Commons Sitting of 3 February 1992

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

    National Insurance
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the weekly cost to someone on one and a half times male average earnings of abolition of the national insurance upper earnings limit.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Someone earning £490 a week, which is about one and a half times average male earnings, would pay an extra £9 per week in national insurance contributions if the upper earnings limit was abolished.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the upper earnings limit would hit well over 3 million people—for instance, policemen, health service workers and those in seasonal occupations—merely because overtime bonuses or profit-related pay would take their earnings over the average in any particular week? People in those categories certainly should not be described as rich.
    Mr. Newton: It is absolutely true that a large number of people who could not remotely be described as rich would
    2
    be hit by the proposal. What is more, they would receive absolutely nothing in return in the form of benefits: they need to be aware of that.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that millions of people have been hit by the actions of his Department over the past 12 years? The Department has taken away the earnings-related supplement, and have got rid of death and maternity grant and income support for 16 and 17-year-olds who would not work on the Tory Government's slave labour schemes. Most of those measures were introduced by the present Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's question about national insurance upper earnings limit?
    Mr. Skinner: Absolutely—and it is the Secretary of State's Department that is guilty of taking benefits away from millions of people who would have benefited if the Labour Government's policies had been maintained over the past 12 years by this tawdry, rotten Tory Government.
    Mr. Newton: I am aware of two things. First, all the groups to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred were hit much harder by the policies of high taxation and raging inflation over which the Labour Government presided. Secondly, all the groups who are considered to be priorities by both the Government and the Opposition—low-income pensioners, low-income families and disabled people—have benefited significantly from what the Government have done in recent years.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost to business if the lower earnings limit for employers' national insurance contributions were abolished.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): We estimate that abolishing the lower earnings limit would cost business around £175 million a year in extra national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the substantial extra burden that will be placed on employers, well-meaning proposals to extend the benefits of the

    3
    national insurance system to low-paid employees would have the opposite effect to the one intended, as most would lose their jobs?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, in his usual perceptive way, has put his finger precisely on the import of such proposals. It is interesting to note that they come from the same stable that brought us the national insurance surcharge. It is also interesting to note that, when Labour was last in power, the combined contribution to the national insurance scheme by an employee earning £52 a week and his employer was £10·40, while under the present Government it is £3·43.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that the present Government have introduced higher taxes than any other Government, and that they have increased national insurance contributions for those on average and low pay by a massive 40 per cent? Is it right that someone earning £200,000 a year should pay only 1 per cent. in national insurance? Should not such people bear their share of the burden?
    Mr. Jack: It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman, who professes knowledge of social security matters, has not alluded to the fact that we restructured the national insurance scheme. I do not know where he has been for the past few years, but we have reduced the rates on lower earnings so that people now pay on average about £3 a week less in national insurance.

    Disability Working Allowance
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what alterations he is considering to the disability working allowance scheme before it is introduced; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): None, Sir. The disability working allowance scheme, which will come into effect from April, will provide a radical new opportunity for disabled people who can and wish to work.
    Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this very welcome new allowance will be extensively publicised and that the allowance itself is not taxable?
    Mr. Scott: Yes. The disability working allowance—like its companion benefit, the disability living allowance—will be tax free. It will be extensively publicised on television and in the press through mail shots and other methods of communication. Incidentally, we shall introduce into our advertising campaign efforts to ensure that the information available can be well interpreted by those with sensory disabilities.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: What is the Government's response to the increasingly strong feeling among disabled people that this measure is not an appropriate one for tackling their now, by common consent, quite shocking employment disadvantages? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the DWA, with its very high marginal tax rates—as high as 94 per cent., leaving disabled people with only 6p in the pound of their additional income as workers—simply substitutes a new poverty trap for the employment trap, making some disabled people actually worse off for earning more?
    Mr. Scott: Hardly anyone will be worse off if they are on disability working allowance. For example, a couple with two children aged six and 11 would still be entitled to DWA if they had a net income of £189 a week. I believe that this is an important benefit. It has been widely welcomed by the organisations of and for disabled people outside the House. One of its most important aspects is that people who go on to DWA will retain their underlying entitlement to any benefit which they may have had before they went on to DWA and that they will not have to requalify, if they fail in their efforts to work.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unemployment benefit claimants there were in York in June 1987 and currently; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: In June 1987, unemployment in York was 5,542. In December 1991 it was down to 3,816.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that, if my calculation is correct, that is a reduction of 31 per cent. and that the reverse would be the case if we were to move from our free enterprise and initiative policy to a policy whereby state nationalisation took over Northern Electric in York, Yorkshire Water, British Telecom and other similar companies? Is it not right that there would be a reversal of the excellent figures that my hon. Friend gave?
    Mr. Jack: As somebody who, as a child, was brought up in the city of York, I have nothing but praise for the excellent way in which my hon. Friend has represented his constituents. I can confirm that a 31 per cent. reduction in unemployment is the correct figure. My hon. Friend has done much to boost the employment opportunities in York by championing the railways, tourism and other industries from which the city draws its economic well-being. The people of York will have noticed the mocking smiles on the faces of Opposition Members when I referred to my hon. Friend's record.

    Community Care Grants
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number and size of community care grants in Newcastle upon Tyne in the six months April to October 1991.
    Mr. Scott: Between April and October 1991, Newcastle upon Tyne district office awarded 1,250 community care grants, worth over £290,000.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister confirm that the office in Newcastle upon Tyne is in the habit of pricing its community care grants in two well-known catalogue shops and that unfortunately it failed to spot in April 1991 that the Government had increased value added tax? The result was that a constituent of mine—and no doubt many hundreds of others who have just been referred to by the Minister as being included in the 1,200 people who received grants—was short changed and not given the full amount. A disabled constituent of mine was short changed by more than £2 in his community care grant for an orthopaedic bed. Will the Minister investigate the matter

    5
    urgently and ensure that the Department of Social Security office in Newcastle upon Tyne is made aware of the fact that the Government increased VAT last April?
    Mr. Scott: Of course I shall examine the matter urgently and refer it to the Benefits Agency. Given its urgency, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not write to me about such a detailed case, which would have enabled me to deal with it earlier.
    Mr. Bradley: The Minister clearly has no understanding of the damage that the social fund is inflicting on thousands of the poorest people in cities such as Newcastle and Manchester. In 1991, 68 per cent. of applicants were refused community care grant and just over 50 per cent. were given a budgetary loan, which they had to repay from their meagre benefits. When will the Department publish the review of the social fund, which we have long awaited, and when will he restore the right of the poorest in our society to a grant for essential items such as clothing, furniture and cookers, which have been denied them under the current system?
    Mr. Scott: I contest the hon. Gentleman's assertions at the end of his supplementary question. The social fund has given extensive help to people in real need. Some 60 per cent. of applicants are refused community care grant because they do not meet the basic criteria. We have not received the report of the social policy research unit at York, but when we do we will publish it urgently.

    Pensioners (Incomes)
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are in the top half of the income distribution; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.
    Mr. Newton: Twenty eight per cent. of pensioners were in the top half of the income distribution in 1987 compared with 24 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Burns: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that pensioners are worried about a return to the rampant inflation of the mid-1970s and, although it does not directly affect people who have reached state retirement age, a 9 per cent. tax being put on the savings of people who are saving for retirement? People considering retiring early would be caught by that punitive tax.
    Mr. Newton: Pensioners were among those who were hardest hit by the rates of taxation and inflation of the 1970s. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's second point, because it is not yet widely understood by the three quarters of people who go into retirement with savings of their own that, as they approach retirement, their ability to build up those savings would be subject to a 9 per cent. tax as a result of one of the Opposition's proposals.
    Mr. Frank Field: If a higher proportion of pensioners are now in the top half of the distribution, who has taken their place in the lower half, and why? What part have the Government's unemployment policies played in that?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that there is any question of the Government pursuing a policy of unemployment, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The increased number of pensioners in the top half of the income distribution is the
    6
    result of pensioners' average net incomes rising by a third or more in real terms because of the policies of the Government.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people confuse the level of the state pension with the amount of money that pensioners have available to pay all their weekly bills? Is not it true that the majority of pensioners have extra income from savings, from an occupational pension or from other benefits such as income support?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. As I said earlier, more than three quarters of recently retiring pensioners now have income from savings, and more than 60 per cent. of them also have income from occupational pensions. In both cases, the incomes have risen substantially.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State concede that many people are doing better, which we welcome, because of the state earnings-related pension scheme which was introduced by the Labour Government? The people who are not doing well are those without additional income on lower incomes, such as single pensioners, who have lost the equivalent of £15 a week, and married couple pensioners, who have lost the equivalent of £25 a week. Will the Secretary of State take this chance—one of his last—to apologise to pensioners for what he has done?
    Mr. Newton: I make two points: first, the incomes of pensioners in the lowest quintile have risen by 15 per cent. in real terms over this period, and those pensioners will have benefited further since those statistics were compiled by the increases amounting to a third of a billion pounds that have been made in income support premiums in the past three years. Secondly, it is not SERPS that is the major factor in this increase but the increased income from savings and occupational pensions.
    Mr. Harris: Do not the figures given by my hon. Friend underline the point that many pensioners are well off—and we welcome that—and that that is a justification of the Government's policy of targeting extra help on those who really need it? When will the Opposition grasp that simple fact?
    Mr. Newton: Certainly one of the satisfactory developments of recent years is that, taken as a whole and on average, pensioners' living standards have been rising. As I have said repeatedly, there remain a number of people for whom we think it is right to do more, and we have been doing more through the income support premiums.

    Benefits (Greater London)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of people in the Greater London area receiving social security benefits in 1978–79 and the total in 1990–91.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Statistics for the number of recipients of all benefits are not collected on a regional basis.
    Mr. Banks: It does not surprise me that the Minister does not want to know the facts. She must know that, by any standards, the number of people in London who have been impoverished since 1979 has more than doubled. She

    7
    knows that and the statistics are at least available from the Library but not with the precision that she could have given if she had chosen to give them to the House. I have never seen so many unemployed and homeless people begging on the streets of London. Thanks to the Prime Minister, 16 and 17-year-olds cannot claim social security. I suggest that, instead of choosing the mad scene from Lucia di Lammermoor for his desert island disc, the Prime Minister would have done better to have chosen something from the Beggar's Opera because there is a whole chorus on the London streets which could join in.
    Miss Widdecombe: May I suggest that, for sheer consistency in the way in which the Opposition present their numbers, they should perhaps choose the Grand Old Duke of York as their theme. The hon. Gentleman can no more claim that poverty has doubled in London than he can claim that for Great Britain as a whole. Because we have taken more people into the net by raising income support and making other improvements, more are now assisted through the benefits system.
    Mr. Bowis: Is it not a fact that more and more generous benefits covering many different needs are available to people in London and elsewhere? Does my hon. Friend agree that one statistic that needs to be found is that of the number of Londoners who would lose if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. Given the average salary in London, I imagine that there would be an extensive loss if, as my hon. Friend says, that policy were to be implemented. What is more—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier—no compensating benefit would be received by those who would be hit by the abolition of the upper limit. In fact, it would turn Beveridge on its head and use the national insurance system as a tax system.

    Retirement Pension
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received over the level of the retirement pension.
    Mr. Newton: We regularly receive representations and inquiries from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals about the level of the retirement pension.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm an answer recently given to me by a junior Minister—it is in Hansard, of course—to the effect that a large number of pensioners—nearly 40 per cent.—have incomes of £70 or less out of which they pay about £10 to £15 in rent? Is it not a fact that if the link with earnings had not been broken by his Government 10 years ago—indeed, nearly 12 years ago—a married pensioner would be £28 a week better off this April? That is what the country is concerned about, not the lies, smears and distortions organised by Tory central office and the Tory press against the Labour party.
    Mr. Newton: Such calculations take absolutely no account of the increased taxation and inflation which would have resulted from the pursuit of the policy that the hon. Gentleman is advocating. I leave with him the thought, especially as Labour is apparently committed to
    8
    adding another £9 a week to national insurance contributions for 3 million or more people, that if such a policy had been pursued, contributions for an employee on average earnings and his employer would now be about £9 a week more than they are.
    Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend referred to the increase in the incomes of pensioners as a result of savings and of occupational pensions. Can he give any idea of what the level of occupational pensions will be by the turn of the century?
    Mr. Newton: I will not attempt to predict what will happen on that front between now and the end of the century because that will depend on many factors. I can tell my hon. Friend that pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions—for those who have them—rose on average from £13·90 a week in 1979 to £27·70 in 1988. That is a virtual doubling of the income from occupational pensions over that period. I expect to see the trend continue if sensible policies continue to be pursued.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what representations he has received from the employees and pensioners of the Maxwell Communication Corporation and AGB companies about the level of their pensions? Is he aware that, due to his culpable negligence in sitting for 19 months on regulations under the Social Security Act 1990, which would have protected pensioners in the event of a company wind-up, thousands of pensioners now stand to lose most or all of their pensions for which they have contributed for up to 35 years? Does not he think it right that all such pensioners should receive compensation when they have lost so much pension due to his complacency and reprehensible laxity?
    Mr. Newton: I presume that the hon. Gentleman thought it right to return to the matter in the House having notably failed to achieve the result for which he hoped by an overheated press release to the same effect which he issued at the end of last week. He knows that he has deliberately raised unnecessary alarm among many thousands of pensioners by the way in which he has presented the matter. It is simply not the case that pensioners in such schemes will get nothing or will be left penniless, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Under existing regulations, if there are not sufficient assets to secure the guaranteed minimum pensions that is the equivalent of what the pensioners would have got under the state earnings-related pension scheme—the guaranteed minimum pensions can be and would be underwritten by the Government.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend refuse the invitation from the Opposition to treat pensioners as a political underclass? Will he remember that more and more people reaching retirement age wish to have independence in their own hands, which means that they must be in receipt of policies that encourage that independence, including savings, during their working career?
    Mr. Newton: That is absolutely right, and nothing has more clearly revealed the Opposition's attitude to people's wishes in the matter than their persistent hostility to the 4 million or more people who have taken out personal pensions for exactly that reason.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources for the social fund.
    Mr. Scott: Each annual allocation of funds to district budgets has been designed to redistribute resources in a progressively more equitable way. As part of our routine annual review of allocations, we shall continue to consider how best to ensure that funds are targeted where they are most needed.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister accept that the distribution of resources under the social fund is extremely inequitable and difficult to get right? Will he also accept the Opposition's view that, with the social fund, the Prime Minister first demonstrated on a national scale his dangerous incompetence? That incompetence later extended to the economy when he was promoted. Does the Minister agree that, in the present state of affairs, some parts of the country have too much money in the social fund and still have money over after meeting all claims, low and high priority, which are legitimate? Some areas can meet only high priority claims, whereas other areas can meet low and high priority claims but have no money over. Is not it an example of what is wrong with the country that the Prime Minister was promoted for trying to reinvent the Lady Bountiful in his first major act as Minister in 1988?
    Mr. Scott: I do not claim—and I do not suppose that the Prime Minister would—that the social fund is perfect. I do claim that it is better than any of its predecessors in meeting exceptional need in exceptional circumstances. I recognise the local pressures which the hon. Gentleman perceives, but I reiterate that we endeavour to see that the resources allocated reflect the need in the localities. That is why South Glamorgan had an extra 10 per cent. allocated in August 1991 and another £50,000 in loans only a week or so ago. We try to ensure that any surplus resources are reallocated sensibly and flexibly.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he were to convert all loans under the social fund to grants, as has been promised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the cost would be about £130 million and would greatly prejudice the operation of the social fund as it now works?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's point. I have heard suggestions that that will be Labour party policy, but I have not heard whether the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees with such a policy.
    Dr. Kumar: If the Minister genuinely believes in the equitable distribution of the social fund, may I invite him to review cold weather payments, because the senior citizens in my area of east Cleveland have lost out during the past week? In addition, how are cold weather benefits assessed in the first place?
    Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble both to read my announcement about the improvements in cold weather payments this year and to go to the Library to see how those allocations are made. All the information is there for him to find. In one of our coldest winters for the past 20 years, the system has been operating successfully and flexibly. I believe that the
    10
    linkages to the meteorological stations have operated more effectively than hitherto. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a particular point about his locality, he should write to me about it and I shall ensure that account is taken of his views.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Sir David Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to ensure that existing recipients of attendance allowance and mobility allowance receive disability living allowance in April.
    Mr. Scott: All attendance allowance beneficiaries aged under 65 and all mobility allowance beneficiaries will transfer automatically to the equivalent level of disability living allowance. We are writing to all existing claimants to let them know how the change will affect them. We are also inviting claimants who currently receive only one of the two existing benefits, and consequently will transfer to only one component of DLA to consider claiming the other component.
    Sir David Price: Will those in the third category, who are claiming extra money to help with personal care and who do not currently receive attendance allowance, have their claims determined by an adjudication officer or a medical practitioner? Will social factors be given equal weight with medical factors when determining such claims?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We shall be substantially demedicalising—to use my word—the whole process for claiming both the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance, and moving to judgments made by adjudication officers. That, in itself, will be an important step forward, but perhaps even more important is the fact that, because of the change, there will for the first time be a proper appeals procedure for those who need help with care.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In attempting to ensure that people are made aware of the DLA, which is something that we all want, will the Minister ensure that there is effective and efficient management? Although I realise that he cannot know of a particular incident that has been drawn to my attention today, is he aware that information has been sent to deceased claimants, thus causing a great deal of distress to the families concerned? If that was an isolated incident I am sure that the Minister will join me in apologising for it, but will he look at distribution methods to ensure that such incidents do not happen on any scale?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly apologise for distress caused by any such incident. We have sent out more than 1 million letters to individual customers to advise them of the change that we are making and the benefits inquiry line has provided back-up information for those who have received such letters. We are doing our best, but I suppose that when something of this scale is embarked upon, it is almost inevitable that the occasional mistake will be made. I repeat that I am sorry if any distress has been caused.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that spending on disability benefits by this Government has

    11
    increased by over 150 per cent., in contrast to the policies advocated by the Labour party, the priorities of which are pensions and child benefits?
    Mr. Scott: I believe that the Government can be proud of their record on benefits for disabled people over the past 12 years. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the progress that has already been made. The introduction of the two new benefits will help more than 300,000 people at a cost of about £300 million.

    Disability Working Allowance
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new disability working allowance will come into operation.
    Mr. Scott: Disability working allowance will start on 7 April. The new benefit will be widely publicised from this week onwards. Claims can be made from 10 March 1992.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this new benefit will be widely welcomed? Will he confirm that if we had adopted a scatter-gun approach to benefits, as the Labour Government did, the substantial improvements in help for the disabled since 1979 would not have been possible? Can he say by how much the groups affected by the scheme will have benefited in those years?
    Mr. Scott: As an earlier supplementary question made clear, we have increased expenditure on long-term sick and disabled people by 150 per cent. during the period of this Government at an annual rate of about £550 million compared with about £350 million under the Labour Government, using real-terms figures. Therefore, we have made substantial progress. What is more, we have sought to identify areas of disability that in the past have not had the attention that they deserve, and to meet them with the new benefits.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What will the Minister say to people who will receive the new allowance from April when they learn that last Friday a Conservative Back Bencher talked out the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Was that done with implied or expressed connivance of the Government? In any event, will the Minister condemn it?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman took pains to read my speech on Friday and see my remarks, he would understand my approach to the matter. The Bill came on second, had less than two hours debate and, according to the normal customs and practices of this House, did not receive a Second Reading. We should see how well efforts to encourage and persuade employers to take note of the needs and the abilities of disabled people to contribute to their enterprises do, before we consider the need for further legislation.

    National Insurance
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) men and (b) women pay national insurance contributions at the upper earnings limit.
    Mr. Jack: On average, 3 million men and nearly 500,000 women who are employed or self-employed will pay national insurance contributions at the upper limit during 1991–92.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that any proposal to abolish the upper limit on national insurance contributions would mean that millions of people who could never remotely be regarded as rich would pay a great deal more in contributions and get nothing extra in benefits?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. It is interesting that he talks of people getting nothing for their additional contributions in the very week when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) writes an article in a magazine in praise of the contributory principle—indeed, in praise of Beveridge in this the 50th anniversary of his excellent proposals.
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is very efficient.
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman says that I am very efficient because that is what we in the Department of Social Security strive to be.
    We now know that the Opposition's approach to national insurance would mean a something-for-nothing society. My hon. Friend points to a further interesting fact: although the figures that I gave were 100 per cent. correct, I would estimate that during five years of any Parliament as we see earnings increase perhaps an additional 500,000 people would be swept into this disreputable proposal from the Labour Benches.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Has my hon. Friend considered consulting people such as members of the Secondary Heads Association to see whether all the heads of comprehensive schoools in my constituency would relish the idea of paying an extra 9 per cent. from their earnings, if the upper limit were removed? While he is at it, he might consult about increased levels of taxation, because secondary heads will not like that.
    Mr. Jack: I should be delighted if my hon. Friend's constituents would care to drop me a note with information on their individual salaries. I could do a little costing exercise for them. I am sure that they, like senior nurses, managers, middle managers and other experienced teachers, will all think carefully about what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has said. He has put before the House an illustration of how the Labour party wants to increase the cost of national insurance. Even under the old Labour scheme somebody on £130 a week would pay £26 in national insurance—employers and employees contributions combined—whereas under the Conservative proposals somebody on the same earnings would pay only £19·24. We will stick by our national insurance arrangements.

    Pensioners (Savings)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average pensioner's income from savings.
    Miss Widdecombe: The latest figure, for 1988, shows that the average pensioner's income from savings is £19·90 per week.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that many pensioners have built up savings throughout their lives, partly from income and, occasionally, from redundancy payments, and that it is rare that that income from savings is unearned? Is she aware of the great unease among pensioners about the fact that an additional surcharge may be put on their fairly modest level of income from savings? Will she confirm for those pensioners that their savings are safe with us?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, I would say that savings in general are safe with us. Those who are most likely to be affected by the Labour party's proposals to surcharge savings are those who are just coming up to retirement. They will want to save, but they will not enjoy the exemptions provided to pensioners. They have reached the crucial point at which they can save because they have discharged other liabilities, but they will find such saving difficult.
    On savings, the one thing that we do not want is a return to the Labour Government's policies of the 1970s. We do not want to see pensioners' or anybody else's savings eroded by the inflation levels sustained by the then Labour Government. It is worth noticing that since the Government came to power, pensioners' income from savings has risen by 8·6 per cent. It would be a dim prospect for them if we returned to the policies of the Labour party.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Sponsorship
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to improve sponsorship of the arts.
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the operation of the business sponsorship incentive scheme.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): The business sponsorship incentive scheme has been a great success and I am giving further encouragement to sponsorship of the arts by increasing its budget by £1 million a year to £4·5 million. From April this year, second-time sponsors will be matched by £1 of BSIS money to every £2 of extra sponsorship. Businesses that have sponsored for more than three years will also be brought back into the scheme.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although business sponsorship of the arts is extremely important and welcome, it would be just as beneficial for the arts, particularly local theatres such as the Civic theatre in Chelmsford, if we had a national lottery to which everyone could contribute to help to raise funds for the arts? Can he confirm whether he will use his immense powers of persuasion to try to obtain a manifesto commitment to a national lottery?
    Mr. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to Chelmsford borough council for their regular support of the Civic theatre. I agree with my hon. Friend about the usefulness of a national lottery. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a warm welcome to the principle of a national lottery when he spoke in the House the other day. I am sure that the revenue from such a lottery could,
    14
    for example, be useful for the repair of existing theatres and in helping to commission new arts buildings in the years ahead.
    Mr. Sims: I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend was not able to accept my invitation to attend the concert of the Royal Choral Society on a European theme at the Festival hall on 7 March, particularly as I hope to take part in it. However, I understand his commitments. Is he aware that that concert is possible only because it is being sponsored by St. Ivel with a matching grant from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts—ABSA? That is a good example of the continuing success of the scheme.
    Mr. Renton: I am very sorry that I will not be able to attend the concert at which my hon. Friend will be singing. He always sings in close harmony in the House, and I am sure that his voice will be harmonious on 7 March. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, because the significant fact about St. Ivel's sponsorship is that it is a perfect example of sponsorship working very well and of the use of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which I just mentioned.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I accept the valuable role played by the Minister, but does he accept that, although sponsorship is valuable, even more important is the fact that institutions such as the Royal Opera House cannot go much further in the sponsorship race and will require funding? Will he now look at those matters seriously because, in the present recession, those institutions are in a grievous plight about which the Minister must do something?
    Mr. Renton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for recognising the value that I have put into the arts. I appreciate his comment. However, we have just had the third record increase in the amount of money that the Government have given to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is directly responsible for passing on such moneys to the Royal Opera House, the Birmingham Royal Ballet and other companies. The increase for the year that has just begun is 14 per cent.—a further £27 million. I am delighted that that has happened, because it shows the Government's firm commitment to the cause of the arts throughout the country.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I believe that the Minister will soon come to the London borough of Newham on an official visit to hear about our arts policy. I hope that that does not come as a total surprise to him, as it appears to. His visit will give us an opportunity to show him the problems in getting sponsorship from businesses in an area like the east end of London. The recession is one of the problems and the sheer absence of businesses is another. Will the Minister therefore consider a way to equalise national sponsorship from business, so that areas with few opportunities can derive some of the benefits from areas with ample opportunities?
    Mr. Renton: The reason why I consulted my brief was because I am to visit the Young Vic shortly and I was not certain whether the hon. Gentleman would appear on the stage or in the audience on that occasion. He is a natural actor and I thought that he might have a part in the play. May I remind him that the London Arts Board, which has just taken over from Greater London Arts, is settling

    15
    down well to the work of funding arts associations throughout London. It is extremely well led by Clive Priestley as chairman and Tim Mason as director. I hope that the London borough grants scheme, which got into such a terrible muddle last year, will do much better this year in awarding available money to London boroughs.

    British Library
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the chairman of the British library to discuss resources.
    Mr. Renton: I meet the chairman of the British library regularly. Our discussions include the library's resources and other matters of interest of the board.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister confirm that the British library's acquisitions budget has been cut by 41 per cent. in real terms, resulting in thousands of scientific periodicals no longer being stocked? Are not the Government bungling the building of the new British library, with expensive delays and omissions? In particular, is not the lack of reading space a fiasco, with the new reading room providing only 7 per cent. more space than the old one? In those circumstances, is not Treasury pressure to sell off the spare land on the site a national disgrace? [Interruption.] My last point—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question please.
    Mr. Renton: The acquisitions budget for 1992–93 will be £250,000. The question of spare land is the subject of a study by the British Library Board into what the British library's needs will be after the new St. Pancras building has been opened in 1996 and how needs may be satisfied. No land will be sold before 1994 and there is every intention of having a serious study before then. I regret the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the British library, because it will be a great new building. There are difficulties at present, particularly with regard to paintwork and shelves in the new basement, but, once complete, it will be one of the finest buildings built in this country this century.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister now answer my hon. Friend's excellent point about why the Government have cut the acquisitions budget of the British library by 41 per cent. in real terms in the past four years? If the British library is, as the Minister said, the greatest English language library in the world, why are the Government not providing acquisition money or adequate transitional money? Why has the Minister deliberately blocked the money promised by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), who promised in May 1990 that the Government would make money available for works of art for the opening of that new building? The Government are neglecting what should be a great jewel in the British crown.
    Mr. Renton: I understand why the hon. Gentleman may be frothing at the mouth at the thought that, after all the years that he has spent preparing as shadow arts Minister, were the Labour party to be elected—horror of horrors—it would not be him but Melvyn "Time to Dance" Bragg who would be Labour's arts Minister. That must be a
    16
    disappointment. There would be loud applause for the suggestion from Labour Back Benchers, but he has my sympathy.
    We are giving grant in aid next year of £65·4 million to the British library—
    Mr. Steen: A great deal of money.
    Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend says, it is a great deal of money. How the British library decides its acquisitions budget, as distinct from other parts of its budget, is up to that organisation. But it is receiving a large amount of money—in addition, it receives £61 million specifically for the new St. Pancras project.

    Museums and Galleries (Improvements)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will report on the museums and galleries improvement scheme.
    Mr. Renton: I am very pleased to announce that, thanks to the generosity of the Wolfson Foundation and family charitable trust, the museums and galleries improvement fund has been extended for a further two years to 1995–96. It is already supporting more than 100 projects.
    Mr. Steen: The whole House will want to congratulate the Minister on wresting the 14 per cent. increase in the arts budget from the Treasury. That will have a dramatic effect across the country as the money can be spent on all sorts of arts projects. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the 14 per cent. increase goes to arts projects—the museums and galleries improvement schemes and other proposals that his Department funds—and is not caught up in too much bureaucracy. I am particularly interested in the project in Dartington.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend; I know of his interest in Dartington hall and the Cookworthy museum in Kingsbridge. I insisted that the large increase that I was able to give to the Arts Council of Great Britain be matched by a reduction in the administration costs between the council's headquarters and the regional arts boards. That meant that last year £1 million was knocked off the total administration budget so that as much as possible of that handsome increase should go to the artists and performers, not just in metropolitan London but throughout the country.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the "next steps" programme.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): "Next steps" is progressing well. We plan to launch at least a dozen more agencies in April, when 50 per cent. of the civil service will be working fully on "next steps" lines. Agencies are achieving targets and are at the forefront of delivering the better services called for by the Government's citizens charter.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is it not absolutely clear that the "next steps" agency approach of the 1980s proved extremely successful in improving accountability, promoting a better

    17
    service to the public and giving agency employees greater job satisfaction? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the 1990s the citizens charter, particularly the charter mark, should continue and intensify those excellent developments?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree. I certainly hope that every executive agency will apply for a charter mark, which will be seen as a clear reward to those in public service who provide customer satisfaction, which all too often in the past has been sadly missing. That position has already changed with the executive agencies, and the improvement will be rewarded with the charter mark.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware of the increasing acts of violence and threats against Benefits Agency staff by claimants? Is he aware that there has been at least one case in which, having seen a name badge, a claimant looked in the phone book and traced the Benefits Agency employee to his home. Is it not about time to bring to a halt the silly idea which threatens the safety of Benefits Agency staff?
    Mr. Renton: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I have been to the Benefits Agency in my constituency, where the manager and staff made it plain to me that if staff were concerned about their safety they would not wear a name badge—but most of them want to because they want to be able to be identified by the public, so that if someone rings up a week later he can identify the person to whom he spoke a week before. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks more to the Benefits Agency in his constituency to persuade its members of the wisdom of adopting this course.

    Public Appointments Unit
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress in increasing the number of women registered with the public appointments unit.
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. The number of women registered has increased from 18 per cent. of the total in 1986 to 33 per cent. in 1992. There are now clearly 2,000 women on our list. I welcome this increase.
    Mr. Coombs: I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome that increase, although there is clearly still a long way to go to reflect the fact that women constitute 51 per cent. of the population. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as the number of women on the list has increased, it is also important to increase the number of women appointed to various positions in the public service? Can he reassure the House that there is no risk of discrimination against women who possess excellent qualities when appointments are made to such positions?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course it takes time for the increased number of women on the list to work through into actual appointments, but one of the purposes behind the Prime Minister's initiative was to see that they did work through into actual appointments. Every Whitehall Department now has a nominated Minister who is specifically responsible for promoting equal opportunities in public appointments.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Minister cannot tell us how many women have been appointed, will he tell us a statistic
    18
    that I am sure that he will know? How many of the extra women on the list are card-carrying members of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Renton: Unlike the Labour party and the Militant Tendency we tend not to have card-carrying women, but I can tell the hon. Lady, although I was not asked this question, that precisely 50 per cent. of those appointed to public bodies as a result of public appointments unit nomination this year are women.
    Sir John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the calmness of being on his own, that all this is just trendy nonsense? What we want in the public service are the best people, irrespective of whether they are men or women.
    Mr. Renton: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I have known for many years and for whom I have a great affection, would agree that about half the best people are women.

    Unions (Morale and Recognition)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of civil service unions to discuss morale and recognition.
    Mr. Renton: I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues. It is the job of managers in Departments and agencies to achieve our aim of having an efficient, effective and well-motivated civil service.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister next meets the trade unions will he explain to them why the Government threatened not to recognise trade unions representing employees on Ministry of Defence property when those trade unions are affiliated to the Labour party? Will he remove that slur on the loyalty and patriotism of those employees and give a categorical assurance that there is nothing incompatible about membership of the Labour party and membership of the trade unions in question?
    Mr. Renton: Of course I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He knows the answer very well: the instance that he has mentioned was a matter for the Ministry of Defence, which looked further into the matter and decided not to pursue it.
    Dr. Marek: If that is so, will the Minister go a bit further? The Universities Funding Council is resisting recognition of civil service unions. Professor Graeme Davies, its chief executive, says that he does not want any unions in his building. What can the Minister do about such "ignorant and proud of it" behaviour?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman knows well that the UFC is not one of my responsibilities. I am surprised by what he says; if he cares to write to me or to the Secretary of State for Education and Science I will certainly have the matter looked into.

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what initiatives are being taken to introduce private sector practices into agencies.
    Mr. Renton: The "next steps" initiative is making use of the best and most appropriate management practices from

    19
    all sectors, such as contracting out, recruitment of chief executives from the private sector, performance pay, publication of reports and accounts, customer surveys, trading funds, and financial flexibility to carry money between financial years.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most museums in the private sector have opening hours that suit the wishes of the public—the consumers and customers—whereas museums in the public sector tend to have opening hours that suit the wishes of the trade unions? Will he see what he can do to persuade the public sector to follow the private sector's practice in this case?
    Mr. Renton: I take my hon. Friend's point about the independent museums. In defence of some of my clients in the national museums and galleries, I should point out that, for example, the Victoria and Albert museum has been able to extend its opening hours. One of the reasons why it has been able to do so is its policy of charging for special exhibitions. Therefore, I regret Labour's stated intention of abolishing all museums charges, because that would remove from museums the opportunity to be flexible about staying open later, to improve services and generally to meet the added requirements of the public.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants in employment at the latest date are (a) men or (b) women.
    Mr. Renton: All of them.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that when the Property Services Agency is privatised, many men and women will lose their jobs? Will he also condemn the scandalous proposal that when the PSA is privatised, up to £85 million of taxpayers' money should be handed over by the Government to Tarmac, which will take it over, so that any proposed redundancies of men and women in the PSA will be paid not by the privatising company but by the taxpayer? Since that is nothing short of a swindle, should not the Minister stop it?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the privatisation of PSA are fanciful and ridiculous in the extreme. Speaking of that, I wonder just what the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he tabled this question. Even with his fancifulness, it is hard to imagine the civil service employing anyone who is not either a man or a woman.

President Yeltsin and UN Security Council
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about President Yeltsin's visit to London on 30 January and about the special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on 31 January. I was accompanied to New York by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Both meetings came at an important time in Russia's relationship with the rest of the world and at a critical time for world peace and stability. Russia has, in President Yeltsin's own words, thrown off the shackles of communism. She remains a nuclear super-power. As such, and as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, she has world responsibilities. It is essential for our own peace and security that Russia continues to play the positive role on which President Gorbachev embarked and which President Yeltsin is set to continue and to develop. I believe that we should offer them our support in this.
I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful, and I should like to highlight the key points.
This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations' charter.
A statement was agreed by all the members of the Security Council. Copies are in the Library of the House. In it we reaffirmed that all disputes between states should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the charter. We committed ourselves to the fight against terrorism. We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations. We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year. The council endorsed the idea put forward by the British Government, and recently endorsed by the General Assembly, of a UN register of conventional arms transfers.
During his visit to London, President Yeltsin noted that Britain had been the first country to denounce the August coup, and the first to recognise Russia; the first to propose
22
Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund; the first to propose an April deadline for that membership; and the first to support a stabilisation fund for the rouble.
It is essential that Russia join the IMF at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that a stabilisation fund may need to follow if Russia is to have a prospect of establishing a successful market economy. There is, of course, a financial cost in this, but the cost of failure and a return to dictatorship and the cold war would be infinitely higher. It is in our national interest and in the interests of the west as a whole to help Russia, and we shall continue to take a lead in doing so. I undertook to make it one of the priorities of our presidency of the European Community later this year to carry through an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.
In our discussion of arms control issues, President Yeltsin committed Russia to further significant reductions in the Russian strategic and international arsenal. I told him that we had already committed ourselves to a cut of one half in our sub-strategic nuclear weapons and to smaller conventional forces. I told him also that Britain's only strategic weapon would be the minimum deterrent constituted by Trident. President Yeltsin accepted that Trident was indeed a minimum deterrent and that the focus of arms control negotiations should be on the arsenal of the two super-powers.
We agreed to co-operate in handling surplus Soviet weapons and in safeguarding nuclear materials. I offered to send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand. I have also offered to send a small number of officials from the Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. We discussed the problem of the possible leakage of expertise from Russia in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Yeltsin has made proposals for handling this problem, and we have offered our help as part of an international effort.
The President and I agreed to establish a secure telephone link between our two offices. This is not meant as a crisis hot-line; it will enable us to conduct the significant amount of business we have to undertake.
We signed a joint declaration—the text of which is in the Library of the House—on relations between our two countries. It will form the basis of a treaty which the President and I hope to sign during the official visit to Britain which he will make later this year. It will be the first such treaty since 1766.
This is a time of great hope in international affairs, but also of uncertainty and potential instability. The two meetings on which I have reported to the House have shown our determination to work for a safer world and a new partnership with Russia in the cause of peace.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: In thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, may I first confirm our welcome for President Yeltsin's visit to London and for the United Nations Heads of Government meeting?
May I also take this opportunity to wish the new United Nations Secretary-General success in his efforts to prepare recommendations for improvement in the preventative diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping capacities of the United Nations?
There is clearly force in Mr. Yeltsin's view that greater support for economic development is essential for political stability and for the prevention of any possibility of a

23
return to totalitarianism and militarism in the former Soviet Union. Will the Prime Minister therefore tell us what specific proposals he has made for supporting economic projects in the republics of the former Soviet Union, particularly in the distribution industries, which are obviously of basic importance to economic growth and to the development of markets?
The Government's announced change of policy on export credit facilities for the republics of the former Soviet Union is welcome, but can the Prime Minister clarify the extent and the effectiveness of these changes in practice, as it appears that the conditions limiting the operation of those credit guarantees is likely to make them unusable for several years to come?
May I express my satisfaction that the Prime Minister does not now take the reluctant attitude towards the establishment of a rouble stabilisation fund that he did in July and August last year when I put that proposal to him? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what support he is receiving from other G7 countries for his recent endorsement of a rouble stabilisation fund?
Can the Prime Minister say also whether he has encouraged discussion of the establishment in the new democracies of a payments union similar to that which played such an important part in western Europe's recovery after the second world war?
Following his contact with Mr. Yeltsin and with other leaders of former Soviet republics and Warsaw pact countries, does the Prime Minister accept the need for a co-ordinated international aid and support programme—a modern Marshall plan—as proposed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe? Does he not agree that such a programme could, amongst other things, establish an effective linkage between western support for economic development and the response from the newly independent states in terms of schedules for comprehensive, verifiable, and quicker disarmament?
I endorse the Prime Minister's request to the Security Council that all member nations "commit" themselves
"anew to … reinforced measures of arms control."
With that in mind, can the Prime Minister tell the House what his response is to President Yeltsin's call for Britain, France, and China to participate in the process of international negotiations for reduction in strategic nuclear weapons? What is the Prime Minister doing to promote a comprehensive test ban treaty, and what proposals does he have for strengthening the nonproliferation treaty?
The Prime Minister's declarations of support for the United Nations are, as ever, to be commended. I therefore invite him to express his regret that, according to the figures published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week, United Kingdom support for United Nations development agencies has been cut by 38 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has any intention of reversing such cuts? Does he not agree that, without such a radical break with his previous policies, his statement that
"a new situation in the world needs new ideas and a new impetus"
will not carry much conviction?
I welcome the Prime Minister's use of the words "partners and friends" to describe the relationship with the new democracies. We on this side of the House will
24
continue to propose and to support policies which give practical effect to the hope for a new and durable world order of peace, liberty, and prosperity which was expressed again at the United Nations last week.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for President Yeltsin's visit, and for the broad welcome that he gave to the outcome of last week's United Nations meeting. I am pleased that we have a joint view on so many matters of such importance.
As to economic support, one noticeable difference in the circumstances within the former Soviet Union over the past few weeks is that the price of a liberalisation programme has been put in place. That is a vitally necessary component of creating a free and open market there—but it necessarily brings with it great short-term difficulties. It was an immensely brave step for President Yeltsin to take, and on that basis I believe that it is right for the United Kingdom to change its policy on a rouble stabilisation fund—as an indication that we are prepared to support the reform programme that is now in place.
There will be need for support in that fashion, and that can satisfactorily come only through the International Monetary Fund. For that reason, I proposed that Russia should join the fund, and that has the support of other members. We propose that that process should be concluded not later than April, but it is immensely to be hoped that it can be done far more speedily. Once Russia is a member of the International Monetary Fund, that will make it possible for Russia to receive sustantial assistance in cash to deal not only perhaps with a stabilisation fund but balance of payments support—which I personally suspect will be needed in the Soviet Union. It is equally likely that Russia will need ECGD or comparative support in the months and years ahead, not just from this country but from others.
Let me respond to the specific ECGD point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We have announced the availability, for Russia and the other republics, of £280 million worth of ECGD support this year, but that is dependent on an IMF programme's being in place. I hope that that will be the case not later than April; it may well be a good deal earlier. The arrangement is also dependent on the Russian republic's continuing to meet its debt obligations in the future, as in the past.
As for the arms control matters, we have been working to improve the measures of arms control. During my discussions with President Yeltsin, he explicitly accepted the disproportion between the British nuclear deterrent, Trident, and the nuclear capacity that will be available to the Soviet Union even after it has carried out the reductions to which it has committed itself, and which will take a decade or more to implement. That point was explicitly recognised by President Yeltsin in our private discussions, and also acknowledged in public after our meeting.
The United Kingdom has spoken bilaterally to a number of countries about the non-proliferation treaty. We have raised it through the United Nations, and we see the United Nations as the primary focus for encouraging a much wider group of countries to sign the treaty and abide by it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have made very large contributions to the development agencies, and we shall continue to do so.
As for the question of partnership and friendship in the 1990s, the joint declaration that we signed sets out a series

25
of bases on which we can improve our relationship with Russia. We intend that joint declaration to be turned, during this year, into a comprehensive treaty between Russia and the United Kingdom—the first that we have had since 1766.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Back-Benchers' day, and a motion has been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). I shall allow questions to continue until 4.30. I hope to be able to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak before then, provided that single, brief questions are asked.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, through his energy and skill, he has now given a powerful send-off to the new United Nations and its new Secretary-General in the very complex and difficult tasks that we expect the UN to have to face in the post-cold-war world?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that much the most important and immediate task now faced by the international order is to ensure that there is not a quantum leap in the number of countries with access to smaller, tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads? Will he assure us that everything will be done, as a matter of urgency—both by this country and by the Security Council and its agencies—to ensure that that task is tackled, collectively, with the utmost vigour? Failure now would involve colossal cost later.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind welcome for what has been achieved.
I think that there are two aspects to the question of a quantum leap in nuclear weapons. First, there is the success of the non-proliferation treaty, and the inhibition on extra states' developing a nuclear capability; secondly, there is ensuring that the nuclear capability—particularly the sub-strategic capability—that is at present spread throughout the republics of the former Soviet Union remains under strong control, is brought together and is dismantled at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that many people in Great Britain greatly welcome the fact that the first Heads of Government meeting in the United Nations' history was chaired by a British Prime Minister? Does he further realise that what will also have been welcomed and noted is the difference in attitude between the Prime Minister and that of his predecessor towards the United Nations? Those of us who have criticised the Government's and western nations' lack of urgency in providing appropriate assistance to the Soviet Union will also welcome the new steps and the energy that is being shown in this area
If, as the Prime Minister rightly says, the protection of non-proliferation is the absolute key to world peace, why are the Government seeking to increase the number of nuclear warheads that are carried on Trident, when they have the option of keeping the number the same, at a time when the rest of the world is decreasing them? How can it be consistent— perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question now, since he did not answer the Leader of the Opposition—for the Prime Minister's policy to be as expressed in the statement but for that policy to be opposed to a comprehensive test ban treaty?
26
Finally, if the Prime Minister says, as he rightly does, that one of the centrepieces of reshaping the United Nations so that it can cope with the new challenges to world peace is to strengthen the United Nations' peacekeeping capacity, why is it that the Government are, I am told, $8 million in arrears with their dues towards United Nations' peacekeeping?
The Prime Minister: On the first of the right hon. Gentleman's three points—how many nuclear warheads we have—he knows that we have never indicated how many warheads there will actually be: I do not believe that it would be in the interests of our security for us to do so. However, we shall maintain the minimum necessary. That has always been our position, and I reaffirm it again today.
As for the nuclear test ban treaty, for as long as it is necessary for us to have nuclear weapons, we require the ability to test and we propose to keep the ability to test. For Opposition Members to suggest that we should have nuclear weapons but not the ability to test shows how little they understand the responsibility that lies with a nuclear power.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem faced by the United Nations in recent decades has been entanglement in east-west confrontation and that at this stage of its development it does not need to embark on an extremely controversial and difficult period of structural reform but should make greater use not only of the United Nations charter but of the existing United Nations machinery? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we need greater United Nations intervention in the sovereign affairs of sovereign states—as in Iraq, where there is gross violation of human rights and massive oppression of minorities?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. In the Gulf war the United Nations played a part of immense importance. I hope that in similar circumstances in the future it would do so again. I share also my hon. Friend's view about the reform of the United Nations. There are parts of the United Nations that certainly could work better. We are keen to help them to do so, but the Security Council is working well and reform is neither necessary nor desirable.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Did the Prime Minister discuss the anti-ballistic missile treaty? Is not the United States trying to scrap the ABM treaty so that it can push on with its star wars programme? Does the Prime Minister agree that we do not want the militarisation of space, and that in any case it is not needed? Will he put his weight against that treaty being abrogated?
The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman is chairman of the Labour party's defence committee and that therefore he is a specialist in these matters. On the ABM treaty, he will know that the United States is also talking to Russia about acting jointly in that matter.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: May I enthusiastically welcome the enhanced role for the United Nations, particularly the excellent choice for its new Secretary-General? My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that contributions to the main United Nations budget have not in the past always been paid on time or in full, even by members of the Security Council. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the additional funds

27
that the United Nations needs to carry out these increased responsibilities will be provided by the members of the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: I cannot answer for other members of the United Nations, but in our meeting last week I certainly drew attention to the necessity for ensuring that the United Nations had the right financial and material aid to complete the tasks that we have set it.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that the Government make a large contribution to the UN development agencies, but he must be aware that our contribution has been cut by 38 per cent. since 1979. What would happen if other advanced nations did the same? When do the Government expect to meet the target for overseas aid of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product?
The Prime Minister: Before the hon. Gentleman lectures me about the 0·7 per cent. commitment, he should bear in mind that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that that is an aspiration and not a commitment. There is no indication that the Labour party would meet it.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although I welcome the economic measures to assist the Soviet Union—granted, as he rightly says, because of the courage of President Yeltsin in implementing his reforms—the other side of the coin is that it would have been a terrible mistake if we had jumped the gun and granted the assistance before the reforms were implemented? It is unlikely that Boris Yeltsin would be implementing those reforms if we had jumped the gun, as the Opposition wanted.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The important fact is that President Yeltsin is there now, and we have an obligation to assist him; it is in our own interests to do so.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is not one of the most serious threats to stability and peace in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union the presence of large minorities within the new states that do not necessarily recognise those states? I realise the major problem of recognising new borders, but did the members of the Security Council discuss new machinery or initiatives to deal with those potentially tremendous conflicts? Yugoslavia was the most extreme case, but there are many other examples that could threaten stability in central and eastern Europe.
The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the potential causes of instability, but that was not the subject of our discussion last Friday and it was not discussed other than in the margins of the meeting.
Mr. Michael Mates: May I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he has agreed to President Yeltsin's request to send advisers to help the Russians with the traumatic changes that they must make to their armed forces as a result of the change in the situation? Will he instruct them to explore further the possibility of greater co-operation so
28
that we can work, train and perhaps exercise with the Russian forces? It is becoming clear, day by day, that our interests and theirs are growing more and more together in our determination to achieve stability in the new Europe.
The Prime Minister: We are content to explore any and all of those matters; indeed, a number of them have been the subject of detailed discussion. We have agreed in principle on some completely new ideas of co-operation between Britain and the Russian defence ministries and the armed forces, in particular on the handling of military budgets, co-ordination between military and civilians, accountability to Parliaments and such matters.
On the safe disposal of nuclear weapons—a critically important matter to the House and elsewhere—NATO made a general offer of co-operation in December. I again offered our bilateral co-operation to President Yeltsin last week, and we are prepared to make United Kingdom expertise available to the Russians.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Prime Minister rightly emphasised the question of non-proliferation. Why, therefore, does he continue his nuclear fatalism through his pursuit of the Trident programme, which increases the number of nuclear warheads on Polaris from 192 to 512? He may wish to confirm or deny those figures. How does that set an example to countries that he wishes to discourage from adopting nuclear deterrence? If he believes in friendship and partnership, at whom will we be pointing the Trident warheads?
The Prime Minister: I dealt with the first part of the hon. Lady's question in reply to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). She will recall that Britain halved its sub-strategic nuclear weaponry only last year.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is it not clear that the welcome improved prospects for an effective United Nations are due to the Soviet Union's abandonment in the late 1980s of the aim of intimidating western Europe into submission and expanding its power generally? Was not that change in turn due to a realisation by the Soviet Government that the Governments of western countries, particularly the British Government, were not going to adopt a policy of one-sided nuclear disarmament, despite the urgings of Opposition Members?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's analysis on that point. I think that the right decisions were taken in recent years on the deployment of cruise and other nuclear matters, and we are now seeing the benefit of that.
Mr. Chris Mullin: How can the Prime Minister possibly justify spending £23,000 million in capital and maintenance on a missile system which does not work properly, which does not deter, which is not independent and against whom there is now no one to target it?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept the figure, I do not accept the analysis, and I do not accept the premise.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most important subjects on which he obviously made so much progress with President Yeltsin was that of non-proliferation? Can he tell the House a little more about any plans that he and the Government may have to recruit or to find peaceful

29
employment for some of the rocket scientists and nuclear experts of Russia and, perhaps, even of the Ukraine? It seems to many of us that that would be one way to limit the spread of nuclear know-how which could be one of the longer term dangers of the issue.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I discussed the question of the nuclear scientists with President Yeltsin last Thursday. He has put forward some interesting ideas for international centres to redeploy nuclear scientists on civilian work. We have agreed to examine that with him and to see in what way the United Kingdom and other countries can help Russia and the other republics in the Commonwealth of Independent States to use the talents of their nuclear scientists for peaceful purposes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister rule out United Nations military action against Libya?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the vast quantity of surplus conventional and chemical weaponry held by the former Soviet Union states? Did he attempt to get undertakings from President Yeltsin that he would use his best endeavours to ensure that they resist the temptation to sell that weaponry to unreliable states in the middle east and elsewhere?
The Prime Minister: I am able to say to my right hon. Friend that I raised that matter with President Yeltsin very forcibly indeed.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I am sure that the House will agree that the United Nations' enhanced role in the issues that the Prime Minister has mentioned will be most welcome. However. as that role will need to be funded, does he support the Government's policy of cutting aid to the United Nations development agencies by 38 per cent. since 1979? Does not he think that we are a bad example to tell people to act through the United Nations when we as a Government have failed to do so?
The Prime Minister: We have been one of the foremost supporters of the United Nations, and the Government have played the prime role in enhancing the position of the United Nations in the past few years.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust leadership of the United Nations last week. Was he able to discuss with President Yeltsin the problems of the old Soviet bureaucracy in Russia and the way in which it is inhibiting the ability of the people of Russia to receive the aid that they deserve? Will he consider setting up in Moscow a unit composed of people from British industry, from the British Government and from the British-Soviet Chamber of Commerce to try to help the Russians receive the aid that is being held from them by the stupidity of their bureaucracy?
The Prime Minister: One of the principal difficulties faced by the Russians at present is that they have no effective distribution system whatsoever to deal with the aid that is available to them. That distribution system fails at the bureaucratic level and in terms of the direct transport available. That is a matter of discussion between
30
the Russians and the European Community at present, and the Community has stated its willingness and ability to assist.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his answer on nuclear tests? Does he realise that, statistically, the one test a year that Britain carries out is not sufficient to verify that our bombs would work if, tragically, they were ever to be used? However, one test a year causes major increases in radiation and problems of cancer. The Prime Minister's answer is wholly illogical, as he would say that if there were one nuclear weapon left in the world there should be tests. Is it not time that we followed the Russians and went for a permanent test ban for all weapons?
The Prime Minister: I do not feel inclined to reconsider my earlier answer. It is necessary to have a minimum level of testing, which is precisely what we have. We test for safety reasons, and it is right that we do so. We will continue to do so.
Sir Peter Hordern: Given the scale of the problem both in the size of the capital required and in the need to stabilise the rouble, does my right hon. Friend agree that the International Monetary Fund is by far the best body to deal with the problems? How soon can Russia become a member of the IMF? Does it not to some extent depend on the willing co-operation of the United States? Is the IMF not far and away the best organisation to deal with such matters, given its long experience of dealing with the ravages of socialism?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the IMF is by far the best organisation to assist in the circumstances. I hope that Russia can become a member speedily—in any event, not later than April. I assure my hon. Friend that the United States also supports Russia's membership of the IMF.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the Prime Minister's decision to consider a stabilisation fund for the republics. That is a major and important development. What are his preliminary views on the conditionality that would have to apply to the republics if such a fund were set up?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. The conditionality must be determined in the light of the IMF discussions with the Russians when we shall have a clearer view of precisely what Russia's needs are and of the capacity that Russia has to meet its current problems. Although I am sure that there will be conditionality of some sort, I believe that it is necessary to move as comprehensively and as speedily as possible to provide the rouble stabilisation fund and possibly other assistance as well.
Sir Robert Rhodes James: During his discussions with the new Secretary-General and with President Yeltsin, did my right hon. Friend raise the importance for the future of the United Nations of the restoration of the idea and the reality of the true international civil service? That was contained in the charter and some of us endeavoured to fulfil it. It has been fulfilled by certain individuals, the most conspicuous of whom is my former colleague and assistant Mr. Piccu.

31
That ideal and reality, opposed so bitterly by the former Soviet Union, surely should be restored as a major part of the future of the United Nations.
The Prime Minister: I did not discuss that particular matter with the Secretary-General or with any of the other United Nations officials. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is an important matter, and I will take an opportunity to discuss it in the future.
Mr. David Winnick: Some of us will be able very shortly to assess the position for ourselves. For the immediate period and during the winter months, is it not essential for food to get into the shops and, whatever problems there are with distribution, for the west and the other developed countries to help? Should we not make it clear when we are in the former Soviet Union that aid from the developed countries is conditional only on two factors—no going back to any form of dictatorship, and no armed conflict between the republics?
The Prime Minister: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said on both points. The food aid—the humanitarian aid—which is necessary now is unconditional; there can be no question of conditionality for the food aid. A substantial amount of that has already been delivered. There is a good deal more which is in the pipeline committed by the European Community but which is not yet in Russia. It is intended that it will go to Moscow and Leningrad and beyond those two major cities.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Is it not the case that the present serious conventional and nuclear arms reductions have been brought about by the twin policies of determination and constant vigilance, especially in this country and through its Government? Is not the success of those policies the answer to those who sought in the past or who will seek in the future to undermine those policies and to question the value of the nuclear deterrent?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no necessity to add to what he has said.
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Prime Minister told the House that the new Secretary-General is conducting a review of the machinery of the United Nations. As the chairman of the meeting, does the right hon. Gentleman have any thoughts of his own about which current members of the Security Council should give up their permanent seats and which other countries that seek permanent seats should be given those seats?
The Prime Minister: I see no need for change at the moment.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his historic initiative and speech. Does he agree that the central theme that emerged from the meeting was that proactive diplomatic intervention is always preferable to reactive military intervention? If that is to be acheived, and if there is a hope for the United Nations in the future, does he agree that that hope lies not so much in building up a United Nations army as in finding a common political cause among the members of the Security Council?
The Prime Minister: I agree, without reservation, with what my hon. Friend has said. Proactive diplomatic intervention is precisely what we increasingly see as the role of the United Nations. I hope that the report from the new Secretary-General will lead us further in that direction.
Mr. Peter Shore: This was clearly a successful and possibly historic meeting of the Security Council, but I am sure that the Prime Minister will accept that it is time that deeds followed words in a number of relevant international commitments. Therefore, was anything said either in the Security Council itself or, more probably, in the margins about bringing the Uruguay round to a successful conclusion, upon which success so much of the world's economic prosperity rests?
The Prime Minister: Not in the meetings because that is not the purpose of the Security Council. However, in the margins and in the bilaterals in New York, the Uruguay round was the matter that was first discussed with President Bush and other leaders. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is more important at the moment than the successful and speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does the Prime Minister agree that certain historic inherited tensions and forces must be overcome in the former Soviet Union if the objectives that were agreed last week are to be achieved? By what means are the reforms, the democratic achievements and the other agreements that were reached last week to be measured and implemented?
The Prime Minister: They must be implemented by the Russian Government and the Governments of the republics, but the framework of the economic reforms will no doubt be set by the International Monetary Fund in the report that it will submit before making available the loans that I expect to be made available. Once an IMF programme is in place, it is monitored by the International Monetary Fund.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when he refused to answer an earlier question about Britain scabbing on its contributions to the United Nations fund to the tune of about $8 million, he was no different from somebody who refuses to pay the poll tax? Is it not ironic that, when Britain holds the chair of the United Nations, Britain is not up to date with its subs? Is it any wonder then that, despite not having nuclear power, Japan and Germany look like taking the United Kingdom's seat at the United Nations Security Council? What state have we reached when, after 13 years of Tory Government, Germany and Japan are pushing us out of the Security Council? What a sorry state we have reached.
The Prime Minister: We can always rely on the hon. Gentleman for a little light relief. We can rely on him also to sink below any occasion, as he has yet again this afternoon. No one is pushing the United Kingdom out of its Security Council seat, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who appeared to suggest that that might be desirable.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome especially my right hon. Friend's commitment to a reinforced effort on the part of the United Nations in peacekeeping and peacemaking. In that regard, did my

33
right hon. Friend have the time, either in the margins or in bilateral meetings with his United States and French counterparts, to discuss progress in sending peacekeeping troops to Yugoslavia? Is there any prospect of that being acceptable in the Serb-dominated areas of Croatia?
The Prime Minister: No, that subject was not for discussion in New York on Friday, although it is under constant discussion among my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, his fellow Foreign Ministers in the European Community and the United Nations.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: On Russia's debt obligations, will the Prime Minister respond to the urgent pleas in private of President Yeltsin's advisers and consider the suspension of interest payments, at least in the short term? What is the point in giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other?
The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Paris Club, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is best discussed there.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: In addition to the important issues of world citizenship and Government-to-Government relations, will my right hon. Friend consider, in recognising the 100 or so administrative regions within Russia, that it might help to get delegations from the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and local government at both officer and councillor levels to have seminars in Russia so that people can start breaking down the bureaucracy and make the system better able to deliver what is now needed there?
The Prime Minister: As ever, my hon. Friend has produced an intriguing idea.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the conditions of the export credit facilities? There seems to be a widely held view that, if the current conditions are maintained, Russia and the other former Soviet republics will not be able to take advantage of those facilities. It is obvious, too, that if the former republics are to revive economically, those export credit facilities must be used soon.
The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a reason why I am pressing for such an early IMF entry and IMF facilities. In that way the export credit facilities can be available not just from this country but from the other western countries that broadly take the same view.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the important role of the International Monetary Fund. In the autumn there were talks leading to some progress that might be made on Russia becoming a member. Was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with President Yeltsin the problems of the Ukraine? The other republics are undoubtedly severely affected by any problems with the rouble. For them, too, a rouble stabilisation fund would have a significant impact.
The Prime Minister: There was no detailed discussion of the position in the Ukraine or other republics because there were sufficient matters to discuss on Russia itself. The subject was touched on generally, and I understand my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister believe that the imposition of massive food price rises and mass unemployment on the Russian people, together with his statement that we will spend £23 billion on the Trident missile system, represents anything but a backward step in a world that is already bitterly divided between north and south? What we need are economic and arms strategies that bring world justice and world peace. Do his policies do any of those things?
The Prime Minister: I believe that we are making progress, and so does President Yeltsin. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman dissents.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to tell President Yeltsin that in 1984 he was a member of the Government's Whips Office urging Conservative Members to vote for the deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles, which resulted in the end of the cold war, a major reduction in nuclear weapons and the election of President Yeltsin? Perhaps that does credit to my right hon. Friend's judgment.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is very ingenious. I did not mention that particular point. Had I done so, I could also have mentioned that some cruise missiles were stationed in my constituency.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I say how much we welcome the death-bed conversion of the Conservative Government to supporting the United Nations—something that we have done consistently? Will he direct himself to answering the question put to him several times this afternoon: how much money does the United Kingdom Government owe to the United Nations? Is it true that the United States owes hundreds of millions of dollars?
On a personal note, may I say, sadly, that I do not care which country the Prime Minister visits so long as he does not come to Stamford Bridge.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's good humour has been improved by Chelsea's result at Liverpool. It would seem not.
I cannot answer for other countries' arrears to the United Nations, although on Friday I made the point that I hoped that all countries would meet their obligations to the United Nations—
Mr. Banks: What about this one?
The Prime Minister: —including this one; and we do.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend say more about the enormous numbers of chemical weapons held in Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union? Does he agree that their elimination and that of other such stockpiles around the world must be a prerequisite of proper progress in wider world disarmament?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of our agreements at the Security Council was to seek a comprehensive chemical weapons ban this year.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister recall that, five months before the start of the Gulf war, one of his Ministers, in an answer to me, refused to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspections of Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein

35
had signed the non-proliferation treaty? As such, the Government had full confidence that Saddam Hussein would not work on nuclear weapons. After that bitter experience, will the Prime Minister assure us that attempts to strengthen the IAEA safeguards will be real and serious and will remove the greatest danger that faces the world now—the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to countries ruled by people such as Saddam Hussein and other paranoid butchers?
The Prime Minister: I draw two lessons from what the hon. Gentleman said. First, at the moment, we are seeking to enhance the status of the IAEA, and, secondly, in view of the uncertainties that the hon. Gentleman set out, I believe he makes a very comprehensive case for this country keeping its own nuclear weapons.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Given the Prime Minister's stated commitment to improving the effectiveness of the United Nations and its agencies, when will Great Britain, once again, play a full and active part in UNESCO, bearing in mind the major reforms that have been carried out to that agency?
The Prime Minister: We play a full part in all the important aspects of the United Nations.
Mr. John Fraser: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that one of the greatest threats to the survival of President Yeltsin is the fact that people are cold and hungry. What practical help did the Prime Minister offer the Russian oil industry—we have great experience in oil production—to enable it to earn hard currency and distribute its products more efficiently to its own people?
The Prime Minister: On Thursday, we did not discuss the particular question of the Russian oil industry, but there will be continuing discussions between this country and Russia to determine which areas of its economy we can assist. The oil industry may be one of them. In the time available on Thursday, we dealt with macro matters rather than the position of individual industries.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is in order for the motion relating to the supplementary estimate for £450 million of unlawful expenditure, and the attached pledge to legislate to make that payment possible, to be on the Order Paper and considered by the House of Commons in any way?
The facts are clear and specific. The European Community's Council of Ministers has power to fix a budget and, of course, it has done that. The European Parliament has the power to increase that budget by a specified amount, specified by EC law, and it has done that. However, the European Parliament increased the budget even further, in breach of all EC legislation, as stated on page 8 of the estimate paper No. 182, published by the Treasury. The purpose of the supplementary estimate which we have been asked to consider is to provide the United Kingdom's share of that quite unlawful expenditure, which comes to £450 million.
I am aware that the House of Commons is all-powerful and can, by resolution, do almost anything it chooses. However, if, as in this case, the House is being invited to approve expenditure which is illegal under EC legislation, I suggest our powers simply do not exist. It was made abundantly clear in the treaty of Rome that EC law is superior to our law and that spending has to be in conformity with that law. I suggest that the United Kingdom Parliament has no power to consider this motion. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to authorise its removal from the House of Commons Order Paper forthwith.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one at a time.
I thank the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) for giving me notice of his point of order, because that has enabled me to look into it in great detail. The situation that he has described has happened before and has been dealt with in the same manner as is now proposed. The point was covered in the second report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee of the 1981–82 Session, in House of Commons Paper 226. The matter is fully debatable tomorrow, and I notice that the hon. Gentleman has already tabled an appropriate amendment. If, however, it were alleged that public money was being spent in a manner that was not in accordance with the law, that would be a matter for the courts.
Mr. Hain: As the custodian of Members' interests, would you, Mr. Speaker, institute an early inquiry into the disturbing spate of burglaries from Labour Members' computers for professional intelligence gathering? Could that also include possible intelligence services' and Conservative party supporters' involvement? If the Leader of the House can make public statements on the matter, why can he not make a statement before the House?
Mr. Speaker: I looked at that article in The Observer yesterday. Thefts reported to the Serjeant at Arms or the

37
police are always carefully investigated. If further incidents of theft have not been reported, I suggest that they be reported urgently to the House authorities. I understand that the alleged theft from the hon. Gentleman was not reported at the time.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was referred to, may I make it clear that the House authorities investigate all complaints about thefts and, in the majority of cases referred to in The Observer, some of which took place some time ago, no request was made for an investigation. It is not possible for me to have those matters investigated if no complaints were made at the time.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I was one of six hon. Members who reported thefts from their offices. The thief, who was a window cleaner, was interviewed at Bow street following traces that were put on my Vodaphone. It is remarkable —
Hon. Members: What is the point of order?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is appropriate to go into the method by which the culprit was apprehended.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is right that, when a thief is identified in the House of Commons, he should simply be given a police caution at Bow Street and not be charged. When I rang the police and complained, I was told that it was a matter of police discretion and their decision. Is that right? Is not the problem the fact that we do not prosecute? That is why we are not catching and dealing with the thieves.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no responsibility for the sentences in those cases.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Sessional Orders. Last Tuesday, Mrs. Banks drove me to the House of Commons so that I could vote. She then went off to do some parliamentary business and came back to collect me, and when we went back outside we found that Mrs. Banks's car had been towed away by the Metropolitan police. She now faces a fine of £80. In view of the fact that she was conveying a Member of Parliament on his legitimate business, will you, Mr. Speaker, offer some assurance to Mrs. Banks that she will also be protected by the Sessional Orders?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should have complained about that matter last week if it took place on Tuesday. However, it is a serious matter. The House knows that, on one or two occasions, there have been problems with cars left outside St. Stephen's entrance. In one case, we had to allow extra time on a Division because the car was not identified and it was thought that it might constitute a threat to us. Therefore, cars should not be left unattended at that place.
Mr. Banks: Mrs. Banks will not be happy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should you not consider the question of stolen disks and tapes with a little more concern, in view of the fact that, the last time a Labour Government looked like being returned to power, before 1974, it was later
38
disclosed through Peter Wright that the security agencies were engaged in trying to destabilise the prospective Labour Government? They continued to do so after a Labour Government had come to power. The matter should be approached with some zeal instead of being brushed off, albeit that some hon. Members may not have reported it to the police. In view of the spate of thefts of sensitive material, it is important that the matter should be investigated at the highest level, particularly as we face an impending general election.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need any more help on it.—[Interruption.] Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who raised the point of order, please listen? Such matters should be reported to the Serjeant at Arms and, if they are, will always be investigated. I have looked carefully at the allegations in the article, and the incidents involved were not always reported.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the answer given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to questions about Friday afternoon's business and the end of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, will the Speaker confirm that there is no convention or rule requiring any private Member's Bill introduced on a Friday to take up a minimum amount of time before it is put to the vote? That is a matter of concern not only to me, but has been raised by other colleagues. The Minister's answer implied that there was an established convention which meant that the matter could not be determined on Friday.
Mr. Speaker: It was a matter for the occupant of the Chair at the time.
Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that this is not a further point of order about disks.
Dr. Reid: It is, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that it will be helpful. I do not want to over-dramatise events, but there is obviously suspicion among Conservative Members that that matter has only just been raised. In my case, there were two reasons why the matter was not reported. First—
Mr. Nicholas Baker: It was top secret.
Dr. Reid: It was not top secret. I have nothing to hide on my computer—the hon. Gentleman may have.
The first reason was that, in my case, nothing was stolen, although it was obvious that someone had gained access to the computer.
Secondly, it was not until much later that it was obvious, not to me but to my researcher, that the incident was part of a pattern of events which was not obvious at the time. That pattern involved the theft of computer equipment and people gaining access not only to my computer, which does not have a lock, key or password, but to other computers that do. I hope that that explanation helps to show why, even though the incidents were not reported at the time, in retrospect, they may be far more significant than I or others realised.
Mr. Speaker: That may be, but I repeat that, if such incidents occur, they must be reported; otherwise, it is not possible to look into them.

BILL PRESENTED
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
  Mr. John MacGregor, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. David Mellor and Mr. Tim Renton presented a Bill to establish Boards of Trustees of the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the Wallace Collection; to transfer property to them and confer functions on them; to make new provision as to transfers to and between the collections of certain museums, galleries and libraries; to make provision for and in connection with the vesting of land in the governing bodies of such institutions; to make provision for the financing of such institutions and of the Museums and Galleries Commission; to make further provision with respect to the giving of indemnities against the loss of, or damage to, objections on loan to certain institutions; to change the name of, and to make further provision with respect to, the British Museum (Natural History); and to amend certain enactments relating to museums, galleries and libraries; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 63].

Nuclear Proliferation
4.33 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the potential dangers of the rapidly changing world order, welcomes the recent proposals for substantial reductions in nuclear weaponry, the growing support for the non-proliferation treaty and progress in the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions concerning the dismantling of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities; urges the Government to play their full part in helping the relevant authorities in the Commonwealth of Independent States to dismantle their nuclear devices, to safeguard their nuclear components and to discourage the proliferation of nuclear expertise; and believes it is of the first importance that Britain retains an effective and credible minimum nuclear deterrent as security in a world where there remain many sources of instability.
A year ago we were at war in the Gulf; victory was still a month away. It is a mark of the speed of events that Iraq, despite remaining unfinished business, should be succeeded so quickly by other more pressing items on the international agenda—the splintering apart of the Serbs and Croats, and the break up of the Yugoslav federation, with serious loss of life and destruction of property. Then there was the internal coup against the authority in the Soviet Union and President Gorbachev, leading to his retirement from the world stage. There was also the attempt at Maastricht, against the trend of these events, to create a federal union within the European Community; and the emergence of the state of Russia, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, as the dominant partner and major force in the Commonwealth of Independent States.
All these developments have occurred within less than 12 months. The world is showing a remarkable degree of volatility. That not everyone has come to terms with this is only too clear from the criticism of Mr. Yeltsin in recent days that he is "unpredictable". That criticism was renewed after his sudden two-day disappearance recently to deal with the question of the allegiance of the Black sea fleet and the future of the Crimea. When events themselves are so unpredictable, how can the men who seek to match them be otherwise?
Despite this succession of dramatic developments, we should not lose sight of the significance for collective security and for the future of the United Nations of the successful conduct and conclusion of the war against Iraq.
My first interest in politics was triggered by a sixth form conference organised under the auspices of the United Nations across Parliament square in Central hall. So the United Nations' existence over more than 40 years is almost contemporary with my own active life.
Inevitably, the United Nations had inherited from my father's generation a legacy of hopes betrayed by the League of Nations—a post-war, weary disbelief in the idea that international collaboration could ever be effective in practice. And during the United Nations' first four decades there was much to sustain that disbelief. The United Nations' responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security was often paralysed in the Security Council by the single Soviet syllable "nyet". The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation assumed responsibility for the defence of the free world, and the cold war set in.
With the emergence of Mr. Gorbachev and the new leadership of the then Soviet Union, a gradual political warming took place. For almost the first time, the

41
permanent members of the Security Council began to act in concert, and to great effect, notably in relation to the conflict between Iraq and Iran and the associated threat to international shipping, and in the long-running problem of Namibia.
This was the start of the process of change to which the Prime Minister's initiative on Friday at the Heads of Government meeting at the Security Council in New York has given renewed momentum. The perception of that meeting by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)— as a glorified photo opportunity—was a characteristic misjudgment, completely failing to see its significance in this context and once again failing to rise to the level of the challenge.
The earlier changes were the background to the remarkable reaction of the United Nations to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. The speed and resolution displayed by the Security Council gave real encouragement to long-dormant hopes of effective international action on security. But before we assume that that example was a firm safeguard for the future, we would do well to recognise the significant coincidence of national interests that made it possible—the skills of the professional diplomats notwithstanding. As one who saw at close quarters Anthony Parsons in action on the floor of the Security Council at the height of the Falklands conflict in 1982, I for one do not underrate the contributions made by our diplomats.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would return to the question of behaviour at the United Nations. Is he aware that, in the 40 years between the foundation of the United Nations and last year, more vetoes were put on Security Council decisions by Britain and the United States than by the Soviet Union and China?
Sir Michael Neubert: That was a sterile comment to make at the beginning of a debate about the United Nations' new role, new powers and new determination. The hon. Gentleman goes into a degree of detail about the history of the past 40 years which I do not intend to pursue. No doubt if he has the opportunity he will give us more of the same.
Four major factors came together in the Iraq conflict. The first was the invasion of a small, virtually defenceless country by its more powerful neighbour. The second was the threat to a large proportion of the world's oil, its principal source of energy and the lifeblood of the modern world. The third was the unbridled egomania of a military tyrant provoking comparisons with the dictators of the 1930s. The fourth, and the most relevant to today's debate, was the prospect of this man possessing long-range weapons of mass destruction.
All these were clear-cut issues on which world opinion was immediately ready to give a majority verdict. Each on its own raised issues of principle on which legitimate action could be justified without difficulty and which was by no means unique. Examples are so numerous as to be commonplace—the small change of international currency —and are seldom the subject of concerted action. The combination of all these factors persuaded the international community that this was a difference of character and not of degree. Moreover, the action that was taken by the United Nations was strictly limited by the governing
42
resolutions and the need to observe these if the 30-nation coalition was to remain intact and the sensibilities of the Arab people not to be offended.
As a result, for many people the task was left in part undone and the peace incomplete—hence the need, for example, for the Prime Minister to take the lead and in particular to undertake the safe havens initiative to protect the Kurdish minority in Iraq. There was no choice. If we were seeking to uphold the international rule of law, we had to observe the United Nations resolutions to the letter. As it was, the ceasefire resolution—Security Council resolution 687—required first the dismantling of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, then compensation for the victims of its aggression, the demarcation of the Iraqi-Kuwait border and the provision of humanitarian relief. That was an ambitious agenda, and it is significant that it is the proliferation factor—the removal of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological capability—that is proving difficult.
Repeated inspections under the auspices of the United Nations have met with Iraqi obstruction and concealment. It seems clear now that Iraq was much closer to achieving an explosive nuclear device than was previously supposed—perhaps only six or 12 months away. There was a massive, covert nuclear weapons programme under way, including the building of an industrial-scale centrifuge enrichment facility, yet this threat to world peace was only one of four factors that prompted international action. If Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, proliferation would have proceeded with all speed.
As a consequence of the work of the special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations must now maintain long-term surveillance and inspection to ensure that Iraq can never again have the capacity to threaten its neighbours with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Our Government must play, as they are playing, an important part in this, with the provision of technical expertise for inspection.
All our worst fears and apprehensions about Iraq were discovered to be fully justified, fortunately in time but only just in time. Much has been learnt about the difficulties of discerning between materials and equipment intended for military use and similar materials for civil use, given the compatibility of much civil and military nuclear development.
The threat of nuclear proliferation, however, is not confined to Iraq. India and Pakistan have significant facilities and nuclear programmes—an uneasy back-ground to the heightened tensions of the sub-continent. In another part of the world, Argentina and Brazil have made recent commitments to nuclear non-proliferation and to bringing all nuclear material in their territories under IAEA safeguards. These commitments are to be welcomed. North Korea and Israel are constant concerns. Algeria, in association with China, and Iran are further examples of countries that have developed nuclear facilities.
Potentially, the non-proliferation treaty can be effective, and the growing support for it is encouraging. However, the Iraq experience demonstrates that it needs strengthening. After all, Iraq was a party to the non-proliferation treaty. Powers of special inspections with minimum notice are essential. If agreements are found to have been breached, the Security Council can take action, as it did with Iraq.

43
This brings us back to the importance of the convening, by the Prime Minister, of the New York summit last Friday. That initiative betokens the clear intention to strengthen the United Nations, principally by providing the means for a more powerful peacekeeping role for the UN. There is also at least one specific British reference to strengthening controls against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in this case in biological warfare, to which the Prime Minister referred in his statement earlier today. New legislation will outlaw named biological agents and toxins as a means of controlling the export of materials that could be misused for military purposes. The post-summit communiqué also extended the UN's role in preventing the spread of technology on nuclear weapons.
The summit was remarkable also for the first appearance at it of President Yeltsin, who has assumed the Soviet Union's former seat on the Security Council and declared himself dedicated to the dismantling of the totalitarian order. History has never seen such a spectacular dissolution of an empire as has happened with the break up of the Soviet Union within the past few months. After all, it occupied one sixth of the world's land surface and breaking it entailed the sundering of no fewer than 16 socialist republics.
It is here that the most acute and extraordinary issues of nuclear proliferation arise. The vast arsenal of Soviet nuclear weapons had to be brought under new arrangements for command and control. Agreement was reached at Minsk on 30 December that President Yeltsin would be the one to be empowered to use nuclear weapons, subject to the agreement of the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine and following consultation with the heads of the other nations in the Commonwealth of Independent States. Given the capacity of that nuclear arsenal to destroy the whole world many times over, it is a remarkably precarious arrangement and, with memories of Chernobyl, not entirely reassuring.
It is imperative that the Government afford all possible assistance to the new independent states in dismantling nuclear weapons—a huge task in itself and likely to take many years—safeguarding the components from falling into the wrong hands and providing alternative livelihoods for redundant nuclear physicists and engineers who would otherwise be a tempting prospect for would-be Saddam Husseins attempting a short cut to nuclear capability.
These are all practical technical measures, but in the political and diplomatic sphere we must also press all the former Soviet republics to join the non-proliferation treaty as soon as they can meet that treaty's obligations. Ten have already joined the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. These and other moves will bring the newly independent republics within the family of western nations, and are welcome. They are the best way to avoid dangerous imbalances of power developing. The European Community must also widen its horizons to take in these newcomers rather than drawing closer and closer into itself.
In the interim, as these processes continue, there will inevitably be instability. In these circumstances, the people of the United Kingdom need a sure defence against all eventualities. That sure defence must include the possession of an independent nuclear deterrent. President
44
Bush and President Yeltsin have made announcements of substantial reductions in nuclear weapons. That is obviously good news, and further evidence of reducing tensions and the end of the cold war. However, it is no reason for us to abandon our strategic deterrent. That remains the ultimate safeguard of our national security. The world remains far too dangerous a place for us to think of relinquishing our plans for the Trident submarine-based deterrent.
We cannot know what future threats may develop. Twice in the past 10 years the unexpected has happened. As always, it is better to be safe than sorry. The admission that Soviet missiles have been targeted on our cities demonstrates the validity of the nuclear argument since the war. These armaments are now to be scaled down by the United States and Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, but these are reductions in degree by the two major super-powers. We were never in that league. As an illustration of this, I point out that the proposed arms cuts by the United States alone will save $50 billion—a nice round figure. The sterling equivalent is £27·8 billion—more than our defence budget in total. Even with the most recent cuts announced, the United Kingdom's nuclear arsenal will be only about one fifteenth the size of that of the United States or Russia. If we are to be safe rather than sorry, we must retain our minimum nuclear deterrent. With the evidence of potential proliferation and with unstable characters like Saddam Hussein and General Gaddafi on the world scene, it would be folly to do otherwise.
If deterrence is to be effective, it must also be credible. That is why we are planning a four-boat Trident force to replace a four-boat Polaris force. The fourth boat provides the indispensable assurance that over the lifetime of the force, extending well into the next century, there will always be one boat on station at all times, day and night, deep beneath the sea, invulnerable to pre-emptive attack. The first of these boats—Vanguard—is due to make its appearance at the end of this month. It will carry 16 missiles, each capable of carrying a maximum of eight warheads, and will be followed by the second and third of its class.
But what of the fourth, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government? Its future would be, to say the least, uncertain. But "uncertain" describes the defence policy generally that we would see under a Labour Government. Although the Labour party has already lost at least one general election in large part because of its lack of commitment to a sound defence policy, and although it may attempt to profess otherwise this time—perhaps even this afternoon—its underlying unsoundness in respect of defence has not changed. Its instinct remains anti-military, anti-nuclear and anti-American.
Whereas our Secretary of State for Defence ranks eighth in the Cabinet, the Opposition's spokesman on defence did not even rank election to the bottom place in the shadow Cabinet. Who are the officers of the Labour Back-Bench defence committee, and where are they this afternoon? The chairman of that committee is the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), and the vice-chairmen are the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). What do these three have in common? They are all members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. But what is surprising about that? The CND is an organisation that, until very recently, had the support and membership of the Leader of Her

45
Majesty's Opposition, of his wife and of an estimated 130 members of the parliamentary Labour party, which totals not much more than twice that number. It seems, therefore, that Back-Bench officers are entirely representative of the parliamentary Labour party as a whole. We shall be interested to hear their contributions to this debate.
Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend will know that the Labour party's Back-Bench defence committee is elected on the basis of a free vote. Does he agree that were the Labour party to have a free vote on this issue its members would again support CND?
Sir Michael Neubert: It would be extremely interesting if members of the Labour party were allowed to vote at all, let alone vote freely, on a defence matter. They avoid the issue by failing to go into the Lobbies. The honest 28 not only state their differences but are prepared to back them by opposing the Government and their own party.
At its conferences the Labour party regularly votes for a defence budget reduction of £6 billion. That is the saving which would result from abolition of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—which one, the party never says. That being the case, anybody concerned for the nation's defence, for the maintenance of conventional forces adequate to meet any likely eventuality, and all those employed in defence manufacturing industries can have no confidence at all in the prospect of a Labour Government.
The Opposition can certainly claim no credit for the extraordinary events of recent years, which have liberated communist-controlled countries across Europe. As we were reminded only this weekend through documents apparently found in the archives of the Kremlin, the Labour party opposed the deployment of cruise missiles with all the strength that it and its CND friends could muster. Yet it was this crucial trial of strength, when the west stood firm, that brought the Soviets to the negotiating table and precipitated the process that created today's new freedoms and resulted in the collapse of socialism.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman point to anything—any so-called revelation—in these Kremlin documents that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was not saying in the House of Commons at the time?
Sir Michael Neubert: The papers found in the Kremlin simply confirm views that are sometimes known to be held but are very often disowned and are certainly not professed with great conviction in this House or elsewhere.
The ambiguity of the Labour party's position on defence has been evident to the British people for many years, and it remains today. If the Labour party had been in power at the time to which I refer, we should have long ago laid down vital arms. A Labour Government would have left us virtually defenceless in the face of the force of the Warsaw pact. In recent days the German Defence Minister, Dr. Stoltenberg, revealed that the Warsaw pact was not a defensive alliance like the North Atlantic. Treaty Organisation but had an active plan of attack and had even minted war medals. That danger is now past. How can the Labour party and its fellow unilateral disarmers sleep with their consciences?
There are now new dangers, to which my motion draws attention. Our minimum nuclear deterrent remains the essential safeguard for our independent future. Only the
46
Conservative Government have the necessary conviction and commitment to ensure the nation's defence at all time and in all circumstances. The British people and the House of Commons can rely on them.
4.55 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has raised a most important question—in some respects, the most important question arising from recent events in Europe and in the world. Although I disagree very strongly with some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said and with some of his recommendations, I am of the opinion that it is good for the House to have an opportunity to discuss these matters. Indeed, the House of Commons is probably the best place for such discussions.
I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Iraq. He has underlined the danger that was created for the entire world by the supply of arms to Iraq, which was helped to come close to becoming a nuclear power. I am not sure how close the country came to achieving nuclear status, but I have to say that second only to the dangers involved in the indiscriminate proliferation of nuclear weapons was the horror that the world recently inflicted upon itself by way of the well nigh indiscriminate supply of arms to countries such as Iraq. That was an altogether disgraceful affair, and various Governments throughout the world should bear some of the blame for it.
I am sorry to say that the British Government cannot be acquitted of any fault in this matter. Indeed, the question of the supply of guns and other equipment to Iraq has not yet been resolved, and the Government have demonstrated no eagerness to resolve it. There is no doubt that, up to about a month before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, supplies that might have been of assistance in the acquisition of a nuclear arms capability, and certainly were of assistance in establishing the country as a major military power in the near east, were going to Iraq. In this regard, the British Government do not have a clean record.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), has to say when he replies for the Government. Up to almost the day before the invasion of Kuwait, the Government strengthened Iraq's ability to inflict such horrors on other peoples and, indeed, on its own people. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will comment on that matter, and I hope that, in future, the Government will demonstrate some understanding of the fact that this is a question not merely of dealing with the proliferation of nuclear weapons—a matter to which I shall come in a moment—but also of whether we are now prepared to embark upon a new policy for the protection of the world against the proliferation of weapons that, while not quite as dangerous as nuclear weapons, are capable of inflicting appalling disasters on the world and appalling injury in some countries that suffer grinding poverty as a result of having the weight of armaments imposed upon them.
Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, when the Iraqis gassed some 5,000 people at Halabja, the British Government's response was to double the credit available to Iraq.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point, and I hope that the Government feel some contrition.
I trust that the Government do not need my next warning, but one can never tell. In view of the common revulsion that was felt throughout the country and the world at the policies pursued by Iraq against the Kurds and others, I hope that there will be no rush to support Iran, as if that is the way to protect the situation.
The Iranian Government's human rights record is as bad as that of the Iraqis. It is worse in some respects, and that continues. The horrors committed year after year, month after month, and almost day after day in Iran are appalling for the world to see. I hope there will be no less strict a refusal to rebuild Iranian military strength than there should previously have been in respect of Iraq.
I know that there was some conflict as to which side Britain should support in the Iran-Iraq war. The British Government made many mistakes at that time, and on the whole supported Iraq against Iran. The Governments of both countries—and many others too—have barbaric human rights records, and committed appalling offences against common decency throughout the world. They continue to threaten our own citizens with death, and even to carry out death penalties against them. I hope that the Government will stress that we must refuse to make any concessions to Iran in the new situation.
Iran, in common with other countries, is seeking to become something of a nuclear power. I hope that that prospect will terrify people sufficiently when they even contemplate it.
The hon. Member for Romford referred also to events on the Indian subcontinent, where nuclear proliferation is one of the most dangerous aspects of the world situation. I was on the Indian subcontinent a few years ago, and again recently. There has been a serious deterioration over the past two or three years in the assessment of what can be done about nuclear proliferation on the Indian subcontinent.
At present, as the Minister knows, the Indian Government do not want to subscribe to any proposed non-proliferation treaty, believing that it would inhibit their rights or possibilities in comparison with Pakistan. When I was in India four years ago and saw Rajiv Gandhi when he was Prime Minister, his main message—which I was to carry back to this country and to convey to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—was, "You must understand the danger of nuclear proliferation and of the nuclear build-up in Pakistan."
He asserted that proliferation was supported by the Americans, and to some extent by the British Government. He warned, "If that is allowed to continue in Pakistan, we will be unable to resist the pressure to match it in India." The same argument is made by people in this country, when they say that Britain must have nuclear weapons to protect itself—and it is used also on the Indian subcontinent today.
If the Indian Government feel unable to back to the full, even in the new situation, a non-proliferation treaty, I hope that we will be able to use British, American, and United Nations diplomacy to overcome that. The United Nations may be able to exert the greatest influence on the Indian subcontinent, and I hope that we will be able to use all its strengths to ensure that the appalling disaster of a nuclear arms race on that Indian subcontinent does not develop. What could be madder than that? India ought to
48
spend the huge sums that would be diverted to a nuclear capability on relieving poverty and all the other evils in that country.
A special effort should be made by the British Government, who still command some credit with both Pakistan and India, to avoid a new arms race in those countries. If the Government are to have any chance of achieving that, they must consider fresh initiatives.
Despite the strength of the argument made by the hon. Member for Romford, it is no use thinking that we can say to Pakistan and India, "You should give up any idea of becoming nuclear powers—but you cannot take a lesson from us, because we are determined to remain a nuclear power whatever happens." It seems that, whatever develops over the next decade or so, the British Government and the motion of the hon. Member for Romford make it clear that we will remain a nuclear power.
If we continue to say that, the Pakistanis and the Indians will not listen to us very carefully. Why should they? They can argue, "If it is such a good form of defence, we will have it too. We will take the lesson from your Defence Ministers." If that happens, the arms race will be on.
The Indian Government are responsible; they are not in the same category as the others that I mentioned in Iran or Iraq—although they may not always show it—in the way that they let off many terrorists, or guide and support terrorist activities in many parts of the continent.
I hope that a tremendous effort will be made to ensure that Britain will use its influence. I do not suggest that we can change our own nuclear policy immediately, but if we are effectively to implement a full policy for stopping nuclear proliferation, we must be prepared to consider our contribution to that process.
Mr. Mans: Why would it be impossible to convince Pakistan, for example, to give up its nuclear weapons unless we do the same? For decades, the right hon. Gentleman has used precisely that argument to encourage Britain to give up its nuclear weapons while other nations retain theirs.
Mr. Foot: It is difficult to persuade any country to surrender its nuclear capability when Britain argues that it is the only defence. It is not. On several occasions in the history of the world British Governments have taken a different and wider view than the hon. Gentleman, who merely says, "Let us go on reiterating the policy that we have followed for years—and whatever happens in Pakistan or India does not make any difference, because proliferation will continue."
The motion of the hon. Member for Romford refers to the non-proliferation treaty. The British Government, rightly, were a strong supporter of that treaty, and claim to be a strong supporter of it still. It is right that we should support that treaty, which bears the signatures of more than 100 nations, and which is the basis on which something bigger can be built.
There would, however, have been no conceivable possibility of such a nuclear non-proliferation treaty had it not been for the preamble, which stated that the aim of all signatories should be the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. Had it not been for that, nations would not have signed the treaty, or urged others to sign it. Now, people are saying, "We should not worry about the preamble."

49
When I went to see the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who helped to overthrow the previous Prime Minister—I shall always remember that wonderful speech he made—he did not seem to understand or accept the fact that the treaty required its signatories to aim for eventual abolition; but that is only common sense.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Worthy though the preamble may be, the reality—as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier—is that some of the countries, such as India, that are now striving to obtain nuclear weapons are not responsible countries. Irresponsible countries will not respond to leadership or example from us, whatever we do. Unless we have some means of deterring such countries from attacking not only us but their innocent neighbours, there will be nothing to restrain the whirlwind.
Mr. Foot: That is the gospel of despair. If such a doctrine is adopted by our country and our Government, there will be no possibility of ending the nuclear arms race. We should be much wiser than that—particularly at what we all understand to be a new moment in history. I am just about the only hon. Member who was present at the 1945 San Francisco conference: I was there as a journalist. That, too, marked a new moment in history. We were trying then to establish a more powerful United Nations, which could wield real political authority in such circumstances. The Labour Government of the day, incidentally, wanted to go a good deal further than the other Governments.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most positive step that the Government could take to prevent nuclear proliferation would be to agree to a comprehensive test ban treaty? When the Prime Minister was asked about that today, he retorted that we needed to improve our weapons. He does not appear to grasp the fact that, if such a treaty were signed, other countries—unless they were given nuclear weapons—would be in no position to develop such weapons secretly. A comprehensive test ban treaty represents one of the most fundamental assets in the prevention of proliferation.
Mr. Foot: I entirely agree. That is one of the biggest gaps in what the Government are now saying. A test ban treaty is one of the means whereby we might secure the more general agreement for which we are aiming. Conservative Members have said that that is impossible, but there have been occasions in post-war history when the world has been more ambitious—for instance, in 1945 and 1946, when we were only beginning to discover the implications of developing atomic weapons. Proposals were advanced from the other side of the Atlantic—admittedly, they were recognised to be one-sided, in that they were not fair to the Soviet Union—for international control of such weapons. Full-scale international control would have been possible if our attitude then had been more forthcoming.
Conservative Members say that people will not listen, and that there is no possibility of persuading them. Some advantages have come about as a result of what has already been happening in the world: for instance, the means of inspection are far better than they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago, when the arms race was at its height, and I have no doubt that they could be developed still further.
50
Moreover, I understand that President Yeltsin himself has issued fresh proposals for full-scale international ownership and control of all nuclear weapons. Such developments were proposed in 1945, and have been proposed on other occasions.
Over the past few weeks, I have heard people talk as though there had never been agreements in the past between the west and the Soviet Union. Of course there have been such agreements; sometimes they were in the interests of the Soviet Union as well.
United Nations resolution 242, for example, still represents the best way of dealing with the middle east crisis. A Labour Government suggested the resolution, which won the support of both the United States and the Soviet Union. So far-seeing was that proposal—advanced in 1967—that it is still seen as the best and fairest way of approaching a middle east settlement. If we set our sights higher, better agreements can be secured; and there can have been no more important occasion for such agreements than the present time.
I have a close connection with many of the controversial events recorded in the most recent edition of The Sunday Times. The way in which it recorded them constitutes one of the most shameful acts that I can remember a journalist perpetrating, and that is saying something. Even the editor seems pretty ashamed—and if Mr. Andrew Neil is ashamed, or even partly ashamed, something very degrading must have been done.
It was suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and I were partially engaged in the shocking, terrible activities that the paper described. Let me say that, if I am to finish up as a red under the bed—if that is to be my last role in political life—there is no one whom I would rather find under that same bed than my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. For many years, he was regarded as the most powerful anti-Soviet warrior of the lot; the idea that he once yielded—cringed, even—to Soviet power is so absurd that not even Mr. Andrew Neil should have had the nerve to suggest it.
I vividly remember going with my right hon. Friend to Moscow in late 1982 or early 1983, when we had some discussions with the Soviet leaders. At that time, the Russians had put the SS20 missiles in place, and similar nuclear tactical weapons were either in place or being mobilised by the west. What we proposed then was very different from what is described in The Sunday Times. We proposed not only that both sides should make reductions in their stocks of nuclear tactical weapons—although, of course, we preferred that option to the option of piling them up, which was being suggested—but, better still, that all such weapons should be abolished, on both sides. In other words, we proposed the so-called zero option.
That proposal was not, however, accepted by the Russians. They put forward some of the same arguments that have been put to me in the debate by Conservative Members. They believed that the only credible defence was that which was based on nuclear weapons. We said that we should go for the zero option and abolish, first, all tactical nuclear weapons, and that later we might also be able to abolish the even more dangerous strategic nuclear weapons.
When we returned to London a few days later, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and I were furiously denunciated for having made such a scandalous proposal. We were called traitors, or whatever the popular

51
term at the time was. We were told that we had behaved scandalously in putting forward the zero option, but two or three days later President Reagan made a broadcast on this very subject in which he said that he was in favour of the zero option.
I went on television, or radio, and said that I was very glad that President Reagan had come round to our view. However, we were still denounced—I forget by whom but it was a junior Foreign Office Minister, the David Mellor of his day. He said that to adopt the zero option would be treachery. However, when President Reagan said that perhaps the zero option was the way forward, there was much more of a welcome for it.
My right hon. Friend and I were the very first to put forward the zero option. So far from it leading to disaster in the negotiations, it helped them forward. That is the true history, although I do not suppose that it would be published if it were to be unearthed in the Kremlin minutes. What is certain is that, if it were uncovered, it would not be published in The Sunday Times, The Sun or in any other such newspaper. That is why I believe that it is right to recite the facts in the House of Commons. The facts suggest that we are able to use our diplomatic strength and our position as a country with almost as good a record as that of most other countries to serve the peace of the world.
Recently, the Government have shown more enthusiasm for the United Nations. What infuriated India was that, time after time, we voted against proposals for test ban treaties and other treaties, as well as against disarmament and other proposals. Proposals that would have eased the situation were rejected time after time by the British Government, who used their veto, together with the Americans and a few others, or just said that they did not agree with the proposals.
The British Government used their veto not just against the test ban treaty proposal but against the first use of nuclear weapons and similar proposals. It is all on record. Time after time, the British Government voted, by a minority of one, two or three, in the United Nations against proposals put forward not by wicked communists from the Soviet Union—Mr. Gorbachev's predecessors—but by the Indians, the Yugoslavs—as they were then—and many neutral countries that had better ideas than ours throughout that terrible period of the cold war.
I am glad that the cold war has come to an end. Its end is one of the happiest developments in the history of mankind. However, when the Government try to pretend that its end is due to their policies on armaments and the rest, they insult the intelligence of most people who have looked at the facts, as well as the intelligence of all these other nations. They, too, have rights and claims. I know that some Conservative Members believe that the Indians and Pakistanis do not count because they may not yet have nuclear weapons. If India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons, I suppose that Conservative Members would respect them a little more.
We are entering a different world. We want a Government who will provide a new and much more ambitious programme for the United Nations as a whole. The most urgent of all those measures is the establishment of a new non-proliferation treaty, which the British Government must be prepared to sign and implement.
5.24 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has done the House a service in bringing before the House this unexceptionable motion. He moved it in a measured and well-considered way. I congratulate him on his felicitous drafting. One would expect no less from a former author of the annual blue revue at the Conservative party conference. He has honed his skills as a wordsmith in long, dedicated and effective service in the Ministry of Defence main building in Whitehall.
It is a timely debate which was admirably introduced. In particular, I liked my hon. Friend's phrase "political global warming" when he described the end of the cold war. The global warming process is held to offer potential risks: the break-up of the ice caps and rogue icebergs on shipping lanes. The phrase encapsulates the problems inherent in the ending of old certainties that endured throughout a long and very intense cold war.
Foremost among those uncertainties must be the question of nuclear proliferation. I would argue that this question should lead to a fundamental re-examination by the alliance of old assumptions and outdated defence strategies. It has already done so. However, any re-examination by the United Kingdom—the "Options for Change" exercise represents a preface to that process—must be founded on certain definite fixed principles: deterrence, defence and diplomacy.
Deterrence will continue to be vital in an uncertain world, as it was during the certain dangers of the cold war. For as far ahead as can be seen we shall need an effective, independent strategic nuclear deterrent. However, it will be, as the French chief of staff once described it, "A tous azimuts"—a multi-directional deterrent. The threat may not come, as it did in the past, from the Warsaw pact. It may lie elsewhere. It must, therefore, be an omni-directional deterrent. I am sure that the choice of Trident is as right now as it was when it was first made at the beginning of the 1980s.
I believe that we shall still need four strategic nuclear submarines—the SLBMs, the Trident boats. My hon. Friend was so right to emphasise that point. Trident will be the minimum effective system. At the same time, it is an ultimate system in a way that no other strategic deterrent can be. It is minimal, because there is total flexibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the selection of the number of warheads that will be deployed on the missiles. There is also a certain flexibility over the number of boats that will be on patrol.
There is geographic flexibility over the deployment of those boats, and to which oceans. For example, they might conceivably be deployed in the western Pacific if it were felt that China posed a threat to our interests rather than Russia, or any of the other Commonwealth of Independent States countries.
It should not be forgotten that we are making an investment for a generation. I believe that Trident will stand the test of time. I do not foresee Trident boats being vulnerable to interception; nor is it likely that a truly effective countermeasure to the multiple independently targeted warheads inherent in the Trident missile system will be devised.
A geographically mobile system that can be deployed to any ocean is a step forward for our people, compared with,

53
for example, the 1950s and 1960s when THOR medium-range ballistic missiles were based in Britain in a fixed and immobile way and targeted in only one direction.
We shall need graduated deterrence. To that end, it will be important to maintain a tactical element in our deterrent capability. The alliance is rightly destroying battlefield artillery. We are getting rid of our Lance short-range missiles, but we shall need something short of the ultimate deterrent of Trident. I support the Government's determination to keep a modern and credible air-launched deterrence system, which, for as far ahead as can be foreseen, will be Tornado. It is dual capable and, as such, is inherently flexible and, like Trident, with the aid of in-flight refuelling, it can be deployed rapidly to any part of the globe where it is needed. If a threat emerged from Iraq, Libya or Kazakhstan, Tornados equipped with stand-off weapons would be effective deterrents. To be effective, they must have that stand-off capability. The Gulf war showed how necessary it is to minimise our losses and to make it quite clear to the potential enemy that atomic warheads can be delivered. This is another aspect of the deterrent that we are seeking to maintain.
The deterrent must be tactical, mobile, flexible and dual-capable. I have no firm views on whether the missiles should be developed with the French or the Americans, but we shall need them. I am pleased that, so far at least, the Government have shown no intention of getting rid of that option.
More emphasis will be placed on defence in our security planning. It is an aspect that we have neglected in favour of offence in past decades. We shall need to enhance and improve confidence-building measures. I applaud the initiatives that are being taken by the Western European Union to persuade west Europeans to develop a surveillance satellite system that can give early warning of potential risks and conflict and of the build-up of chemical or nuclear armaments. I hope that the WEU will go ahead with the construction of such a satellite system a nd the associated data processing, that we shall play an important part in it and that we shall extend the hand of friendship to associates of WEU—the new democracies of central Europe such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the countries of eastern Europe such as Russia, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Such a confidence-building approach has much to commend it.
For the purposes of early warning and to sustain confidence and intelligence, we need to follow up the ideas mooted by President Bush and now by President Yeltsin of creating a space-based strategic defence system. It is hard to know how the world will look in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, but there will always be a risk of a rogue state's emerging, developing a nuclear potential and releasing a nuclear weapon. We will not necessarily wish to retaliate in kind, but if we are on the receiving end we will most certainly wish to intercept its missiles. "Global protection against limited strikes" and other missile defence concepts being developed in the United States should have the support of west Europeans and I hope that they, the Russians and other interested parties of goodwill will work together to make those concepts a reality.
We shall also need not only an umbrella over the top and confidence building, but point defence. We saw in the Gulf war how important the Patriot system was against Scud attacks. If one can imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end of a missile attack not only with
54
conventional warheads but nuclear or chemical warheads, one can comprehend the necessity of building effective point defences. Perhaps something like the Patriot is required. Lockheed is developing a theatre air defence missile system, and such systems will be necessary to ensure security so that in the event of a rogue attack we do not have to launch a dire nuclear retaliatory strike.
The third aspect of my remarks will be directed to diplomacy and constructive dialogue with potential adversaries to ensure that the right climate of understanding and goodwill is maintained. Collective security systems have stood the test of time in the post-war world—NATO above all, but also, for the duration of their existence, the Central Treaty Organisation in the middle east, the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation in the far east and the Western European Union in western Europe.
The United Kingdom should do everything within its power to strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of NATO. I particularly welcome the NATO co-operation council to bring into dialogue the countries of central and eastern Europe which belonged to the Warsaw pact. I also hope that the WEU will extend the hand of friendship in that direction.
We require not only collective security but a more effective United Nations. It was most encouraging to hear the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon. He reiterated his commitment, and that of the Security Council, to effective peacekeeping and, perhaps more importantly, to peacemaking by the United Nations. He welcomed, at least implicitly, the idea of a more intrusive inspection regime to back up confidence-building measures through reconnaissance satellites and signals intelligence with the proof which on-site verification can bring. I trust, too, that funds will not be lacking to enable the International Atomic Energy Agency to do its work on our behalf.
Last but not least in this process of diplomacy, we must ensure that potential tyrants and aggressors do not arm themselves with chemical and nuclear weapons or, above all, with the delivery systems required to further their ambitions by military means. Timely trade embargoes and measures taken early on by the United Nations to prevent potential aggressors acquiring nuclear missile technology and chemical weapons will be needed as never before.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said, it is a more hopeful world. I know that the old certainties have gone, but, please, let not the chancellories of the west look back with nostalgia to the cold war and the old east-west confrontation. The monolithic Soviet Union with its satellites system and Warsaw pact posed a far greater threat to our liberties than do the multitude of burgeoning democracies which are seeking economic development and greater prosperity for their peoples. I recognise the fact that such a world will be far harder to order, but the best balance of power will lie within the Commonwealth of Independent States. Georgia, Armenia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine do not have any desire for Russia to become over-mighty and expansionist.
We live in a more optimistic world and I am pleased with the initiatives that the Government are taking. We shall continue to need a forward-looking defence policy. I welcome the motion moved so ably by my hon. Friend who has alerted us all to the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
5.41 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: Like other hon. Members, I compliment the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) for introducing this timely motion. During the previous debate on nuclear defence, on a Government motion on 14 January, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said:
"I feel a sense of disappointment that there is nothing in the motion about how we might limit nuclear proliferation."—[Official Report, 14 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 851.]
This motion corrects that deficiency and allows us to respond more generally to the enormous changes in the former Soviet Union which present us with not only huge opportunities but large, tangible risks.
The situation requires us all to review our defence position and, likewise, our aid commitments. I think that whatever the result of the election, there will be a further defence review afterwards, but the urgency of aid brooks no delay and that was reflected in what the hon. Member for Romford and other hon. Members have said.
Time is very limited and I shall confine my remarks to five brief points. Hon. Members can say, "At least he is on his fourth point" and feel some relief. I was always told that to say, "Finally" and "In conclusion" several times was the thing to do because that encouraged optimism among one's listeners.
First, if one is interested in non-proliferation, one must surely deal with the question of the test ban treaty. We cannot get around that. I heard the Prime Minister say this afternoon that he has no intention of doing so, but it should go on record that my party—its members are here in spirit, at least, in great numbers—does not take that view. Indeed, many others believe that pressure for some agreement and the effective monitoring of it is essential.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Romford said, the monitoring of nuclear activity in Iraq was not especially successful, despite the fact that Iraq had signed the non-proliferation treaty. Despite the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, developments occurred about which we knew nothing. Therefore, it is essential to improve monitoring and to reach a situation in which the international authority can investigate where it wishes at will. I wonder what the Government's view is on that point, because it is an important one.
We must also consider how to co-operate in dealing with what might be described as the nuclear risk and the question of fissionable material coming from Iraq if it is recovered. That issue is of direct interest to my part of Scotland in view of the reprocessing which is done and has been done for many years at Dounreay in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Therefore, I take this opportunity to put it on record that in agreeing to help to deal with the Iraqi problem the Government took the right decision.
However, that was not the view of the Scottish National party, which is much in the news these days. On 8 October 1991, an article appeared in my local newspaper, the Inverness Courier, under the headline "SNP vows to stop Iraqi nuclear waste". It stated that the SNP candidate warned:
"The Scottish National Party would be prepared to use civil disobedience to stop Iraqi nuclear waste coming to the Highlands for reprocessing".
56
However, the candidate's mother went considerably further. She declared that reprocessing would go ahead only "over my dead body". I am not sure whether that is an extreme form of civil disobedience. I draw attention to it because, in view of the SNP's claims to international status, it is important to remind the SNP that international status involves international obligations.
Thirdly, it is estimated that in what was the Soviet Union there are about 5,000 atomic scientists who have sufficient knowledge to help in the development of nuclear weapons. As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, many other countries are anxious to obtain the expertise of those Soviet scientists, not only maverick countries such as Libya or Iraq, but India and others. I understand that President Yeltsin has proposed joint action between Russia and the United States with a view to a common star wars project which would have an effect on the whole world and which could be used to absorb all of those scientists. I hope that that plan goes ahead. If not, the Russians should not be too hesitant about using immigration procedures to prevent scientists leaving to go to such countries.
I remember being in the former Soviet Union a couple of years ago talking about the Jewish refuseniks. The line of the then Soviet Administration was to not let them out because they were security risks. In this case, the Soviet scientists leaving the country are a security risk not only for the Soviet Union but possibly for many other countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which has some force. However, I am sure that he will acknowledge that such controls could be used as a cover for denying exit visas to many people who do not pose the risk that he describes. We must be cautious about advocating such a course of action.
Sir Russell Johnston: I do not quarrel with that. Of course, such risks would exist. I am saying merely that it is terribly important for us to consider the possibility of scientists skilled in atomic matters leaving to go to countries which undoubtedly have plenty of money to attract them and which want their help in developing atomic weapons.
Fourthly, I rather disagree—in fact, I disagree—with what the hon. Member for Romford said about the integration of political and defence questions in Europe. It was one of the notable failures of the Maastricht conference in which the Government unfortunately played such a prominent part that we did not succeed in moving towards a common defence policy in the European Community. The proposition was in no way intended to undermine NATO—it was a question of making the European part of NATO function better. For example, the German Government deeply regret that failure, as I heard Gerhard Stoltenberg, the German Defence Minister to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, confirm in Bonn as recently as last Wednesday at a Western European Union meeting.
Sadly, one can already see the nationalist stand-off position adopted by this country finding an echo in the German public. It was uncovered by a recent opinion poll which showed that the Germans were moving in a

57
nationalist direction as well. I pray that we shall not look back on Maastricht as an enormous opportunity missed, although I fear that there is a danger that we may.
We shall have more co-operation through the Western European Union, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said. That will lead us inevitably to address the nuclear question both in this country and in France.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member far Fife, North-East said on 14 January:
"It would be morally indefensible to continue to deploy nuclear weapons if there was no justification for doing so. Nothing would be more reprehensible than to indulge in an intellectual scramble to create some ex post facto justification for weapons that it had already been decided to keep. The deployment of nuclear weapons can be justified only if it is appropriate to the risk."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 201, c. 852.]
I agree with that.
Hon. Members may remember that in the days of the Liberal-SDP alliance my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who was then leader of the Liberal party, and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who was then leader of the Social Democrat party, went to Paris to talk about whether there was a possibility of achieving some rationalisation between the French force de frappe and the British nuclear deterrent. I can remember more recently listening to the then French Defence Minister, Mr. Chevenement, arguing strongly for that because he was a great proponent. He wanted those two deterrents eventually to become a European deterrent. His enthusiasm for the idea was matched only by his failure to be specific about how that was to be achieved. Nevertheless, he was politically enthusiastic and we shall have to consider that proposition. It may be difficult, but it will have to be considered.
Fifthly, the Liberal Democrats accept a minimum deterrent even if, from the political and cost points of view, that suggests at some time ahead coming together with France in a European context. One must always keep that under review. We fail to understand why we should be committed to increasing our nuclear firepower with more nuclear heads on Trident than was the case with Polaris, especially when Trident is more accurate than Polaris.
I have not mentioned chemical and biological weapons, not from a lack of realisation of their great importance and of the enormous difficulty in monitoring them, but simply because of time pressures. The United Kingdom has, after all, a good record on chemical weapons about which we rightly speak. However, rather than claiming all the credit for the United Nations arms sales register, we should realise that it was proposed by Genscher on behalf of the Federal Republic in 1980 or 1981—certainly a decade ago.
I conclude by reiterating my view that, thanks to the hon. Member for Romford, this has been a useful debate at an important time. As an election is extremely near, it may also be the last occasion on which we hear a speech from the most compelling orator in the House whom I can remember and probably the most compelling orator in the post-war period. I refer to the right hon. Member Blaenau Gwent, whom I shall always think of as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. 1 salute him. I have often disagreed with him, but his rhetoric was always brilliant and sometimes savagely funny. I doubt whether the House has ever known a greater gentleman.
5.53 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on calling this debate, because it is extremely timely. We must consider two significant issues: first, the state of British public opinion and, secondly, our assessment of the threat.
There is a growing belief in this country that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we face no threat in the area of defence. That is exemplified by early-day motion 593, tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) among other left-wing luminaries. It calls on the Government, among other things, to
"respond by withdrawing Polaris and replacing the Trident programme with a programme of peaceful investment."
It is clear that Labour Members will push that superficially attractive line with all the enthusiasm that they have long put into the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and all its works. We must realise that siren message, which must be refuted.
A debate on the subject five years ago would have achieved a consensus of public opinion, which might not have included Labour Members. The threat was clear: it was from the Soviet Union, which had a capability of 27,000 nuclear warheads and the means of delivery. Today, things are different politically, but the successors of the Soviet Union still have that capacity. We should ask ourselves where the 27,000 warheads are. They are spread out across Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Byelorussia. They are only now going through the slow process of withdrawal to Russia and towards being dismantled.
We should ask ourselves who is in control of the vast nuclear array. The leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States agreed at their conference in Minsk on 30 December that the decision to use nuclear weapons would be taken by President Yeltsin with the agreement of the leaders of Byelorussia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and following consultation with the heads of the other member states of that commonwealth. How reassuring is that? It relies on the amity between the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the submission to authority by the military leaders.
The debate is especially timely because of the meeting tomorrow in Minsk between President Yeltsin, President Kravchuk and the other leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The auguries for that meeting and for the future are not good. Last week, President Yeltsin stood up the middle east peace conference and the Japanese Foreign Minister to fly to Novorossiysk to sort out Russo-Ukrainian disagreements over the Black sea fleet.
Ukraine's leader, Leonid Kravchuk, has been hard-line over the allegiance of the Black sea fleet, and he may take a similar line on nuclear weapons within his own territory. There have even been rumours of a blockade of the fleet at its base in Sevastopol unless it submits to Ukrainian control. It is worth remembering that Sevastopol was Russian until 1954 when the Crimea was administratively transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian. All that is a source of instability.
How stable is President Yeltsin himself? We read almost daily reports of indiscipline and even mutiny within the red army. We read reports of sales of supplies, equipment and even munitions by the men in that army. For how long will the red army put up with the crumbling

59
of its world and all it believes in? Last August, we saw a revolt by the old guard of the Communist party, a trembling, nervous coterie of boozers, who failed to have the nerve and efficiency to carry the coup to a successful conclusion. Who can doubt that in the high command of the Soviet armed forces there are officers who have both qualities? A real and coherent threat could rapidly re-emerge.
We are quite rightly doing everything possible to assist President Yeltsin. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described the considerable steps which this country is taking to assist. In defence, the Prime Minister has announced that we have agreed to co-operate on handling surplus Soviet nuclear weapons and safeguarding nuclear materials, and that we will send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend told us that this country has agreed to co-operate in other areas of defence, including on the transformation that is required to ensure the restructuring, control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. He has offered to second a small number of Ministry of Defence officials to the Russian Ministry of Defence.
It may be that a steady multilateral reduction in nuclear weapons will allow us to wind down our own independent minimum deterrent but, in the meantime, it would be absolute folly not to maintain that deterrent. We should be clear about what is meant by a "minimum nuclear deterrent." Unlike both the United States of America and the old USSR, Britain has consistently followed a policy of minimum nuclear deterrence. For that reason, the size of Britain's nuclear arsenal has never been related to the size of those of the super-powers. To do so would be to make a false analogy. This country's policy has been determined by one consideration alone—to possess the minimum number of warheads required to inflict unacceptable damage, in retaliation, upon any would-be nuclear aggressor. The definition of "minimum" must relate to need.
The prospective firepower capacity of Trident has come in for a good deal of unjustified criticism. It is misleading in the extreme to claim that, if Trident is a minimum nuclear deterrent, Polaris must be inadequate. Polaris is, indeed, adequate in 1992, but Trident is to be operative until well into the 21st century and, throughout its long shelf life, must be capable of deterring any aggression, especially nuclear. That is the reason for its having a greater firepower than that possessed by Polaris.
Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have unequivocally claimed that they support Trident, but do they? In a debate in the House on 14 January, the Labour party was invited unequivocally to support nuclear deterrence and the introduction of Trident. When it came to the vote, the vast bulk of Labour Members abstained on the orders of the party leadership, while a brave 28 hon. Members, led by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), voted with their consciences against nuclear deterrence and sound defence. Given that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) says that he is aiming for a majority of 20 seats after the next election, it is obvious that any future Labour Government would be held to ransom by the die-hard unilateralists who regard unilateral nuclear disarmament as an article of faith.
60
It was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield who claimed recently:
"if we can change our minds to win an election, we can change our minds back again afterwards".
We should be warned clearly by that statement. The likelihood of a robust and firm stand is in question when 17 members of the shadow Cabinet have anti-nuclear backgrounds, in a party with a notable unilateralist tradition. It is noteworthy that 75 per cent. of Labour Members standing for re-election have anti-nuclear or unilateralist backgrounds.
The message that must ring out from this House must be, "Stand firm and do not drop your guard, least of all against the background of the turbulent world that we have at present." One day we may reach a world in which multilateral disarmament achieves the total and absolute elimination of nuclear weapons. We must work towards that honourable goal, but in the meantime we must be prepared against any eventuality.
6.3 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to associate myself with the generous tribute that was paid by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I well recollect the afternoon when our mutual friend, the late Leslie Hale, who was at that time the Member of Parliament for Oldham and no mean orator himself, listed as one of his pleasures in the House of Commons for 30 years listening to the two right hon. Members for Ebbw Vale. I say no more on that subject other than to associate myself with those who have commented on the respect in which my right hon. Friend is held because of his contributions to Parliament.
I address myself simply to that part of the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) which
"urges the Government to play their full part in helping the relevant authorities in the Commonwealth of Independent States to dismantle their nuclear devices, to safeguard their nuclear components and to discourage … proliferation".
I have never been more concerned about nuclear matters as a champion of nuclear power than about the prospect that we now face of all those nuclear weapons—I do not know whether they number 27,000 or more and, more importantly, nor do the Russian authorities—being in the Soviet Union when the people who are supposed to maintain them are, so we are now told, going off to jobs in Iran or other parts of the middle east. Such being the bureaucracy of those places, I am informed that those people have not even told their successors of the location of the maintenance manuals. That constitutes a highly dangerous situation.
I should like to put a number of specific questions on this issue to the Foreign Office. The problems that were discussed recently in The Guardian article may be overstated, but we do not know of any technical reasons for a time limit on the safe dismantling of nuclear weapons and disposal of the materials. The sealed ampoules, which were referred to in the articles, may contain compounds of tritium, which has a half-life of approximately 12 years and is likely to require them to be refurbished in nuclear weapons from time to time.
As someone who is speaking in good faith and who has a general knowledge of nuclear physics and experience of handling radioactive materials in a civil nuclear

61
environment, I believe that that begs a question that concerns a number of serious people. I ask for a Foreign Office answer.
Secondly, in the event of an explosion of the conventional trigger mechanism during the dismantling of the weapons, it is extremely unlikely that a nuclear explosion would occur, but the conventional explosive mechanism could spread contamination, although its extent would be reasonably limited. That means that a few kilometers might be reasonable. As well as the spread of radioactive materials, toxic compounds such as beryllium would be a problem in such an event. If it is the view of the British authorities that there would be such a problem, what constructive help can we give?
Thirdly, we in Britain are not aware, as far as I know, whether suitable facilities exist for dismantling such a large number of weapons in the Soviet Union. The United States has a suitable plant at Plantex Amarillo in Texas, but whether the Russians have addressed that problem is deeply questionable. How can we ask them to dismantle weapons if they do not have the technical facilities to do so?
Fourthly, the west could provide assistance in dismantling the weapons by providing the necessary expertise or finance to allow the Russians to retain their existing experts. It is important to ask the Russians what is happening to their experts. If they are going off to the near east or leaving for other jobs so that they can keep their families—it is difficult to blame them at a human level—in the interests of humanity it is important that some of the maintenance engineers remain at their posts, looking after what they are charged to look after. Facilities such as Dounreay or Burghfield could play a part.
Fifthly, after the weapons are dismantled, the materials would have to be stored or processed. Both options involve risks of criticality incidents, radiation hazards for staff and the potential for the spread of radioactive contamination. Those problems are, however, well understood and can be avoided by the application of suitable controls. Are we doing anything to help to provide those suitable controls?
Sixthly, the disposal of the weapons should be subject to international safeguards, which should include verifiability via independent audits of the materials during storage or reprocessing to ensure that nothing is lost. My information is that a great deal may be lost—and that would be dire.
Seventhly, a high level of security will be required to protect the materials from terrorist activity. It is not only terrorist activity; it is the possibility of nuclear theft by people who are simply desperate to provide themselves with money to feed their family. This is an urgent, crying problem.
Eighthly, safeguards will be required to ensure that the dismantling and disposal processes are irreversible. What monitoring do we have?
Ninthly, since weapons are generally refurbished worldwide, experience of the technology required to dispose of the nuclear weapons material on this scale is limited, for obvious reasons. It is likely to be in demand as, for example, the Americans dismantled their weapons.
There appear to be no insurmountable difficulties in constructing facilities for the ultimate disposal of the weapons material. It should be possible to blend it with other materials to construct fuel for use in civil reactors. In this respect, highly enriched uranium can be blended with
62
natural uranium to make some reactor fuels into plutonium, which could be used in mixed oxide fuels. The question is whether we can use our fast reactors.
There are a number of hopeful signs. One is the honourable part that Scottish Nuclear is playing in solving the civil nuclear problems of the Soviet Union. Scottish Nuclear has a successful twinning exchange with Russia, which has been established between Smolensk and Torness. A continuing programme of technical exchanges is being developed. A protocol agreement between the two stations was signed in November 1991 which establishes an exchange of work experience between the two power stations, involving exchange visits by staff over a period of six months in 1992. A party of Torness staff spent a week in Smolensk during September 1991 and a return visit to Torness was made by Smolensk staff in November 1991. What do the Government intend to do to provide more resources and finance for such highly desirable exchanges?
Equally, with the Ukraine, contact has been established with a leading nuclear engineering institute in Kiev. Most urgent of all may be Bulgaria. The World Association of Nuclear Operators is exceedingly concerned about Kozlodui. John Hall, a Scottish Nuclear engineer from Hunterston on the outage assistance team there, has been asked to head up the section responsible for the requalification of units 1 and 2. The work performed by the WANO to improve operating standards at Kozlodui will be funded as part of an £8 million European Community aid package to the Bulgarian nuclear industry.
In partnership with the National Nuclear Corporation, Scottish Nuclear has agreed to provide technical assistance to the Energoproject, the Bulgarian nuclear design and construction organisation, for its nuclear programme. Together with matters relating to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, this is important work.
A long time ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent did me the honour of making me his science spokesman. I was never able to repay him because of a difficulty over some unrelated matter. As someone who for 30 years has followed scientific matters in the House of Commons, never have I spoken with more concern than I do about the stability of the 27,000-plus nuclear weapons that are floating around eastern Europe.
6.13 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I welcome the reduction in nuclear weapons agreed by the United States and the former Soviet Union. The debate, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), is most timely. The subject of the debate is the best ways of preventing nuclear proliferation.
Earlier the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) talked about reducing areas of instability, for example, on the Indian sub-continent. There is, indeed, tension between India and Pakistan. We should address its causes to see whether we can use our good offices to reduce that tension.
For decades one of the main bones of contention between India and Pakistan has been Kashmir. The United Nations resolution of 1949 that the people of Kashmir should have the right to their own self-determination is right, just and proper. What could be more democratically respectable than for the people of that unhappy land to have the say-so in their own future?

63
They should be given that right. If both countries agreed to go along with the will of the people of Kashmir, that source of tension would be removed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion before the House. I hope that he will relate his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Summerson: I was about to say that if that cause of tension is removed, a reason why both India and Pakistan wish to acquire the bomb will also be removed. We are talking about preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. My point is that if tension between countries can be reduced or removed altogether, the will or what may be seen as the necessity to possess these weapons will also disappear. The removal of tension should equate with the removal of the will to own nuclear weapons.
For a long time, our ownership of nuclear weapons has been in tandem with the responsibility and willingness of all Governments to state clearly that that ownership is only for the purpose of defence. For example, in 1982 the United Kingdom did not find it necessary even to consider using nuclear weapons in the Falklands conflict. It would have been appalling if we had used them. Our nuclear weapons are only for use against countries that threaten us with their nuclear weapons.
The reason why we possess nuclear weapons in the first place goes back to the cold war. To a large extent, the cold war overshadowed the fact that other countries were attempting to possess nuclear weapons. That has always been the case, but the existence of the cold war overshadowed that fact. Now that the cold war is over we can concentrate on the fact that other countries are attempting to acquire these weapons. That brings me back to the subject of the debate. The very idea that a country such as Libya or Iraq should gain possession of such weapons is highly dangerous. If, by some dreadful mischance, they succeed in acquiring these weapons, surely they are far less likely to be tempted to use the weapons against countries that have a massive retaliatory capability. For that reason alone, it is absolutely essential that we continue to possess nuclear weapons in this dangerous, turbulent world.
6.18 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sorry that time does not permit me to go into detail on the various ways in which I agreed with the first two Conservative speakers about the need for surveillance, and inspection and the encouragement of non-proliferation.
It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) the reason why Trident is equipped with a far greater number of warheads, with far greater power, than Polaris. He justified that in terms not of meeting the dangers of 1992, but of future, imaginary and as yet unknown dangers. He does not seem to realise that, by the same logic, there is nothing to prevent every other country from adopting precisely the same policy, thereby endangering the world with a grotesque level of proliferation.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Gravesham that I was one of 28 hon. Members who voted against the Government policy, as outlined in a recent debate, and I
64
voted for the Labour amendment. I will take great pleasure and pride in supporting anything that a Labour Government do to bring about peace and to make the world safer. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt about that.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mrs. Fyfe: I shall not give way, as time is extremely short.
People want peace and are desperate for safety in the world. The people of the former Soviet Union and of the United States are delighted that, at long last, far less is to be spent on nuclear weapons, because they need that to be spent on social welfare. There is appalling poverty in both those continental masses. Britons want the same.
We should stop this play-acting nonsense of seeking to make cheap political points inside and outside the Chamber. The people of Britain are disgusted at such childish nonsense. They want us to address the issue seriously, so that we can try to bring about peace and a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons held.
6.20 pm
Dr. John Reid: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on raising the topic of nuclear proliferation, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, it is a subject of great interest to the people of this country. This is not a summation, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on those bits of his speech which he obviously wrote himself. It is a pity that, towards the end, he padded it out by reading from what obviously was essentially a Conservative central office party briefing.
We have heard many expressions of concern about nuclear proliferation, and justifiably so. The break-up of the Soviet Union has created greater uncertainty than ever before as to the future safe keeping of that vast nuclear arsenal.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did the hon. Gentleman write this?
Dr. Reid: I wrote it and thought it up myself. I even typed it. I accept that the subject is probably beyond the capacity of some Conservative Members, but not of all of them.
What is more worrying still is the prospect of new regimes, of varying reliability, acquiring a viable nuclear capability in the next couple of decades. Several hon. Members have voiced concern about that. As long as that potential threat exists, there will be a continuing need for Britain to maintain a mixed defence with a nuclear capability included at an appropriate level. That is not the issue in question tonight, even if we disagree on what should be regarded as the appropriate level. The issue at stake tonight is proliferation, a subject which I am glad that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) addressed.
The issue is vital for three reasons. First, although it was normally assumed that proliferation would be established as a result of new weapons systems being developed by old and established states, old and established weapons systems are now being distributed to newly established states, particularly in the wake of the disintegration of the former Soviet empire. Secondly, it is

65
no longer just a matter of nuclear technology crossing frontiers; we now face the real prospect of nuclear technologists themselves crossing frontiers.
Thirdly, nuclear deterrence depends, as always, on the absolute certainty that a potential adversary will make a rational and logical calculation. Put quite simply, the adversary must understand that any nuclear aggression on his part would provoke a response so unacceptable as not to make that aggression worth while. But what happens when we are faced, as we may be increasingly, with a nuclear-armed adversary who for one reason or an other is beyond the boundary of that logic? That is not a possibility that we should dismiss lightly because it affects deterrence and proliferation; nor should we believe that this is only a modern problem.
Mao Tse-Tung gave a chilling insight into the workings of just such a mind. Lest any Conservative Members feel the impulse to run to telephone The Sunday Times, I have not personally met Mao Tse-Tung. However, when he met Khrushchev, he said:
"If the worse came to the worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground."
Thirty years later, we find ourselves confronted with the same type of mentality in the form of Saddam Hussein. Given what he was prepared to allow his people to endure during the Gulf war and what he inflicted on them afterwards, can we have any confidence that Saddam Hussein would have been deterred from using nuclear weapons?
It is for those three reasons that the Labour party remains sceptical about the argument that deterrence alone will always provide a foolproof means of avoiding nuclear holocaust. The possession of nuclear weapons in a nuclear world may be a necessary condition of security, but it is not, in itself, a sufficient condition of security. Better, we say, to prevent potential enemies from acquiring nuclear weapons than to place our trust in the logic of deterrence after the event.
The credibility of the Government's record on defence cannot, despite the efforts of Conservative Back Benchers, concentrate exclusively on Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. It must also include an assessment based on the Government's ability to secure effective measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we assess that, we soon see that the Conservative party's claim to be the party of defence and security is a hollow sham rather than one of substance.
Last week, it was announced that the Government will draw together a package of measures designed to safeguard nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to ensure that nuclear scientists do not sell their services to emerging nuclear weapons states. That announcement came fully three months after the Labour party called for action to be taken on that very issue—three months in which the Government once again dithered and prevaricated. God alone knows what has already happened in the intervening period in the leakage of nuclear technology from the Soviet Union.
Today the Prime Minister gave another example of the Government's attitude. In his statement, he boasted:
"We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year."
However, within minutes, that same Prime Minister categorically stated that we would certainly never confirm the number of warheads we possess. How on earth can we
66
pledge ourselves, on the one hand, to enter a system of verifiable nuclear systems control and, on the other, say that we, above all others, will never tell anyone else how many warheads we have?
On the question of nuclear proliferation, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence are like the three wise monkeys. They do not see the threat of nuclear proliferation, they will not listen to those who warn them of the dangers, and they certainly never speak about what action they propose to take to stop it. The truth is that the Government are not only morally but intellectually bankrupt when it comes to protecting Britain from the modern nuclear threat and providing modern security. They are mentally locked into a security time warp, bent on resurrecting the corpses of yesterday's threats, yesterday's fears and, for good measure, as we saw at the weekend, yesterday's smears.
No one will take those smears seriously, particularly when they come from this Government. After all, on the very morning of the Soviet coup, the Secretary of State for Defence was interviewed on radio, and the interviewer could not believe what she heard. That interview was given before the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister knew whether that coup would be effective. The interviewer could not believe what she heard and pressed the right hon. Gentleman—before he knew whether the coup had succeeded or failed—by saying that we were not
"surely intending to do business with a hard-line, eight-man emergency committee who are clamping down as they are today."
The Secretary of State, according to the Tories, is not a cringer, and he is not one to be craven. He replied with all that lack of cringinity and cravenness for which he is famous:
"Well I've met Marshal Yazov, I think anybody who'd been to the Soviet Union realised people who were there who had their concerns about the speed of the reforms and the tensions and difficulties that they were causing within the Soviet Union".
What a stalwart for the free world! What a shining example to us all of resolution in its equivocation!
The interviewer, who was still surprised, then said:
"So we have to do business with whoever is in power in the Soviet Union",
to which the stalwart Secretary of State replied:
"Well we obviously bitterly regret the news that has happened. But we have to look objectively at our own interests".
Those are the words of a Minister trying to parade the Government's patriotism and objectivity with regard to democracy before the British people, but it will not wash.
Nowhere is the Government's time-warped mentality more abundantly clear than when it comes to dealing with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Labour party believes that such a treaty would represent one of the most significant achievements in helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology. As it is extremely difficult to develop an effective nuclear capability without nuclear testing, a ban would obstruct those countries seeking to acquire such weapons. As it is impossible to explode a nuclear device of sufficient size undetected, any country breaching the ban would be discovered, thus allowing the international community to take appropriate steps.
The argument is extremely simple. Such a treaty would therefore prove invaluable in preventing the spread of nuclear technology. I do not pretend that it is a sufficient condition of stopping the spread, but it is a necessary

67
condition to start the stop of proliferation. Yet the Government have persisted in their shameful opposition to it.
The Prime Minister believes that nuclear testing is essential. I had not understood that he was a nuclear scientist, which may be why his academic past is shrouded in mystery. His claim that testing is necessary in order to maintain Britain's existing nuclear capability is bogus. As J. Carson Mark, the former head of the theoretical division of the Los Alamos national laboratory, whose O-levels are on record, said:
"The reliability, effectiveness, safety and security of our nuclear arsenal can be maintained without nuclear tests."
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been arguing that testing is not necessary. Will he reconcile that with the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who said:
"Any country which becomes able to manufacture nuclear weapons needs to test them".—[Official Report, 14 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 837.]
Dr. Reid: Precisely. I am coming to that very point. I am glad that the Minister confirms the consistency of our remarks.
The testing of a nuclear component is not necessary, and I have just quoted on that, the former head of Los Alamos who goes on to say that, by testing the non-nuclear components of existing systems they can be maintained in service, but that testing is necessary only for the development and design of new types of warhead or for developing a warhead from scratch. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said in the paragraph that the Minister quoted. That is why the Prime Minister and the Government guard testing so jealously, irrespective of its cost in the international scene, or the undermining of our legitimacy in stopping proliferation. They guard it because it is necessary for the development and design of new types of nuclear warheads and new nuclear thresholds.
The debate about a comprehensive nuclear test ban is of added significance, as the refusal of the United States and Britain to accept one is preventing international agreement on measures to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. We have heard much tonight about what the Government have already done, and the Minister will no doubt say more about getting rid of nuclear weapons. However, on the question of nuclear arms control, the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Britain's allies.
In announcing the package of reductions proposed by NATO last October, the Secretary of State could barely conceal his sulking resentment. In examining the elements of that announcement, we discover that it boils down to the scrapping of two systems that we did not own, the storing of weapons that we could not use, and the reduction of a number of bombs that we no longer have the capacity to deploy. So we might use the paraphrase, in arms control terms, "Big deal."
Those facts, together with the Government's attitude towards a test ban, have proved that they are not interested in preventing nuclear proliferation and have nothing positive to contribute to the process of international arms control. Indeed, their complacency and inactivity pose a real threat to the country's security because Ministers' attitudes betray their real reasons for
68
refusing to act—their contempt for the idea of non-proliferation, which has been shown time and again tonight by Conservative Members' speeches.
On 18 June 1990, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement compared the non-proliferation treaty to the 1938 Munich agreement, and said that those who believed in it were "naive". On 22 November last year, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"I am not sure that I can see other nations agreeing to the intrusive inspection regimes that will be necessary to find all nuclear systems."—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 600.]
In other words, everyone else must open their books, but the United Kingdom is not prepared to do so. The Government's opposition is clear. In mitigation, they point to those systems that they have already got rid of. Before the Minister of State for the Armed Forces arrived —I am sure that he has had many engagements this evening—I was explaining what those amounted to.
How do the Government know that no one else will accept an inspection regime? They base their assumption on their own volition and judgment. They have proved to be one of the most obstructive Governments in the world when it comes to nuclear arms control. It would be naive to expect them to take the lead in strengthening the non-proliferation treaty as a means of ensuring Britain's security. They not only have contempt for it but are guilty of breaching its spirit.
Article 6 of the treaty states explicitly:
"Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
I am tempted to ask Conservative Members to raise their hands if they believe in that article, but I shall not embarrass them, because I know from their speeches that not one of them believes in the articles that the Government signed and purport to support. Instead of negotiating for disarmament, as the Government are obliged to do under the treaty, they are guilty of a qualitative and quantitative vertical proliferation of nuclear weaponry by proposing to increase the number of strategic warheads held by Britain from 192 to 512—an increase of 250 per cent.
It seems that the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the deep unilateral cuts currently being made by both the United States of America and Russia are to have no impact in the Government's defence posture. What possible rationale can there be for this country to embark on such a programme? There is neither logic nor legitimacy in the Government's plans to replace the 192-warhead Polaris system with the 512-warhead Trident system. Either Polaris is a minimum deterrent at a 192-warhead level, in which case the 512-warhead Trident is a massive escalation, or Trident is a minimum deterrent, in which case Polaris falls well beneath the minimum credible deterrent, and the Government's whole posture of deterrence has been based on a lie for years past. They cannot have it both ways.
For years we have been told that we must improve our nuclear arsenal because it counts for so much. Now we are being told by the Prime Minister, as he told Mr. Yeltsin, that we must improve our nuclear arsenal because it counts for so little. Is not that typical of the hypocrisy that the Government have brought to those issues? If their

69
position lacks logic, more importantly it lacks legitimacy. Naturally, under pressure of the need for economic aid, the Russian leadership may accept, for the time being, a British nuclear build-up at precisely the time when Britain is urging Russia to slash its arsenal.
But how long will that last? What moral or political legitimacy can be claimed by a British Government who are intent on multiplying their own nuclear forces in urging cuts in the nuclear forces of Russia, Byelorussia, Kazakhstan or the Ukraine? With what moral authority can a nuclear-hiking British Government urge self-denial on the nuclear-seeking nations of the world—Algeria, South Africa, Argentina, North Korea, India and Pakistan? The answer is none. It is not logical, legitimate or moral for the Government to do so, and they have no authority for such action. No Government has the moral authority or legitimacy to hold a position which, as codified to the rest of the world, is, "Don't do as I do, do as I say."
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): The number of warheads currently in the Soviet Union is 27,000; the hon. Gentleman gave a figure of 512 for the United Kingdom. If the Soviet Union or any other country does as we do and reduces their total to 512, we shall welcome that action.
Dr. Reid: I am not being patronising when I say that the Minister is an intelligent man. He will know that, in placing all the warheads of the Soviet Union together as he does, he assumes a massed attack on Britain not just by Russia, but by Kazakhstan, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and every other Soviet republic at the same time. The republics have enough problems trying to unite to run the Black sea fleet without launching a united, pre-emptive nuclear strike against Britain or other bases. The Minister must know that.
The excuses offered by the Minister and the Government for their acts of proliferation and escalation represented by the Trident programme do not stand up to investigation. Even if they did, we should look askance at a Government who say that they are intent on stopping the proliferation of armoury throughout the world when they have done nothing but replicate the appeasement of the 1930s with one of the world's worst dictators.
The Government have sent to Iraq aircraft engines, armoured vehicles, vehicle spares, artillery fire control and artillery boards. They have sent to Iraq's dictator body armour, ejection seats, explosives, helicopter engines, laser rangefinders and long range surveillance. They have sent to Iraq, with love, mortar-locating radar, naval spares, night vision goggles and trainers, pistols, rifles, shotguns, satellite communication equipment, speech scramblers, tank helmets and much more. The Government do all that while stating that they are a Government who wish to stop the proliferation of arms to dictators, and meanwhile their Members make speeches such as those we have heard today.
The Government supplied Iraq with those weapons and propped up a dictator—as did their predecessors in the 1930s—through a policy of appeasement and aid. They need to be replaced by a Labour Government committed to stopping proliferation. We shall freeze the number of warheads in Trident at a level no higher than those currently being carried in Polaris, while entering the long-term strategic arms negotiations. We will declare a
70
moratorium on nuclear testing and promote agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty with a type verification regime. We shall support the strengthening of the non-proliferation treaty to include intrusive verification and the use of United Nations sanctions against countries found in breach of it. We shall work towards a more powerful and better resourced International Atomic Energy Agency.
Those policies will be allied to a full defence review designed to produce a British defence configuration as a response to the complex nature of today's security problems, not the cosy certainty of yesterday's cold war stand-off, so beloved of the Conservatives. Living in the past may save the Government from having to change, think, and shape new approaches or dream up new slogans or smears. However, it will not save this country's security, and it will do nothing to save the Government at the long-postponed election.
6.44 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Those who have just listened to the somewhat excitable speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will know that, in reality, and if in power, the Labour party would substantially reduce our conventional forces and almost certainly pursue a policy of unilateral disarmament.
The motion was introduced cleverly and carefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). The proliferation of nuclear weapons represents a unique threat to international order and security. Therefore, the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to debate the motion which involves two related, though separate, issues. The first is proliferation, and the second is the need for a nuclear deterrent.
On 14 January this year, the House debated the need for an independent nuclear deterrent. I set out my views then, so in today's debate I propose to concentrate primarily on the subject of proliferation. However, I shall first echo a number of points raised by my hon. Friends on the need for an independent nuclear deterrent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) was entirely right to say that the risk to this country's security has not disappeared. It has changed and is probably less than it was, but it remains. I strongly endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Romford and for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), who urged on the House the need to retain an independent nuclear deterrent. Like my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, I deeply distrust the Labour party's policy on this subject.
Until recently, Labour Members were, as far as one can judge, wholeheartedly unilateralist. The Labour party fought the 1983 election on that manifesto and the 1987 election largely on such a manifesto. The amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the debate on 14 January positively deleted the reference to Britain having an independent nuclear deterrent.
In the course of an extremely long speech, the right hon. Gentleman never once uttered a wholehearted commitment to the retention of Britain's nuclear deterrent. I do not find that surprising when I consider that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the

71
Opposition, was until 1991 a paid-up member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and then allowed his subscription to lapse. In seven of the nine previous years, he resolutely endorsed the key policies of CND, saying that they were his own. I deeply distrust the Labour party's policies on both conventional and nuclear weaponry.
The core of the first part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) seemed to be that the United Kingdom was a prime supplier of arms to Iraq, and that we had markedly increased that country's military capacity. That statement is wrong. I do not know what happened betweeen 1974 and 1979, when the Labour party was in government. It is possible that, during that period, when strict rules were not in place, Iraq purchased substantial quantities of weaponry, which it kept in its arsenal. I do not know whether that is correct, but I know for sure that in 1980 Her Majesty's Conservative Government tightened the rules and resolutely placed a total ban on the sale of lethal equipment and ammunition.
Those rules were further tightened in December 1984, when the Government resolved not to supply any material that could increase the military capacity of the warring countries. I do not suppose that there is any country with a sizeable arms industry that contributed less to Iraq than did the United Kingdom. Allegations to the contrary are unworthy of Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) raised a different point that needs more serious consideration—Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. He was right to say that it was increased, but ECGD cover does not constitute a loan. It is not a facility offered to a country to increase its purchasing capacity. It is cover for exporters who are bound by the rules then in place, which I have described—
Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, I have not much time, and I intend to press on.
Testing was focused on by a number of right hon. and hon. Members—for instance, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It is important to bear in mind the small scale of British testing when contrasted with that of other countries. Since 1963, the United Kingdom has tested slightly less than once a year, on average. The United States has conducted more than 600 tests, the USSR, as was, more than 460, and France more than 130.
The Government believe it necessary to retain a testing capacity for as long as we have a nuclear deterrent, so as to ensure the safety and efficacy of the device in question. Opposition Members argue that we do not need to test in order to acquire a weapon, and that a test ban—
Dr. Reid indicated dissent.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman had better be careful if he is saying that he does not argue that. What is more, the Opposition argue that a test ban is an essential ingredient in preventing the proliferation of weaponry. I do not believe that this is so. On 14 January 1992, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill)—he does not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton—said:
72
"There is no longer any need for full-scale nuclear testing. There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that non-nuclear tests—computer simulations and other technical means—can provide adequate information on safety and reliability."—[Official Report, 14 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 898.]
I do not entirely agree with that, but one import of his remarks was that a test ban is not a necessary element in preventing the proliferation of weaponry because, as he put it, one does not actually need a test in order to have a crude bomb. The Iraqis proved that point, because they were close to having a bomb without having carried out a test.
Mr. Flynn: The Minister says that the Iraqis were close to having a bomb. I remind him that, when I pressed the Government in April 1990 to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspections of the Iraqi nuclear programme, the Government said that they had no intention of doing any such thing, giving the reason that Saddam Hussein had signed the non-proliferation treaty. The Minister's predecessor told me that the Government had every confidence that Hussein would abide by his international obligations and not work on a nuclear weapon. The Government were fooled then: who is fooling them now?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to read the evidence more carefully. He will know that the British Government led the pack in strengthening the safeguards. He will also bear in mind the fact that my predecessor, now Secretary of State for Health, had been urging the case for special inspections for some time. I would like to think, although I have not heard confirmation of this, that the hon. Gentleman supported him in that endeavour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised two points of significance, one dealing with Trident, the other with the tactical air-to-surface missile. My hon. Friend was kind enough to tell me that he had a surgery in his constituency and hoped that the House would forgive his absence later in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood described the Trident system as flexible, mobile and a minimum deterrent. He was right on all those points, and I want to emphasise that Trident is a minimum deterrent. The Government have said that 128 warheads per Trident boat is the maximum. We shall deploy the minimum that is required, which may in certain circumstances be substantially fewer than 128 warheads. We want to be able to load the missile boats with the number that we regard as needed to ensure our security. The maximum is 128 warheads per boat, but that is not to say that that number will be carried.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also dealt with the issue of a sub-strategic weapon. I agree that it is important to have a sub-strategic weapon, and we must soon make some decisions on the nature of such weapons. We are approaching the time when the free-fall bomb will pass its shelf life. There is a powerful argument for an air-launched missile, and my hon. Friend made it. We are entirely convinced of the need for a sub-strategic weapon, but as yet no final decisions have been made about the nature of the weapon that we will want in our arsenal.

73
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked 11 or 12 questions; I could not do justice to them all now. He based many of them on an article in The Observer—
Mr. DalyellNo, I did not.
Mr. Hogg: Well, some of them anyway—
Mr. Dalyell: No.
Mr. Hogg: Well, I heard the hon. Gentleman refer to The Observer. If I misunderstood him, I apologise. Nevertheless, I should like to reply to most of his questions in writing.
In the meantime, I would like to touch on a more general point that he raised relating to the Russians' facilities and the assistance that the United Kingdom Government and others can give the Russians. The Russians have certain facilities; the question is whether they have enough to achieve the dismantling over a reasonably short period, and that is extremely questionable. They have two great problems—with transport and with storage. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow will have heard the Prime Minister say, we are going to send a technical team to Russia, leaving on 10 February, to explore the ways in which we can assist the Russians.
I do not pretend that we stand alone in this. Under-Secretary of State Bartholomew from the United States went with a team a few days ago and carried out an exploratory visit. In this matter, we all need to stand together; we all have a contribution to make and it must be made collectively—
Dr. Reid: The Minister has still not said anything about non-proliferation.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman grumbles, but I am answering questions raised by his hon. Friends. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had not spoken for so long.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow was also right about nuclear scientists. There is a serious risk connected with the leakage of expertise. We need to try to assist the Russians and the Governments of the other republics to find ways of keeping their scientists within their frontiers. That is essential, and we shall work with the Russians and others to that end.
On the broader question of non-proliferation, I have not had sufficient time to cover the subject as fully as I should like, but hon. Members are the first to grumble if I do not reply to the points that they have raised, and that is what I have tried to do. For us, the core is the non-proliferation treaty.
6.59 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: This has been a helpful debate, and it would assist the House if we reached a decision on the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, recognising the potential dangers of the rapidly changing world order, welcomes the recent proposals for substantial reductions in nuclear weaponry, the growing support for the non-proliferation treaty and progress in the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the dismantling of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities; urges the Government to play their full part in helping the relevant authorities in the Commonwealth of Independent States to dismantle their nuclear devices, to safeguard their nuclear components and to discourage the proliferation of nuclear expertise; and believes it is of the first importance that Britain retains an effective and credible minimum nuclear deterrent as security in a world where there remain many sources of instability.

Overseas Development and Co-operation
7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also consider the draft African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order 1992.
I bring to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who was tonight to have been in Angola. However, on her way to Angola she caught an ear infection when in Zimbabwe and had to curtail her visit and return home. She is sorry that she cannot be here, but I am confident that she will be well and back in the House soon.
The purpose of these orders is to authorise further payments to the replenishments to the African development fund and the special development fund of the Caribbean Development bank. In common with similar international financial institutions, the banks have two main lending arms: the bank itself, which borrows in the financial markets for on-lending to its regional members; and the funds, which lend at concessional rates. These are sometimes referred to as the "hard" and "soft" windows respectively. These draft orders authorise payments for the "soft" windows. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the African development fund, established in 1973. Its purpose is to contribute to the economic development and social progress of its regional members.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How does the Minister know whether funds that are allocated under the "soft" window are allocated to projects that should be funded through that window rather than through the other one?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall deal with that point at greater length in my winding-up speech. For the Caribbean development fund we have an executive who is a board member and for the African development fund we share with three other countries, which include Germany and the Netherlands, a representative who would be privy to these decisions, and we are able to review the situation in the light of those appointments.
The fund is part of the African Development bank group and lends on concessional terms. Its resources are replenished every three years with contributions agreed through a process of multilateral negotiation with donor Governments. These negotiations provide the opportunity for donors to review past performance and agree policy directions for the future, as well as agreeing an overall target for the replenishment and relative burden-sharing among donors. Negotiations on the sixth replenishment of the fund began in June 1990, and were concluded last year. The replenishment that we are discussing will cover commitments made over the period 1991–93.
The agreed replenishment total was 2·65 billion fund units of account, or approximately £1·8 billion. This represented a modest increase in real terms over the fifth replenishment. The United Kingdom increased its share from 3·55 to 4 per cent., a total full commitment of, in today's money, £71·9 million. This sum will be paid in
76
three equal instalments in the form of non-interest bearing promissory notes which will be encashed over a number of years.
A report was drawn up which set out understandings on policy issues which will serve as guidelines for the management of the fund over the next three years. In particular, it was agreed that allocation of resources should be based to a much greater extent than in the past on the performance of borrowing countries. Donors emphasised that, given the demands on concessional resources, it was important to ensure that these are allocated to programmes and projects where they will be used most effectively. Borrowing countries which are pursuing sound economic policies, which are making efforts to reduce poverty and achieve growth with equity, or which are committed to development which is sustainable both in environmental or other terms are those on which the fund should be concentrating its efforts.
With reference to economic management, donors agreed that the bulk of the funds resources should go either to countries implementing adjustment programmes supported by the International Monetary Fund or World bank, especially within the umbrella of the World bank's special programme of assistance for Africa, or to those countries with a sound policy framework.
Sound economic management is an essential pre-requisite for renewed growth and development in Africa. We hope that the greater weight given to performance in fund operations will act as a spur to those countries that have not yet begun the process of economic reform to do so as quickly as possible.
Good government is also vital if aid is to provide sustainable development. This includes not just sound economic policies but competent administration, democratically accountable institutions and respect for the rule of law. We emphasised the importance of these points during the sixth replenishment negotiations, and we are encouraged by the extent to which the African Development bank is lending its weight to promoting this concept in its dialogue with borrowing countries.
A second major policy theme in the negotiations was that of poverty alleviation. The obvious lesson that a sustainable reduction in poverty is not possible without economic growth was underlined. So, too, was the need to ensure that the poor get a bigger slice of the benefits of growth, and the need for direct help to the poorest, especially in the provision of basic health and primary education. The bank has set up a task force to prepare a strategy on poverty reduction.
The bank also agreed to initiate work on population problems. Population growth rates in sub-Saharan Africa are among the highest of any region of the developing world. They have reached a rate of 3 per cent. a year. This means that population will double in 25 years, with clear implications for poverty reduction efforts, and of course, pressure on social infrastructure and the environment.
The bank's performance on environmental issues has been criticised in this House and elsewhere. Management has finalised an environmental policy and is now implementing operational guidelines. The bank is also preparing a forestry sector policy paper, and has undertaken to consult with interested non-governmental organisations before this is finalised. Donors asked that environmental impact assessments be provided for all

77
projects which could have a significant effect on the environment and urged the bank to strengthen its professional staffing in this area as quickly as possible.
These measures taken together should considerably enhance the quality of assistance provided by the fund to its low-income borrowers. The majority of these countries are classified as moderately or severely indebted countries. They cannot afford to borrow on commercial terms and add to their crippling burden of debt.
Their debt problems, of course, are being addressed in other ways. The Government have consistently taken the lead in promoting concerted debt relief measures for those poorest countries which owe most of their debts to Governments. I am delighted, as the House will also be, that in mid-December we successfully achieved consensus in the Paris Club to grant improved debt relief to the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. Under these new terms, up to 50 per cent. of eligible debt service will be written off. This important advance is, of course, a direct result of proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1990. The new arrangements represent a good start to implementation of the Trinidad terms, and we shall continue to press for improvements in the terms offered, along the lines of my right hon. Friend's original proposals.
I should now like to turn to the second order. The Caribbean Development bank was established in 1969 and lends only to the Commonwealth Caribbean. There are 17 borrowing member countries, of which five are dependent territories. The United Kingdom and Canada were the two non-regional founding members. For many years the special development fund—the "soft" window—was funded by a variety of voluntary contributions, each with its own conditions attached. The procedure was simplified in 1984 when a unified fund was established.
The main support for the special development fund comes from the non-regional members, whose numbers expanded in the late 1980s to include France, Italy and Germany. Negotiations for the third replenishment were concluded in May last year. The total agreed was $118 million—more than £62 million. That figure may increase slightly as further pledges are received. The United Kingdom's share is £10·6 million—about 17 per cent. of the total. The United Kingdom's share of the second replenishment was £9·3 million, so there has been a significant increase. The replenishment will cover the period 1992–95, and, as with the African development fund, our contributions will be paid by promissory note. We see the Caribbean Development bank as playing a key role in channelling development assistance to the region.
The CDB operates on a much smaller scale than the African Development bank. The island communities that borrow from it are for the most part small and rely on one or two commodities only, and tourism, and are therefore exceptionally vulnerable to market forces. Emphasis in its programme is given to the development of human resources, through education schemes—secondary, technical, vocational, and teacher training in some cases—in co-operation with the World bank. The CDB is a focal point for skilled manpower within the region, and is manned entirely by people from the Caribbean. It also supports projects to diversify agriculture to reduce the dependence on export crops.
Attention is given to the establishment of new enterprises, and the bank recently expanded its lending to
78
the private sector further to encourage local initiatives. The Caribbean islands are in a hurricane belt and are subject to regular storms and severe flooding. To help reduce the effects of tidal waves and regular erosion of the coastline, the bank supports schemes to strengthen coastal sea defences. The Caribbean Development bank is assisting in the economic recovery programme for Guyana. Those are examples of practical ways of helping the small island communities, five of which are still British dependent territories. The special development fund concentrates on the most vulnerable parts of those communities. The third replenishment will enable the fund to continue to provide valuable support to those small but valued members of the Commonwealth.
The funds to be authorised under the two orders thus represent a significant contribution to our efforts to help Africa and the Caribbean. I commend them both to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): As the Minister has said, it is in order for motions Nos. 4 and 5 to be debated together.
7.14 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I want my comments on the role of the African development fund and the Caribbean Development bank to be understood as being in the context of the role of the British Government vis-a-vis the development challenges facing the African continent.
This debate is taking place at a crucial time. The Minister mentioned two particular initiatives that he thought were most important. The first of these is the Prime Minister's Commonwealth debt initiative. Although we have always welcomed this, it must be put in the context of the fact that it is no compensation at all for the Conservative Government's aid cuts. Although debt relief for the poorest countries is a step forward, it is absolutely no substitute for aid. While the Government have been prepared to cancel debts—many of which were not being serviced anyway—they have cut aid, as a percentage of gross national product, to the lowest level on record: 0·27 per cent. last year, compared with 0·51 per cent. in 1979 under the last Labour Government. In 1979, under Labour, Britain's contribution as a percentage of GNP was the second highest in the group of seven richest countries; now Britain's contribution is the second lowest. While the Governments of African countries may be paying out a little less in debt servicing, they are no better off if less is coming in by way of aid.
The third world has lost £10 billion because of cutbacks in aid as a percentage of GNP from the 1979 level under Labour, which was 20 times the maximum estimated debt relief under the present Government's new scheme. The Prime Minister's initiative is too limited, and Britain has failed to secure the agreement of its international partners, especially the United States of America, on the issue. The initiative applies only to country-to-country bilateral debt; it does not apply to amounts owed to the international institutions. In fact, the Government actually blocked a proposal that debt to the European Community be written off. A Labour Government would press for such agreements.
The initiative does not apply to amounts owed to the commercial banks. The Government have a hands-off approach to the commercial banks, while granting them

79
large amounts of tax relief in respect of these debts. During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of 1991 Labour pressed for the withdrawal of this tax relief if banks did not write off the debts.
The initiative applies to only a small group of the poorest countries. Other very poor countries, such as Ethiopia, are not included. Many millions in Africa still face famine. Only this week the United Nations appealed for an extra $621·6 million for emergency operations in the Horn of Africa. The total pledged by donors so far is only three quarters of what is needed.
Long-term poverty is also on the increase. In a relatively optimistic projection the World bank estimates that, on the basis of present trends, the number of people in Africa living in absolute poverty will rise from the present 180 million to 265 million in the year 2000. In that time the continent's share of the world's poorest people will double—rising from 16 per cent. to 32 per cent. Before the Minister congratulates the Prime Minister again, perhaps he will bear those figures in mind.
The Minister stressed also the importance of population policies, but in a parliamentary answer that I received today, the Government admit to massive cuts in funding to key United Nation agencies. The United Kingdom's 1990 contribution to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, for example, was cut by 65 per cent. between 1979 and 1990. While the Prime Minister espouses the Government's support for the United Nations, in reality they have savaged Britain's contribution to key United Nation agencies with proven track records. The Minister ought to review the figures before stressing the importance of policy initiatives that the Government have been particularly tardy in supporting with cash.
As we debate tonight, 23 million people's lives are at risk in the Horn of Africa. The urgent appeal to the international community has yet to find receptive ears. The intensifying of internal conflict, breakdown of law and order in parts of the region, massive population movements, and continuing drought-induced famine in some areas are taking their toll.
The eye of the storm must be Somalia. The Prime Minister's fine words this afternoon about the United Nation's newly enhanced role as peacemaker in the new world order must be tested against Somalia's pressing case. Many Somalians who for months looked to Britain, with all her historic links with that country, to take a leading role in the peace process were disappointed with the Government's reluctance and unimpressive response. Although the recent United Nation resolution is a welcome sign of a vigorous approach, I am sorry that it did not feature more prominently at the recent summit.
The appalling suffering of the people of Somalia and the impact that it is having across the region must be a top priority for the United Nations. The world's attention has focused on the needs of the Commonwealth of Independent States—the former Soviet Union. I do not deny the necessity for action there, but Africa's desperate needs have not gone away. The imperative for action is all the greater because so many opportunities exist among the gloom. In some areas, the problems to which the United Nations Secretary-General is pointing are, with cruel irony, caused by improvements to security and good
80
government—such as that seen in Ethiopia—that are allowing people to return to their homes. It would be an even greater tragedy if support were denied to help the thousands of refugees who are returning to their homelands after years of war and exile.
The immediate crisis is being played out against the background of Africa's prolonged economic crisis. According to the World bank, incomes per head in sub-Saharan Africa fell by 2·2 per cent. a year between 1980 and 1989. Excluding those in oil-rich Nigeria, most Africans are by that measure worse off today than in 1965.
There have been enormous external economic pressures on the continent. A steady decline in Africa's terms of trade in the 1970s was severely compounded by a drastic fall in the purchasing power of the country's exports of more than 40 per cent. between 1980 and 1986. Debt problems have mounted. More than one fifth of Africa's export earnings are swallowed up in debt servicing. That level would be much higher were it not for constant rescheduling and the continuing build-up of arrears.
Against that background, there is in parts of Africa clear evidence that long-term malnutrition is on the increase, while average lifespans and primary school enrolment levels are decreasing. Internal factors, including autocratic government and internal mismanagement, play a significant part. Nevertheless, there has in recent years been a remarkable, continuing trend towards economic reform and democracy. Great opportunities are opening up in Africa—as great in scale in many ways as those that exist in the former Soviet Union.
However, Africa cannot do it alone. Many African Governments feel a sense of betrayal that, having implemented the painful reforms advocated by rich countries, they are not being supported. Britain must play a much fuller part in tackling the African crisis and building on the potential offered by reform. We must provide emergency relief. We are watching the Government closely to see whether their high-minded talk of support for the United Nations manifests itself in a major response to the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal for the Horn of Africa.
We must support also the process of recovery. We are shocked by the Government's refusal to support the second phase of the UN's special programme for Africa. Despite the widely acknowledged success of the first phase in channelling support to small farmers to help them recover from famine, in the urgent task of growing more food, and improve the incomes of the rural poor—and the programme's good work and accumulated experience—the Government are prepared to see it die. They seem prepared to allow the support of other donors to go to waste by not making a United Kingdom contribution.
A Labour Government will not be content to allow that to continue happening to that important and crucial fund. We believe that Britain should join other donors who have said that they are prepared to contribute their share to ensure the special programme's continuation, provided that others do the same.
Britain must respond to the mood of reform and extend support for long-term economic development in the region. I refer to the specific role of the African development fund. We support the distinctive and positive contribution made by the African Development bank, and that of the fund in particular under the bank's energetic presidency. We welcome the importance attached to agriculture, which is the top priority for economic

81
development in Africa, and the promise made at the last replenishment to devote more resources to poverty-reduction programmes and those that benefit women.
The bank does not have a faultless record. There are concerns over whether it is keeping its environmental pledges, and we urge it to reconsider whether it is the appropriate instrument for structural adjustment lending. However, the fund's overall contribution has been increasingly positive, and it deserves more support than Britain has given.
In the past, scepticism was expressed about the role of the African Development bank by comparison with other regional development banks—but that has, rightly, faded. One of the most important reasons for supporting the bank is its role as a distinctly Africa-based body.
One of Africa's key needs is to build up its own development institutions, and the African Development bank has made significant advances in that regard in recent years. Those advances are especially important given the eagerly awaited movement to a fully democratic South Africa which, we hope, will take place in the near future. If South Africa played an active role in the ADB—as we hope that it will—it would do a good deal, in the next decade, to help South Africa's reintegration with other African economies, and also to help it play a positive role in the development of the rest of southern Africa and that of the continent as a whole.
Despite the movement by African Governments towards reform, British support of Africa—including its funding of the African development fund—has, in our view, been niggardly. Notwithstanding Britain's extensive links with Africa, its support for the continent is quite a long way behind that of our international partners. Perhaps the Minister will confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was told recently by the Minister for Overseas Development; we are sorry to hear that the right hon. Lady is unwell, and hope that she will soon return to the House. According to the right hon. Lady, United Kingdom funding for Africa is half that of our G7 partners Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States, and less than a fifth of that provided by France.
The current, sixth replenishment of the fund represents only a 17 per cent. increase over the previous 50 per cent. replenishment. That is barely enough to keep pace with inflation. Within that meagre replenishment, Britain's contribution has been very poor. According to the most recent statement of total subscriptions available from the ADB, Britain's contribution is less than that of any other G7 country. It is even less than Sweden's contribution, and equal to that of Norway. Britain simply is not pulling its weight.
Although I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom is contributing to the fund, this is a very small slice of a modestly sized cake. It does not do justice to the major economic and political changes that are now being undertaken by African Governments. Must we be confronted yet again with images of mass starvation before Britain makes more effort to act now on long-term investments to prevent the famines of the future? What we need now is action to improve north-south terms of trade, reduce debts, and increase aid—I stress that point, and I do not think that the Minister will be able to defend the Government's position and protect the world's environments.
82
Let me say a word about the Caribbean Development bank. Although the poverty and economic decline in the Caribbean are not of the same magnitude as those in Africa, there are many parallels between the two regions, in regard to both problems and opportunities. Debt problems in the Caribbean remain considerable, and—as in Africa—relate primarily to official debt, including debts to multilateral institutions. The decline in trade has affected a number of Caribbean commodities, such as bauxite, although possibly less severely than in Africa. At recent meetings with representatives of sister Caribbean parties, I, as a representative of the British Labour party, was able to hear at first hand both about the economic pressures and about the development of democratic institutions in the regions.
Will the Minister tell us the extent of our support for three areas of major importance to the Caribbean? First, what support does the bank give to the development of interregional trade? I am glad to see that that subject is back on the Caribbean agenda. Secondly, how is the bank seeking to foster diversification programmes to help countries reduce their over-reliance on a single crop commodity? Thirdly, what programmes is it supporting to bring about food security in Caribbean nations that remain heavily reliant on the expensive import of basic foods?
Although Africa's emergency needs will continue throughout the current year and the rest of the decade, it should be an increasing priority for the north to support the positive changes that are sweeping the continent. More resources are needed now to aid recovery and development. In countries such as Ethiopia and Angola, which have seen a dramatic end to decades of civil war, support is needed to resettle displaced people, demobilise soldiers, rebuild shattered societies and economies and help safeguard fledgling democracies.
Those aims are as important as assisting the emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe with massive aid and debt relief, if not more important. The equally fundamental changes sweeping Africa have not been rewarded to anything like the same extent—although Africa's needs are so much greater.
7.36 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: The orders are not contentious in principle; they are open to criticism only in terms of degree, and of the extent to which the Government are following up their rhetoric with realistic contributions to those in need. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has just been telling us about that.
In the case of Africa—to which I shall confine my remarks—linking aid with the development of democracy, the pursuance of better-balanced economic policies, the evolution of effective administration, the spread of help to the poor in particular, the encouragement of population control and an emphasis on the environment is desirable. Such a shift of linkage and emphasis has, after all, been under way for some time, and has wide support in other countries and on both sides of the House.
Although I support the thrust of the policy, I must repeat our view that what is being done in Africa—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa—still falls far short of what we should be doing. Not only are the communities

83
concerned starting off in a pretty terrible position; they have now been even more gravely affected by the world recession and the Gulf war.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said about the reduction in the British aid contribution as a proportion of gross national product over the period—getting on for 13 years—since the Conservatives came to office. I hope that positive changes in the functioning and prospects of the United Nations—which we have discussed a good deal today in other connections—will allow a stemming of the flood of arms into the African continent which has caused so much carnage. I appreciate that that does not arise directly from the motion, but it is part of the background, and I hope that the Government will use all their influence to staunch that flood.
Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, my party supports the work done by the African development fund, and feels ashamed to compare our contribution with that of other countries of comparable size and economic capacity. I shall not repeat the figures given by the hon. Lady, but it is in no way admirable that we should give one fifth of France's contribution, and one half of Italy's. The orders provide for further United Kingdom contributions towards two funds that enable much valuable work to be undertaken. We should, however, be doing far more.
7.39 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, as a new boy, I believed what my superiors told me—that the debate would not start until later. I was in the middle of my bacon and eggs when I saw on the Annunciator that the Minister was speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I left them!
I intend to consider this question from a slightly different angle. For five years I spoke for the British Labour group in the European Parliament on overseas development. For over two years I worked in west Africa, as the Commission's delegate in Guinea-Bissau. I agree entirely with all the ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has just put forward, but I shall consider all those matters, too, from a slightly different angle.
There are some practicalities that need to be considered in terms of the cohesion of programmes. That is much more true of Africa than it is of the Caribbean. European Community aid, bilateral aid, United Nations aid and Arab aid, all in the form of projects and programmes, is being given without any attempt being made to ensure that all those projects and programmes complement one another. The European Community's programmes often contradict European development fund programmes in Africa, with the result that they are less effective than they might otherwise be. We need urgently to find a mechanism to unify the programmes and make them more positive.
In theory, the programmes are co-ordinated by the United Nations development programme, but in practice that does not happen. I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the Government are working towards creating an alliance in Africa rather than pursuing a policy of rivalry with other countries. That would lead to our programmes being much more cost effective.
84
In many cases we are destroying the countries that we attempt to assist when providing industrial aid. I think of Tanzania's fishing fleet. The European Community was responsible for financing that fleet of about 40 boats. Almost all them cannot be used, not because the people are terribly at fault but because the fleet was provided with 12 different types of engines and hundreds of different types of screws. Not even this country can boast the technology that would be required to repair and make good all that goes wrong. It is imposssible to gut one ship for the sake of another.
I think in particular of Guinea-Bissau's electrical generating plant. When I first went there it was almost completely out of order. We were lucky to have one hour of electricity a day, and that was mainly in the middle of the night. The problem was mainly due to the many kinds of generator. There was a splendid British generator, but there were also French, German, Russian and Japanese generators, which led to disaster.
Guinea-Bissau has not been independent of Portugal for very long. At the time of independence it had only four graduates and few people had been trained in technology. The people were mainly concerned with rural matters, but they had to cope with sophisticated technology and keep it going. They could not do it. The amount of hard currency that had to be spent on keeping it going could not be sustained. A good feature of the recent writing off of debt is that Guinea-Bissau gained considerable benefit from it.
Guinea-Bissau is moving towards a multi-party system. Assistance is being provided by the United States of America. It is providing money and specialist aid to help Guinea-Bissau to convert to a multi-party system. In the particular circumstances there, I am not altogether convinced that it is wise for Guinea-Bissau to move towards a multi-party system. Parties split along tribal lines; splits are not the result of genuine ideological differences. However, the president has determined that there shall be a multi-party system and he has thrown his full weight behind it. He has ensured that in this case party splits will not start off as tribe versus tribe. A great deal of assistance, from wherever it can be obtained, is required. It would not be expensive. Her Majesty's Government could provide very effective help. I ask the Minister to consider that with great care.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said about the difficulties that surround dependence upon a monoculture in the Caribbean. The West Indies is being hit badly by the enormous increase in the production of sugar beet in the United Kingdom. A realistic cane sugar regime is needed. Cane sugar is the life blood of employment and society in the Caribbean. It is a plant which grows well there and it can stand up to all the vagaries of the weather. I beseech the Government to consider that question when looking at trading regimes and the common agricultural policy regimes.
Not least—I am sure that this will be very close to the Minister's heart—I ask him to consider the rum regime. [Interruption.] Rum is included in the protocol to the Lomé convention, but it is very difficult to import rum into France. The French protect imports of their own white rum from their overseas territories. It is essential to look towards the next Lomé convention and the provision of a better protocol for rum. I am sure that the Minister agrees that rum is a splendid product. It provides employment for

85
a great many people. If they were able to increase their rum exports, they would also increase the amount of hard currency that they need.
7.47 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: One of the strengths of the House of Commons is its enormous wealth of personal experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has personal experience and also a much rarer quality in the House of Commons—fresh personal experience. All too often our personal experience is far too dated to be useful. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth speaks with fresh personal experience, having held a position of responsibility within the Community. Some of us, for all sorts of reasons, are glad that he has become our colleague in the House of Commons—not least because of his recent personal experience in Africa.
When I was a member of the indirectly elected Parliament I had the good fortune to go to Lomé to attend one of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries functions. I was greatly moved by the proceedings and thought that it was one of the most worthwhile events that the Community had staged. At that time Claude Cheysson—a man of drive and imagination—was the Commissioner with responsibility for these matters. Whatever criticisms may have been made of his performance in other jobs, he was a great Commissioner who succeeded in achieving much.
I apologise to the House for speaking twice in a day, having spoken in the nuclear debate. I was chosen by Mr. Speaker to lead a parliamentary delegation to Zaire in November 1990. I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about that torn and striven country. Zaire has 47 per cent. of the remaining African rain forest. The Minister receives reports from our excellent ambassador, Roger Westbrook. A lot is said about the Foreign Office not doing this or not being interested in that, but Roger Westbrook should receive full credit for having the initiative to see people who were interested in rain forests. In the course of a busy schedule, he had breakfast at Ghillean Prance in Kew and was briefed on rain forest matters in Africa by the director of Kew and his wife, who is a distinguished botanist. I give good to any diplomat who can do that.
In the chaos that is now Zaire, because of the civil war, what sensible measures can we take to protect its flora and fauna and its vast timber resources? My personal reflection during a trip that was truncated by the requirement of the Whips to return early was that Zaire varied enormously from province to province and that some of its provincial governors were men of considerable quality who were trying to do something in places such as East Kasai. Since so much of the African rain forest is in Zaire, what constructive proposals can we make for francophone Africa?
What is the Government's policy on help for francophone Africa? It might be said that because of historical ties we owe our allegiance to Tanzania, Malawi, the Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana and other African countries with which we have particularly close links. That could be an easy way out of doing nothing about francophone Africa. I and my colleagues, the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), formed the strong impression that
86
people in positions of importance in Kinshasa desperately wanted connections with European countries other than France and Belgium. They understandably wanted links with members of the Community who were not former colonial powers. If resources allow, there is a strong argument for our becoming more involved with francophone Africa and for not taking the line of leaving it to the French.
Last week I was invited to the inaugural meeting of the tropical forest resource group at Kew. I was extremely impressed by David Attenborough's presentation on the importance of water and his study of such sciences as limnology. What is the Government's policy on the acute water situation in much of Africa? When David Attenborough and others talk about the need for a world policy on water, everybody nods his head sagely and says, "Yes, we must have it"; but what is being done? That is a matter that concerns the Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests.
In addition, there is the acute problem of the loss of top soil and the use of fire wood as a main fuel. It may sound extraordinary to say it, but there is a strong argument for the Brazilian example of constructing nuclear power stations, which we hope will work one day, to save wood from the Mato Grosso and possibly from the rain forests.
In discussions on the rain forests, Jeff Burley, head of the Oxford forestry institute, pointed out that far too little had been said about saving the dry forest. Is there a policy on helping the dry forest in Africa? The figures given were 58 per cent. dry forest and 42 per cent. rain forest. The dry forest is absolutely enormous and is of considerable importance in stricken areas such as the Sudan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth knows so well.
A paper was given by Dr. Dransfield on the economic possibilities for rattan. I have previously raised the question of help for rattan growing in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. According to the presentation that was made last week at Kew, there is an enormous potential market for rattan products, and rattan meets every criteria of being sustainable. Can we offer any specific encouragement for rattan? The Minister has expert advisers in the Box who will be able to answer such questions off the top of their heads, and I know that the Whip and his Parliamentary Private Secretary are very athletic in going to the Official Box.
My last question was raised at the Kew seminar by Dr. Colin Ogborne. It concerns optical character recognition and the information that can now be stored on disks to avoid repeating information that could be so valuable in the tropical forest. I know that that subject is dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and our mutual friend Professor Howell of the Overseas Development Institute. That is my last question to arise out of Kew.
I want to engage the Minister's attention on another subject about which I feel very strongly. This afternoon I asked the Prime Minister a simple, straight, one-sentence question and I was shocked by his reply. I believe that my shock was shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) because he commented on it. The question was whether the Prime Minister would rule out United Nations military action against Libya. His answer came as quick as a flash—a decisive "No, Sir".
This is not the place to repeat my Adjournment debate of the other night about Lockerbie, but I wish to make one

87
comment. Lockerbie was a tragedy of horrendous proportions. The police in my area had to help to clear it up and I went to see it. I do not in any way underestimate the tragedy, but the view of the Scottish police about Syria and Iran is wholly different from what the Foreign Secretary is saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it very difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to either of the orders before the House.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, that is why I had to make that comment before I return completely to order and return to African development and the great man-made river project in Libya.
That project has been ridiculed as a Colonel Gaddafi white elephant but that is not the view of many ecologists who have been to see it. Nor is it the view of, for example, my friend Professor Barri Jones, who is professor of archaeology at Manchester and responsible for the Cyrenaica digs. He is a very intelligent man who understands how the ancients got their water when that part of north Africa was one of the most fertile parts of the world.
I believe that I have the Minister's sympathy to a certain extent because he, almost uniquely in the House, is an Arabic speaker. Both my parents were Arabic speakers but, I, alas, am not and I regret it very much. We are talking about an area of great civilisation. If you ever get the chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not fail to go to the great Roman remains at Leptis Magnus because they are more spectacular than anything in ancient Rome. That place must have sustained an enormous, sophisticated civilisation; but do not let me digress.
The main point for us is that the man-made river project is the largest engineering project in the western world. Thirty-six United Kingdom firms are involved. The consulting engineers are Brown and Root. In the light of the answer that the Prime Minister gave this afternoon, it is high time that the Government talked seriously to, for example, Dick Morris. He is the chairman not only of Brown and Root but of Nirex. The Government should ask him, as a major business person in this country, what is his view of the Libyan Government. I suspect that it is favourable, as was that of expatriates who could quietly say that those people are not corrupt and that they are pretty efficient.
I do not hide the fact that in the early 1980s Colonel Gaddafi and those around him may have been responsible for some terrible things in the support of terrorism. However, there is much more to be brought into that equation—for example, the bombing of Benghazi and Tripoli. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, I believe in seeing for myself. She has moved the House by going to areas that interest her in particular in Iraq, and she and others can take it from me that I was greatly moved by going to see working-class areas in Tripoli and Benghazi which had been flattened by bombing that had caused terrible casualties. That had been done by bombers based in the United Kingdom and, whatever the rights and wrongs of La Belle discotheque which was purported to be the reason for the bombing, I
88
cannot believe that the working-class people in Benghazi and Tripoli had much responsibility for what happened in Berlin.
The Libyan situation should be considered carefully by the Foreign Office because the Libyans have held out an olive branch. My Labour colleagues and I went there in early November. It may be said that we were naive to go, but, if so, we were naive in the company of that cautious fox Mr. Giulio Andreotti, the Italian Prime Minister, and Mr. Dumas, the French Foreign Minister. They had both been and there are few more cautious than they.
We should reconsider the Libyan situation, remembering that there are 5,500 of our fellow countrymen there, many of whom are Scottish engineers from the west of Scotland. When I wrote an article defending my general views in the Sunday Post, I received a great deal of mail from relations who said that they were extremely concerned about what might happen. The British were well treated the last time, but if it were to happen again—and I return to my question this afternoon—and if military action were not ruled out—I am not so sure that, human beings being what they are, British workers who are earning the Minister's bread and butter, my bread and butter and that of all of us by working in the oil industry and related engineering projects, will be so well treated.
The Libyans are per head easily the richest in Africa because of their huge oil production. They have an enormous potential which they say they are prepared to deploy—and I am inclined to believe them—to help the less wealthy or, indeed, the poorest, countries in Africa—especially those in the Maghreb—to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth is doing me the courtesy of listening attentively. I suspect that he knows from his European experience that that is certainly considered to be a possibility by his former Italian colleagues. Incidentally, if anyone is talking about sanctions, I can tell him that that is pie in the sky. I do not believe for one moment that the Italian Government will impose sanctions on Libya in view of their interests in Libya and their dependence on Libyan oil. The planes will fly every day as they do from Fiumicino and if they are banned from flying from Fiumicino for a week, they will fly from Bari or Taranto or some obscure airfield. The Italians will not go along with sanctions against Libya—that is sheer make-believe.
Before anyone says that I am callous, I can say that I am extremely close to the Lockerbie relatives. Jim Swire and his wife Jane were my guests here—as they have been previously—the week before last and the week before that. Anybody who has been to Lockerbie and who has a close relationship with the Roman Catholic priest Father Patrick Keegans who lives in Sherwood crescent, which was destroyed, or with the Rev. Logan Kirk, who speaks for the Church of Scotland community in the area, cannot be callous about the matter.
It is high time that the Foreign Office looked again at the whole question of economic and political relations with Libya. The Foreign Office should look at the report of the Adjournment debate. Although I had the courtesy to give to the Foreign Office at 9.15 am that Monday, every word of what I planned to say and although the debate did not take place before 1 am on Tuesday, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Minister of State, did not make the least attempt to answer the precise questions of which—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but he is now straying well away from the orders again.
Mr. Dalyell: You have been extremely tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made my point and I will leave it at that.
8.10 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I will be brief because the orders are not controversial and we do not oppose them. However, this is an occasion when it is possible to say to the Government that we have heard so much of this before. Some of us can remember back to the 1950s and to the time of the Colombo plan, when various grandiose schemes were suggested and when we were told that the problems of Africa and of third-world countries could be dealt with if only the plans were put into operation. It is now almost 40 years on, yet the world is still divided between the countries that have and the countries that have not.
It is appalling that the Government place such small importance on overseas development. That must be so because only 0·27 per cent. of gross domestic product is expended on overseas aid. The Government must tell us why that is the case. It is no good arguing that it is a matter of waiting for economic growth in the United Kingdom before we can help the rest of the world. The figure of 0·27 is the percentage of GDP at any particular time. In the past 13 years, we have been brought up on the fairy tale of Britain's economic miracle. We are repeatedly told by Ministers that economic growth has been greater and that economic performance has been better in this country than in Germany, in Italy, in France and in the countries of our other European Community partners.
We need to examine exactly what the Government mean by economic growth. They do not mean manufacturing investment. Many of the countries that have made their way and have taken their place in the second rather than in the third world are the countries that have found that investment from multinational corporations has enabled them to do so. I refer to countries such as South Korea and Taiwan which, not many years ago, were regarded very much as third-world countries. African countries, such as Mali, Chad and Guinea-Bissau, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) knows so well—and I am delighted to see him here—do not yet have the resources to enable them to step out of the third into the second world.
The Government are under the misapprehension that overseas development is not important electorally. They will be amazed when the next election comes. In previous election campaigns in which I have taken part, it is highly significant, especially when one addresses meetings promoted by the churches and by charitable organisations, that overseas aid is very much to the fore. Even in my poor constituency—poor not in the hearts of the people, but in the poverty that has been pressed on them by the Government's economic policies—people who are unemployed come to my surgery and write letters to me at the House expressing the view that Britain should do more about poverty in areas such as the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia. When the Ethiopian famine was shown on television, I was inundated by letters asking what the British Government were doing.
90
The Government may be able to say that they are giving assistance. However, the Minister's speech posed more questions than it answered. Will the Minister spell out to the House and to the nation what percentage of the African development fund is contributed by our European Community partners? The Minister boasted that our share in the African development fund—I do not know whether the replenishment element or the total amount—has increased from 3·55 per cent. to 4 per cent. What is the contribution of France, of Portugal and of Italy? Where do we stand in the league table of assistance to the African development fund? I should love to know the answer and I am sure that many people will ask that question in the next few months as we approach the general election.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will give the answer.
Mr. Wareing: It is unusual for my hon. Friend to make a suggestion from a sedentary position because he is more often on his feet. I think that he will provide the answer. I want the Minister not only to provide the answer, but to give the justification for our share being so drastically small when we have had the marvellous economic miracle of the disastrous Thatcherite years. The Minister tells us that the United Kingdom provides 17 per cent. of the Caribbean Development fund. What share is being taken up by others? Britain especially has a moral responsibility to the Caribbean because most of the Caribbean was part of the former British empire and most of it remains within the Commonwealth. If it were the case that Germany, France, Italy or Portugal were contributing a similar share or a bigger share, that would be a damnable testimony to the inadequacy of the Government's economic development policy for the third world and for the Caribbean.
I also want to know the answer to the question posed by the Minister when he talked about the principles on which aid will be based. He talked about sound policy frameworks and about economic reforms. What does he mean? Does he mean getting on one's bended knee and bowing in the direction of the Thatcher Foundation, for example? Is the answer something far more meaningful than that?
Market economics have not solved the problems even of our economy and they certainly cannot solve the problems of the African economies. We cannot control environmental pollution in the United Kingdom simply by looking to the market, and we cannot save the rain forests of Africa or of Brazil by sheer market economics. Something more is required—the middle way which requires the planning of resources to ensure that the problems are tackled.
The Minister referred to "good government", but what does he mean by that? Is "good government" the one party state, such as Malawi? Hastings Banda has always been a favourite of Tory politicians. Is he "good government"? Is the Government of Kenya, with all its recent problems from which the British Government have veered away, good government? I suggest that before there can be good government there must be self-government. I believe that it was the Liberal statesman, Campbell-Bannerman, who said that self-government is better than good government. I have always believed that to be the case because I believe that, although it may not be perfect, democracy is the best form of government even though it sometimes throws up the type of Government that our people have had to endure for the past 13 years.

91
However, should we not argue that if there is to be good government and if people in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Zaire are to have rights and democracy, the first thing to do is to put food into people's mouths and ensure that they have a roof over their head? It is no use talking like that to this Government because one does not need to go more than a couple of hundred yards from this place to find people in our own country who do not have a roof over their heads. It is only when people have food in their bellies, shelter over their heads and something reasonable with which to clothe their bodies that they can be preached at and called upon to look at forms of government that give them rights and ensure that dictators do not have full reign over third-world countries.
Good government is all very well and I love to think that, in time, plural democracy will come to all the countries in Africa, but first things first. The first thing is to put food into the bellies of starving African people and to ensure that they have a good environment in which to live. If we do that, it will not be for the benefit of the inhabitants of those countries alone, because if we improve the environment of continents such as Africa and areas such as the Caribbean, we are providing ourselves with a greater safeguard than that which can be achieved by the massive sale of arms to such countries, which the Government have condoned. We would provide ourselves with a safeguard for maintaining world peace and, in the long run, would provide markets and business for people in our own continent and our own country which would ensure their employment as well as a better and decent standard of living for the people of Africa.
8.22 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I had not planned to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because of my illness and hospitalisation, of which you are aware. However, having heard the debate, I am minded to say a few words.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth has given the House the benefit of his great expertise in such matters and has referred to an important consideration. I refer to the way in which we can unify the contributions of the major donors especially at the technological level. I have been struck by reports that I have received from various organisations in parts of Africa that, on occasions, aid has been allocated for projects that have previously been put in place by other donors and that when our tranche has been allocated we have not taken into account the previous failure of similar projects. That position seems to arise because of the lack of co-ordination between the major donors.
I am indebted also to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for referring to the conference that he attended a week ago at Kew at which Sir David Attenborough spoke and at which the concept of a world policy on water was advocated. I found that particularly interesting because when my hon. Friend and I visited India some weeks ago we were struck by the fact that when seeking to secure development in those parts of India that are in need of development—almost the entire country—a major
92
target is the need to provide villages and communities with a water supply. Wherever we went, the lack of a water supply was clearly what determined the level and nature of economic activity in the area. As my hon. Friend said, we need a world policy on water. That matter will need to be addressed by the next Labour Government.
The danger in these debates is that, whenever Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box, they lead us and the country to believe that they are making resources available to the various and varied programmes that are submitted to them for support. The public could well believe that the Government are actually increasing aid, when the reverse is happening. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow tabled a significant question that drew from Ministers information and evidence to the effect that the three principal United Nations agencies with which we are concerned have suffered cuts not of 38 per cent., as was suggested today in the Prime Minister's statement, but of an average of nearly 60 per cent. Those are substantial cuts in United Nations programmes to which the Government have admitted in an answer to my hon. Friend—
Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister shakes his head, but before replying to the debate he would do well to secure a copy of the answer that was given to my hon. Friend last week.
Several references have been made to our contribution to the African development fund. It would be for the benefit of the House if I were to place our contribution in the context of those made by other countries since the fund was started in, I believe, 1972. During that period, France's contribution has been twice ours; Germany's contribution has been two and a half times ours; the United States' contribution has been three and half times ours; the Japanese contribution has been four times ours; and the contribution of Sweden—a very small country—has been substantially more than ours. Furthermore, Switzerland—that small country in the centre of Europe —has made a larger contribution and my much-loved Italy has contributed twice the amount of the United Kingdom. But we are talking about a part of the world with which Britain in particular has immense historic links. Indeed, although previous Labour Governments made Africa a priority when determining areas of need, this Government seem to see Africa differently.
I understand that the sixth replenishment will come into effect only when 40 per cent. of the contributions have been deposited. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether there will be any delay in the allocation. If I am short of breath, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will understand in the light of what I said earlier, so please forgive me. I hope that the Minister will explain whether any delay in the contributions of others could influence the use of the moneys that we are allocating to Africa.
In one regard, the Prime Minister's statement today was particularly significant and I do not want to criticise that part because it was a notable contribution to an important issue affecting third-world countries. The Prime Minister said:
"We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.

93
We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations."
I am pleased that such matters of substance are discussed at the United Nations and that there will be a report on them. What worries me is that article 27 of the UN charter almost prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of nation states. There is a crying need for intervention of a particular type in various parts of the world—not the intervention to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred with some concern in the case of Libya, but intervention where it is impossible to deliver aid and meet the needs of suffering peoples.
In that respect I refer to what is happening in the Horn of Africa, not so much in Ethiopia as in the Sudan. According to Oxfam, the effects of conflict and drought on already weakened economies in the Horn have pushed the margins of effective groups beyond the bounds of near vulnerability to a state of critical impoverishment. Coupled with massive population movements and famine, the disruption to already inadequate social services and, in some cases, the loss of traditional coping machanisms have created unprecedented levels of hardship and household stress in the region. In many parts of the Horn family farms have been abandoned and assets destroyed or stolen. Children have been deserted and orphaned, and, in many cases, drawn into the fighting. Women have been exposed increasingly to violence and rape. Diseases, such as malaria, have swept through the region, adding to the already high death toll. Fighting between rival clans and factions within clans has escalated in Somalia, engulfing some cities and communities in violence and bloodshed. Conflict has increased in the Sudan, in parts of Ethiopia and Djibouti. Ethnic tensions are complicating attempts at reforming administrative and political processes. Those are the comments of Oxfam's field officers who are witnessing what is happening and reporting back to the developed world.
I do not know whether it is right to say this, but I feel strongly that the UN must find a way of intervening in these areas. We cannot allow hundreds of thousands of lives, indeed sometimes millions of lives, to be prejudiced and endangered because the western developed world, the Security Council or possibly distorted liberal opinion in the west is unwilling to realise that we have a duty to intervene and ensure that aid reaches those people who, otherwise, will lose their life.
In recent years, many of the problems in the Horn could have been dealt with if the western democracies and the Security Council had recognised their responsibility to take action—not to intervene militarily, as the Prime Minister may have implied in his statement, but to intervene with a spirit of compassion, understanding and concern to deal with the problems of these desperate people who live in desperate conditions.
Finally, I come to the Caribbean Development bank. It raises yet another issue which has caused me increasing concern over the past year—the monitoring of funds from our aid budget for developing countries. Perhaps it is my 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee that have made me a fierce defender of the taxpayers' interest, but they want to know that aid gets through to people, meets needs and secures the objective of policy to which all Governments subscribe—to ensure that we help people in need.
94
The aims and objectives of the bank were clearly set down by Mr. Ben Whitaker in a debate in January 1970 just before the fall of the Labour Government. At that time we were contributing 50 per cent. of the paid-up capital of the bank. That is far more as a proportion than the sum that we are paying today. It seems that others have taken over our role. Indeed, the replenishment in this order is only twice as much in cash terms, not real terms, as we were allocating at the time of the construction of the bank in 1970. I do not think that I have misread Mr. Whitaker's comments.
Be that as it may, we allocate moneys with a view to their being used as concessional funds for investment. Although the Minister says that we have representatives, what monitoring ensures that we absolutely meet the objectives set by Parliament? Is there a possibility that funds will make their way into projects that the British taxpayer may not feel deserve support under the heading of needy relief? Is it possible that without proper monitoring funds can be invested in areas that, in our view, may not be helpful in securing our objectives? We are here to ensure that moneys are made available for the development of these countries and that through that development we meet the needs of people who should be the real beneficiaries.
Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one example of that is what appears to have happened with the sale of vast areas of the Guyana rain forest and the resale of perhaps the most fragile area of the whole South American river system area?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has just triggered my memory. He is absolutely right. I had forgotten that example. Indeed, it is only a few weeks since I tabled a question on that. At that time the Clerks in the Table Office referred me to answers that my hon. Friend had gleaned from Ministers. If I recall correctly, a banker or a British company—
Mr. Dalyell: It was Lord Beaverbrook who had been a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry and who is, I think, the treasurer of the Conservative party.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: —purchased at a low price a project that was supported in the 1970s with substantial sums of taxpayers' money.
I recall another example. A few weeks ago The Guardian revealed an investment in the Virgin Islands. Ministers may feel that what happened can be justified in that some may say that the investment was made to avoid social dislocation or trouble in that particular community. Nevertheless, some question whether that investment should have been made in so far as losses on a particular operation were being written off. These are important matters.
The only way to resolve these problems is for our discussion of projects to include not just comment on their technicality, but examples. Tonight the Minister has not given us lists of projects to discuss. In future Ministers may think it wise to make it clear on the explanatory memorandums provided with such orders where the money has been spent. Taxpayers want to know that, because they want to know that those in development funds and banks take into consideration value for money when investing these moneys. All I can say to Ministers is

95
that, in future, it would be good if some projects could be identified in whatever material is provided for hon. Members in advance of our debates.
8.39 pm
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to reply to as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. This has been a courteous and harmonious debate, but, none the less, I appreciate that it sparks an area of controversy in the House about the overall level of funding by the United Kingdom. I shall comment on that in due course, but first I should like to consider the detailed points raised by hon. Members.
As a result of collective brains—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I have a sheaf of notes on which I shall rely and call upon in my speech. My comments may therefore be somewhat incoherent and not as elegant as I would like, since I have not had time to put all those notes into order. However, I believe that my reply will be fairly comprehensive.
First, may I say how pleased I was to see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) address the House? I hope that there will be occasions on one of the railway journeys that we often share northwards when I shall be able to talk to him further. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) by commenting on the hon. Gentleman's speech first; I shall return to her opening speech later.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to the form of influence that we have over the policies of the Caribbean Development bank and the African Development bank. It is right to consider the institutional set-up that enables us to monitor those two institutions. The African Development bank has 18 seats on its board—two thirds for regional members and one third for non-regional members, of which we are one. The board meets monthly. There are so many non-regional members that we share that one seat with three other countries—Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal. We try to reach a consensus on the way in which we vote. Inevitably, that practice dilutes to a considerable extent the degree of supervision—not influence—that any one country, including ourselves, can give. However, we have great influence because we are respected by our colleagues.
The United Kingdom, along with Canada, is a major shareholder in the Caribbean Development bank. We have a separate seat on the board of directors, and our executive member is the locally based official in the region who is responsible for our bilateral aid. We have a major influence on the board.
The hon. Member for Workington asked whether we can be sure that the British taxpayer would be happy with every investment that is made. I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's interest in ensuring, on behalf of the taxpayer and the Treasury, that that money from the taxpayer is well spent, but, obviously, the short answer to his question is no: one cannot be certain that the taxpayer would be absolutely happy with every investment. There are occasions when, given the consensus of the four different countries under which we operate, we are sometimes not entirely happy and we may express our reservations.
That loss of sovereignty and control over aid disbursement is not serious, however, because we have
96
great influence. Such loss of sovereignty and control is inevitable if one gives sums of money to such an institution to disburse. If we did not want that loss sovereignty, we would not give a penny to the African development fund —we would give it all through our bilateral subscriptions and dues. We could do it that way, but we choose to do it through the African Development bank.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The question is whether they meet tests of development soundness—soft loan allocations.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is a test for soft loan standards, because a country's eligibility depends on its relative poverty, as defined by its gross national product per head and its creditworthiness. With the African Development bank, countries with a GNP of more than $900 per head are not entitled to receive concessional resources, and 90 per cent. of the fund's resources are earmarked for countries with a GNP per head of $510 or less. Those are the sort of criteria that are set. We monitor them, of course, and we are satisfied that those criteria are followed.
The nature of the projects is less important than a country's eligibility but, in general, we focus on activities concerning agriculture, social services and the environment. In Benin and Zambia, the structural adjustment programmes have been the method of support used.
The hon. Member for Workington asked a specific question about when the 40 per cent. trigger—the current allocation—for the African development fund will be reached. As at 22 January, 12 donors had deposited instruments of contribution totalling 1 billion fund units of account or 39·1 per cent. of capital. I need not name those donors. Kuwait, alongside the United Kingdom, is also actively considering its position now. I am confident that, within the next week or so, the 40 per cent. trigger limit will be reached. It is a race between Kuwait and the United Kingdom to reach the end of the course.
I do not want to spend too much time on the speech of the hon. Member of Workington, but he did mention the world policy on water and the Kew conference. I agree that the problem of water resources, especially those shared between countries, will become increasingly important in the future. Water supply and sanitation projects are also vital, and this is certainly an area in which the African development fund is assisting. In 1990, more than £10·5 million was spent on water and sanitation projects under the ODA's bilateral programmes in Africa.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Canada and the United Kingdom were founder members of the Caribbean development fund. Since then, France, Germany and Italy have joined. The inevitable result is that not only the British share, but the Canadian share has, in relative terms —relative to the total raised, because the fund has got much bigger—declined.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke about Africa, and my comments will refer to her speech, but I appreciate that those comments will also relate to the contributions from the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). In terms of humanitarian assistance, we have made a swift, generous and continuous response to the present food crisis in Africa. Since September 1990, we have spent about £135 million and £255 million since the beginning of 1989. The United Kingdom is among the

97
largest bilateral food aid donors to the Horn. We are deeply concerned at the desperate situation in Mogadishu. We have given nearly £2·3 million of emergency aid in recent weeks. but violence is badly disrupting our relief efforts. As the hon. Lady will know, Security Council resolution 733 calls for a ceasefire and for access to relief supplies.
I realise that my remarks are somewhat disjointed but I shall come later to some of the more substantial comments made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. She mentioned population activities and overseas aid. In 1990, almost £24 million were spent on activities directly related to population concerns—a 28 per cent increase in real terms since 1989. A further £67 million was spent on other health programmes, many of which contributed indirectly to reducing population growth.
Perhaps the gravamen of the hon. Lady's speech was our contribution to the African development fund No. 6. As I said in my opening speech, that represents a modest increase in real terms over the fifth replenishment. She said that the United Kingdom's role was far too small in that development fund, but she must appreciate that, if we are to make a fair analysis of the British aid programme, it must be stated that the African development fund is only one of many channels of bilateral aid.
The hon. Member for Workington implied that we have less control over aid disbursement in that fund than over bilateral aid. But many other avenues of aid, including the World bank and the European development fund, provide aid to Africa. It cannot be disputed that Africa is high on the United Kingdom's list of priorities for aid. Indeed, almost half our bilateral aid goes to Africa. Our contribution to the special programme for Africa makes us the fourth largest bilateral donor to that programme of action.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also referred to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and I am fully aware of the issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, in a letter that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will have received, explained the Government's position. It must be remembered that we were unhappy about the first phase of the special programme for Africa under IFAD. We made it clear that we were contributing to that first phase rather reluctantly. Indeed, our £7 million pledge at that time was expressed as a one-off exercise, so there is no question of our behaving inconsistently with policy established over a number of years.
The IFAD's future activities in Africa should be financed in the same way as its work elsewhere, and the most important priority is not the special programme for Africa but to work for a successful outcome of the fourth replenishment, which we are about to undertake this year, and generous provision of IFAD's resources. Discussions are due to start in Qatar in April.
Mrs. Clwyd: I did not mention IFAD, but I shall return to it later. I mentioned the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the United Nations children's fund. Those three funds have experienced considerable cuts in the past 12 years under the Government, and they are particularly important to Africa and the Caribbean.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was about to come to that. I am sorry if I attributed those remarks to the hon. Lady rather than to the hon. Member for Hemsworth.
Mr. Enright: Those were not my remarks.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In any event, those points were raised.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also mentioned our aid to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. She knows that that aid is separate from and in addition to our aid to developing countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed that during the meeting with Commonwealth heads of Government in Harare last autumn. Africa has been and remains an enormously high priority for the British aid programme.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned the reduction in our voluntary contributions to the United Nations agencies from 1979 to 1990. The hon. Member for Workington said that I should check the figures. I know the figures perfectly well, and they are not those that he gave. He may have given the nominal figure, but the 37 per cent. reduction is in real terms, and that is the basis on which I have been working.
Our multilateral aid commitments have been rising steadily over the years, and the demands on them are growing month by month—especially our commitment to the European Community aid programmes, which are an area of maximum growth. I am sure that no Labour Members, who have such a deep and abiding support for the ideals and principles of the European Community, would wish to see a reduction in that commitment. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley should speak to her Front-Bench colleagues, because their rhetoric is very much in sympathy with that view. [Interruption.] I shall not stray too far into the European Community debate tonight.
The consequence has been that, from 1979, to use the same time scale as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in framing her question to my right hon. Friend, the expenditure has risen from £118 million to £333 million in 1990, an increase in cash terms—to use the figures of the hon. Member for Workington—of 182 per cent., or well over 25 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that, according to the Minister for Overseas Development and OECD figures, we spent the lowest proportion of gross domestic product last year in the history of the United Kingdom? How can the Minister plead his case when, in answer to my question, Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and admit that fact?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall come to that, and I shall stick to my word, but I cannot concede that point.
The consequence of that growth in European Community multilateral aid is that we have had little option but to restrain our contribution to those voluntary United Nations programmes.
The hon. Lady asked three specific questions at the end of her speech. She asked about the Caribbean Development bank's support for intra-regional trade, economic diversification and food security. The Caribbean Development bank aims to support all three policies throughout the region. It works closely with other regional institutions of importance of which the hon. Lady will be aware, such as CARICOM—the Caribbean Community

99
and Common Market—and the Organisation of East Caribbean States in developing programmes in those regions.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) spoke of the United Nations target for developed countries to contribute 0·7 per cent in aid, and of the United Kingdom's contribution to the African development fund. I think that I have addressed the issue of the development fund, and I shall deal with the United Nations target later.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth is an acknowledged expert on the subject, but I cannot accept his assertion that there is no co-ordination among donor nations. Under Lomé 4, the European development fund has been authorised to lend money for structural adjustment programmes and it is co-ordinating its activities with the World bank. It is not part of the World bank special programme of assistance, but it co-ordinates structural adjustment efforts with that institution.
Another example of donor co-ordination is the World bank's special programme of assistance for Africa—an excellent illustration of the mechanism for co-ordinating donor assistance to Africa. Our pledge of £300 million to SPA 2 is evidence of the high regard in which we hold that institution's achievements. It is now examining its public expenditure priorities, which should further enhance the effectiveness with which aid is used in Africa.
Mr. Enright: I was not talking about the World bank, but as the Minister has raised that issue, may I say that co-ordination with the World bank on the ground, as tested, is not good. I should be appalled were the World bank to become the driving force of co-ordination for the European development fund, as the aims of those two organisations are not allied. I do not wish to make allegations against Her Majesty's Government, the Netherlands Government or anywhere else, but it truly worries me that bilateral projects are often put in place which do not always prove helpful or complementary, and consideration is not always given to previous failures. I know that the will and desire exist for co-ordination, but often it is not forthcoming as it is not given sufficient attention, and rivalries and jealousies remain.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the experts could fairly debate that point, but tonight is not the appropriate occasion to do so. The hon. Gentleman advanced the case for multilateral aid programmes as opposed to bilateral ones. I can see the force of that argument on the face of it.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rum. The European Community is concerned to ensure that rum should be treated in the same way as other agricultural products. We want to ensure fair competition and prevent artificial barriers. Therefore, we are resisting the French position.
With regard to sugar, we wish to ensure that small producers without much scope to diversify are not excluded from trading with the European Community, and are not unfairly treated. I have personal knowledge of that subject because, as Minister, I have responsibility for our relations with the Caribbean region. I agree with much of what was said on that issue.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about bananas?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That subject was not raised.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to Zaire. United Kingdom bilateral aid is naturally focused on the Commonwealth in Africa, but Zaire is a major recipient of the African Development bank finance and fund resources. We hope that the African development fund will undertake work in the forestry sector in Zaire. We agree that tropical rain forest resources are of vital importance in Zaire.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also mentioned the issue of dry versus wet forests. We most certainly agree that dry forests deserve as much attention as tropical and moist forests.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to rattan and to water in Africa. My collective brain has its limitations, and it cannot answer this question off the top of its collective head. Once again, the hon. Gentleman has shown by his skill and knowledge a way of challenging the expertise of the experts, who will have to take further instruction on the matter. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is answered by letter.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow kindly referred me to Leptis Magna and the successful irrigation system of the Roman world. If I may digress for a moment, I refer him in turn to the successful water system invented by the Greeks at Pergamon. That system did not even need the Roman aqueduct; it managed the flow of water on Archimedean principles, which was even more remarkable. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's friend in Manchester university will enlighten him further about that.
In 1990, we spent more than £10·5 million bilaterally on water sanitation projects in Africa—
Mr. Dalyell: On the question of Libya—I realise, an unpopular cause and a delicate issue—may I ask the Foreign Office to reflect again on what I have said, which is rather different from the subject of the Adjournment debate? I say this in the presence of the Leader of the House: if, heaven help us, there are to be sanctions or if military action is to take place, there should at least be some statement to the House of Commons and a three-hour debate before we go further down that perilous road.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman will understand that, in all matters of such sensitivity, it is deeply important that a weak signal is never given by any Member of this House. He will agree that it will be only wise of me not to attempt to comment on or in any way to qualify the words that the Prime Minister used this afternoon—and I have no intention of doing so.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) asked me to list the contributions of our European Community partners. That is all published information. I can give it again tonight if the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, but I suspect that the fact he wants to establish, which I do not dispute, is that Britain comes fourth on the list of contributors behind France, with 9·43 per cent., Italy with 9·43 per cent., and Germany with 9 per cent. Britain gives 4 per cent. I will not list the countries that come below us.
Why is the United Kingdom so low down the list? I explained during my comments on the speech by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that we attach high priority to Africa, but that there are other channels in the aid system. Fifty per cent. of our aid budget goes to the African

101
continent. Our aid to Kenya has been well used in helping to improve living standards and prospects for the poorest. Kenya's economic performance has been better than many other sub-Saharan country. We welcome the positive moves of recent weeks on economic and political reform, but further effort is needed on key economic issues. The coming elections must be free and fair. We shall continue to stress the need for transparency and a level playing field. The Kenyans are absolutely clear about our views on that.
I hope that I have done justice to at least some part of all hon. Members' contributions. I now want to deal with the central point raised this evening. It has been raised often before with me and with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I am sure that it will be raised again. I shall answer it as best I can, although I am afraid that I may burden Opposition Members with an answer that they have heard before. It is important, however, that the facts should be put in some perspective.
We accept in principle the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent., but we are not prepared to set a timetable, because a real-terms growth in aid quality is much more important. When the hon. Lady says that our official aid-to-GNP ratio was 0·2 per cent. in the calendar year of 1990, that does not reflect—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend did not say that.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thought she did.
For those who do say that, it does not reflect the underlying growth in the aid programme. This year—1991–92—our aid programme is £1,789 million, which is 10 per cent. more in cash terms and 3 per cent. more in real terms than in 1991–92. Over the past five years, our average aid—to—GNP ratio has been 0·3 per cent. We cannot make forecasts, but in 1991–92 our aid is expected to be about 0·3 per cent. of GNP.
Is the hon. Lady saying that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would immediately put right that ratio? Is she making a promise to the British people that this improvement will be financed by an increase in taxation, or that, just as the Conservative Government have always aspired to improve that target, so will a Labour Government, and the British people will have to wait a long time for such an improvement to materialise? The Government have tried strenuously to maintain effective and sensible aid policies, with a view to maintaining that commitment and reaching that target when the country can afford it.
9.11 pm
Mrs. Clwyd rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has already spoken. She needs the leave of the House to speak again.
Mrs. Clwyd: With the leave of the House, I wish to answer the question that the Minister asked me. The Labour party's policy is clear. I would be happy to send him a copy of our policy document if he would like to have more detail. It is much more substantial than the policies produced by the Government in their papers on overseas development.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady does not have the leave of the House to speak a second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I asked whether the hon. Lady had the leave of the House to speak again, there was no objection.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I said no.
Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not here for the debate. She has come into the Chamber in the past five minutes.
The answer to the Minister's question is clear in Labour party policy documents. Within the lifetime of a future Labour Government—that is, within the next five years —we shall aim to meet the 0·7 per cent. United Nations target for developed countries. The Government are not prepared to set out any timetable for reaching that limit. Their aid policies will be judged by that failure to make any such promise. In 1979, the Labour Government achieved an aid budget of 0·51 per cent. of GNP. Since then, the Government have carved that back, and the developing world has lost £10 billion in aid. Those are the facts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

Overseas Development and Co-operation

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
  Resolved,
  That the draft African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Statutory Instruments, &c.

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION
  That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  UNFAIR DISMISSAL
  That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  TRANSPORT
  That the draft International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991, dated 17th December 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

SATELLITE BROADCATING STANDARDS
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7573/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 6th November and 11 th December 1991 and 10157/91, relating to standards for satellite broadcasting of television signals, and 8122/91, relating to audio-visual production in the context of the strategy for high definition television; and endorses the Government's approach which is to aim for the correct balance between promoting new broadcasting technologies, protecting the rights of satellite broadcasters and serving the best interests of consumers.—[Mr. David Davis.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS) BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. David Davis.]
Ordered,
That, if the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as any proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to Local Government Finance not later than Ten o'clock; and those Questions may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. David Davis.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, the Motions in the name of Mr Francis Maude relating to Supplementary Estimates 1991–92 and Estimates 1992–93 (Vote on Account) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, at which time Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of them.—[Mr. David Davis.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Hunt relating to Local Government Finance (Wales) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or the end of a period of one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, at which time Mr. Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of them; and those Questions may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. David Davis.]

TRAFFIC CALMING BILL [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Traffic Calming Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Police National Computer
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
9.15 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome very much the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of the working of the police national computer mark 2 and the need for effective safeguards, and I am delighted that this debate is starting at a relatively civilised hour.
The police national computer mark 2 came on stream last autumn, and I understand that its direct access capacity is 190 million bytes, with a further 80,000 million bytes available as back-up on disk. Already, about 60 million records are included on it. I welcome very much developments such as this one. This national computer will enable the police force to prevent crime and to be more effective in catching criminals.
I regret that during my research for this debate I found that, in the field of computers, one of the least well-equipped police forces is that in my own area, Greater Manchester. I understand that the Greater Manchester force still does not have the necessary computer capacity to take full advantage of the police national computer mark 2. Cynics in Manchester claim that the last chief constable there had a direct link to God and, therefore, did not see the advantages of computers. Whatever the explanation, it is very sad that the Manchester force does not have the necessary computer capacity. I hope that achieving that capacity will be one of the priorities of the new police committee.
As I have said, I welcome computers. However, like all modern inventions, for all their advantages they must be effectively controlled. That is the point of this debate. The need for control of computers was well anticipated by the Lindop committee in the 1970s. A whole chapter of that committee's report is devoted to the question of the requirements concerning data collection by the police force and the security services and the necessary controls. I am worried about one of the Lindop committee's central recommendations—that, with the recording of any information on computers, fact should be separated from supposition or intelligent guesswork. The Home Office and its Ministers accepted that recommendation in respect of both the mark 1 and the mark 2 computers. I gather, however, that about 1982 the Home Office changed its mind. However, it made no public statement concerning its decision that factual information and suspicions could be mixed in one computer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why that change took place.
The Lindop report made it fairly clear that safeguards with regard to access and illegal use are needed. I hope that the Minister will confirm who is entitled to have access to the police national computer. Obviously the police have that right, although I understand that there is some doubt in respect of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That may be for technical reasons, or a matter of policy.
There is the question also of the extent to which Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities have access. Also, given the meetings of the Trevi group of Ministers and the development of Europol, perhaps the Minister can say how soon it will be possible for other EC police forces to gain access to Britain's police national computer and what restrictions will apply.

105
One wonders whether the Department of Social Security fraud branch is able to request information, and what checks there are on its legitimate use. I understand that local authorities have pressed hard for access to the criminal records section, in particular in vetting potential employees—particularly those who would be working in sensitive areas, such as the social services. I am informed that local authorities currently have to make their requests through the police.
In the past, there have been a number of stories about illegal use of police computer information. I am sure that the Greater Manchester force takes that aspect very seriously; all inquiries by police officers are logged; and a senior officer checks about 3 per cent. of all entries each month to ensure that they were made for legitimate purposes.
However, one still hears all sorts of rumours to the effect that it is possible for others to obtain information, yet one or two of my constituents found it difficult to obtain information about the identity of a car owner involved in an accident. I should like the Minister to state clearly what checks are made to ensure that police computer information is not available to debt collectors, bailiffs, and other such persons.
When 60 million items are included on a computer, and however carefully information may be segregated—I understand that the system used is known as NASCH, meaning name, age, sex, colour, and height—one is worried that it could be easy to confuse one John Smith with another John Smith. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that there is no risk that information that should have been entered in respect of one individual is recorded in the name of another.
In order to reassure the House and the public, perhaps the Minister can explain what is the procedure when a police officer uses the powers given in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to stop someone in the street or someone driving a car. In the case of a driver, the officer will ask for his or her name, address, driving licence, and insurance documents. Either the investigating officer, using his own personal radio, or the officer accompanying him is then usually able to check those details almost immediately on the police national computer.
Can the Minister say whether other information about the individual is also presented? It is obviously important to know whether the car has been stolen or whether the driver has a criminal record. It would also be logical to know whether there are any outstanding warrants for the individual's arrest.
I understand that any such information is presented by the control computer, which can then convey it to the police officer concerned. One or two police forces are experimenting with notebook computers, and perhaps it is intended that they will receive information from the control computer. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
What concerns me is the extent to which any warning signals included on the computer record are made available to the control officer and conveyed to the officer on the beat. An answer that the Under-Secretary gave me on 15 October 1990 suggested that a fair number of warning signals would be available.
I asked the Home Secretary to list the kinds of information currently held on the police national computer under the data class of warning signals. The Minister—this Minister—replied:
106
"Warning signals are intended to alert officers to potential difficulties or risks in dealing with the individual. They may be used only in cases where there is supporting evidence of the need for them to be included in the record. Their inclusion and removal is at the discretion of the force which enters the record on the police national computer.
The information held under the data class of warning signals is intended to indicate individuals who may possess firearms, may possess weapons, may resort to violent behaviour, may attempt to escape, may suffer from mental disorder, may possess explosives, may make false allegations against the police, may be a hazard to others as a carrier of contagious diseases (e.g., hepatitis)"—
I suppose that HIV and AIDS are included in that category—
"may suffer from a medical condition and/or require medication, e.g., heart condition, claustrophobia, epilepsy, alcoholism, may attempt suicide, may be in unlawful possession of controlled drugs, may impersonate male or female."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 721.]
Some of those warning signals relate back to criminal convictions. I consider it legitimate to require that officers have such information when dealing with individuals on the pavement or in cars. Some of the information, however, will be merely conjecture, based on guesswork by police officers—albeit, on occasion, quite good guesswork. I wonder how much of that information is passed on to individual police officers. Surely, if someone has been convicted of possessing weapons or explosives, it is vital for the information to be passed on as quickly as possible, so that the officer concerned can take it into account.
I am not sure about the question of persons suffering from mental disorder. The trouble is that, as soon as anyone is given a piece of information, he will tend to treat the person involved in a slightly different way as a result. Occasionally I attend functions with my wife. If I am introduced as "Gill's husband", I am treated in a certain way; if I am introduced as a Member of Parliament, I am generally treated in a very different way.
On social occasions, of course, that does not matter. However, if a police officer is suddenly told by control that the member of the public with whom he is dealing may be suffering from a mental disorder, he may start to deal with that individual differently, and in a way that may not be particularly helpful. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us at whose discretion all the information is passed on— mainly with a view to protecting the officer concerned, if any risk is posed to him, but also with a view to protecting the individual from being treated in a different way by that officer.
Let me also ask the Minister to deal with the whole question of the inclusion of suspicions. I pointed out at the beginning that the Lindop committee had said that suspicions should be dealt with differently. Two studies have been made of police records relating to suspicions, one in the Lothian and Borders region in 1982 and the other in the Thames Valley in 1984. The Minister may tell me that there is a much more up-to-date set of statistics relating to police suspicions. I understand, however, that in 1982, in the Lothian and Borders region, there was an entry on the computer for one in six of the population suggesting some kind of suspicion. In 1984, the statistic for the Thames Valley was one in 10.
That is a large number of people in those two areas to have been entered on the computer. Had that led to a dramatic detection of crime, it would have been good, but I understand that the surveys then carried out suggest that in only 0·03 per cent. of detected crime did the suspicions on the police national computer lead to convictions. I hope

107
that the Minister will be able to tell us that more recent studies show that the number of suspicions, as a percentage of the population, has been dramatically reduced and that the detection rate has been much better.
One understands why information should be put on the computer in the first place. The question that one has to ask, however, is how quickly that information is used. When children are molested, for example, people come forward with information. The police draw up a list of five or six people who, it is alleged, were seen in the vicinity and upon whom suspicion falls. It is perfectly legitimate for the police to have that information. In the past, a notice was usually put up in the local police station. When somebody had been convicted of the offence, or no other offences had been committed for some time, the names were removed from the police station notice board—the police needed the space there—and put in a file or destroyed. The temptation now, however, is to leave the information on the police national computer. Although the information was absolutely accurate in the case of one person who was apprehended, in the case of the other individuals it was completely mistaken.
Can the Minister tell us how information is taken off the police national computer? DNA information was collected for one purpose many years previously in the case of Ray Williams. It then turned up in another court case much later. How many entries on the police national computer are deleted each week? Is the Minister confident that when information is no longer relevant, because somebody has been convicted of the offence, the information relating to other people is removed as soon as possible?
Furthermore, if information is to be sent abroad, will other police forces be told that we, unlike some of them, do not separate suspicion from factual information on our computer? Most people here would be very worried if information about them turned up in Greece, or in other European Community countries, based upon suspicion. The safeguards here may be very good, but they may not be so well understood by a police officer in another country who read about that suspicion.
I understand that the only guidelines for the police national computer were produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1987. The guidelines contain a foreword by the Data Protection Registrar who had a few reservations about the guidelines. He said that they sounded all right, but that he would like to know what was happening in practice. Those guidelines were produced for the police national computer mark I. It is now almost five years since they were published. It is certainly five years since they were drawn up. What discussions has ACPO had with the registrar about the guidelines? Has he looked at the way that they are used by individual police forces? How many people have asked to see the data relating to them? Is the Minister satisfied that the 1987 guidelines are still sufficiently detailed and effective, or does he think that they ought now to be updated?
I am interested in whether the police national computer is linked with poll tax registers, electoral rolls and telephone numbers. Every telephone directory is now available on disk. I assume that that is readily available to the police—it certainly should be, because sometimes they
108
have the nasty task of tracing accident victims and informing the next of kin. It is therefore important for them to be able to verify addresses quickly.
Concern has been expressed about people's HIV status appearing on returns. I hope that the Minister will give us some more idea of the circumstances in which people's HIV status will be entered on the computer.
The police national computer has a list of prostitutes, but I understand that it applies only to London. Are lists being kept by other big cities? Will the Minister confirm that the list contains male and female prostitutes, and what conditions apply to removing names from that list? I assume that people are put on the list if they have been connected with an offence relating to prostitution or have been cautioned. It is reasonable and sensible that, if the police are trying to implement a rational policy whereby, first, someone is cautioned and then prosecuted, that information should be available.
I make no complaint about such information being kept, but I am worried about it appearing on the police national computer when the original request had nothing to do with prostitution. Suppose someone's name is entered on the computer as having been convicted of prostitution in London and they report an assault in York or perhaps somewhere totally different. It would be perfectly reasonable for the police to check their address and details such as car ownership on the computer. Does the computer then disclose their conviction for prostitution? If that information became available to the police officer investigating the assault, would it affect the way in which he pursued the investigation? Will the Minister assure us that information on someone's behaviour as a prostitute would be accessed only if they were being charged for similar offences?
The Government should have made a statement on the way in which the police national computer operates; it should not have been necessary for me or the National Council for Civil Liberties to prise information from them. The police and the Government can be proud of the police national computer because it fights crime, but it is important that they offer assurance to the general public that it cannot be misused and does result in people being dealt with differently.
I apoligise for putting a long list of questions to the Minister, but I gave him advance notice and I hope that he will answer most of them.
9.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am glad that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) selected this subject for tonight's debate. Numerous questions have been asked in the House about the police national computer, but to my knowledge this is the first opportunity we have had in recent times to discuss wider issues. As the hon. Gentleman said, he let me know some of his particular areas of interest in advance. I am grateful for that because it enables me to provide him with a fuller response on those points than I might otherwise have been able to do. However, he has added some detailed questions. I shall read his speech and where I am unable to reply as fully as I might, I shall write to him.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall make a few general observations to set this important subject in context.

109
The police national computer has been in operation since 1974. It has become an established part of police operations. Many police officers today, even in the higher ranks, cannot remember carrying out their police duties without the assistance of the computer, and it is now as much a part of police back-up as the police car and police radio. That is what it is, a tool to help police officers carry out their difficult task of investigating and detecting crime and bringing offenders to justice.
The police national computer is one of the most comprehensive record systems in the world and it gives police officers across the country rapid access to vital information round the clock, every day of the year. In seconds police officers can obtain details of a stolen car or a wanted person, and establish whether an offender has previous convictions for serious crimes. The police service takes this service for granted, and that is how it should be.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State formally unveiled the new police national computer on 17 November last year. The new system continues the services provided by its predecessor, but it takes advantage of the latest developments in technology to provide a high quality service in the most cost-effective way. The transition to the new system went very smoothly, and those involved in the Home Office and in the police forces deserve congratulations on this significant achievement. But replacing the old by the new is not the end of the matter. The police are increasingly looking to technology —and to information technology in particular—to help them combat increasing crime. We are, therefore, proposing to provide a number of new information services which the police believe will make a significant contribution to their operational effectiveness. These will necessarily have to be spread over the next five or six years as, and when, resources become available.
Plans are being prepared for a new communications network which would enable rapid and cost-effective exchanges of information between the police national computer and forces, and between police forces themselves. This could be extended later to other agencies in the criminal justice system, but it has not yet been so extended.
The Government have declared their intention to computerise the national collection of criminal records currently held at the national identification bureau. Some concern has been expressed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and others at the incompleteness and inaccuracy of the records because of the difficulties of updating the present manual system. A computerised national criminal record system on the police national computer will enable police forces to enter information directly on to the national collection. This should ensure that it is accurate and up-to-date, but the benefit would not simply be in having tidy records.
I have no doubt that, by providing instant access to comprehensive records of offenders, the national criminal records system will become an indispensable aid to the better functioning of the whole of the criminal justice system. It will be of significant benefit to the police in investigating and detecting crime. Comprehensive and accurate information on antecedent offences will assist in the prosecution of cases and in sentencing, and it will help the prison service to determine the appropriate prison regime. This is a major project which will be introduced in phases over a number of years.
110
It should be clear from what I have said so far that the police national computer is exactly that—for use by the police in the United Kingdom. The use of the computer is subject to guidelines agreed and approved by the police service. How it is used, and by whom, is monitored by the police national computer organisation, and auditors in forces and in the police national computer organisation ensure that the security and operational procedures in forces are complied with.
Apart from the police forces—and here I move on to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions—only the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have direct access to the PNC, but they can see only some of the information and only to read it. They are not able to enter or to change data. The information held on the PNC can be disclosed via the police to a wide range of bodies. They are listed in the data protection registration for PNC and continental police forces cannot themselves retrieve information from the PNC.
The chief police officers are responsible for ensuring that PNC terminals—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What will happen under the Trevi proposals? Is it intended that there should never be an interchange of information directly by computer but only by request between all European Community police forces?
Mr. Lloyd: The nature of closer interchange is already being discussed. The hon. Gentleman is right on that. There has been no agreement on the subject and, at present, no police force on the continent can take information from the PNC and no such police force has access to it. If a continental police force requests particular help from the police forces here, the police in their own judgment may release what information they think it desirable to release in the common fight against crime.
The chief police officers are responsible for ensuring that the terminals are sited in secure locations away from public view and operated only by properly trained and authorised personnel. Security is maintained by terminal operators using unique identification and password codes to gain access to the system. The communications network is designed to prevent unauthorised access to the system from external sources. A full list of the security measures that forces should take in relation to the computer system is set out in the code of practice of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Information on PNC is not generally restricted to officers of a certain rank. The level of access for operational purposes is determined by role rather than by rank.
I turn now to the information that is held on the national computer about which the hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. On a number of occasions, I have been glad to set out for the hon. Member in response to his questions in the House detailed information about the contents of the computer records and how many are held on the system at any one time. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman quoted one reply this evening. This information is recorded in the Official Report and it would not be especially useful to dwell on it here.
I should like to emphasise that the police national computer is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. The various applications on the system are registered in accordance with the law, and state

111
the purpose for which the data is held and to whom it may be disclosed. The safeguards provided by the Act should not be dismissed lightly.
In addition, the police service itself has issued a code of practice setting out how the principles underlying the Data Protection Act should be applied to the PNC and to other police computer systems. The code has been agreed with the Data Protection Registrar and a copy is in the Library.
There are clear guidelines in the code on the manner in which information should be added to computer systems, how long it should be kept on the system and the security measures that should be taken to prevent unauthorised access. It sets out in some detail the means of complying with each of the eight principles that underpin the Data Protection Act.
The ACPO code of practice for computer systems contains a foreword by the Data Protection Registrar welcoming the code. The code is kept under review, which is one of the points to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the code is kept under review, is there any intention to issue an updated version with any alterations to the 1987 edition which is the one that was supplied to me when I asked for a copy?
Mr. Lloyd: I believe that it will be updated as the new computer takes on additional information, but when and at exactly what point is a matter on which I shall have to get back to the hon. Gentleman because I do not know ACPO's plans. The system belongs to the police, not to the Home Office.
The hon. Gentleman raised several other points about the information on the PNC. He asked, for example, whether one inquiry provided all the information on PNC about an individual. The answer is that information on criminal records is kept separately on vehicles and their registered keepers. Information on both can be obtained only by means of separate transactions. It is for the user to decide whether inquiries should be made of the "persons" and "vehicles" files in the course of a single inquiry. Therefore, such information is available to the officer, but he must seek the information from one file, the other or both.
As for deleting information from the PNC, this is a matter for the police. I am able to say that the national identification bureau at New Scotland Yard has removed some 60,000 criminal record entries from PNC in the past three months as part of a weeding exercise. This exercise is continuing. The code of practice which I referred to earlier recommends specified periods for the retention of data.
Generally, PNC records of convictions are weeded out after about 20 years. No special exercise is undertaken to take from the record any non-factual information, but forces should ensure that it is kept up-to-date when submitting information about new convictions.
The Lindop report, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, recognised that some police computer systems may need to keep "intelligence" as well as factual information. The ACPO code of practice makes it quite clear that officers originating information on a computer should clearly distinguish opinions from matters of fact—and they do, so the status of the information is apparent when it is accessed.
112
The PNC records may also contain markers about the health of the subject, which may be helpful to police officers. There are some 5·5 million records on the "persons" file, but it is not known how many have such "markers" because they system cannot be searched for these, but only by a person's name.
As the hon. Gentleman dwelt on it for some time, I know that he is concerned that some of that personal information may be available to a police officer and may modify his actions. In fact, the information is there so that the experienced police officer may make a judgment on how he might deal more appropriately with a particular person. As that can often have implications for the officer's safety, it would be quite wrong not to have such information available.
The PNC does not have links to any local electoral or poll tax registers. A number of police forces have adapted terminals to make automatic inquiries on the Phonebase. This is a computer service provided by British Telecom for the ordinary directory inquiries information. The inquiry transactions do not pass through the police national computer.
As for passing factual and intelligence information to other parties, it is for chief officers to decide whether and how much information from the PNC should be disclosed to others and what qualifications to attach to the disclosure.
It has been the practice for some time to disclose information on convictions for the protection of vulnerable groups, such as children; to ensure probity in the administration of justice; and for reasons of national security. An efficiency scrutiny of the national collection of criminal records last year pointed to weaknesses in the present arrangements for disclosing information, and there is pressure from a number of directions to widen the scope of disclosure. The Government are currently considering the matter and have undertaken to put forward proposals later this year for new disclosure arrangements.
Under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act, it is open of course to anyone to ask for any information on the PNC which relates to them. Last year, some 18,000 people exercised that right. Under the terms of the Data Protection Act, the police are not obliged to disclose information which might be prejudicial to the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. That seems to me to be eminently sensible.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about HIV status or mental health? Would that information be disclosed if inquiries were made? The information is more for individuals' protection than for the protection of police officers. Would that simply be at the discretion of individual police forces?
Mr. Lloyd: That information would have to be released under the terms of the Act and I have just read out what those terms are. If in a particular case the information was there but could not be properly withheld on any one of those bases, it would have to be revealed. When I write to the hon. Gentleman, as clearly I will have to on a number of points, I should like to confirm that my interpretation is correct.
I have not yet dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question about the index of prostitutes held by the Metropolitan

113
police. It is not on the PNC; it is a card index system kept by the Metropolitan police to comply with the provision of the Street Offences Act 1959, which requires that a record be kept of common prostitutes. Therefore, it concerns women only.
The PNC has played an important part in police operations for many years. The new system has proved its worth. I have no doubt that it will continue to play a vital role in assisting the police in the fight against crime in the
114
years to come. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with the opportunity for saying so. I have answered many of his questions, but I am aware that I have not fully addressed several and that I have given some answers that I wish to confirm. I will do so in a letter that I shall write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Ten o'clock.