83

  St. Matthias CE

  —

  BN1

  Wandsworth

  49

  —

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Westminster

  324

  12

  283

  29

  —

  St. Marylebone CE S

  R

  Barking

  1,955

  1,955

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  718

  718

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bexley

  305

  192

  113

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  35

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  198

  198

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  1,814

  1,723

  91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  302

  252

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  1,163

  1,110

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  147

  125

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  90

  20

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  53

  —

  —

  53

  —

  St. Mark's RC S

  IR

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  98

  98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  134

  74

  —

  60

  St. Bonaventures RC S

  —

  IR

  Redbridge

  116

  116

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  195

  195

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  2,354

  2,324

  —

  30

  St. Philomena's RC S

  —

  IR

  Waltham Forest

  300

  300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  1,113

  668

  281

  164

  St. Bernadettes RC P Bournville Infants

  —

  BN

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Ambrose Barlow RC P

  BN

  Coventry

  1,369

  1,119

  250

  Cardinal Wiseman RC

  —

  SP1

  Dudley

  2,006

  1,769

  87

  150

  St. James CE P, Woolaston

  —

  IR

  Sandwell

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Solihull

  55

  41

  —

  14

  Berkswell CE P

  —

  IR

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  61

  —

  14

  47

  —

  Holy Trinity RC P

  IR

  Knowsley

  571

  506

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  4,493

  3,948

  85

  460

  Broughton Hall High RC

  —

  SP12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Archbishop Blanche CE S

  —

  IR1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cardinal Heenan RC S

  SP1

  St. Helens

  2,149

  2,089

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton

  1,750

  1,430

  95

  225

  Savio RC High

  —

  SP1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Monica's P

  —

  SP2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sacred Heart High RC, Crosby

  —

  SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Luke's CE P, Halsall

  —

  IR

  Wirral

  631

  593

  —

  38

  —

  Plessington High RC S, Bebington

  SP

  Bolton

  436

  116

  20

  300

  St. Joseph's RC S, Horwich

  —

  IR2

  Bury

  574

  181

  85

  308

  Bury High CE

  —

  IR2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Our Lady of Grace RC P

  IR

  Manchester

  827

  227

  120

  480

  St. Andrew's CE P

  —

  IR2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Our Lady's High RC S

  —

  IR2

  Oldham

  174

  24

  125

  25

  —

  Crompton House High CE

  IR

  Rochdale

  436

  321

  115

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  343

  253

  90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  291

  237

  —

  54

  —

  Harrytown High RC

  BN

  46 47

  LEA

  Total allocation 1991–92

  Commitments

  Minor Works

  Major Works

  Starts list (major projects to start 1991–92)

  Design list Projects (major Projects to initial design work 1991–92)

  Project category

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Tameside

  35

  5

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  715

  705

  —

  10

  St. Margaret Ward RC P

  —

  IR

  Wigan

  1,108

  688

  30

  390

  Deanery CE S

  —

  BN

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sacred Heart RC P

  SP

  Barnsley

  25

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  145

  15

  —

  130

  St. Joseph's RC P

  —

  BN1

  Rotherham

  158

  —

  158

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  127

  79

  —

  48

  —

  All Saints RC S

  BN

  Bradford

  873

  867

  —

  6

  Our Lady of Victories RC P

  —

  IR

  Calderdale

  444

  140

  104

  200

  Halifax High RC

  —

  IR

  Kirklees

  218

  82

  104

  32

  —

  St. John Fisher RC S

  BN

  Leeds

  12,288

  12,288

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  180

  60

  120

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  64

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  847

  17

  70

  760

  St. Paul's CE P

  —

  IR2

  North Tyneside

  203

  203

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  21

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  116

  79

  —

  37

  St. Benet's RC P

  —

  BN

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Anthony's RC S

  —

  IR

  Avon

  619

  471

  148

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  600

  —

  —

  600

  Riseley Lower CE P

  —

  BN

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Heath Lower CE P

  —

  IR2

  Berkshire

  358

  128

  230

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  2,207

  1,970

  199

  38

  Frieth Combined CE P

  —

  BN

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waddesdon CE S

  BN

  Cambridgeshire

  79

  —

  —

  79

  King's School CE, Peterborough

  —

  IR2

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bury CE P

  IR

  Cheshire

  1,997

  1,425

  265

  307

  St. Nicholas RC S, Hartford

  —

  IR2

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Mary's, Middlewich

  IR2

  Cleveland

  398

  —

  209

  189

  Newland's RC S

  —

  BN

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Dominic's RC P

  —

  SP

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Peter's RC S

  —

  SP

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ian Ramsey CE S

  —

  IR

  Cornwall

  369

  227

  136

  6

  Millbrook CE P

  —

  IR

  Cumbria

  869

  305

  57

  507

  St. Patrick's RC J, Cleator Moor

  —

  SP2

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Keswick P

  —

  SP

  Derbyshire

  889

  794

  60

  35

  St. Werburgh's CE P, Spondon

  —

  IR

  Devon

  567

  343

  159

  65

  St. Nicholas CE J, Sidmouth

  —

  IR

  Dorset

  3,985

  2,996

  60

  929

  Sandford St. Martin's CE P

  —

  IR

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Joseph's RC P, Poole

  —

  IR2

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Peter's RC S, Bournemouth

  —

  IR2

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Luke's CE P, Winton, B'mouth

  BN

  Durham

  718

  553

  59

  106

  St. John's CE S, Bishop Auckland

  —

  SP

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Charles RC P, Tudhoe

  —

  IR2

  East Sussex

  1,065

  710

  355

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  1,010

  932

  64

  14

  —

  Bradwell CE Endowed

  IR

  Gloucestershire

  1,229

  797

  222

  210

  Corse CE P

  —

  BN

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Holy Apostles CE P

  —

  IR

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Peter's RC High

  BN

  Hampshire

  1,926

  1,926

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,356

  826

  —

  530

  Hagley RC S

  —

  BN1

  Hertfordshire

  1,656

  1,532

  124

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  46

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  210

  —

  210

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IR2

  Kent

  2,837

  1,315

  122

  1,400

  Judd School

  —

  —

  48 49

  LEA

  Total allocation 1991–92

  Commitments

  Minor Works

  Major Works

  Starts list (major projects to start 1991–92)

  Design list Projects (major Projects to initial design work 1991–92)

  Project category

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Lancashire

  4,051

  2,728

  460

  863

  St. Theresa's RC P, Penwortham

  —

  BN

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Gregory's RC P, Chorley

  —

  SP2

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Matthews's RC P, Skelmersdale

  —

  SP

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Baines High, Poulton Le Fylde

  —

  IR2

  Leicestershire

  598

  64

  8

  526

  St. Clare's RC, P, Coalville

  —

  BN2

  Lincolnshire

  276

  61

  —

  215

  Spalding Grammar School

  —

  IR

  Norfolk

  13

  —

  —

  13

  —

  Archibishop Sancroft CE S

  IR

  North Yorkshire

  775

  6

  183

  586

  St. Peter's RC P, Scarborough

  —

  IR2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Aidan's CE High

  —

  IR2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Wilfred's RC P, York

  —

  IR

  Northamptonshire

  27

  —

  —

  27

  —

  St. David's RC Middle

  IR

  Northumberland

  747

  347

  92

  308

  Tritlington CE First

  —

  BN

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Joseph's RC

  —

  BN

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Mary's RC First

  —

  BN

  Nottinghamshire

  135

  36

  99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  2,526

  2,218

  172

  136

  St. Mary's CE P, Chipping Norton

  —

  SP1

  Salop

  238

  105

  133

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  2,041

  903

  191

  947

  St. Dubricus CE P, Porlock

  —

  BN2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Long Sutton CE P

  —

  IR2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chewton

  —

  IR2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trull CE P

  BN

  Staffordshire

  979

  672

  79

  228

  St. Mark's CE P

  —

  BN2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. George's RC P

  IR

  Suffolk

  345

  190

  100

  55

  St. Albans RC S

  —

  BN

  Surrey

  839

  87

  —

  752

  Salesian RC High

  —

  IR2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Nicholas F & M, Shepperton

  IR

  Warwickshire

  788

  273

  —

  515

  St. Paul's Combined CE P

  —

  IR2

  West Sussex

  1,875

  1,312

  558

  5

  St. Mary At Clymping CE P

  —

  IR

  Wiltshire

  1,068

  930

  38

  100

  St. John's RC P, Trowbridge

  —

  IR

  Note:—

  Project category codes as follows:

  BN—Basic need

  SP—Surplus places

  IR—Improvement/replacement

  1 —Approved statutory proposals

  2 —Ex 1990–91 design list

  University Teachers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will meet the Association of University Teachers to discuss its members' careers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding reply 11 December 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend met a delegation from the Association of University Teachers on 11 December. Various issues were discussed, including matters bearing on the careers of university staff.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will review the administrative workloads imposed on university professors.
  50
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding reply 11 December 1990]: It is for university managements to determine the distribution of staff responsibilities within each institution.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development aid is being provided to Vietnam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 13 December at column 476.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he has made to ascertain the type and amount of aid needed in Cambodia for reconstruction and development; and when such aid will be forthcoming.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At their meeting in Paris from 23 to 26 November the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the co-chairman of the Paris conference on Cambodia and the UN Secretary General's representative agreed a draft settlement document, which, inter alia, contains a declaration on the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Cambodia. This sets out how Cambodian reconstruction and development needs will be addressed in the context of a comprehensive political settlement. Britain played its full part in preparing the document and is ready to join other donors to consider Cambodia's aid priorities, initially at a reconvened Paris conference. In the meantime we are supporting the work of non-governmental organisations and UN agencies in Cambodia.

  Poland
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of her Majesty's Government towards assisting the economy of Poland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government fully support the Polish Government in their efforts to stabilise the economy and introduce a free market system. Our policy is to provide technical assistance, help improve trade and other links with the EC, and to contribute to multilateral financial support, whilst seeking to avoid adding to Poland's debt burden.

  Bilateral technical assistance is given through the know-how fund for eastern Europe, in which £50 million is pledged to Poland; this gives priority to encouraging and assisting measures which will help introduce quickly a free market system. We have also provided bilaterally a $100 million grant to the international stabilisation fund which is funded by a group of Western donors to help underpin the value of the zloty while the economy is liberalised.

  We play a leading role in the EC's programme of project assistance for Poland. We have promoted the improved trade access Poland has gained from the EC and the strengthening of other Community links. We look forward to the start of negotiations for an EC-Poland association agreement to expand upon the current trade and co-operation agreement.

  We also contribute through international financial institutions to multilateral financial support for the countries programme. We have participated in the Paris club rescheduling of Poland's official debt and are taking part in a special Paris club working group on the long-term problem of Poland's debt.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of spending to date of know-how funding for Poland and make a statement on the future of the know-how fund.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 10 December at column 281.
  52
  Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union are currently eligible for assistance from the fund. Further countries may be included as and when they demonstrate satisfactory progress towards encouraging market-driven democracies.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake an urgent review, jointly with the other major aid donors to Bangladesh, to consider what additional aid could be offered to Bangladesh, especially linked to health, education, housing and development of infrastructure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have regular discussions with the Government of Bangladesh and with other major aid donors. Bangladesh's aid requirements are considered at annual meetings of the aid group led by the World Bank. At the last such meeting in April 1990 an action plan for policy reform was adopted.

  Last month we participated in a mid-term review of progress in implementing this plan, when it was agreed that the Government of Bangladesh would invite donors for further discussions on its investment priorities and on means of ensuring more effective use of aid, prior to the next aid group meeting in April 1991.

  Our bilateral aid programme to Bangladesh is substantial, at over £50 million a year, and includes assistance for health, education and infrastructure. We recently participated in a multi-donor mission to appraise a further major programme of assistance for population and family health. We currently await information on the interim Government's intention in these, and other areas of development and look forward to continued dialogue.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that continued aid to Bangladesh will rest entirely on progress made towards the genuine restoration of representative democracy and observance of basic human rights in Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have welcomed the appointment of Mr. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed as acting President and the announcement that free and fair elections will be held within 90 days. We hope everyone will heed the call for peace by leaders of all the main political parties so that normal life can be resumed as soon as possible.

  The observance of human rights and good government are among the factors we take into account in allocating aid to developing countries. These considerations apply to Bangladesh as much as to any other developing country receiving British aid.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the Government's financial assistance to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to facilitate its location in London.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government will contribute up to £40 million for the first three years rent and refurbishment costs of the bank's chosen headquarters. The Government propose to execute a lease on a temporary headquarters
  53
  building for the bank and to contribute rent for an agreed period, and refurbishment of the building, from within the £40 million available. I have today laid before the House a minute informing the House of the details. Copies of the minute have been placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Bicycle Bans
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of bicycle bans in city centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Decisions on whether to prohibit bicycles or any other class of vehicle from town centres or other roads are for individual local authorities. The Department has issued advice in our local transport note publication LTN 1/87 on pedestrian zones, "Getting the Right Balance". This refers to the need to consider exempting cycles from vehicular prohibitions in pedestrianisation schemes, if satisfactory alternative routes do not exist or cannot be created. We have further advised, in local transport note 1/89 "Making Way for Cyclists", that when a right of way for vehicles is removed from a road, a continuing right of way for cyclists should be provided unless there are overriding reasons not to do so.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much local highway authority expenditure he intends to accept for transport supplementary grant in 1991–92.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have decided to accept a net local highway expenditure of £636 million for transport supplementary grant—TSG— in 1991–92. A total of £318 million grant is to be paid in support of capital expenditure on local authority road schemes, and bridge assessment and strengthening. This is an increase of 17 per cent. on last year's grant for road schemes. Structural maintenance work on bridges eligible for grant for the first time has been allocated £45 million. Grant is paid at a flat rate of 50 per cent. on schemes and works accepted from the bids made by the 108 local highway authorities in England.

  I have also decided to issue supplementary credit approvals of £90 million and total annual capital

  Local authority capital expenditure on roads 1991–92

  Authority

  Accepted expenditure for bridge strengthening and assessment1

  Net total expenditure accepted for transport supplementary grant

  Transport supplementary grant

  Total credit2

  £ million (1)

  £ million (2)

  £ million (3)

  £ million (4)

  London boroughs

  City of London

  0·199

  0·618

  0·309

  0·455

  Barking and Dagenham

  0·197

  3·670

  1·835

  2·255

  Barnet

  0·528

  1·030

  0·515

  0·803

  Bexley

  0·300

  2·500

  1·250

  1·858

  Brent

  1·167

  1·386

  0·693

  2·557

  Bromley

  0·135

  6·110

  3·055

  4·404

  Camden

  0·547

  1·288

  0·644

  1·220

  Croydon

  0·012

  1·538

  0·769

  1·452

  Ealing

  0·190

  3·172

  1·586

  2·690

  Enfield

  0·990

  9·000

  4·500

  4·666

  Greenwich

  0·148

  0·000

  0·000

  0·521

  Hackney

  0·420

  1·048

  0·524

  1·143

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·370

  0·858

  0·429

  0·859

  54
  guidelines of £362 million, bringing allocation for local roads, parking and bridge maintenance for 1991–92 to £771 million. The figure for local roads and parking for 1990–91 is £635 million.

  In deciding the distribution of transport supplementary grant for 1991–92, I have considered carefully the transport policies and programme documents submitted by each local highway authority, and have looked at the extent to which authorities' programmes relate to roads of more than local importance.

  Accepted expenditure for minor works has almost doubled, rising from £38 million for 1990–91 to £75 million for 1991–92. The new figure includes £31 million given for local safety schemes, which for the first time in 1991–92 are eligible for grant on all roads and not only on roads of more than local importance. This is in line with the suggestions of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety. It is up to local authorities to decide which schemes to carry out; this level of finance could however support around 3,500 new local safety schemes which in only 12 months could save 80 lives, 1,000 serious injuries, and in all prevent 5,000 casualties.

  The grant will also provide £262 million in 1991–92 for continued support of 271 major local authority road schemes which are under construction or about to start; 35 new major schemes—over £1 million—have been accepted into the programme. The total cost of these new schemes is £166 million and the expenditure on them in 1991–92 is £42 million.

  Among these new schemes are major improvements on the A 13 in Essex serving east London and docklands, phase 2 of the Reading relief road, and the support of a major bypass of the A34 in Cheshire and Stockport. Fifteen of these schemes are bypasses to town centres and urban areas, which will greatly enhance the quality of life and improve the local environment in some of our historic towns. The remaining schemes are for upgrading existing roads and for improving access to urban and inner city areas.

  The amount of expenditure accepted for TSG, the amount of grant, the accepted expenditure for bridge maintenance and, the total of annual capital guidelines and special credit approvals for each local highway authority are set out in the tables. Councils are being informed individually today of their own figures.
  55

  Authority

  Accepted expenditure for bridge strengthening and assessment1

  Net total expenditure accepted for transport supplementary grant

  Transport supplementary grant

  Total credit2

  £ million (1)

  £ million (2)

  £ million (3)

  £ million (4)

  Haringey

  0·227

  2·132

  1·066

  1·577

  Harrow

  0·560

  6·566

  3·283

  6·651

  Havering

  0·518

  1·278

  0·639

  0·903

  Hillingdon

  1·120

  12·704

  6·352

  9·537

  Hounslow

  0·145

  0·944

  0·472

  0·926

  Islington

  0·080

  0·724

  0·362

  0·953

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·290

  0·460

  0·230

  0·890

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·255

  1·226

  0·613

  1·184

  Lambeth

  0·100

  0·596

  0·298

  0·421

  Lewisham

  0·431

  8·540

  4·270

  8·371

  Merton

  0·078

  0·018

  0·009

  1·651

  Newham

  0·886

  1·630

  0·815

  2·948

  Redbridge

  0·253

  0·832

  0·416

  0·727

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·315

  0·816

  0·408

  0·620

  South wark

  0·118

  0·898

  0·449

  2·530

  Sutton

  1·338

  1·982

  0·991

  2·330

  Tower Hamlets

  0·691

  0·990

  0·495

  1·277

  Waltham Forest

  0·110

  0·778

  0·389

  0·687

  Wandsworth

  1·169

  4·348

  2·174

  2·963

  Westminster

  1·100

  1·692

  0·846

  4·384

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  0·565

  2·528

  1·264

  1·468

  Bury

  0·370

  0·866

  0·433

  0·578

  Manchester

  0·515

  18·790

  9·395

  10·074

  Oldham

  1·735

  3·896

  1·948

  2·864

  Rochdale

  0·376

  0·928

  0·464

  0·605

  Salford

  0·650

  3·138

  1·569

  3064

  Stockport

  1·013

  3·480

  1·740

  1·844

  Tameside

  1·112

  1·380

  0·690

  1·309

  Trafford

  0·250

  0·276

  0·138

  1·531

  Wigan

  0·350

  3·692

  1·846

  2·800

  Knowsley

  0·401

  3·340

  1·670

  1·806

  Liverpool

  0·360

  0·000

  0·000

  0·611

  St· Helens

  0·353

  15·562

  7·781

  8·740

  Sefton

  0·888

  1·238

  0·619

  0·823

  Wirral

  0·475

  0·000

  0·000

  0·848

  Barnsley

  0·527

  5·342

  2·671

  3·236

  Doncaster

  2·854

  4·584

  2·292

  4·474

  Rotherham

  0·215

  1·324

  0·662

  0·908

  Sheffield

  1000

  10·024

  5012

  8·680

  Gateshead

  0175

  1·512

  0·756

  1·042

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0·480

  1·978

  0·989

  2·829

  North Tyneside

  0·020

  0·630

  0·315

  0·409

  South Tyneside

  0·236

  1·922

  0·961

  1·097

  Sunderland

  0·474

  3·826

  1·913

  2·542

  Birmingham

  2·500

  20·512

  10·256

  15·524

  Coventry

  0·258

  5·586

  2·793

  3·301

  Dudley

  0·189

  2·888

  1·444

  2·522

  Sandwell

  1·781

  2·360

  1·180

  1·557

  Solihull

  0·850

  0·884

  0·442

  1·752

  Walsall

  1·802

  0·880

  0·440

  2·120

  Wolverhampton

  1·095

  12·320

  6·160

  7·486

  Bradford

  0·154

  4·560

  2·280

  3·442

  Calderdale

  0·411

  0·734

  0·367

  0·491

  Kirklees

  1·032

  1·898

  0·949

  1·605

  Leeds

  0·827

  3·974

  1·987

  3·260

  Wakefield

  1·802

  2·426

  1·213

  2·745

  Shire counties

  Avon

  1·174

  17·710

  8·855

  10·568

  Bedfordshire

  1·846

  6·456

  3·228

  3·481

  Berkshire

  0·455

  5·414

  2·707

  4·779

  Buckinghamshire

  0·970

  3·698

  1·849

  2·385

  Cambridgeshire

  1·956

  3·740

  1·870

  2·606

  Cheshire

  1·390

  11·002

  5·501

  6·797

  Cleveland

  0·412

  7·378

  3·689

  4·804

  Cornwall

  0·750

  7·916

  3·958

  5·512

  Cumbria

  2·035

  6·624

  3·312

  3·634

  Derbysnire

  1·138

  2·316

  1·158

  6·332

  Devon

  2·153

  10·124

  5·062

  6·838

  Dorset

  1·090

  5·540

  2·770

  3·687

  56 57

  Authority

  Accepted expenditure for bridge strengthening and assessment1

  Net total expenditure accepted for transport supplementary grant

  Transport supplementary grant

  Total credit2

  £ million (1)

  £ million (2)

  £ million (3)

  £ million (4)

  Durham

  0·850

  7·318

  3·659

  4·060

  East Sussex

  0·524

  10·462

  5·231

  6·963

  Essex

  0·475

  12·896

  6·448

  8·569

  Gloucestershire

  0·348

  4·182

  2091

  2·840

  Hampshire

  1·115

  24·358

  12·179

  13·099

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·827

  6·454

  3·227

  3·981

  Hertfordshire

  0·760

  6·506

  3·253

  5·655

  Humberside

  2·000

  11·178

  5·589

  8·307

  Isle of Wight

  0·135

  1·942

  0·971

  1·282

  Kent

  1·450

  74·458

  37·229

  39·538

  Lancashire

  4·250

  22·464

  11·232

  13·594

  Leicestershire

  0·770

  11·286

  5·643

  6·532

  Lincolnshire

  2·010

  3·680

  1·840

  3·530

  Norfolk

  1·830

  9·464

  4·732

  6·326

  Northamptonshire

  0·660

  7·728

  3·864

  5·098

  Northumberland

  1·460

  6·286

  3·143

  3·993

  North Yorkshire

  2·160

  12·314

  6157

  9·321

  Nottinghamshire

  1·335

  11110

  5·555

  7·267

  Oxfordshire

  0·378

  5·968

  2·984

  3·998

  Shropshire

  0·739

  8·710

  4·355

  5·621

  Somerset

  0·480

  6·026

  3·013

  4·166

  Staffordshire

  0·751

  7·854

  3·927

  6·182

  Suffolk

  1·980

  18·596

  9·298

  11·715

  Surrey

  3·971

  10·242

  5·121

  8·947

  Warwickshire

  1·670

  1·902

  0·951

  2·765

  West Sussex

  0·286

  8·252

  4·126

  4·882

  Wiltshire

  0·029

  5·376

  2·688

  4·429

  1 Included in (2).

  2 Annual capital guidelines plus supplementary credit approvals.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with the International Maritime Organisation about the fate of the MV Derbyshire and her sister ships.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has had no discussions with the International Maritime Organisation about the fate of the Derbyshire and her sister ships. A copy of the report of formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire was, however, sent to the IMO for information.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date his Department received a copy of the research paper by Professor Bishop on the sinking of the MV Derbyshire; on what date it was referred to the marine accident investigation branch of his Department; what consultations he is having on the basis of it; when he expects to receive a report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine accident investigation branch-MAIB-requested a copy of the paper from the Royal Institution of Naval Architects: this was received in early August. Copies of the paper were received in the Department's marine directorate in September. The MAIB is still examining the paper, along with the Tyne Tees television underwater film of the Kowloon Bridge. A report on the conclusions reached will be submitted to the Secretary of State shortly who will then decide whether or not to reopen the formal investigation which took place between October 1987 and March 1988.

  Ships' Plans
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirement there is to ensure that copies of as-built plans of vessels constructed in the United Kingdom are kept during the working life of the vessels.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is no statutory requirement for the retention of "as built" plans of vessels constructed in the United Kingdom. The provision of such plans is usually a matter of contract between the builder and the purchaser.

  Networker Trains
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current state of discussions between his Department and British Rail over the introduction of Networker multiple-unit electric trains for the longer-distance journey to Sussex and Kent.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Rail is considering, in the light of its other financial and investment priorities, how soon this project can start.

  Roads, Kent
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether all the road improvements in Kent authorised by his Department in connection with improved access to the channel tunnel will be completed by the time the tunnel is open in the summer of 1993.

  Mr. Chope
  The "missing link" in the M20 between Maidstone and Ashford is under construction. Statutory orders have been made authorising the widening of the
  59
  section of M20 between junctions 5 and 8 and the provision of a new A20 route between Dover and Folkestone. We are on target to have all these improvements in place by the time the channel tunnel is due to open in summer 1993.

  London Regional Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a detailed breakdown of how the extra £3 billion available for investment to London Regional Transport is to be allocated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Government grant to London Transport will be nearly £2·5 billion over the next three years. This should allow LT to invest approaching £3 billion over the same period. Of the grant, £748 million is allocated to the Jubilee line extension and £164 million to the east-west crossrail. LT has yet to decide how it wishes to allocate the remainder.

  British Rail (Trespass)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many actions for trespass have been initiated by British Rail in(a) 1989 and (b) 1990; and how many cases have been successful.

  Mr. Freeman
  This Department has no figures readily available. These are detailed matters for British Rail and the British Transport police.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for, or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985, giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department regularly commissions surveys of opinions, for example on motor cyclists'

  £ million

  Company

  Date of sale

  Net proceeds to Government

  Current capitalization

  National Freight Consortium

  1982

  5·0

  702·3

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  45·4

  377·4

  (Secondary sale by HMT)

  1984

  51·0

  —

  British Airways

  1987

  853·0

  1,132·0

  BAA

  1987

  1,1816

  2,0892

  ScotRail
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the senior management of ScotRail to discuss improvements in the Glasgow Central—London Euston passenger service and other matters relating to rail services within Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend will be having regular meetings with British Rail senior management to discuss a variety of railway matters, although he has no immediate plans to visit ScotRail. His predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), visited ScotRail as recently as 16 November.
  60
  attitudes to vehicle safety, among other types of survey. A complete list of surveys is maintained, but it it not possible to identify from this list those surveys that have included questions of opinion. I regret therefore that the information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Speedlink
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Ministers have been approached regarding a possible private takeover or replacement of the British Rail Speedlink service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from BR that a number of private sector companies have expressed interest in finding ways of operating some Speedlink traffics. British Rail will welcome any serious propositions that have advantages for both sides.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if ministerial approval was sought for the closure of British Rail's Speedlink service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Rail chairman kept us informed throughout the board's review of Speedlink. The decision to close the Speedlink network from July 1991 is a commercial matter for the BR board and does not require ministerial approval.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the privatisations with which his Department has been involved since 1979, indicating in each case the date of the sale, the proceeds of the sale and the estimated current value of the company.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: The information is as follows:

HEALTH

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received advocating the extension of exemption from prescription charges to men aged 60 to 64 years;

  (2) if he will extend exemption from prescription charges to men aged 60 to 64 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the past three months one letter from an hon. Member and two letters from members of the public have been received. The present exemption arrangements protect those who are likely to have difficulty in paying charges and, in the case of men and women who have reached state pension age, reflect the
  61
  change of financial circumstances which they would generally experience at this point in their lives. Persons below state pension age who are not otherwise exempt, but who require frequent medication, can limit their outlay by buying a prepayment certificate. We therefore have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the number of patients awaiting heart surgery at St. George's hospital, Tooting, London, who are residents living within the area covered by the Wandsworth health authority;

  (2) what is the present number of patients awaiting heart surgery treatment at St. George's hospital, Tooting, London;

  (3) what has been the longest period of time a person on the waiting list for heart surgery treatment at St. George's hospital, Tooting, has been waiting in the past three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about numbers on waiting lists and waiting times for admission to hospital is not available centrally by individual hospital or by specific condition. The hon. Member may wish to write to Dr. Enid Vincent, the chairman of Wandsworth district health authority, for the information.

  Heart Attacks (Women)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women had heart attacks for each of the last three years for which figures are available aged (i) 20 30, (ii) 31 to 40, (iii) 41 to 50, (iv) 51 to 60 and (v) 61 to 70 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table gives, by age, the numbers of deaths of women caused by acute myocardial infarction in the last three years for which figures are available.

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Age

  20–29

  8

  10

  5

  30–39

  68

  50

  45

  40–49

  302

  259

  242

  50–59

  1,605

  1,390

  1,305

  60–69

  6,836

  6,437

  6,193

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of those people appointed to be chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to announce the names of those appointed to the chair and trustees of the Bradford NHS trust:, and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today placed in the Library a list of appointments to those trusts established today. A list of those people to be appointed as chairmen and non-executive directors of the trusts to be established on 21 December will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the procedure followed for public consultation 62
  for second wave trust will differ from those in the first wave; and if hospitals which were not approved in the first wave will be obliged to put any second wave applications out for public consultation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The procedure to be followed for public consultation for second wave trusts will not differ from the first wave. The applications from those hospitals and units which were not approved in the first wave have already been the subject of full public consultation. It would, therefore, suffice for the region concerned to write to the bodies to whom it had sent the original consultation document, stating that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be willing to consider trust status subject to specific issues having been addressed, specifying the conditions and seeking further comments.

  Child Care
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received from the local authority associations about the cost of providing child care services for Eritrean children seeking asylum in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received estimated costs from the local authority associations for London boroughs involved in providing child care services for newly arrived unaccompanied Eritrean children seeking asylum. Consideration is now being given to the case for special funding.

  The Gulf (Casualties)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the contingency provision for the reception of casualties by national health service hospitals, in the event of a military option in the Gulf.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply 1 gave the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on 16 November at column 248. Contingency provision is under continuous review in consultation with the Ministry of Defence.

  Tehidy Hospital, Cornwall
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates announcing his decision on the future of Tehidy hospital, Camborne, Cornwall, following the decision of the South Western regional health authority at its meeting of 4 December.

  Mr. Dorrell
  When we receive the papers from South Western regional health authority, concerning the proposed siting of the Camborne Redruth hospital, including the future of Tehidy hospital, we shall consider carefully all of the views expressed and make a decision without delay.

  Clinical Standards
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) with which organisations he has recently met in order to discuss the work of the clinical standards advisory group;

  (2) if he intends to meet with the Royal College of Midwives to discuss the work of the clinical standards advisory group.
  63
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State met the presidents of the royal colleges and other leaders of the dental, medical, midwifery and nursing professions earlier this year, work on the clinical standards advisory group has been taken forward by officials. This work is continuing. We shall keep the need for any further meetings under review.

  Function, Banqueting House
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the purpose and full cost of the function organised by his Department at the Banqueting house, Whitehall on the evening of Tuesday 11 December;

  (2) if he will list the names of those attending the function organised by his Department at the Banqueting house, Whitehall on the evening of Tuesday 11 December.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The dinner held at the Banqueting house, Whitehall on the 11 December was part of a two day business conference on NHS trusts and was attended by people including Ministers, NHS managers, members of the NHS Management Executive and departmental officials. The dinner cost £9,959·43.

  Cook-chill Foods
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cook-chill production facilities were introduced into hospitals in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's guidelines on cook-chill catering have been supplied to the managers of every hospital and school cook-chill production unit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Copies of the Department's "Guidelines on Cook-Chill and Cook-Freeze Catering Systems" were sent to every district health authority in England in July 1989. Copies are also available in the Library.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information readily available relates to the register of surveys maintained by the Central Statistical Office. The table lists surveys commissioned by the Department of Health since 1988 and surveys which from their titles appear to relate to health and personal social services from 1985 to 1988 commissioned by the former Department of Health and Social Security.

  Department of Health

  Misuse of drugs campaign 1988–89: Creative development stage 2

  Nursing recruitment campaign—Telephone response follow up

  Cold weather campaign evaluation 1988–89

  Misuse of drugs 1988–89: Creative development stage 3

  NHS financial management training scheme research

  Nursing: Youth concept research

  Drugs 1988–89: Campaign evaluation stage 7

  Nursing tracking 1989–90: Two stages June and September

  Cold weather publicity campaign 1989–90: Evaluation

  64

  Nursing tracking study wave III and wave IV (1990)

  Drugs tracking study stage 8

  Drugs 1990: Doublehead research

  Organ donation: Regional research

  Nursing qualitative evaluation

  Cold weather postal follow-up research

  Drugs 1990: Qualitative evaluation

  Nursing follow-up of campaign response: Student nurses

  Drugs tracking stage 9

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Nursing recruitment campaign evaluation

  Image of the NHS

  Anti-heroin campaign tracking

  AIDS-drugs advertising development research

  AIDS longterm tracking

  Organ donor next of kin—Qualitative research

  AIDS youth campaign tracking research (November 1986 and February 1987)

  Tracking public attitudes to the social security reform campaign 1987

  AIDS-drugs doublehead animatics research—Reaction to advertising roughs

  AIDS-drugs advertising: Animatic/doublehead communication check

  Attitudes to nurse training

  Stage 6 of a tracking survey to evaluate the anti-drugs campaigns

  Attitudes of West Indians and Asians to AIDS

  Family credit advertising development research

  Nursing recruitment—Advertising communication check

  1986–87 anti-heroin campaign creative development

  Anti-heroin campaign evaluation stage 4

  Qualitative research into attitudes to condoms (AIDS)

  AIDS anti-body test leaflet comm. check research pilot and main survey

  National and regional publicity needs for the blood transfusion service

  AIDS-drugs campaigns: Qualitative evaluation research

  Monitoring attitudes to social security 1988

  Prescribing publicity

  Organ donor research

  Misuse of drugs 1988–89 campaign: Advertising development research

  1988 nursing recruitment campaign: Initial evaluation research

  Nursing careers: 1988 tracking study

  Attitudes to methods of payments of benefits

  Attitudes to giving blood

  Determinants of labour supply behaviour families in long-term unemployment

  Attitudes to unemployment and claiming benefit while unemployed

  Smoking among secondary schoolchildren in 1986 (DHSS/WO/SHHD)

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Space Research Corporation
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on non-military research done by the Space Research Corporation.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Vietnam (Trade Restrictions)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the restrictions on trade with Vietnam; and if he has any proposals to lift them.

  Mr. Redwood
  The import of those goods which are normally restricted from state trading countries are totally restricted from Vietnam. The products covered by this
  65
  embargo are matches, footwear, TV sets, gloves, headgear, some agricultural products and a wide range of textile products. The United Kingdom has, however, opened quotas for imports of a number of products as shown in the table. The import of any other goods from Vietnam is not restricted.

  These restrictions are subject to regular review, in the light of foreign and trade policy considerations.

  In addition, goods, and technical documents for such goods, listed in schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, as amended, require an export licence before they can be exported to any country.

  I have no proposals to remove such controls for Vietnam. However, together with our partners in the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls—COCOM—we are currently examining the scope for modifications to the list of goods subject to export control.

  Product

  Quota level (1990)

  Tableware of porcelain, china or pottery; ornaments or statuettes

  £23,100

  Bedlinen, tablelinen, curtains; synthetic yarn and woven fabrics of synthetic yarn (MFA categories: 20, 23, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40)

  7 tonnes

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government assistance will be given to the British shoe industry in the coming months.

  Mr. Leigh
  Firms in the footwear industry can apply for assistance from a range of Government schemes for encouraging enterprise and good practice.

  Levitt Group
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the chairman of FIMBRA to discuss the introduction of systematic investigations for its larger members in the light of the Levitt group collapse.

  Mr. Redwood
  I meet the chairmen of the self-regulating organisations under the Financial Services Act, including FIMBRA, from time to time to discuss a range of regulatory issues.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure that more thorough procedures in relation to capital adequacy will in future prevent the occurrence of further cases similar to the Levitt Group collapse.

  Mr. Redwood
  Rules and procedures relating to the capital adequacy of persons carrying on investment business are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board and the regulatory bodies recognised under the Financial Services Act.

  Cyprus (Defence Equipment)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that defence equipment and munitions supplied to Cyprus have not been re-exported in a manner that is inconsistent with Government policy; and if he will make a statement.
  66
  Mr. Lilley
  Defence and defence-related equipment for sale to Cyprus or elsewhere which is subject to export control under the Export Goods (Control) Order 1989 requires an export licence, for which my Department is the issuing authority.

  Each application for a licence is considered on its merits in consultation with other Departments taking into account the type of equipment, its end use and end user. If there are any reasons to doubt the end use or end user of the equipment a licence would not be issued.

  There are penalties, enforceable through the courts, for any person who makes a false statement or provides information known to be false to obtain an export licence.

  If the hon. Member has particular cases in mind and can provide me with information I shall investigate.

  Motor Sport (Exhibition)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the British motor sport industry to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Leigh
  Yes. The Department received in November an application for an exhibition, and I am pleased to say that approval was subsequently given.

  British Technology Group
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition about the working of the British Technology Group for display in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 3 December. I understand that arrangements for the exhibition are in hand.

  Iraq (Supergun)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the day on which his Department was first made aware that Iraq was acquiring export material for a major gun or launcher.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: My Department first became aware that Iraq was acquiring export material for a major gun or launcher in April of this year.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what special checks were made of the 44 items of piping sent to Iraq which became known to be for military purposes.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: My Department does not make physical checks on goods for export except at the request of exporters or HM Customs and Excise. The granting of licences is dependent on information about the nature and use of products which the exporter is obliged by law to provide.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was made aware of changes in the specifications of the steel for the Iraqi order placed with Walter Somers.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: I understand that it was a change in the specification which

  67
  led my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) to approach my Department on behalf of Walter Somers.

  Burma
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration Her Majesty's Government has given to assistance regarding contracts signed between British Petroleum and the Government of Burma/Myanmar, for oil exploration.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 December 1990]: Neither we nor BP has any knowledge of such contracts.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights (Kosovo)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning abuse of human rights in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received a number of representations from organisations and members of the public in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the level of co-operation between the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer People's National Liberation Front and Prince Sihanouk in(a) diplomatic activity relating to the United Nations plan for Cambodia and (b) military activity relating to the continuing war in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Khmer People's National Liberation Front, the Sihanoukists and the Khmer Rouge coordinate their diplomatic activity on the United Nations plan and otherwise through the coalition known as the National Government of Cambodia—NGC. We understand that, although the three parties share the objective of installing the NGC in Phnom Penh, their armed forces are autonomous and co-operate on an ad hoc basis.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about recent arms supplies to the warring parties in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  China has announced that it has ceased supplying arms to the forces of the Cambodian resistance parties. The draft comprehensive settlement document agreed in Paris on 23 to 26 November by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the co-chairmen of the Paris conference on Cambodia and the United Nations Secretary-General's representative provides for the cessation of all outside arms supplies to all the Cambodian parties.

  Mr. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on Pol Pot's current role in the Khmer Rouge; and what steps he is taking to prevent his participation it) the United Nations peace plan for Cambodia.
  68
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1985 Pol Pot renounced his principal posts in the Khmer Rouge. His sole remaining official title is head of the Academy of National Defence.

  The framework document agreed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council provides that the members of the Supreme National Council
  "should be acceptable to each other".

  This was designed to exclude Pol Pot. The draft settlement document agreed in Paris on 23 to 26 November also includes comprehensive human rights provisions to guard against any return to the horrors of the past.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration was given to the inclusion of the ceasefire agreement between Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk agreed in Tokyo in June in the United Nations framework for Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The five permanent members of the UN Security Council took the results of the Tokyo meeting between Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk, including the reference to voluntary self-restraint and a ceasefire, into account in elaborating their framework for a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the relationship of Son Sen and Khieu Samphan with the Khmer Rouge Government of 1975 to 1978; what official positions they held between 1975 and 1978; what positions they currently hold in the Khmer Rouge; and whether Her Majesty's Government supported their membership of the new Supreme National Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  From 1975–1978, Son Sen was Vice-Premier for National Defence and a member of the standing committee of the Communist Party of Kampuchea central committee. He was also described in 1978 as chairman of the committee of the general staff of the Cambodian Revolutionary Army. He is now a member of the Supreme National Council, deputy head of the Party of Democratic Kampuchea, supreme commander of the Army of Democratic Kampuchea and Minister attached to the National Government of Cambodia's co-ordinating committee for national defence.

  Khieu Samphan was Deputy Premier and Minister of National Defence in GRUNC—the Royal Cambodian Government of National Unity—when the Khmer Rouge took power in April 1975. In August 1975 he was described as Deputy Premier for general affairs attached to the Premier's office and Commander-in-Chief of the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces. In 1976 he replaced Prince Sihanouk as Cambodian Head of State, becoming chairman of the praesidium of Democratic Kampuchea. He is now a member of the Supreme National Council, leader of the Party of Democratic Kampuchea and the National Government of Cambodia's Vice-Premier in charge of national defence.

  The framework for a comprehensive political settlement agreed by the five permanent members of the Security Council specifies that
  "the composition of the Supreme National Council, including the selection and number of its members, should be decided by the Cambodian parties through consultations".

  We played no part in the process that led to the formation of that Supreme National Council.
  69
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any information linking Son Sen with the administration of Tuol Sleng prison during the period 1975 to 1978.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  During the period 1975–78, Son Sen was Cambodian Vice-Premier in charge of national defence. We have no information linking Son Sett with Tuol Sleng during this period.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what military, diplomatic or financial support has been provided since 1979 by Her Majesty's Government to the Cambodian non-communist resistance parties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Although we have no dealings with the resistance coalition National Government of Cambodia, we have since 1979 provided political support for Prince Sihanouk and the Kampuchea People's National Liberation Front—KPNLF. This has included invitations to Prince Sihanouk and Son Sann to visit London for high-level talks. We have also given limited financial support in the form of humanitarian assistance for the inmates of Sihkanoukist and KPLNF camps on the Thai-Cambodian border, provided as donations in kind: foodstuffs, clothing, basic domestic equipment, and so on.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the dates of talks Her Majesty's Government have held, or intend to hold, with representatives of Prince Sihanouk, of the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer People's National Liberation Front and the Hun Sen regime as part of the political settlement for Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No formal talks with the Cambodian parties have been held or are planned. We maintain informal contact with the two non-communist partners in the resistance coalition and have indicated a willingness to talk to representatives of the Hun. Sen regime to urge them to co-operate in restoring peace to Cambodia on the basis of the five's framework. We have no contact with the Khmer Rouge.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the dates of talks Her Majesty's Government have held with the Governments of Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and Australia about the United Nations framework plan for Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  After each of their eight meetings in 1990, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council briefed, as a group or individually, representatives of the Governments to whom the hon. Member refers. In addition, we are in close and regular contact with the diplomatic missions of these Governments in London. Japan and Australia, as co-chairmen of two of the Paris conference commit:tees, took part in the working group meeting in Jakarta on 9 and 10 November. In addition, we held formal bilateral talks on Cambodia with the Prime Minister of Thailand on 17 October, and with representatives of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 30 November.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings have 70
  been held by the member states of the European Community in the last year to discuss the situation in Cambodia; and what issues were discussed at what level of representation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  One meeting of the European political co-operation—Asia working group convened this year specifically to discuss Cambodia. Cambodia regularly features on the agenda of EPC meetings at both official and ministerial level.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what future meetings are planned between representatives of the European Community and the Association of South-East Asian Nations to discuss the situation in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no plans for a meeting between EC and ASEAN representatives specifically to discuss Cambodia. But we expect Cambodia to be on the agenda of the next EC-ASEAN ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on 30 and 31 May 1991.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the report by Raoul Jennar on Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have read with interest Raoul Jennar's report of his recent visit to Cambodia. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 12 December, at column 421.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions with the Bangladesh Government to discuss(a) what assistance Her Majesty's Government could offer Bangladesh in the preparations for forthcoming elections for President and Parliament and (b) what help Her Majesty's Government could offer in monitoring the conduct of these elections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We would be ready to consider any request in these areas made by the Bangladesh authorities.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold early talks with the President and Government of Bangladesh on action being taken to restore democracy and ways in which Her Majesty's Government could increase aid to Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to do so. The acting President has spoken of the need to hold free and fair elections as soon as possible, and my right hon. Friend referred in his message to him to the importance we attach to this task.

  Our existing bilateral aid programme to Bangladesh is substantial, at over £50 million a year. Our contribution to Bangladesh through multilateral institutions is also significant. In 1988, the last year for which figures are available, it amounted to £28·5 million.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will have discussions
  71
  with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth about what role might be played by the Commonwealth in (a) preparations for forthcoming elections in Bangladesh for President and Parliament and (b) monitoring the conduct of those elections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Commonwealth involvement in presidential and parliamentary elections in Bangladesh would be a matter for the Bangladesh Government to take up with the Commonwealth Secretary General.

  Iraq-Kuwait Border
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government, or representatives of alliances of which the United Kingdom is a member, had with Kuwait or Iraq prior to 2 August, concerning adjustment or delineation of the border between Iraq and Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has not been involved in such discussions since before 1961 when the British Government terminated the exclusive agreement of 1899 with the Kuwaiti Government and recognised Kuwait as a sovereign independent state.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Six opinion surveys have been conducted on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in October 1986, March 1987, April 1987, July 1988, August 1989, August 1990. The purpose of the surveys was to monitor trends in public opinion, and to enable the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to improve its presentation of foreign policy issues.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by his Department to draw attention to United Nations findings of the effect of sanctions on Iraq in the run-up to 15 January 1991.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations has not made available any such findings.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice Her Majesty's Government have to offer British nationals resident in the Gulf region.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has the following advice for British nationals resident in Bahrain, Qatar, the eastern region of Saudi Arabia, and the cities of Riyadh and Tabuk. Following the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 678, British dependants are advised to leave the area well before the deadline of 15 January which has been set by the UN Security Council for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. This is a common sense precaution, and does not imply any worsening of the situation in the last few days.
  72
  Advice to visitors remains unchanged. Tourists should not visit the area, but those who have necessary business to conduct should not be deterred. They should register their arrival with the nearest British dipllomatic mission, and should tell the mission how long they expect to stay.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to supply the remaining four cattle brains to Dr. Harash Narang at the public health laboratory in Newcastle to further his diagnosis of BSE.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials will supply Dr. Harash Narang with the remaining cattle brains he requires when suitable material becomes available and he is able to take delivery of it.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Curry
  Opinion surveys, including market research connected with public information publicity campaigns, conducted for, or on behalf of this Department since 1 January 1985 are as follows:

  June 1987

  Survey of Consumer Attitude to Food Additives

  Purpose: Publicity planning

  June 1988

  Food Hygiene: Report on a Consumer Survey

  Purpose: Publicity planning

  September 1989

  Food Safety: Qualitative Survey

  Purpose: Publicity planning

  November 1989

  Food Safety: Quantitative Survey

  Purpose: Publicity planning

  December 1989

  Food Attitudes Monitor

  Purpose: Campaign evaluation and publicity planning

  March 1990

  Public Attitudes to Food Additives

  Purpose: Campaign evaluation and publicity planning

  April-May 1990

  Attitudes to Food Labelling Survey (England and Wales)

  Purpose: Publicity planning

  June 1990

  Awareness and Understanding of BSE

  Purpose: Publicity planning

  November 1990

  Research into Effectiveness of the 1990 MAFF Touring Exhibition (Parts 1 and 2)

  Purpose: Campaign evaluation and publicity planning

  November 1990

  Report on a Qualitative Research Study into 'Food Sense' Publications

  Purpose: Campaign evaluation.

  Research Laboratories
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations of the(a) veterinary laboratories, (b) Agricultural Development Advisory Service farm and countryside service laboratories, (c) Agricultural Development Advisory Service

  73
  research and development laboratories, (d) fisheries laboratories arid (e) food science laboratories that have closed since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Laboratories exist to meet the experimental and analytical needs of the Ministry's scientific work programme. In order that this can be carried out in the most efficient and economical way, it is sometimes necessary for facilities at particular sites to be closed or for new ones to be constructed. The table illustrates this by listing the locations of laboratories which have closed and by identifying the places to which work has been transferred. It remains our policy to keep all such facilities under review to ensure that we have the most cost effective mix of resources for current and future requirements.

  Closure and Effect on programme

  (a) Veterinary Laboratories

  Cardiff—work redistributed amongst Carmarthen, Shrewsbury, Worcester and Langford.

  Chester—work redistributed amongst Bangor, Barton Hall (Preston) and Shrewsbury.

  Gloucester—work redistributed amongst Langford and Worcester.

  Leeds—work transferred to Thirsk.

  Liverpool—work transferred to a new laboratory at Barton Hall (Preston)

  Northampton—work redistributed amongst Cambridge, Reading and Sutton Bonington.

  Shinfield (Reading)—some AI work privatised. Other work transferred to CVL (Weybridge).

  Since 1979 there has been a programme of rationalisation and investment in the most modern analytical equipment which has permitted an increased workload to be handled more cost effectively at fewer sites. Work which would have been carried out at closed sites is now dealt with at the most appropriate remaining site in relation to location, the discipline involved and the particular requirements in question. Closed laboratories and current facilities are listed, together with their relevant specialisms.

  (b) ADAS FCS Laboratories Closed

  Accrington—microbiology

  Bangor—entomology and plant pathology

  Caernarfon—microbiology

  Cardiff—microbiology

  Evesham—plant pathology and entomology

  Liverpool—wildlife and storage biology

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne—analytical chemistry, microbiology,

  plant pathology and entomology

  Shardlow—analytical chemistry, microbiology, plant pathology and entomology

  Shrewsbury—microbiology

  Current

  Bristol—plant pathology

  Cambridge—analytical chemistry, microbiology, plant pathology and entomology

  Cardiff—entomology

  Carmarthen—wildlife and storage biology

  Kirton—plant pathology and entomology

  Leeds—microbiology, plant pathology and entomology Reading—microbiology and entomology

  Starcross—analytical chemistry,—microbiology,—plant pathology and entomology

  Trawscoed—microbiology, plant pathology and entomology

  Wolverhampton—analytical chemistry, microbiology, plant pathology and entomology

  Wye—plant pathology

  (c) ADAS RDS Laboratories

  Welshpool—transferred to Tolworth.

  74
  (d) Fisheries Laboratories

  Humber Laboratories (Hull)—work on fish by-products transferred to Torry Research Station. Other work terminated.

  London—transferred to Lowestoft.

  (e) Food Science Laboratories

  1 site in London, 2 sites in Norwich—work transferred to new purpose built laboratory at Norwich.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985, giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. MacGregor
  None.

  Committees
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many sittings of(a) Standing and (b) Select Committees were held during the mornings of the 1989–90 parliamentary Session.

  Mr. MacGregor
  (a) 290 sittings (b) 237 sittings.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for, or on behalf of the Duchy since 1 January 1985, giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  None.

EMPLOYMENT

  Special Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines he has issued to the training and enterprise councils on the employment of people with special needs.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have placed a contractual requirement on training and enterprise councils to ensure that they pay particular attention to provision for those with special needs in their local community. My Department has produced material for TECs to promote good practice in the training of people with special needs which will help this group to take advantage of appropriate employment opportunities.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the impact on the work load of the nuclear installations inspectorate of the reduction of the pressurised water reactor programme and the life-extension of older nuclear stations.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive reviews annually the staffing of its nuclear installations inspectorate. On 1 December 1990 there were 159 nuclear
  75
  inspectors in post in the inspectorate. Current plans to recruit to a level of 172 inspectors take into account the reduction of the pressurised water reactor programme and the additional work associated with the life extension of older nuclear stations.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the concept of safety audit, referred to in the Health and Safety Executive's last annual report, is applied to the Health and Safety Executive and its staff.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The HSE recommends the use of safety auditing techniques for organisations where the hazards and risks arising from their activities justify this approach.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the Health and Safety Executive staff are currently working on indoor air quality; and what was the total number of visits paid by inspectors to sample or monitor indoor air quality at employers' premises.

  Mr. Forth
  Many HSE staff provide policy, technical or inspectorial input into aspects of indoor air quality as part of their duties, and it is not possible to give a precise figure for those currently involved.

  The HSE does not separately identify visits paid by inspectors in connection with indoor air quality. However, a sample survey has suggested that, in the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, inspectors now based in the HSE's field operations division made some 6,500 indoor air pollution visits to investigate topics including Legionnaire's disease, radon and sick building syndrome.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many samples were taken by the Health and Safety Executive for examination for legionella contamination in wet cooling towers; and how many by local authorities in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of samples taken by the Health and Safety Executive for legionella contamination in wet cooling towers is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The HSE does not hold information on the number of such samples taken by local authorities.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training has been received by the Health and Safety Executive agricultural inspectorate on the enforcement of the Food and Environment Protection Act; and if he will give dates of the training, the duration of the training and specify the training given to inspectors in the Sheffield area office.

  Mr. Forth
  Inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate attended a one-day training course on the enforcement of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985—FEPA—between February and April 1986. Inspectors also received a further one-day's training between November 1986 and February 1987 on the regulations made under FEPA. Arrangements are made for all agricultural inspectors who joined the HSE after this training had been completed to attend a two-day training course which now includes the enforcement of FEPA and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988—COSHH.
  76
  Two one-day courses were held on 12 and 13 March 1986 and 12 and 13 November 1986 on the background, structure and enforcement of FEPA and its associated regulations and codes of practice for agricultural inspectors in the Sheffield area. One inspector recruited by HSE and posted to the area after this training had been completed attended a two-day course on 24 to 26 October 1988 on the enforcement of FEPA and COSHH.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the Health and Safety Executive's scientific staff joined from(a) the public sector and (b) industry in the years 1988–90; and how many in each category still work for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of scientific staff who joined in the years 1988–90 is 74, of whom 68 still work for the Health and Safety Executive. Previous experience is taken into account at the recruitment stage and for career development, but it is the nature of the work undertaken by applicants which is of greatest importance, not where they were employed. The Health and Safety Executive does not keep such information on its personnel records system.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the Health and Safety Executive's field force's time is spent on(a) planned basic inspection of fixed sites, (b) planned basic inspection of construction sites, (c) section 6 casework, (d) complaints, (e) accident investigations, (f) hazard surveys and (g) other duties.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is set out for 1989–90, the latest year for which information is available.

  Percentage

  Planned basic inspection of fixed sites1

  26·0

  Planned basic inspection of construction sites

  5·3

  Section 6 casework

  1·5

  Complaints

  3·7

  Accident investigations2

  10·3

  Hazard surveys3

  5·3

  Other duties

  47·9

  1 Excludes follow-up inspections.

  2 Includes the investigation of dangerous occurrences.

  3 This term is imprecise but has been taken to mean field work on the assessment of systems and designs, including that associated with the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations and with the preparation of advice to planning authorities about developments at or near major hazard sites.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises are recorded under the Health and Safety Executive's inspection rating system under each of the categories 0 to 5; and how many are recorded as not having had an inspection within the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The rating system used by inspectorates in the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division FOD makes no provision for recording premises by category.

  A total of 754,525 fixed premises are registered with FOD's agricultural, factory and quarries inspectorates. On 1 April 1990, a total of 363,302 were recorded as not having received a planned inspection within the last five years. These include many premises where the risks are low and which have not yet entered the field for a planned

  77
  inspection under the rating system. They could also include premises which may have been visited in this period for purposes other than a planned inspection.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what work will be cut, delayed, or contracted out to enable the Health and Safety Executive's research and laboratory services division to achieve its stated aim of devoting more resources to organisational and human factors; what expert systems are planned; and how many staff will be devoted exclusively to this priority.

  Mr. Forth
  The proposed expansion in the area of organisational and human factors will not take place at the expense of other work. Instead, the in-house strength of the RLSD in this area will be increased by redirecting vacancies arising in work areas that have reached maturity or by means of new scientific posts created through efficiency savings. The normal practice of contracting out part of the programme will continue in all work areas in order to draw on a wider range of expertise.

  Expert systems are planned in the following areas: the investigation of wire-rope deterioration and failure, provision of hazard information relating to frictional ignition of gases and vapours, clerical control of laboratory analytical services, selecting the correct statistical test for a particular set of data, venting of dust explosions, and diagnosis of computer malfunctions in chemical process plant. One person will be devoted exclusively to expert systems, while various other staff will have the work as part of their remit.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the Health and Safety Executive's expenditure in the years 1975, 1978 and 1985 to 1990 has been provided directly by the Government as grant in aid.

  Mr. Forth
  The proportions of the Health and Safety Executive's expenditure provided by grant in aid in each year were:—

  Percentages

  1975–76

  98

  1978–79

  96

  1985–86

  95

  1986–87

  94

  1987–88

  92

  1988–89

  89

  1989–90

  87

  1990–91

  76

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current proportion of staff time spent by the Health and Safety Executive in(a) Crown court and (b) magistrates courts prosecutions.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the electrical equipment certification service and the research and laboratory services division of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Forth
  Continuing changes in the operating environment of the electrical equipment certification service—EECS—including developments in the European 78
  Community, have raised the question how the EECS can be organised most effectively and whether a change of status is necessary. The unions representing EECS staff have been informed of this review and the Health and Safety Executive has invited the EECS management board to consider a range of options for the future. When the management board has expressed its view, the HSE will consider whether any substantial change in the status of EECS appears to be justified. If so, the preferred option will be investigated in more detail and interested parties will be consulted about it.

  The research and laboratory services division will continue to generate much of the scientific and technological base that underpins HSE's policy and operational activities. As in the past, the division's programme will adapt to developing priorities resulting from technological advances, EC developments, new HSE commitments, and so on.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance remains to be issued by the Health and Safety Executive on (i) the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, (ii) noise, (iii) pesticides and (iv) air quality.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive and the industry advisory committees that advise the Health and Safety Commission keep the application of health and safety regulations under continual review and relevant guidance is produced and updated as necessary. Further guidance planned will cover the following:

  (i) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH)

  control measures

  carcinogens

  approved code of practice for the prevention or

  control of Legionellosis

  micro-organisms

  peripatetic workers

  sensitisers

  (ii) noise

  employees leaflet

  (iii) pesticides

  fumigation using phosphine

  fumigation using methyl bromide

  approved code of practice for the safe use of pesticides in non-agriculture industries

  sulphuric acid used in agriculture use of wood preservatives in buildings

  (iv) air quality

  guidance on "sick building syndrome" is under consideration

  In addition, further industry specific guidance on the COSHH and noise regulations will be produced by HSE's national interest groups in collaboration with industry and trades unions.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the delay between application for, and approval of, pesticide evaluation; and what is the backlog of substances requiring reappraisal.

  Mr. Forth
  Applications for approval for nonagricultural pesticides are processed by the Health and Safety Executive. For new pesticides it takes between one and two years from the date the fee is received until I and other Ministers grant approval based on advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. For
  79
  reformulated products or changes in methods of application or use the period is usually as little as three to nine months.

  The HSE has initiated a programme to review all pesticide active ingredients on a rolling programme. There are 77 active ingredients which have yet to be reviewed under this programme.

  Evaluations for agricultural pesticides are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  FCG Location

  Discipline

  Construction

  Electrical

  Occupational Hygiene

  Chemical

  Mechanical

  Explosives

  East Grinstead

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  0

  Luton

  1

  2

  2

  1

  3

  0

  Cardiff

  1

  2

  2

  3

  5

  0

  Birmingham

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  0

  Leeds

  2

  1

  1

  3

  3

  0

  Manchester

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  0

  Edinburgh

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Note: All explosives problems encountered by field consultant groups are referred to the explosives inspectorate in the HSE's technology division.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of specialist inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive; how many vacancies exist; and how many specialist inspectors have left the organisation in the last two years.

  Mr. Forth
  On 1 December 1990, the HSE employed 208·5 specialist inspectors and had 26·5 vacancies. During the years 1988–89 and 1989–90, a total of 35 specialist inspectors left HSE.

  Agricultural Premises
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the the Secretary of State for Employment how many children were killed on agricultural premises in the years 1978 to 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of fatal injuries in the agricultural industry to non-employed children aged one to 15 years as reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agriculture inspectorates between 1979 and 1989–90:

  Year

  Number of fatalities

  1979

  24

  1980

  10

  1981

  13

  1982

  13

  1983

  5

  1984

  4

  1985

  10

  1986/872

  10

  1987/882

  7

  1988/892

  10

  1989/902·1

  6

  1 Provisional.

  2 Year commencing 1 April.

  Information is not available for 1978.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents caused or related to cattle were reported to the Health and Safety Executive in 1974, 1985 and 1989; and what proportion of total agricultural accidents these represent.

  Specialist Inspectors
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many specialist inspectors work in each of the seven field consultant groups in the disciplines of(a) construction, (b) electrical, (c) occupational hygiene, (d) chemical, (e) mechanical and (f) explosives.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of specialists in each discipline for each field consultant group is shown in the table.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available for 1974 and 1985. Injuries involving boars cannot be separated from cattle and the number of injuries in agriculture involving bulls, other cattle and boars reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is provided in the table together with the proportion of total injuries reported in agriculture that they represent:

  Year1 and employment status

  Severity of injury

  Fatal

  Major

  Over 3 day

  Total

  1988–89

  Employee

  2

  22

  51

  75

  Self-employed

  2

  8

  8

  18

  Non-employed

  —

  5

  3

  5

  Percentage of injuries in agriculture

  7

  6

  5

  5

  1989–902

  Employee

  —

  26

  45

  71

  Self-employed

  —

  7

  5

  12

  Non-employed

  2

  2

  3

  4

  Percentage of injuries in
  agriculture

  4

  7

  4

  5

  1 Year commencing 1 April.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Not reportable.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety Executive staff are working specifically on the ergonomics of agricultural machinery.

  Mr. Forth
  At present there are no Health and Safety Executive staff working specifically on the ergonomics of agricultural machinery. However, the matter is one that is taken fully into account by inspectors during the course of inspection visits to agricultural premises and, more particularly, during visits to manufacturers and importers when considering compliance with section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
  81
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what backlog of uninspected premises exists for the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no backlog. The agricultural inspectorate uses an inspection rating system to help target its preventive inspection programme but this is also influenced by seasonal factors, peripatetic activities and the employment status of premises.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate are taken for not using appropriate guards on machinery.

  Mr. Forth
  Information is only readily available for 1987–88; in that year 151 out of 416 prosecutions taken by Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate were in connection with the fencing and construction of machinery. Information for more recent years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Peripatetic Workers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when guidance on the application of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations to peripatetic workers is to be issued.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive intends to publish specific guidance on the application of the COSHH regulations to peripatetic workers during 1991. This will supplement existing HSE publications on the regulations themselves and other guidance on the application of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to peripatetic workers.

  Health and Safety Offences
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring he carries out of the level of fines given by magistrates for health and safety offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive already monitors the average level of fines in all courts, and publishes the results annually. More recently the HSE has also begun to monitor fine levels in magistrates courts, and I have asked it to let me have the results of that exercise in due course.

  Occupational Health
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will update the 1976 employment medical advisory service survey which ascertained the number of physicians and nurses employed in industry who have specialist qualifications in occupational health;

  (2) what action has been taken by the Health and Safety Executive on the proposals presented in the 1976 EMAS document entitled, "Occupational Health Services—The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Forth
  The aim of the 1977 publication "Occupational Health Services—The Way Ahead" was to stimulate debate. This led up to an inquiry by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Committee's 1984 report on occupational health and 82
  hygiene services called for a voluntary code of practice to extend the provision of occupational health services. To meet this the Health and Safety Commission—HSC—has embarked on an action programme to encourage employers to review their occupational health needs and make suitable arrangements to obtain advice. This programme includes published guidance and promotional activities intended to raise awareness of occupational health. Where employers are already making adequate provision they are encouraged to make their facilities more widely available. The programme has also involved local campaigns by HSE staff, and industry specific initiatives such as seminars, conferences and publications. During 1991, the HSC is due to evaluate the action programme and review the nature and extent of occupational health provision in Great Britain.

  The results will be used in drawing up recommendations on the future of the action programme and whether the existing approach to the provision of occupational health should be continued.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what occupational health statistics are collected by the Health and Safety Executive; and what plans there are to extend the statistics collected.

  Mr. Forth
  "Health and Safety Statistics 1988–89", published as a supplement to the Employment Gazette for November 1990—Vol. 98, No. 11—gives a full description of the available statistics relating to occupational health. It covers information collected by the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases arid Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, and statistics derived from other sources.

  The Health and Safety Executive has initiated two measures to supplement these statistics:

  (a) a "trailer" to the 1990 labour force survey which asked respondents whether they had suffered from any work-related illness during the previous year. Data from this survey will be available by mid-1991.

  (b) a consultant-based register of work-related dermatitis which started operation on a trial basis on 1 August 1990.

  The Health and Safety Commission will be reviewing the 1985 regulations next year, and will be considering proposals for possible changes to the arrangements for the reporting of occupational disease by employers.

  Industrial Premises, London
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of industrial premises in the Health and Safety Executive London North area have(a) fewer than 25 employees and (b) more than 500 employees.

  Mr. Forth
  In the Health and Safety Executive London north area, 73·6 per cent. of fixed premises currently registered with the factory inspectorate have fewer than 25 employees and 9·4 per cent. have more than 500 employees.

  Mechanical Presses
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what number of accidents at the tools of mechanical presses occurred in the years 1965, 1970 to 1974, 1979, 1985 and 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  Such accidents are not separately identified in the Health and Safety Executive's current databases of
  83
  reported occupational injuries. Relevant information which is taken from annual surveys up to 1974 and further surveys in 1979 and 1985 is shown in the table. No such survey was carried out in 1989.

  Accidents at the tools of power presses and press brakes1

  Number

  1965

  441

  1970

  203

  1971

  159

  1972

  153

  1973

  152

  1974

  145

  1979

  48

  1985

  25

  1 Reportable injuries notified to Her Majesty's factory inspectorate; severity is not recorded.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors have less than five years' experience in each of the main inspection grades.

  Mr. Forth
  The main inspection grades are considered to be inspector of factories 1B and inspector of factories 1A (principal inspector). Out of a total staff in post figure of 289 inspectors of factories 1B, 97 have less than five years' experience in the grade. Out of a total staff in post figure of 162 inspectors of factories 1A, 57 have less than five years' experience in the grade.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested in the form required could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the various parts of the Employment Department group produce annual reports which provide information on research projects carried out for the Department. I would be happy to provide the hon. Member with reports for the relevant period if he so wished.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has had about benefits for disabled people from the organisations that represent them.

  Mr. Scott
  Over 70 organisations commented on "The Way Ahead" and I met representatives from some of the groups, including the Disability Benefits Consortium, to hear their views. Well over 100 organisations have sent in comments on the consultation document on the disability living allowance issued in August and comments are starting to come in on the explanatory note on the disability working allowance published on 12 November.

  Maintenance
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average maintenance assessment under the current system; and what is the average cost of supporting a mother and child through the benefit system.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average maintenance assessment under the current system; and what is the average cost of supporting a mother and child through the benefit system.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friends to my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will define the criteria which will be applied to cases where maintenance cannot be recovered from the father because of threatened violence.

  Mr. Newton
  Our intention is that where a caring parent declines to co-operate in establishing liability for maintenance for the children, trained and experienced senior officers should consider whether in the circumstances there is good cause for the refusal. We shall be giving careful consideration to the guidance they will be given, but it would clearly not be right to create a position in which a threat of violence could be seen as a way of escaping maintenance.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the new Child Support Agency will have powers periodically to reassess maintenance orders.

  Mr. Jack
  Liability to maintain a child can last for many years. Much can change in that period. The Child Support Agency will be required to review maintenance payable every year so that those changes can be taken into account in an orderly way. These annual reviews will be automatic, removing the burden of initiating action from the caring parent.

  Residential Care
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of spending on benefits for people in residential care and nursing homes in 1978–79 and in 1990; and what is the real terms increase.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of spending on benefits for people in residential care and nursing homes in 1978–79 and in 1990; and what is the real term increase.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1978–79, supplementary benefit payments amounting to some £10 million were made to people in residential care and nursing homes. In 1990, the corresponding figure in income support was some £1·2 billion, a real term increase in expenditure of 287 per cent. per head.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the percentage of take-up of means-tested benefits for children; and what is the percentage of take-up of child benefit.
  85
  Mr. Jack
  From the latest available evidence we estimate that around 90 per cent. of income-related benefit is claimed and four out of five people eligible for income related benefit actually made a claim. A similar proportion applies for families with children. Take-up of child benefit is virtually 100 per cent.

  State Pension
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of the state pension if it had been uprated in line with the increase in prices or earnings whichever was the higher since 1983.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of the state pension if it had been uprated in line with the increase in prices or earnings whichever was the higher since 1983.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The present value of the retirement pension, had it been uprated in this way, would be £55·30 for a single pensioner and £88·50 for a married couple. But the additional cost of this to the national insurance fund would be about £3·8 billion this financial year. This implies a rise in the national insurance contributions paid by an employee on average earnings of approximately £1·90 per week and £3·50 for his employer.

  National Insurance
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent steps have been taken by his Department to crack down on those who wilfully seek to evade their legal responsibility to pay national insurance.

  Mr. Jack
  Following the establishment of the contributions unit in April this year significant progress has been made. We have strengthened the complement of national insurance inspectors, improved the training they receive and increased the number of visits to employers.

  Such visits are designed to identify irregularities in the payment of contributions and to ensure that the benefit entitlement of employees is properly protected. The unit is well on the way to reducing the amount of underpaid contributions and further progress can be expected next year when the unit is given agency status.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of recently retired pensioners receive income from savings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, in 1987, over 80 per cent. of recently retired pensioners received income from savings.

  Regional Medical Officers
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals relating to the role of regional medical officers in local appeal tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The constitution of a social security appeal tribunal is a legally qualified chairman and two lay members who have knowledge or experience of the local area. Medical appeal tribunals consist of a legally qualified chairman and two consultant medical practitioners. These people are part-time and are completely independent.
  86
  Regional medical officers have no role in social security appeal tribunals or medical appeal tribunals. Their function is to provide medical advice to adjudication officers in deciding benefit claims.

  The Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, currently in Committee, makes provision for a new disability appeal tribunal consisting of a legally qualified chairman, a medical practitioner and a person experienced in dealing with the needs of disabled people.

  We have no proposals to alter the role of regional medical officers.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently receive mobility allowance; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79.

  Mr. Scott
  I am pleased to say that the number of people receiving mobility allowance has increased sixfold from 95,000 in 1978–79 to 615,000 in 1989–90.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Since the social fund was introduced, over two and a half million interest-free loans and over half a million non-repayable community care grants have been awarded, at a total value of over £500 million. The fund continues to make a valuable contribution to assisting a large number of people in the greatest need.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, at 1989 prices, the amount of social fund money for(a) loans and (b) grants for each office in Leeds for the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  The total allocations made to offices in Leeds in 1989–90 and 1990–91, at 1989 prices, are set out in the table.

  The allocations for 1991–92 will be announced nearer the time.

  1989–90

  1990–911

  Loans £

  Grants £

  Loans £

  Grants £

  Leeds East

  591,480

  246,151

  621,995

  234,238

  Leeds North

  699,290

  299,660

  750,115

  284,088

  Leeds North-West

  392,307

  173,467

  410,322

  159,708

  Leeds South

  243,725

  105,300

  238,312

  102,226

  Leeds West

  326,381

  142,116

  313,601

  209,749

  1 1989 prices as reckoned by the gross domestic product deflator.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of additional people who will receive(a) lower rate attendance component of the disability living allowance, (b) lower rate mobility component and (c) higher rate mobility component, if the age limit of 65 years for the receipt of the disability living allowance were removed, and the additional expenditure incurred in total in each case.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimates of the additional number of beneficiaries are(a) 250,000 (b) 150,000 (c) 1,350,000.

  87
  The corresponding expenditure figures in the first full year are (a) £165 million (b) £100 million (c) about £2 billion. All estimates are necessarily subject to large margins of uncertainty.

  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list all the changes to benefits for those persons aged 16 and 17 years since 1987, showing(a) their financial consequences and (b) the numbers affected;

  (2) if he will list all the changes to entitlement rules for those persons aged 16 and 17 years who are unemployed and seeking income maintenance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the two main changes in entitlement to income support for 16 and 17-year-olds were:

  (a) In September 1988 income support was withdrawn from the majority and instead the Government gave a guarantee of a place on youth training to all young people who wanted one. The decrease is net social security benefit expenditure was estimated to be £88 million in the first year, but the Government spent over £1,000 million on the youth training scheme in 1988–89, of which a substantial proportion was in the form of training allowances paid in lieu of income support to people on youth training. The number of young people affected by this measure is estimated at 100,000.

  (b) In July 1989 16 and 17-year-olds who were forced to live independently were given entitlement to income support at the rate normally paid to 18 to 24-year-olds. The higher rate was also paid to all young people receiving only housing benefit. It is estimated that 17,000 young people benefited, at a cost of £3·7 million in the first year.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with disability organisations concerning the disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  More than 70 organisations commented on "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917) which set out the proposed structure for the disability working allowance. On 5 April I held a meeting with the Disability Benefits Consortium, to discuss its views. On 12 November we issued a note on the disability working allowance setting out our proposals in more detail; and disability organisations are starting to send us their comments. We shall continue to give careful consideration to all the comments we receive.

  Taxi Fares (Reimbursement)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances taxi fares will be paid to claimants attending a medical appeal tribunal; what is the procedure for claiming taxi fares in advance; what is the procedure for reimbursing claimants their taxi fares; what is the average length of time taken to reimburse the claimants' taxi fares; and how much has been paid out in taxi fares.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of social security appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, his honour Judge Derek Holden. The hon. Member may care to contact his office direct to obtain this information.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average pensioner's income expressed in money and real terms(a) today and (b) in May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1987, the last year for which figures are currently available, the average total net pensioner income was £99·90 per week. In 1979 it was £42·20, or £75·90 at 1987 prices.

  Appeals
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations he has given to the payment of interest on awards made by the social security appeal tribunals when the date of the award is more than six months after the submission of the claim by the appellant; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of social security appeal tribunals is a matter for the president, his honour Judge Derek Holden. Appeals are heard as soon as possible, depending on the inquiries that have to be made, and the number of other appeals awaiting hearing. We have no plans to pay interest on any arrears of benefit a tribunal might award.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of people in Wales in the last available year claiming statutory sick pay at(a) the lower rate and (b) the higher rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1988–89, some 5·6 million people in the United Kingdom received statutory sick pay. It is estimated that at that time about 90 per cent. would have received the higher rate. Information is not collected in a form which would enable separate figures to be given for Wales.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average increase in community charge between 1989–90 and 1990–91, and the average increase in external finance between 1989–90 and 1990–91 for(a) all local authorities in Scotland, (b) separately for regional, district and island authorities and (c) for authorities separately by political control.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is as follows:

  Average increase in personal community charge 1989–90 to 1990–91 per cent.

  Average increase in external finance 1989–90 to 1990–91 per cent.

  a. All local authorities

  8·71

  6·42

  b. Regions

  8·57

  6·03

  Districts

  9·39

  8·09

  Islands

  1·32

  9·92

  89

  Average increase in personal community charge 1989–90 to 1990–91 per cent.

  Average increase in external finance 1989–90 to 1990–91 per cent.

  c. i. Regions

  Labour

  10·50

  4·68

  Independent

  4·84

  12·86

  No overall control

  -3·63

  11·14

  ii. Districts

  Labour

  10·52

  5·70

  Independent

  7·54

  17·16

  Conservative

  -17·21

  46·16

  Liberal Democrat

  -0·24

  24·88

  SNP

  5·77

  13·53

  No overall control

  16·82

  20·67

  iii. Islands

  Independent

  1·32

  9·92

  Notes:

  1. The average increases in the community charge relate to the personal community charge only and are therefore exclusive of water charges.

  2. Because non-domestic rate income did not become part of Government-determined support for local authorities' current expenditure until 1990–91 it is not possible to make a proper comparison of "external finance" between 1989–90 and 1990–91. The figures in the second column are all based on comparing revenue support grant and specific grants for 1989–90 plus the original Scottish Office estimate of each local authority's non-domestic rate income for that year with aggregate external finance for 1990–91.

  3. Part (c) of the reply reflects composition of each authority at current rate.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any plans to exempt(a) students and (b) student nurses from the poll tax in 1991–92;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to grant exemption from the poll tax for those visiting Scotland on exchange schemes;

  (3) if he has any plans to end the 20 per cent. contribution rule applying to all poll tax payers whatever their income for 1991–2;

  (4) if he proposes to exempt non-working partners from the poll tax in 1991–92;

  (5) if he has any proposals to exempt elderly people being cared for at home, by relatives or friends from the poll tax in 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: The Government are committed to a fundamental review of local government finance.

  Agricultural Co-operatives
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support will be given to the Organisation for the Promotion of Agricultural Cooperatives in Scotland in 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The 1990–91 Supply Estimates —class XV, vote 2—provide for grant of up to £168,000 for the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society. Funding for 1991–92 has still to be determined.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he is having with(a) local authorities, (b) student organisations, (c) student nurses and (d) community groups in order to discuss the review of the poll tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The community charge is discussed regularly at meetings between Ministers and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. As part of the review of the community charge, my right hon. Friend will be interested to receive the views of all groups and bodies with an interest in the charge.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the studies made by the Scottish Office to assess the impact of the poll tax upon(a) students, (b) pensioners, (c) single parents and (d) school leavers in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The community charge arrangements in Scotland, as they affect particular groups, have been monitored by the Scottish Office since the charge was introduced and, where appropriate, changes have been made.

  Prisoners (Medical Care)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners in Scotland have received medical care outside prison in the past year; and how many have received medical care in the private sector.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During the period April 1989 to March 1990, the latest for which figures are available, 246 prisoners were admitted to public hospitals. Central records are not kept of the number of prisoners who attended external medical facilities as outpatients, nor of whether any of these were private sector facilities.

  Special Needs
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to ensure that each training and enterprise board makes acceptable provision within its area for those with special needs.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There are no training and enterprise boards in Scotland. However, local enterprise companies will be expected to demonstrate in their business plans how they intend to provide for people with special training needs.

  Penal Institutions
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the design capacity for all Scottish penal institutions and (b) the actual current occupation levels for these institutions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  (a) Design capacity

  (b) Occupation level as at 30 November 1990

  HMP Aberdeen

  150

  147

  HMP Barlinnie

  933

  834

  HMYOI Castle Huntly

  144

  114

  91

  (a) Design capacity

  (b) Occupation level as at 30 November 1990

  HMI Cornton Vale

  219

  132

  HMYOI Dumfries

  146

  107

  HMP Dungavel

  147

  135

  HMP Edinburgh

  526

  448

  HMP Friarton

  57

  73

  HMP and HMYOI Glenochil

  678

  621

  HMP Greenock

  179

  184

  HMP Inverness

  87

  104

  HM Remand Institution Longriggend

  177

  167

  HMP Low Moss

  400

  251

  HMP Noranside

  104

  111

  HMP Penninghame

  73

  70

  HMP Perth

  449

  389

  HMP Peterhead

  275

  111

  HMYOI Polmont

  412

  344

  HMP Shotts

  540

  360

  Total design capacity

  5,696

  4,702

  At 30 November 1990, a total of 550 places were out of use because of policy restrictions or for maintenance/refurbishment work; this means that there were 5,146 places available for use on that date.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those applications from hospitals within Scotland for trust status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Four expressions of interest in NHS trust status have been received in respect of hospitals at Forfar, the Royal Scottish national hospital, the unit at the Foresterhill site in Aberdeen comprising the royal infirmary, maternity hospital and children's hospital, and the South Ayrshire unit comprising the hospitals at Ayr and Ballochmyle. None has yet progressed to the formal application stage.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office commissions a variety of surveys, a significant number of which contain questions on views and attitudes. It would involve disproportionate cost to distinguish in any consistent way those surveys which contained such opinion questions from those which did not.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the total expenditure on YTS in(a) Orkney and (b) Shetland in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) what proportion of the total expenditure on YTS in (a) Orkney and (b) Shetland in the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 was met by the Training Agency, private sector and local authority, respectively;

  (3) what is the estimated outturn of expenditure on training in (a) Orkney and (b) Shetland in the current
  92
  financial year; and what proportion of that expenditure is likely to be attributed to each of the Training Agency, private sector and local authority.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 13 December 1990]: Local Training Agency expenditure on youth training in Orkney and Shetland in 1988–89 and 1989–90 is shown in the table. The figures for 1987–88 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial Year

  Expenditure on YTS £

  Orkney

  1988–89

  336,185

  1989–90

  411,223

  Shetland

  1988–89

  312,703

  1989–90

  331,355

  All Government expenditure on youth training in Orkney and Shetland in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 was incurred by the Training Agency.

  Training placement providers are expected to make a contribution to the training managers's costs. The amount of which is negotiated between these two parties. Both training managers and placement providers are also expected to contribute to the cost of training to an extent commensurate with the benefits that they derive from participation in the training process and may incur additional expenditure on training or in payments to trainees. The amount of such additional contributions is a matter for each local authority or business concerned.

  The Training Agency expects that local expenditure by it on youth training in Orkney and Shetland in 1990–91 will be respectively £376,336 and £460,795.

  Family Planning Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of family planning services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: The Government regard family planning services as an important preventive service contributing to better maternal and child health and to the stability of family life and have no plans for altering the provision of them in Scotland. It is for individual health boards to determine, within the resources available to them, the most appropriate pattern of provision of family planning services in their respective areas.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of general practitioner prescribed hormone replacement therapy treatments in each of the health board areas; and if he will express this cost as a figure per head of the female population aged over 40 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: In the year to 31 December 1989, the cost of the NHS drugs in Scotland dispensed by community pharmacists which are in general prescribed for hormone replacement therapy—British National Formulary sections 6.4.1.1. and 6.4.1.3—was £2,263,000 for 231,000 prescriptions. This represents a cost of £1·85 per head of female population aged over 40.
  93
  Corresponding information by health board areas is not available.

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost per head in each of the health board areas of(a) in-patient treatments of mental illness, (b) out-patient and day-care treatment of mental illness and (c) general practitioner prescribed prescription costs for treatment of stress, anxiety and depression.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: The information for the year ending 31 March 1990 is set out in the table.

  Health board

  Weekly cost per head for in-patient treatments of mental illness £

  Cost per attendance of out-patient and day-care treatment of menta/ illness £

  Argyll and Clyde

  365·97

  32·04

  Ayrshire and Arran

  336·87

  16·22

  Borders

  338·85

  30·02

  94

  Health board

  Weekly cost per head for in-patient treatments of mental illness £

  Cost per attendance of out-patient and day-care treatment of mental illness £

  Dumfries and Galloway

  413·72

  22·61

  Fife

  370·95

  36·07

  Forth Valley

  302·12

  42·13

  Grampian

  344·44

  24·12

  Greater Glasgow

  336·05

  31·17

  Highland

  372·92

  30·08

  Lanarkshire

  324·59

  27·77

  Lothian

  339·53

  30·79

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  375·07

  26·95

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  There are no separate mental illness hospitals in islands health boards. Patients from these boards are treated on the mainland. Statistics on prescription costs for the treatment of stress, anxiety and depression are not collected centrally.

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

GCSE: Assessment of Pupils
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they plan to test pupils' progress under the national curriculum through the GCSE examination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is the Government's policy that the GCSE should be the main means of assessment for 16 year-olds at the end of key stage 4 of the national curriculum. We await advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council on aspects of the adjustments which will be necessary to enable the GCSE to assess effectively against national curriculum requirements.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this late change will lead to a certain amount of confusion? We were told when the Education Reform Bill was going through the House that the GCSE would be the main examination for assessing pupils at that stage. Can all the subjects be assessed, and will the change of grades not cause difficulty and confusion for a great many people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the GCSE will continue to be the main assessment at the age of 16 at the end of key stage 4 of the national curriculum. The two subjects where difficulties appear to have arisen are science and mathematics. The School Examinations and Assessment Council is about to advise the Government. There will therefore be some modification but no change in the system. The assessment will still be mainly the GCSE.
Baroness David: My Lords, will not the A to G levels for the national curriculum be different?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to go into the detail of how the Government will act on the advice from SEAC. What can be said is that there is some scope in those two subjects for some merging of the attainment targets to fit in with the GCSE grades. As to whether the GCSE grades will necessarily change, I suspect not. It will be a merging of the 17 attainment targets in science and possibly the attainment targets in mathematics.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister sure that the grades are not being changed? We are under the impression that a decision has already been made to change from the A to G grades, which have been well established for some time, to a new scale going from 1 to 10. Can she say whether that decision has been made?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the national curriculum will be graded from 1 to 10. The attainment targets for each subject—17 in science and 11 in mathematics—present a difficulty when they are to be dovetailed into the GCSE examinations. There will have to be a response to that. The Government are awaiting advice from SEAC. When they receive it they will bring forward their modifications.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question? Have the grades been changed or not? We are under the impression that they have been changed. Can she give us some indication as to how the 40 to 45 attainment targets that are tied into the new national curriculum can possibly be assessed by the GCSE? Does she not agree that it is a great mistake to meddle around with the GCSE and alter what has been a rather successful innovation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness lumps all the attainment targets together and does not take them subject by subject. I said that the two subjects to present difficulties are science and mathematics, where there are too many attainment targets to dovetail neatly into the GCSE. The assessments will be on the scale 1 to 10 but the way in which the particular difficulties of science and mathematics attainment targets are met will be the subject of, first, the advice of SEAC, and, secondly, the Government's response to that advice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I intervene to seek clarification because I thought I understood the matter until the noble Baroness began to answer our questions. Am I right in thinking that there will be grading 1 to 10? But is it also the case that the original grades A to G will remain and that the two will correspond; or will we from now on simply have grades 1 to 10?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be equivalents of the scales A to G to particular points of the scale 1 to 10 for the national curriculum. However, as the attainment targets have come out, there is a particular difficulty in the number of attainment targets for some subjects. I have already named them —science, general science and mathematics. As to whether we should merge some of those attainment targets—for example, whether we should merge the arithmetical side of mathematics with the non-arithmetical side—we shall have to wait and see. We shall have to wait for the advice of SEAC and then await the Government's response. The GCSE will remain the main examination but the GCSE assessment will be rather more precise and more rigorous than it is at the moment.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the examination boards have plenty of time to understand what is going on? Will they have trials and will they be able to come to arrangements with their examiners, and so on?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the examination boards will welcome the fact that the problem is being addressed. What the examination boards would want is what the Government want, which is to see our young people properly tested against precise and

643
rigorous targets. That is what will happen. We have a particular problem in two subjects which is to be addressed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but we do not seem to be getting much further with the answers to the Question. Will we have a clear statement from the Government on exactly what the parameters for testing are, or are we to be fobbed off with this curious rigmarole which the noble Baroness seems to produce from the Dispatch Box?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no intention to fob off anyone on this issue. I thought that I had made the position clear. There are a large number of attainment targets in science, general science and mathematics but they are not entirely compatible with the GCSE examination. SEAC is about to advise the Government. The department will respond to that advice. There will then be a clear statement not only to the House but to those who directly matter—the schools examination boards and the children.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, how would my noble friend grade the quality of the Opposition questions on her very clear statements?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on a scale of 1 to 10, I think the score would be three.

Cambodia
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What diplomatic initiatives they are taking to bring about a peaceful negotiated settlement to the conflict in Cambodia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Britain plays an active role in diplomatic efforts to resolve the Cambodian conflict. On 26th November, the Permanent Five, the co-chairmen of the Paris Conference on Cambodia and the UN Secretary-General's representative agreed a draft agreement covering the major aspects of a settlement. This offers the best chance of achieving a durable peace to enable the Cambodian people to choose their own government free from fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, invasion or civil war. We urge the leaders of all the Cambodian parties to respond constructively.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I was happy to hear what he said. However, are the Government planning to meet any representatives from the Cambodian Government in order to discuss the situation in that country? Further, can he say whether there are any government plans to set up a permanent representation in Cambodia as the French Government have done?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's second point, we do not at present have any plans to establish a permanent representation in Cambodia. However, should the situation
644
change, we would wish to look again at the matter. As regards the future, we are not averse to discussions with members of the SNC, but we very much hope that the situation will progress to enable the council to start work. The co-chairmen of the Paris Conference—that is, France and Indonesia—have invited the SNC to Paris to discuss the draft settlement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his endeavours to keep those of us who are interested in the Cambodian situation in touch with current events. However, did he read my speech on the humble Address in which I mentioned my meeting with Mr. Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia, and Mr. Gareth Evans, his Foreign Affairs Minister? Is he aware of their grave anxieties that people from the Khmer Rouge will masquerade as other decent organisations in order to get back into power? The Australians know a great deal about the situation. That is one of their grave apprehensions. Is the noble Earl prepared to comment on those remarks?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, like the noble Lord, I too have discussed the matter with Gareth Evans, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister. We are all concerned that the Cambodian people should be allowed to choose who they want to run their country under free and fair elections.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is evidence that the Vietnamese want to take over Cambodia in exactly the same way as they have taken over large territories immediately to the north of the country? Alternatively, does he think that that is not on? As I understand it, it is not simply the Khmer Rouge; the Vietnamese are also taking an active part in what is happening.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Vietnamese army and the troops which were in Cambodia have withdrawn. There are now four parties in the country. We hope that they will take the UN draft document and agree it among themselves through the SNC. We shall then be able to proceed from that point.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we support the contribution made by Her Majesty's Government towards drafting the peace plan—if I may call it that —and also the plea made by the noble Earl in his initial Answer. However, can he say whether the Government are sending any observers to Paris on 19th December? Further, can he say whether the Government are confident that there is a reasonable prospect of the peace plan being accepted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the first remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. We will go anywhere to try to help the peace process along, just as we have been doing regularly over the past year. I hope that there is now an opportunity for peace which the Cambodians will seize. The Permanent Five of the UN have put in an enormous amount of hard work to get matters to this stage. The ball now is with the Cambodians: if they can move forward, the UN and the co-chairmen of the Paris Conference can then re-enter the negotiations.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, first, can the Minister say whether we are planning to send observers to the Paris meeting? Secondly, can he say whether the Government have any plans to provide any training facilities in order to help the Cambodians with their forthcoming elections? Finally, as regards foreign aid, can he say whether we are planning to give any kind of assistance in those areas?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have spent, or committed, about £2 million this year in connection with aid. If the Cambodians accept the proposals of the Permanent Five, which are contained in a very detailed document, considerably more expenditure will follow.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the specific question put to him by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition? Will there be observers at the conference on behalf of the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise if I did not answer the question. If we are requested to send observers to the conference, of course we shall do so.

Takeovers: Government Policy
2.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any change in their policy towards takeovers.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, as confirmed in the blue paper review published in March 1988, the Government's main consideration in deciding whether or not to refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is its effect on competition as it affects the United Kingdom consumer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind our serious trading and financial situation and the reduction in our power as a manufacturing nation, with the resulting unemployment, does the Minister still think that most of the takeovers have been in the interests of the nation instead of in the interests of groups of people motivated by private financial gain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on the basis that the majority of shareholders participate in the form of their savings and pensions, it might be worth reminding your Lordships' House that according to a recent European survey, of the top 400 companies in Europe, 120 were British; out of the 50 best performers, 27 came from the United Kingdom.
Lard Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most recent research carried out in the City into takeovers and their consequences demonstrates that in the majority of cases there are no financial benefits for the shareholders either of the companies taking over or being taken over? Would it not be appropriate that in future social criteria should be taken into account in these decisions, especially the effect on unemployment?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting observation. I assume that the rights of shareholders will be obliterated in the forthcoming Labour Party manifesto.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that our questions have been graded at least grade three by the noble Baroness, Lady Blotch? That is close to the top, which is grade one. Will he accept that the question I ask may be grade one? Has he had the opportunity of reading the statement produced by his ministerial colleague, Mr. John Redwood? I apologise for its English. It states:
"Evidence is rising that, except in the very short-term, takeovers can all too often damage the wealth of shareholders of the bidding company rather than improving it. Only a limited number of British companies have been adept at taking over others, and taking the businesses on to better success".
Regardless of what the Labour Party or others may think about it, is this not a strange deviation from the previous principle that market forces should rule?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that once again we are paying the price of selective reference. For a specific reason, I rather felt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or another noble Lord from the Benches opposite would use selective quotations. The figure that I used in my reply to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, which referred to 27 of the best 50 performers in Europe being British was taken from the same statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what has that to do with the question I asked? Will the noble Lord address himself to the evidence that appeared in the 1979 Green Paper and was subsequently reaffirmed in the document from the Department of Trade and Industry in 1988 or 1989? I cannot remember which year it was. It was on merger policy and stated that mergers were not successful in the broad run. His ministerial colleague appears now to have accepted that. Does it not mean that the Government have a completely different view of takeovers?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships' House if I have to be repetitive. I fear that selective quotations will not benefit your Lordships. What my right honourable friend said—and I discussed the matter with him—was that mergers should be for the benefit of the shareholders. Thus they should be the responsibility of management. I do not believe that we shall get much further with the noble Lord's suggestion that what my right honourable friend said was entirely different.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility for the workers? They always suffer after a takeover: there is an immediate increase in unemployment.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is worth remembering that, after allowing for inflation, the average wage in this country has increased by one third during the past 10 years. That is not suffering.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government will consider amending the Companies Act so as to give greater

647
protection to minority shareholders who wish to retain a stake in the company being taken over? Does he agree that that would not only be desirable in itself but would have the beneficial spin-off of making takeovers generally less attractive to potential bidders?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord's suggestion is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. If he wishes to put a Question down I shall be more than happy to answer it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in a free enterprise society it must certainly be open to one company to make a bid for another. However, does not recent experience in takeovers suggest that in a contested bid the company wishing to take over should be obliged to make much clearer than hitherto the advantage of that operation? Should not the rules of the Takeover Panel be strengthened with that in mind?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I must refer the noble Lord to my first Answer. We feel that the current system is working more than adequately.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify what he said? I take it that his answer is in short simply no, the Government have not changed their policy at all. Some of us thought that we saw light dawning on the junior Minister and his department and that the Government felt that from now on companies might be better occupied running their businesses and raising productivity than engaging in mergers. That looked like the new view. However, it is not the new view; it is not the Government's view that management should devote itself to managing. It is the Government's view that managers should devote themselves to the takeover business.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I may even do as the noble Lord hopes and rise to that fly cast across the pool. The Government are concerned with excellence. That involves excellence in management, excellence in responsibility to the shareholders and excellence in ability when carrying out a takeover.

Pensions: SERPS and Private Schemes
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the cost to the taxpayer of the Government's decision to encourage people to opt out of SERPS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government Actuary's report on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990 showed that in 1990–91 the total national insurance contribution reductions attributable to both occupational and personal pensions would be about £7.6 billion, of which about £2 billion would be in respect of rebates and incentives for personal pensions.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is it not a fact that far more
648
people have opted for personal private pensions than was originally envisaged? The result is that the National Insurance Fund is now substantially in debt. Is this not a rather short-sighted policy, since perhaps a large number of those people may find at a later date that they need to come back to the state earnings related pension scheme? I suggest to the Minister that it may be at a time when there is no longer a Conservative administration in power.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future. The National Insurance Fund is at a satisfactory level. I have to tell the noble Baroness that it was difficult to predict the number of people who would opt for personal pensions. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the number of people who have opted for personal pensions is a sign of the success of that policy. It should be a matter for praise rather than recrimination.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a fact that the excess of people who have opted out beyond the figure expected by the noble Baroness means that there has been more beneficial investment in industry in this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct; 4.1 million people have so far taken out personal pensions. As I said in my response to the noble Baroness, this is a sign of the success of the Government's personal pensions initiative.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not so much the success of the policy but the success of the advertising campaigns conducted by people in the business of providing personal pensions? Is it not a fact that there can be no degree of security for people who have taken out personal pensions? Is that not a concern for the future?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords; I repeat that it is a sign of the success of the scheme. The noble Baroness takes far too cynical a view of the industry. I repeat that 4.1 million people have so far taken out personal pensions and this is a sign of the success of the initiative.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, do the Government agree that with pensions one should look at the long term rather than the short term over the next year? Can the Minister give any figures for the cost requested in the Question for the next 10 years and the next 20 years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give figures offhand for the next 10 or 20 years. However, I agree with the noble Lord that we should look to long-term costs. That is why we proposed changes to SERPS through the Social Security Act 1986 which should yield savings of some £14 billion per annum by the year 2035 at 1990 prices.

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Gulf Crisis
3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington) rose to move, That this House takes note of developments in the Gulf.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in one important way the situation in the Gulf has changed for the better in that the hostages are free. But Saddam Hussein still occupies Kuwait. His army continues to pillage the country. If he does not leave, there is a real prospect of armed intervention to drive him out. It is right that your Lordships' House should debate these crucial issues and I hope the discussion will serve to demonstrate the unity of purpose against Saddam Hussein. If we can get this message across, and if, even at this late hour, Saddam Hussein recognises that the international opposition to his aggression remains absolute, he may see sense and withdraw his forces from Kuwait.
In I he exchanges that followed the Government's Statement on 6th December, my noble friend the Minister of State undertook to keep the House informed of the progress of evacuation of our citizens from Iraq and Kuwait. Your Lordships will know that the first batch of 93 hostages arrived in London early on 10th December on a special British Airways flight, after having taken a United States charter to Frankfurt. Another 750 British citizens followed on two charter flights from Iraq later that day and on 11th December. The hostages were met and assisted on arrival by representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Social Security and other government departments and voluntary organisations. On arrival they were all given a briefing package explaining how to get help if they needed it. We will certainly do our best to mitigate the effects of their ordeal and assist them to settle down here as early as possible.
Your Lordships will wish to join me in paying tribute to the courage of the hostages who had to live under the constant threat of imminent danger. Their families back home coped magnificently. Their patience has paid off and, on behalf of the Government, I should like to congratulate and thank them for their fortitude. I should also like to thank the many Kuwaitis who provided succour and shelter to our citizens and those of other nations held hostage, paying little regard to the danger to themselves.
The remaining British citizens in Kuwait and Iraq (about 100 all told) are being given the strongest advice to leave. Following the departure of the great majority of the British community from Kuwait we have withdrawn our remaining Embassy staff. As I speak they should now be in Jordan. They should arrive in London tomorrow. This is a purely temporary measure. We of course continue to
650
recognise the legitimate Government of Kuwait and utterly reject the illegal Iraqi occupation. In diplomatic terms the Embassy will remain open.
Saddam Hussein is now complying with one of the three main requirements set by the Security Council but not the other two: the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait. There can be no question of his being allowed to get away with it. To allow him to gain from his aggression would set the most dangerous precedent. No small country could feel safe again. In international terms, we would be back to the law of the jungle.
In a new world order in which right thinking men and women think a very different law should obtain, Saddam Hussein believes aggression is the best way to settle disputes; intimidation the best way to rule. Like any bully he will hesitate in the face of any power likely to hurt him. But also like any bully he would quickly see through any bluff. He is not likely to give up the prize of Kuwait unless he is sure that the international community will, if necessary, force him to leave. That is why, although we do not contemplate the use of force with any relish, we have established the military option with our allies in the multinational force.
This is the last and most powerful peaceful pressure on the aggressor. It is not a bluff. This House knows of the contribution this country has made already to the establishment of the military option. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has today announced in another place that Her Majesty the Queen has authorised the calling out of the reserve forces under Section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Up to about 1,500 reservists with specialist skills will be required in support of British deployment in the Gulf. The Government hope this number can be met by reservists willing to volunteer. The use of call-out powers will secure job protection and other benefits for volunteers and so encourage them to come forward. However, if necessary, individual ex-regular reservists will be called out compulsorily.
The military option is effective because it is supported by the entire international community. At the Kuwaiti Government's request for help we had a legal basis to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait under Article 51 of the UN Charter. With the adoption of Resolution 678 on 29th November, the Security Council has now specifically authorised the use of all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolutions. These clearly include military force. The resolution gives Iraq until 15th January 1991 to implement fully the requirements of all the council's earlier resolutions on the crisis: and if Iraq does not comply, it must face the consequences.
But the military option is not the only way in which the international community has shown its will to reverse the Iraqi aggression. Wide-ranging economic sanctions were imposed by the Security Council on 6th August. They have been almost universally observed and have had a significant effect. Iraq is exporting no oil, is earning no foreign exchange and is importing

651
none of the essential industrial goods it needs. However, the key test is not whether sanctions are effective in inflicting damage on the Iraqi economy—clearly they are—but whether they will persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.
Unfortunately the history of the past few years shows that he is quite capable of inflicting considerable misery on his own people in order to achieve his political ends. Against this background it seems unlikely that sanctions alone will suffice to achieve the international community's objectives. We have always seen them as an additional form of pressure, rather than as measures likely to be sufficient in themselves.
Time is not on the side of Kuwait. Day by day and in spite of the courageous resistance of many Kuwaitis, it is being obliterated from the map. In his effort to make his newly conquered territory more manageable, Saddam Hussein has evicted or terrorised into exile much of the native population. At the beginning of August there were more than 700,000 Kuwaitis living in Kuwait. There are now barely 250,000 and the returning hostages have brought back appalling accounts of the murder, torture and brutality used by Iraq in its efforts to eradicate that independent state, to destroy the very fabric of its society.
The forces of more than 30 countries are now deployed in the region with the United States at their head. They have succeeded in their first object of defending Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and deterring Saddam Hussein from extending his military adventure. Their second objective is to support the demands of the Security Council. By the middle of January the United Kingdom will have over 30,000 troops in the area standing alongside over half a million others from the United States, Saudi Arabia itself and the other nations. With this impressive concentration of military power in the region our demands for Iraq's withdrawal carry much more weight.
Like all our partners in the international coalition against Iraq we should much prefer to see the crisis resolved peacefully, and a decision to order hostilities is not one that can or should be taken lightly. That is why we have supported the initiative of the US Administration for direct contacts with Iraq. We hope that it will soon be possible to reach agreement on the dates for the meetings in Washington and Baghdad. We regret that so far that has not been possible because of the Iraqi Government's inflexibility over the date for Secretary Baker's visit to Iraq.
However, I should make clear that President Bush and Secretary Baker will not be negotiating. There is nothing to negotiate about. They will be speaking plainly so that Iraq's leaders understand exactly what is required of them and exactly what the consequence will be if they continue to defy the Security Council. There will be no concessions, no partial solutions and no linkage to other issues.
There is no linkage. The Arab-Israeli dispute must be dealt with, but it must be dealt with separately. We have long supported the idea of an international
652
conference on the Arab-Israel problem. That support continues. However, a conference needs willing participants if it is to get anywhere.
The initiative taken by the US Government, with our support, was designed to find a basis on which talks could take place between Israel and Palestinians, with a view to a conference in due course. That was realistic. The invasion of Kuwait set back that search for peace. So did the partial support of the PLO for the invasion. However, we have no intention of forgetting the injustices and the insecurity which persist so long as there is no settlement of the Arab-Israel problem.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq has no useful contribution to make to that search for a peaceful settlement, but once the aggression against Kuwait has been reversed we can and shall again focus our efforts on that task. I hope that the co-operation in recent months between the countries of the coalition against aggression will improve the prospects of success.
We have been very patient. By 15th January it will be five and a half months since Iraq's original aggression and the international community faces a grave test. Sometimes it is more deadly, more dangerous to long-term peace, to shrink from war than to wage it. We learned that lesson in the 1930s. We failed to stand up to Hitler and Mussolini and the whole world suffered. We must not make that mistake again.
After the Second World War the international community set up the United Nations, but its powers and potential were almost immediately frozen by the cold war. The cold war is over and we have begun to make the United Nations work. Now it is already facing an acid test and it is one that it must not fail. My Lords, we want peace. Of course we want peace, but if we want that peace to endure we most be prepared to use force to ensure it.
Moved, That this House takes note of developments in the Gulf.—(Lord Waddington.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is right and proper that we should have this debate on the Gulf crisis before we rise for the recess. We are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his ready response to our request and also for his speech, which has set the scene for our debate.
We last considered the crisis in the debate on the Address on 13th November. There have been a number of important developments since then, including the United Nations Resolution 678 authorising military intervention. However, the cause of the crisis remains unaltered. As the noble Lord said, contrary to international law and the charter of the United Nations, Iraq, under the control of Saddam Hussein, remains in possession of Kuwait.
Four and a half months have now passed since the invasion of Kuwait. The central question facing us and the United Nations generally is whether by the passage of time and the gradual erosion of determination Saddam Hussein is to be allowed to remain in Kuwait, or whether the United Nations

653
should persist in its conviction that it is only the complete withdrawal of Iraqi forces that will satisfy the international community and also preserve the authority of the United Nations.
Britain has joined in fully supporting that stand and all the resolutions of the Security Council. In this we haw supported the Government. We have further made it plain from the outset that it is of fundamental importance that it is only through the United Nations that all initiatives and action should be taken. I am glad that the Government share that view.
I mentioned the developments which have occurred since our last debate and I shall deal with them briefly. The noble Lord gave the House additional information about the hostages. The announcement that they were to be released was welcomed across the world. It was received with relief and gladness by everyone, and especially by their families who have suffered what one observer called psychological anguish. We echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord to the hostages for their courage and conduct in difficult circumstances.
However, in celebrating the good news of their return we do not forget the background to the story. Saddam Hussein has for four months ignored United Nations Resolution 663, which ordered their immediate release, and has until now manipulated them as pawns in an attempt to promote the acceptance of his occupation of another country. The way he has used the hostages has gained him nothing save the revulsion of the civilised world. The House will have noted his cynical letter to the Iraq National Assembly on 6th December in which he said that the hostages had now served their purpose, buying Iraq time to complete its mobilisation. Nonetheless, as the noble Lord said, this is the first time that Iraq has responded to a Security Council resolution, although there is more than one possible motivation for that.
We have read the evidence of the hostages who have been allowed to return to this country from Kuwait and have been appalled by the stories of cruelty, depredation and total disregard of human rights in that unfortunate country. The noble Lord underlined that in his speech. It is indeed impossible to reconcile the Iraqi claim that it is receiving its Moslem brothers back into the fold with its monstrous treatment of the Kuwaiti people and its small country. It is no wonder that the League of Arab States has supported Resolutions 660 to 678.
I refer to the impending talks proposed by President Bush. He has been criticised—I believe very unfairly —for his initiative. He has been charged with potential appeasement and some of his colleagues in Congress have been sharply critical of him. Are these talks justified? Taking account of Saddam Hussein's record, should we support them? I believe we should, and for one reason in particular; namely, that Saddam Hussein should be left in no doubt that the United Nations are determined that Security Council Resolution 660 adopted on 2nd August, condemning the invasion and calling for the immediate and unconditional Iraqi withdrawal, must be complied with.
654
When he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 5th December, Mr. James Baker said that this would be his purpose when he visited Baghdad. It must be accepted that if Saddam Hussein is open to conviction that a military strike is the consequence of his continued obduracy, it is President Bush and Mr. Baker who can persuade him.
It must also be recognised that there is a strong and growing view in the United States that further efforts should be made to avoid war and that sanctions should be given more time to work. We support this view that sanctions should be allowed a reasonable period of time to take effect, and we think that the talks of President Bush are a response to this; the release of hostages is also partly Saddam Hussein's response to this mood in the United States. At the weekend Iraq called off discussions with Washington, as the noble Lord said, although it is hard to believe that there is any finality about this, and we hope that the talks will take place.
Some experts have argued that for the first time in the 136 days of this crisis war is not quite as inevitable as it seemed to be and that negotiations, with peace as the objective, will have a chance of success. As I have said, there are powerful forces in the United States which support this view. I heard Mr. Brzezinski speak in favour of it on the radio a few days ago, and others like General David Jones and Admiral William Crowe took a similar line. The admiral said:
"If in fact the sanctions will work in 12 to 18 months instead of 6 months, the trade off of avoiding war … would, in my view, be worth it".
It is as a result of all this that both sides have begun to make small concessions—the return of the hostages (the so-called human shield) is a big concession—and it is essential that the United States should not find themselves outflanked by Saddam Hussein. He has played at brinkmanship again this weekend. We know that he is a shrewd operator, capable of deploying his arguments and changing them quickly to suit his own purposes. Democracies are always at a disadvantage when dictators play this game.
Another cause for concern is that there is a danger that the confrontation and the negotiation develop into one between the United States and Iraq, thus seeming to leave the United Nations on the sidelines. Everyone recognises that the initiative from the outset was taken by President Bush, supported by the great majority of the members of the United Nations, notably by this country, and that the United States component is by far and away the largest in the United Nations force in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will let us have the Government's view on this when he replies to the debate. We think it is imperative that any negotiation should be carried out with the authority and support of the United Nations, and that when President Bush and Mr. Baker meet the Iraqi leaders they will be speaking with the voice of the United Nations.
I note that Mr. Perez de Cuellar welcomed the intention of the United States to embark on a series of contacts with the Iraqi government, and hoped that those contacts would lead to what he called a just and

655
peaceful settlement of the present crisis in the Persian Gulf. I was glad to note too that Mr. Douglas Hurd in last week's debate in the other place said:
"We agree that, in the effort to avoid war, it is worth going that extra mile". [Official Report, Commons, 11/12/90; col. 825]
Let us hope that the extra mile will be available and that war can honourably be avoided.
Perhaps I may turn again briefly to the question of sanctions which has been dealt with by the noble Lord. In previous discussions, Ministers have reported that sanctions are in fact working, and that assertion is supported by reports from other sources as well. For example, a report from the CIA estimates that Iraq is now deprived of more than 90 per cent. of the goods and services it needs and that by next spring only some energy-related and military industries will still be able to operate there. Reports from Baghdad say that children are dying because of the lack of medical supplies, although they are supposed to be allowed to enter. But on television we see pictures of well-stocked shops in the streets of Baghdad. I appreciate that it may be difficult to be precise, but can the Minister say whether the Government now believe that sanctions supported by Resolution 670, which authorises measures to tighten the air embargo and deny entry to ships, are working well enough to justify a stay of military action?
Iraq has now been given until 15th January to evacuate Kuwait, although it is also made clear that an attack may not necessarily take place on that particular day. I assume that the efficacy of sanctions will be taken into account before a fatal step is taken and a military strike takes place. We have strongly supported sanctions from the start and so indeed have Her Majesty's Government. As the 15th January approaches, very careful account must be taken of the effectiveness of sanctions, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that this is the Government's policy. This is the point that Admiral Crowe, General Jones and others have been making in the United States.
I turn now to another development which has been widely discussed and which needs clarification; namely, the possibility that Saddam Hussein may offer to withdraw from Kuwait with the reservation that the withdrawal will be to a new frontier line reconstructed by him, thus giving Iraq the Rumaila oilfield and also enabling Iraq to keep the islands of Bubiyan and Warba. What is the Government's reaction to this? The fact is that it would not comply with the Security Council resolutions and would leave Iraq with what it originally claimed. We also have to face the fact that if the crisis were to be settled with that kind of package, then Saddam Hussein would still remain the dictator of his repressive regime—and there is no other way to describe it—with a huge army, the fifth in size in the world, with chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear potential. It is not an attractive thought.
Here again, judgments on this must not be made by the United States or indeed by us alone; they must be
656
made by the United Nations, and we must not overlook the important fact that the Soviet Union has given its support to the United Nations and to the resolutions passed since 2nd August. As I said in previous debates, this is a factor of the utmost significance for the United Nations and for us all in the current crisis.
But the problem facing the United Nations, and the United States in particular, is a dangerous and complex one. If the United Nations accepted a settlement which involved the withdrawal of Iraqi forces but left Saddam Hussein with substantial gains, he would be regarded as the victor in the Middle East, the hero who took on the might of the United States and won. His invasion would seem to be justified and, as I said a moment ago, he would remain the dictator of Iraq with his prestige enhanced. Some noble Lords may disagree with me, but that does seem to me to be a realistic scenario. It is a dark and menacing prospect, for it would gravely damage the newly-won status of the United Nations and also diminish the United States.
I must repeat, the collapse of the United Nations' authority would have disastrous consequences for our children and the next generation. The fall of the League of Nations was bad enough; the collapse of the United Nations in a nuclear age would be infinitely worse.
When he returned home, one of the distinguished recent visitors to Baghdad said that he had "found Saddam Hussein to be a reasonable man". If that were true—and I wish it were—then it would be possible to negotiate with him with confidence and in the hope of a permanent peace. But this is the man who killed thousands of innocent Kurdish men and women with chemical weapons in their own country. This is the man who engaged in a war with Iran in which a million people were killed. This is the man who has invaded and plundered a small neighbouring state ruthlessly and mercilessly. This in short is the clever operator who has no respect for human life or for international law. Let us not delude ourselves about him.
On the other hand—and it is something I feel bound to say —we frequently hear criticisms of the United States, her policies and her leaders. We have criticised them ourselves from time to time and we shall no doubt continue to do so. But at this critical time let us pause to consider how fortunate we are to have them as our ally and our friend. If they had not sustained freedom and the rule of law during this century, what kind of world would it be today? And in this crisis America is the strongest foundation of the United Nations. Let us use all our endeavours to help it and our other allies to bring this crisis to a just and peaceful conclusion.
Finally, let us never forget that when this crisis is past, it must be for the Arab people themselves to resolve the problems of the Middle East. The UN can help if called upon but a permanent solution cannot be imposed from the outside. It is in that spirit, and with that realisation, that we must go forward.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I find myself, not for the first time, in pretty close agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. However, before I come to the substance of the matter, the second speech in this House of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, gives me the opportunity to congratulate him on both speeches and to welcome him to the leadership of this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whom he follows, set a notable example of courtesy to this House. We shall miss him. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will follow him in that respect of courtesy and in other ways too. His presence here makes five former Home Secretaries in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and I came to this House by a somewhat circuitous route from the Home Office after a lapse of a decade and more. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, is in an intermediate position; he came fairly quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, came by express train, pitchforked direct from the Home Office into the leadership of this House. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, leads your Lordships' House with the aplomb and verve which the noble Viscount achieved he will not go far wrong.
It is just over three and a half months since we last debated the issue on 6th September. The Government then received very strong support from all sides of the House and not least from these Liberal Democrat Benches. I ventured then to say that the crucial and challenging part of the enterprise was to accomplish and maintain the marriage of United States power with United Nations moral authority. If that could be done, there was a prospect that the issue could be resolved without conflict; and that if this, alas, did not prove possible, then it would be more like the Korean war, although, hopefully, less drawn out and less bloody than the Vietnam war.
The essential differences between the two were that with regard to Korea the United States had United Nations support. In respect of Vietnam, it did not. In Korea the war was essentially a success in the sense that it achieved —although at great price—the major objective. In Vietnam no success was achieved.
I still believe that that parallel has validity. However, one of my perhaps unspoken assumptions in September has turned out to be almost exactly the reverse of the truth. I thought then that the difficult part of the operation would be to keep the sustained moral support of the United Nations. The near unanimous resolution of early August, I feared, might be difficult to repeat. The military power of the United States, and its willingness to commit it, was, I thought, a more assured thing. If anything, I—and I believe a good number of others—believed that there might be a danger of the United States acting too bellicosely on its own, perhaps supported only by Britain.
In my view that is hardly the position today. First, the United Nations has turned out to be much more steadfast than I had expected. Just over two weeks ago
658
I visited New York for four or five days to give a lecture to an organisation operating under the auspices of the United Nations and almost under the shadow of the United Nations building. By a singular feat of mistiming, I managed to arrange my lecture to coincide within 10 minutes with the key vote in the Security Council. There were less ambassadors present than had been expected but they were better occupied with other matters at that time. The result of the vote was undoubtedly highly satisfactory. It could be argued that the terms of the resolution were a little loose, but nonetheless it embraced every necessary action.
However, in contrast with the greater than expected steadfastness of the UN, during that week in the United States I gained the impression that the United States was not at the present time a nation poised for action and, if necessary, for sacrifice. The president, who certainly cannot be faulted on his desire for peace, will have to devote just as much attention to leading his own public opinion inside as well as outside the armed forces as he has paid to cosseting the marginal members of the Security Council.
Despite that somewhat disturbing lack of a concentrated national will in America, I nonetheless believe as strongly as ever that the issue has to be seen through to a successful conclusion. There is nothing discreditable about trying to achieve that conclusion by diplomatic means. That was indeed specifically envisaged in the third part of the governing Security Council resolution of 2nd August. But the satisfactory conclusion has to be achieved and there is precious little sign at the moment of a promising negotiating framework. Therefore the possibility, putting it at its lowest, of having to do so through military action looms closer. Obviously, it is not a pleasant prospect but the very fact that United Nations support has been so successfully mobilised makes it all the more difficult to dodge. If, having mobilised such an international front against Saddam Hussein, he nonetheless gets away with it, the consequences for any authority in the world will be devastating.
If that were the outcome it would never again be possible to mount a major United Nations action to deal with a world crisis in the way that has been done during the past three to four months. Without doubt the reaction of the Security Council to a crisis would become a matter largely of indifference. The devastating position—a word which I use with care —would be that both the United Nations and the United States would be fallen idols. In other words, both the idealistic and the realpolitik theories of world authority would come crashing down together and the post cold war world could be an even more dangerous place than when the two superpowers could at least take the strain against each other in a predictable way.
The paradox of the world today is that, while America has emerged as the clearly victorious superpower, the other having been forced to desert the field, she has done so as a somewhat exhausted victor. We in this country have been through that experience and ought to be sensitive to it. Neither the strength of the US economy nor the psychology of her people

659
leaves her fitted to discharge the world leadership role which she brilliantly and responsibly carried out during the zenith of the American imperial age from 1947 to 1965. It is probable that she would now like to hand on that baton of leadership as we did to America during the second quarter of this century. But the fact is that there is nobody to whom she can hand it on. That is the paradox of the world today.
The relatively large dynamic economies of the world at the end of the century—that is, Germany and Japan—have powerful muscular bodies but reclusive temperaments. Perhaps that is natural and desirable in view of their history, but it is a fact. As I have previously said in this House, I do not share the view that Germany is a potential and dangerous juggernaut. I agree with the comment made by President Bush in Baden-Wurttemberg four weeks ago; he said that he would like to see Germany play a greater not a lesser part in world affairs. Nonetheless, there is a danger that we shall enter the post cold war world without many sinews of world authority and without much sureness of world leadership. If we can resolve this crisis satisfactorily we shall minimise that problem; if we fail do so we shall vastly maximise it.
3.46 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, in this present crisis the Government have not been short of moral advice from the Churches. The most reverend Primate sitting on my right has made two notable speeches: one in this House and the other more recently in the General Synod. Statements have been issued by the Pope, the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales, the presidents of the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland and the World Council of Churches. Since then, countless individuals and groups have put forward their beliefs. In one way or another most have appealed to the principles of the just war. The fact that not all have agreed precisely on how those principles apply is hardly surprising given the complexity of the issues at stake.
That is not to imply that the attempt to think in just war terms is necessarily deficient; nor need it ignore the fact that the just war theory has its critics. It is only that moral reasoning cannot by itself provide answers but must be combined with and inform political judgment. Inevitably any advice which goes beyond general statements of principle runs into all the usual political disagreements. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christian spokesmen have disagreed.
However, I hope that we are agreed upon one issue. Perhaps I may say a word in praise of the way in which the crisis has been handled politically. Among the major powers there has been an admirable combination of firmness and restraint. Those qualities have been exemplified in the speeches of noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate. Despite the extreme perils which the world now faces there is agreement that the enhanced effectiveness of the United Nations is the real ground for hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, so graphically illustrated.
660
We must not let that hope be dashed by backing away from the policies which the United Nations has agreed.
It could be argued that one of the new factors which the just war theory must take into account is the whole concept of international authority and collective security. In its original inspiration during the period after the First World War that factor owed a great deal to the Christian leaders of those days. That concept of working together collectively for our security is the best hope for lasting peace in the modern world. We have already learnt the hard way that it can be fatally undermined if we are not prepared to fight for it.
While thinking in these moral terms we must also recognise the fact that the end of the cold war has made the dream of collective security attainable. Therefore, we should not be inhibited by those who argue over our failures to act collectively in the past. However, the recognition that war might in practice be necessary should not be allowed to diminish the sense of restraint with which the allied governments contemplate it. Time and again Christian statements have emphasised that it must be thought of as the last resort.
I believe that in the end that is what the just war theory adds up to. It is the setting of restraints on our motives, aims and methods. In the present crisis it is of the utmost importance to be restrained, first, about our aims. While those aims are confined to the two remaining Security Council resolutions—the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and the reinstatement of its government; and, one might add, the stabilisation of relationships in the Gulf area—the moral case for pressing on with them appears to be unanswerable even if it means war, which God forbid. However, if there are suspicions that the aims go beyond that and that they need to include the removal of Saddam Hussein or the demilitarisation of Iraq, however tempting those aims may be, it seems to me that the moral case is weakened. I believe that we could be heading for disaster.
In war, restraint in terms of method is enormously hard to apply. That is why it is all the more important to be clearly and explicitly restrained in our aims, so that if our troops must fight they know precisely what they are fighting for.
There remains the strong and urgent moral imperative to go on looking for alternatives to war. I believe that that is one reason for not being too cynical about the motives behind the welcome release of hostages. We can only guess at the actual motives, but to interpret the action as a first step towards bringing Iraq back into the framework of normal international relations may provide something on which to build. It seems to me that steps of a similar kind could be taken from the other side. If, for example, not only do we say, as noble Lords have said in this House this afternoon, that we support a solution to the Palestinian problem but we go beyond that to reaffirm the United Nations Resolution 242, that may provide something on which to build from the other side. No principle would be sacrificed because the world is

661
already committed to solving that problem. In my mind there is no question of embarking upon negotiations with Iraq of which the settlement of the Palestinian problem would form a part. However, public assurances at the highest level that this question is not being swept under the carpet can help to create an atmosphere in which a solution to the present crisis becomes psychologically possible.
Another move of that kind which might begin to be taken by the United Nations, prior to any peace talks, could be the commencement of the setting up of a United Nations' peace-keeping force. That would not pre-empt a peaceful solution to the problem but might make easier its attainment. The purpose of such a force would be to facilitate military withdrawal, both by the Iraqis and by the allied forces, leaving a demilitarised buffer zone between them. To start planning for such a force now would be to give a powerful signal to Iraq that withdrawal from Kuwait is practicable without further danger to itself. That may seem a tenuous hope but I believe that we are moving in a realm in which signals of that kind could be enormously important.
I hope also that moves are being made to agree on a list of the main political problems in the area which will need to be tackled once Iraq has complied with the United Nations demand for withdrawal. That seems to me to be the kind of list which, without any commitment on either side and any hint of appeasement, could give a sense of long-term purpose to more immediate peace-keeping moves. Surely it is obvious that to do nothing now or in the future will simply restore the status quo in the Middle East. Therefore, for that reason if for no other we are forced to look at the wider pattern of Middle East relationships whatever the outcome of the present crisis. I see no harm in signalling that intention in quite specific terms.
Perhaps I may make one final point—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before I sink back in despair, can the most reverend Primate assure me that he is not suggesting that such moves to deal with the many problems of the world and the Middle East will be allowed to overcome the clear aggression and danger which flow from the occupation of Kuwait?
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I give the noble Lord complete assurance on that point. I hope that in what I say I make it abundantly clear that Saddam Hussein must comply with the United Nations resolution. That goes without saying. However, we need to create a psychological atmosphere in which that compliance can take place without the appalling dangers of war.
At this stage we need to look at every means to change the psychological situation so that he can withdraw with what is essential in an Arab state; namely, a sense of honour. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was right to speak of the terrible events which have taken place but we must recognise the
662
psychology of the situation and not simply look at it from our own perspective. That is what I am trying to say.
Perhaps I may make one specifically religious point. I urge our political leaders not to overlook the religious dimension in this conflict as it is perceived by the Iraqis because the worst possible scenario could occur if we went to war in such a way as to engage those religious feelings and to make it seem to them like a religious war. It seems to me that that would be a recipe for reckless self-sacrifice on their part and would undermine our own normal expectations about the ways in which wars should be fought. It would make the winning of such a war immeasurably harder. That is why some preliminary signalling of our intentions, both in the short and long term, is so important to a solution of this conflict.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, speaking as I do directly after the most reverend Primate, I am sure that the House would wish me to thank him for the authoritative contribution which he has made to our debate this afternoon. I admired greatly his observations that—and I believe I have his words correctly—moral reasoning cannot itself provide answers but it should guide the activities of each of us involved in this affair. On my own behalf, I warmly thank him for the contribution which he has made.
I welcome a further opportunity this afternoon to debate the Gulf crisis. There have been significant changes since the last debate on this subject and, so far as I can judge, we may reach the turning point in this crisis between now and mid-January. Therefore, a reappraisal of the situation before us seems highly appropriate.
In introducing the debate the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said that there have been two significant and positive steps in the recent past; namely, the Security Council resolution of 29th November and the release of the hostages. However, Iraq cannot now be in any doubt about the dangerous situation which its activities have created. That situation is extremely hazardous. It will improve only when we see clear signs of Iraq's willingness to comply fully with the resolutions of the Security Council, and in particular of its willingness to withdraw from Kuwait. There is at present little sign of that.
The two general considerations I should like to put to the House involve separate issues. The first relates to the importance of the crisis for Britain; the second relates to the role of the European Community. The scale of international political change over the past year or so has been so great that at times there has seemed to be some danger of our overlooking the fundamental significance of the crisis. The period through which we have just lived saw the collapse of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe, the end of the Marxist-Leninist challenge, the arrival at last of arms control after decades of wrangling, and the new steps contemplated for the future of Western Europe.

663
Reading the newspapers and watching the television, with those events occurring before our eyes, a smash-and-grab raid in the Gulf looked rather unimportant. However, I am sure that it would be a mistake to look at the situation in that way. There are issues of cardinal importance which come together in the Gulf crisis. I believe it is worthwhile mentioning a few.
First and foremost, as has already been emphasised, we must consider the future of collective security under the aegis of the United Nations. Indeed, if things go wrong the future of the United Nations itself must be considered. There is the relationship between the super-powers. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said regarding the decline in their relative power, they are still the super-powers. This is their first attempt at joint management of a global strategic crisis and the outcome will much depend upon whether or not they are successful. There is also the struggle for leadership and influence within the Arab world. Who comes victorious out of this particular crisis will be a significant factor for the future of the Middle East. There is also the role of the European powers, about which I shall say more in a moment. Finally, inevitably, there is the availability and price of oil to consumers around the world which must be considered.
I do not believe it is an exaggeration to stress the importance of the outcome of the crisis for our own national interest. What happens in this affair will affect our standing in many countries. It will affect also our prosperity and, in the longer term, our safety. We must see the crisis through, and if need be by the use of arms. On that point I found the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, extremely telling and convincing.
Although as an active participant, we can bring some important influence to bear on what happens, we are not a protagonist. The greatest responsibility rests on the United States and the Soviet Union, both because of the strategic power which they alone possess and also the support which each gives to its friends in the neighbourhood. After all, it was the Soviet Union which armed Iraq to the teeth and gave it the ability to act as it has done. Our influence is less than theirs, although it is not inconsiderable. In the Security Council and as a notable contributor of substantial military forces in the Arabian peninsula, I believe we have fully and seriously discharged our responsibilities. On the other hand, the contribution made by the European Community to date is disappointing, and less than it might have been. Of course, we could not expect Western Europe to play a military role in the crisis. However, more could have been done to exert political influence.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that until now Europe's collective voice has been most audible in attempting to discourage missions by senior politicians intent on liberating hostages. Even the co-ordination of naval activities in the Gulf was undertaken by the Western European Union. Odder
664
still was the independent line pursued by France at the Security Council last week, which sought to insert a reference to a peace conference in a draft resolution still under discussion. That separate initiative by France contrasts starkly with the ambitious ideas for European union in the letter sent a few days ago by Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand to their colleagues in the European Council.
I cite those examples not because the policy of the European Community has been at fault in the crisis; rather because the Community missed an opportunity to enhance its international credentials. Although individual member states have done a lot, it does not seem to me that collectively the Community will be playing much of a role toward the resolution of the crisis beyond perhaps picking up some of the bill. The promise to help the hard-pressed government in Jordan is welcome. But according to what I read in the press that financial assistance has not been given. That lack of engagement by the European Community may become even more marked in the near future if the inter-governmental conference of political union proceeds to discuss the future constitutional shape of the Community in a rather abstract way at the specific time fighting may be breaking out in the Middle East.
I hope that the debate will encourage the Government to continue their existing policy; namely, to base their actions firmly on resolutions passed by the Security Council. I believe that policy to be the correct one, and that it probably enjoys the support of the majority of public opinion in this country. The broad support given by Members of all parties in both Houses of Parliament is very welcome. But a larger controversy may yet arise over the possibility of a negotiated solution. That notion can be examined seriously only if Iraq first accepts the Security Council resolutions as the starting point. At present it shows no sign of so doing.
There is not much time left for the leader of Iraq to convince us that he is seriously interested in that possibility. Therefore for the present the Government's policy of solidarity and firmness is the correct one. But it would not be wholly inconsistent with that policy to express our interest in the process of pacification in the Middle East after withdrawal from Kuwait.
In that context I mention something which I believe to be significant and which so far has not been mentioned in the debate; that is, the news which appeared last week of Prime Minister Shamir's apparent agreement during a visit to Washington that he would be willing to accept a ban on nuclear and chemical weapons in the Middle East. If confirmed that could be a significant step towards the wider issues of security in the region, and it could have a bearing on the resolution of the present crisis.
I have no wish to over-dramatise the situation. I speak as I do because I believe the issues to be of great importance to us, and that the possibility of war is a real one. As the stakes are so high we need to proceed on the basis of a clear understanding of what we are about, and with the maximum degree of consent in

665
our country to the actions the Government are likely to take. I hope that the debate will contribute to those very important purposes.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for longer than a few moments. I should like to start by saying that I was a little disappointed by the intervention a few moments ago of the most reverend Primate. If I may say so, I much preferred the speech of the other most reverend Primate made to the General Synod a few weeks ago. I was able to understand that more clearly than I was the speech of the most reverend Primate today. However, perhaps today's speech will benefit from an examination of the text in Hansard in the future, and I shall certainly give it that.
Nearly 50 years ago President Roosevelt described the occasion of the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbour as, "a day which will live in infamy". Sadly, there have been several such days since then: notably 2nd April 1982; and now we have to add 2nd August 1990. But of course since the late 1940s we have had the benefit of the United Nations Charter and, above all, the Security Council. The virtual unanimity of the Security Council on this occasion is much to be welcomed. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when he said a few moments ago that this really marks the coming of age of the United Nations and of the Security Council. Let us hope that they will not falter at the last hurdle.
These latest resolutions underline the gravity with which the international community regard this appalling aggression. But I think it is important to recognise that these resolutions, welcome though they are, are not essential, at least as far as international law is concerned. There is, I believe, no serious doubt that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter entitles the Kuwaitis to defend themselves and to seek such help as they may need, and entitles nations to respond to such requests. But certainly the various Security Council resolutions, including especially the latest ones, give added strength, if that is necessary, to the underlying provisions of the United Nations Charter.
Now Saddam Hussein is confronted by one of the largest bodies of military force that has been assembled for a very long time indeed. Upwards of half a million men, together with awesome firepower, are now arrayed against him. I fear greatly that if war cannot be avoided—and every day that passes makes that more difficult—the Iraqi people will pay a terrible price for the wickedness of their leader. I deeply regret that, but the right of every nation, however small, to live free from the fear of aggression and, above all, from aggression itself, is absolutely fundamental. A much greater evil would be to allow Kuwait to be swallowed up and vanish forever.
In parenthesis, I should just like to make one observation at this point. During the recent changes in the leadership of the Conservative Party there was an observation by the retired chiefs of staff—noble and gallant Lords who sit in your Lordships' House—by means of a letter to The Times that it was not the right
666
time to change the leadership, I think they said, of the Government. I must say that I rather regret that intervention. The retired chiefs of staff, representing the armed forces as they do, of course serve every government, under whatever leader, with equal loyalty. They have demonstrated that time and time again continuously in recent times. That intervention would, frankly, have been better not made. I have no doubt it was made with the best of intentions, but I hope that it will not be repeated.
So far as the policy of Her Majesty's Government is concerned, I believe that on this occasion the Government have responded entirely correctly. They are entitled to our full support. Speaking for myself, they surely have it.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wish, if I may, straight away to submit an apology to this House. For a sad and personal reason I may not be able to remain for the full time of this debate, and I feel that I should say so. I also want to express immediately the thanks of us all to the Leader of the House for mentioning, quite correctly and properly, how grateful we all are to the people of Kuwait. Despite the terror under which they live they have managed to give some help to our countrymen, to save their lives on many occasions, and to sustain their courage, so that we can welcome them back in freedom to this country. I am happy that the Leader of our House did that, and I completely support what he has said.
At this stage I should like to express my appreciation of the Kuwaiti and the Saudi Arabian Ambassadors to the Court of St. James, and the many other ambassadors to whom I spoke when I was gravely concerned at the appalling attitude of Saddam Hussein when he called my fellow countrymen, whom he held as hostages in dangerous situations, his "guests". I know that every one of them would rather die than be a guest in any way of Saddam Hussein. We must beware of the sort of things that this evil person says and does.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that anyone who steals all, or a part, of somebody else's country has committed a crime against all humanity. The wonderful thing is that Resolution 678 unites the United Nations and its members, who are now prepared to resist Saddam Hussein when he has stolen someone else's country. We must also bear in mind the words of Lord Caradon, who sat in this House and at the United Nations, when he was successful in moving Resolution 242. We can in no way say that Resolution 678 is different, when it applies to Saddam Hussein from when it applies to the Palestinians and Israelis.
I believe that at this point in time they should not be linked one with the other. I can understand that argument. But I hope that this Government and our country will not remain either sycophantic or show lack of courage in seeking to implement Resolution 242. I know all the terrible things that were said about the creation of the state of Israel. The fact is that the state of Israel has a right to exist. It was indeed created by the United Nations, and that will always be its

667
strongest point. That is why I hope that at some time it will also adopt those United Nations resolutions that seek its withdrawal from the Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
I also believe that we have to face, for example, the appalling situation of Saddam Hussein withdrawing just half a mile over the border and then, with the largest army in the Middle East, staying there as a permanent threat. Will we be able to stay there for a few years with our American allies? Speaking parenthetically, despite the criticisms that have been made of President Bush, I for one certainly believe that he immediately did the correct thing. I was happy when it was our country that supported him in word and deed—and in getting troops there to support our American allies. I am convinced that if that had not been done Kuwait would not have been the only country invaded.
The Saudi Arabians know full well that at this moment they are free because of Resolution 678, because of the swift action of our American allies, the support of the British, and the support of so many other Arab countries. That is a good thing. I said in the debate on the Address that as I had heard from people who had managed to get out of Kuwait that there was some dissention among the Iraqi troops. They are becoming worried because they are killing fellow Arabs. Such a reaction might not occur among Europeans. We in Europe have never minded whom we killed or where they came from, but that is not true in the Middle East. I suggest therefore that we ought to take advantage of the situation. I have been given realistic information by our countrymen who have escaped that the anxiety exists among middle grade officers in the Iraqi army; and we have heard recently of the dismissal of a number of very senior officers of the Iraqi army.
I suggested previously that perhaps we should drop leaflets printed in Arabic, into Kuwait. I do not think that much thought has been given to the suggestion. I was surprised to hear on the television last week that President Bush had similar ideas. Therefore I hope that the Leader of our House will ask the Prime Minister whether he could have further talks with President Bush to see whether the proposal can be instigated. There is nothing to lose by it and it might provide us with something very worth while.
I should like to underline the fact that we must get rid of Saddam Hussein. One reason is that he has such a powerful army. Anyone who builds up a strong and powerful army can cock a snook at the United Nations. That is why the Americans were correct in what they did and why we were correct in giving them our full support in every way. I hope that we shall continue to do so. We must bear in mind that we are not dealing with a normal idiot; we are possibly dealing with a dangerous idiot and a cunning idiot who may stay there. Having obeyed the United Nations and listened to the entreaties of the allies to withdraw from Kuwait a quarter of a mile, we might be faced with the entire Iraqi army. What would we do then? If there are to be negotiations we must make
668
absolutely certain that we are invited by the new Kuwaiti government, together with American and other allied troops, to move into Kuwait. Then we should be certain that we could not be hoodwinked by Saddam Hussein. That is very important.
We should consider giving help to Jordan, Egypt and other countries that have suffered due to sanctions. I hope that we, America and our other allies will not forget that those countries will be in economic need because they have given us their support in terms of troops and troop movements.
If a war breaks out it will be absolutely horrendous. Nobody wants a war. Those of us who served in the last world war know what it is to experience the bands playing while lads are badly wounded, blown up or killed. Everybody knew what was happening to London and would have said at the time that Hermann Goering had the right policy: bomb and bomb and bomb this great capital city. He did it, but the more he bombed the more aggressive in their determination to win were the Londoners who set such a splendid example. When comes the time to help the countries like Kuwait that have suffered so terribly, we shall remember them.
A number of other nations ought to give these countries a little more economic and military help. We and our American allies have shown the way. We have taken a magnificent step which has been thoroughly endorsed by Resolution 678. The British and the Americans have acted on behalf of the greatest forum that mankind has ever known, the United Nations, against one of the biggest bullying thugs that ever broke an agreement. It is to our credit that we stood by our American allies. I hope that we shall stand by those people who have suffered.
If a war is imposed upon us I hope that we shall be able to say that we, with our American allies and countries in the great Commonwealth, particularly Australia and New Zealand, were prepared to negotiate to see whether something could be done to avert war, including the complete withdrawal of Saddam Hussein many, many miles from Kuwait and the occupation of Kuwait by liberating forces. Let us make that transparently clear. If war comes, let us fight it with all we have. We shall be able to say that we stood up against an appalling bully. We tried to debate with him and negotiate in a civilised, sensible and proper manner—a course which endangered no one. If war does come, history will record that the United Nations, with America and Britain in the lead and with the support of so many Arab countries, did their best to avoid a war. But, they also showed their guts and courage in not giving in to an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for allowing me to visit the forces in the Gulf. I hope that many others will make that trip. They will find our servicemen there well equipped, extremely well trained and in good spirits. They will also make closer acquaintance with the terrible weapons that those young men have at their disposal

669
and the terrible weapons that could be used against them. They will come back more resolved than ever to do what they can to find an honourable and peaceful resolution of the Gulf crisis.
My noble friend has set out the very wide area of agreement between these Benches and the Government. He has stressed that which we all believe: that Saddam Hussein must be required fully to implement the Security Council resolutions. My noble friend has set out truthfully that in the last resort the military option must be maintained. In all of those things he has my very warm support.
However, my noble friend has freed me to tread on more controversial ground, which I propose to do. I was very struck by the speech of the most reverend Primate. He stated that if the Security Council is allowed to raise the question of Palestine, not linked with negotiations with Iraq but on its merits, that could help to create a climate in which a peaceful resolution of the crisis would be more possible. I would warmly support him in that event.
Those remarks distinguish the most reverend Primate from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who also stated that the Palestine question must be addressed by the Security Council but not until after the Kuwait crisis had been dealt with. That is also the view of the American Government.
I should like to speak frankly about what I believe to be the double standards of American and British policy in the Middle East and the obstacle which they present to the honourable and peaceful resolution of the Gulf crisis. There are of course differences between the Israeli occupation and the Iraqi occupation. The Iraqi occupation results from an absolutely clear act of aggression, whereas Israelis will argue that, although they struck the first blow in 1967, that was because they were about to be attacked themselves. That one major difference. Again, there is no parallel in Palestine to the wholesale looting and destruction of Kuwait and the cold-blooded ill-treatment and murder of individual Kuwaitis. Nevertheless, there are very bad elements on the Israeli side as well, particularly the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians, including small children. It is true to say that in the past three years the Israelis have shot dead or beaten to death 169 Palestinian children. The average age of those dead children was 10 years and 2 months.
There are similarities between the occupations. Both are obnoxious, both must be ended and both frequently and flagrantly violate the fourth Geneva Convention, the Security Council resolutions and international law. There is an extraordinary contrast in the treatment of the two occupations by the American and British governments. The Iraqis are quite rightly met with sanctions and the threat of imminent and devastating war. The Israelis are informed —we heard it this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—that in the future the Security Council will handle this problem. But both governments make it quite clear that there will be no
670
sanctions, let alone military action, and that unless the proposals are freely accepted by the Israelis they will not be pursued.
I am much obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who wrote to me a short while ago setting out quite plainly the British Government's attitude on this point. It is the same as the attitude of the American government. He said:
"We have long maintained that if a solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute is to be just and durable, it must be freely accepted by all parties".
That is to say, any proposals to end the Israeli occupation must be freely accepted by the Shamir government. In effect the Israelis are to have a veto; and while Shamir and his government remain determined to maintain the occupation, the Security Council should allow the occupation to continue. That is the only possible interpretation of the noble Earl's letter. It also says specifically that the Government will not in these circumstances threaten Israel with sanctions.
The noble Earl should explain why the authority of the Security Council should not extend to Israel as to every other country in the world. He should explain why the proposals favoured by the Security Council would be less just and durable than proposals acceptable to the Shamir government. If he uses his opportunity at the end of the debate to explain, that will be reassuring. I concede readily that the British and American governments are absolutely right in the case of Kuwait to be supporting the Security Council resolutions and international law. But it is also true that, by following the policies which the noble Earl outlined in his letter, both governments have been aiding and abetting violations of international law and violations of Security Council resolutions on Palestine. That is a serious obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the Gulf crisis, as I shall try to show.
First, these double standards are easily exploited by Saddam Hussein, who is a master of political warfare. He is easily exploiting these double standards to weaken the coalition and undermine its cohesion and moral authority. But worse, they are leading the Government to oppose, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, did this afternoon, proposals for the Security Council to address itself to the Palestine problem, proposals not linked to negotiations with Saddam Hussein but proposals with their own merits, something that should have been done years ago and which the Security Council has tried to do before, something made urgent by the growing extremism and violence on the West Bank and in Gaza. Such an initiative would definitely help us towards a peaceful solution in the Gulf.
It is true that Saddam Hussein may try to claim credit for activating the Security Council and may use it as a face-saver for withdrawing from Kuwait—that is possible —but I cannot see anything appalling about that. I do not see why that should be regarded as a disaster. The Security Council would not be breaching any principle. The British and American governments could support tackling the Palestinian problem without breaching any principle. If Saddam

671
Hussein were to take credit for it and use it as a ladder, so to speak, to climb down, that at least would be a better alternative to war.
In this view I am supported, I am glad to say, by a very interesting statement by my party leader, Mr. Ashdown. He said that the search for a peaceful solution,
"should be part of a broader move to establish long-term security in the Middle East, including a settlement of the Palestine problem, on which work should be starting now".
My point is that we should start now. I believe that to be the point made by the most reverend Primate.
That would weaken Saddam Hussein. To the extent that the Security Council handled this problem it would show that it, and not Saddam Hussein, has the legitimacy and the means to make effective progress. It would attract to the Security Council and move away from Saddam Hussein the backing of many Arabs, including the Iraqi people themselves, the Palestinians in Jordan and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, who are now looking to Saddam Hussein. It would undermine Saddam Hussein's bogus posture of being the champion of Arab interests.
Why then do the American Government and the British Government take the line that they do? They are not supported by other members of the Security Council such as the French and the Russians. Why do they oppose this constructive concept? Why do they have these double standards? An example of the double standards is the different treatment of Saddam Hussein and Shamir. There are differences between these fellows but they are both directly responsible for maintaining illegal occupations; they are both flagrantly violating the fourth Geneva Convention; and they both have terrorist records and have shown no remorse for them. Yet whereas Saddam Hussein is threatened with trial as a war criminal, Shamir is readily received in the White House and at No. 10. Why are these double standards practised?
I think that everyone knows the answer but few are masochistic enough to give it plainly and publicly. I shall do so. The main reason is the strength of the Israeli lobby in Washington and London. That is the truth. American politicians will readily explain the penalties of falling out with the Washington lobby. They will talk of the loss of media support, of the time spent receiving delegations, of the loss of campaign contributions, and so on.
An enterprising journalist recently matched up the voting records of Congressmen on Israeli related issues with the contributions they received from the Israeli lobby. For example, Mr. Robert Torricelli followed the lobby line on 10 votes out of 10 and received 62,000 dollars. Representative Martin Frost followed the line nine times out of 10 and received 35,000 dollars. Representative Austin Murphy voted the right way on only two occasions out of 10 and received no money at all. Those are comparatively small sums. However, so far as concerns senators, especially those in marginal seats or those who belong to some important committee, the tariff rises. For example, Senator Harkins is a member of the
672
Appropriations Committee which deals with aid for Israel. In this year's election he received 123,000 dollars and Senator Simon, who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, received 132,000 dollars.
Facts such as those are not widely publicised in the West. However, they are well known in the Arab world, especially among Palestinians. They do nothing to improve the respect for American policy on Palestine. To be perfectly frank, I believe that the Government should be ready to distance themselves a little more from American policy on Palestine, especially now that unity against the Soviet Union is perhaps less pressing than it was.
The penalties for British politicians falling out with the lobby are much less heavy and less tangible. There may well be some black marks in the Maxwell or the Murdoch press, the possible loss of support of some party members or even the possibility of a covert accusation of anti-Semitism. The penalties are there, but they are not prohibitive and they are less than they used to be. Nevertheless, it is surprising how few people seem to be prepared to risk them. They slip into an equivocal position on Palestine or into silence on the matter.
However, all that is by the way. I return now to my main point. The double standards of the British and American governments on Palestine are easily exploited by Saddam Hussein. They weaken the anti-Saddam coalition. In the future these governments should show the same determination to support international law and the resolutions of the Security Council over Palestine as they have done so magnificently over Kuwait. In particular, they should end their opposition to the proposal that the Security Council should now address itself again to the Palestine problem, thus markedly increasing the possibility of a peaceful solution in the Gulf. It would be a crime if the Government were to lead this country into war with all the horrors that that entails without having first tried every possible peaceful alternative.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, this is the fourth time in recent weeks that we have discussed the situation in the Gulf. However, the threat of war remains—a war which would be shown throughout the world on the television screens and one which we would see in frightful detail, safe in our own homes. The reaction internationally and domestically cannot be foreseen. We in this country shall have seen nothing like it before.
Members of the House will remember the indifference with which the Korean war was treated by the British public. It was much to the chagrin of those who had relatives involved in it that they could see none of the terrible happenings on their television screens. We are all familiar with the effect of television programmes on American conduct in the Vietnamese war.
We are asked by this Motion to take note of recent developments in the Gulf. First, as has already been mentioned, there is the welcome return of the hostages

673
with their tales of horror and their stories of personal courage,. There can no longer be any doubt about the ruthlessness or villainy of the Iraqi regime. However, in my opinion the most important development has been the proposal of President Bush to seek direct contact with the Iraqi leadership.
When I suggested in the debate on 13th November that such direct contact between the principal antagonists was a sensible aim, the Minister who concluded the debate said that there was nothing to discuss. I thought, with respect, at the time that that reply was inappropriate; I still do. I very much hope that the President's proposal, or some version of it, can be agreed with Saddam Hussein. If there is no face-to-face contact, I believe that war is virtually inevitable.
There must be no misunderstanding between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. I am sure that the President will remember how careful President Kennedy was at the time of the Cuban missile crisis to leave absolutely no doubt in Kruschev's mind of the US Government's intentions. Many notable historians have suggested in the past—I think with reason —that the 1914–1918 war could have been avoided if there had been some direct face-to-face contact between the antagonists before the outbreak.
The problem of what is to be discussed between the antagonists is, I agree, very difficult and very sensitive. It is proposed that it should be only the matter of Iraq's withdrawal; in other words, only the acceptance of the Security Council resolution. The implication for Saddam is clearly: accept the resolution or risk the use of force.
However, is that the right way to exploit direct contacts if they take place and will it solve the crisis? What I say will be controversial, but it has already been Kid. Nevertheless, before it is dismissed, I ask noble Lords first to remember the chequered history of the Middle East since 1918: how far was justice done? Secondly, how far and for how long would its problems be solved by the defeat of Saddam Hussein in war?
It is constantly asserted that there must be no link between the Iraqi attack on Kuwait and the other problems which have been overshadowing the Middle East for the past many years. Here I find myself very much in agreement with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. I do not see how it can be asserted that there is no link with the Palestinian or Lebanese problems. Surely such an assertion cannot be sustained: there is a link and we all know it.
President Bush and the Soviet Foreign Minister have just met Prime Minister Shamir of Israel in America. It is clear from reports in the United States' press that the Gulf crisis must have been discussed. Prime Minister Shamir told the Soviet Foreign Minister, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that he was prepared to consider in principle a nuclear-free zone. President Bush seems to have promised that Israeli interests will be protected. If contact is made with Saddam Hussein, there must surely be similar discussion with him, however
674
culpable he may be. All those problems are inextricably linked and how we proceed must be influenced by that fact.
In my opinion, the solution of the Iraqi crisis must achieve the following objectives. First, there must be an immediate Iraqi withdrawal from all of Kuwait—I emphasise the word "all". That will be a humiliation for Saddam Hussein, but the consequential benefits can, when the time comes, he explained to the Iraqi people. The second objective is the restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait. The third objective is compensation for the various categories of people who have suffered great loss, like the inhabitants of the third world who were working in Iraq.
The fourth objective is an agreement between the Middle East states of outstanding boundary problems. Most of such agreements can be reached by Arabs with Arabs. Fifthly, there should be agreement with Israel on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Sixthly—this is most important —there should be a disarmament agreement between Israel and Iraq involving the mutual destruction of weapons of mass destruction and a reduction of conventional forces.
Lastly, there should be a guarantee of these agreements by the Security Council powers and a United Nations permanently strengthened by Saddam's acceptance of the resolution of last August. This could be maintained or very much helped by the temporary retention of a United Nations peacekeeping force in the area. An unattainable solution in the foreseeable future, noble Lords may say. I wonder. When we think of the benefits worldwide which would flow from such a solution on the lines I have described, we see that its attractions not only to the Arabs and the Israelis must surely make it eventually possible to achieve it.
How will it be possible to proceed from the present impasse? By conference; secret diplomacy; or both? The meetings between Bush and the Iraqis could be the first step. If, when the possibilities have been explained to him, Saddam continues to deny the world the benefits of such a settlement, I agree that his destruction by force may well be the only course. However, if he shows a readiness to negotiate, after compliance with the UN resolution, in my view he should not be treated as a pariah.
What would be the benefits which would flow from such a settlement? I believe that they would be largely as follows: first, the establishment of a strong United Nations, capable of achieving the purposes for which it was set up. That is the first priority for the present alliance and it is a safeguard for all members of the United Nations. A second benefit would be the assurance for the people of Israel of freedom from Arab attack and vice versa.
Thirdly, a benefit would be a home for the Palestinians who have been appallingly treated by both Arabs and Jews and who have been let down in the past by inadequate United Nations action. A fourth benefit would be the fulfilment of the Arabs' wish for a greater status and recognition. A fifth

675
benefit would be the possibility for the Arabs of using some of their enormous oil resources for the settlement and betterment of their people, rather than for their excessive armament. Finally, there would be the safeguarding of the justifiable achievements of the Israelis. Such a settlement would remove the most potent threat to world peace which, if left unsolved, could only worsen.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, your Lordships are discussing a situation of considerable danger. Characteristically in those circumstances, your Lordships' House has shown a high degree of unanimity. We began with two most admirable speeches from my noble friend Lord Waddington and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I am sorry that he is not in his place. Both noble Lords made speeches of high, statesmanlike quality, exemplifying the broad degree of unity which, despite one or two differences of emphasis, this debate has shown that your Lordships' House feels on the issue.
There are two dangers, which is why I referred to the dangerous situation. One is the danger of war; war with a country with a large, battle-tried army, capable of giving a good account of itself, particularly in a locality with which it is familiar. The other even greater danger, it seems to me, is that if after the action it has sought to take in this matter the United Nations is seen to fail, if it is unable to impose its will on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, we shall face a deteriorating world situation. It would not be going too far to say that in those circumstances the United Nations—which many of us regard as one of the major hopes for a peaceful world—will be likely to go the same way as that unhappy body, the League of Nations, before the war.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential to the security and future of the world that the will of the United Nations that Saddam Hussein and his people should withdraw from Kuwait is achieved. That is why most of us who hate the idea of war feel particularly embarrassed that, if we support war at our age, we support a war fought by our younger brethren. That is a matter of perhaps some embarrassment and awkwardness. Nonetheless, we feel that if this is the only way to achieve the role of the United Nations—to be able to maintain the position, to be able to impose its will on those who seek to snatch a small country from its people—in those circumstances the horrors of war will have to be faced. Those horrors are real, as most of us recall from our own experience.
We all hope, and some of us say, that it is possible that sanctions may help to deal with the matter. However, the history of sanctions in recent years is not encouraging. They tend to be extremely slow in effect. This brings me to the important point in this crisis of the time factor. Time is not on the side of Kuwait; it is on the side of Saddam Hussein. He is in possession; he is removing people and goods from Kuwait. Moreover, if one believes the press, he may well
676
perfect even more terrible weapons of war for use against anyone who attacks him. Therefore, the time factor is important.
The time factor is important in another way too. Within three to four months in the Middle East the hot weather will return. We shall expose the troops of the United Nations to extremes of climate and not all of them will be able to stand up well to it. It will be a great test of the discipline and morale of the troops there if without being able to take action they withstand the rigours of the hot climate. Therefore I stress strongly that the time factor is important. It makes me doubt very much whether sanctions can possibly do the trick.
I wish to ask the noble Earl who will reply a question which involves repeating one which I put to him a few days ago at Question Time. He succeeded, somewhat adroitly, in not answering it. If Saddam Hussein simply withdraws from Kuwait, having already withdrawn most of the property, the assets and many of the people of that country, will it be regarded as sufficient without his being compelled to make some return to Kuwait of the property and people of whom he has deprived it? We talk the whole time about his need to withdraw, but if he withdraws from a devastated country which has lost all its assets, which will not be able to carry on and which will present its returning government with impossible tasks, what is our intention? I put this question to my noble friend. Would it be sufficient for him simply to withdraw, leaving devastation behind him; or will we say that his withdrawal must involve at any rate some efforts to restore the country to the position in which he found it?
As I have said, the time factor is important. If I may use a historical analogy, I would say that we are rather in the situation that occurred during the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. At that time if we and the French had moved in firmly, the Germans would have been thrown out. Everyone who has studied the matter knows that Hitler would have been thrown out by his own army. However, we did not move in. I believe it is fair to say that the French were keener to act than we were. The British Government had a serious responsibility in that situation. I hope that we have learnt the lesson that one cannot let these situations drift on or they become infinitely worse and infinitely more dangerous. The importance of the matters that I have referred to is real.
The other matter which seems to me of great importance is our relations with the United States. For the future of this country and for the peace of the world it is enormously important that our ties of alliance and friendship with the United States should be strong and should be reinforced. The United States is making an enormous effort in this situation. That contrasts wonderfully and encouragingly with its attitude in 1914 and 1939. As your Lordships will recall, on those occasions it took some years and some outrages upon the United States by our enemy to bring it into the conflict. Now the United States is taking the lead. That is wonderfully encouraging.

677
I shall recount to your Lordships a scene that I shall never forget. I, along with a number of other Ministers, was summoned by Sir Winston Churchill to No. 10 Downing Street on the afternoon when he had just returned from the Palace to tender his resignation. He spoke to us at some length in the Cabinet Room, which was filled with the changing light of a rather stormy afternoon. He was quite obviously leaving the matter with us and leaving it to our judgment when he emphasised that the future of peace in the world and the future well-being of this country turned strongly on our remaining in close friendship with the United States. He added that if we remained in a close alliance with the United States, despite the perils that seemed to loom at that time, all would be well. He said that if we allowed ourselves to be separated from the United States, things would be very different and great dangers would come upon the world and upon us.
Those words, spoken by the greatest man I have ever met on an occasion when he was in a state of deep emotion at the end of his immensely distinguished public and political career, are true and have enormous relevance to the situation with which we are faced. If we can remain in a closely knit alliance with the United States and at the same time fully support the United Nations, we shall bring this country through the dangers which face us in the next few years and perhaps for many years to come. However, if we falter or weaken, and if we suggest that sanctions will solve the problem or that a conference on Palestine may relieve the situation and try to avoid the challenge which we are facing, the situation of 1936 will occur all over again. Weakness will lead ultimately to disaster. Therefore I support most strongly the line which the Government are taking in this matter. I further support the courage and the resolution which they have shown and I wish them all good fortune in seeing the matter through to the end.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Inter-Parliamentary Union sent eight government and opposition Members in the past month to the countries most affected by the Gulf crisis. I was the only Peer among them. In all, seven Middle East countries were visited. The purpose of the visits was threefold. First, we wished to explore the attitude of those countries that favoured an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait but opposed the presence of Western forces. We wished to ask them how they would enforce the UN resolutions. Secondly, we wished to express solidarity with the 30 nations that had joined in making a contribution in the Gulf. Thirdly—this is very important—we wished to recognise the sensitivity of, and the need for understanding towards, some of the countries that faced particular problems in this situation.
Dr. Michael Clark and I visited Israel and Jordan. I wish to tell the House something of our experiences. However, in the light of the long list of speakers I have shortened my remarks on Israel. In spite of the undoubted feeling of tension in Israel, we both felt that a spirit of compromise existed. I hope we were right about that. The low profile that Israel was
678
keeping, and intending to keep, was constantly emphasised. There was no question of Israel making a pre-emptive strike. Israel felt it could absorb a first attack by Iraq, whether by missile or chemical weapons. However, if attacked, Israel said it would retaliate massively.
Israel was unhappy about the situation that would occur if Saddam Hussein pulled out of Kuwait as it believed he would be left with his large army intact and with the potential for developing nuclear weapons. Israel wanted Saddam Hussein to go and would remain distrustful while he was in power. Israel feared that sanctions would take at least a year to bite as it was certain that smuggling was occurring over the borders with Jordan, Turkey and Iran. Israel thought that Saddam Hussein did not really believe the West would fight. It felt that he would withdraw only if he believed that the West would fight. Perhaps the new build-up of forces and the latest UN resolution will convince him that the West is serious. I hope that that will be the case.
The statement from Dr. Kramer of the Dayan Centre that in many ways this conflict was a godsend to the Middle East surprised us. Dr. Kramer said that aid from the West would be diverted from Iraq to others and Egypt had had its debts cancelled. Saudi Arabia was getting a better price for its oil and its internal security was guaranteed. Turkey could expect more aid and greater sympathy for its entry into the EC. Iran had prisoner exchange and capitulation by Iraq on its borders. Israel benefited because the Arab world was divided and therefore Israel did not have to face Iraq alone. However, Dr. Kramer found it difficult to define a benefit to Jordan. We certainly had not thought of the matter in those terms. However, we had pondered on think-tanks and academics. The Dayan Centre is a sort of think-tank. In fairness I should say that Dr. Kramer envisaged that the benefits he had referred to would evaporate in a war scenario.
I now wish to turn to Jordan, which has certainly suffered more than any other country except Kuwait. We were warned before we went to Jordan that we would receive a critical and hostile reception, but those we met were courteous and friendly. There was emphasis on the strong bonds between our two countries. The special relationship between King Hussein and Britain was spoken of. However, strong words were used and the Jordanian case was put forcibly in meetings we had with parliamentarians from both the upper and lower Houses and later with two members of the Crown Prince's entourage, his economic and legal advisers.
Jordanian anger was primarily directed at the United States, but Britain was not far behind. The Jordanians hoped for a less aggressive attitude from the United Kingdom now that a change of Prime Minister had occurred. The Jordanians said that we had not given time for an Arab solution to an Arab problem to be found. King Hussein had worked hard for that and had been snubbed by Mrs. Thatcher when he visited England. The Jordanians said that Jordan had condemned the invasion and the taking of hostages and had taken a lead in urging their release.

679
The Jordanians believed there could be a peaceful solution to the crisis without recourse to war. The chairman of the foreign affairs committee and an ex-Ambassador to the UK, Mr. Masri, emphasised the need for an Arab solution to an Arab problem. He said the King had moved quickly in going to see President Mubarak and Saddam Hussein, but that a mini-summit had been sabotaged. He insisted that an Arab solution was still possible if we left the Arabs to themselves and forces were withdrawn.
He and many others criticised the West for double standards. Those were words that we heard often. He said that the West had rushed to implement the UN resolutions condemning Iraq and imposing sanctions whereas other UN resolutions had been paid lip service only and the West had done nothing. He quoted Israel and the occupation of Arab territories, and the US, Panama and Nicaragua.
Other accusations were that the West had gone in because of the oil and, in the need to strengthen its position in the Middle East, had over-reacted. A few went so far as to say that the West saw the campaign as a way to discredit an Arab country and to see Arabs powerless and downgraded. Suez was mentioned. This group said that the West does not want to see a strong Arab country, hence the over-reaction of the US and the UK. However, the Bush offer of the Baker visit and the offer for Tariq Aziz to go to the United States which occurred just before we arrived in Amman, were welcomed and helped us.
Replying to their case, we stressed that there had been aggression by one Arab state against another, Arabs had killed Arabs, Arab states supported sanctions and Arab troops were in Saudi Arabia, which had requested help from the West.
Our impression was that Jordan has suffered greatly from the crisis. It has accepted sanctions, although paying a high price economically. Mr. Ripert, sent by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to assess the special economic difficulties being faced by Jordan as a result of implementing sanctions according to Resolution 661, said that:
"The overall economic burden on Jordan, relative to its economic activity, is much larger than on any other country, except Kuwait … Jordan is not the target of the embargo: but it may be its greatest victim. As it is, the economy will be crippled within a few weeks if emergency financial support of the international community is not forthcoming, beginning immediately".
His report showed a 36 per cent. loss of GDP in 1990 and a 77 per cent. loss in 1991. All that we heard supported those figures. Our ambassador urged greater help from us.
Jordan, which already had camps of Palestinian refugees before the Gulf crisis (and we saw one), is absorbing hundreds of thousands of Jordanians and Palestinians who were in Iraq and Kuwait.
We learned that although the actions of Saddam Hussein were condemned by many parliamentarians and the intelligentsia, public opinion was very strongly
680
in favour of him. His popularity and Jordan's economic plight put tremendous strain on Jordan's freedom of action.
Huge numbers of families are suffering, not only as a result of sanctions but also because remittances from those working in Iraq and Kuwait have stopped. As a result many families are in dire straits. The tourist trade, which is important for foreign currency, has gone. There is an energy crisis. Mr. Al Tahir, the Minister of Energy, whom we saw, told us that at the moment oil is coming from Iraq as Iraq owes Jordan large debts. Therefore, while the credit lasts—and we could not get a clear answer as to how long that would be—Jordan has some oil. However, economies are being made. For example, half the street lights are out.
We see Jordan as being of immense importance in the Middle East. It is pivotal to a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israel problem—physically as a buffer between Israel and Iraq and politically because of its influence, through King Hussein, with the other Arab states. It is vital for us to understand Jordan's difficulties, and we urge more aid for the country. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us that the Government have the plight of the Jordanians very much in their mind.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should not like it to be thought that, in speaking from the Back Benches, I am in any way in disagreement with my noble friend the leader of my party. I do so symbolically because I am not speaking from a party political point of view but as chairman of the Middle East committee of the Refugee Council. I should like to widen the debate somewhat to cover the problems arising from the Gulf crisis which affect people in all parts of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has already touched on the problem of the impact of the crisis on developing countries. I should like to talk about refugee problems, the third world and developing countries. Noble Lords are no doubt aware that the problems exist but may be unaware of the scale. I am indebted to the relief agencies, and in particular CAFOD, Christian Aid, Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund and the World Development Movement for briefings.
Recent reports have documented growing concern about the devastating economic effect of the crisis in the Gulf on third world countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America. Those particularly affected are the oil importing countries and also those having to resettle large numbers of workers. The development agencies are working with the most vulnerable groups. They say that to the problems of economic slow-down, contracting job markets, price rises and losses of government revenue must be added the ability of the agencies to sustain their own project work in order to encourage sustainable development in those areas. They believe that their work is being seriously undermined. Moreover, they do not believe that the crisis is likely to be short-lived. They all believe that it may worsen if there is war.

681
Developing countries face the following problems. The first is obviously higher oil bills. UNCTAD estimates that the increased cost of importing oil for the lesser developed countries will amount to 920 million dollars in 1991 if the price of crude oil remains at about 25 dollars a barrel, or 1,600 million dollars if the price goes up to 30 dollars a barrel. In the event of war, who knows what the price of crude oil will be.
A report by the Lutheran World Federation Department of World Service concerning its emergency operations in Sudan shows that between early August and the beginning of November the cost of one day's flying of one Hercules aircraft had risen by 3,850 dollars per day—a 46 per cent. increase. That is the cost of getting food aid to some of the most seriously afflicted starving people in the world.
The second problem is the slow-down in world economic growth which is leading inexorably to the erosion of primary commodity prices on which those countries' economies depend. A reduction in the domestic growth of the poorest countries and a deterioration of private investment in those countries will result in serious problems for them in servicing their debts.
The third, and perhaps the greatest, problem is the loss of remittances from their own nationals who have been working in the Gulf. Bangladesh received one-third of its foreign exchange from 110,000 workers in the Gulf. In India 170,000 people have returned from the Gulf, and in Sri Lanka, a much smaller country, the number is 85,000. The loss of those remittances can devastate the whole social structure of a developing country.
A joint agency briefing states that:
"In Dafour and Kordofan regions of the Sudan the symptoms of drought and economic hardship are remarkably similar to the famine of 1984. During that time the most vulnerable communities and families sent members to the Gulf to work and send back badly needed money. Now a similar food crisis is approaching but their backstop has disappeared".
If one adds to that the loss of aid from Kuwait and other OPEC countries, one can see the difficulties that they face.
Finally, some have also lost important markets. Sri Lanka had an annual trade with Kuwait and Iraq of some £25 million. That is not a vast sum by our standards but it is an important sum to a country as small as Sri Lanka.
So far I have said nothing about the pressure of refugees and returnees in terms of additional unemployment and extra mouths to feed. For example, in the Israeli-occupied territories, at a time when the green line has just been re-imposed after 22 years and some 50,000 Palestinian workers are therefore unable to get to work each day, a further 30,000 have returned from Kuwait having lost their jobs and their savings. In Saudi Arabia 80,000 Yemenis have been expelled by the Saudi Government because of their political differences with the Yemeni government. Many have lived away from the Yemen for more than 30 years. The agencies would like to
682
help but are unable to do so because the Yemeni Government do not allow themselves to recognise that a problem exists.
There is a problem with several thousand Somalis who, for obvious reasons, do not want to go home, and the authorities agreed that they must not be sent back against their will as they could be in mortal danger. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been asked to resettle them. There are the problems with Iraqi Kurds who have found their way to Greece, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be saying something about Kurds in Turkey. The Greeks say that these people are illegal immigrants, which is technically correct, but the alternative for them is to go into Turkish refugee camps. No aid has recently been received by these camps. The reason is that the countries giving the aid are not prepared to send it unless the Turkish Red Crescent is prepared to say that the aid is being properly used; and the Turkish Red Crescent is not prepared to go and look at the camps unless aid has been sent. We have a terrible Catch 22 situation there.
To say all this is not to question the stance taken by the Government in relation to Saddam Hussein. As I said at the beginning, I fully support the stance taken by my party, alongside all other politicians in this country. I believe, like my noble friends, that the United Nations resolutions must be upheld. Iraq must leave Kuwait and we must pay whatever price is necessary, however awful that price may be. But what we cannot accept is that the poorest countries of the world should be expected to pay a disproportionate price which will set back their development even further. I am aware that aid has been provided to the so-called front line countries of Jordan, Turkey and Egypt. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who I am sorry is not in his place as I say this, perhaps underestimated the amount of support that has already been given to those countries. But the Government seem reluctant to go any further than those three countries. The right honourable Mrs. Lynda Chalker, writing from the Foreign Office to the Director of Christian Aid on 6th December, said:
"One of the key lessons from earlier oil price rises is that developing countries must make policy changes to tackle the resulting balance of payment problems. Additional external resources will of course be necessary to assist countries while these policy changes take effect".
I find that a somewhat depressing approach to the problem, and I think that these people deserve better than that sort of attitude.
As I have sought to show, this is a multi-faceted problem. I quote again from the same letter:
"The overall effect of the rise in oil prices on the British Economy is substantially adverse, and it is far from clear that there will be a net gain to the Exchequer after taking into account, for example, increased social security payments arising from the additional increase in the RPI".
Even if that is true, even if as the Government claim in the ODA letter our total aid, including our "heavy share of the costs of the multi-national force", is relative to our GDP and is second only to that of the United States, and even if Britain is too poor to help further (although I just wonder how poor we are when

683
we are constantly told what a wonderful economy we have), I think it is our job to press others who are perhaps not making as big a contribution as we are ourselves. I think particularly of our partners in the European Community and the Government of Japan. I believe that we should press them to give more help to these people.
I hope that what I have said is not seen as an unnecessary diversion from the important subject of today's debate. I have merely sought to show that the victims of Saddam Hussein's infamy are spread more widely than many of us may realise, and that must not be forgotten when deciding what comes next in our efforts to free Kuwait.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, there are six points to which I wish to draw attention. Many noble Lords have been even more self-indulgent; I expect others will do likewise later. The first point is simply to congratulate the Government and their allies on assembling so splendidly this great coalition of states in reply to aggression. Such a thing would have been inconceivable a few years ago. The popular press, and indeed sometimes the Daily Telegraph, have made fun of some of the European and smaller states for the relatively small size of their contributions, but I think that is unfair. We must be impressed by the fact that the Czechs are sending 200 specialists in chemical warfare, whatever they were doing three or four years ago; and the Argentinians, I understand, are sending two battleships, whatever they were doing a few years ago. The transition is obviously remarkable.
My second point is to draw a lesson for the future, a point which has been touched upon by several noble Lords. As has been pointed out by many, this is the first great post-cold war crisis. It is not as serious as a cold-war crisis because obviously we are not threatened by a world war in consequence of it. We are not threatened by an exchange of nuclear weapons between the two greatest powers in the world. Nevertheless, it is a very serious crisis.
Several noble Lords touched on the point that out of this crisis we may draw a lesson: we may in some way organise articulation of those articles in the charter of the United Nations which provide for some kind of permanent international police force (to use what I imagine is the now discredited phraseology of President Roosevelt). That would seem to me to be a very interesting development. If this crisis were to develop in that way, as Falstaff says in Henry IV, Part I:
"Out of this nettle, danger, we, pluck this flower, safety".
Perhaps I should not use that quotation since I believe that the last time it was mentioned in this Palace was by Mr. Neville Chamberlain in another place after the Munich crisis. Nevertheless, the phrase seems to me to be a good one.
I make one qualification. There seems to me to be no reason why the international force which has been gathered together in the Persian Gulf should not contemplate staying there. After all, it is likely to
684
continue to be a very dangerous area. It is a rich area too, and therefore it is one where the dangers will be compounded. I say with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that few of the regimes in the region have much legitimacy and the quarrels will obviously continue. Furthermore, the regimes in the region which have been consistently friendly to us would look upon the establishment of such an international force as the re-establishment of something they would have liked not to disappear in 1970 and for which they themselves in 1970 offered to pay.
I come to my third general point. It is sometimes said in the press, particularly the American press, that in some ways it is absurd for us to contemplate going to war about a very small country whose democratic rules and constitutional government are fairly modest. I do not consider that that is the point. The smaller the country, surely the more important it is for the United Nations to take action in respect of its troubles. We all know that a humble and poor man needs the rule of law just as much as a rich man or a Member of your Lordships' House. I do not suggest that the Emir of Kuwait is poor, but his state is tiny. Indeed, some Members of the House may recall that in the late 1950s Her Majesty's Government considered that it would be good to negotiate some degree of association with Iraq. The emir was doubtful, which was just as well for him since very soon afterwards Her Majesty's Government's chief friend in the area, Nuri-el-Said, was overthrown in the revolution of 1957.
If Her Majesty's Government find themselves engaged in a conflict they should not shrink, as they have done in the past, from using the word "war". If one examines historical records since 1945 one finds that the question, "When is a war not a war?" has been persistently asked. The answer has been, "When it is going on". The Falklands war was not a war until the liberation of the Falkland Islands. The Vietnam war was not a war until the Americans withdrew. The Suez war was not so regarded.
I believe that that may be a mistake. If we enter a conflict we should surely consider whether the psychological backing that the Government will need ought not to be assisted by the use of this formal, frightful but nevertheless serious word. The use of the word "war" could more easily justify the censorship which will be necessary if troops go into action if we are to avoid the difficulties, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, drew attention, of seeing on our television screens propaganda mounted by Saddam Hussein and other actions that would injure our troops in action.
My final point is strategic. We have a mandate from the United Nations to liberate Kuwait. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Having assembled this great coalition, we should be in great difficulties, as would world peace in the future, if the assembly were followed by anything other than a victory in Kuwait. However, if that victory in Kuwait is not followed by the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime we should consider the next step very carefully.

685
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out very clearly that we would be in a difficulty if Kuwait were completely destroyed in those circumstances. But having liberated Kuwait we ought to consider very carefully what should happen next. It would be far better if the Iraqis themselves were sooner or later to overthrow their own government than if we were to do so for them. If such action involves waiting for a long time, it should be recognised as a real alternative to the invasion of Iraq. After all, a group of states which had the patience for many years—and many more years than necessary in these circumstances, I suggest—to withstand the Soviet Union should be able to organise the situation so that it outlasts the regime of Saddam Hussein.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to start with the remark made by most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York: he hoped that Resolution 242 would not be swept under the carpet. I hope that I remember his words aright.
One advantage of the new state of affairs in Downing Street might be that some aspects of what is still called "the special relationship" will be re-examined. How pleasant it would be if the Foreign Office were no longer required to behave like the dower house of the United States State Department, and if Ministers were permitted, for instance, to speak as freely about the Israeli nuclear weapons programme as they are about Pakistan's, about which they are "concerned", and even Iraq's. With regard to the Israeli nuclear weapon programme, they merely "have no firm evidence".
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness—whose reply we look forward to—will recall that he signed a number of regrettably incomplete Answers to Written Questions of mine only a few days ago. They were in accordance with the Government's long inability to admit, for instance, that Iraq made regional disarmament proposals earlier this year. Acceptance of this de facto trans-Atlantic censorship makes nonsense of our declared anti-proliferation policy, just as it does that of the United States. If the United States likes it that way, that is its business. But I do not believe that the former Prime Minister served our interests by her groupie policy.
In 1982 I was among those on the Opposition Benches who backed the Government in their determination to expel the invader instantly from the Falkland Islands. It was a single, isolated and small population which undoubtedly wanted precisely that. This time, for reasons that I shall give, I am among those who counsel caution and, if necessary, delay. The Arabs of the Middle East are a very large, very diverse population, very few of whom want Western military intervention.
The first reason to counsel caution is historical. Whatever the United States and United Kingdom do by force in the Eastern Arab world stands a high chance of misfiring. In 1917 the Arabs of the Middle East were persuaded to put aside their memories of the Crusades, to invite the deployment of British and
686
French forces, and to join in expelling the Sultan of Turkey from what they saw as their own lands. He was expelled, and a year later Britain and France - which had long occupied Egypt and the Maghreb—were occupying what is now Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the Yemen and Oman. They were decreeing the kingdoms of Iraq and Arabia into existence. They were erecting the petty fiefs of Kuwait, Bahrain and the Trucial States into potentially independent nations —which they duly became—and they were choosing hereditary dynasties for them. That process left Iraq without a proper port. It turned Kuwait into little more than a conduit for oil and money into London.
Between 1917 and now, no faction of Arabs has called in the West to help them fight other Arabs. The lesson from history is, "Go not the last mile to avoid war, but the last 10 miles". "The Gulf is an Arab problem", say all the Arab countries until, as in the case of Egypt, they are paid by the United States to stop saying it.
My second reason for caution is political. During the Iraq-Iran war we preferred Saddam Hussein to the Ayatollah. Even when Saddam Hussein used gas against the people of his own country we continued to prefer him. When President Reagan decided that selling weapons to the Ayatollah was a good way to arm the mercenaries he was unlawfully sending against Nicaragua's lawful government, he decided to keep it secret. This chaotic lack of principle was neatly expressed by Arthur Schlesinger only a day or two ago: "One year Saddam is our pal. The next he is Hitler. One year Assad of Syria is the king of terrorists. The next he is our pal".
We must remember that the United States' first declared war aim—if it should come to war—was this. Why were the American boys there? They were there to defend the American way of life. That is in a country where women are not allowed to drive; where if people are taken in adultery the woman is stoned to death and the man is not; and where Christian worship is prohibited. This continuing political chaos in war aims is obvious enough to the Arab countries. It is also obvious enough to have turned a majority of the US people against early war. Perhaps I may ask this of our new Government: is it not now time that the Foreign Office ceased to act like a respectable small dower house?
My third reason against early war is military. The Iraqis are deterred from attacking Saudi Arabia or Israel by the military power that the "anti-Iraq alliance" has deployed; and the "anti-Iraq alliance" is deterred from starting a war in which its own weapons and the weapons that it earlier placed in Iraq's hands would all be put to use. Iraq has a powerful army; so much we all know. We sold it much of the weaponry. Our political allies, the Soviets, sold them the remainder. If Saddam Hussein has indeed mined the 700 oil wells, the environmental cost of our attack would be paid over years if not over decades thereafter. Even if he has not, we know that he has weapons of mass destruction. The head of the CIA—note that it is the CIA and not the tainted DIA—said publicly at the weekend that Iraq had deployed

687
1,000 tons of VX on almost every type of weapon. VX is a persistent nerve gas which will contaminate a battlefield for days or even weeks. The United States also stockpiles the gas.
When our Secretary of State talks about expecting war in the Gulf to be short, sharp and quick I do not suppose that he can even expect to be believed. It is most unlikely to be what his military advisers tell him. Would such an attack be sure of not hitting chemical weapons facilities? War would be a political disaster for sure, no matter who won, and possibly an environmental disaster too.
Have the Kuwaitis and Saudis been shown the environmental studies carried out by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, or have they not carried out any? Does anyone suppose that the Middle East will be more peaceful and prosperous after a war than it is now? Furthermore, does anyone suppose that a less peaceful and prosperous Middle East will not invite more interventions from the United States?
Weapons of mass destruction raise the question of linkage. Of course it is not a question; it is a fact. I say with regret that it is laughable—or it would be were it not so dangerous—when the solemn pundits, and the new and respected Leader of this House, argue about whether linkage exists or should be permitted. Linkage between Israeli weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has existed for years. Iraq has blundered ahead in the search for a multiple holding of weapons of mass destruction for fear of Israel's nuclear weapons. That is what they say and that is what cannot be other than true. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been summoned up by Israel's, which the United States has unlawfully tolerated, just as in the first place the Soviet Union's were summoned up by the United States', and ours, France's and China's by the Soviet Union's. That is the logic of nuclear deterrence—
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I wish to follow the noble Lord's argument. Does he seriously suggest that Israel has at any point threatened the territorial integrity of Iraq? Even the wildest exponents of a greater Israel —among whom I am not counted —have never thought of Iraq as being a target. Why, then, does the noble Lord argue that Iraq needs these weapons of deterrence against Israel?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as all nuclear powers and all nations know, one cannot base one's policy solely on the perceived intentions of a potential adversary; one must also base it in part on the weapons that he holds. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will dispute the fact that Israel has been developing nuclear weapons for longer than we believe Iraq has done—we do not know too much about the matter. I know well that Iraq "threatened" Israeli integrity when it was developing long-range ballistic missiles but it did so after having said "if Israel attacks". It said that then it would flatten Israel. Moreover, we must also remember that Israel bombed and destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility in 1982. We must ask ourselves what we would have done if the
688
Russians had bombed Aldermaston in 1950. Would we not have reacted as Saddam has reacted in his clumsy and horrible way; namely, acquiring weapons of mass destruction as quickly as possible?
The crisis that Saddam Hussein has wished on us, the first since the cold war subsided, is in short a cat's cradle of all the long, unsolved problems. Everything is further confused by the economic, though not military, collapse of the Soviet Union and the ever decreasing authority of a United States Administration sinking into a complex pit of multiple debt and scandal. The US Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, is the same Mr. Baker as was Secretary of the Treasury during the "thrifts" affair.
My fourth reason for suggesting caution and delay in the declaration of war is a particular fear which lurks in this situation. Will King Fahd, at whose invitation the various forces are there and who is largely paying for them, really wish to allow Mr. Bush to inaugurate a new desertification of Arab lands? What future then for the ruling families or for anyone else? And if he does not, will Mr. Bush contemplate launching an attack from carrier battle groups in international waters in the Gulf on his own? I asked the Government a Written Question about that subject. The Minister's very incomplete Answer suggested this is an issue about which he does not care to inform the House. Perhaps he will comment upon it in reply this evening.
For all these reasons I believe that it would be wrong to attack until the sanctions have demonstrably reached and passed their maximum effect. How can we judge when that is likely to be? The Administration in Washington is developing the opinion that they must fail and that war will succeed swiftly if, unlike in Vietnam, the military is allowed to use all that it has. The opinion of the CIA has been quoted by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it is a contrary opinion.
On the Benches opposite there is a tendency to believe that because we do not know for certain that sanctions will work and, furthermore, work within a certain time, we must go to war now. Many Members on these Benches believe that if they might work, even within an unspecified time, we have no right to undertake the dreadful task of modern war. Back in August, how long did the Government think that a full land, sea and air blockade would take to work? In judging at any time how likely sanctions are to work we should take into account all the objective indications that we can find. Should we not, therefore, ask ourselves why Saddam Hussein released the hostages? The fact that it was inhuman and illegal to take them in the first place does not stop that being an objective indication of less than total intransigence. Did not Iraq and Kuwait co-operate constructively at last week's OPEC meeting? Why is Saddam physically dismantling Kuwait? Does that not suggest he does not really intend to stay there?
On another level—political philosophers might say on a higher level—we are living through a sudden acceleration in humanity's oldest dream: the establishment of lasting peace. We see the machinery

689
grinding towards its own existence: the UN is now inventing itself every day. If there is a war it will be only the third which could loosely be called a UN war. I shall return to the word "loosely" in a moment. In 1950 the Soviet Union lost patience and flounced out of the United Nations. A visibly relieved United States rallied the rest of us and in the name of the UN drove the North Koreans back where they came from. An aggression was repelled, under UN command. In 1960 the Soviet Union struggled so hard against the power of the UN to enforce in the name of peace resolutions which conflicted with its dream of power in Africa that it paralysed the Security Council. The nations of the world then came together in the General Assembly and resolved there to defend the integrity of the newly independent Belgian Congo. The integrity of a new state was preserved, under UN command. From then until 1986 a catatonic Soviet Union, having learned its lesson, effectively blocked all major action by the UN.
In 1990 we have no fewer that 12 Security Council resolutions applying sanctions, ordering Iraq out of Kuwait and so on and lastly, authorising the use by member states of all "necessary means" to enforce Iraq's retreat. Why then must one cavil and say that it would be only loosely a UN war? Because the keystone of the arch is missing. The one Security Council resolution which would make this action the true successor of Korea and the Congo in the construction of a single, self-aware humanity—and would, incidentally, make President Bush the true hero that he so longs to be—is a resolution by which the UN would go beyond authorising single member states to go to war and would assume direct command of the operation. It would re-vamp the UN military committee and appoint a UN commander-in-chief and, if that commander-in-chief were a US general, what could be more natural?
The US should pay all its arrears to the UN and all the compensation awarded against it by the World Court, and should over the next few months ensure that if war is made on Iraq, it is made under UN command. That really would be in accordance with the manifest destiny of that country, or at least with the manifest destiny its friends all over the world would like it to assume. War now, without waiting for sanctions to bite and without UN command, would endanger the ability of the UN to solve major crises in the future.
In the meantime, what is the Secretary-General of the UN doing? Why is he not shuttling between Baghdad on the one hand and Riyadh, Cairo, Damascus, Washington and London on the other? The first substantive resolution of the Security Council last August, Resolution 661, laid on Iraq and Kuwait the immediate—I repeat immediate—duty of:
"beginning negotiations for the resolution of their differences."
It also:
"supported all efforts in this regard and especially those of the Arab League."
Mr. Heath spoke excellently on this in the House of Commons last week. That duty binds Kuwait as formally as the duty laid on Iraq to get out of Kuwait
690
binds Iraq. Why are these negotiations not taking place? Who is preventing that or impeding the Secretary-General? It is time now for the game of chicken that Presidents Bush and Hussein are playing over Kuwait to be called off, and for them and all the other governments concerned to revert to communication. Then, when the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait has been secured, it will be time for the conference on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which Mr. Shamir has just agreed to, to be convened, and then to grow as quickly as possible into a system for security and co-operation in the Middle East—CSME—along the lines of the precedent—CSCE.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Haden-Guest: My Lords, it is now more than four months since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 2nd August and the adoption of the Security Council's first resolution on the subject in which it demanded that the Iraqi forces withdraw from Kuwait and called upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences. It supported all efforts in that regard, especially those of the League of Arab States.
That call for intensive negotiations may be considered to be the important part of that first resolution. As perhaps the only way to a possible peaceful settlement, a strong case can be made for a path to negotiations rather than insistence upon limiting the scope of any talks to simple statements of position, as now proposed by some leaders of the alliance.
In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, observed in a previous debate that to negotiate peace is desirable if it is a just peace. In the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, called on Her Majesty's Government to recognise that the glow of rectitude which comes from our refusal to negotiate does not last and may cost many lives and worse.
More than two weeks ago, on 29th November, the council adopted a resolution of a different type; namely, Resolution no. 678, 1990, which authorised member states to use military force. However, noble Lords must be aware that the apparent unity of the council, as shown by that adoption of the resolution, masks the real fact that it had been long resisted by some members of the council who thought, rightly, that it was premature or a hindrance to the peaceful solution needed, and had thus been imposed upon the more reluctant members by those more eager perhaps for a purely military solution.
The changes in national attitudes since the invasion explain in part the existence of those differing views in the council and outside it. They have surfaced in every country touched in one way or another by the aggression of Iraq. On the one hand, the hardening of the Iraqi position has provided a rationale for those both in the Middle East and the West to advocate not just pushing back the Iraqis to the territories from which they emerged, but also the effective neutralisation of the Iraqi state.

691
On the other hand, individual members of the alliance, with their troops taking up position in ever-increasing numbers in Saudi Arabia and adjacent areas on land and sea, have been and remain divided on the desirability of a military solution. In each country where there was initially strong support for what was expected to be a quick air war with few casualties, there is now a growing and more mature understanding that, should war break out, the numbers of people engaged, the power of their weapons and their determination to use them would surely make for a conflict of horrific proportions, the results of which could not possibly be foreseen.
Given that new perception of the realities, it is not surprising that opposition to such a war in the making has grown as quickly as it has. In the United States there is increasing anxiety which has been expressed strongly in Congress, the media and among organised political groups. Establishment figures including former chiefs-of-staff add their voices to the questioning.
A similar swing of opinion in this country and in Europe must be expected to gather strength as people worldwide turn to the idea of long-term sanctions as a preferred means of pressure while at the same time attempts are made to open a dialogue. Is that a real possibility? I suggest that optimism in the near future may not be called for, but we should be remiss in our duties in attempts at finding a way to some sort of tranquillity and even a fragile peace if we neglected to follow all possible leads.
In a matter connected with events in the Gulf, an article in Sunday's Independent regarding the United States/Iraqi peace talks reported that Saddam Hussein had ruled out any negotiations which did not start with the Palestinian issue. As noble Lords are aware, the idea of discussing any issue concerning Palestinians at this time has been repeatedly blocked by the United States, which has arbitrarily declared that there can be no link between efforts made to deal with the crisis in the Gulf and those which would address the Palestinian question, involving as it would discussions on the plight of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and the political future of the Palestinians. Of course that would include as one option the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
While a large part of the world has expressed its outrage at the treatment of hundreds of thousands of Asians and others forced to leave Kuwait because of the invasion and the treatment of Kuwaitis and other nationals left in Kuwait, involving as it has both loss of life and the destruction of property, and, of course, the taking of hostages, the cause of the Palestinians has been routinely ignored.
As the matter now stands it is difficult to see how a series of talks such as those proposed by Saddam Hussein or anyone else could be other than a useful beginning to resolve an undoubtedly perilous situation in the Middle East. It is equally difficult to understand how any discussion, whenever and wherever held, even if only remotely likely to lead to
692
an improved atmosphere in the Middle East could be consistently and cavalierly put aside because some leaders of the alliance invoked the doctrine of no linkage.
It is reasonable to suppose that either now or at a later stage more than a few Israelis with sober thoughts for the future will welcome and join a dialogue which in time may offer the prospect of a region of independent states—Israel among them—living side by side in peace. For the present, even the faintest possibility of averting a Middle East war should be pursued. That is a view I feel sure would be shared by anyone with sons and daughters in the Gulf enterprise, and not least by the hundreds of thousands of soldiers waiting with justified apprehension in the Arabian desert.
At this extraordinary and dangerous time, patience and negotiation are called for. Those and those alone will do the trick.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, who could have foreseen a few years ago that we should be debating in your Lordships' House the possibility of a major disaster befalling the world with loss of life and property and environmental damage because a country of fewer than 20 million people is defying a coalition of countries from all over the globe whose populations and resources many times outweigh it? It is not surprising that people tend to lose their nerve in such a situation and that extravagant demands are made upon our imagination to see what would happen if the worst came to the worst. It is also not surprising that people are attempting, rightly, to find an alternative to such a conflict, even though they may believe that the weight—as I suggested—is not as even as one would have imagined from some interventions that have been made.
What are the alternatives? One alternative is negotiation. We are indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Haden-Guest and Lord Mayhew, for making clear what was not made clear in the debate last week in the other House by the proponents of negotiation—the right honourable Edward Heath, the right honourable Denis Healey, and others. They left vague what the negotiations were to be about. We have now been told. Saddam Hussein is to be bought out of Kuwait at the expense of Israel. That is a perfectly tenable and arguable point, though it was made with a degree of anti-American venom in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and with a degree of well-known anti-Israeli prejudice on the part of the other two noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, said how nice and how hopeful it would be if some moderate Israelis would get down and talk to Palestinians regarding a future which might embrace a Palestinian state. I am not an Israeli; I am a Jew with close, intimate connections with Israel. I have talked with Palestinians and with those seeking peace in Israel for years. That peace process was under way and will be renewed. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said was very relevant in that regard.

693
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and his friends appear to have omitted from their discussion the fact that what put back that process was the decision by Mr. Arafat to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait. Once the Palestinians threw in their lot with a regime which invaded another Arab country, which is plundering it and murdering its people, it is not surprising that the Israelis and their friend; outside Israel feel less enthusiastic regarding the peace process than they did before the invasion of Kuwait.
The linkage is there. Saddam Hussein put it there. Mr. Arafat emphasised it, and the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Kennet, would quite happily go along with it. Therefore it is a reality. However, even if the conference was promised and was set up, and even if the conference forced Israel to accept the existence of a Palestinian state, it would not solve the problem of Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait. The Israeli option is a red herring.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I wish to remake a distinction I made in my speech between a possible conference to redraw the borders of Israel—I believe the noble Lord is saying that that is what we on this side are demanding—and a conference of the kind recently accepted by Prime Minister Shamir; namely, one to control weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I feel that in all cases where one is dealing with arms control, political settlement and willingness come first; arms control follows. I know of no case where arms control was successful unless there was already a willingness to agree on the issues between the parties concerned. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has made a career out of arms control, but he cannot have me on that one.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord is most generous with his time. He has forgotten the agreement on the mutual reduction of intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that without Mr. Gorbachev coming into power and looking for a new relationship with the West there would have been such an agreement? If so, I am speechless. However, I am not left speechless because there are other things I wish to say.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I may make my disclaimer covering a number of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. At no stage did I say that we should negotiate about Palestine with Saddam Hussein. I made it perfectly clear that I was against that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. It has perhaps taken my intervention to obtain that explicit statement, which I believe was not part of the noble Lord's speech.
The second alternative to war is reliance on sanctions. There has been a good deal of emphasis on allowing sanctions to operate. I do not know, and nobody can know, the extent to which sanctions are damaging or will damage moderately or ultimately
694
even fatally the Iraqi economy. We know from past history that one side in a conflict may decide to limit itself to economic sanctions; but that does not constrain the other side in the conflict from using other means if it sees fit.
The reason we did not proceed with the sanctions against Mussolini over the Ethiopian war was that we thought it was possible that our Mediterranean fleet might be attacked by Mussolini; that he might choose the path of war even though we were choosing the peaceful path of sanctions. That is one powerful argument against reliance on sanctions: the so-called military option is transferred to the other side.
But there is a second reason which in one respect or another has been touched upon by a number of noble Lords who have spoken. Since we could not know whether or not sanctions were going to work, and since we would need, in order to prevent a military assault by Saddam Hussein, to have very large forces in the Middle East, even if not forces of the size that they are likely to reach in a few weeks' time when they will have an offensive as well as a defensive capacity, we would then require the United States or ourselves, or the French, to be prepared for a year or 18 months to keep troops stationary in defensive positions in the Arabian peninsula.
These are troops, the Americans already complain, deprived of the comforts of the flesh and deprived equally of the comforts of religion. It is not a hospitable country in which to spend more time than one needs. I should like to believe that sanctions would work, but I see nothing in the prognosis, and nothing in our experience, to make me feel that any government who weigh up the issues are likely to come to that conclusion. Nevertheless, it is again, like negotiation, an alternative that we have to explore, because war would be fatal.
The final point I should like to take up was made by the most reverend Primate, who thought that one indication of our good will, and therefore making more likely the possibility of negotiation, would be a public limitation of our war aims in advance: that we should publicly declare that we were limited to the liberation of the territory of Kuwait and the restoration of its legitimate government. He did not, I think, specifically refer to something that has been referred to by other noble Lords; that is, as to whether the Kuwaitis could be expected to regard that as sufficient, given the appalling regime of plunder and massacre to which they are being subjected.
But my argument would be a rather different one, and one that would be based on military rather than political considerations. I had hoped that we might in this debate have the advantage of military advice from some noble and gallant Lords who know about these things, but we, as laymen, will have to do our best. I think, however, that we can say, based on briefings that have been given by military leaders—and we cannot expect to be fully taken into their confidence; I hope that we shall not be, just as I hope that the media will be kept at arm's length—that it is difficult to conceive of a campaign to liberate Kuwait that would not involve the entry of troops into Iraq or, as

695
a minimum, the bombing of airfields, missile sites and other possible objectives in Iraqi territory. If one looks at the history of other liberations one can see that the liberating army is almost certain—and I think that with modern technology it is more likely than it used to be—to go beyond it.
Therefore it would, in a way, not be very convincing to anyone—perhaps not even to Saddam Hussein—if we were to take literally the most reverend Primate's view as to the possibility of a public limitation of our aims; that is to say, the aims may remain—and indeed we have no right to go beyond the resolutions of the United Nations—that limit us to the liberation of Kuwait; but if we were forced, as I still hope we may not be, to use military means we cannot in advance say that they would not be of such a kind as to jeopardise both the future military capabilities of Iraq and no doubt with them the regime of Saddam Hussein himself.
I come back, if I may, to the question of negotiation. Remarks have been made about the desirability in the United Nations resolution of direct negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait. It seems to me to be a little hard to see how one could expect a direct negotiation between people whose country is under occupation and the occupier. Then it is said, "Well, if they cannot meet face to face, what about the Secretary General of the United Nations?" I think people have forgotten that in the early weeks of this crisis Mr. Perez de Cuellar and his aides were extremely active. They were in and out of the Middle East all the time, and they got nowhere. It is not surprising that he did not wish to risk the prestige of the United Nations by getting further snubs from Baghdad.
I quite appreciate—I think we all did even before we were told about it by the noble Baroness, Lady David—the difficult position of Jordan. But the King of Jordan has also endeavoured ceaselessly to find a way to what is called an Arab solution. So far as we know, he has got nowhere because of the insistence that the Iraqis would not discuss anything that involved their withdrawal from Kuwait.
Only yesterday the President of Algeria—one of the countries that was thought of as a possible Arab mediator because it was not committed to the international force in the Gulf and was not closely linked with Iraq—said that he has given up his effort. He can see no way in which there can be an Arab solution. These things have all happened. They are all lessons for us, and the primary lesson is not only that war is horrible and a last resort but that only those who look carefully at the balance of forces, and the realities of the situation, can give us any help in our last desperate effort to avoid it.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I believe that it will help to clarify the issues in this debate if we recognise from the start that we are really discussing and debating which is the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, there is the option of military force, of war,
696
as the noble Lord has just rightly insisted, with all its consequences, which are unknown, limitless, and unimaginable. Secondly, there is the option of the use of sanctions, which we should recognise will also bring destitution—as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady David and others—to Jordan, Iraq and many other third world countries which are suffering from the effects of the rise in oil prices and the lack of supplies. Although sanctions are bound to bring about destitution, they also represent some hope of an alternative to military force.
In examining the first option of war, I should like to remind the House that the latest resolution of the Security Council, No. 678, does not specifically call for military force. It commits us to use all necessary means in order to restore peace and security to the Middle East. Those means could be various but they can be taken to sanction the use of military force.
It does not help the situation, and I believe that it is dangerously misleading to the British public and the British Parliament, for the Secretary of State for Defence in another place to assert that a war would be short, sharp and quick. I wonder whether the right honourable gentleman has today read the evaluation by General Norman Schwarzkopf, the United States' commander-in-chief in the Gulf, who states that war could take more than six months and could end in stalemate. That statement hardly bears out what we are being told by our own Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will tell the House where the Foreign Office stands in relation to predictions on military action.
It is not only the Americans who have been discussing the dangers of a lengthy war. Those noble Lords who have been following the hearings before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and other bodies in the United States will have read what General Schwarzkopf said about the prospects of war at the beginning of this month. He told that committee that there were perhaps two chances out of 10 that Iraq would be forced to withdraw by a quick surgical air strike. He did not know how long military action would take. He added that the United States would certainly prevail but that each side would suffer thousands of casualties. Frankly, I prefer to take the views of General Schwarzkopf than those of our Secretary of state for Defence.
It is clear that military action in the Middle East will involve the destruction of what is left of Kuwait and those who are left of the Kuwaiti population. We know that in the Middle East there are three nuclear powers: Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom. We know that masses of chemical weapons are held by Iraq. We saw the terrible effects of chemical weapons when the Iraqis attacked the Kurds and their own people and when the United States used them in Vietnam. One has only to think of the name of My Lai to recognise the disastrous effect of the use of such weapons.
As has been pointed out, there are strong reports that Saddam Hussein has mined oil fields in the Gulf and in Kuwait in particular. We know that a person like Saddam Hussein is prepared to bring down the

697
temple if he feels that his end has come. In doing so, he could well bring down the temple for the whole of Europe and probably more. The environmental effects of such a disaster cannot be imagined or calculated.
Military action in the Middle East, whoever justifies it, is bound to bring unimaginable chaos to that area of the world. What will it leave? If it leaves anything, it is clear that Syria, Israel and Iraq would be the dominant military and economic powers of that area.
Before I turn to the alternative method of sanctions and discussions, I should like to say that I hope that the noble Lord will not repeat what has sometimes been a fashionable practice in this House and another place; namely to equate discussion with appeasement. There are those of us who remember organising on behalf of the League of Nations against the whole of the Hoare-Laval Pact; in connection with the Spanish Civil War, against the Anschluss, and against Munich. It was the appeasers in Government and on the fringes of Government who at that time supported the enemies of the League and the enemies who eventually caused the Second World War.
Since that time those who have attacked international law as represented by the United Nations, whether it be in Suez, Vietnam, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, Libya, Grenada or Panama, cannot be accused of appeasement. There have been double standards used in the past and they are being used today. However, those of us who opposed the situations in the countries that I have listed are those who are entitled to say: we support the United Nations; we supported it then, we support it now, and we support its authority.
There should be consideration of how the authority of the, United Nations can best be supported. In the original resolution, No. 660, of last August, the third clause called for Iraq and Kuwait immediately to begin intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the calling for negotiations between those two countries may seem to be a very difficult task. Neverthless, it was the will of the United Nations. It should therefore have been carried into effect by the Secretary-General and his staff. I quite agree that the Secretary-General and his staff tried to talk to Baghdad, but that was a long time ago. I suggest that attempts should be made by the Secretary-General and his staff to carry out that resolution and that they should be supported fully by our Government as a member of the United Nations.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that when that resolution was passed—it was passed on the first day of the invasion—no one contemplated what was going to happen in Kuwait? It was thought that there had been an invasion and that the invading army would no doubt institute some kind of military rule. 'The rulers had escaped. It was thought that there could be negotiations. But as we were told by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and others, the population of Kuwait has been decimated by expulsion, by murder and by massacre. Kuwait has been plundered. None of those things was in the mind
698
of the United Nations when that resolution was passed. Therefore, the situation having changed to that extent, it is doubtful whether one could now get the United Nations to pass a resolution ordering the Kuwaitis to negotiate with Iraq.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I fully accept the difficulties raised by the noble Lord. All I would say is that that resolution should still be a basis for attempted action by the United Nations. I know that it is difficult and I do not in any way minimise what that noble Lord has said. However, I still believe that there is a basis on which the Secretary-General of the United Nations could talk to the Iraqis and to the Kuwaitis, if for no other reason than to suggest logistical means for the withdrawal from Kuwait. I am not saying that it would succeed. I am saying that it is there as part of the resolution and that it is a basis on which the Secretary-General could act.
We have been debating the issue of how long we should wait for sanctions to work. Accepting that sanctions are a better method of settling a conflict than military means, I would turn to some of the most distinguished observers and most experienced administrators of this kind of situation. Again I turn to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. At the beginning of this month the chairman of the committee, Senator Pell, said:
"Given the human and material costs of the alternative, I believe more time should be allotted to see if the economic sanctions will work and see if a diplomatic solution to the crisis can be found".
It was James Schlesinger, former Secretary of State for Defence and former CIA Director, who said on 5th December:
"The embargo backed up by a naval blockade is the most successful ever achieved aside from time of war. Early on it was officialy estimated that it would require a year for sanctions to work. It now appears to be working more rapidly than anticipated".
If that is the case—we are entitled to know from the Government what information they have—we should be debating whether it is better to give sanctions at least 12 months to work rather than to take military action in the mean time.
I am reminded of an answer which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave to my noble friend Lord Kennet a few days ago. My noble friend reminded him of the passage in the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in which he talked about finding that sanctions were working in Rhodesia only after two years. He seemed to think that that destroyed the value of sanctions. I suggest that waiting two years for sanctions to work is better than taking military action in the mean time, with all the drastic consequences that have been outlined today. In a passage in his speech the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that we have been patient. I remind the noble Lord of the words of General Eisenhower: "It takes courage to be patient". If that patience will save life and prevent disaster and environmental tragedy, surely the courage of that patience should be shown by our Government and by this House.

699
I suggest that in these circumstances the correct policy to follow is that which was advocated before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee by Robert MacNamara, a former Secretary of State. He said:
"Our task should now be to maintain and tighten sanctions".
He concluded with a sentence which I suggest could be a text for this debate. He said:
"Who can doubt that a year of blockade will be cheaper than a week of war".
I would be cowardly if I did not accept the possibility that even in the long run sanctions will not work. What then should be done in the last resort? I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Kennet. I am not a military expert. I would hope that, if the military option were even contemplated for the future, there would be international planning in the mean time. Military action represents a defeat for the United Nations. The United Nations is based on the conception of conflict resolution without the use of physical force. The use of physical force in these circumstances would mean that we had descended to the values of Saddam Hussein. I do not say that in the long run this may not be necessary. What I do say is that, if it is necessary, we are admitting that we have destroyed the prospect of a world based on international law and that there will be a conflagration with the end of any hope of peaceful conflict resolution.
I again echo the words of my noble friend Lord Kennet. Such action must not be taken unilaterally. Such action, if it has to come, must come under the aegis of the United Nations. It should not be Stars and Stripes or the Union Jack; it should be blue berets. I say again that we should not contemplate such action for, as Robert MacNamara suggested, 12 to 18 months. I repeat, as the theme which guides me in my consideration of this desperately dangerous situation for the international community, that a year of blockade will be cheaper than a week of war.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what his reply would be to the point I made regarding the fact that during a year or two years of blockade our forces could be attacked? Does he think that we should maintain our large forces in that part of the world during that period, or does he assume that it can all be done by us from the sea?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I accept the second part of the question. In my view there is a need to maintain large forces in the area. I would not expect —and I do not think many people would—such a force to be attacked by the Iraqis. However, I accept what the noble Lord said in his speech about the danger of boredom and disillusionment. That point was also met by Robert MacNamara when, as I understand it, he suggested, with the backing of the American military commanders, that the way to avoid this is to organise a rotation of troops so that troops are not stationed in the area for a long period of time. I believe that that is what the United States' military commanders are suggesting.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, within the context of this debate I should like to draw attention to an urgent humanitarian question which has certain connections with the situation in the Gulf. I refer to the plight of the Kurdish refugees from Iraq now living in three large camps in south-east Turkey. In the summer of 1988, the Iraqi army conducted a major offensive through the Kurdish areas of north Iraq. Following soon after the poison gas attack on Halabja, this so alarmed the local people that about 40,000 of them fled their homes and crossed the frontier into Turkey. They were grateful to be given a place of refuge in that country. Since that time some of them have gone to Iran, very few have returned to Iraq, while a few thousand have found asylum in Greece, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Smaller numbers have gone elsewhere. It is estimated that about 27,000 remain in the camps in Turkey, including a high percentage of women and children. The camps are situated near the towns of Diyarbakir, Mus and Mardin.
Early last July, some Kurds in London contacted me about Mr. Akram Mayi who is the spokesman for the camp at Diyarbakir. He and I then corresponded and last week I had the pleasure of meeting him in London. I therefore had an eye witness account of conditions in the camps. Mr. Mayi's visit to London became possible because the Reebok Foundation in the United States gave him a major human rights award. The honour is well deserved and very timely.
Conditions in the refugee camps are unsatisfactory. All the refugees are in tents. Families of up to 10 people share a single tent. The tents are now over two years old and, having withstood extremes of heat and cold, are becoming worn out. The Turkish ambassador in London informed me in writing that his government was replacing the tents as soon as possible. However, 10 days ago that process had not yet started. I submit that it is vitally important that it should be completed before the worst of the winter weather arrives. I understand that Foreign Aid funds are available to meet the cost involved.
In the camps, water is not over-abundant and most refugees have to walk 300 to 400 yards to collect it. The available food is basic, with meat being available only every two months. Turkish doctors and nurses provide a limited health service, but are said to be harsh and unsympathetic in their attitude to patients. It is significant that the doctors and teachers among the refugees have been refused permission to exercise their professional skills, although they would dearly like to do so.
Uncertainty over their status and future prospect is an even greater problem for the refugees than their hard physical conditions. The Turkish Government have not so far accepted them as refugees and have refused access to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Instead, they are treated as guests, with a totally uncertain and unknown future. The Turkish Government have gone so far as to refuse the offer of permanent rehousing made by the UN High Commissioner which would have cost an estimated 13

701
million dollars. Access to the camps has been denied to both the ambassadors of the European Community countries and to representatives of international humanitarian organisations.
Within the refugee camps there is virtually no education for the many children. The adults are not allowed to work and may only leave the camps for a maximum of two hours. They complain of physical and verbal abuse by Turks. It is not surprising that these refugees see no prospect of improvement and that they feel vulnerable, powerless and fearful. In this difficult situation they have only survived and held together through their considerable idealism and community spirit, to which I pay tribute. It is important that the world should know the position of these refugees who have been driven out of their own country by the Iraqi army. I suggest that it is doubly important because of the great difficulties of access to the camps.
I have a number of questions to put to Her Majesty's Government. First, will they deal quickly and sympathetically with the small number of refugees —probably not more than 100—who may wish to come to Britain because of relatives, friends or other connections in this country? Secondly, will they continue to support the efforts of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to secure a permanent solution? Thirdly, will they continue to give a lead to all countries within the European Community and within the Council of Europe in persuading the Turkish Government to ease the conditions in the camps? The most important considerations are: new tents the right to work; the right to education; and, finally, full status as refugees.
I conclude by briefly mentioning three major lessons that the invasion of Kuwait has made clear. These are over and above and in addition to the very valuable points already made by my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow. First, we need permanent systems for UN peace-keeping forces, available, if possible, in advance of crises. Secondly, we must develop sustainable energy policies, thus limiting the reliance of Europe and America on the Middle East. Thirdly, the international trade in arms will have to be much more closely controlled in the future than it has ever been in the past.
6.48 p.m.
Tie Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I sincerely hope that we will all follow the example set by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his brief, coherent and good-points speech. I believe that there is a Latin tag si vis pacem para bellum which means that if you wish for peace, then prepare for war. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that he felt slightly embarrassed, as an older man, encouraging his younger brethren to go to war. As a middle-aged man, I feel just as embarrassed. There is no doubting the fact that it is rather an unattractive sight to see fat gentlemen in London clubs saying to young men that they should go off and get killed in the desert.
My wife has a godson who is due to go to the Middle East next month. He is a tank troop leader and
702
he will probably serve in that position in a points squadron if there has to be war. Therefore, I shall simply say what I have to say with immense care and sincerity. It must be made absolutely clear to Saddam Hussein that, unless he moves out of Kuwait without any argument, any negotiation, or any form of excuse or benefit from his aggression, he will be pushed out by force. If there is any shading of those conditions by experts before the Senate Armed Services Committee or by former Prime Ministers, former Chancellors or even former Viscounts going to see him and telling him that perhaps Mrs. Thatcher's departure will make the war less likely, then the possibility of war will be more likely. He will think that we do not have the stomach for it. Consequently, he will not go and we shall be forced into the appalling death, destruction and environmental damage which war will produce.
We are in the process of achieving a new world order. The great Gothic arch of deterrence which was held up by Russian communism on one side and American capitalism on the other has now ended. What do we have? Basically, from the borders of the old Ottoman Empire to the far borders of the old British Empire there are Turkish tribes stretching from Chalcedonian Thrace to the borders of China. Kurds are in revolt against Turks and Persians. There is an immense sea without authority, with destabilisation and horrendous amounts of arms all in one place.
It is worth while remembering that in 1939 there were 250,000 soldiers between Aden and Singapore. They were all in the Indian army and most were horsed. When Baghdad was last occupied by British troops, it was done by lorried infantry because there were few soldiers. Incidentally, the present Duke of Wellington received the Military Cross in that operation. That is a useless piece of information, purely for your Lordships' benefit.
Now the area is stuffed full of arms. There are 1 million soldiers in India, nearly 1 million in Pakistan, hundreds of thousands in Iraq and hundreds of thousands elsewhere. All are being sold weapons of mass destruction and super mass destruction. It is therefore quintessentially important that the authority of the United Nations be maintained. The only way in which that can be achieved is by the grit and determination of the United States. It is up to us to support the United States in its support of the United Nations. If this man gets away with it and the United States is out-faced, the Israelis will take action. If they take action on their own it will be because they are frightened. They have cause to be frightened because of their treatment of the Palestinians. If one wishes to be stupid one calls oneself Yassir Arafat and instead of backing the Kuwaitis one backs the Iraqis. Then one loses all the sympathy one expected.
This is an immensely dangerous world with a large number of fissiparous states, all with no basic authority and too many arms. It is only with the authority of the United Nations, with the armed might of the United States and, I hope, supported by us, that we can achieve something. Perhaps it would be useful to have some Germans there. Since 18th June 1815, either their presence has been unwelcome or their

703
absence has been regretted. We must support the United Nations. If we do not, if we miss the opportunity of imposing order and peace so that negotiations can take place, we will rue the day we started shilly-shallying. The more strongly Her Majesty's Government support the United Nations, the more strongly I shall support the Government, even though that would not make a blind bit of difference.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, there have been differences in the debate but the majority view, which has just been given vigorous expression by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is that the choice is between war and failure. That was quite clearly the theme which he placed before the House. I do not believe that to be true. I believe that the declaration of war would be the failure and I wish to argue the point a little.
One factor that has been altogether missed out is the presence of nuclear weapons in the area, perhaps because they are all at present held by one side. Iraq is probably within a year or a little more of having a nuclear capability. There are 19 ships in the Gulf with nuclear capability; between them they have about 500 nuclear weapons. Some of those are allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; there are a couple of hundred nuclear weapons in Israel which are not allowed under that treaty because Israel does not acknowledge it. Altogether there are about 750 or 800 nuclear weapons, all of which might go off by accident. However, if there is a war, so far as I judge at the moment, it would be unlikely to be nuclear. It is not impossible; it could occur; Iraq may be further advanced than we know, but it is unlikely.
With modern weaponry, a war can be disastrous from many points of view without nuclear weapons. Those of us who spend our time worrying about nuclear weapons are sometimes reminded of this. Yet it is proposed by the majority, with various degrees of enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm that a war should be launched in the name of and with the authority of the United Nations. All wars involve killing, maiming, blinding, disabling. The noble Earl made clear that he knows this very well. However much we like to forget it and talk in terms of euphemisms such as "the use of force" or "all necessary means" we are really talking about killing, injuring, maiming, blinding, burning people. That is what we advocate when we say that we may be driven to a just war. The most reverend Primate feels that that is the only kind of war that can conceivably be supported by the Church.
It overlooks the view that all wars are unjust to those who fight in them or who are the helpless victims, the non-combatants who suffer the consequences of modern war. Justice does not exist once a war starts, even though there may be the theory that one side is more just than the other. Injustice is usually fairly well distributed. Sometimes one side may be totally just and the other side totally unjust. That does not mean that the people who participate will be any
704
more just or unjust or any less the innocent victims of the consequences of the war. That is another point which perhaps we are inclined to forget.
However, it is said that if we do not have the war, the United Nations will collapse. I wish to question that view. Let us suppose that we have the war. Iraq has been supplied by those who now regret it with ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear—if they have them—chemical or other warheads at ranges of up to 2,000 miles. Iraq produces tonnes of mustard and nerve gas every month. As has been mentioned already, it has killed at least 5,000 of its own Kurdish people with the gas. Iraq is also believed to be capable of producing anthrax. I would not put that past the present leadership of the country.
The United States has sent 100,000 body bags to the Gulf from one USAF base alone in America. Blood is being sent by Britain at the rate of 1,000 units a day and naval mortuaries are being prepared in Portsmouth and Plymouth. These are the realities of war which we cover up by "the use of force". Estimates of casualties vary from 300,000 to over 1 million. It is thought that 80 per cent. of those casualties would probably be civilian. Those may be underestimates.
Let us suppose that the war occurs and we win it, as of course we shall. I do not doubt that. Let us suppose that Baghdad is left in ruins and Saddam Hussein is toppled. Perhaps people and towns as far afield as Israel may have suffered in such a war. Lives may have been lost in countries apart from those immediately involved in the war. What would happen in such a situation? There might be a permanent occupation, but by whom? Obviously a permanent occupation is an impossibility, but extended sanctions with the replacement of troops is a possibility. We could sustain sanctions and replace troops for up to one year and probably two. However, I suggest that we could not contemplate the permanent occupation of a Middle Eastern country by Western countries. If we presume that there will be an occupation of Iraq, who will carry it out? An acceptable government may be established in Iraq but, to be on the safe side, I must say that I believe occupation would have to form part of a peace plan. Therefore I come back to the question of who would carry out such an occupation.
Perhaps with an acceptable government Iraq could become virtuous in the eyes of the world. Perhaps Iran will again become the villain and start to annex adjacent territory. Iran could take advantage of the weakness of Iraq at such a moment and easily invade new territory. What would happen then? Would a peace conference follow in such a situation? I believe that that is likely. Would there be a Middle East settlement that addressed all the troubles, difficulties and trials that face the Middle East, including the main problem of that area, the trouble between Israel and Palestine? I believe that such a conference would be almost certain to occur.
After all the bloodshed, we may finally achieve a peace settlement which we should have now. Would it not be better to reach such a settlement now and dispense with the killing? We could do so. Such a

705
solution may involve some loss of face. Saddam Hussein must, of course, leave Kuwait but the methods of just wars are as appalling, with their Dresdens and Hiroshimas, as those of unjust wars. We must give peace a chance and we must give sanctions a still longer chance for the moment we start a war we have already lost. Our victory would be a disaster.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are here to debate the Motion that this House takes note of developments in the Gulf. I believe those developments are those which have occurred since we last debated this subject on 13th November. The significant developments in the Gulf since then are, first, the increased military presence and, secondly, the freeing of the hostages whom Saddam Hussein detained in Kuwait and Iraq. However, we need to range a little wider than the matter of developments in the Gulf because the course of war that the world is bent on will not be determined in the Gulf but rather in political capitals around the world quite far from the Gulf.
Two other significant events have occurred since 13th November in connection with the Gulf. Very few speakers today have mentioned one of those events, which is that the United Kingdom has a different Prime Minister. I shall return to that point later because I believe that it is one of the most significant changes in the situation. The other change, which is horrendous in its implications, is that we have had, effectively, an American declaration of war. That will translate Operation Desert Shield into Operation Desert Sword on 15th January. We should make no mistake about the fact that some speakers in this debate have been rather worried that Saddam Hussein might comply with all the United Nations resolutions before 15th January and thereby avert a war. I do not think that that is likely. I believe we are hell bent on seeing a bloody war start in the Middle East on 15th January.
What are our aspirations and what are the problems we face? What can we do about those aspirations and problems? I hope that the three aspirations that I shall mention are shared by everyone. The first is that we should obtain a peaceful solution to the crisis that has erupted in the Middle East; the second is to secure that solution by the United Nations as a firm foundation for the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the future. The third aspiration is that that peaceful solution under the auspices of the United Nations should be a long-term solution. What are the risks involved in those aspirations? The first risk is that war will break out. As I have said, I am convinced that war will break out. We have less than a month to avert that situation. A further risk we face is that the conflict will be seen as a conflict between the United Sates and Iraq. Moreover no attempt has been made to change the underlying instabilities in the region that have caused the crisis to erupt.
Would it not be much more beneficial to all of us around the world if the crisis in the Middle East and the Gulf could be resolved by the employment of what
706
I would describe as good UK police tactics of talking out a siege situation rather than the American practice of going in with all guns blazing?
The other day I put down a Question for Written Answer. I was trying to obtain some background information on the situation in the area and on the eruption of the crisis between Iraq and Kuwait. I asked some very simple questions. I asked how many people lived in Iraq and how many people lived in Kuwait. To balance that information, I also asked how many people lived in the United Kingdom and how many people lived in the United States. The reply given was that the information requested was not available at that time. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give me that background information.
One of the interesting things about parliamentary Questions is that one should never ask such questions unless one knows the answers. On 4th September the House of Commons Library produced a background paper which mentioned the number of inhabitants in Kuwait at the end of July. It also stated the proportion who were not Kuwaiti citizens. The source was the Middle East Economic Digest. Those were two reasonably authoritative sources for the information which I requested in my written parliamentary Question. The Government did not even have the ability to look up those sources and provide the information—not just to me but, because it was a parliamentary Question, to the rest of the people of the United Kingdom and whoever might read Hansard.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I apologise for the fact that I was not in my place when he began his remarks but I came as soon as I could. Can he explain to the House the relevance of his current line of argument? Is he trying to show that the numbers in Kuwait are so small that they do not matter?
Lord Monkswell: No, my Lords. I am not following that line of argument. I am trying to ascertain some of the reasons for instability in the Middle East. I suspect that there are two main reasons. One is the fact that there are countries which are run by governments which are not elected by the population resident in those countries. In the case of Kuwait there are 700,000 citizens and approximately 900,000 non-citizens living in the country, yet it is ruled by one family. That is a source of instability.
I suspect that that is one of the causes of the problem between Kuwait and Iraq. It has not been the people of Kuwait—700,000 citizens or 1.6 million residents, depending on the criterion one chooses—who have discussed the relationship between Kuwait and Iraq and the economic benefit of their respective populations. It has been one family in Kuwait. Something like 5 per cent. or 7 per cent. of the world's oil production comes from Kuwait, yet one family determines how that money is to be spent. That must be a source of instability.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, but is he not

707
aware that one family rules in Iraq as well? Saddam Hussein and his family, who come from one village in Iraq, control the whole of that nation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, that is an interesting point. The reason for mentioning who rules the country relates partly to whom they speak for and partly to the way in which the economic wealth of the country is distributed. Those were the questions for which I sought background information from our Government. Our Government appeared not to have that information. Effectively, there is no recognition by our Government of the instabilities that exist in the Middle East.
Another problem that we face is that the leadership in the United States has said that it will meet the leadership of Iraq and discuss and negotiate. When asked what they are to negotiate they say that they will not negotiate but will tell Saddam Hussein that he has to get out of Kuwait. Having some experience of negotiation in an industrial relations context, that does not suggest to me that they are going into the talks with a view to negotiating. It appears more like delivering an ultimatum.
We are continually told that the United Nations has passed this resolution or that resolution. The implication is that it is unanimous and there is complete support in the United Nations for those resolutions. If one looks at the reports from the United Nations one finds that it is not the United Nations as a whole which has passed the resolutions but the Security Council. It is the representatives of only 15 countries of the world rather than of 150. Even those 15 have not been in unanimous agreement. Most of the resolutions pertaining to the crisis in the Middle East have not been unanimous.
One or two other speakers have mentioned the problem that the forces arraigned against the Iraqis in the Middle East are deployed either under the stars and stripes of the United States or the Union Jack of the United Kingdom. I add my voice to those who say that if there is to be conflict at least let the combatants arraigned against the Iraqis fight under the flag of the United Nations and under United Nations command.
I shall not continue, because I have probably spoken for long enough. However, I should just like to say that I have spoken to a number of military men. Like most of your Lordships, I am not an expert on military affairs. However, I hope that I am open-minded enough to ask salient questions and to listen to the answers. All the answers that I have received from military men about what is likely to happen in the Middle East suggest that it will be a long and bloody war. I hope that we shall do everything we can, and I hope that our new Prime Minister will do everything he can, to ensure that that war does not take place.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not expect me to follow very closely what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said and I do not regard myself as having a duty to defend your
708
Lordships on all occasions and on all issues. However, I do not know to which of your Lordships the noble Lord referred when he said that some speakers were worried by the prospect of Saddam Hussein accepting the United Nations' resolution before 15th January. I believe that everyone in your Lordships' House would welcome such a happy outcome to the events that we are discussing today.
I should like to associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in his opening remarks about the release of the British hostages. We all welcome their release and their return to their families in this country. One consequence of their release which I had not expected is that there has been a great deal more reporting of what has been going on in Kuwait than there was hitherto. We should remind ourselves that, while our hostages are now free and at home for Christmas, the population of Kuwait is still held hostage and Kuwait itself is being dismantled, obliterated and destroyed by Saddam Hussein. We should not forget that in this debate. It seems to me to be very relevant to our response.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested that because Saddam Hussein was destroying Kuwait he might not be planning to stay there. I am afraid that I cannot share the noble Lord's optimism. Saddam Hussein has made Kuwait the 19th province of Iraq and the city of Kuwait is now called Kadhima. So far as we know he has shown every intention of obliterating the state, absorbing it within Iraq, looting it of its treasures and anything else on which he can lay his hands.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and I find myself bewildered by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The fact that Kuwait is not a democracy and that we receive a great deal of oil from it should not inhibit us from condemning the behaviour of Saddam Hussein; still less should it relieve us of our obligation to carry out the resolutions of the United Nations.
I do not think we should deceive ourselves, as it seems to me some of your Lordships have been suggesting in the later part of this debate. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead made clear, we should not deceive ourselves about the consequences of a failure to secure the implementation of United Nations resolutions. The consequences would be extremely severe. If Saddam Hussein is allowed to remain in control of Kuwait the effect on his Arab neighbours would not be influence; it would be hegemony. He would not merely have enormous influence over his neighbours; he would gain control of a very substantial slice of the world's oil supply as well as its price. This altogether excludes the impact of failure to secure implementation of those resolutions on the United Nations, on all the forces for international peace and order in the world, on the high hopes which had been heralded by the end of the cold war, and on the prospects and confidence of successful co-operation between the United States and the USSR in dealing with world problems.
Thus, not only would the authority of the United Nations be undermined but so would that of the

709
United. States. In the face of this failure the trend within the United States towards isolationism would be increased, the future of Israel would be jeopardised, the spread of nuclear weapons would be encouraged, the price of oil would go up to some price which we cannot easily calculate, and an economic recession of world dimensions would be precipitated. Those are just some of the consequences which seem to be neglected by the people who appear to regard the prospect of securing implementation of the United Nations resolutions as more dangerous. That is not to mention the consequences which the action of Saddam Hussein has brought to bear on refugees, as described by my noble friend Lord Tordoff, or on the Kurds, as graphically described by my noble kinsman Lord Hylton. Hence, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, made clear, the stakes in this whole affair are extremely high. It seems to me they are as high as anything since Korea As it is outside the cold war the geography of the political conflict is different.
One of the problems in debating this subject among your Lordships is that, unless we are in the Government, we do not have very much information at our disposal. All we can offer and consider are various options which appear to be available. But it is difficult to discuss those options with the kind of knowledge one would like to have in the absence of that information. One option is the military one. On this point two views have been expressed in the course of this debate. One is that delay in using the military option, if I may so put it, is against the interests of allied forces because the coalition cannot be held together. I think that that was the view to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred. Moreover, after the end of March the weather will be such that military operations would have to be postponed until the autumn. The difficulties of holding the coalition together over that period of time would be acute. The second view is that sanctions must be given time to work. The military option, because of its cost and environmental consequences, and the casualties involved, as well as the political consequences in the Arab world and beyond, is such that it must be used only as a last resort.
As I said, though we have insufficient information to argue in a convincing way between those two alternative approaches, there is certain information which I think we could have. I warned the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that I would be asking for it in the course of this debate. In relation to the command structure of the forces in the Gulf, if British troops and servicemen are to engage in military action and are to suffer casualties in what is likely to be a fairly savage war, we should know under whose command they will be serving. As I understand it, they will be serving under the command of the United States forces. That is okay. But when the shooting starts, who will have overall command of the operation? After all, there are contingents from 38 other countries there. I think we should be informed whether or not the problem of the command of the whole United Nations force has or has not been resolved. If it has been resolved, we must
710
know how. Who will be responsible for the troops whom we have sent there and who may have to engage in this conflict?
The second question I want to ask is this: what is the Government's view of the impact of sanctions? This point was also raised earlier in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. We have heard certain statements by the Foreign Secretary, which were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, to the effect that they thought sanctions might not be enough to do the trick, roughly speaking. But as sanctions are a central part of our strategy the public should be informed as to how the Government think sanctions are working. The support of the public is an equally essential part of our strategy and we have a right to know what is going on.
We have some information. Needless to say, it comes from the United States, not from the British Government. Mr. Schlesinger, among other things a former director of the CIA, is reported in the Guardian as saying on 5th December:
"The embargo, backed up by a naval blockade, is the most successful ever achieved aside from time of war. Early on, it was officially estimated that it would require a year for the sanctions to work. It now appears to be working more rapidly than anticipated".
In evidence to Congress, the head of the CIA said recently:
"Iraq is now deprived of more than 90 per cent. of the goods and services it needs, and by next spring only some energy-related and military industries will still be able to operate … the equivalent of 43 per cent. of both the Iraqi and Kuwaiti GNPs has effectively already been eroded".
I should like to know whether the Government agree with these assessments of the impact of sanctions on Iraq's economy and its war-making capacity. The answers to those questions lead to very important conclusions as to how we ought to approach the present situation.
It seems to me that what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead achieved in his opening speech was an analysis of the options, as I have called them, open to us in this crisis. From that analysis, I believe certain conclusions may be drawn. First, one may agree with the director of the CIA, Mr. Webster, who said over the weekend that Saddam Hussein will not withdraw his troops until he is convinced that he is in peril of imminent attack. He will try to stretch out the crisis by moves short of UN resolutions. That assessment of the likely behaviour of the enemy is important to bear in mind. Hence the credibility of our willingness to take military action is crucial to our strategy. I refer to the credibility of our willingness to take military action. It does not mean that we have to take military action, but that we have to convince Saddam Hussein that we will. In those circumstances—and it is as a parenthesis—I believe that the United States would be well advised to say here and now that if hostilities occur they will not use any unconventional weapons except in retaliation for their use by Iraq.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that, if the Iraqis were to use either chemical, biological or gas weapons which come under the

711
heading of unconventional weapons, therefore the United States would be justified in using tactical nuclear weapons?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, roughly speaking, it means that. It means that the United States would not initiate them but that if the Iraqis used them it might.
The dispute between those who talk about advocating dialogue and those who oppose it seems in some respects to be a matter of appearance rather than a reality. The linkage between the Gulf and talks about the Middle East has been made apparent in this debate. We have not been able to talk about the Gulf without talking about the Middle East generally. I imagine that in any conversations that are taking place—they must be going on; the embassies are there and they must be doing something—those wider questions cannot be kept off the agenda. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, earlier in the debate was constructive and interesting.
Finally, I argue that the military deployment serves a number of different purposes. The first was to protect Saudi Arabia. The second was to induce the withdrawal of Iraqi forces. The third was—and in my view is—to precipitate discussions such as those proposed by President Bush—which are at present stalled—which would encourage withdrawal. The fourth and last is, as a last resort, by force to compel the Iraqi forces to withdraw. Therefore the deployment of forces is not a simple act with one purpose but serves a multiplicity of purposes.
Meanwhile it seems clear that a dialogue is taking place. At present it may be only a dialogue about talks about talks. But that agenda can, and I suspect will, be extended. However, the pre-condition of that dialogue is the existence of a credible military presence which can and will be used in circumstances where Saddam Hussein remains obdurate and unwilling to conform to UN resolutions. To avoid that prospect, we must not only stand firm; we must convince Saddam Hussein that we mean what we say.
My argument can be encapsulated in the following propositions. For sanctions to work, Saddam Hussein must be convinced that we are ready to go to war. To convince him that we are ready to go to war, we must in the last instance be prepared to do so—and that is the most likely way to secure a peaceful settlement.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Government for affording time for the debate at the Opposition's request. We have felt for some time that we needed a review of the position in the Gulf. For that and other reasons, I welcome the debate and I am grateful to the Government.
Before I refer to the detail of the debate I wish to make two general points. First, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York was right to point out that the policy of firmness and restraint which has been adopted by her Majesty's Government was the right policy. It is a policy that we on the Opposition Benches support. Secondly, the noble Lord, the Lord
712
Privy Seal made perhaps too much of the analogy of the 1930s. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, got it absolutely right when he compared the present situation with the occupation of the Rhineland in May 1936. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it was the French Government who had a general election six weeks later and who could not respond properly. However much I would have opposed them, I believe that the British Government of the day could probably be exonerated other than by association. It was the French at that point who did not take the proper action.
Let me first address the question: where do we find ourselves now? I associate these Benches with all the comments about the release of hostages. We are not "grateful" because the hostages should have been released in the first place; but the fact that they are out is good news. We are very grateful to all organisations which, at great expense and considerable difficulties to themselves have taken part in transporting hostages back to their homes in this country.
As a corollary to that—I do not believe that any noble Lord has mentioned it in the debate—I should like to offer my congratulations to the officers of the Foreign Office who were in the hot seat at the time, in particular our ambassador in Baghdad and other representatives in Kuwait. In my view they have performed quite magnificently not only in staying at their posts but in protecting British citizens and, in the end, managing to get them out. I hope that all noble Lords will welcome my comments and associate themselves with them.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, Security Council Resolution 678 imposes a 15th January deadline on the Iraqis to comply with other previous resolutions. We all hope—I do not say that we expect—that the Iraqis will comply by that date. I do not believe that there is any difference of opinion in any part of this House about that proposition. However, we have to ask ourselves two questions. What happens if they do not? What has happened since the Security Council passed that resolution?
The United States Government have offered talks, discussions, or whatever label one puts on them—let us call them talks—about what would happen to the Iraqis should they not comply with the resolution of the United States. I fully understand what President Bush and Secretary of State Baker have said: that these are not negotiations. I fully understand that they intend in the one case to go to Baghdad, and in the other to receive the Iraqi Foreign Minister in Washington, and simply to tell him straight what would be the result of a war.
The problem is that once one offers talks about anything one tends to allow the opponent—if it be an opponent—to open up certain diplomatic initiatives. The Iraqis are no fools. They have succeeded in making more out of that offer than probably the United States meant.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was right to remind us that we have to consider that aspect

713
in the context of public opinion in the United States which is by no means wholeheartedly supporting any military action in the Gulf. The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and Lord Jenkins of Putney, reminded us that war is war and that the Americans have had long experience of war, in particular in Vietnam. There is a very strong post-Vietnam consciousness in US public opinion which leads to doubts, of which we hear, in Congress and elsewhere about the value of military intervention. That is a problem with which we have to deal.
Some noble Lords talked about linkage, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill of Harrow and Lord Mayhew, and my noble friends Lord Kennet and Lord Monkswell. We must ask whether the Palestine problem is part of any solution that may be achieved as a result of any talks, or talks about talks, that may take place. Our view of the matter is simple. As I said in a debate in this House on 6th September, we welcome the initiative taken by Secretary of State James Baker. He said that after the Iraqis have complied with the United Nations resolutions there may be a possibility of reaching some sort of arrangement which will include discussions of other problems in the area. However, the pre-condition to that is that the Iraqis should comply in full with the United Nations resolutions. That is our position and, in so far as the Government accept it—and I believe that they do—we shall support them.
In assessing the present situation we are left with two major resolutions which have not been complied with. The Iraqis are not out of Kuwait. A member of the United Nations has suffered the aggression to which many noble Lords have referred and that aggression must be remedied. How that should be achieved—whether the Iraqis should pay compensation for the damage that they have caused and whether there should be reparation for the people in Kuwait who have suffered the appalling atrocities as reported by the returning hostages—is a matter for discussion and I leave it open. Nevertheless, the Iraqis must leave Kuwait. The second resolution is that there must be a restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait. In so far as the Government support the UN resolutions we shall support them.
Many noble Lords spoke of the effect of sanctions. My noble friend Lady David said that they may take a year to bite. Perhaps there is still time. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the extent to which the Iraqi economy is being damaged by the sanctions. We look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say about the extent of that damage. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady David. However, I believe that we must help the countries which are not involved in the conflict but which are being damaged by the sanctions. With their assets Kuwait and Saudi Arabia could easily contribute to the problems in Jordan and neighbouring Arab countries. However, I recognise that we and other members of the Community have some kind of obligation to third world countries.
I should like to believe that although sanctions will take time they will work. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff,
714
cast certain doubts about whether sanctions will work but I should like to believe that he is mistaken and that we should give them time. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, rightly remarked, there is no point in leaving sanctions to work without being ready to take the military option. We support the belief that we should be ready to take the military option. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will exercise caution and restraint, as was said by the most reverend Primate and my noble friend Lord Kennet. They should not let us become involved in military action until we are absolutely certain that sanctions have not had their proper and desired effect.
Some noble Lords asked where the United Nations Secretariat stands in all this. We know that the President of the United States and the Secretary of State are negotiating. After all, they are resolutions of the United Nations. The Security Council is the motivating force for the actions being taken. For instance, what is Senor Perez de Cuellar doing, and what has he been authorised to do? Does he have a place in the negotiations? I know that he made one unsuccessful attempt at negotiations in Baghdad but I believe that a United Nations presence in the negotiations, if there are any, may oil the wheels a little.
In his opening speech the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal announced that 1,500 reservists are being called up. That brings me to the military situation in the event of a war. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, said, let us not be shy about calling it a war because it will be a war. Does the call-up of 1,500 reservists have any implication for other reservists? Are we anywhere near any form of conscription? I hope that the noble Earl will set out the Government's intentions and describe the way in which they wish to proceed. I do not wish to block any action that the Government may wish to take, but we require clarification of that announcement made this afternoon.
What will happen if there is a war? In my view there is no chance of a limited war. It is no good expecting a few units to move into Kuwait and then saying, "We shall simply occupy Kuwait and do nothing else". No serious chief of staff would entertain that military scenario. There will be an air strike. There will be approximately 2,500 aircraft flying at low level with cluster bombs and missiles, knocking out runways and installations and creating mayhem everywhere. There will be subsequent land and amphibious strikes. There are now more than 500,000 troops in the Gulf, including 30,000 British troops. With their substantial armour, artillery and air supremacy there is no doubt that there will be a major conflict. Any noble Lord who believes that a war will be quick, easy and fun must be misleading himself.
When military operations begin no one can predict the outcome. In respect of practically every war people said that it would be quick. In 1914 it was said that the war would be over soon. In 1939 it was said that the war would be over within six months. It was said that the wars in Korea and Vietnam would be simple.

715
However, when war starts no one can predict the outcome. One of the greatest generals of all time, Napoleon, said:
"On s'engage et puts on voit".
In other words, one engages and then one sees. That is the message that we must bear in mind when deciding—if the United Nations decides—that we want war.
If there is military action what will happen if one of two dangers occurs? In my view there are two dangers. The first is that the land attacks will become bogged down and we shall enter a 1915 situation. Having launched all our technology we discover that it is dug in to a point where we cannot remove it. There will probably be attacks on oil installations in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sectors. As my noble friend Lord Hatch pointed out, there may be environmental damage. There may be all kinds of problems with which we must deal. However, if we intend to take that action we must be able to prepare public opinion for that eventuality.
The second danger is the wild card. In this case the wild card is the unexpected move; for example, Iraq attacks Turkey—and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the Kurdish camps in Turkey; Iraq attacks Israel or Iraq occupies Jordan. Those are wild cards in the system and nobody can predict when or how they will be played. However, one can predict that in a war when people become desperate, the wild card will be played.
We support the United Nations. We should like to see time given for sanctions to operate, still recognising all the problems. We should not like to see a precipitate engagement in war.
I wish to make totally clear the policy of the Labour Party. It is not merely a question of whether or not we support this Government. We support the United Nations. If the Government support the United Nations, we support the Government. The message is that we are unequivocal in that support. We cannot pick and choose between one piece of the charter and another or between one resolution and another. For the moment, we take it warts and all. We accept the charter and all the resolutions because we believe that from this mess there is the first opportunity for a proper world order to emerge. That is what we should like to see. Failing anything else, that world order must be based on the authority of the United Nations organisation. That is our view. We have held that view consistently and shall continue to do so. I hope that there is no longer any doubt about that.
7.52 p.m.
Earl of Caithness: My Lords, today's debate has been timely. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. In most of your Lordships' speeches I detect what my noble friend Lord Waddington termed as a unity of purpose and indeed an underlying commitment to the firm approach adopted by the United Nations and the great majority of the international community. The Government are grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord
716
Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. That united front by this House is to be welcomed throughout the country.
Some noble Lords have asked: what are the objectives of war? I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that the prospect of war, any war, is appalling. But if Iraq were allowed to pocket Kuwait and get away with the crime, Iraq would be in a position to intimidate the whole Middle East. Iraq might feel free in the future to move further, down into Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. We all hate the idea of a war to free Kuwait. But we should all hate even more the possibility of a wider Middle East conflagration which could involve the use of Nuclear and biological weapons.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York drew attention to the just war. In that context, I am reminded of the words of St. Augustine, who said:
"War and conquest are a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle; yet it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men".
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne reminded us that it has been and remains our intention that such a wrongdoer should not be allowed to dominate just men. No country in the world would be safe if aggression by way of an invasion of an independent country was allowed to succeed. In this instance our specific objectives are set out in detail in the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council. I assure the most reverend Primate that they go no further. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place last week, the message is twofold. If the aggressor stays in Kuwait, he will be forced out. If he leaves Kuwait and complies fully with the Security Council resolutions, then he will not be attacked.
Those resolutions contain three principal elements: Iraq's complete and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait; the restoration of its legitimate Government; and the release of all foreign nationals held in Iraq and Kuwait against their will.
The last of those objectives has been achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, reminded us, we are thankful but Saddam Hussein is not to be congratulated. He is only rectifying his crime against international law. Only a small minority of British nationals remain in Iraq and Kuwait, who have chosen to stay despite our strong advice to the contrary. The invaluable work of our Ambassador in Kuwait has been triumphantly completed. Mr. Weston and his colleague, Mr. Banks have our heartfelt thanks and warmest congratulations. The release of the hostages shows the effectiveness of the campaign that the international community has mounted against Saddam Hussein's aggression. But, as many noble Lords have noted, only one of our objectives has been achieved. Saddam Hussein has a long way to go before all the provisions of the UN resolutions have been met.
As part of its efforts to secure the reversal of the Iraqi occupation by peaceful means the Security Council has authorised those states assisting the Government of Kuwait to use all necessary means,

717
including force, from 15th January 1991 if Iraq has not by then complied fully with the council's resolutions. This is not a call to arms: there is no obligation on the international community to take military action immediately the deadline has expired. In setting it, the council gave Iraq a "pause of goodwill". We hope Saddam Hussein will take advantage of this last opportunity.
But what if he does not? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who at that time claimed to be speaking on behalf of the Benches opposite, urged caution and delay and that Saddam Hussein should be given more time. Many of those who accept that the international community should remain resolute against Saddam hold the sincere belief that, given time, sanctions will force him to withdraw. It is a serious suggestion and merits serious consideration.
We must always bear in mind that waiting is not a cost-free solution in human or any other terms. The major anxiety is not the financial cost of keeping thousands of troops in the Gulf; nor is it the financial costs to the rest of the world, including many developing countries, from the dislocation to their economies caused by the Iraqi invasion. The real cost is to the lives of people in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation and to the fabric of their society which is being destroyed progressively and systematically.
If this continues there may soon be no Kuwait left to save. The methods used by the Iraqi forces there are ruthle3s and brutal. Accounts abound from eye witnesses and victims who have escaped of the widespread abuse of Kuwaiti citizens and foreign nationals. Torture, executions and rape have become the order of the day. Harrowing testimony was given to the Security Council last month.
These abuses are part of a deliberate policy aimed at the systematic destruction of Kuwait as an independent state or society. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, when he said that one or two of your Lordships seem to have overlooked that. Iraq's Information Minister said on 4th November that the world should forget that a place called the Emirate of Kuwait ever existed. Kuwaiti passports, car licence plates and identity cards were declared invalid from 1st October. Many who showed passive resistance by continuing to carry Kuwaiti documents have been summarily executed. This regime of terror is designed to drive Kuwaitis from their country by making conditions there intolerable. The emigration of the young, the elderly and of women has been particularly encouraged.
In support of this policy Kuwait's economy is being progressively dismantled or destroyed. The Iraqis have organised the theft of everything moveable. This has included uprooting traffic lights and park benches, the removal of the contents of the Central Bank, and the stripping of hospitals. Even the animals from Kuwait Zoo have been taken to Iraq. Homes left by Kuwaiti families driven abroad have been allocated to Iraqis and Palestinians. I ask all noble Lords, not least the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Kennet, to reflect on that. How long can the remaining Kuwaitis afford to wait?
718
Furthermore, a policy of waiting also carries a military cost. Saddam Hussein's war machine is sophisticated and will take every advantage of the delay. With each day that passes Iraq is able to improve its military posture. In Kuwait itself there are now nearly 300,000 Iraqi troops and nearly 2,000 tanks working continuously to improve Iraqi defensive emplacements. Further delay will simply risk, irresponsibly, increasing the number of casualties in an eventual conflict.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to intervene as he mentioned my name. I totally share his abhorrence of what is happening in Kuwait, but does he not agree that the invasion of Kuwait is almost certainly bound to flatten completely what is left of the city and wipe out the remaining Kuwaitis?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the one person who can solve that problem is Saddam Hussein. He should get out of Kuwait and fulfil the council resolutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, was the first of many noble Lords to raise the question of sanctions in some detail. Perhaps I may respond in rather more detail than I have so far. The test of whether or not sanctions are effective is whether they are inflicting damage on Iraq's economy. It is clear that they are. But as long as he can feed his army Saddam Hussein does not mind inflicting suffering on his own people. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, reminded us of the plight of the Iraqi Kurds.
The test is whether sanctions will persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. The evidence is that sanctions alone will not be sufficient. Sanctions are having an effect, but not just on Iraq. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, reminded us—I see he is half-way back to the Front Bench—they are inflicting considerable damage on the oil consuming countries. A dozen countries, including Bangladesh, have lost a fifth of their export earnings thanks to higher oil prices, lost trade and lost remittances. We have always seen sanctions as an additional rather than a sufficient form of pressure. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter reminded the House, the history of sanctions is not very good.
The future of a peace process was something many noble Lords spoke of, including the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. But the House is agreed that Iraq must first get out of Kuwait. We can then turn back to the peace process, and we must reject the linkage of solutions to the Iraq-Kuwait problem with the Arab-Israeli problem. Once the crisis has been satisfactorily resolved it must be for the countries of the region to decide what security structures can best ensure their long-term peace and stability.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton wanted UN peace-keeping forces. It is perhaps wrong for us to impose on others what we believe to be right, for the reasons I have just given. But let me make absolutely clear that we stand prepared to play our part in any

719
process to secure the peace of that part of the world. We look forward to the time when those countries can live, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, "side by side in peace". Of course I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges; if a nuclear, biological and chemical ban comes about it will be a valuable step forward and help to build a secure peaceful solution in the Middle East and the resolution of crises in that area.
The most reverend Primate said that we must not have a religious war. At this stage it is worth pausing to think who is involved in the Gulf. The majority of the substantive forces in the Gulf are American. But it is truly a world effort involving more than 30 countries. Forces have come from every continent; 16 countries have ground forces in Saudi Arabia. Four-fifths of those forces are Moslem and nine are Arab—from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Egypt, Syria and Morocco. That shatters the bogus claims of Saddam Hussein that he is fighting an anti-Arab or religious coalition.
While on the question of troops I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for informing the House of the good morale of our troops following his visit. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter reminded me of the question he asked before regarding reparations following the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. There is provision under international law for compensation to be sought from Iraq. I remind my noble friend of Security Council Resolution 674 adopted on 29th October. That re-emphasised Iraqi responsibility to pay compensation. We shall seek ways of ensuring that the aggressor pays for his aggression. It is too soon to reach conclusions about future action; much will depend on how the crisis is resolved.
Many noble Lords mentioned the importance of a successful resolution to this very grave problem for the whole future of the United Nations. I particularly recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. We all want the United Nations to succeed. It is worth recalling the recent declaration on the Gulf following the European Council in Rome on 14th and 15th of this month. The European Community and its member states earnestly hope that implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions can be peacefully secured. To that end they support a dialogue of the kind offered by President Bush.
When referring to those proposed talks we are disappointed by the negative Iraqi response. We still regard it as a welcome and important proposal, and urge Iraq to respond positively. I should like to refer to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. I again re-emphasise to him that there is nothing to discuss in the sense of "to negotiate". President Bush and Secretary Baker made quite clear that they will not be negotiating. They will be speaking plainly so that Saddam Hussein understands exactly what is required of him, and exactly what will happen if he continues to defy the Security Council.
Many noble Lords spoke of the countries adjacent to Iraq and Kuwait. The noble Baroness, Lady David,
720
helpfully recounted to the House her impressions of her visit to Jordan. We recognise Jordan's economic and political difficulties. Jordan is an important and close friend of Britain. We are encouraging others to help Jordan financially; an international support package is needed. But Jordan must ensure that sanctions continue to be properly implemented.
Naturally Israel was mentioned by many noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, pointed out, Israel was created by the United Nations. It has since then been a full member. The resolutions of the Security Council extend to Israel, as has been shown by two new resolutions—Nos. 672 and 673 —in the past four months. The Security Council condemned the Temple Mount killings.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was not accurate when he claimed that the UN operates double standards. There can be no useful negotiations regarding the Arab-Israel problems while Saddam Hussein remains in Kuwait. Although there is no direct link, Iraq's occupation of Kuwait is undoubtedly a complicating factor. I agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff that the invasion has set back the search for peace between Arab and Israeli.
Another adjacent country mentioned was Turkey. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for giving me notice of his question. Our embassy in Ankara is considering with the Turkish authorities how best to deal with the applications that they receive. The question of granting refugee status in the United Kingdom is a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I shall draw to his attention the points made by the noble Lord.
We continue to support the UNHCR in its attempts to provide a long-term solution to the problems faced by the Iraqi-Kurdish refugees in Turkey. We urged the Turkish Government to put forward acceptable proposals for the use of the 13 million dollars raised by the UNHCR to ease conditions in the camps.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton raised the question of burden sharing. In this instance we welcome the US initiative to set up the Gulf Crisis Financial Co-ordination Group. The need for economic assistance to countries most directly affected by the crisis is urgent, particularly for Jordan. The FCG donors have now pledged over 10.4 billion dollars for Jordan, Egypt and Turkey, and 2.4 billion dollars for the other countries—Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Djibouti.
Comment was made regarding the contribution of Japan, and my noble friend Lord Onslow mentioned Germany. It is worth recalling that so far these countries have generously offered 4 billion dollars and 2 billion dollars respectively for all forms of assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked about command and control. The British forces remain under ultimate UK command. The UK forces may be under the tactical control of the US commander where this makes military sense. Equally, the 1st Armoured Division may have a United States'

721
brigade assigned to its tactical control. Within this context the Saudi Government's position as host will of course be respected. In accordance with normal practice between host states and allies use of British forces in combat operations would be the subject of joint decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, spent quite a lot of time trying to have fun with the Government about an answer that my noble friend Lord Reay gave in a Written Answer on 13th December. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was quite right to say that he asked what proportion of the people living in Iraq, Kuwait, the UK and the USA were citizens of the country concerted, and he is right to say that we replied that the information was not available at the time. But the noble Lord of course failed to remind the House that he gave a specific date. He asked for the figures on 31st July, and I am sure that the House would appreciate that we could not possibly give those figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked about mediation by the Secretary-General and what role he could play. I think it has been well said tonight in the House that the Secretary-General made every effort in the early stages to try his best to help the situation, but that every effort was rebuffed by Iraq. The Secretary-General has welcomed the United States initiative, and I am sure that he would be ready with his good offices to take the matter further if Iraq indicated willingness to comply with the Security Council resolutions.
The noble Lord also raised the important question of the announcement by my noble friend Lord
722
Waddington about the reservists. What we are looking for is volunteers among the territorials and ex-regular reservists. If it becomes necessary to compulsorily call up specialists, only ex-regular reservists will be liable and not the territorials.
No government wants conflict in the Gulf. Security Council Resolution 678 is not a timetable for war. It is rather the last of the peaceful pressures on Iraq. As President Bush has said, we must "go the extra mile for peace". Continued pressure, through the threat of military action backed up by the will to use it, is an essential part of that effort. To remove that pressure would in effect legitimise an illegal act. It would abdicate responsibility in a way which would mean that no small state could ever again feel safe from a larger aggressor. Appeasing aggression will simply make the world more dangerous for everyone.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income Support (General and Transitional) Amendment Regulations 1990
Earl Russellhad given notice of his intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I.1990 No. 2324] be annulled.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, not moved.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  MAIN BATTLE TANK
  MAIN BATTLE TANK
  GULF DEPLOYMENTS AND THE CFE TREATY
  GULF DEPLOYMENTS AND THE CFE TREATY
  SAUDI ARABIA: DRIVING BY SERVICEWOMEN
  SAUDI ARABIA: DRIVING BY SERVICEWOMEN
  THE GULF: ADVICE TO BRITISH NATIONALS
  THE GULF: ADVICE TO BRITISH NATIONALS
  TREE AND HEDGE PRESERVATION
  TREE AND HEDGE PRESERVATION