Sitting of 14 July 1989

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

Foreign Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Minister, I must announce to the House that, in view of the many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate today, I propose to limit speeches between 11.30 am and 1 pm to 10 minutes. I hope that those called before 11.30 am will bear that limit in mind. Yesterday, a number of hon. Members were disappointed as a result of rather long speeches at the beginning.
9.34 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Yesterday, the House examined the critical significance for Hong Kong of events in China. Today, is our opportunity to look at the broader international scene, which is very important. In the past six months, we have seen a unprecedented pace of change across the world—some might say a revoluntionary pace. The 1789 revolution which we, together with 34 other national leaders, celebrate with the French today, was far-reaching in its significance. At least the storming of the Bastille is unlikely to be re-enacted as a result of today's debate. The fireworks in Paris last night will today give way to political and economic co-operation in the summit 7 discussion this weekend.
I want to pay a tribute to the French. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was Valery Giscard D'Estaing who called the first summit, which has led in recent years to decisions which have well guided the economic recovery of the western world. It was an important and fundamental move with which we were entirely at one.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Chalker: No, because I have hardly begun.
With the other industrial nations, we shall be taking stock in the summit of the many changes all around us. Unlike the appalling tragedy in China, much of the change is encouraging. There has been the acceleration of political reform in the Soviet Union and parts of eastern Europe. There has been welcome progress in East-West relations and rapid progress in the European Community which, more than ever, is acting as a dynamo for Europe as a whole. There has been progress towards the resolution of long-standing regional conflicts, notably in southern Africa.
Last November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
"we live in a time of great opportunity for constructive action by the United Kingdom in foreign affairs".—[Official Report, 25 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 336.]
1240
That is more than ever true today. The challenge we face—which this Government are facing successfully—is one of active encouragement with our allies and partners in the management of this fast-changing international scene.
Over the past 10 years, the Government's consistent, clear and practical policies have helped to lay the foundation for many of the positive developments that we are now seeing. We remain in the forefront of discussion on all the main issues. Britain's views are sought, Britain's voice is respected and Britain's experience is valued and all that is as it should be. It is a direct consequence of the way in which the Government are putting to work this country's established place in the international community. We are using effectively our membership of NATO, the European Community, the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the Commonwealth, and our extensive bilateral links. We are not simply part of the crowd and we certainly do not lack the courage to speak out for the policies we believe to be right. That has always been true in East-West relations and in our attitude to events in eastern Europe. It is here that the changes have, perhaps, been most dramatic.
The elections to the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies were the first steps towards a more open, representative system of government in a country not used to people power. In Poland, the process has gone a stage further with Solidarity's stunning victories in the freest elections for over 40 years—a quite remarkable outcome. In Hungary, the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the 1956 uprising reflects the new political freedom in people's lives in that country. It is interesting to note that in his recent visits to Britain, West Germany and France, Mr. Gorbachev has repeated his commitment to reform and his desire for greater co-operation with the West. At the United Nations last December, he argued for the removal of ideology from international relations.
Mr. Winnick: I welcome the reforms in eastern Europe, as the Minister probably knows. But if it is right that eastern European countries should be able to follow their own paths—one hopes that there will never be a repeat of what happened in Czechoslovakia in August 1968—is it not equally important that central and south America should be able to follow whatever path they want, without intervention from the United States? That means no repeats of what happened in Guatemala in 1954 and in Chile in 1973. It also means an end to the continuing efforts to destabilise the regime in Nicaragua.
Mrs. Chalker: The whole House knows that we believe in democracy in all countries. Sometimes democracy leads to unwelcome events; in this country it has sometimes even led to the election of a Socialist Government.
The changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union and in the East are of major importance. The failure of the Soviet economic model now contrasts sharply with the successful dynamism of the European Community. Mr. Gorbachev knows that he is being left behind and that is why the Soviet Union moved to establish diplomatic relations with the Community. Mr. Gorbachev has recognised what we—and most recently President Bush—have been saying all along: stability and prosperity will last only if people are free to determine their own future, economically and politically.
We realise that Europe has a historic opportunity to develop and to reduce the barriers that divide us. The

1241
Government are determined to grasp the chance. We are ready for the co-operation that Mr. Gorbachev seeks and we are working consistently towards it.
For the United Kingdom, as for the West as a whole, our starting point in East-West relations remains the strength and unity of the NATO Alliance. Without this, we cannot be confident of our security or in our approach to the new opportunities before us. The Government have consistently upheld that simple principle, and will continue to do so.
The recent NATO summit demonstrated once again the strength, unity and confidence of the Alliance. President Bush, attending his first summit as head of state, offered an impressive example of constructive United States, leadership.
In NATO's 40th anniversary year, we can look back on a record of solid achievement. At the same time, we also look forward, in the words of the summit communiqué, to the possibility of moving
"beyond the post-war period"
to a
"new political order of peace in Europe".
I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Comonwealth Office, to comment further on our approach to arms control and relations with the Soviet union and eastern Europe. On the latter point, we have two related objectives—to develop stronger political, economic and cultural ties to help to erode decades of mistrust and to encourage, as far as we can, greater political and economic freedom in those countries, including real progress with human rights.
We shall continue to work closely with our allies and partners to achieve those objectives.
Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend has referred to work in eastern Europe and to co-operation with our allies. In a week that marks the centenery of the official recognition of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the way in which parliament and governmental diplomacy may help in these, as in other matters?
Mrs. Chalker: Yes, indeed, and I have seen the early-day motion in my hon. Friend's name. We have always believed that non-governmental organisations have a role to play. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is second to none in its work on these matters. All hon. Members will recall the visit to the United Kingdom of Mr. Gorbachev as leader of a Soviet IPU delegation in 1984 and the reciprocal visit led by Lord Whitelaw in 1986. I pay tribute to the continuing work of my hon. Friend and the IPU in this as in many other matters. The IPU can often forge links that it may initially be difficult for Governments to form. I remember also the work that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did before he became Secretary of State for Defence. Let us have bouquets all round.
Mr. Gorbachev spoke in Strasbourg last week of
"markets open for trade and minds open to ideas."
Where are those open markets and open minds to be found? The blueprint for Mr. Gorbachev's much-canvassed common European home is here in western Europe and in the relationships and institutions that our democracies have forged since the war. Those institutions include the Council of Europe, whose 40th anniversary
1242
celebrations my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary attended in May. With the accession of Finland, the Council of Europe unites all the countries of western Europe in a common commitment to respect and defend basic democratic principles and human rights.
The European Community has also covered much ground. The Community is stronger and more dynamic than ever and increasingly it is becoming a magnet for the rest of Europe. It is also a focal point for trade and development in the world as a whole.
Much of the European Community's present success is due to the efforts of this Government to give the Community real direction. There will always be those whose ideas are fixed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and who misunderstand—I put it no stronger than that—the extent of our commitment to Europe. But it was our contribution that led to the reform of budgets and the common agricultural policy and to the single market programme. Those policies, more than anything else, have revitalised the Community. That is why the Community has become a subject of everyday relevance, both in Britain and beyond the Community's boundaries.
The voice of Britain came through loud and clear yet again at last month's summit in Madrid. Once more, we advocated a pragmatic, measured approach to Community development. The press promised blood in the bull ring—death, or at least defeat, in the afternoon—for the British approach. In fact the Community was the victor at Madrid. The Madrid summit marked an important step for the Community on several key matters. It was the end of a good presidency, exceptionally well conducted by the Spanish. It also reflected that the Community has learnt to set realistic targets and achieve them before staking out new ones. That was the essence of the businesslike approach that we have always advocated.
Economic and monetary co-operation is a classic example of an aspect of policy in which trying to achieve too much too quickly could be harmful. That is why we argued strongly that the decisions must not be rushed and that, far from encouraging progress, inflexible deadlines risk leading to wrong decisions. The force of those arguments was recognised at the Madrid European Council, which not only refused, despite pressure from some member states, to set any inflexible deadlines; we agreed that any intergovernmental conference must be preceded by full and adequate preparation. That is plain common sense.
The Madrid Council also recognised that there is no automatic link between stage 1 of the Delors report and the subsequent stages. We shall fully support the rapid implementation of stage I. That, too, makes sense.
Practical progress in the Community is best achieved by allowing it to evolve, not by shackling it to detailed and mechanical timetables that could not necessarily be adhered to.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has given way, because I know that time is limited. She has outlined the important decisions that were taken in Madrid. These were taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before she went to Madrid and subsequently the Government have not held any kind of debate in this Parliament and we have not discussed these issues. Therefore, the European Council has become totally unaccountable to national Parliaments.
Mrs. Chalker: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. He has expressed it on the Floor of the House, in Committee and to me privately on many occasions. It is not always possible to discuss the detail, but it is essential that the issues come up in debate, as they did on 18 May, when we had quite a full debate, in which I think that my hon. Friend took part. We have discussed these issues on many other occasions, and my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Lord President is looking at ways to have more debate. I ask my hon. Friend not to press me today on decisions that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has quite properly taken, in conjunction with the Committees that have been looking into the ways to have more effective examination of Community business in Parliament.
Another important factor about the Madrid summit is that it formally confirmed the principle of subsidiarity. That is an awful word but a sensible principle. It is the principle that we should legislate at Community level only when national measures alone do not suffice. It is a principle with an excellent pedigree, as it is enshrined in the constitutions of both the United States and West Germany.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Subsidiarity?
Mrs. Chalker: I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not seem to understand and has not bothered to listen to the word. It has important implications for the House. Its acceptance by the Madrid Council vindicates the stance that the Government have adopted over many years and that has been endorsed by many right hon. and hon. Members in recent months when we have discussed European subjects.
Madrid also quietly approved a further important measure—our common-sense approach to the reduction of frontier controls. We have maintained the delicate balance between removing barriers to the movement of Community nationals and goods, while still maintaining adequate security. We have already succeeded in galvanising the Community into action against fraud. Now, concrete targets have been set, just as we wanted. The Council's conclusions now give new impetus to the whole anti-fraud programme.
These are the reasons why Britain and the Community have good cause to celebrate the outcome at Madrid. We can be satisfied, too, at the wide range of international issues—including China and Hong Kong—addressed in the Council's conclusions. They reflect the Community's outward-looking stance—and the scope of European political co-operation, which this country has done so much to develop.
We are also working closely together with our European Free Trade Association friends. EFTA is the Community's largest trading partner and our annual EC-EFTA trade is now over £140 billion. Closer integration between the EFTA countries and the single market will benefit us all. The Government fully support the efforts to establish even closer co-operation between the Community and the six EFTA countries.
Mr. Denis Healey: Now that Austria has announced its intention to apply for membership of the Community, will her Majesty's Government support that application, provided that no difficulty is raised over the non-alignment provisions of Austria's state treaty?
Mrs. Chalker: The question is not whether the United Kingdom alone but whether the whole Community supports the application.
Mr. Healey: What about the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Chalker: I understand that, if an application is received, it will be considered in the Council of Ministers on Monday next. Following such consideration, which I am sure will follow a similar path to other applications to join the Community, and as on previous—
Mr. Healey: Will the Government support it?
Mrs. Chalker: —as on previous occasions when an opinion has been given by the Commission, it will be carefully considered; then we shall decide.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Government make the decision between today and Monday?
Mrs. Chalker: The opinion takes some months, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The latest opinion, on the application from Turkey, has still not been produced.
I have said many times that the Community is a western European success story. As such, it has a key part to play in the West's strategy for encouraging change in eastern Europe. We have a great deal to offer in the way of trade, investment, skills and training to countries pursuing reform. Britain has been at the forefront of moves in the Community to encourage change in Hungary and in Poland through trade and co-operation agreements, and the help that we can give them. We also strongly support the Community's decision not to pursue an agreement with Romania, so long as she continues to follow the bankrupt policies of repression.
Britain has worked hard to ensure that the single market's liberalising philosophy applies in the external as well as the internal sphere. We worked long and hard to ensure that our major trading partners understand that 1992 is an opportunity and not a threat, and the message is getting through. President Bush, speaking in Boston on 21 May, stated:
"We believe a strong, united Europe means a strong America."
We now find that American and Japanese businessmen are jumping aboard the 1992 bandwagon. One has only to look at the surge of investment from those countries into the Community in recent years to see the truth of that. There was another announcement yesterday. Much of that investment has come to the United Kingdom thanks to the Government's success in transforming Britain. We are now a welcome and profitable European home for many overseas companies. No one can doubt the Government's commitment to see Britain lead the Community in the 1990s.
The Government's commitment to liberalisation is clearly reflected in our approach to the GATT Uruguay round. Here, we have helped to develop a purposeful Community approach. No one should under-estimate the importance of a successful GATT round for keeping protectionism at bay. Major gains are to be had from extending the open multilateral trading system into new areas like services and intellectual property, as agreed at the mid-term meeting in April.
However, we shall not be able to realise these gains unless there is also substantial reform of agricultural trade. The Community is now, thank goodness, committed to

1245
substantial reform, and this will continue in agricultural trade. That is another change for the better that Britain has helped to bring about. We have more work to do to ensure that the new Lome convention—Lomé IV—which is under negotiation, further improves access to Community markets and Community aid for the developing countries.
We need to use our diplomacy to good effect in other places. We have already done much in the Community to help the developing world, but there is more to be done. In particular, there is more for Britain to do in helping to achieve the resolution of regional conflicts. The Government have consistently argued that negotiation, not confrontation, offers the best chance to put an end to the conflicts and injustices across southern Africa. At last, it seems that negotiation is being given the chance to work.
The agreement last December on Namibian independence was a major success for patient diplomacy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a personal, and valuable, intervention in support of the authority of the United Nations, when the peace plan faced an early crisis in April. The United Kingdom is making major financial and practical contributions to the United Nations force in Namibia. In addition, we are contributing £500,000 to help the repatriation of Namibian refugees. With our EC and Commonwealth partners, we are ready to help an independent Namibia. A stable and a prosperous Namibia will benefit not only its own people, but the whole region.
So, too, will a successful internal reconciliation in Angola and in Mozambique, and there are some welcome signs on this front. We continue to do all we can to encourage the process so that the peoples of Angola and Mozambique, who have suffered for far too long, will be helped to find, at last, peace, stability and some economic revival.
Change may also be in prospect in South Africa as the elections fixed for 6 September approach. Our policy towards South Africa has been balanced, realistic and constructive. In the past few months, my colleagues and I have met a number of South African politicians, some of whom are likely to play a prominent role in the next Government. We have emphasised to Mr. de Klerk and to others where we want to see signs of early progress—the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other political detainees, the lifting of the state of emergency, the unbanning of political organisations and the initiation of real negotiations with credible black leaders without preconditions or constraints. In this context, we are encouraged that Nelson Mandela and President P. W. Botha have met. We do not know what will come of, it, but contact is better than no contact.
We believe that the new generation of South African leaders understands the need for fundamental change. Regrettably, apartheid will not be abolished overnight, but a start must be made. We want to see real movement towards a genuinely representative system of government after the elections. We have made this abundantly clear to Mr. de Klerk. We shall judge him by his actions, not his words.
Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister confirm that terrorism in Northern Ireland and the supply of arms by South Africa, or agents of South Africa, to terrorists was raised at the meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr. de
1246
Klerk? We consider that the timing was extremely unwise. Is it now the Government's view that there is evidence that South African agents were responsible for supplying arms to terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland?
Mrs. Chalker: I shall simply say that the issue certainly was raised between the Prime Minister, her colleagues and Mr. de Klerk. I ask the hon. Gentleman just to leave it at that for the moment. There is no question but that the issue was thoroughly raised.
I hope that the whole House by now realises that negotiation and the encouragement of negotiation in South Africa are not the only way in which we are trying to help bring about a speedy end to apartheid. We are also doing much to help black people in South Africa.
Britain is spending more than £25 million in the five years to 1992 to help South Africa's black victims of apartheid. We are setting up or supporting clinics, new housing, homes for children and the elderly, small black-owned businesses and schools, training and technical assistance. By 1990, we shall be financing 1,000 black South African students each year, and we intend to go on seeking to help through our system and with the assistance of many of our European neighbours, those people who have been denied their opportunities.
We are also helping South Africa's neighbours with substantial development aid and, in the case of Zimbabwe and Mozambique, with military assistance in the form of training their men. Presidents Mugabe and Chissano have made it clear to the Prime Minister how greatly this is appreciated and they repeated that again when she met them in Zimbabwe in March.
I have talked about our response to change in the international environment, but the phrase can be interpreted more literally still. The global environment, the natural world in which we live, is changing fast. We do not yet know enough about phenomena such as ozone depletion and global warming, but we already appreciate that they could be as significant for the future of this planet and thousands of millions of people, as anything now happening on the political scene.
Britain and British industry have led the way in international efforts to find out more about the causes of these phenomena and how they might be controlled. I am sure that the Government are at one with Opposition Members on this issue. The Government have a responsibility, with all other major countries, to help mobilise the international community to take action to protect our environment.
As part of that effort, in March we successfully co-hosted, with the United Nations Environment Programme, an international conference of more than 130 nations on saving the ozone layer. It attracted new pledges of support for the Montreal protocol, which sets targets for CFC emissions.
We followed that conference up with two major initiatives. First, we doubled our financial contribution to the United Nations Environment Programme, making Britain the second largest contributor after the United States and we have urged others to follow our lead. I am pleased to say that the Federal Republic of Germany has recently done so too. We have also called for steps to be considered to strengthen the United Nations Environment Programme institutionally within the United Nations system.

1247
Secondly, we called for an international convention on global climate changes, which would commit signatories to reduce activities that contribute to global warming. That proposal has also attracted widespread support.
Environmental issues are often sensitive. Many developing countries put a higher priority on economic growth, but we are working to encourage the kind of co-operation that promotes sustainable growth, the wealth creating that does not cause irreparable damage to renewable resources. We do not want a grey approach. We are determined to succeed in the search for green growth—economic growth that is real but takes full account of the needs of our environment.
That approach has been reflected in the recent visit to Brazil of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, where he signed a very important environmental agreement aimed at finding joint approaches to the exploration and management of forest resources and to environmental monitoring. It is a balanced and sensible agreement and we believe that it will be successful in operation. We hope that all the other nations will join in this vital approach to try to conserve our forest resources.
I have covered only some of the many areas in international affairs where the Government are making a significant contribution to the management of international change. The message is simple and clear—at a time of great opportunity, Britain is at the forefront in helping to shape events. In Europe, as in other regions of the world, and in areas of truly global concern, we are managing that change constructively.
The Government have solid experience, sound judgment and sensible, practical policies, and it is those that we are applying to the issues. We are meeting rapid change with a dynamic response. We are successfully defending this country's interests and at the same time co-operating with others to build a stronger, safer framework for the conduct of international relations.
Those are the achievements in which this country may justly take pride. We shall continue to be guided by those policies, which I now commend to the House.
10 am
Mr. George Robertson: Any of us who seek some explanation for the timing of this foreign affairs debate on a sunny July Friday need look no further than what the Minister described as the fireworks in Paris. It is no coincidence that the acceptable face of Thatcherism has been left behind today to hold the fort and do a repair job on British-French relations.
Paying a tribute to the French must be highly uncomfortable, one would have thought, in the light of the displays of the Tebbit school of diplomacy of the past couple of days—the theory of making friends by insulting and abusing them at a time of maximum national celebration.
As the Minister said, we live in momentous times. The whole geology of international relations has been shifted in the past few years and the very pace of change renders practically every generalisation redundant almost as it is spoken. Even the past week has seen its share of major events. We have seen President Bush's significant sweep through eastern Europe and the speech by President
1248
Gorbachev to the Council of Europe just a week ago today. This weekend in Paris we shall see the summit of the richest Western powers.
Few people would have dared to predict, five years ago or even three years ago, that elections in Poland would trounce the Communist party, that Hungary would have campaigning, independent parties, and that even in Moscow an elected Parliament would robustly debate and declaim and even sack useless Ministers, an exercise which in this country is still carried out by the old Stalinist process that the Soviet Union has done away with Some Conservative Members will get to power only by revolution while Opposition Members need only an election to do that.
We have also seen the formal end of the Brezhnev doctrine, the exit of Cuba from Angola and the Soviet Union from Afghanistan and major arms control agreements—some of them already signed and some of them promised. It must be a time for Britain to play a major or even a decisive part in this new world. As the Minister reminded us, we are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and a leading power in NATO and in the European Community. We are at the centre of the Commonwealth and we are still in the Group of Seven richest nations meeting in Paris this weekend. But the sad fact is that our impact on events is declining, not increasing. Britain is increasingly on the edge of the action and nowhere near the centre. After Ronald Reagan, the special relationship is no longer so special.
In NATO, the nuclear phobia of the Prime Minister left her high and dry at the 40th anniversary Brussels summit. Suddenly the Germans and their vision of a safer, more trusting Europe had America's ear. It was the German blueprint that won the day and the British policy of resistance to negotiations and short-range nuclear forces and a desire for new nuclear systems was firmly squashed.
Last month, the respected German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung—[interruption.] We all know that one of the chief talents that the Minister brings to Government is her fluency in German. I apologise for my lack of fluency. Because of her expertise she knows how influential, conservative and authoritative that newspaper is. It said that after the NATO summit, President Bush visited Britain only as a consolation prize for the Prime Minister after the end of the Ronald Reagan special relationship. The Minister will know just how damning that indictment is.
In the European Community, we stand totally isolated against the social dimension of the single European market of 1992. When the Prime Minister calls our Community partners Socialists and Marxist it no longer produces outrage but merely derision. In the Commonwealth, our eccentric resistance to sanctions against South Africa has left us on the fringe and our chair is empty. What a tragedy for Britain and for all those who care for this country to see us relegated in that way and to see our ability to influence those momentous events so reduced.
Much of our loss of influence is related to the Prime Minister's personality. She built a myth of a British economic miracle and held it up to the world as a shining example. It certainly got attention, and from those who did not look too closely it received praise and admiration. They now know better as, day by day, Britain drifts further into industrial strife, all of it legitimised by Tory laws It can be seen that the short-term impact on productivity and performance through the intimidation of unemployment

1249
and the bludgeon of the dole queue did nothing for the underlying problems and divisions that so greatly hurt our economy. So much for the economic miracle. There is also genuine sadness about the lost opportunities and the wasted chances.
To be fair, in the early 1980s the Prime Minister's break from the cold war time warp opened some new doors and some old minds. Perhaps her influence on Ronald Reagan persuaded an elderly Right-wing populist that he could get into the history books. She achieved a breakthrough on Rhodesia and, at whatever cost in other areas, she forced some reason and sense into our EC budget contribution. Those were the credits on the balance sheet.
But all those credits were not part of a grand strategy or of any coherent idea of Britain's role in NATO, Europe, the Commonwealth or the world. They resulted from a personalised ego trip—a parade of single-minded grudges, complaints and croneyisms combined with the Prime Minister's obsession of getting her own way even when it meant winning battles before losing the war. The Prime Minister is a triumphant general of a dozen pyrrhic victories.
President Bush's tour through Hungary and Poland this week has shown the western response to what is happening and being allowed to happen in eastern Europe. More than anything else that response will dictate the sort of continent in which we will live for the next 40 years. One of the saddest headlines of the week was in Tuesday's edition of the Financial Times, a paper not noted for its sensationalism in foreign policy. It said:
"Bush heaps praise but not much cash on Poland".
Poland and its neighbour Hungary are on the brink of the unthinkable dream. Perhaps they will have a pluralistic democracy, contested elections and mixed economies and will see the return of choice in the shop and in politics. With those things will come freedom to speak, think and write and perhaps even freedom before the law. How often have politicians in the West cried out for the very things that now beckon the citizens of those two people's republics? How often have we urged, cajoled and even threatened the oligarchies that ran eastern Europe? How we sighed when, in East Germany in 1953, in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 the fire of freedom was snuffed out. Now it could all happen, but suddenly everybody wants to wait for the Americans or the Japanese to do something. They want to wait to see whether Gorbachev will last the year and whether elections are allowed. If we keep on waiting there will be nothing to wait for. Unless democracy, pluralism or glasnost produces the goods, the old certainties and the comfortable old subsidised prison-camp states may again look too attractive to resist.
The crows are waiting for the experiments to fail. The Stalinists are not dead but merely wait for us to wait and for economic chaos to liberate the treasured designs of their past. The rich West has the resources to grip the problem, as former President Giscard d'Estaing said this week at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, if we act together now we can relieve the economic pressure and guide the sick economies along a path that will ensure stability. Of course, it requires imagination. It demands the same courage and vision and the same enlightened
1250
self-interest that launched the Marshall plan at the end of the second world war. It also demands generosity, even if the cash is tied and conditional and cautiously applied.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Poland the Confederation for an Independent Poland and Solidarity are extremely wary of large amounts of cash from the West because they believe that they will bolster the existing regime? Is he also aware that it was precisely this sort of unfettered aid given by West Germany in the late 1970s which allowed the Stalinist Polish regime to remain in power?
Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, it would help if he listened to what I am saying. I made the point that the aid can and should be targeted, it can be conditional and it can be involved in the projects that we in the West think beneficial, to Poland and to us. Solidarity's demand for aid was for $10 billion. President Bush offered $115 million. Solidarity does not see that as bolstering the Communist dictatorship. It sees western aid as salvaging democracy from the ruins of what could be the economic chaos that faces them.
This initiative from the West requires imagination more than anything else, and urgency. That is why the western and especially the British response has looked so grudging, ineffective and hopelessly disproportionate in the past few weeks. If I were a Solidarity activist in Poland contemplating sharing power and the extremely tough decisions that will be required with the outgoing Communists, I would remember vividly the ringing declarations of the martial law era and the chorus of noises of support that rose from every single western capital; and when I saw the meagre aid that President Bush brought, I would feel betrayed. We say that we should give aid as part of an agreed package, and that we should give it for specific projects such as pollution control, high technology investment, management and education. We say that we should give aid for private projects and joint ventures, but the key is to give aid before the fragile, trembling steps to freedom are crushed by the meanness and parsimony of mature democratic powers which waited and waited until it was too late.
I want to ask the Minister of State who will reply to the debate one specific question. He was reported in The Daily Telegraph as having said in Hungary on Tuesday that Britain was ready to provide support for Hungary's fledgling political parties in the run-up to free elections. Will the Minister be more specific about that? The seminars that he said were scheduled for some Polish and Hungarian politicians in the autumn will be run by the Great Britain/East Europe Centre, an admirable organisation on whose governing body I and other hon. Members serve. But the amount of money involved so far would hardly pay for the election address for a Bristol constituency, so if we are to have an impact on helping those new politicians and do not want all the work done by the magnificent, omnipresent German political foundations, much more cash will be necessary. How much will be available, and how soon?
The Prime Minister's increasing isolation is vividly on display in the European Community. We have heard a gloss from the most communautaire of the Foreign Office Ministers, but the European Parliament election campaign, masterminded as it was by the Prime Minister herself, was a miserable humiliation for the Conservative

1251
party. The campaign was a churlish, negative, trivial display of arrogant mismanagement and it is small wonder that the electorate rejected the Tory party and the message that it put forward.
What was the response from the mastermind herself—an admission that she got it wrong? Not on your life. Was the advertising campaign the disaster that their losing MEPs and some Back-Bench Members said it was? Was the reason the Bruges speech and its hectoring repudiation of the Single European Act, which the Prime Minister had accepted and then told the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) to go to Brussels and sign? Was it her denunciation of her fellow European Right-wing leaders, whom she told, according to the Daily Mail in May:
"We think your attitude of putting people on boards and committees because they are a trade unionist goes back to the Marxist period, a class struggle period."
Apparently it was none of those explanations: it was all down to the weather. According to the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it was such a warm day that the Tory voters simply stayed in their gardens. That I find unbelievable, but it was the definitive political explanation from the Prime Minister of the rout and gutting of the Tory party—the humbling of a Government long on arrogance and short on common sense. Now the diminutive group of Tory M EPs crawls round the Palais des Nations in Strasbourg vainly trying to find partners willing to be tainted by the insensitive, crude, anti-Community attitude of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. That Tory group is still struggling to find companions in the European Parliament, which is perhaps the most vivid example of just how isolated the Government's attitude to Europe has become.
Mr. David Curry rose—
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Robertson: Here comes the cavalry.
Mr. Curry: Has the Labour group yet settled the strike of the members of its secretariat in the European Parliament offices in London? They went on strike against the appointment of two extra staff in Brussels, following no consultation with the London-based staff.
Mr. Robertson: It is good to see how the hon. Gentleman, who abandoned his seat in the European Parliament to come to the lush pastures of Westminster, goes into the minutiae and technicalities of industrial relations in the British Labour group. The Tory group is so small it has no industrial relations problems. If that was the seventh cavalry, it tells us a lot about the defence policy of the Tory party.
Worse is still to come for Britain. Marginalised as it is by the personality of the Prime Minister, after Madrid she finds herself locked into a process of European monetary union which is wending towards its conclusion—a process which she had gone to Madrid specifically to balk. She returned from the summit full of the grand idea that she had got her own way again and told the House that her master plan and no one else's was on the table. All the other leaders went back to their countries and told the truth to the European people. We heard the truth from a
1252
source even closer than that. Why else did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say last week in Paris, as reported by The Times, that
"he would like to have had a say in the final compromise reached last month in Madrid"?
The Times reported that the Chancellor had wistfully said that it might have been better if finance Ministers also attended European summits. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes that degree of criticism, we can treat with true scepticism the laudatory noises from the Foreign Office.
Now there will be an intergovernmental conference which the Prime Minister tried to stop. She cannot stop it now. When it takes place, as it assuredly will, she can veto any treaty amendment that emerges but she cannot stop the others going it alone—perhaps outside the treaty—and Britain will be left attached to a train with no say over the route or the driver.
We find ourselves isolated and marginalised on European monetary union, and even more so on the social charter. Alone among all the European states, Britain sees the charter as a Marxist trap. All the other Right-wing parties see it as a crucial component of persuading workers that the single market is not just about business but is a vital prerequisite to what the Foreign Secretary told the CBI at dinner last month was a "level playing field" for trading. Our Government alone, in their private obsession—delusion, even—know better than the best that the charter is a Marxist danger.
I ask the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who is probably as wet as the right hon. Member for Wallasey, to enlighten us. We keep asking which elements of the social charter have their base in "Das Kapital"? It is an intriguing question which the Foreign Secretary refused to answer on Wednesday. The draft charter has now been published; Madame Papandreou has put it forward. Which aspects of it led the Prime Minister to tell the Daily Mail that it originated in the Marxist period?
Mr. Healey: The same would probably go for Magna Carta.
Mr. Robertson: As my right hon. Friend says, that would be regarded as a Marxist document, too. Probably Joseph Stalin's interpretation of Marxism is the version that the Prime Minister accepts as her own working document.
Given Britain's isolation, it is small wonder that last week the distinguished Europe correspondent of Newsweek, Mr. Scott Sullivan, who is scarcely a supporter of the Labour and Left-wing movements in Europe, wrote:
"Thatcher's high-handed, arrogant manner often detracts from her good, or at least defensible, ideas."
He added:
"Labour's capture of the banner of Europeanism has goaded Thatcher into a spate of pettiness."
How true that is. The catalogue of pettiness includes the obstruction of the Lingua programme of language teaching in our schools and involves health warnings on cigarette packets, the veto on concessionary travel for pensioners and the twisting and turning on drinking water standards in which the Secretary of State for the Environment has been indulging this week. Mr. Sullivan's conclusion was spot on. He wrote:
"Margaret Thatcher, the most reluctant European of all."
The tragedy of it all does not rest only with the electoral kamikaze policies of the Prime Minister. The real tragedy

1253
is that our country will suffer for a generation because of her folly. Britain faces the single European market of 1992, and the years before it, with crippling handicaps.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has been attacking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister throughout his speech. It comes ill from a spokesman of a party which has only recently found that it believes in Europeanism, which had to get rid of its European MEP leader immediately after the election to cover its embarrassment, which has more CND Members of the European Parliament than any other group, and which on wider issues has sat uncomfortably with NATO, being unsure whether it is unilateral or not. We could go on about the confusion in the Labour ranks. It would be much better if the Labour party were to try to find a consistent policy.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends went on and on during the election campaign about the issues to which he has referred. When they were put to the ultimate test, the electorate chose to believe the Labour party and its vision of Europe. It rejected the carping and the negative views of the Prime Minister and those who toed the party line during such a dreadful and sabotaged campaign.
We are going into the single European market of 1992 with the highest inflation rate in Europe, along with the highest interest rates and the largest trade deficit, a deficit that is growing every month. As if that were not enough for our beleaguered economy to withstand, our vital manufacturing investment is still barely above the level in 1979 when the Government took over the economy. When education and training give all our competitors the edge, even before 1992, we are cutting higher education. Our training record is appalling. Teacher morale is at rock bottom and some children in London cannot even go to school because of teacher shortages. The Government are selling off the public sector and the seedcorn of Britain's future in the very market place that is the Prime Minister's dream.
I move on to the middle east. There is undoubtedly a major crisis facing Israel. That view is shared widely in the House. Even Israel's strongest and most robust friends throughout the world are in a state of despair about the suicidal shortsightedness of current Israel policy. As the intifada continues, the killings on each side go on apparently unrestrained. Every one of us—not only those who have strong affections for Isreal—shared the anguish and anger after the bus outrage last week. As each week passes we are ashamed by the killings of Palestinians in the occupied territories, yet the pointless and degrading violence on both sides continues.
The decision last week by the Likud hardliners to try to trap the party and the Government of Israel into conditions that will render the West Bank elections a travesty and a mockery of the very democracy on which Israel has always prided itself, must make the few remaining middle east optimists in the world weep with despair.
Mrs. Dunwoody: No one would dispute the point that my hon. Friend is making. He will be aware, of course, that over 70 men and women have been murdered in the West Bank and in Gaza because they "collaborated" with
1254
the Israeli authorities in moving towards some form of elections. I am sure that my hon. Friend will condemn that as strongly as he condemns other happenings in Israel.
Mr. Robertson: I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend says. The violence on both sides is indefensible and regrettable. Our criticism of the Israeli Government does not detract from the fact that violence on all sides is escalating and that we must seek a solution. In that context, it is regrettable that the Israeli Government have taken such a negative position.
I pay tribute to the Labour members of the coalition who joined in the tough decisions that the Government made to help the country. They helped their country to salvage its honour and now they must watch the Likud party destroying everything. The Labour group in Israel is right to threaten the coalition, even if it takes a few weeks to pull the rug. To stay with this doomed group of unrealistic and self-deluded bigots would be to hand a poisoned legacy to future generations of Israelis. If, as rumour has it this week, the United States is considering in the face of the Likud decision promoting an international conference on its own, can we be assured, and will the Government confirm, that the United Kingdom will back the conference? In the meantime, let us continue to impress upon those who will not see that security and safety for Israel will never be achieved by a gun being held permanently to the heads of those who are in the occupied territories.
Another area of the middle east should haunt the world. Within Iraq an unspeakable campaign has been mounted against the Kurdish minority. First, they were bombed and then they were rocketed. They were shot at and blasted into the mountains where they live. Much, much worse was to come. Last summer the Iraqi forces, freed from the war with Iran, were turned on their own people. This time they chose to deploy chemical weapons, which were outlawed by the civilised world after the first world war. At the village of Halabja the cameras covered the outrage. A horrified world saw for the first time the sheer barbarity and indecency of the slaughter of innocent civilians by poisoned gas. Last September, I visited the camps in south-east Turkey. They were full then, and, disgracefully, they are today, with the Iraqi Kurds who had fled from the poisoned gases that had been dropped on their villages. It was an unforgettable experience. The faces and the horrifying stories of those proud people will stay with me for ever.
For a time the West rightly reflected the outrage at the criminality that the Iraqi Government deserved, but soon much—too soon—it was business as usual. the Iraqi Government, having managed to face down the condemnation of the West, having ignored the vilification of the civilised world, and having seen that Governments such as ours, who had the evidence—in many ways the British Government produced the evidence—and who made the noises of outrage, then went back to doing business with the merchants of chemical death, learnt a cynical lesson pretty quickly.
The persecution continues in Iran. Entire villages are being demolished and communities are being devasted. Thousands of Kurdish people are being "resettled". They are being transported to camps at the other end of a vast country. The world remains silent as the campaign continues. The announcement this week of the order for Hawk trainer planes perhaps explains the silence. As the

1255
genocidal use of chemical weapons lingers in the air, and even as the Kurdish villages are being bulldozed, the selling of war planes continues.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Before the hon. Gentleman's statement becomes established mythology, I tell the House that no permission has been given to export Hawks to Iraq. Those matters have not in any way been decided.
Mr. Robertson: The Minister has answered the question that I was about to ask. The order cannot go ahead unless the Government give the OK. The Government's policy, which sometimes is a little frayed at the edges, is not to sell lethal equipment to Iran or Iraq. The Minister says that no decision has been made, but what do they intend to do? Will they block it? The Minister should have said not that a decision has not been reached, but that it had been reached and the answer was no. The Government must get off their knees and put real pressure on the Iraqi Government to stop their campaign against the Kurds. If they do not do that, they will live with the stain of the unfilmed, untelevised, but nevertheless very real atrocities.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the problems of the Kurdish people in Iraq, and I am sure that they will be grateful for that. Although the Government may not allow the export of military hardware to Iraq, is it not just as beneficial to the Iraqi Government to be given banking facilities, credits and increased trade? They have exactly the same effect of propping up the Iraqi economy, which is used to finance the war machine that is practising genocide against the Kurdish people.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friemd makes an accurate point. One of the most indecent acts during the events last year was that while the Foreign Office was correctly expressing its outrage about the deployment of chemical weapons—as verified by the Government's defence research establishement—the Government sent a Cabinet Minister, no less, to the Baghdad fair to announce the doubling of trade credits to Iraq. How the Government can hold their head high when practising such double standards defies description.
This debate can cover only a small number of issues. It is a dramatic time; a time of real decision in the world. In South Africa, central and Latin America and the far east, the process of change is breaking up all the old preconceptions and stereotypes. It should be a time for Britain, in all the arenas where we still have influence, to play a decisive role in shaping the sort of world that will emerge. If we have become observers instead of players, marginal instead of central, ignored instead of listened to, that is a reflection of how British foreign policy has become an extension of the Prime Minister's increasingly personal and unstable style of Government at home. That style was on trial in the European Parliament elections last month. The Tory vision of Britain in Europe faced the test of the ballot box—the ultimate test of the British people. That vision and that style at home, in Europe and beyond, was solemnly rejected by the people of Britain. As the right hon. Lady ploughs on relentlessly, incapable of learning any of the lessons of that electoral disaster, she heads for an even worse result when she finds the courage to face the British electorate again.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has appealed for brief speeches.
10.43 am
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am both pleased and honoured to be called so early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that this honour was not because of me, but because of the subject that I intend to discuss—the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and in particular the role of the British group. This is not just the centenary year, but is the centenary week of the centenary year of the IPU, and a bust of its co-founder, Sir William Randal Cremer, is sitting in the Member's Lobby. He is the first Back Bencher to be so honoured, so perhaps there is hope for all of us—the noble breed that carries on the work of this House by day and by night.
As most hon. Members are aware, I am a recent ex-chairman of the IPU. I congratulate and salute the excellent, capable and hard-working present chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). He is ably supported in his work by the senior Opposition officer on the IPU, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who I note is deservedly sitting in his place on the Opposition Front Bench.
The British group and its responsibilities are rather different from most of the other groups in the 111 Parliaments of the world. It does not simply provide British representation at various inter-parliamentary conferences of both a plenary and, increasingly, a specialised nature, it also deals with the bilateral parliamentary relations between Britain and other countries. The ability to send delegations to any other parliamentary countries, coupled with the contacts between Parliaments that can be furthered above and beyond those bilateral delegations and visits, is essential to our IPU role.
In answer to an earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the role that parliamentarians can play in international relations. That is now becoming both self-evident and appreciated, but it was not always so. My right hon. Friend's Department was a little slow on the ball in the 1970s, and even in the early 1980s, and it was not until after the Falklands war that it suddenly realised that such contacts were vital and that the Foreign Office needed to maintain a close relationship with the House, with the IPU being very much a part of that relationship.
Hon. Members are close to, but not part of, Government and, therefore, can meet their parliamentary counterparts on an informal basis and establish links, build bridges and float ideas. The Government cannot do that because, understandably, they are bound by Government policies and have to stand on formal positions. The combination of foreign relations between Governments—especially our Government—and parliamentarians is becoming increasingly useful.
I wish to state three examples that began during my time in office and have since been furthered. The first relates to East-West relations. It was not an accident that the British group decided to take the initiative on the eastern bloc at a time when it was far less fashionable to do so. It was not an accident that the IPU British group

1257
provided the vehicle for Mr. Gorbachev to make one of his most significant international visits in December 1984. Nobody would pretend that he came here simply to talk to Back Benchers, but it is fair to say that they definitely contributed to the success of his visit. I well remember the return visit led by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, ably supported by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I have affectionate memories of that visit to the Soviet Union when the right hon. Gentleman gave an ample display of both his diplomatic and photographic talent.
The second example relates to Argentina, with which we have maintained parliamentary relations. It is my fundamental belief that at the right time—which I hope will not be too long delayed—those parliamentary relations will prove very useful. The third and for me the most important example is the way in which the British group has made a significant contribution to and a continuing development of parliamentary relations with the Republic of Ireland. We should all be conscious of and encourage that.
It is not for me to make a long speech about the various IPU conferences and the issues that they discuss. I want to deal with more general matters within the international work of the IPU. All of the 111 Parliaments of the world are members of the IPU. In the old days it was a sort of democratic club. In the 1950s it was under the world leadership of Viscount Stansgate—not an uninteresting fact—that a decision was taken that all Parliaments of the world, and in particular of the Communist countries, should be admitted. That has led to East-West contacts at all levels, now prominent in terms of governmental as well as parliamentary contact—but in those earlier days at least we maintained some kind of contact.
It is very pleasing when countries again become democracies and rejoin the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is not often realised that when a coup occurs the country concerned is obliged to resign from the IPU if it does not have a Parliament. I well remember a conference in 1984 when I sat near the delegation from the Cameroons, which kept on leaving and then re-entering the chamber. The reason they kept leaving was that their president was losing a particular gun fight at the presidential palace. When he began to win the gun fight, they re-entered the chamber again. Fortunately, the Cameroons retained its Parliament by the end of that conference—but that particular delegation had a particularly busy and mobile time. Virtually all Latin American countries have rejoined IPU, and they have been very well received.
My second point concerns the uses that Governments, as well as parliamentarians generally, can make of the IPU in establishing positions. A Government's position is often reflected by the comments of parliamentarians. One example of that was the vote on the Falklands issue at the IPU conference in Rome in 1982, which was a most useful precursor to a vote important to Britain that was to take place in the United Nations one month later.
My third point relates to personal contact—the opportunities for which are legion in the IPU. Right hon. and hon. Members may smile when I say that the British-lrish interparliamentary body originated in part at a lunch given by the British group in Seoul in Korea. That seems an odd place for British-Irish relations to
1258
commence. Nevertheless, the Irish delegation on that occasion included the Speaker of the Irish Parliament and the parliamentary party leaders of both Fianna Fail and Fina Gael. That is an example of the opportunity that such conferences provide to establish useful contacts.
Finally, I pay tribute to the international work that is done in relation to the human rights of parliamentarians. As right hon. and hon. Members sit in the relaxed atmosphere of this Chamber, it is easy to forget that being a Member of Parliament is an extremely hazardous occupation in many countries. The work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in that respect has been valuable and has contributed to, if not directly led to, the release from imprisonment of hundreds of our colleagues since the war.
I recall that at the height of the repression of the Iranian revolution the Iranian delegation was put in the dock at an IPU conference and had to defend itself with regard to two prisoners whom I knew personally, and one of whom had gone blind. They were both released shortly after that conference.
The British-Irish interparliamentary body is an example of the IPU's bilateral work and stems directly from improved parliamentary relations through a continuous exchange of delegations with the Irish. After the joint studies report of 1981 and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we now have, as the result of the marriage of governmental commitment on the one hand and of parliamentary action on the other, the body that we hope will shortly come into being and play a very useful role. I want to express my gratitude for the support I received both from the Government and from the official Opposition in forming that body.
Over the past year, the basis of the body has been agreed with the Irish. It will have 25 members a side, will meet in plenary session twice a year, and will have an appointed membership for the duration of each Parliament. It will be quite unique, and will provide something far more than just the normal exchange of delegations between two countries. We are at the stage where a formal application is about to be made to the Treasury for the independent funding of that body under the auspices of the IPU. Despite the ominous murmurings of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am reasonably optimistic that the interparliamentary body will have its first plenary meeting next February.
As to the future, there is a need to exploit the parliamentary aspect of foreign and diplomatic relations to the utmost, and in that the IPU has a crucial role to play.
As this is the IPU's centenary week, obviously I have concentrated on its activities, but I must pay tribute also to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to the British-American Parliamentary Group which, although their functions are slightly different, play an equally important role.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been very helpful, and it is extremely conscious of the role that the IPU can play. The British-Irish interparliamentary body is a positive example of the future relationship between two Parliaments. We must consider carefully our attitude towards parliamentary groups and their funding, particularly if the IPU is to continue to operate effectively. It is not easy dealing with all the Parliaments of the world and for the IPU to be responsible not only for the British-Irish body but, for example, the virtually annual

1259
exchanges with the Soviet Union. The IPU needs to respond to virtually every country of the world, many of which spend much more than we do on parliamentary relations—perhaps because they realised its importance before we did.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union is certainly not a travel club for right hon. and hon. Members. Its activities are becoming increasingly specialised and concentrated. Long may it continue, and long may it have the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
10.56 am
Mr. Denis Healey: I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) will forgive me if I do not take up his points, except to reminisce that when I first attended the Council of Europe in the early post-war years one of the French Union delegates failed to return from the summer recess because he had been eaten by his constituents. There is a risk in being a member of some Parliaments that fortunately does not exist in our own.
I wish to echo the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and to describe both the opportunities and the dangers presented by the end of the cold war and Britain's role in meeting that challenge. The cold war is over. That is proved in a million ways. It is proved by the continuing talks on arms control and reduction between the Soviet Union and the United States. More importantly, and more convincingly, it is proved by the co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States in areas of tension in many parts of the world.
In the middle east, for example, the Soviet Union is currently trying to shift the policies of both Syria and Iraq into more constructive directions. The United States and the Soviet Union, almost single-handed but with useful assistance from the British Government, produced the recent agreement on Angola. In the far east, co-operation between the super-powers seems likely to produce a settlement of the appallingly difficult problem of Kampuchea, and even on central America Mr. Shevardnadze recently handed President Bush a message indicating that the Soviet Union is ceasing its supply of arms to Nicaragua.
In the light of all that evidence, it is ridiculous to pretend that the situation is as it was even two or three years ago. Even more important in some ways is the fact that glasnost, which was introduced by Mr. Gorbachev, has finally destroyed Communism as an international force. Now that the Russians themselves admit the appalling state of their economy, and the weaknesses in their present democracy, and now that the world has seen the response of the Chinese Communist leadership to democratic protest by the students in Tiananmen square, it is not possible now to regard Communism as a threat to international stability. Some Communist parties might be a threat, but the international Communist menace has gone for ever.
However, I hope that we are beginning to realise that the cold war, by dividing the more powerful countries into two blocs under Soviet and American leadership, gave much of the world 40 years of moderate stability. If the opposing alliances had not existed, it is difficult to feel confident that Turkey would not by now have been at war
1260
with Greece, and, in eastern Europe, Hungary at war with Romania. The ending of the cold war has allowed the nationalisms that were suppressed in the opposing blocs to come to the surface again.
That is challenging many elements of stability in the modern world. Not only the Yalta settlement, which most of us would wish never to have been adopted, but even the settlement of Versailles is at risk in the present troubles in Yugoslavia. Concepts that were last familiar before the first world war are now re-emerging as forces in international affairs. For example, the concept or mettel Europa is now attractive to many Germans, Austrians, Poles, Czechs and Slovenes. We now face a world that is changing fundamentally as a result of the ending of the cold war.
Glasnost—the introduction of more openness in the Soviet Union—is now threatening the unity of the Soviet Union itself. After all, Russia is the last 19th century empire to have survived until nearly the end of the 20th century. In recent meetings of the Soviet Parliament we have seen very powerful national forces showing themselves in the Baltic states, in Georgia and in the Asian republics. All of them, to a greater or lesser degree, want something that they would call independence. How the Soviet Union comes to terms with this new wave of nationalism and what consequences it may have for stability in adjoining parts of the world is sometimes somewhat alarming to contemplate.
I noticed that, in a recent meeting of the Soviet Parliament, one Russian delegate even suggested that, if things go on like this, Russia should secede from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In the Russian republic now there is an extreme nationalist movement called Pamyat, although, fortunately, it did not win any seats in the recent elections.
One might think that, in some respects, the world is set for a return to the politics of the 19th century, but we cannot afford to return to the politics of the 19th century because the world cannot afford any more wars, even wars with conventional weapons. Science has created certain global problems that can be satisfactorily dealt with only by global solutions under the auspices of global organisations. We are all very familiar with the problems created by nuclear power, both in its civil and military forms, and we are becoming more aware of the problems created by chemical pollution which, like nuclear problems, recognises no frontiers and can be dealt with only by international action.
As I said when I spoke in our last foreign affairs debate nearly a year ago, it is a reflection of Britain's diminished role in the world, and indeed of Britain's diminished interest in the world, that we so rarely debate foreign affairs in their broader aspects. We used to have four or five two-day foreign affairs debates every year when I first entered the House about 40 years ago.
There is an overwhelming case, as I said last time, for trying to develop the United Nations as originally intended, as the basis of a world society, with appropriate institutions to fulfil that role. For the first time since the United Nations was set up, Mr. Gorbachev has created the conditions on which that might be done. For its first 40 years, the United Nations could not work as the charter envisaged because the Soviet Union did not believe that a world society was desirable or possible. I am sorry to say that the only person who still holds that view is the British

1261
Prime Minister, who believes that the word society has no meaning either at home or abroad. I will discuss the implications of her position in a moment.
Action on those problems is now extremely urgent for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said, we cannot be certain that Mr. Gorbachev will remain leader of the Soviet Union for the rest of his natural life. There is a growing and dangerous gap between his ideas and Soviet reality. That gap is well expressed in the saying that glasnost has given the dog more freedom to bark as perestroika pushes its food bowl further away. The deterioration in the Soviet economy over the past few years is bound to create dangerous tensions in the Soviet Union, and could lead to some changes of direction in Soviet domestic policy, although not to any significant change in Soviet external policy. The facts that produced the change in Soviet foreign policy under Mr. Gorbachev are facts whether or not he is there and are bound to influence his successors, if he goes, as much as they have influenced him.
There is a second reason why the problem is urgent. We have imagined far too lightly that the problem of world peace and stability are mainly for the super-powers and their allies. We now see military missile technology spreading fast all over the world. Already 22 Third-world countries have missile programmes, and 17 have already deployed missiles. Some of those countries either already have nuclear weapons or the capacity to acquire them quite fast. In all cases, they could use missiles to fire the poor man's nuclear weapon, chemical weapons, a problem to which my hon. Friend rightly paid attention.
Unless we can proceed much faster than Governments presently seem prepared to envisage in building an international framework through the United Nations for coming to grips with some of the problems, we may find that this weather window—this moment of opportunity—is passing. The new situation creates special problems for us in Europe. I will mention a few of the more obvious.
How can we help east European people to return to the community of Europe, which is not necessarily the same thing as the European Community. How can we reconcile the return of east European peoples to Europe with the desire of the European Community in its narrower sense to strengthen its internal cohesion? That problem raises some difficult questions, which, I am sorry to say, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office dodged when I asked her about the Government's attitude to the Austrian application for membership of the European Community—an application which may be followed in the next year or two by applications from Sweden and Finland, and it is possible to envisage applications by Poland and Hungary within four or five years.
The question of how, if this development proceeds, the inevitable dilution of the European Community can be reconciled with many European countries' desire to increase the internal coherence of the existing Community will create some difficult problems for us quite soon—perhaps even in the coming months.
Another question that we must consider is whether it is possible to Finlandise eastern Europe, which has rightly been described as a sensible objective, without Finlandising at least parts of western Europe. That raises some very difficult questions. When he opened the debate
1262
for the Opposition my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton rightly criticised President Bush for offering so little financial economic assistance to Poland. I do not quite understand why the European Community, which is now as wealthy as the United States, should not take the lead in offering financial and economic assistance to eastern Europe, a lead that it would be much easier for the Soviet Union to accept than a lead by the United States. So far, however, apart from a very interesting speech this week by ex-President Giscard d'Estaing, there has rarely been even speculation about these problems by any of the western European leaders, least of all, I fear, by our own Prime Minister.
The central question that bulked so large in the recent NATO meeting was how, in the new situation, to meet the special needs and fears of that newly-created state, the Federal Republic of Germany, which is already feeling the pull of the concept of mittel Europa that to many Germans is another word for Gross Deutschland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all right for hon. Members to say, "Hear, hear", but these problems are with us now and underlie many of the tensions that were evident at the last summit.
With some reluctance I turn to what Britain is doing in this extremely challenging though sometimes dangerous but also hopeful new situation that has been created by the end of the cold war. As I said earlier, one problem is that the present Prime Minister rejects the mere concept of society. She says that the word has no meaning. She rejects it—as we saw at NATO and at the recent European summit at Madrid—just as much in the international context as in the national context. She has nothing to say on these issues, except to go round the world parroting about the need to protect national sovereignty. However, by agreeing to deregulate the British financial markets and by taking the lead, as the right hon. Lady the Minister of State said, in asking for an open industrial and commercial market in Europe by 1992, she has abandoned British sovereignty. No one knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is no longer master of his own economic and financial policies. He can be blown off course by events not only in Europe but in Latin America the United States and any other part of the world. We enter the new period in a somewhat dangerous position—very much weaker, relative to our partners, than we have ever been before.
Today's summit in Paris has exposed Britain's economic weakness. In its report the other day, the OECD pointed out that Britain has now lost fifth place among the world's largest economies to Italy. For the last two years we have been producing less than Italy. We have higher inflation now than Italy, something which would have been inconceivable to many of us a few years ago. It is obviously unfamiliar to many of the bemused faces which I have stirred out of their hebetude on the Conservative Benches. I am not, of course, talking about the Government representatives on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Waldegrave: The Labour Government managed to get United Kingdom inflation far above that of Italy.
Mr. Healey: No, with respect, they did not. The interesting point about the inflation gap between Britain and her European partners is that it was much lower when we were in power because inflation generally was much higher. It was pointed out in the Financial Times the other

1263
day—I apologise for responding to a sedentary intervention by the Minister of State—that the big difference between the time when we were in power and now is that the terms of trade deteriorated by 17 per cent. in the industrial countries during the 1970s. During the eight years of this decade that deterioration has been reversed. That is the main reason why inflation has been a much less serious problem, but the gap between the British inflation rate and that of our European partners is larger now than it was. At no time when the Labour party was in power was our inflation rate higher than that of Italy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton pointed out, we now have higher inflation, higher interest rates and a bigger balance of payments deficit than any of our major competitors and any of our colleagues in western Europe. That is not a good position from which a British Prime Minister can influence the policy of Britain's partners in any of the international organisations to which we belong. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not, like Mr. Gorbachev, removed ideology from the sphere of international relations. She finds it almost impossible to make a speech these days which is not redolent with comic strip nationalist ideology—the only ideology, apart from that of the market, with which she is familiar.
During the last year the right hon. Lady has met every challenge by insulting all her allies simultaneously, which is a very odd way for the Prime Minister of a country that has been reduced to weakness to talk. She accused President Kohl and Mr. Genscher of "wriggling" after the last NATO summit. She insulted President Mitterrand repeatedly at some press conferences, as I see the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), recalls. Although she has not yet told us so, it is quite clear that she regards President Bush as an upper class wimp, so wet that one could shoot snipe off him. However, it has not helped Britain, or even the Prime Minister, to add the diplomacy of Alf Garnett to the economics of Arthur Daley. However, that is the twin blessing that she has showered on us in recent years.
As I pointed out in the House the other day, the Prime Minister instructed Mr. Bernard Ingham to tell The Daily Telegraph correspondent that she was going to help Kohl to screw Genscher. Instead, Kohl helped Genscher to screw her, and he did very successfully. I apologise for the word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is Mr. Ingham's, not mine. I should have been infinitely more delicate in referring to the operation that was carried out.
The Prime Minister even rewrote the whole of British history by telling the French this week that they should not be so proud of liberty, equality and fraternity because we first introduced it in Magna Carta. I learnt some history when I was a little boy. My impression was that Magna Carta had been imposed on a wicked British King by the barons. It brought no freedom to the ordinary people of our country. If the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity existed before the age of enlightenment in 18th century France, I suppose they existed among some members of the Roundhead group in the British civil war, notably among the Levellers.
That has not done the Prime Minister very much good, either. I read this morning, to my horror, that our Prime Minister was booed by the people of Paris when she appeared yesterday at a ceremony to commemorate the rights of man. I suggest that we all write a letter to her, offering our support, as she may find that essential. I understand that tonight the right hon. Lady will be
1264
accused by the French Prime Minister on Channel 4 television of what he calls her "social cruelty"—a nice phrase that will figure more often in our debates in the future.
The Prime Minister has isolated herself in Europe, in NATO and in the Commonwealth and has done so at a time of our greatest relative economic weakness. I should like to make a timid suggestion because I want to help the Prime Minister to overcome the problems created by what my Peruvian psychiatrist friend rightly described as—what was it? I have forgotten it, but it will come back in a moment. The Prime Minister would do well to confine her rottweiler politics to her Cabinet colleagues, who are now quite used to the virago intacta and who, in any case, never feel it possible to answer back.
Better still—I am being daring in making the suggestion in the presence of the right hon. Lady's two loyal advocates on the Government Front Bench—would it not be a good idea to let the Foreign Secretary run British foreign policy and to give the Foreign Office a look in? The Box is strangely depleted now and I suspect that that is because three of the civil servants have gone out to divide "Das Kapital" into sections and to find out which particular section justifies the Prime Minister in describing the European Community's social charter as a Marxist document.
What is odd and disturbing about the Prime Minister is her position on Europe and especially on the need for some institutional structure to underpin the open market which she wants and which the Minister of State has told us that she is working so hard to achieve. It is not a wild idea to say that, just as the horrors in Peking, which the House debated yesterday, came about because the freeing of the market was not accompanied by the creation of democratic institutions to regulate and control it, so the freeing of the European market could lead to appalling disturbances and disruptions, unless it is accompanied by institutions capable of regulating and controlling it, of which the proposals in the social charter can undoubtedly be one.
It is now clear that, if the Prime Minister is serious about environmental problems, she must agree that the rich countries should help the poor countries to adopt techniques for, for example, freezing food, which do not involve destroying the ozone layer. If she wants to deal with the drugs problem, the rich countries will have to help the poor countries, which depend on growing crops which produce drugs, to find alternative ways of making a living. There are many such countries in Latin America and in southern Asia.
Until the Prime Minister takes off the rusting and decrepit medieval armour which she loves so much and returns from her time-warp to join us all in the 20th century, Britain will remain, as she has alas become, an irritating irrelevance in world affairs whose importance does not even require a response.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that speeches made between 11.30 and 1 o'clock must not exceed 10 minutes in length.
11.23 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: I was able to say a few words yesterday about the Chinese question, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me today. I will, indeed, be brief.
Before I leave the subject of China, I should like to refer to a statement made by the Under-Secretary of State who replied to yesterday's debate—that we must go slowly and find out the views of the people of Hong Hong. We are past that stage now. Nobody with any deep acquaintance of Hong Kong and nobody on the spot doubts for one moment that the people of Hong Kong want to move faster towards the democratisation of the colony. Clearly, saying that we must go slowly and find out their views does not answer our point.
I want to make two points on Europe, which are tied up with what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has been saying. I have had the opportunity in public in the past few weeks of making known my views on the European position, and I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman in several of the points that he made. First, we are hearing a great deal about the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, which many of our colleagues in the Community treat as a further weakening of our attitude towards the Community. Perhaps that is because this is the Council's 40th anniversary. It achieved useful work, especially in relation to human rights, during its early years, but it was formed as a forum for discussion and nothing more. It has never been able to fulfil any other purpose than being a useful forum for discussion. We used it when we discussed the future membership of the Community.
The Prime Minister has praised the Council continuously in her answers to questions. Again, that raises doubt in people's minds about whether the British Government want to weaken the Community rather than to strengthen it. I want to make it absolutely plain from my point of view—and, I think, from that of many people in the country—that the Council of Europe is no substitute in any way for anything which the European Council does—
Mrs. Chalker indicated assent.
Mr. Heath: I am glad to have the endorsement of the Minister of State. I know that my right hon. Friend strongly supports the development of the Community. I am pointing out the reaction in the Community, with which I am always in touch, to what is said when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister warmly welcomes the Council at Strasbourg in three successive weeks and, in answers to questions here from Labour Members, says, "Yes, of course, it is a splendid organisation, doing much better work." I want to make that point clear, in view of our relations with our Community colleagues.
My second point relates to the development of Europe. Looking back on the past two years, one sees that it has changed with bewildering rapidity. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East has said, many of the questions are open ones. At the moment we can give answers to some of them, and I should like to try to do so briefly.
The first question relates to our attitude towards Austria—and, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned, to Sweden and Finland also. My view is that, until the end of 1992, the Community has all that it can manage to handle when dealing with achieving the open
1266
market by 1992. I have spent five years in negotiations in the Community and I know the burden that that places on everybody, from Foreign Office Ministers downwards, when trying to reach agreement about a future member of the Community. Therefore, it is not practically possible for the Community also to handle questions such as the admission of Austria, Finland or Sweden.
Secondly, Austria is bound by the treaty of 1955. I know of no indication from Mr. Gorbachev that he is prepared to waive that treaty and to allow Austria to become a member of the European Community.
Thirdly, I do not believe that, from the point of view of the Community after 1992, we can admit neutral members. Therefore, we must ask whether Austria is prepared to give up neutrality to come into the Community, even if the Soviet Union would allow it? Having been in close touch with those in authority in Austria, I must report that I have had no indication that Austria is prepared to give up neutrality.
The same thing applies to Sweden and Finland. When the right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked whether the solution was the Finlandisation of eastern Europe, I must reply that Finland has existed, under skilful political manoeuvring, in its present position because it has acted without upsetting the Soviet Union and without becoming fully tied into the European Community.
Mr. Healey: Ireland is a neutral country by its own choice, and that has not prevented it from joining the Community, being welcomed there or taking part in all its discussions.
Mr. Heath: Of course, it was part of our negotiations. Ireland is the exception that proves the rule. Most of us hoped that, when we became a member of the Community with Northern Ireland, like the Republic of Ireland, the Republic's attitude towards the common defence of Europe would change. I still believe that there is a possibility of that happening, but it has not happened so far.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: I am sorry, but I shall not give way because I must be brief. If it were not for that, I would gladly give way, because the hon. Gentleman used to be a very strong supporter of European policy.
Looking still further east, I do not believe that there is evidence to make us work on the basis that Poland or Hungary, let alone Czechoslovakia, is in a position to seek membership of the European Community. For all Mr. Gorbachev's policies, is he prepared to see the break-up of the Soviet empire? I do not think so for one moment. Of course, I am strongly in favour of having a proper working relationship between East and West—we did a great deal to achieve that, from the first test ban treaty in 1963 onwards. I do not believe that Mr. Gorbachev is prepared to see the break-up of the Soviet empire, with those countries becoming members of the European Community when the Soviet Union is not.
It is becoming fashionable to say that Europe should go as far as the Urals. That raises an additional problem: what happens east of the Urals? Will that be the remaining Soviet Union? Will the Soviet Union break from east of the Urals? These are hard, practical questions. The idea is completely unrealistic. It gives everyone the impression

1267
that we want to abandon the treaties that we have signed and weaken the Community. Anyone who looks at a map knows that this is the utmost nonsense from beginning to end.
Our task is to make a success of 1992; then other countries that are prepared to become full members of the Community can do so. So long as the Soviet Union exists, I do not believe that Sweden, Finland or Switzerland will regard themselves as able to join—Austria may want the best of both worlds,b but I do not believe that it is possible for it to have it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State used a word with which I am not familiar and which I cannot pronounce, but she said that it meant that we will go on doing everything we can. I am afraid that my view differs. A deep difference of philosophy exists. Our attitude in other aspects of international relations is that if we can do anything together, it is better to do it together. This is why the public have lost confidence in us, as evidenced in the Euro-elections. They ask, "Why be in a minority of one?"
For example, why be in a minority about the notices setting out the dangers of smoking? Common notices would simplify the manufacturers' job, and that fits in with the rest of our philosophy. Why should they not be allowed to have such notices, or be told to have them? Public opinion is increasingly in favour of persuading people not to smoke. There is a big lobby, about which I am getting many letters, saying that smoking should be forbidden in Whitehall offices and that people should be able to work without being interfered with by smoking. We can take a legal view—even if it is not justifiable—that this action cannot be taken by the Community, but if it is a benefit to everyone, why not take it?
Exactly the same thing applies to languages. Our children desperately need more languages. Why do we say that this cannot be done by the Community but not do it ourselves? This is an extraordinarily extreme, legalistic bureaucratic approach. We are the bureaucrats, not the Community which is trying to achieve this aim. The same thing applies to cards for pensioners so that they can get their benefits wherever they go in Europe. That is what ordinary people want. They want to be able to get the benefits of Community life. Why should we stop it? The public do not understand why, as emerged clearly in the Euro-elections. The Government were obstructive, bureaucratic, rigid and dogmatic and we were not getting the benefits offered to us. The general public could not see anything more foolish than that.
There is a difference of philosophy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will pursue her real belief that we should work together inside the Community to the utmost extent and not take a dogmatic line that makes us say that, if something does not happen to fit in with one or two views in Government, we should not follow it. We should be clear what our scope can be in the future, certainly until 1992, and by then, no doubt, the international picture of what will happen between East and West will be clearer.
11.35 am
Sir Russell Johnston: Yesterday's debate on Hong Kong and China was rather sad—perhaps it would be better to say that it was "realistic", because that it the fashionable word to use. It harshly displayed where we now stand—something on
1268
which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) touched. It showed that our country, which recently—certainly within the memory of most hon. Members in the Chamber—dominated the world, is largely impotent and notably lacking in generosity. The rising sap of Empire has become like a dribble of spittle from the corner of an old man's mouth.
Even little poverty-stricken Portugal demonstrates greater responsibility towards its citizens in Macao, yet, after listening to the Minister of State, I believe that we still seem capable of remarkable self-deceit. The picture that she painted—she does it so well, persuasively and nicely—of a progressive, forward-looking Britain, leading policy in the European Community and in the world at large and widely admired by everyone, is one that I fail to recognise.
In the short time that I have to speak, I should like to touch on a few matters to which we could, in co-operation, make a more positive contribution.
I must point out that, although appeals were made to the Front Benchers as well as to ordinary mortals, the Minister took 34 minutes and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) took 35. It seems a bit hard for the rest of us, even if we speak for a party, to get 10 minutes.
I should like to say a last word on Hong Kong. Yesterday, the debate did not address the question of what we will do if, at the agreed time of handover in 1997, events similar to, or worse than, the massacres in Peking are taking place. If contingencies are to be discussed with other Ministers in the Council of Ministers, they should consider what we would do if it were unthinkable that the handover should take place when it was supposed to take place.
I should like to refer also to our position in the European Community. It is difficult to add much to what was said so effectively by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the hon. Member for Hamilton. It is certainly a travesty of the truth to suggest that the United Kingdom is taking a lead. We are following in economic respects, kicking and struggling against Delors, who is backed by the French and Germans, in our response to the social charter, and in our ideas on regional and social policy. We are isolated and we are not being terribly diplomatic. I shall not go over again the remarks that the Prime Minister has made about the French revolution, but they were hardly diplomatic.
The hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned President Gorbachev's speech in Strasbourg a week ago yesterday. I heard that exciting speech. Having heard the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I should like the Minister to say something about what the Government think the Council of Europe should do. It is a perfectly fair question. Apart from its work in human rights, which is largely the work of the court, there is its work in culture, which is useful. It also appears to be now developing a role in making a bridge across the iron curtain. It is possible for Hungary to become a member of the Council of Europe. It will not be possible for a long time yet for Hungary to become a member of the European Community or to leave the Warsaw pact, but it is possible for Hungary, Poland and others and, if the process accelerates, even the Soviet Union itself, to join the Council of Europe, as Mr. Gorbachev said. That is a role that the Council of Europe may fulfil and I would like to know the Government's

1269
view. If the Council of Europe is to have such a role, it will need a higher profile and more money, as it has none at present.
Mr. Gorbachev's speech was less encouraging in one respect, which was that it emphasised the limitations of interference in state powers and the fact that a limitation of state powers was inadmissible. In other words, he was against interference in domestic affairs. However, with human rights, there is no such thing as other people's business. The fate of the Turks in Bulgaria, the Hungarians in Romania and the Kurds are all our business. I would like the Minister to describe the Government's view on that.
The Government could have said that we would not sell the Hawks. I do not know what further deep discussions are necessary. We all know what Hawks can do or not do and the argument about whether they can be used only as trainers or in other roles. I would have thought that it was generally agreed that they could be used in other roles.
Mr. Gorbachev has pointed to the great potential of the United Nations now that the Russians co-operate fully. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East referred to that. We have a chance to develop peace-keeping forces that will be more effective than the United Nations force has managed to be in southern Lebanon. The Government have not been very supportive of the United Nations. When are we going back into the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation? It is about time that we did.
What are the Government doing to further the concept of an international conference on the middle east? I know that the Minister takes a steady, sound and sensible view of the middle east. I want to refer briefly to the death of Moshe Kol, of whom many may not have heard. He was one of the founding fathers of the state of Israel and a former leader of the Israeli Liberal party. He was a man with a great commitment to pluralism and he represented the good, positive side of Israeli politics, which is in retreat at present, although it is still there—if hard pressed.
I also want to pay tribute to another individual who is about to leave the political scene and whose example of high courage has been an inspiration to many. I refer to Mrs. Helen Suzman, who has served for a long time in the Cape Town Parliament and who will shortly cease to sit where she has so consistently and bravely attacked apartheid. What is the Government's present relationship with the Commonwealth on the degree of pressure to be applied to South Africa to bring about the end of apartheid? What role are the Government playing in the difficult, but hopeful, negotiations which will follow the ceasefire in the Angolan civil war? There is still a wide gulf between the view of President Dos Santos from Luanda that the rebels should be absorbed and President Savimbi's view that there should be an interim Government and free elections. As we are in favour of pluralism, I imagine that we are working to further the latter view, and I would like to know the position.
I am afraid that my time has all but run out and I hate to be told to sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although fortunately that does not often happen. I want to conclude by myself by saying that the right hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Old Bexley and Sidcup, in different ways, were both wholly right in saying that the way forward for
1270
this country is not to go round shouting about nationalism, but to develop a real community sense within the European Community and to make the fullest possible contribution to the international agencies, many of which we have sadly shunned in the past.
11.45 am
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston): I agree with him strongly on one point. I attended virtually the whole of yesterday's debate, and I agree that it was a sad debate. To add a footnote, I am extremely grateful to the Government for responding to the application made by me and other hon. Members that Chinese students should have their visas extended for six months, which at least gives a breathing space. There is also a private fund, for which Sir Alec Cairncross is responsible. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends whether, if the need arises, the Government will consider contributing to that fund. I know that many of my own students in Cambridge are under severe financial difficulties.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that we do not debate foreign affairs very often. I recall when I first came here in 1955, in a different capacity, that one of the great features, apart from episodes such as Suez, was that there was virtual agreement between the parties on foreign affairs and defence. A signal example of that is the approach to Namibia. Resolution 435 was passed under a Labour Government and was supported by the Conservative party in opposition. The present Opposition, and especially the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), have strongly supported the Government throughout the process, which we hope will end happily. There are still difficulties, and I have real apprehensions about intimidation in the elections, but I am still optimistic that the Rhodesia-Zimbabwe experience will be important. I would welcome warmly Namibia's arrival in the Commonwealth.
I want to concentrate on the middle east, where we are dealing with a rapidly changing scene. The adage about a week being a long time in politics has particular reference to this week, because the position now is different from the position on Monday. The new conditions on the elections of Palestinians imposed by Likud must be regarded as a major setback, although I do not regard it as disastrous. None the less, the process has begun and must be encouraged. I do not share in the criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for meeting yesterday Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. However, I understand the concern it has caused in certain quarters. When we talk about Israel, I hope that we do not give the impression of interfering in the internal affairs of a friendly country. I much regretted the remark of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who described the democratically elected leaders of a friendly country as "deluded bigots". Such language coming from a party spokesman is helpful to no one.
There is a long record of British involvement in the Jewish national home and in Israel. One thinks of people such as Arthur Balfour, Churchill and Victor Cazalet. That friendship is enduring and durable. However, it also often requires considerable patience as well as understanding. I was struck by the final words of my right hon. Friend

1271
the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in yesterday's debate. He was referring to Hong Kong, but his wise words have great relevance to the middle east.
"Lel us be open and frank. We now face the most difficult task in politics: to remain patient in unknown circumstances that we cannot control and to which we can see no immediate answer."—[Official Report, 13 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 1183.]
Our role with Israel is to encourage and to praise as well as to warn and to criticise. There is much about which to warn and much to criticise, but I hope that the people of Israel of all parties, not necessarily the Government, will recognise that in this country there is not only a tradition of support and friendship which goes far beyond the Jewish community and which I call the wider diaspora, but a desire and belief that that nation should and must succeed.
There may be dismay at particular actions and deep unhappiness about certain aspects of current policy, but the deep friendship is there and surely we are entitled to look not only at the area as a whole and to our friends in the Arab world, but to our friends in Israel and to exercise our right as friends to warn and criticise but also to encourage and praise.
11.50 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I, too, propose to refer to the middle east, although the hon. Members' references to important aspects of European policy have been of considerable interest to me. Many of us regard the Community's attitude towards foreign affairs as one of its most interesting and perhaps one of its most defensible aspects.
When we discuss difficult questions such as the middle east, in this democratically elected Parliament, it is tremendously important that we remember that Israel is also a democratic state. In recent years we seem to have grown into the habit of holding forth about the difficulties of the Israeli Government without making it clear that we understand that Israel has always remained faithful to its democratic traditions. The Government party elects parliamentarians, which cannot be said of many other parties in the world. The party has also criticised many internal decisions, and the action of the Israeli Labour party, in seeking to debate in considerable detail the decision by Likud to limit the negotiating position of the Government, shows some of the best aspects of democracy at work. The Labour party is anxious not to destabilise the Government, but it cannot accept limitations on negotiating positions vis-a-vis its Arab opposite numbers.
Sometimes, in our anxiety to promote peace in the middle east, we seem to represent the PLO as the only democratic organisation. In fact, it is manifestly nothing of the kind, and the very welcome statement about the acceptance of the right of the Israeli state to exist has not been confirmed by the Palestine Council as a whole. In such circumstances, it would be helpful if this Parliament occasionally made it clear that we reject violence wherever it comes from. Those on both sides of the debate must accept that. It is true that we have seen more of what happens in the Israeli controlled territories, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) described the truly terrifying situation in which the Kurds in Iraq find themselves. He made it clear that one of the things that distressed him most before he was able to visit the camps was a television programme about the effects of the use of poisoned gases on the Kurdish people. But it is
1272
fairly unusual for that problem to be dealt with in the media. Although the appalling genocide against the Kurds is debated from time to time, media coverage is neither constant nor clear, and the reason is very simple. Whereas it is possible to get pictures and comment from Israel, it is not easy to get such comment from Iraq or the surrounding states. That is an important point.
One of the strengths of the Israeli people has always been their openness. Their openness in debating their internal problems can be disastrous. I admire the fact that, when the Israelis have a problem with their army personnel, for example, they make it clear that they propose to take action against the person involved. They have courts martial and open control of their army representatives. That is the right way to proceed. I hope that, in similar circumstances, we would have the same degree of openness in the United Kingdom, although I am not sure that we would. I should like to think that that was how democratic states dealt with problems presented by internal disturbances.
None of that means that we should not have considerable reservations from time to time about the actions of Israeli political parties. It is precisely because the Israelis have a democratic system and a political divide that we can support those of our own political persuasions and those who support the democratic system. That is what we do and what we shall always do. It is most important that Britain, above all, should not be seen to be supporting only the PLO.
The opportunity exists to open talks. I would welcome the development of an electoral system in the West Bank and Gaza, but that can happen only when Arab candidates are allowed to come forward in safety and offer themselves for election. To that end, it is important that the Israeli Government do not impose preconditions on the negotiations. It is equally important that the PLO makes it clear that it will cease any form of physical attack against its own people if they offer themselves as candidates in an election. Only when the deaths cease will we begin to believe that the PLO wants to move towards some form of electoral representation capable of negotiating with the Israeli Government. There is a window of hope, but it is very small, and any action on either side that makes it more difficult to proceed will be savagely damaging.
The British have a particular role to play in the discussion. We should not always appear to be openly critical and not encouraging. We should not always highlight violence on one side and not on the other. Above all, we should say that, as elected representatives of a country with democratic traditions, we support an electoral system in which political power changes hands side to side at the wish of the electorate, and not at the wish of those who seek to dominate by the power of the gun. We should understand that those are the traditions that Israel seeks to support and encourage Israel to come to the negotiating table. We should not say, "You must agree to these conditions" or seek to lay down preconditions in talks with the large nations such as the United States and the Soviet Union. We should simply say to the Israelis, "You have a great deal of which to be proud. Do not retreat into the laager and give more power to your enemies who will then suggest that you have abandoned all that is best and most powerful in your tradition."

1273
The middle east is a vital area, and it is essential that we should support the democratic and properly elected representatives who can negotiate the peace settlement that we all seek.
11.58 am
Mr. Robert Hicks: I am afraid that constraints of time prevent me from responding to the various observations about our membership of the European Community. I think that it is true that some Conservative Members are disappointed about certain aspects of the stance of the British Government on our membership of the Community. Certainly, this was the case in the recent European elections.
I shall speak this morning about the situation in the middle east. Before discussing the conflict in general terms, I shall make a few remarks about United Kingdom bilateral relations with a number of countries in the region. Earlier this year, four members of Parliament visited the Yemen Arab Republic, North Yemen, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, frequently called South Yemen or Aden. The PDRY, is the only Marxist Moslem state. Its economy is weak and it is a poor country by any standards. Hitherto, it has had close political ties with the Soviet bloc. However, there are signs that the PDRY is anxious to improve political relations with the West. For example, it is talking to the United States through a third country.
This change of emphasis is in part due to the change in leadership that has occurred in the Kremlin. In the Brezhnev era, there was a far cosier relationship than there is now, under Mr. Gorbachev. Incidentally, the same change in emphasis was also apparent when I visited Syria last October. Leaders of countries such as Syria, the PDRY and the Yemen Arab Republic no longer enjoy the automatic confidence and support of the Soviet leadership, whether it is manifested in political or economic terms.
I hope that the United Kingdom will respond positively to any favourable signals emanating from the PDRY. Any improvements in such relationships will be modest. We are talking about increasing the number of English language teachers, providing more student places in our universities for people from South Yemen and possibly helping tangibly to develop their agriculture. It is not without significance that, all through the period of difficult relationships with that country, following our withdrawal in 1968, British Petroleum continued to assist the state refining company.
The country now has mineral wealth, with high quality marble that is undeveloped, and it will need help from the West to develop it. There is also oil. The geographical location of the oilfield is significant, because it extends across the frontier into South Yemen, and the two countries, which until recently were at loggerheads, have formed a joint company for its development. Parallel to this commercial development between the two is the establishment of joint commissions at governmental level. These new arrangements are still in their infancy, but the United Kingdom should take a close interest in this development.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary visited San'a earlier this year. From the remarks made to us, I know that his visit was much appreciated, and there
1274
was universal agreement about its success. However, we cannot and must not rest on our laurels. North Yemen is very much flavour of the month as a destination for international statesmen and Ministers. The country has recently joined Egypt, Iraq and Jordan in forming a regional economic group. This relationship could have significant implications, and it is important that Britain should become as involved as it can with this development.
Our relationship with Iran has not yet been discussed this morning. As the House will know, I was one of five parliamentarians who visited Tehran some 13 months ago. During last summer and autumn, some improvements took place in our relationship with that country, because there was evidence that Iran was anxious, after eight years of Islamic revolution, and almost an equivalent time when it was at war with Iraq, to rebuild some bridges with the United Kingdom. We then had the Salman Rushdie affair, and our Government's decision to withdraw our presence from Iran. In other words, we were back to square one.
Since then, there has been the death of the Ayatollah. Contrary to some pessimistic predictions, the situation in Iran has not deteriorated as some thought that it would. There is probably an intense power struggle going on, but there are strong signs that Mr. Speaker Rafsanjani may emerge as the new president with executive powers, including power of co-ordination of the various sectors and groupings. If this is the case, and he decides to follow a more pragmatic approach, including a desire for better relationships with the West and the United Kingdom, I hope that the Foreign Office will not pursue an unnecessarily cautious line. Iran is a regional power occupying an important geographical position. It has considerable economic potential and we must not forget the implications of our overall relationship with Iran in the context of the three British hostages held in Beirut and Mr. Roger Cooper, in gaol in Tehran.
Earlier this year, I became a little more optimistic about the overall situation in the middle east. Since the cessation of hostilities between Iran and Iraq, this peace has held, although it is a little fragile at times. In doing so, it has removed a major source of instability in the region. Egypt now enjoys a much better relationship with its Arab neighbours—a crucial factor in the jigsaw. The Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev has shown its willingness to undertake a more constructive role. Finally, the United States at least appears to have accepted—perhaps reluctantly—the principle that an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations might provide the most appropriate framework for negotiations to take place between the interested parties.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the objectives of any peace negotiations involving Israel and the Arab world, and the Palestinians in particular. A declaration at the recent Madrid summit confirmed the policy of the Twelve in respect of the middle east conflict, as defined in the Venice declaration. It includes, rightly, the upholding of the right to security of all states in the region, including Israel, and the right to live in secure, recognised and guaranteed frontiers. It also—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is encroaching on the time of other hon. Members.
12.9 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: We would like to debate many issues, one being the issue of Cambodia where there is a great threat and a great fear that the Khmer Rouge may once again inflict terror. I hope that the Minister will let us know how the Government view the Khmer Rouge and whether they stick by their proposition that it should have no future part to play in Cambodia.
I shall devote most of my speech to southern Africa, because there is some optimism that there might be peace and stability in that region. In Angola, there appears to be some rapprochement between the MPLA Government and UNITA. If the United States and South Africa have finally withdrawn their military, financial and strategic support for UNITA, there is some possibility of progress. The same is true in Mozambique, where there is a possibility of discussions between the Frelimo Government and the MN R. The key is that the South Africans must totally withdraw their support. In Namibia, the independence process is under way, and we are all hopeful that there will be independence under resolution 435.
There are still major concerns which are shared by the United Nations, the Security Council, and even by the Government, that intimidation is still being carried out by the South Africa Kovoet forces. More ominously, there are now reports of UNITA personnel acting with Kovoet and harassing and intimidating people in northern Namibia. The Government must look closely at that and investigate it to make sure that the situation is cleared up.
The current mood over South Africa is optimistic. I know of no other oppressive regime that has more defenders and more apologists. I know of no other such country that has been given more chances. No other repressive regime has had more money directed to it in order to allow it to continue in its wicked ways. The investment is made under the pretext that more investment will bring about change. People who believe that are naive enough to believe that if a tiger is fed more and more meat, one day it will turn into a vegetarian.
Whenever there is an element of change, it is met with euphoric headlines. The big bang of change is said to be upon us. We had P. W. Botha's crossing-the-Rubicon speech, and now we have the five-year plan put forward by F. W. de Klerk. Any objective examination of that reveals it to be a most disappointing document. It does not even begin to measure up to the challenge of a free and democratic non-racial South Africa. The truth is that F. W. de Klerk is nothing more than a P. W. Botha clone. The face presented to the West is genial, and the words are honeyed and sweet, but the face looking inwards to the republic is the stern face of harsh repression. It is the continued state of emergency and the continuing killing and the banning of all legitimate political activity. It is state terror and oppression, and there is now the new terror of paramilitary oppression and the assassination of anti-apartheid activists.
Nothing so far in South Africa shows any sign of real progress. The five-year plan forms the basis of the National party's manifesto. Yesterday, I had a discussion on the radio with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who sought to excuse the paucity of ideas by saying that the leader of the National party was only the President-in-waiting and not the President. People say
1276
that, because of that five-year programme, major change is on the way. For greater accuracy, the Library got a copy from the South African embassy. It says:
"The National party will, within the next five years … seek agreement among leaders on a more just and meaningful basis on which groups may be defined for political participation;".
What on earth does that mean? The only clue that we have is from a National party MP called Boy Geldenhuys. He said that apartheid is now being replaced by differentiation. That is playing with words, and is absolute nonsense.
The only way to make real progress is for South Africa to accept that there is only one group on which it can base integration and a truly democratic society. South Africans, irrespective of race, class, creed or colour must be allowed to participate, and that is the only way forward. If South Africa would take that bold step, we could begin to see the binding together of the nation. Apartheid cannot be modified, reformed, or adapted; it must be changed.
People say that meaningful negotiations are in prospect. Everyone who has taken an interest in South Africa for many decades wants a negotiated and peaceful settlement. No one says that there should be any other way. If there are to be proper and meaningful discussions, some pre-conditions must be met. Those have been made clear many times to the British Government. On Wednesday, they were made clear to the Prime Minister when she met Mrs. Albertina Sisulu and representatives of the United Democratic Front. I welcomed that meeting, and I hope that during it the Prime Minister learned some humility from their demeanour, their intelligence and the way in which the United Democratic Front is approaching matters. She has much to learn.
The first pre-condition is that Nelson Mandela and all the other political prisoners in South Africa must be released unconditionally. The state of emergency must be lifted and all the banned organisations must be legalised. The restrictions on political freedom must be lifted, and there must be the right of free assembly and discussion. Above all, the military must be removed from the townships.
There has been much speculation about Nelson Mandela's meeting last weekend with P. W. Botha. The statement was issued second-hand, and it is a pity that Mr. Mandela cannot make a public statement himself. He has made it clear that the people of South Africa must be properly engaged in the process of negotiation. Settlement cannot be imposed by the white-dominated Government. He has made it clear that the African National Congress and the UDF and all the other parties must be involved in the discussions.
Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I have only 10 minutes.
How can we influence events from outside? External pressure is important and forms part of the struggle of people in South Africa. There must be more pressure because South Africa does not shift without pressure. Anyone who believes that the Namibian settlement was reached because the South Africans suddenly changed their minds, has never looked at realities. South Africa decided to move on resolution 435 because of the cost of military pressure. In a sense, it is the Vietnam syndrome. White conscripts were sent back with limbs missing, or otherwise badly injured and sometimes in coffins, and that made the white South Africans realise the price that they

1277
were paying. The economic and military pressure has made them change. F. W. de Klerk's visit to Britain had nothing to do with promoting the five-year plan. It had to do with defending South Africa's economy, which is in major difficulties. It faces debt rescheduling and problems about overseas debt repayments.
The apologists for South Africans say that sanctions play no part, but the facts prove otherwise. The five-year plan makes, that pefectly clear when it says:
"Adversities such as the worst drought in living memory, a prolonged slump in the gold price and the most vicious international attempt—over more than two decades—to destroy the South African economy by boycotts, sanctions and disinvestment, having strained the economy of the country and of every business and household."
There we have it, from the horse's mouth. Sanctions are having an effect, are important, and must continue to be imposed.
The whole of southern Africa is an area of immense riches in material, and people, and the time for it to be developed in the interests of its people is long overdue. If only people would recognise the great promise that it holds for the future and the fact that the African National Congress, the United Democratic Front and all the people who stand for free and truly democratic non-racial society should be accepted as partners and equals, the enormous potential of that area could be enjoyed by all its people.
12.19 pm
Mr. George Gardiner: When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State opened the debate she rightly drew our attention to political changes of a kind that few of us dared to pray for and that are occurring in many countries and continents, most notably in central and eastern Europe. I was glad that she devoted part of her speech to developments in southern Africa because immense changes are taking place there, too.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I believe that never has the opportunity to resolve conflicts across the troubled continent of Africa been greater than today. The starting point was almost certainly President Gorbachev's recognition that promoting the armed struggle with Soviet arms, funds and advisers represented far too great a drain on the Soviet economy, and that without increasing the effort by at least 10 times it could achieve nothing. The effect of this has been to stimulate a sort of peaceful revolution stretching across a continent.
In Angola this revolution has led to an agreed withdrawal of Cuban and South Africa troops and to warnings to the Marxist MPLA that Soviet support cannot continue. That has led to a cautious rapprochement with Dr. Savimbi's UNITA. In Namibia it has led to Cuban and South African withdrawal and elections in November under United Nations supervision to elect a constituent assembly which will draw up a constitution.
In Mozambique the peaceful revolution has enabled friendly relations to be restored with South Africa and the chance of reconciliation between the Marxist Frelimo Government and the RENAMO rebels. All this has had a potent effect on opinion, especially white opinion, in South Africa. The ruling National party under Mr. de Klerk is now entering an election on a programme promising an
1278
end to white domination, open-ended talks with black leaders on a power-sharing constitution and moving to abolish apartheid.
Another significant factor has come into play. The deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union has warned the ANC through Oliver Tambo that it must think of laying down arms and adopting a negotiating posture. That will make the release of Nelson Mandela politically possible and pave the way for him to make a constructive contribution alongside Chief Buthelezi and other acknowledged leaders to what will undoubtedly be a long negotiating process.
All these factors represent recognitions of reality—that the days of the armed struggle are over and that far more can be achieved through reconciliation. I hope that we in the West can cut away from many of our former prejudices and recognise changing reality, too.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's words on Namibia. Despite SWAPO's pre-emptive invasion earlier this year, we are now back on track to a peaceful settlement and SWAPO is returning without arms, as agreed in the first place. I urge the Government to use all their influence to ensure that the campaign for the elections in November is fair and open and that the democratic parties are not placed at a disadvantage.
There is undoubtedly anxiety about the situation in the camps for returning refugees. Many are administered by the Council of Churches in Namibia, which makes no secret of its open support for SWAPO. The CCN is still denying the SWAPO-Democrats, led by Andreas Shipanga, access to their members in these camps. It is essential for the election that all parties have access to all voters.
There are also worries about the preponderance of international aid going to SWAPO as that creates an unhealthy situation and an open invitation to corruption and bribery. There is, too, a continual flood of propaganda from Radio Zambia in favour of SWAPO.
I concede that there appear to be two sides to SWAPO. There are some in the organisation who want to let bygones be bygones and who speak of national reconciliation; but there is also a darker side, witnessed by refugees returning to Namibia, who tell of torture, rape and murder in SWAPO detention camps. SWAPO has asserted that if it receives a two thirds majority in the constitutional assembly it will impose a one-party state. That is not in the interests of Namibia or of the region. We need only look at other one-party African states, such as Zambia, to see how disastrous it would be. There needs to be open democracy in which SWAPO comes to terms with the other parties and, in fairness, the other parties come to terms with it.
My right hon. Friend had some constructive words to say about South Africa. Anyone who has visited it this year, as I have, and spoken to the new generations of Ministers, to opinion formers of the Afrikaans press and to a wide number of opinion leaders outside Parliament, must be convinced that a real window of opportunity for reform is opening up. I cannot share the dismal and negative attitude of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. That the National party can go into an election with such proposals, together with hints of Mandela's imminent release, is highly significant.
The whites in South Africa are coming up against reality, too. They are recognising the futility of trying to rule 20 million blacks who have no constitutional rights at

1279
national level yet who command growing economic power. Reality has caught up with black activists in the townships, too. Gone is the dream of three years ago that a wave of riots and strikes could topple the whites from power. Nor is there any illusion that economic sanctions will do the trick. Countless independently conducted opinion polls of recent months bear that out.
There is also a quiet revolution in the workplace. In the coal industry I watched black apprentices training side by side with whites for skilled jobs once reserved for whites, and at identical rates of pay. The greatest advance of blacks is seen in the economic clout that they have won for themselves. They command increasing purchasing power. Their minibuses are the fastest growing industry, followed by street trading. Small provisions shops are run from side rooms, and building materials are sold from back yards. I happily pay tribute to the work of the British embassy in diverting British funds into the squatter camps and into the townships, thereby getting the smallest of businesses going. Sewing machines for women, for instance, enable them to make dresses and contribute greatly to uplifting the blacks in these areas.
All these things increase employment, and black economic power is paving the way for political power. The entrepreneurs are achieving where the rioters failed.
Those developments underline the new mood of hope in South Africa. The old wind of change is blowing again. I urge the Government and Prime Minister to use all their influence to persuade other nations to help it on its way and to offer full encouragement to the reformers from all races in that country.
12.28 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has already spoken about the plight of the Kurds in Iraq. I have a list of towns and settlements that the Iraqi Government have already depopulated or are in the process of depopulating. They are deporting at least 100.000 Kurds from the north of the country to the south, from a fertile area where they have farmed for generations to an arid area, in most instances, where they will be unable to continue with their agricultural settlements.
The deportation of Kurds has been continuing for a long time. The Iraqi regime has refused access to all international observers, both diplomatic and journalistic. Earlier in the year when, on behalf of the Campaign Against the Repression of Democratic Rights in Iraq, I went with some of my colleagues to see the Iraqi ambassador, he offered us a trip to a cultural festival in Baghdad. We said that we would be interested to go to Iraq but we explained that we wished to see the Kurdistan and not merely a cultural festival. For several months the ambassador played a cat-and-mouse game with us by sending telexes to Baghdad, receiving replies to the effect that the authorities were not happy for us to go to certain areas, and suggesting an alternative programme. The upshot is that none of us has been allowed to go to Kurdistan. We can draw our own conclusions from that.
Against that background, it is obvious that there are not many details of how many Kurds have been evicted from their historic towns, which towns have been affected and to where Kurds have been sent. I stress that it is said that at least 100,000 have been involved. The Iraqi Government claim that the operation has been carried out
1280
for border security reasons. There is no evidence, however, that the Iraqi Government intend to evict border populations along the Arab part of Iraq's frontiers. Instead, the operation is aimed at the Kurdish people, and is the latest campaign in the long and bloody war of genocide that the Iraqi Government have waged against their Kurdish people and the opposition movement. Even the Iraq-Iran war did not prevent the Iraqi regime from pursuing its internal war against its own people.
More than 4,000 Kurdish villages have been razed to the ground since 1975. Massacres and evictions have been taking place since then. Many areas have been depopulated. Their inhabitants have been moved to so-called modern villages. The zones that have been depopulated have been declared security zones and an order has been issued that any human or animal found within them shall be shot dead on sight.
The attacks on the Kurds took a sinister turn in 1987 when chemical weapons were used for the first time. The attacks continued throughout that year with no comment by the international community, to its eternal shame. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was bombed with canisters containing mustard and nerve gases and 5,000 civilians were killed. In August 1988, after the cease fire in the gulf war with Iran, a large military offensive was launched in Kurdistan in which chemical weapons were used on a mass scale, with the result that thousands more were massacred. More than 100,000 Kurds fled for their lives across the border to Turkey and Iran. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said, many of them are living in appalling conditions. The regime has announced a number of amnesties for those whom it has deported, but few have taken those very seriously. We are told that those who took up the offers were later either imprisoned or redeported.
Large areas of Kurdistan lie empty. Villages have disappeared. Kurds have been scattered in camps and prisons throughout Iraq. This is not an internal matter; it is a humanitarian issue of international concern.
I shall refer to recent developments concerning human rights. In August 1988 there was a decree that gave Ba'ath party local organisations the right to pass the death penalty on those suspected of desertion and the right to execute on the spot. They can bypass both military and civilian courts. In February of this year, Amnesty International published a major report on the torture and murder of children in Iraq. Children are held hostage to force relatives to "confess" or to give themselves up. Victims are often as young as five-month-old babies.
In April, the regime held phoney elections for a national assembly that has no legislative power. The regime is all the time attempting to improve its image to the world.
I shall deal briefly with economic ties with Britain. To the extent that we can influence events in Iraq, I think that we should consider carefully our economic ties with the regime. Iraq's economy has been shattered by the war. Its reserves are spent and it is crippled by foreign debt. It desperately needs loans and easy credit so that it can trade. The regime wants to continue to spend large sums on the military and it is interested in developing its own military industry. Despite the ever-continuing violations of human rights in Iraq and the growing scale of the violations, Britain has maintained easy term credit for Iraq. When I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about trade links, he said that we have export credit

1281
arrangements with Iraq that amount to £340 million. It is disgraceful that those record export credit loans should have been agreed at this time.
Several trade missions have been sent to Iraq. The Department of Trade and Industry sponsored-four up to May this year—the British Water Industries Group, the Engineering Industries Association, the Association of British Healthcare Industries and the British Electro-technical and Allied Manufacturers Association. There have been three missions from the Nottingham, Coventry and Manchester chambers of commerce. When I asked the Department what briefings were given to those trade missions before they went to Iraq, I was told that they concentrated on commercial relations and aspects of doing business in that country. Apparently, no briefing is given on violations of human rights. That is disgraceful.
The Government should link those credits with an end to human rights violations. They should ensure that no deal is struck to help Iraq to develop its own military industry. We must try to prevent British Aerospace selling Hawk trainer jets to the regime. We must not forget the importance of the air force to the Iraqi regime—the same air force that attacked Gulf shipping with Exocet missiles during the war of the tankers, the same air force that dropped mustard and nerve gas shells all over Kurdistan. I ask the Minister to deal with those matters today and to assure us that the Government will review their policy in the light of the continuing human rights violations in Iraq.
I wish briefly to touch upon the subject of Cambodia, a country in which I have a great interest. Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of time available to do so. Once again I appeal to the Minister. There is about to be a settlement of the Cambodian problem, and it is essential that it excludes the Khmer Rouge. For the Khmer Rouge to be given official status within Cambodia would be equivalent to inviting Hitler and the Nazis to return to Germany and to give them a position of importance.
I ask the Government to spell out their policy on the Khmer Rouge. I hope that they will take an active part in the Paris conference. I ask them to deplore the fact that the Khmer Rouge is still sitting at the United Nations as part of the Cambodian delegation, something to which this country acquiesced. The people of Cambodia, who have suffered so much, would regard it as a positive step if the Government were to withdraw their recognition of the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations.
Above all, I ask the Government to give Cambodia the aid that it will need when the Vietnamese pull out at the end of September. That country has suffered so much and we have done so little to help it. We will have our opportunity to do so in September.
12.37 pm
Sir Dennis Walters: Yesterday the House debated Hong Kong and the need for Britain to do all in its power to ensure the safety of Hong Kong's inhabitants when they lose the protection of British rule. People in this country feel a moral responsibility towards the Hong Kong people and it is right that we should consider all the options that might help them. Yet nothing could be worse than to make a promise now and then to cut and run when
1282
the time comes to redeem it. That is what we did to the Palestinians, as I shall remind the House during my brief speech.
Fifty years ago, there was uncertainty about Britain's intentions in Palestine; the British Government published a very solemn undertaking:
"His Majesty's government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subject of a Jewish state against their will."
If the Palestinians had known that the British would let them down, they might have handled their case differently—we cannot tell. Whatever might or might not have been done, it is certain that the outcome would not have been worse for the Palestinians—every one of whom is now living in exile or under Israeli military occupation.
We should never forget our responsibilities for the Palestinian tragedy, which should form the background to our thinking when we examine British policy today and reflect on whether we are doing enough at this important time, when action aimed at making progress towards peace is possible. President Reagan and Mr. Shultz were totally committed to Israel, regardless of western interests and irrespective of international law, justice and morality. President Bush and Mr. Baker are not. They take a more balanced view. But for the situation to change not only in theory but practice, President Bush's Administration must do more than make even-handed statements. It must act firmly and speedily in making it clear to Israel that no longer can it get away with flouting international law and successive United Nations resolutions, and at the same time benefit from American economic aid and unconditional support.
By accepting United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, and by rejecting the use of violence, Chairman Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation adopted the policy that successive British Governments and Western Governments continually urged upon them. That was a statesmanlike decision, especially bearing in mind the horrors of Israeli repression on the West Bank and Gaza. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) seemed to advance the extraordinary proposition that, if brutality and repression is carried out by an elected majority, it is somehow better than if carried out by a dictatorship. In fact, it is more repellent.
Very little has happened since the PLO's statements and concessions. The Israeli response was almost wholly negative, contemptuous and dismissive. Admittedly, at long last a dialogue has started between the Americans and the PLO, but so far that significant development has not achieved much. Also, Shamir was shamed into making some response, and produced half-baked proposals to hold elections. During the several months that we have been discussing the form that those elections should take, Israeli repression has continued unabated, and racist Jewish settlers on the West Bank, acting as agents provocateurs, have stepped up the shooting and killing of Palestinian men, women and children, with little effort being made to restrain them. Meanwhile, Shamir admitted, when speaking privately to his own party supporters, that the whole election idea was a gimmick.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why does not Arafat call off the intifada? Then there would be less bloodshed.
Sir Dennis Walters: My hon. and learned Friend must make his own speech in due course.
Shamir admitted that the election gimmick was designed to buy time and was never intended to be a serious initiative. Sharon's antics have since brought out into the open the fraud that had already been admitted in private.
Where do we go from here? The European Community, with Britain taking the lead instead of lagging behind, should nudge the American Administration into action. The first step should be an international conference with the participation of the parties to the conflict, naturally including the PLO, the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. I was glad to learn that Mr. Baker is beginning to look upon that proposal with some favour.
From there, we should explore the possibility of a transitional period of autonomy on the West Bank and Gaza. Twenty one years have passed and the landscape of the population is quite different from what it was when the draftsmen of United Nations resolution 242 envisaged a restoration of the status quo ante of June 1967. The Israelis are unlikely to countenance conventional United Nations peace-keeping, either now, to relieve Palestinian suffering, or in a transition arising out of negotiations. Should we not therefore explore with the Americans building on the Venice commitment to participate in "guarantees on the ground", the possibility of a non-United Nations force, perhaps including themselves and the European Community? I realise that the multinational force in Beirut is not the happiest of precedents but the multinational force and observers in Sinai is. The assumption must be that all the parties want a peaceful settlement. That was true in the case of Egypt and Israel but not in Lebanon in 1982 and 1983.
I do not believe in the good intentions of the present Israeli Government, and the lack of them has been comprehensively demonstrated, as has their de facto rejection of resolutions 242 and 338. However, there are people in Israel with good intentions who, unlike Mr. Shamir, Mr. Arens and Mr. Sharon, are willing to abide by those crucial resolutions and would like to talk to the PLO and reach an acceptable peace settlement. This is the time for them to show their colours, and I hope that the Labour party there will do so. It would help if serious pressure was applied on Mr. Shamir by the Americans and Europeans, and now is the right time to apply it.
As a minor and obvious step, we should upgrade PLO diplomatic representation. I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif yesterday. He should meet Mr. Arafat soon and I hope that that will be arranged. President Mitterrand and France are well ahead of us..
For reasons of history and self-interest, and in order to prevent the possibility of a future disastrous war in the middle east, Britain should be in the vanguard, promoting actions and initiatives to resolve the conflict and trying to bring peace to the middle east. I urge the Government to be bolder and more far-sighted, for there is an opportunity and an opening now and it should not be missed.
12.47 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: We do not often get an opportunity to have a go at Foreign Office Ministers in this place; hon. Members have already mentioned the infrequency of foreign affairs debates. We can get at all the other Departments but not the Foreign Office, and now it has chosen a Friday to hold this debate. This is our opportunity to get stuck in to Foreign Office Ministers and find out what they intend to do about the issues that they are neglecting.
Most hon. Members have an interest in one particular country, and my interest is Cyprus. I was disgusted that the Minister of State did not mention Cyprus when she opened the debate. Given the difficulties and problems facing that beautiful island, something could have been said, especially bearing in mind the work that has been done outside the British Government. The Government have sat on their hands, and they must get off them. They have to get stuck in and do something.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made a first-class contribution for the Opposition to show where this nation stands in foreign affairs. Since 1979, we have gone downhill, and we will go further downhill until the next election, when Opposition Members will be on the Government side and will do something about the problem.
My hon. Friend mentioned the way in which the Prime Minister goes about her job. She flits here, she flits there, she flits every damn where, but she does not like to flit to Europe because of what happens there and the opinions expressed about the British Government. I do not want to waste my time. I want to refer to Cyprus. The Minister can take the grin off his face. That applies also to his Parliamentary Private Secretary behind him, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). This is a serious matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) told me not long ago that his father said that all the wise men come from Swansea, East. I believe that, because he advises me wisely on Cyprus. A chappie in the high commission in London, Mr. George Allis also feeds me information on what is going on in Cyprus. What do we hear from that lot on the Treasury Bench? Not very much, unless we go down on our hands and knees to ask them exactly what is happening.
I am thankful, too, for what is happening in the United Nations. The Secretary General certainly set his stall out about what should be happening on that divided island. I have visited the island—not very often; I cannot afford to go there often. Many hon. Members can fly out of Heathrow. I accused the Secretary of State for Energy of doing that the other day, because I have a problem about energy and I could not get hold of him. I suggested that the Leader of the House should go to Heathrow and grab him one day before he goes and bring him here so that I can give him a going over. I hope to give the Minister a going over about Cyprus.
We want some answers. We want to know what the Government are doing, bearing in mind that many people outside the United Kingdom are working like mad to try to sort out the problem.
There was the invasion of 1974. Troops poured into Cyprus from the mainland of Turkey. I am particularly interested in Cyprus, and I am sick of asking the Foreign Secretary about the missing people. More than 1,600

1285
people from the north of that island went missing when the invasion took place. We do not know where they are. It is the Minister's responsibility, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. Here is another Member who continually asks, "Where are the 1,600 people?" If Denktash can be invited to speak to the Prime Minister, surely she can ask him where they are. The Minister should get the message and have a word with the Prime Minister so that, next time she sees this Denktash fellow, she can ask him where those people from the north are.
We have a real problem with Cyprus. Many hon. Members are showing their concern about what should happen. My responsibility is to stand here and tell the Government what the Opposition feel about them. [Interruption.] Yes, at our annual conference only last year we discussed the problem of Cyprus. What do we get from the Conservative party conference? Not a word about Cyprus. What do we get in the House of Commons? Not a word about Cyprus. The Government could not care less. All they are bothered about are pounds and pence. That is all that is behind their policies. That is why the people denied them all those seats in Europe. My hon. Friend was correct. The people of this nation have had a bellyful]. [Interruption.]
That Whip, the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), has just walked in from the Whips Office because he saw my name appear on the monitor. He is now bawling from his seat. A Whip should behave himself. I always do. I speak when I am invited to do so by the Chair. I respect the Chair at all times. When I am sat down doing the Whip's job, I keep my mouth closed. The hon. Gentleman has just come in from the Whips Office and now he has his mouth wide open.
The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)rose—
Mr. Haynes: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has come into the Chamber to be educated about foreign affairs, particularly about Cyprus.
I want to know what the Government intend to do about that island. After the next election I shall not be here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Before I leave this place I want a settlement in Cyprus. It has a marvellous president. He sweeps clean, like a broom. He is a breath of fresh air. He is saying all the right things. The other side is listening to his suggestions. I have promised to have lunch or dinner with him in Kyrenia after the problem has been sorted out, so get stuck in, Minister.
We want action by the United Kingdom Government. We do not get much action on foreign affairs because we are rarely given the opportunity in this Chamber to question Foreign Office Ministers. I often have a word with the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) outside the Chamber about foreign affairs, but I want him to tell us today exactly where the Government stand on Cyprus and what they intend to do to settle the argument so that Cyprus can be peaceful, with the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots living peacefully together, as they ought to do. Then we should all be welcome in Cyprus.
12.55 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on the theme of Cyprus, but I recall that when the Turkish forces landed in Cyprus a Labour Government were in power under Lord Wilson, as he now is. The hon. Member for Ashfield ought to ask Lord Wilson what happened to those who are missing.
The Commonwealth has not yet been referred to in this important foreign affairs debate. It is a remarkable institution. It consists of a great variety of nations that hold many different views. It is held together as an institution by Great Britain. That common thread has helped it through difficult times. It is now stronger and more able to perform a constructive role.
I pay full tribute to the outstanding leadership, hard work and dedication of the Queen who, as Head of the Commonwealth, has done so much to hold the Commonwealth together. All the members of the royal family are conscious of the importance of the Commonwealth. They spend a great deal of time visiting Commonwealth countries, which I am sure helps to bind the Commonwealth together. I am delighted that Pakistan is to rejoin the Commonwealth. It will be most warmly received at the Prime Minister's conference in Kuala Lumpur.
I praise the work that is done by the Commonwealth, but much more could be done, particularly to improve the environment and protect the rain forests. The Commonwealth can also help to improve democracy. We are always trying to find ways to improve our own democratic institution. It is a hard enough task to make changes here. But it is important that younger democracies should have the advantage of connections with officers of this House. The connections between those officers and the officers of the various Commonwealth legislatures need to be extended wherever possible.
The Commonwealth has had its fair share of famine and poverty. We should do all that we can to improve the way in which we tackle poverty and famine throughout the Commonwealth. Nothing is of greater importance than protecting the health of populations by means of new methods of health care. Education is of the utmost importance, too. Student exchanges with Commonwealth countries play a major role in creating stable democratic institutions and in binding together the Commonwealth as a whole.
I turn now to the role of the Commonwealth in the problems that we are facing in Hong Kong. I praise the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday, following his courageous visit to Hong Kong. That colony has been through—and is still going through—the most colossal emotional turmoil. To a certain extent, logic, reason and patience are overridden by the instant frenzy and anxiety that has taken over as a result of what happened in China.
It is important that we act as soon as possible to try to give as great a reassurance as we can to Hong Kong while the horrible memories of what happened in China are fresh in people's minds. I am sure that those memories will remain in people's minds but I believe that it is in the immediate future that we have an obligation to try to find a way of giving the citizens of Hong Kong the insurance of rights of abode if in 1997 the situation was such that they wished to leave that beleaguered colony.

1287
Although I believe that there could be changes in China in the intervening period, we must work to undertake the obligation to provide that insurance. Through its collective discussions the Commonwealth can draw the attention of each and every member of the Commonwealth to the part that it should play in giving a pledge and creating that necessary insurance.
There will, of course, be discussions on this in the European Community and in the United Nations, and I welcome both. However, I hope that the Commonwealth will be able to do something constructive and positive. I do not under-estimate the great difficulties in doing that, but we must focus our attention on the fact that we are asking for a pledge for each member country to take a proportion of people from Hong Kong by giving them a right of abode in the event of the Armageddon scenario.
In my view, we are not going to suggest—nor should we suggest—that a right of abode should be granted to all Hong Kong citizens ahead of 1997. The way forward is to suggest that through the machinery, which I hope will be set up within the Commonwealth with possibly a group of other nations which are prepared to take in people, the necessary documentation can be issued accepting requests for a right of abode within agreed quotas. Only in the run-up to 1997—possibly in 1996—should those requests for a right of abode which have been made and documented then enable the individual concerned to obtain the right of abode guaranteed by the request document.
Individual countries would have to decide for themselves how to evolve the selection procedure. It is not for us to dictate to other countries that might be good enough to take Hong Kong residents in the Armaggedon scenario exactly how they should undertake the selection procedure. However, in each of those intakes, I believe that there should be a ballot for part of the intake to ensure that there is an element without discrimination. If the procedure were over-subscribed, the ballot would mean that there was always a chance for some of the people involved being accepted without discrimination.
If we can bring about those provisions, they would ensure that, by their actions, the Chinese Government would have to persuade the people of Hong Kong that their safety and future could be safeguarded; otherwise, China would be faced with the humiliation of a mass excursion of people from Hong Kong in the run-up to 1997.
I am convinced that it is in the interests of the people of Hong Kong to remain in Hong Kong for the time being, until 1997 at least. I am also convinced that it is in the interests of China to ensure that Hong Kong continues to flourish, because that is the major way in which Hong Kong can be of use to China's economy. I hope, therefore, that, through the continuing dialogue with China, we will build on the Sino-British agreement. I hope that we will go forward to a better future for Hong Kong in the light of that discussion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to the House that many hon. Members still wish to speak. The two Front-Bench speakers hope to catch my eye at 1.45 pm. I am grateful to hon. members who are co-operating so well in making short speeches. I hope that
1288
there will be even shorter speeches from now on. In that way, it might be possible for every hon. Member who wishes to speak to do so.
1.5 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I suppose that the 200th anniversary of the French revolution is an appropriate time for the House of Commons to have a debate on foreign affairs. I am not surprised by the Prime Minister's remarks. What she said in France was inappropriate and rather impertinent. One wonders what would have been the position if, on a visit to this country, the President of France had started to pontificate on the events of 1642 or any other aspect of British history. In making those remarks about 1789, the Prime Minister certainly did not speak for the majority of the British people.
I agree with every word of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about South Africa, about which I have spoken many times here. I shall not say more because I agree entirely with the sentiments of my hon. Friend's speech.
On the Arab-Israeli conflict, my view remains that the failure of Israel to show genuine willingness to start talking with the PLO about the future of the occupied territories—they are occupied territories in international law—plays into the hands of the worst kind of extremist and terrorist who completely rejects any kind of Israeli state. The sooner that Israel recognises that there is no meaningful alternative to talks with the mainstream of the Palestinian movement and that the West Bank does not belong to Israel, the sooner there will be a chance of peace. I have always supported Israel's right to exist, even before 1948 when I wanted that state to emerge. I do not know what more the PLO leadership can do at this stage to bring Israel to the negotiating table. I hope that, first and foremost, the United States will apply the pressure that must be applied on the Israeli leadership.
I want now to talk about the present events in eastern Europe. I welcome the substantial political changes in Hungary. Those changes are warmly welcomed by the Opposition. As long as I live, I am never likely to forget Sunday, 4 November 1956, when the uprising in Hungary was brutally crushed by Soviet troops. That was the second intervention. The first, in late October, sparked the uprising. I learnt about what had occurred not on the radio but a few yards from here. I was on the largest demonstration that I have ever been on, one organised by my party against the Suez adventure. Aneurin Bevan was the main speaker. Many of us felt so humiliated by what had happened and by the collusion with France and Israel that we continued to demonstrate until 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock in the evening. It was on that day that I, like others, learnt of what the Russians had done in Hungary—two crimes on the international scene at the same time.
I am also extremely pleased by the progress in Poland. The House last debated Poland as such on 22 December 1981, when Solidarity had been banned and martial law was imposed. I took part in the debate, and in the course of deploring those events I said that if genuine, free elections were held in Poland it was unlikely that the ruling party would receive more than about 5 per cent. of the vote. Bearing in mind what has happened in the at least limited free elections in Poland, I have not, I suppose, been proved wrong. I am pleased that Solidarity is again a legal

1289
force in Poland and is playing its legitimate part in the affairs of that country. I welcome those events, and I hope that they will lead to political progress in the rest of eastern Europe.
However, I am concerned that some western leaders, such as President Bush, can over-react. What is happening in Poland and Hungary is new in any country under Communist control. Any over-reaction could produce a backlash. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was right today. The Soviet Union will not necessarily give up its empire, so all the talk about Communism being defeated and the ideas of western Europe dominating the rest could play into the hands of very conservative forces in the Soviet Union and the other countries concerned. There could be a backlash. When we consider what happened in the 1950s and the 1960s, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, we should be rather cautious and wary about making remarks and acting in a way that could play into the hands of those elements in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union that do not want to see political progress.
So much in eastern Europe depends on what happens in the Soviet Union itself. Does any hon. Member imagine that the changes that we can see in Poland and Hungary could have come about without the political changes in the Soviet Union itself since 1985? Could such progress have come about under the Brezhnev regime? The answer is obvious. To repeat the point I made in an intervention in the Minister's speech, if it is right that the countries of eastern Europe should be able to pursue their own policies, that should also be recognised in central and south America by the United States.
I remember what happened in Guatemala in 1954, and no one can argue that it is now a country where the rule of law exists. I remember only too well the coup encouraged in so many ways by the United States which overthrew the democratic Government in Chile in 1973 and the efforts to destroy or destabilise the current regime in Nicaragua. If it is right for eastern Europe that people should be able to decide their own future, that should apply equally in central and south America.
I am concerned that there has been no political progress in Czechoslovakia. We know, of course, that since the invasion in August 1968, the most conservative elements have been in control and that there has been continued repression. Czechoslovakia remains, if not a totalitarian dictatorship, a very authoritarian one in so many ways. I am not sure of the distinction between the two. I went to see the Czech ambassador by arrangement on 1 March to protest against the imprisonment of Vàclav Havel, the distinguished Czech playwright, who has since been released. The ambassador would not allow me to put my views, and I wondered why he had agreed to see me. I had not gone to the embassy to discuss my holiday plans in Czechoslovakia or the climate there, yet he refused to listen. It is unfortunate that there has been no political change in Czechoslovakia.
Alexander Dubcek campaigned for and tried to bring about change and reforms within the Communist structure in the first six to eight months of 1968. Such progress is happening elsewhere in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union now. Mr. Dubcek was somewhat before his time,
1290
but it will be a happy occasion indeed when the people of Czechoslovakia have far more freedom than they have now.
All countries in Europe should be able to enjoy basic human rights and civil liberties. As I have said on other occasions, although not necessarily in the House, I hope that I shall live to see the day when there is not a single dictatorship in Europe. I hope that what I have always wished for will come about soon. Many of the dictatorships in western Europe have disappeared. Greece, Portugal and Spain all now have the rule of law and the democracy that we have been fortunate enough to enjoy for so long.
Democratic liberties are starting to appear in eastern Europe and that is not only good for those who live in those countries, who have as much right to enjoy freedom as we have, but for Europe as well. There will be far less tension and less possibility of an incident triggering an international crisis that could threaten international security and world peace. I hope that the progress that we have witnessed in eastern Europe, albeit on a limited scale, will continue because that will be a very good thing for the whole of Europe, east and west alike.
1.16 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to speak on four subjects—the European Council in Madrid, development and the environment, growing out of debt and right of abode in view of events in China.
The European Council made some very serious decisions about the European monetary system and future arrangements for finance in Europe. Those matters have not so far been discussed in this Parliament, although they were recommended for debate on the Floor of the House by two Select Committees—the Select Committee on European Legislation and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. They were not introduced for debate before the Madrid conference and they have not been debated since.
That leaves the House with a problem. We have a Government, elected from among Members of Parliament, who do not wish and will try to stop Parliament discussing matters connected with the European Council. Unless this national Parliament asserts its sovereignty over the Government, it will never be able to discuss or seriously influence policy matters for discussion at the European Council and other forums of the European Community. That leaves a serious democratic deficit in the Community. The House must consider how it can control its Ministers and influence the policy of the European Comunity. Either the House will have to address that subject or we shall have to find or invent different institutions through which we can control and influence democratic decisions made in Europe.
I welcome the initiative of the Minister for Overseas Development in going to Brazil and presenting a practical programme by which we can help people in Brazil to make a living by harvesting the forests without damaging them. That is perfectly possible, particularly in timber exploitation, if we allow the forest to regenerate. That means a system of management of the forest. Third-world countries, which do not have managerial and administrative skills at their fingertips need exactly that sort of assistance. Significantly, the Brazilians, who resent much of the criticism levelled at them by unthinking

1291
environmentalists in this country, accept and will work with just the kind of assistance that we have offered. I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Overseas Development on the initiative.
It may have escaped the notice of many hon. Members that the conference held in the Grant Committee Room on 6 December last year, which was led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has given birth to a book entitled "Growing Out Of Debt" produced by the all-party group on overseas development. In the introduction, ideas are put forward based on the contributions of international figures ranging from Mr. Cheysson of the Commission to our own Chancellor of the Exchequer and Senator Bradley of the United States.
We call for a new initiative to be led by Britain, following logically Britain's initiative on debt in Africa. The key point here is that the developing countries—the indebted countries—are paying massive sums in capital repayments and interest to the developed world. Any initiative must redress that flow. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer initiated the idea that we should forgive debt in Africa, recycle it and put in grant money. I am glad to see that Germany, Canada and the United States followed our example. As a result, there is now a positive flow into most Africa countries from all the efforts of the IMF and the World Bank. This has reversed international financial flows—Government flows—but has done nothing about investment by the private sector in Africa. Such investment is essential if those countries are to grow again and achieve a better standard of living, above the level of starvation that many African countries face. We must also reverse the flows in Latin America and other debtor countries, including eastern European countries such as Poland and Hungary.
We made a suggestion about a Government initiative, and this is being taken up by President Mitterrand with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Paris today, so it is apposite to talk about it, particularly as the forthcoming IMF and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development meetings in Washington will have to follow up the Brady plan, which was almost stillborn. It has been discussed but nothing has been implemented since March this year. Many steps will have to be taken, such as reduction in debt, the issue of bonds, debt-equity swaps, and changing the economies of the indebted countries so that they are in a condition to grow, and are benign to inward investment and private investment. Debts must be reduced, interest rates must be reduced and the period over which debts are repaid elongated, until they reach a level of repayment per annum that the exports of the country can stand.
Furthermore, to make such economies attractive to private capital and to keep money in that country instead of taking it back overseas, we should permit the creditors to put the money into a local account in local currency. They should be asked to invest that money, with the help of local government and entrepreneurs, in industries that will grow and provide the foreign exchange that is necessary to repay debts. In this way, those debts will be kept in active accounts and will not have to be written off. Such a scheme would need an international guarantee power, and that should be formed by the IMF and the World Bank. The capital would never be called, but it would act as a guarantee of repayment for the private investor who puts his money or retains it in the
1292
under-developed country, in accordance with the agreement made for reinvestment and keeping the money in the local currency account.
In this way, we shall engage the abilities and the resources of private banks and private entrepreneurs, the IMF, the World Bank, Governments and local entrepreneurs, in trying to rebuild economies and recycle the money for the benefit of the country concerned and the banks themselves. Such an initiative will reverse the terrible outflow of money haemorrhaging from the developing world to the developed world, to the disadvantage of both.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and I want to say this to the people of Hong Kong who seek the right of abode here. The whole reason for trying to get the right of abode here is to restore confidence in the future of Hong Kong. That is the crucial objective of their seeking the right of abode here—it is a sort of insurance policy. We know that 60 per cent. of the people there will never come here—they have said so. The trouble is that it is an insurance policy which will not produce the confidence that is needed, particularly if, in practice, Britain cannot provide the right of abode for all people in Hong Kong.
Therefore, we must look for other confidence-building measures, and I have two to suggest. One is that advanced in the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—that students who come here may be permitted to count their time as a student towards citizenship. The second is that we should reduce the amount of money that people must bring to invest here before they are permitted the right of abode. If that is combined with a serious effort to get guarantees from the international community to assist the Hong Kong people, should there be an Armageddon after 1997, and with the democracy proposals and additional safeguards that we are seeking from the Chinese, I believe that there should be a bright future for the people of Hong Kong. I suggest, and hope, that they abandon this pursuit of the impossible—the right of abode in this country.
1.25 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Bearing your guidance in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to keep my comments to the absolute minimum.
In the forthcoming South African elections on 6 September, and with the new leader, Mr. de Klerk, we want quite clear guarantees that South Africa will take steps to end apartheid. When the Minister of State opened the debate, she gave us a list of certain items, but I know that it was by no means finite. The two chief things we must have as a sign of commitment to ending apartheid in South Africa are the ending of racial registration and the Group Areas Act. Those two pieces of legislation underpin apartheid, and until they are removed we will not see an end to that policy, which we want to be removed as speedily as possible.
I shall concentrate my remarks on Namibia, as I was there at the end of May and the early part of June. I therefore know how seriously concerned the people, particularly in northern Namibia, are about the absorption into the south-west African police force of former Koevoet forces.
We were in northern Namibia for only a few hours before we saw the large number of Casspir vehicles that

1293
constantly go along the main roads during the day. They were most threatening, intimidating and worrying to the people of Namibia. It was quite clear that the people were worried during the day, but at night, when the vehicles go off the main roads into the bush, and through the villages, they became terrified.
Unless the Koevoet forces are withdrawn completely—their former commander is now in charge of the police force in that area—the people cannot believe that they will be allowed to have a free and fair election.
I know that the Government have made their view known, but they have to continue to say on every possible occasion that we condemn the Koevoet force and that it must be completely off the scene if the process is to move forward peacefully.
In our short time there we saw five separate abuses of human rights. They were quite clear violations, all of them since 1 April. The worst incident involved young men who were forced to dig holes in the sand. They were buried head first until they were nearly suffocated, pulled out and beaten. The process was repeated time and again. It is that type of activity, which is still taking place, that gives rise to concern about genuine moves towards free and fair elections. Britain must ensure that it makes clear on every possible occasion to the United Nations special representative, Martti Ahtissarri, and the UN forces there that we shall give them our full support in their role in that country, which is to supervise and control free and fair elections. There is, of course, a great difference between the phrase "supervise and control" and the word "monitor". We have to ensure that everything possible is done to enable supervision and control to be carried out. If at any time assistance in election matters is sought, I hope that the Government will respond positively.
Farm workers form a large part of the electorate and political parties must have access to them. Each farm is marked on the map and as they are private lands there is restricted access. The Democratic Turnhalle Alliance is holding meetings and the farm owners are taking people to them. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) spoke about SWAPO. Any evidence of bribery involving large sums of money which I saw while I was there showed that the DTA rather than SWAPO was the suspect. I hope that the Government will do everything possible to ensure people's access to all the political parties contesting the elections later this year.
South Africa is clearly creating some financial difficulties for Namibia. It is responsible for the financing of services until Namibia becomes independent, and we must ensure that it carries out that role. We must also do everything possible after independence to ensure that there are proper negotiations about outstanding debt. It would be totally wrong if Namibia were asked to take over the massive and crippling debt incurred by a Government in which the people of Namibia had no say. That is extremely important.
After independence we shall still have to consider the question of Walvis bay, which will be a problem for future negotiations. Major concessions have been made about the registration procedure for the election. We need to ensure that the procedures and regulations governing the election will ensure confidentiality so that people know that they can vote freely and fairly. Illiterate people must
1294
know exactly how to vote. They fear that if they cannot be assisted to vote in a confidential manner the secrecy of the ballot will be destroyed.
Namibia has a small electorate and any fiddling at the edges can affect the outcome of the results. A party or grouping needs to have 66⅔ per cent. of the vote in order to draw up a constitution, and for that reason the matters that I have mentioned are important. The Government must show that they want a free and fair election and they must back the United Nations 100 per cent. in ensuring that the election takes place in November and is free and fair. We all look forward to Namibia achieving its independence.
1.32 pm
Mr. David Curry: I should like to explore the ground that lies before us after the Madrid summit. That was a good result for the United Kingdom and it was helpful that the Delors report was demoted from the status of the absolute truth and that we managed to neutralise the issue of British membership of the exchange rate mechanism—although both those gains are short term.
The agenda has not changed and the other states have not renounced the Delors goal of economic and monetary union. That means that there is a certain ambiguity at the heart of our relationships. The minimum, though in many respects sufficient, definition of monetary union must be an area of permanently fixed exchange rates with no exchange controls or other barriers to the free movement of capital or the circulation of currencies. For most of the other member states that remains the launch pad for further integration in the European Community. I am not sure whether at the moment the United Kingdom acknowledges that as the ultimate destination, although I was reassured to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that we should move as rapidly as possible to the first phase of Delors. I hope that that somewhat contradicts the idea that we were batting for beyond the next general election in the conditions that we laid down. We have bought time, not cancelled the difficult decisions. The important thing now in the short term is to ask how to use that time, and I should like to make two suggestions about that.
First, there is no need at the moment for another idelogical war over the principles of economic and monetary union. Secondly, our proposals, which we have promised, must not be so minimalist as to be insufficient to serve as a rallying point for those who may share some of our reticence about the full scope of the Delors report—the full scope of economic and monetary union. There are people who agree with many of our points, but we must offer them a flag behind which they can line up. If we are minimalist, they will not be able to do so because they will feel that we are not partaking of the ultimate goal.
I want to offer the Government two pieces of cautionary advice. First, it would be helpful if we did not so assiduously give the impression that we are desperately hoping that the liberalisation of exchange controls in France and Italy will lead to chaos. One cannot help but notice occasionally a suppressed anticipation that, with a bit of luck, that liberalisation will cause problems that will let us off the hook. We must be careful not to will that.
Secondly, I suggest that we need to be cautious about the canonisation of the president of the Bundesbank. He is

1295
a non-elected official, and the political decisions in a democracy are taken ultimately by elected members of Government. Chancellor Kohl does not necessarily share the bank president's views, and it would help the latter if we did not pray him in aid so often as a supporter of our opinions.
I believe that the conditions for the United Kingdom membership of the exchange rate mechanism will be fulfilled—and rather earlier than we expect. There will be an intergovernmental conference in which we shall take part, and an insistence on a treaty change for which we would do well to prepare ourselves. We must be careful about the attitudes that we adopt. I vividly remember Ministers arguing several years ago that we did not need a treaty change to achieve the single market; we needed only the political will. It would be difficult to deny now that that treaty change has stimulated a much more accelerated approach to the whole notion of the single market.
I recognise and share the Government's dislike of much of the philosophy behind the social charter. It will return in a new form. At the summit in December there is likely to be a declaration geared to employment. There is unlikely to be a legislative programme as an integral part of the declaration, and that will mean measures emerging under the existing competences of the Commission, measures which we should bat as they come. We do not necessarily need to declare war on the whole idea, because legislation will come forward in a conventional form which we shall treat on its merits as it appears. Our priority must be to press forward with the internal market, particularly in the important areas of insurance and public procurement.
I also suggest that the Government be more willing to acknowledge the victories that we have had. I notice that press statements from the French cabinet note with satisfaction when a certain decision has been taken in Europe of which the French Government approve. We tend to go in for great publicity about the issues over which we find ourselves in conflict; we are rather less good about praising—without crying triumph—those that go our way. Examples that come to mind are the banking directive and the fact that Europe has not embarked on a protectionist course. There will be no fortress Europe, given the decisions taken over the past few months and years.
It would be helpful if the United Kingdom would acknowledge that we are still determining the agenda in many respects in the European Community. The triumphs that we have had and the consensus on certain issues should be the subject of just as much comment as the areas on which we find ourselves in opposition. I note with satisfaction that the Government do not object to the use of article 90 in the telecommunications proposals of the Commission. That does not flow from the Single European Act—it would be a mistake to regard all these matters as flowing from that. It is an article of the treaty and as such it shows that the treaty can be used directly to obtain the deregulatory, free-market objectives of the European Community. I hope that we shall not be too alert to the possibilities of objecting to article 90 when it is used in areas that we find somewhat inconvenient. I think that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends would merely say that in taking that approach we were being rather cleverly French. That is an argument to which I would not necessarily object.
It is unfortunate that we allow the impression to be gained that there is a perennial British problem in Europe.
1296
I suggest that there is also a French problem of a dirigiste tradition in adjusting to the internal market. There is also an Italian problem, which involves a history of non-implementation of regulations, about which the Italian Government propose to do nothing. Milk quotas do not yet exist in Italy. There is also a German problem that involves a highly protected financial services market. There will be traumatic events when the Germans come to dismantle that market. I resent the implication that Britain is always the one-man awkward squad in the Community. Sometimes we make ourselves appear to be the awkward squad when frequently we can argue legitimately that we are leading the field and setting the pace when it comes to issues that are important to us. We must not define Europe exclusively in terms of the things that we want. We must understand that other member states have legitimate reasons to define Europe from their point of view.
There are other issues that have a rather broader effect on the Community than those to which I have referred. A major economic problem that lies at the heart of the Community is the massive German perennial trade surplus. If we had a more balanced and more evenly distributed growth in Europe, there would be far less demand for a social charter, and certainly much less demand for vast regional and social funds, which are essentially mechanisms to recycle the German trade surplus.
I have some sneaking sympathy with the countries that look forward to a central European bank as a means of applying a slightly more reflationary philosophy than that which governs the German economic policy. Some advocates of the British membership of the exchange rate mechanism take that stance on the ground that effectively the president of the Bundesbank would be in charge of British economic policy. One can see the attraction of that if one's priority is to counter inflation. At the same time, German policy is not always conducted in the common interest. It is not healthy for there to be a permament structural imbalance at the heart of the Community's economic performance.
The French identify the same problems with Germany as we do. However, they have opted for the embrace rather than the admonition. It is true that Chancellor Kohl and Mr. Mitterrand have met on about 67 occasions. The French have opted for what might be described as a suffocating embrace. This has meant, however, that they are able to exercise an important influence on German policy. Sovereignty, as in the French definition, is national sovereignty, and applies to the direction in which the nation wishes to go. That reflects a national interest generally and not necessarily the rather narrower terms of parliamentary sovereignty, which I suspect is the way in which the debate will be focused in this place.
The Community will face a significant problem which it has barely begun to address in an era of much freer frontiers, and it will lie with immigration and sanctuary. There will be problems if, for example, the Tamils are accepted in Holland and rejected in Belgium, or if the Syrians are accepted in Belgium and rejected somewhere else. These difficulties will be important within the Community, and we must consider them carefully.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said about the importance of the EFTA. We have much more trade with it than with the United States and Japan combined. We are spending too much time talking about the demise of the Soviet empire. I welcome the

1297
prospect, but I note from my history that institutions tend to survive for longer than external circumstances would suggest. EFTA is at the heart of Europe, and it is difficult to conceive of economic and monetary union with Switzerland or Austria—Switzerland has an especially important currency—outside the EFTA system. I hope that the United Kingdom, with its special relationships with the EFTA countries, will see that it has a leading role in trying to achieve closer relationships. I accept that some special status will have to be devised, at least until we have completed the European single market in 1992.
It is somewhat strange that the Opposition should claim to be the great new party of Europe. I recall our last debate when Labour's new, sparkling European policy was unveiled, only to be promptly assassinated by every Opposition Member who spoke. It is curious that we should be portrayed as the divided party and the Opposition as the united party when the opposite is true. We may be divided on certain ultimate goals, but we are not divided on the concept. That realisation has yet to dawn upon the Opposition.
1.45 pm
Mr. Corbyn: If an hon. Member is granted an Adjournment debate on a constituency matter, he can speak for about 15 minutes, so it is rather curious that only four minutes is being allowed for me to discuss the rest of the world. I shall make only two brief and simple points.
The Minister praised the Government for their work on environmental matters and claimed that they were the greenest Government in the world. She said that Britain was busy examining all the causes of world pollution and the various phenomena that go with it. That argument would be stronger if the Government had given a commitment yesterday, during the Committee stage of the Antarctic Minerals Bill, to declare the Antarctic a world environmental park rather than allowing the prospecting for minerals that will inevitably lead to the development of mining operations in the Antarctic and damage to the fragile ecosystem. The Opposition forced the Bill to be debated and to be sent to Standing Committee, and there will be another debate on Monday evening. I hope that people will understand our role in that.
The announcement earlier this week of the growth of emissions of carbon dioxide from British industry and British power stations makes Britain the country with the largest increase in the world. That comes at a time when the Prime Minister is lecturing people and saying that she is doing more than anyone to solve the problems of the greenhouse effect. It sits rather ill.
Likewise, although there is undoubtedly a genuine concern about rain forests, the reality is that many poor countries are being forced to chop down their rain forests and destroy their natural resources simply to repay overseas debts. There is an inextricable link between debt and the destruction of the environment. It is time that the British Government clearly recognised that. Market forces are a major cause of damage to the world's environment. We need a strengthened United Nations environmental protection agency and a different attitude from the Government towards the environment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)
1298
mentioned the problems of the Kurdish people in Iraq. Kurdistan is a nation of almost 20 million people—the largest unrecognised nation in the world. The Kurds are one of the most abused peoples, and the treachery that has been meted out to them throughout the century is a standing disgrace, in respect of which all major Governments are, to some extent, guilty.
Many Kurdish refugees from Turkey have recently arrived in Britain. We have close relations with the Turkish Government and Turkey is a member of NATO. Indeed, the Turkish President was invited to Britain last year and was feted at enormous public expense. Will the Government make the strongest possible representations to the Turkish Government about their treatment of the Kurdish people in Turkey, about those people's legitimate desire for self-determination and about the conditions suffered by 120,000 Iraqi Kurdish refugees? They fled to Turkey not because of a humanitarian gesture from the Turkish Government, but because of the repression that they had suffered from the Iraqi Government.
Will the Government make representations to the Turkish Government to ensure access to the Kurdish camps at Mardin, Mus and Diyarbakir for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Red Cross and other respected bodies such as the International Medical Relief Foundation, which wants to examine the many examples of the poisoning of the Kurdish people by Iraqi agents. Did they not suffer enough in Iraq, with all the oppression, murder and use of chemical and other weapons against them? They were forced to flee to Turkey, only to find Iraqi agents in the refugee camps. Those people deserve something better, and the support of the rest of the world, in their attempts to live a just and peaceful life.
I hope that the British Government will stop pretending that everything is all right in Turkey and that that country is returning to democracy, and will instead expose the abuses of human rights in Turkey and its Government's oppression of the Kurds. We should not shut our eyes to those problems but should stand up for the rights of those poor, unfortunate people—as we would expect others to do for us if we were in a similar position.
1.49 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I will at least start on a note of consensus. If we are to pursue a realistic foreign policy, we must first know ourselves. We must evaluate our country's history, strengths, weaknesses and potential. Our history as a country in relation to external affairs since 1945 has been of a process of adjustment to the new role that we can play in the world. Central to that process have been developments within the European Community.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office concluded long ago that our future lies in a closer relationship with the new Europe. Until recently, British public opinion seemed to lag behind that view, but recent public opinion polls, notably that appearing in The Daily Telegraph; and the recent Eurobarometer poll, suggest that it now recognises the value of that relationship.
The Prime Minister—the queen across the water—has had rather a bad day. It was the Prime Minister's failure to appreciate the sea change in public opinion, as evidenced by recent polls, that made her so misjudge her political stance on Europe. That is emphasised by her

1299
insensitivity over the past few days in respect of the French revolution—an event that is fundamental to most French people, and to which they make obeisance. By her criticism, she allied herself in respect of France—as she has in the case of South Africa—with the old regime, rather than with the newly emerging forces.
The Prime Minister's formation ill suits her to understand the processes of change, and her temperament makes it difficult for her to co-operate with others. She still hankers after a special relationship with the United States that is no longer on offer, and still attempts to fan a narrow and unhealthy populism, with a much-reduced response. As the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) implied in his advice to the Prime Minister in his very wise speech, she should turn down the volume in respect not only of the European Community but of other areas of foreign policy.
The cross of Grantham must be one of the biggest burdens that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers must bear. The two Ministers of State who are with us today are the partially acceptable face of a foreign policy that is directed more and more from Downing street in a strident and populist way—and in a misjudged populist way, because public opinion has changed. Rather like an old end-of-pier entertainer, the old appeals no longer receive quite the response that they enjoyed in the past.
By failing to recognise our strengths, the Prime Minister is failing to capitalise on our potential. Clearly there are few areas in which we can still play a solitary, unilateralist role. One is Hong Kong, on which we had a most valuable debate yesterday. Over the years, one has gained the impression that the Government's obsession with keeping on the right side of the People's Republic of China has led to distortions in our foreign policy on areas adjacent to China. One thinks of the policy on Tibet, and certainly that on Cambodia.
Another area is Argentina. Over the past few days, we have heard what may be construed as encouraging noises from Mr. Menem, the new President of Argentina, in relation to the Falklands. It will be helpful to know how the Government read those signals. It is clearly wrong that our relations are so strained with that great Latin American country. We cannot continue indefinitely in that immobilism. We need a more coherent position. The position that has been clearly adumbrated by my party is that it would be ready to open talks, without preconditions, with democratic Argentina on the future of the Falklands. That is also the view of the Foreign Office, which is seeking wherever possible to build bridges, but there is a vast road block—the No. 10 veto—across the way to closer relations between ourselves and Argentina.
Leaving aside Hong Kong and the Falklands which, in their own way, are a legacy of old colonial relationships, is it not quite clear that Britain's role in the future will increasingly be within our alliances? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said with his usual force, global problems need global solutions. Working within our alliances involves a process of give and take and a series of compromises, not absolutes. We in Britain have a unique position in the world through our permanent position on the Security Council and our role within the Commonwealth and the European Community. Our aim should be to maximise our influence in those organisations in which the sum is greater than the part. Who can deny that, latterly, strident isolationism has reduced our strengths and is contrary to our national
1300
interests? Within the Security Council we pay tribute to some of the work that has been done. It is clear that the negotiating skills of Sir Crispin Tickell, our permanent representative, allowed us to play a substantial and positive role in relation to the Iran-Iraq war.
The Government fail to recognise that the lack of sympathy with Third world issues, and particularly the lack of understanding in relation to South Africa, have mightily reduced the effects of our policies and the positive role that we can play elsewhere. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on his positive comments about the Commonwealth—another of the areas in which a unique diplomatic asset for us has been mightily underutilised. It is a forum for world problems in miniature.
A day or so ago, the Prime Minister talked about the solution of the drugs problem. Such problems can properly be addressed in the Commonwealth. When the Government talk about the problem of Hong Kong, is it not proper to say that there could be a much greater urge to seek a solution within the Commonwealth context? With the Commonwealth and our EEC partners about 60 countries could help us to share a major moral burden in respect of the future of Hong Kong. I and my party regard the Commonwealth not as an alternative to Europe but as intertwined with Europe, giving us a special strength.
We know that the Commonwealth is not only of proven strength but is increasing. We look forward to the addition of Pakistan. We believe that Namibia is likely to be the fiftieth member, and we understand that Cameroon is already making approaches to the Commonwealth. At least that shows that it is an institution recognised by others as having a new vitality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made some cogent remarks about the tragedy of Cyprus. For too long the Government have adopted a laid-back position—cautious, waiting on the sidelines, failing to appreciate the special role that Britain has in Cyprus. Britain has subcontracted the Cypriot problem to the United Nations.
The Government's lack of commitment to the Commonwealth is also demonstrated by their policies towards the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Institute. The Prime Minister demands the right to be different within the Commonwealth. One thinks of the Okanagan statement on the Commonwealth, with the exception of Britain. One thinks of Britain's self-exclusion from foreign affairs Ministers' statements on South Africa. The Prime Minister demands the right to be different within the Commonwealth and the European Community but she expects Stalinist uniformity over developments in NATO. Those demands do not sit easily together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and other hon. Members have referred to the importance of the Venice and Madrid declarations on the middle east and to the fact that by and large, we follow the decisions that the Israeli Government have taken over the middle east. If the policy change by Mr. Shamir, not just Likud, which is likely to affect the stance adopted by the Israeli Government, effectively scuppers the new peace effort, and if the United States Administration establishes as a consequence an international peace conference, what will be the stance of Her Majesty's Government towards the peace conference? The intifada will continue. There will be enormous human rights abuses. Israel will be the

1301
despair of its many friends. It will harm itself both in relation to the occupied territories and internally as a result of its own divisions, unless it comes to terms with the new facts in that area.
I agree very much with what was said by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) about the Inter-Parliamentary Union and other similar institutions. I agree, too, with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that one should not seek to portray the Council of Europe as an alternative to the European Community. It can play a bridge-building role between eastern and central Europe but we should not give yet another signal to Europe that we are faint hearts on the European road.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) have already said all that needs to be said about the Kurds. I repeat the question about the British Aerospace contract. The Government could veto it. We shall regard the British Government's response to the Hawk contract as a litmus test of their policies. Will business considerations prevail? Will the British Government view sympathetically human rights for the Kurds or will they view sympathetically the use of chemical weapons in Iraq?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambodia—[Laughter.] With respect, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley might half accept that appellation. As she mentioned Cambodia, I hope that the Government will assure us that they will not favour the inclusion of the Khmer Rouge in any group that is involved in the peace negotiations, given the history of the Khmer Rouge.
As for the Sudan, the only democratic Government in the area have been topplied by a military coup. We know that the Prime Minister, Sadiq al-Mahdi, is under arrest, and it is said that he could face the death penalty. I appeal to the Government to make representations to the new military regime in Sudan on behalf of Sadiq al-Mahdi.
South Africa, is the area in which the Government's policy—or rather the Prime Minister's policy—is seen at its most personal and malign. That is important in itself but it also has symbolic importance. We know that the Government adopt attitudes in relation to human rights in Poland—at the tomb of Father Popieluszko—and in Hungary at the tomb of Imre Nagy. When will the day come when the Government will pay similar tributes to Steve Biko or other major South African patriots? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, it is not just a question of the release of Nelson Mandela—even with all the importance attachedn to that—it is also a question of the context within which Mandela is released, analagous to the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group and the conditions that it has laid down for a proper release for Mandela.
Our assessment is that the South African Government have not yet recognised the need for fundamental change. To them "negotiation" means negotiations with people whom they chose. Even the five-year plan talks about group rights. We believe that by colluding and by treating South Africa as just another country, we are playing into the hands of the establishment. Only sanctions or measures—call them what one will—are likely to bring the powers that be in South Africa to the recognition that they
1302
must do deals with the African National Congress. By issuing a statement on behalf of Nelson Mandela, President Botha has implicitly recognised the importance of the ANC. However, to our Prime Minister, the ANC is still just another terrorist organisation. When will the Prime Minister be ready to meet Oliver Tambo and other representatives of the ANC? That would be a positive signal.
I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, (Mr. Pike) said about Namibia and repeat his questions.
In conclusion, the Government's faults in foreign policy are but an extension of their faults in domestic policy. They are reflected in the curbing of public expenditure. The proportion of our GNP that is devoted to aid is half what it was in 1979. The Government are weak on human rights and have a strident unwillingness to accommodate the other side in any discussions.
Under a Labour Government there will be a new internationalism and a recognition of our new status as a country. We will play to our strengths, which are many. They will not be undervalued as they are under this Administration.
2.7 pm
Mr. Waldegrave: I start by paying one tribute in which I know the Opposition Front Bench will join. The diplomatic service provides a great service for our country. Many hon. Members of all parties—on visits to Cyprus, for example—have had the benefit of the help of our diplomats. If they have not, the diplomats are always available. Let us think for a moment about our diplomats in dangerous places, such as Beirut, and pay a special tribute to them.
We have had some magisterial speeches today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made the second of two magisterial speeches in two days. He has told me that he cannot be here for my reply to the debate, but 1 should like to put on record the fact that I thought his speech outstanding.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was in the great tradition of his speeches. This week this country has lost and mourns our greatest entertainer, Lord Olivier, but luckily things are not all bad. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East is his natural successor. He described himself as a timid man, to whom verbal fisticuffs cause deep and lasting anxiety. He made up some amusing new facts about the past. He referred, for example, to the inflation rate. It is boring to have to remind him that the OECD figures show that in 1975 Italy's inflation rate was 17 per cent., but the United Kingdom's was 24·2 per cent. I cannot remember who was Chancellor of the Exchequer that year. The crocodile that ate one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues would never have dared to take even a nip at him. He would have returned, as he did over the years, having swallowed up many people from the Militant Tendency, with the crocodile well digested.
There was much in the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East with which to agree, just as there was in the speeches of the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). One of the difficulties in debating with the Opposition Front-Bench speakers is that they decorate their fundamental agreement with us on many points with a verbiage of

1303
personal attacks on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They do so partly to disguise how much underlying agreement there is. We know the game. We learn it from their boss, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He often agrees with us on, for example, the middle east and our approach to eastern Europe, but that does not preclude a certain personal venom in his approach.
After the prolonged period of paralysis in European politics since the second world war, after the iron curtain fell across Europe, the liberalisation in the Soviet Union has once again put events in Europe back at the centre of the world stage. Not long ago, it was fashionable to say that all the political interests in the world focused on the Pacific. We can now see that the two great events in Europe—the room for manoeuvre which is being allowed in eastern Europe and the development of unity in western Europe—have put those European events back at the centre.
I agreed with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—although I did not entirely agree with his inflation figures, as he will see in Hansard—when he said that the tide of Communism had turned and that that was recognised in the Soviet Union. In a way, the Soviet Union has become a status quo power and, perhaps belatedly, has recognised that she will do well to manage to maintain much of her present position. This has transformed her approach to regional conflict in a variety of places, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, the hon. Member for Hamilton and others have said.
The Soviet Union now has a quite different approach to the United Nations, which provides an opportunity, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, to use that institution in some of the ways that its founders hoped it could be used, including the great former Bristolian, Mr. Ernie Bevin, who at the time of the foundation of the United Nations in San Francisco made a speech that bears re-reading. There are hopes for partnership in relation to south-west Africa, the middle east, Cambodia and, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, central America. As Mr. Gorbachev said in New York, this has ended the primacy of ideology in the Soviet Union's approach to foreign affairs.
There was a fascinating debate between the two leviathans of the debate—I was going to say "dinosaurs"—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, on where the central and eastern parts of the Soviet Union now extend. I tend more to my right hon. Friend's side of the debate. The Finlandisation of central Europe is an objective that is not without hope. It means the achievement of neutral countries following a non-aligned policy and their own social, political and economic strategies, which Mr. Gorbachev endorsed as being their right in his speech in Strasbourg.
It is therefore somewhat paradoxical if, at this stage, we encourage the idea that those Finlandised countries—to use a form of shorthand—should be encouraged to go into the western camp. I wonder whether that would be in their interests in the medium term—where we go in the longer term is a different matter. We should not be unwilling to make it clear that, if Mr. Gorbachev means what he says, his new freedoms for the eastern European countries should lead to their being able to choose that status for themselves, which would be greatly to the benefit of their people. I also thought that we had an outstanding speech
1304
from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East has already paid tribute.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is more expert on the European Community than I am. She introduced the horrible word "subsidiarity", which is not hers. The concept, if not the word, was invented by Mr. Delors, who has much to his credit, including that word. If we could think of an English word, it would be more helpful. It is the principle upon which we should be working—that there is quite enough for Brussels to do without loading on to Brussels matters with which it need not deal. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties could make an allowance on that. There is no benefit in pushing matters up to higher tiers of Government just for the sake of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup had the emphasis wrong. He said that wherever we could co-operate internationally, we should. That is the wrong way round. It is where we need to co-operate internationally that we should.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was right to say that we should re-emphasise the matters that are going right in Europe, in many of which we have played a leading part, such as the liberalisation of the economy and the avoidance of the fortress Europe concept. Wherever I go in the world, 1 find that people from the Maghreb, the middle east and the wider world fear that Europe will turn in on itself and become fortress Europe. It would be a disaster if the greatest trading group in the world became an illiberal force in economics. My hon. Friend gave other good advice and I know that my right hon. Friend will note it carefully for the negotiations that lie ahead.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked, a little suspiciously, whether our praise for the Council of Europe meant that we were trying to make it into an alternative to the Community. Of course we are not. A number of other hon. Members mentioned the Council of Europe. A useful, new role is emerging for that body, which is to become one of the forums in which discussions in central Europe can take place. Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union now have guest status and Mr Gorbachev made his interesting speech at Strasbourg. We should welcome this developing role for the Council of Europe.
The hon. Member for Hamilton and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East talked about central Europe. I cannot answer properly today the question of the hon. Member for Hamilton about additional sources of money for Hungary. I hope that we can deploy some. Some part of the purpose of my visit was to assess what we can do with how much money. He will note that we have provided a fund of £25 million over five years for Poland. In terms of debt, that is nothing, but in terms of moving people and developing programmes to help individuals and training, it is a considerable programme and a departure for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which will be welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. We shall have to think how to spend the money properly, and institutions such as the Great Britain East Europe Centre will have a part to play. The last thing we want to do is to give the impression that the money has been tainted by Government intervention in the politics of other states. We must respond to requests and make it clear that it comes, if possible, with all-party backing and certainly with some independence from Government.

1305
In East-West relations in general, the liberalisation and transformation taking place in the background is being recognised and endorsed in the arms agreements coming forward—not the other way round. Peace is not made by the formalities of arms agreements, as we learnt in the 1930s as a result of the Kellogg pact and other agreements that failed. If the underlying forces are moving to conflict, treaties cannot stop them. It is the other way round. Now that affairs are moving in the right direction, it will become surprisingly easy to make treaties. I am talking about history nervously because of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) who is looking rather gloomy about my references to the Kellogg pact, so I may have made a mistake there already.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked us to consider whether we yet believed that Mr. Gorbachev or any other Soviet leader could contemplate the break-up of the Soviet empire. He was not disagreeing with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East here. I do not think that any Soviet leadership could contemplate the break-up of the heartland of the USSR. There is reason to hope that the internal problems of the Soviet Union—the challenges of the nationalities and the economy—will make it take a more relaxed view about trying to maintain some control over countries that it once thought it needed as buffer states. What is in it for the Russians if they try to run the economy and defences of Hungary, given that they have enough difficulty with their own problems? There may be hope. There may be.
We have heard a number of interesting speeches about the Arab-Israeli question. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, whose leadership of the Conservative Friends of Israel is contributing to the building of bridges between those who are genuinely seeking progress on this matter.
We regard the Likud party decisions with considerable dismay. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met Bassam Abu Sharif of the PLO to show that we think it even more vital for the PLO to stick to its moderate position, which it reaffirmed last December, now that it is under the extra pressure of watching Israel's tentative moves towards rapprochement apparently being reversed. If the PLO can maintain its position, the other voices in Israel will have time to be heard and the friends of Israel in the United States and Europe will have time to emphasise that the election proposal—in its original form not much more than a minimal proposal—needs development rather than diminution. That is what we should all be seeking to achieve.
The hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and for Swansea, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters) asked what would happen if, despite all the efforts, the election proposal dies. I assure them that we are not backward in seeking an international conference. In fact, we have been rather ahead of the United States on this matter and our position is embodied in the Madrid declaration of the Twelve which was widely welcomed in the middle east. In that declaration, we say that not only should there now be an international conference but that the PLO must
1306
participate in it. That is only realistic as it will be impossible to find any other interlocuter who carries weight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made two points that I support strongly. The first was that nothing will be gained by seeking to isolate Israel. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The capacity of Israelis to batten down the hatches and see the world as threatening all round them is one of the problems in making progress towards negotiation. Nothing that reinforces that attitude helps peace. Israel is a democracy, and forces in Israel, movingly represented in a recent piece by Amos Oz in The Daily Telegraph, need our support and help.
Grave problems also exist elsewhere in the middle east. The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) are both known as passionate protectors of the tragic Kurdish people. They both said that the Kurdish tragedy may be continuing. As has been said, the British Government played an honourable role in drawing the attention of the world to the tragedy at the time, when very few others were prepared to speak out. My speech at the Paris conference on chemical weapons was the only one to mention Iraq by name. All the others somehow managed to avoid the subject. I do not claim too much credit for that; we could not keep silent. The question that we face is the perennial, and most difficult of all questions for Foreign Office Ministers and Governments to answer: how we should balance our trading interests and our care for human rights. At what point do we say that we cannot deal with a country, or that we must seek progress by contacts, pressure and influence?
I have heard Opposition Members advance that argument the other way in relation to the Soviet Union at its worst and China at its worst periods. It has been argued that we should not cut countries off and that we should work with those people who we can work with. That can be said of some in Iraq as well. This is a difficult and agonising decision. I have no answer to it today, nor about the proposed Hawk deal. All that I can say is that the analysis of that will be carried out within the guidelines that we have maintained in the past in these matters.
Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: I can add very little to what I have already said, and I have much of the rest of the world to try to cover. Doubtless if a decision is made that is adverse to those arguments, we shall have other occasions on which to pursue them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) mentioned Iran. He is right to say that if there are signs of progress after the presidential election, Britain must and will respond to them. He is also right to say that the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen is another country that has noticed which way the wind is turning in the Soviet Union's foreign policy and is seeking other friends. Royal Navy ships recently went there, which a few years back would have been surprising, and they were greeted with the usual Aden welcome.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East mentioned Sudan. The first thing that we want to say to that new Government is that, above all, the Sudan needs peace in the south. We urge the new regime to maintain human

1307
rights in relation not only to previous Ministers, but those in the south and in the country as a whole. There is confusion and it is difficult to say at this stage what will happen.
Several hon. Members, led by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), mentioned South Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) made a speech with which I very much agreed. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) spoke about South Africa and Namibia. I am much less of an expert on this than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I found much of what they said out of date. It seemed to be simply a replaying of the gramophone record of sanctions, as though nothing had happened in southern Africa, the relationship between the Soviet Union and South Africa were not changing, and the hopes of progress were not higher now than they have been for many years. Our opportunity and challenge is to pass on that greatest African economy intact to its rightful owners—the population as a whole—rather than passing on a ruined economy, as happens so frequently in other parts of the world.
The hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and for Aberdeen, North spoke about Angola. We were greatly encouraged when, against the odds, President Dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi met and agreed the ceasefire. Although the delegations have now broken off their talks, we believe that they may shortly be resumed and we are urging both sides to show flexibility.
The return of the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia must be out of the question. Any influence that we can use to that end we shall try to use.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East for giving me the opportunity to speak about Argentina. It is true that the recent statement by the new President Menem—whose peaceful transition to power we must welcome in that populous country—and by foreign minister Cavallo, seem encouraging. If Argentina is now ready to exclude sovereignty from talks, we welcome that as a basis for talks. It appears to be saying that it will do that. Things are moving fast, so such a move is a welcome sign to which we shall respond appropriately.
We had a speech of considerable volume from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Haynes) on Cyprus. I regret
1308
that, a couple of weeks ago, when we had a most moving debate on Cyprus to which I replied, something detained the hon. Gentleman and he could not be there. Nevertheless, we welcome him now. I strongly refute his argument that the Government are doing nothing on Cyprus. The diplomatic activity last year in relation to Cyprus was probably more intense than for any territory with the same population. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have all met President Vassiliou. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about President Vassiliou. There has been a range of diplomatic contacts aimed at producing progress, and we are certainly as dedicated to the outcome which the hon. Gentleman rightly and eloquently defended as anybody else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), the hon. Member for Islington, North, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) talked about some of the new planetary issues and the use of multinational organisations such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth to try to produce solutions on an international and multilateral basis. I pay tribute to the environmental achievements in Brazil last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.
On the proliferation of missiles—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure))—

(1) Motions in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Water and Public Health may be proceeded with for not more than three hours after the first of them has been entered upon;

(2) if proceedings on such Motions have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at the expiration of that period put the Question already proposed from the Chair; and

(3) no further such Motion shall then be made.—[Mr.Sackville.]

Northern Relief Road (Birmingham)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should like to express some of the concerns of my constituents and more general concerns about the recent proposals of the Department of Transport in respect of the Birmingham northern relief route, the Birmingham north orbital route or, as some of us believe it to be, the new M6. Those concerns can best be summed up by citing a letter from two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who live in Hednesford road, Brownhills. It is one of many letters that I have received on the subject, and it indentifies the general concern about the initiatives announced by the Government. It states:
"Dear Mr. Shepherd,
It was in May, 1984 that we were first informed of the new proposed Road, our house was in line on four out of the five proposed routes, which is the Chasewater variation route, so it was quite a shock.
My wife and I purchased our home in 1976, we were very happy with it liking the design, location and the friendliness of the people and neighbours of the area, we thought we were very lucky.
We both had good jobs and set about planning and vastly improving the property, patio window, large bay window, all double glazing, fitted kitchen, all Regency Design plaster moulding throughout, landscaped garden etc. so when we heard that we may lose our home, naturally we were very upset.
But, worse than anything has been the waiting, and the last 5 years have been the worst of our lives, all the enjoyment has gone out of our home, due to the fact that we can no longer make any plans not knowing about the future, and how long we have here, making us feel very insecure.
So you can imagine how we felt when we received a letter from the Department of Transport 2 weeks ago, saying that a decision has still not been reached on the route, and then to read in the local press on Friday evening that it may take another 5/6 years before we know due to the fact that a toll road is now being considered, is just too much, there is a limit to what one can endure.
After the Enquiry ended last September, we were promised of a decision in about 6 months time, of which we were patiently awaiting, to be expected to have to live through another 5/6 years like we have through the last 5 is quite unthinkable.
All we are asking Mr. Shepherd for both ourselves and all our neighbours is for them to please, please make up their minds so that we can get on with our lives once again, and to save all the misery and unhappiness that we are experiencing through all the uncertainty."
As the Minister will know, such anxiety and much more followed the Secretary of State's announcement by way of a written answer on 22 May to launch a Green Paper entitled "New Roads by New Means". He said that he proposed to hold a competition for the private sector to finance, design, build and operate a road which would serve broadly the same purposes as would be served by the published proposals for the Birmingham northern relief road. This road will be effectively the new M6 bypassing Birmingham.
On the same day as the Secretary of State's written answer to that parliamentary question he wrote to me enclosing a copy. The West Midlands regional office of highways at Five Ways tower also wrote that same day to members of the public advising them of the proposed competition and saying that in the circumstances it would
1310
be inappropriate to take decisions on the Featherstone to Coleshill north orbital route until the competition had taken place.
I stress that the delay explicit in the decision-making procedure is caused by the decision to defer until completion of the competition. I also stress that the release of information was arranged by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State without any consultation or inquiry involving local Members of Parliament as to the appropriateness of singling out this new M6 for a competition. Inasmuch as their predecessors had sought and in some respects accepted the views of their colleagues who were affected by the new M6, I deeply regret the Minister's decision to eschew consultation.
I do not believe that this was intentional arrogance. Rather, it was the casual indifference of a functionary. It was insensitivity, not deliberate arrogance, but I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to reflect on the nature of representative government. To consult is not merely a courtesy; it is a way of seeking consent or acquiescence, and it is proper and right.
The conception of what I call the new M6 around Birmingham has been protracted. It was in August 1978 that the Department's road programme and highways policy division first issued a planning brief to the west midlands regional office instructing it to begin preparation of two schemes aimed at a new north orbital route to relieve the severely overloaded section of the M6 passing through the northern part of the west midlands conurbation. The schemes related, respectively, to a section planned to run from Essington—M6—to Bassetts Pole—A38—and to another to run from Bassetts Pole to Dunton. The brief was to examine not only new route solutions but an improvement of existing roads, and it assumed that a high standard dual two-lane all-purpose route would be provided.
The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary announced in a press release dated 9 August 1978 the addition of both schemes into the trunk road preparation pool. In 1980, the two schemes were included in the 1984 onwards reserve list. In the 1983 roads White Paper they were identified as dual three-lane standard roads, and the Bassetts Pole to Dunton scheme was extended to the M42/M6 near Coleshill. Further examination of the schemes led the Department to the conclusion that, to provide as much relief to the M6 as possible, the volumes of traffic that would use the new route would require a dual three-lane route to motorway standard. On that basis, the Department proceeded to public consultation in 1984.
At preview meetings held in Birmingham on 8 May 1984, the director of transport in the regional office presented proposals for what had by then become known as the northern relief route. The following day, 9 May, the Department issued a press release announcing a public consultation exercise on the route. Separate consultation documents for the two schemes were distributed to households in the area.
The documents presented five feasible alternative routes which had been identified between Essington and Bassetts Pole and two between Bassetts Pole and Coleshill. They also included an assessment of the impact of each route, and questionnaires to be completed by 20 July 1984. All the route options could take land and required the demolition of housing and other property. All options

1311
would also have effects on land and property remaining close by, in terms of noise, depreciation, severance and so on, during and after construction.
Public exhibitions of the proposals were held from 17 May to 9 June 1984 at a number of local points. Representatives of the Department and of the consulting engineers were in attendance to explain the alternatives and to answer questions. The total attendance at these exhibitions was 6,400, and 6,278 questionnaires were returned. Responses were also received from a number of public bodies. No consensus emerged from the consultation exercise. The response of residents was to reject all routes or to opt for the ones furthest from their homes. The Secretary of State for the Environment—NIMBY—would well appreciate the natural response that most of us have to development.
Opinion among public bodies was divided. The regional office was in the process of analysing the public response when the then Minister of State visited the area in October 1984. Each local Member of Parliament affected by the scheme took up the matter and one of my hon. Friends raised it in an Adjournment debate on 4 December 1984. In his reply to that debate, the Under-Secretary said that he was conscious of the fact that the uncertainty about the new route created anxiety among those living in the area and could lead to a certain degree of blighting of property. For that reason, he said that the Department was anxious to reach as early a decision as possible and to make an announcement in the early part of 1985.
The then Minister of State paid another visit to the area on 12 July this year—I wish that the present Minister of State had done the same. It was not, however, until 11 March 1986, when the then Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic met local Members of Parliament, that the decision became known that the preferred route was broadly in line with the green—Chasewater—and yellow options which had been considered at the public consultation stage.
The Department announced the decision in a press release on 12 March 1986. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to me enclosing an advance copy of the press release on that date. It reiterated the urgent need for a new road. Paragraph 2 said:
"the main aim of the new road is to provide urgently needed relief to the heavily overloaded sections of the M6 where it passes through the West Midlands conurbation."
It went on to note that the M6 plays a
"vital role in the national road network"
but that it had become
"the victim of its own success".
This meant, and means, that it is one of the most heavily used sections of our motorway system. By 1980, average daily flows had already exceeded 110,000 vehicles in places, and peak flows of over 130,000 vehicles a day had been recorded. That is for a road with a design capacity of about 70,000 vehicles a day. The percentage of heavy goods vehicles was 30, which was exceptionally high. In other words, the M6 at certain times is near collapse in the Birmingham section. Anyone who uses the section knows how desperate the situation is. It is made even worse by essential road works and the level of accidents which occur.
The Department noted the growth of traffic levels and recorded that by the design year for the scheme there would he more than 200,000 vehicles per day in the north-west/south-east corridor through the region. A large
1312
percentage of the traffic passes through the conurbation or is long-distance traffic which has its origin or destination within it. It is the nature of this corridor traffic which leads many of us to believe that the north Birmingham relief road will become effectively an integral part of a continuous flow of traffic along the M6 from the north-west to the south-east. Hence it is commonly referred to as the new M6. The announcement of the preferred route brought into effect the blight provisions of section 192(1)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
The press release also advised that, depending on the time taken to get through the statutory stages and on the availability of funds, work on the scheme would commence in 1991 and that the new road could be open to traffic in 1993. By the time of the planning inspectorate's press release of 8 March 1988, subject to completion of the necessary statutory procedures construction could still start in 1991, but would take about three years to complete. Presumably that means an opening at some time in 1994.
The press release envisaged publication of the draft line orders in mid-1987. In the event, it was September of that year. On 8 March it was announced that there would be a public inquiry between 24 May and 23 September 1988. The inspector, Mr. Kavanagh, reported to the Departments of the Environment and of Transport before Easter of this year.
On 18 May, the Secretary of State published his White Paper entitled "Roads for Prosperity", with no reference to the Birmingham north orbital route. On 22 May, in a flurry of activity, he published his Green Paper entitled "New Roads by New Means", which dealt with bringing in private finance. Again, that did not mention the Birmingham, northern relief route. Characteristically, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent a letter dated that same day, which included his planted parliamentary question and his written response, which was to the effect that there is to be a competition for the finance, design, construction and operation of a private road, which would serve broadly the same purposes as would be served by the published proposals for the Birmingham northern relief road. This, for want of a better term, new road proposal would not be confined to the preferred route identified by the previous Secretary of State.
The thought that there is a possibility that a new motorway may be constructed somewhere, don't know where, don't know when, is a curious end piece to the hard-won acquiescence on an identified preferred route. Indeed, the Government have already spent about £10 million of our money on specialist firms and consultants, principally Sir Owen Williams and Partners.
The Minister claims that this work is not abortive. He will make this information available to private commercial firms—not to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker nor to me, nor to the general public who paid for these reports, but he will make it available to private commercial interests. Further, the Secretary of State thinks that it would be inappropriate to take decisions on the presently proposed draft scheme and orders until this "sometime future" competition—date unknown, legislative basis uncertain—has taken place. Homes and lives have been blighted, as recognised by the Department having already paid out £2·3 million, and there are more payments in the pipeline. All this is for a

1313
road that we are now led to understand may not be even approximately where its preferred route has been the subject of public inquiry.
I regret that the Minister's advocacy has caused both great uncertainty, with the possibility of a wider shadow of blight extending from Brownhills to Lichfield, and raised the spectre of delay. If I have understood his judgment, it is that somewhere in a corridor running from about Essington to Coleshill there may be a toll motorway. This toll motorway, if it is to meet earlier projections, should be in operation in 1994. It will be about 30 miles long and will have 12 junctions if it is to meet some of the purpose of the presently understood route. Being a private motorway, it will under present legislation require a private Bill or the hybrid Bill procedure. There have been private Bill promoters who can testify that this procedure can involve considerable delay.
To meet that difficulty the Government have decided on the introduction of a new procedure by way of amendment to the Highways Act 1980. The Secretary of State will legislate for the new M6 to be a private road. At least, that was the position until about 4.45 pm yesterday when, in another flurry of activity, the Department responded to a letter written some time ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who unfortunately cannot be here today, wrote to me, and I shall quote his letter as it has some bearing on the debate. It said:
"You have expressed in the strongest terms your own concern, and the representations you have received from your constituents, about the route which any privately financed Birmingham northern relief road should take and about the need to avoid delay—indeed, you are moving an Adjournment debate on the subject tomorrow. Having considered and reflected on these representations, I am writing to you to set out my conclusions."
No discussion, no consultation—my right hon. Friend found himself in a hole and had to send a letter at 4.45 pm on the day before the debate.
The letter continued:
"As you know, my original intention had been to leave it open to bidders to propose their own route, for a road serving broadly the same purposes as the public sector proposal which we put to the public inquiry. The aim was to give the private sector maximum flexibility to propose routes which might offer better solutions than the original route; after all, one of the main advantages of involving the private sector in the provisions of roads is to make use of their innovative ideas and skills. Nevertheless, you have made it very clear to me that, after much work on the part of all concerned, the present route has achieved a good degree of consensus; and you have persuaded me that it would be too damaging and disruptive to leave bidders the freedom to propose wholly new routes."
That is two months after the Government had already created great uncertainty and anxiety. It continued:
"I therefore now propose to meet your concerns by requiring bidders to make proposals which broadly follow the line of the route originally proposed by my Department to the public inquiry. They may not propose entirely new routes. Bidders will of course produce their own designs and will have freedom to propose variations or improvements to the route. These will be considered at the public inquiry, along with all other aspects of the successful tenderer's proposals. It will be open to objectors to propose alternative routes or variations, just as they were able to do at the inquiry into the Department's original proposals. The Inspector will have to consider proposals and objections on their merits, and I will examine the Inspector's report in the light of all the relevant considerations.
I am able to meet your concerns about the route because of the special circumstances of the BNRR which you have
1314
made so clear to me. Private sector promoters will have greater freedom to propose routes in most other competitions, because there will not be an existing proposal at a fairly advanced stage of preparation. The decision on the route for the BNRR does not therefore set a precedent or compromise the underlying policy.
I appreciate and share your concern about timing of the BNRR"—
hallelujah.
"My aim is not to delay the scheme as a result of the private sector competition. The original publicly financed road was not due to open to traffic anyway until the mid-1990s, and that was subject to considerable uncertainty."
That was slippage already. It continued:
"Similar uncertainties apply to a privately financed scheme, and indeed to all major road schemes. Subject to these uncertainties, I would expect a private financed scheme to be able broadly to match the former projected opening date of the mid-1990s. To reinforce the point, I shall ask bidders to make proposals on the basis of an opening date in 1995. For our part, we shall proceed as fast as possible. This month we are issuing background material to potential bidders, and next month a formal invitation to tenderers to pre-quality will be placed in the EC Journal."
I do not want to delay the House, but in that flurry of correspondence I also received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, responding on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. It is important to some of my constituents because it raises the question of awarding some of the costs of successful objectors. I shall quote it because it is important to put it on the record. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for signing the letter in time for me to receive it before the debate. It said:
"Thank you for your letter of 16 June to Michael Portillo. It is the Department's practice following a decision on an inquiry to award qualified successful objectors some or all of their costs depending on the degree of success. A qualified objector is one with an interest in the land affected such as owner lessee or occupier.
Where a decision is made to abandon the proposals entirely objectors' costs are dealt with immediately. In cases where it is intended that fresh proposals will be taken forward, the assessment of costs is usually deferred until the final decision has been taken.
In the case of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road it was announced that a decision following the inquiry would be deferred until the private finance competition has taken place. Award of objectors' costs will be considered once the decision on the inquiry has been announced.
If as a result of the competition it is decided to implement proposals other than those taken to the inquiry, claims for costs will be invited from qualified objectors.
Objectors' costs cover all reasonable costs incurred in preparing and presenting the case at the inquiry—including such items as travelling expenses."
Many citizens' action groups, having a genuine concern for their environment and locality, cannot meet the criteria set out in that letter, despite the fact that they may have incurred considerable costs. Some individuals may even be dead by the time that the matter of costs is considered.
My intention is not to review the proposals for new road finance or to attack them. None of us finds it particularly difficult to accept the principle that, in the case of new roads such as the corridor between Birmingham and Manchester announced in the Green Paper, one must canvass all possible alternatives for their financing and construction. However, the northern relief road has already been 10 years in preparation, from its preparatory and initial stages through to the public inquiry. We shall have a difficult problem in political terms in convincing local residents—particularly given that there has been no improvement to Aldridge-Brownhills' roads infrastructure for 25 years, despite its population increasing from 35,000

1315
to nearly 92,000—that they are now confronted by the possibility of a toll road that will toll part of a continuous M6, from the north-west to the south-east. There is also the issue of the 12 junctions, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is considering carefully.
The sequence of announcements has given rise to the belief locally that a deal has been cobbled up with national construction companies such as Tarmac, which have convinced the Ministry that the quick kill method of introducing the concept to the public is to take over a project in which citizens have already invested £10 million and whose public inquiry they also financed. All of that is being thrown up in the air in a curious way. In a debate only the other week, my hon. Friend the Minister said, as I understood him, that the matter merits no significant debate. Therefore, we must countenance either new legislation or the use of the private Member's Bill or hybrid Bill procedure. It is difficult to understand how that does not imply delay, particularly when a Europeanwide competition is also involved.
I have tried to express some of the frustrations that are felt in connection with that matter. What function can we perform as Members of Parliament when a Secretary of State and a Minister of State do not think it is worth even consulting local Members of Parliament and of continuing a tradition established by their predecessors in seeking such advice? This Adjournment debate is indicative of the insensitivity of senior Ministers, who did not even feel that it was worth troubling local residents or their elected representatives in respect of a tremendously important decision.
2.53 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the debate and on the basically fair way in which he conveyed his views and the concerns and interests of his constituents. My hon. Friend will not be surprised if I totally reject any words of his that might be taken as criticism either of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport.
Single Member constituencies make it possible for people's interests to be forcefully presented. If there is one thing to be said about my hon. Friend, it is that he never puts forward his views in any other way. If he has a view worth expressing, he presents it in a manner that ensures that all hear it clearly. That is demonstrated by the response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills read out.
I am grateful also for my hon. Friend's kind remarks about the letter on successful objectors' costs. It is important to come to the House of Commons not with some goodies to distract attention, but to try to provide information so that hon. Members can make their speeches in the light of known information rather than do a magician's act.
I now refer to the general point about "New Roads by New Means"—the private funding, design, even private operating opportunities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rightly been congratulated on his mainly successful attempts so far to remove unnecessay obstacles to private sector involvement. My hon. Friend, with his west midlands constituency, will know that we
1316
would not have had canals if it had been up to the Treasury and the Department of Transport to provide them. Also, we would not have had railways, so many ports, or airports if it had been up to central Government. On many occasions, central Government are even more conservative than I am. In looking for private sector involvement, we have made great strides forward. The Channel tunnel is perhaps the biggest private sector scheme in the world at the moment. I would not spend too much time talking about the Dartford to Thurrock bridge, which is to provide extra capacity linking the M25 across the Thames.
When my right hon. Friend wanted to bring forward new opportunties for private sector involvement, he could have said, "We will not start even looking at any scheme if it has been in the roads programme." That would probably have meant that there would be no private sector involvement, in addition to the ones that we have in different forms at the moment, for about 13 years. I do not think that anyone would want that.
My hon. Friend's main criticism is that the Department was unable to consult him and our hon. Friends who represent the other parts of what we might call the new M6. If that has caused offence, I apologise. It was probably correct to try to treat the House of Commons as a whole in putting forward the proposal. My hon. Friend said also that the Department and its Ministers claim some credit for the modification of what my right hon. Friend called the purist view, instead of allowing private sector competitors to range far and wide and create a great deal of extra uncertainty. In a press notice and in a letter to my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend said that the bidders will be expected to stick to pretty well the line, the route and the function of the new M6 as we put it to inquiry.
I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend read from the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We hope that there will not be much unnecessary extra delay. I hope that no one listening to the debate or reading reports of it afterwards will assume that road schemes run like clockwork anyway. The nearest analogy that I can think of is a dinghy race things can only go wrong, and there is no normal way of accelerating, although we will do the best we can on the M40. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is doing all he can to try to make sure that we learn the lessons. We will all learn lessons from my hon. Friend's speech and from his constituents' concern.
As time moves on, many of the apprehensions that have rightly been expressed will turn out not to have foundation. Notification of the European competition is in the official journal. People will then qualify for the tendering process. That should not provide, as the cliché goes, an ongoing continuing delay situation. It should be a one-off—a notice that, if one wants to come in, that is fine.
I refer those who are interested in this subject to the working party on private finance in the construction industry sector group of the National Economic Development Office and the paper entitled "Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects" by R. S. Dobson. It refers to some of the problems that the private sector faces and what kind of action plan would move things forward. It would be in the interests of the private sector who wish to bid and also in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents to read it.
I place on record quietly but firmly that nothing that we are doing is at the behest or in the interests of a particular construction firm. People may have had their doubts, but

1317
they are not correct. On the two other occasions when people have had bright ideas in the construction industry, we have gone out to tender, and on each occasion the people who first had a good idea were not the ones who won the tender competition. There is no given right for people to say that the intellectual property or idea they may have had in the first place, which may or may not duplicate other things in this or in other countries, necessarily gives them the right to win a large contract or to get the advantage of a parliamentary procedure, which, as my hon. Friend said, could be under general legislation or a hybrid Bill. What matters is that we meet the interests of travellers while meeting the interests of local people during the period of uncertainty.
1318
The blight and the delay connected with various road schemes cause me concern. My hon. Friend and his parliamentary neighbours share that concern. Future plans will be introduced without unnecessary delay. When the history of the Birmingham northern relief road, or the new M6, is written, I think we shall find that the movement towards the provision of private finance is a plus rather than a minus and that, because of my hon. Friend's work, and that of others like him, there will be relatively little extra delay. His constituents will therefore be grateful for the representations that my hon. Friend has made on their behalf in the House and to the Departmentof Transport.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ghana
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further support he is providing for Ghana's economic recovery.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The United Kingdom continues to be a major supporter of Ghana's economic recovery programme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, signed a grant agreement for a further £20 million balance of payments finance when she visited Ghana at the end of June. This brings to £92·5 million the total of our balance of payments support to Ghana since its economic recovery programme began in 1983.

  Brazil (Minister's Visit)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to Brazil to discuss rain forest problems.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of the objectives achieved by the Minister for Overseas Development on his recent visit to Brazil.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The main purpose of my visit was to sign, on 5 July, a memorandum of understanding on technical co-operation on environmental matters. On that day I also met President Sarney and other leading Brazilian figures. The agreement is the first of its kind which Brazil has made with an industrialised country and will provide the framework for a significant contribution to Brazil's environmental problems, especially in forestry where we have unique expertise.

  I also visited Sao Paulo and the Amazon region where I had discussions with the major research institutions. I saw our very successful Royal Geographical Society project at Maraca, visited an area reserved for the Yanomani Indians and saw a hospital provided for them.

  Our additional technical co-operation programme, the details of which we will now discuss with the Brazilian authorities, is likely to cover five areas: first, urban environment, in particular sewage and water treatment; secondly, the sustainable management of the Amazon rain forest, where we hope to be involved in establishing a new biological reserve in the Xingu river area; thirdly, collaborative research on the relationship between the forests and climate, involving the Institute of Hydrology; fourthly, research into the great potential of the genetic resources of the Amazon; and we hope to begin soon with a research project into aromatic plants undertaken by the
  650
  Goeldi museum in Belem; and, fifthly, training in the United Kingdom and in Brazil in matters related to these areas.

  The visit shows that important progress is possible in these fields if the countries concerned adopt a co-operative spirit. Throughout my visit, I made it clear that we recognise Brazil's sensitiveness and sovereignty and the Brazilian Government responded in a helpful and positive way. I am sure that both countries will gain from the partnership.

  Overseas Aid (Anniversary Review)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost of publishing the anniversary review of British overseas aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It cost just under £105,000 to produce 20,000 copies of the anniversary review, a unit cost of £5·23. Despite more pages, photographs and graphics this was less than the unit cost of previous annual reviews.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mail Prices
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Post Office to announce the new prices for first and second class mail from October.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: Postal tariffs are a matter for the Post Office board. The Post Office announced on 3 July that it had proposed to the Post Office Users National Council that the standard charges should go to by 1 p, to 20p for first class and to 15p for second class letters, from 2 October.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, when he will make a statement on local government finance for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In due course.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he first became aware of the October 1988 meeting between the chairman and chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency and the regional director and the senior investment executive of the west Wales office of the Welsh Development Agency at which management buy-out proposals were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 5 July to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones),Official Report, col. 182.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give full details of factory building completed in west Wales by the Welsh Development Agency for each year from 1983–84 to the present, giving the location and description of each site and the area of building involved.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:
  651
  (a) Advance Factory Build

  (i) 1983–84

  Cillefwr Ind Est, Carmathen 8 units totalling 9k sq ft.

  Whitland Ind Est, Whitland 12 units totalling 24k sq ft.

  Dafen Ind Park, Dafen, Llanelli 6 units totalling 80k sq ft.

  Thornton Ind Est, Milford Haven I unit totalling 10k sq ft.

  Salterns Ind Est, Tenby 17 units totalling 32k sq ft.

  (ii) 1984–85

  Dafen Ind Park, Dafen. Llanelli 4 units totalling 70k sq ft

  (iii) 1986–87

  Kingswood Ind Est, Pembroke Dock 4 units totalling 5k sq fit

  (iv) 1988–89

  London Road, Pembroke Dock 3 units totalling 20k sq ft

  Cillefwr Ind Est, Carmarthen 5 units totalling 8k sq ft

  (b) Bespoke Projects

  (i) 1984–85

  Bespoke extension of 5k sq ft for Record Wire Wheels at Llandovery.

  (ii) 1987–88

  Bespoke extension of 3k sq ft for Animal Food Products at Llanybyther.

  Bespoke extension of I k sq ft for Neyland Training Initiative at Great Honyborough, Milford Haven.

  (iii) 1988–89

  Bespoke extension of 4k sq ft for Record Wire Wheels at Llandovery.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if there are proposals under consideration in any of the regional offices of the Welsh Development Agency for contracting out(a) services currently provided by the Welsh Development Agency in the investment and business advisory field or (b) work as local agents for land reclamation, urban renewal and inward investment;

  (2) what consideration has been given to contracting out services currently provided by the west Wales region of the Welsh Development Agency in the fields of (a) investment and business advice, (b) land reclamation, (c) urban renewal and (d) inward investment; and if he will provide details.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I would expect the Welsh Development Agency to keep under continuing review opportunities for private sector involvement. I would naturally consider any proposal put to me by the agency for contracting out services where this would guarantee an equivalent or better level of service and a lesser cost to the taxpayer. There are, however, no such proposals before me at present.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply of 5 July,Official Report, column 181, how much of the 62,000 sq ft of factory building in west Wales referred to has been completed to date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As I informed the hon. Gentleman in the reply to which he refers, the agency intends to start work on this factory space in the current financial year.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many National Health Service hospitals in use today in Wales were built(a) before 1914 and (b) before 1939; and how many National Health Service hospitals have been started since 1979.
  652
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on the number of hospitals built before 1939 is not available centrally. Since 1979, seven new hospitals have been built and one is due for completion at the end of this year. Major developments have been started at three existing hospitals. Many other smaller developments have been built since 1979 or are in the process of construction throughout Wales. Since 1979, £700 million (at 1989–90 prices) will have been invested in the capital estates of hospital and community health services in Wales.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what directions are given to Cadw to resolve planning applications by negotiation rather than by public inquiry; and if he will investigate the relative cost to his Department of resolving queries on applications by(a) negotiation and (b) by public inquiry under section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In additon to its functions in relation to listed buildings, Cadw's role as a branch of my Department is to advise both myself and local authorities, as planning authorities, on the effect of development proposals on ancient monuments. While Cadw is willing to discuss proposals and alternative schemes with developers before a planning application is made, it will also in appropriate cases maintain objections to development for which an application has been made and ask me to consider calling it in for my own determination. Where I agree, the public inquiry that follows ensures compliance with the principles of openness, fairness and impartiality and serves to maintain public confidence in the quality of decisions and the process by which they are reached. Negotiation on alternative proposals is not possible once the application is called in and is thus not an alternative to negotiation before the application; nor can costs be usefully compared.

  ESA Payments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the policy of Welsh Water in respect of the clawback of ESA payments made to tenants of farms in Welsh Water's ownership.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This is a matter for the board of that authority.

  Land (Public Ownership)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what records he maintains of land acquired into public ownership for allotment purposes; and for how long these records have been kept.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. Records on land acquired for allotment purposes are not held centrally.

  Football Spectators Bill (Working Party)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many of his working party on the Football Spectators Bill represent non-Football League clubs in Wales;

  (2) whether he will list the members of his working party on the Football Spectators Bill, and their status and qualifications.
  653
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Membership is as follows:

  Mr. Richard Wallace (Chairman), Under Secretary, Welsh Office.

  Mr. Robin Baker, Superintendent, North Wales Police.

  Mr. Haydn Davies, Assistant Chief Constable, South Wales Constabulary.

  Mr. Chris Whalley, Community Affairs Officer, The Football League Ltd.

  Mr. Alan Evans, Secretary, Football Association of Wales.

  Mr. Tony Clemo, Chairman, Cardiff City AFC.

  Mr. Tony Rance, General Manager, Wrexham AFC.

  Mr. George Taylor, Company Secretary, Swansea City AFC.

  Mr. Linford Tatham, Director, Sports Council for Wales.

  Mr. David Powell (Secretary), Senior Executive Officer, Welsh Office.

  The Football Association of Wales represents the interests of football at all levels, and the Sports Council for Wales is concerned with sport as a whole, including football.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if any categories of person will be exempt from security searches when moving between the air and land sides at Britain's 19 principal airports, when he introduces new security regulations in October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The requirements for certain airports to search personnel working at the airport before they enter restricted areas was promulgated in directions under the Aviation Security Act issued by the Department on 5 April. The search requirements come into force on 1 October. The only people who will be exempt are staff engaged on certain aviation security duties and persons (such as police officers, Customs and immigration officials) acting in the course of statutory duties which give them a right of entry to such areas in order to carry out those duties. The directions require airport managers to endeavour to persuade persons with statutory rights of entry to consent to being searched, and the Department has reached agreement with the police, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the immigration service on the regime which will apply to their staff.

  Transport (Elderly and Disabled People)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre inspectors are reclassifying vehicles used in dial-a-ride and similar schemes for elderly and disabled people in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish what information he has on the effect of removing vehicle excise duty exemption from ambulance class vehicles used in dial-a-ride schemes for elderly and disabled people.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I will write to the hon. Lady.

  Flights (Cancellation)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many flights in and out of United Kingdom airports had to be cancelled as a result of staffing shortages at West Drayton on each day of the week commencing 1 July; and if he will make a statement on the extent of and reasons for the shortages.
  654
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I shall ask the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to write to the hon. Member.

  London-Manchester Shuttle
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate the British Airways shuttle service between Manchester and London to see if they have sufficient staff, planes, equipment and air traffic slots to provide the service as advertised.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that British Airways lacks sufficient staff, aircraft, or equipment to operate the service adequately. Air traffic control slots can be requested only by the operator up to 2¼ hours before take-off, and the timing of the slots allocated depend on the traffic conditions prevailing at the time.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with British Rail in producing a business plan for the Channel tunnel rail link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have asked British Rail to prepare an outline investment appraisal of its proposals for the Channel tunnel rail link.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice has been given to date by the independent Safety Authority to the Intergovernmental Commission on the Channel tunnel on whether people should remain in their own road vehicles whilst in transit through the Channel tunnel; and what further advice is expected from the commission and on what time scale.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1988, the Safety Authority recommended to the Intergovernmental Commission that design work for the Channel tunnel project could continue on the assumption that passengers in private cars would be allowed to remain in their vehicles in shuttle trains. A final decision on this was subject to Eurotunnel producing further evidence about the procedures and arrangements required to ensure the safety of passengers (for example, dealing with emergencies, fire detection and extinction etc.). A substantial amount of further work has been carried out by Eurotunnel, in particular tests on vehicle fires and procedures for the evacuation of passengers in emergencies. The Safety Authority is currently evaluating this and other relevant evidence as a basis for its eventual advice to the Intergovernmental Commission on the principle of the non-segregation of passengers and their vehicles. Decisions are likely to be reached by the commission before the end of the year and will he made public.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the debt outstanding on the Severn bridge for each year since the bridge opened and the toll revenue collected each year since it opened.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures are as follows:
  655

  Income £million

  Debt £million

  1966–67

  0·33

  13·62

  1967–68

  0·74

  14·55

  1968–69

  0·81

  14·97

  1969–70

  0·87

  15·29

  1970–71

  0·93

  15·62

  1971–72

  1·00

  15·91

  1972–73

  1·19

  16·17

  1973–74

  1·21

  16·92

  1974–75

  1·21

  17·94

  1975–76

  1·22

  19·66

  1976–77

  1·25

  21·13

  1977–78

  1·24

  23·70

  1978–79

  1·33

  25·93

  1979–80

  2·13

  27·54

  1980–81

  2·76

  28·91

  1981–82

  2·75

  30·97

  1982–83

  2·85

  36·79

  1983–84

  2·84

  46·07

  1984–85

  2·98

  56·03

  1985–86

  5·31

  65·07

  1986–87

  4·40

  76·77

  1987–88

  9·07

  85·23

  A1 (Motorway Status)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects his Department's consideration of converting the whole of the A l from London to the North East to motorway status to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: We will be commissioning studies by consultants shortly. They will involve a good deal of work. The aim is to complete these and other studies announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" in time for the next regular road programme review.

EMPLOYMENT

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much in total grant aid has been made available under the following schemes for each of the last five years(a) assistance with fares to work scheme, (b) adaptation to premises and equipment scheme and (c) personal reader service scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested on(a) the assistance with fares to work (FTW) scheme, (b) the adaptation to premises and equipment (APE) scheme and (c) the personal reader service (PRS) scheme is as follows:

  Year

  FTW £

  APE £

  PRS £

  1984–85

  397,000

  244,000

  119,000

  1985–86

  460,000

  295,000

  210,000

  1986–87

  589,000

  256,000

  329,000

  1987–88

  694,000

  404,000

  325,000

  1988–89

  853,000

  423,000

  387,000

  Special Aids to Employment Scheme
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the approximate cost of the special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  656
  Mr. Lee
  The cost of the special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  1984–85

  927,000

  1985–86

  1,094,000

  1986–87

  1,700,000

  1987–88

  2,319,000

  1988–89

  3,361,000

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the job interview guarantee scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: The job interview guarantee will link the assistance already available through jobclubs and the employment service with new measures to enable longer term unemployed people to take job vacancies.

  These will include a job preparation course, tailored to meet employers' specific needs and "work trials", which offer short periods of work experience with potential employers to unemployed people while they remain on benefit. Where people need training for the vacancies on offer, training under employment training tailored to the employer's needs may be made available.

  In return, employers will enter into agreements with the employment service under which they guarantee to interview unemployed people who have taken one of these options for the vacancies they have available.

  The cities in which the job interview guarantee scheme will be piloted have now been chosen. They are:

  Dundee

  Glasgow

  Newcastle

  Sunderland

  Leeds

  Lower Don Valley (Sheffield/Rotherham)

  Manchester

  Salford

  Liverpool

  Birmingham

  Wolverhampton

  Nottingham

  Leicester

  London-Spitafields

  Docklands

  Southwark/Lewisham

  Bristol

  Plymouth (Davenport)

  Cardiff

  Merthyr Tydfil

  The scheme will be targeted on selected disadvantaged areas within these cities.

  Preparatory work in these locations is under way, and it is hoped that the first agreements will be made within the next few weeks.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Care (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what statistical information he has as to the reasons given to applicants by social fund officers at the local office in Durham City for the nil awards in respect of an application for community care grants.
  657
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table provides the statistical information available for the 1988–89 year.

  Unsuccessful applications for community care grants by reason for refusal at Durham ILO

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total

  Savings over £500 meet the full cost

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to qualify

  0

  0

  1

  3

  5

  1

  4

  2

  0

  1

  4

  1

  22

  Item(s) excluded by Direction

  0

  2

  1

  0

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  1

  16

  Applicant excluded by Direction

  0

  0

  0

  12

  17

  21

  14

  13

  7

  3

  6

  0

  93

  Applied for less than £30

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  5

  Adjusted amount less than £30

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Previous application and decision for the item

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  10

  Help available from another source

  0

  2

  2

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  2

  1

  19

  Priority too low to meet from the budget

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  1

  15

  Alternative available to the whole application

  0

  2

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  16

  Others not covered above

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  10

  13

  6

  34

  Total

  0

  7

  11

  25

  30

  33

  20

  16

  21

  23

  34

  12

  232

  "A Good Deal for Deaf Children"
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration the Minister for the Disabled has given to the report from the National Deaf Children's Society entitled "A Good Deal for Deaf Children"; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have not yet received a copy of the report, but I look forward with interest to reading it.

  Private Residential Homes
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum weekly payment made by his Department in Bradford to support elderly people in private residential homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available on this basis. Help through income support with the fees of residential care homes in Bradford is subject to the national limits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the current limits on 27 October 1988 at column 483.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the difference between charges levied by private residential homes in Bradford and the maximum weekly payment made by his Department to support elderly people living in such homes; what is the current minimum and maximum difference in Bradford; how many elderly people have been evicted from residential homes in Bradford in the last 12 months because of inability to pay fees; how many elderly people are now under notice to leave private residential homes because of inability to pay fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Help with fees in an independent residential care home can be available through income support, subject to national limits. The level of a person's charges is a matter for him and the proprietor to agree based on the services to be provided. We have had representations from Bradford and elsewhere about the levels of income support in relation to fees charged by homes. However, it is not our policy to meet all fees, however high, and the levels of income support are enough to meet the fees in the majority of cases. The Department does not collect information on the remaining points.

HEALTH

  Cyclotron Machine (St. Thomas's Hospital)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds his Department decided to consult interested parties before making his decision to provide funds for the purchase of a cyclotron machine for St. Thomas's hospital; and if he will list the groups he consulted.

  Mr. Freeman
  No external advice was received before the decision was taken to contribute to the charitable funds being raised by the Cyclotron Trust.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to continue to provide 60 per cent of the funds for the running costs of the cyclotron machine at St. Thomas's hospital in the light of concern over the safety of the machine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have undertaken to meet up to 60 per cent. of the direct running costs of the cyclotron once it begins to operate, in so far as these are not met from other sources. We have given careful consideration to the views that have so far been expressed by the medical profession, but they have not produced any evidence which would cause us to change our views of the proposed project.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the mortality statistics for motor neurone disease for each year from 1959 for which data is available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths from Motor Neurone Disease1 in England and Wales, 1959–1988

  Year

  Number of deaths

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1959

  308

  260

  568

  1960

  311

  227

  538

  1961

  306

  230

  536

  1962

  311

  228

  539

  1963

  290

  227

  517

  1964

  346

  258

  604

  1965

  375

  265

  640

  1966

  341

  271

  612

  1967

  343

  269

  612

  1968

  327

  278

  605

  659

  Year

  Number of deaths

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1969

  340

  268

  608

  1970

  342

  261

  603

  1971

  382

  339

  721

  1972

  385

  298

  683

  1973

  372

  307

  679

  1974

  367

  322

  689

  1975

  376

  338

  714

  1976

  402

  324

  726

  1977

  418

  358

  776

  1978

  384

  392

  776

  1979

  488

  386

  874

  1980

  402

  353

  755

  1981

  493

  390

  883

  1982

  458

  366

  824

  1983

  481

  461

  942

  1984

  565

  440

  1,005

  1985

  570

  533

  1,103

  1986

  591

  490

  1,081

  1987

  598

  525

  1,123

  21988

  592

  530

  1,122

  1 From 1959 to 1967 motor neurone disease and muscular atrophy was classified to the International Diseases of Classification (ICD) 7th revision code 356. Similarly from 1968 to 1978 motor neurone disease was classified to ICD 8th revision ICD code 348 and from 1979 onwards 9th revision ICD code 325.2 was used.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects on motor neurone disease funded by the Department in each year since 1959 for which data are available and the level of funding provided.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present, the health and personal social services research programme does not include any research specifically into motor neurone disease (MND). However, the Department of Health does fund a number of studies about service delivery where MND sufferers would be among the service users. These studies are as follows:(a) Research on aspects of physiotherapy provision, carried out by the Centre for Physiotherapy Research at King's college, London.
  (b) Research on speech therapy provision, in particular; a study of Communication Aid Centres being carried out by Dr. Anne Chamberlain at Leeds;
  a study on speech therapy services (demands and staffing) being undertaken by Dr. Philip Davies at Oxford.
  (c) Research on disability generally is relevant to MND. An important example is the OPCS disability survey which, of course, includes MND sufferers.

  A full list of earlier research into MND is not readily available. However, the Department's handbook of research and development, published annually, contains information about all directly funded research. Copies are available in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has a specific policy on giving financial support to voluntary organisations dealing with disabilities which are run by the disabled.

  Mr. Freeman
  The major considerations in determining support to voluntary organisations dealing with disabilities are the services they offer to disabled people and the resources available. A number of organisations that we currently support are run by disabled people.
  660
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department intends to review its level of funding to the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is currently considering an application from the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People for funds under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for the period 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued by his Department relating to the removal and transplantation of organs from anacephalic infants.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Chief Medical Officer wrote to regional medical officers on 1 February 1988 (PL/CM0(88)3). This letter drew to their attention a report of the working party, from the conference of medical royal colleges on organ transplantation in neonates. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cumulative total of his Department's expenditure since May 1979 to date over and above the expenditure level prevailing in May 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Between 1979–80 and 1989–90 total gross expenditure on the health and personal social services programme in England has increased by nearly 36 per cent. in real terms. The table shows gross expenditure in each year since 1979–80 at 1989–90 prices and the cumulative real terms increases during this period:

  HPSS Gross Expenditure 1979–80 to 1989–90 at Current Prices

  £ millions

  at 1989–90 prices

  Cumulative increase in real terms

  1979–80

  18,574

  —

  1980–81

  20,208

  1,634

  1981–82

  20,591

  2,017

  1982–83

  20,978

  2,404

  1983–84

  21,353

  2,779

  1984–85

  21,804

  3,230

  1985–86

  21,868

  3,294

  1986–87

  22,869

  4,295

  1987–88

  24,006

  5,432

  1988–89

  24,884

  6,310

  1989–90

  25,230

  6,656

  Compensation Payments
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by regional health authority, the number of compensation payments made exceeding £100,000 paid in each year from 1984–85 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: The number of compensation payments exceeding £100,000 notified to the Department in each year 1984–85 to 1987–88, together with the amounts involved, is as follows:
  661

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Region

  Number of cases

  Amounts £

  Number of cases

  Amounts £

  Number of cases

  Amounts £

  Number of cases

  Amounts £

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  385,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trent

  —

  —

  1

  270,000

  3

  115,000

  —

  —

  130,000

  375,000

  East Anglian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  151,222

  —

  —

  North West Thames

  1

  220,760

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East Thames

  1

  235,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  430,000

  South East Thames

  —

  —

  1

  154,095

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  600,000

  —

  —

  150,498

  108,434

  Wessex

  —

  —

  1

  275,000

  1

  175,000

  —

  —

  Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  550,000

  —

  —

  South Western

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  350,000

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  1

  250,000

  2

  175,000

  1

  220,000

  260,000

  Mersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  375,000

  North Western

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  207,000

  —

  —

  Note: The figures shown represent the total amount of the award/settlement, excluding costs. They do not take account of the fact that the health authority's liability may have been reduced (in a case involving a medical accident) by a contribution from a medical defence organisation.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Lawson
  The ECOFIN Council met in Brussels on 10 July. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed the economic situation in the Community and the Commission's second quarterly review; and confirmed the economic policy guidelines set out in the 1988–89 annual economic report adopted last December. The Commission and the presidency explained their plans for implementing the decisions on European monetary union reached at the recent European Council at Madrid.

  War Graves (VAT)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which year and on whose authority value added tax was first imposed on the maintenance of United States war graves in the United Kingdom; when and on whose authority war graves in the United Kingdom and European Economic Community nations were exempted from such value added tax charges; and when he proposes taking action to ensure that the war graves of our American and Commonwealth allies are not less favourably treated than those of our former enemies.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: In 1985 Her Majesty's Customs and Excise ruled that suplies in the
  662
  United Kingdom of goods and services for the American Battle Monuments Commission were chargeable with VAT.

  There was an exchange of notes between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America in 1952 regarding relief from taxation of United States Government expenditures in the United Kingdom. Information is not presently available on the position in other countries of the European Communities.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is looking into the background to the ruling in 1985 to see whether it was correct then and is appropriate now.

  Manufactured Goods (Imports)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to increase the volume of information provided by Customs and Excise marketing agents relating to imported manufactured goods; and how he intends to make the information available to British manufacturers.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: Customs and Excise is now making available to its approved marketing agents, in addition to traditional United Kingdom trade statistical data, the names and addresses of consignees shown on import declarations, listed against the commodities they import. This new facility has been available since 22 May 1989. The information covers importations from 1 January 1989 and is updated monthly. Commodities are distinguished by an appropriate commodity code; these are published in the Customs and Excise tariff. In most cases information is made available at the more detailed nine-digit level, but in

  663
  some instances it is provided at a less detailed level where to provide at nine-digit level would lead to disclosure of confidential quantity and value data. Information covers the whole range of imported, including manufactured, goods.

  The marketing agents will supply the information in a form and manner which is convenient to their customers, and at an attractive price. British manufacturers who wish to obtain this data should therefore contact a marketing agent. This new service was announced by Customs and Excise in a press notice dated 1 June 1989 in which the names and addresses of the approved agents are listed.

  Barclays Bank
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mention was made in the discussions or negotiations with Barclays bank over the charge to value added tax for the redevelopment of its new headquarters of the bank's co-operation with the Government scheme for top-up loans.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: None.

  ESA Payments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of the Crown Estate Commissioners in respect of the clawback of ESA payments made to tenants of farms within the estate.

  Mr. Lawson
  The only designated environmentally sensitive areas which affect the Crown Estate are in Wales.

  The Crown Estate Commissioners are content that either commoners with registered rights or tenants on the Crown Estate within environmentally sensitive areas should, if they so wish, enter the ESA scheme without any payment to the Crown Estate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Television Licences
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the total cost of allowing pensioner households currently holding a colour television licence to pay only a monochrome licence fee; and what would be the additional cost per licence for non-pensioner licence holders if this additional cost was met through increases in the licence fee.

  Mr. Renton
  The cost would be about £260 million a year in terms of revenue lost to the BBC, which would mean that other licence holders would have to pay about £22 more for their licences.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of television licences and the number of households; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  It is estimated that there are about 22,150,000 households in the United Kingdom, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man. As at 31 May 1989 there were 19,440,211 television licences in force.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the County NatWest report into the future of the police national computer 664
  organisation; if he will place a copy in the Library; what assessment he has made of considerations of security, accountability and public confidence which are addressed in the report; and what action he proposes to take on the recommendations contained therein.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The County NatWest report was received on 22 May; a copy of that part relating to the future of the police national computer organisation has been placed in the Library. The Department is now consulting senior management, the trade unions, the local authorities and the police service on its findings, including the issues referred to by the hon. Member. We shall be considering carefully the report's recommendations, together with the results of this consultation process, in due course.

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to seek additional powers to control and prevent static rallies likely to stir up racial hatred.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In its White Paper "Review of Public Order Law" (Cmnd 9510, May 1985), the Government concluded that the likelihood of incitement of racial hatred should not be a ground for banning a procession and that there should be no power to ban public assemblies. It is an offence under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or to publish or distribute material which is intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.

  Broadcasting
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will respond to the speech of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington on 13 June,Official Report, columns 871–72, on how hard pornography emanating from an established European television channel can be prevented from being transmitted in the United Kingdom by satellite or other means.

  Mr. Renton
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on this subject on 6 July. In that letter I said:"It was to avoid precisely this sort of problem that we were keen to secure agreement on provisions in the Council of Europe convention on transfrontier television which would preserve acceptable standards of taste and decency. I am pleased to say that we were successful in that objective. Article 7 of the convention requires that programmes should not be indecent or contain pornography. This is also reflected in article 22 of the draft directive, which places on broadcasters a responsibility to ensure that they do not transmit programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular those that involve pornography or gratuitous violence."

  Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the flow of people of Indian sub-continent cultural origin into and out of the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement as to the reasons, where applicable, for the imbalance in the flows.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested. "People of Indian sub-continent cultural origin" include British passport holders.
  665
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the net inflow of visitors from Hong Kong in each of the last eight weeks; and what was the comparable figure in 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  It is not possible from the available information to provide the figures requested.

  Prison Officers' Houses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to the answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 358, who purchased the 39 prison officers' houses at Culcheth: why they had remained vacant for between seven and eight years; and at what price he expects to sell the six houses that became vacant during 1988–89.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 39 prison officers' houses at Culcheth were purchased by Beazer Urban Developments Limited. Properties had remained vacant and surplus to requirements for between seven and eight years for a variety of reasons. These included the need to ascertain whether any would be needed to accommodate staff from the new prison at Thorn Cross, which opened in 1985; the need to clarify the requirements of the local authority as regards upgrading the roads and sewers to make them suitable for adoption; and the need to negotiate an easement for a new rising pumped main through adjoining land. The prices of the six houses that became vacant during 1988–89 have yet to be finally determined by the district valuer, but are likely to be in the region of £45,000 for the five three bedroom semi-detached houses, and £30,000 for the two bedroom semi-detached house.

  Mr. K. Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. K. Hussain, whose reference is H4/8/12/88, first applied for British citizenship; and when a decision is to be taken on his application.

  Mr. Renton
  As the hon. Member knows, we have been unable to trace this application on the reference given. To do so we would need Mr. Hussain's full name and his date and place of birth. I shall write to the hon. Member once we have this information.

DEFENCE

  Weapons Displays (Council Bans)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to how many councils have placed a ban on static weapon displays by the armed forces on council property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Five councils have asked that the armed forces should exclude or limit displays of weapons when mounting recruiting or promotional events in their areas.

  Independent Schools
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many independent schools in respect of which grants were available to service families have ceased to be eligible for such funds in the last five years; and if he will state the reasons.
  666
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is nothing I can add to the answer which was given to my hon. Friend on 9 June at column 257.

  Army Polo Teams
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that every serving Army officer is made aware of the content of his reply to the hon. Member for Northampton, North on 6 July,Official Report, column 266.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no need to draw the attention of every `serving Army officer to the reply of 6 July. In this matter, as in any other, an officer who is in any doubt should consult the regimental adjutant or his commanding officer.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when West Glamorgan county council is to be informed of the nuclear-powered warship safety committee's decision regarding berthing of nuclear submarines at Swansea; to whom it is to be communicated; what form the consultation with the council will take; what issues it will cover; and what powers the council has to stop the use of such a berth at the port.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The Ministry of Defence will be in touch with the chief executive of West Glamorgan county council as soon as the Royal Navy is ready to proceed. A public safety plan will need to be drawn up in consultation with council, fire, police and health officials. The disposition of naval vessels is a matter which affects national security, and as such it must remain the responsibility of central rather than local government. A defence policy can be effective only if applied on a national basis.

SCOTLAND

  Voluntary Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list those hospitals in which WRVS or other voluntary bodies' facilities for the provision of patients' and or relatives' services have been either removed or reduced;

  (2) why facilities made available to the WRVS at Stirling Royal infirmary have been reduced.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Proposals to remove or reduce the facilities used by the WRVS or other voluntary bodies for the provision of services to patients and others are a matter for the health board responsible for the hospital, in consultation with the voluntary body concerned. Information on this is not held centrally, but I am not aware of any case where the health board and the voluntary body have failed to reach an agreement.

  Forth Valley health board and the WRVS discussed the future of the WRVS canteen at Stirling Royal infirmary because wards in the immediate vicinity of its site were being relocated. Both parties concluded that the canteen should move to a new site in the maternity-gynaecology block nearby. The new canteen opened during May. WRVS facilities have not been reduced since the existing

  667
  canteen has also been kept open because not all the wards have yet been relocated. No final decision has been taken about the future of the site.

  I have written recently in response to a letter from the Scottish chairman of the WRVS, emphasising my appreciation for the work of such organisations, which is greatly appreciated by health boards and, most important, by patients and their relatives.

  Scottish Health Service Advisory Council
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Health Service Advisory Council will be able to initiate and pursue matters without prior approval by himself; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The remit of the Scottish Health Service Advisory Council is:"Where requested by or agreed with the Secretary of State to advise him on the exercise of his functions under the National Health Service Acts and to give advice on good practice to Health Boards, other Health Managers and those delivering Health Services."

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the attendance of each of his appointments to Lothian health board together with the possible totals, for each member of the board and its sub-committees for the years(a) 1987–88, (b) 1988–89 and (c) 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Appointments
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many posts in Scottish institutions of higher education funded directly by his Department have been filled without advertisment over the period from 1983 to June 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  The arrangements for filling staff vacancies in the grant-aided colleges are for the college authorities to determine. The information requested is not collected by the Scottish Education Department.

  Transport (Elderly and Disabled People)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish what information he has on the number of dial-a-ride and similar schemes for the elderly and disabled currently operating in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of dial-a-ride and similar schemes operating in Scotland is not held centrally.

  Dental Education
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has reached on whether to reduce places for dental education in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report of the working party to review dental provision in Scotland made recommendations for reductions in places for dental education in Scotland. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the 668
  Secretary of State for Education and Science, my right hon. and learned Friend sent the report to the Universities Funding Council and asked the council to consider the working party's advice in reaching decisions on undergraduate dental education.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the proportions of dental school graduates from the three dental schools in Scotland who stayed on to practice in Scotland, giving the information broken down by school and for each year since 1977 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested, but studies in recent years suggest that under 50 per cent. of the graduates of the Edinburgh school practice in Scotland whereas well over 50 per cent. of the graduates of the Dundee and Glasgow schools do so.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to back the case for a Gaelic broadcasting council funded on a similar basis to S4C.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The implications of the recent White Paper for Gaelic broadcasting are still under consideration. An announcement will be made in due course.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eggs
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to define in egg marketing regulations a fresh egg; and whether he intends to make sell-by stickers compulsory.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The egg marketing standards regulations of the European Community define quality standards for "fresh eggs", and require that the date or period of packing should be shown on the pack and provide that a sell-by date may also be added.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce heavier fines for shops found selling bad eggs or other produce; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Eggs (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1985 already prescribe a substantial fine of up to £2,000 for an offence relating to the marketing of substandard eggs. Under the Food Act 1984 it is an offence to sell unfit food. The maximum fine applicable is again £2,000. In each particular case it is for the courts to decide upon the appropriate level of fine within the maximum.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to initiate further spot checks in the United Kingdom to test the quality of eggs; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The egg marketing inspectorate already carries out a systematic schedule of inspection visits to egg packing centres and wholesalers, and provides
  669
  technical assistance to trading standards officers at retail outlets, to ensure that eggs meet with requirements for quality, weight and labelling as prescribed by the egg marketing standards regulations of the European Community.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any record of anthrax being confirmed in any wild animals during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Anthrax is not notifiable in animals in the wild and there are no records of cases having occurred in Great Britain.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he is taking to determine the cause of the current outbreak of anthrax in Wales;

  (2) whether he has any evidence of contaminated animal feed being the cause of the current outbreak of anthrax in Wales.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Detailed epidemiological investigations have been undertaken including attempts to culture anthrax from food hoppers and environmental supplies. All results have been negative.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the incubation period of anthrax in(a) humans, (b) cattle, (c) sheep and (d) pigs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The incubation period of anthrax in animals is variable in all species and can range from 24 hours to 14 days. In man, incubation can be up to seven days, and is normally between two and five days.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the current outbreak of anthrax in Wales, he will now introduce a compulsory slaughter and compensation scheme in respect of this disease.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of anthrax have been recorded in the United Kingdom in each of the farm animal species during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is set out as follows:

  1988 3 cattle

  1987 6 cattle

  1986 12 cattle; 2 sheep; 1 horse

  1985 6 cattle

  1984 9 cattle

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the susceptibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle to other bovine ailments.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  BSE-infected cattle are susceptible to all other bovine ailments.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Prisons (Education Services)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the amount of financial assistance given at present by the Inner London education authority towards education services at each London prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The responsibility for education in Her Majesty's prisons rests with the Home Office. It discharges this responsibility by contracting with the relevant local education authorities to provide an education service to prisons. The Inner London education authority provides this service to Her Majesty's prisons in London. The cost of this provision is met by the Home Office.

  Special Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will use his powers under the Education Act 1981 to ensure compliance with the terms of the Act by the seven local education authorities which have failed to offer assessment and statementing procedures for more than 80 per cent. of children in their special schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department has considered the statements made in the fact sheet written by Mr. Will Swann and published recently by the Centre for Studies on Integration in Education (CSIE), in the light of the latest available statistical returns. A number of local education authorities have been asked for further information about the number of pupils who attend special schools and do not have statements of special educational needs. In the light of their replies the Secretary of State will consider what further action may need to be taken.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he is giving to those local authorities where the proportion of children with special needs segregated in special schools is increasing.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is for local education authorities to decide how they arrange to make the special educational provision required by pupils for whom they have made a statement of special educational needs. Section 2(2) of the Education Act 1981 places LEAs under a duty to secure that pupils with statements are educated in an ordinary school subject to the conditions described in section 2(3) of that Act. The Department will shortly be issuing a revised circular of guidance regarding the implementation of the 1981 Act.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether head teachers will be required to notify community charge registration officers of the names and home addresses of all pupils in secondary education over 18 years of age.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. Community charge registration officers are not empowered to demand information other than from precepting or charging authorities or to approach schools directly.

  Independent Schools
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many independent schools have been closed following a notice of complaint in the last five years.

  Mr. Butcher
  Since April 1984, five independent schools have closed following the issue of a notice of complaint.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to introduce an accreditation for independent schools supervised by Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce an accreditation scheme for independent schools.

  Dental Education
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proportion of students admitted to each of the three dental schools in Scotland in October 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 who graduated on time, and the proportion who failed to graduate in dentistry; and what the corresponding proportions are for dental schools in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available centrally which directly relates graduate output with entrants to dentistry courses. The numbers of graduates in clinical dentistry in each of the three dental schools in Scotland in the last four years were as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Dundee

  48

  n/a

  33

  44

  Edinburgh

  45

  53

  47

  36

  Glasgow

  60

  67

  63

  70

  All United Kingdom

  830

  n/a

  731

  729

  n/a not available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has asked the Universities Funding Council to reach a decision on the undergraduate education recommendations of the report on dental provision in Scotland.

  Mr. Jackson
  With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has sent the report of the review of dental provision in Scotland to the Universities Funding Council, and asked the council to consider the working party's advice in reaching decisions on undergraduate dental education.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase funding for research into cause and treatment of motor neurone disease, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main agency through which the Government fund medical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives a grant-in-aid from this Department. The council's grant for 1989–90 is £176 million, an increase of 17 per cent. over its grant for 672
  1988–89 of £150 million. The council itself determines the allocation of the funds at its disposal. The council is always willing to consider soundly-based proposals for new research programmes in competition with other proposals.

  Dental Schools (Scotland)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish figures on the average academic attainment in terms of points scores in Scottish certificate of education highers and general certificate of education A-levels for entrants to the three Scottish dental schools and also the number of applicants per place for each school for each of the last nine years.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Grant-maintained Status
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will clarify the role of teacher governors in decisions by school governing bodies on whether to ballot parents on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government's intention, as reflected in the provisions of the Education Reform Act, is that teacher governors should play a full part in a decision on whether to ballot parents about grant-maintained status for the school. I am considering what amendments might be made to the School Government Regulations 1987 to ensure they reflect that intention. Revised regulations will be brought into force at the beginning of the next school year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fermanagh (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when any junior Minister from the Northern Ireland Office last visited either Newtownbutler or Rosslea Royal Ulster Constabulary station in south-east Fermanagh; and what was the cost of the security operation thus entailed.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No Minister has visited Newtownbutler or Rosslea RUC station recently.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa (Nuclear Missile Test)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information on the Republic of South Africa's plans to test a nuclear capable intermediate-range ballistic missile system developed with the aid of Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Although we are aware of recent press reports on this subject, we cannot substantiate them. We have, however, instructed Her Majesty's embassies in Pretoria and Tel Aviv to inquire with the relevant authorities about the validity of the reports.

  Tibet
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to monitor the internal situation(a)

  673
  in Tibet in general and (b) in Lhasa in particular, with regard to possible human rights abuses by Chinese forces; what representations he has made in 1989 to the Chinese authorities regarding their occupation of Tibet; what steps he is taking to pursue the proposal put forward by the Dalai Lama for a self-governing Tibet under Chinese sovereignty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Although the imposition of martial law has reduced the outward flow of information on Tibet, the British embassy in Peking continues to monitor the situation closely by all available means. We have made clear to the Chinese authorities on many occasions the real concern in this country about human rights in Tibet. While we continue to believe that the most promising solution to the problem of Tibet is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama, our immediate concern in recent weeks has been to bring home to the Chinese authorities our sense of shock and outrage at the brutality with which they suppressed those who were demonstrating for democracy in Peking.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the Government of Cyprus as to threats that Turkish people leaving Bulgaria could be settled in the Turkish-occupied town of Famagusta; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Turkish Cypriot offer to resettle ethnic Turkish refugees from Bulgaria in Varosha, the sector of Famagusta controlled by the Turkish army, was one of a number of topics I discussed with President Vassiliou on 10 July. We agreed that implementation of that offer would adversely affect the prospects for negotiation of a settlement of the Cyprus problem through the current intercommunal talks.

  French Revolution
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to join in celebrations of Bastille day in France on 14 July or the bicentenary of the French revolution.

  Mrs. Chalker
  France is a close ally and partner. My right hon. and learned Friend will be in Paris on 14 to 16 July for the ceremonies marking the bicentenary of the French revolution and the declaration of the rights of man, followed by the Economic Summit.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Czechoslovakian authorities over the last five years, but the precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about denial of human rights in the last five years in Burkina.
  674
  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about denial of human rights and the use of torture in the last five years in Barbados.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Brunei.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. We expressed concern about certain aspects of human rights in Brunei at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Brunei Government are aware of our concern.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about denial of human rights in the last five years in Burundi.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations to the Burundi authorities about human rights over the last five years. Following the ethnic violence last August we made a demarche to the Government of Burundi in concert with our EC partners. We are pleased to note the recent efforts of the Burundi Government to improve the human rights situation.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about denial of human rights in the last five years in Bhutan.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about denial of human rights in the last five years in Cyprus.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about denial of human rights in the last five years in Kiribati.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about denial of human rights in the last five years in the Marshall Islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the hours of opening at the following posts(a) New Delhi, (b) Bombay, (c) Dhaka, (d) Islamabad, (e) Karachi, (f) Nairobi and (g) Dar Es-Salaam; and how many staff were employed at each post dealing with entry clearance matters on 1 January and for each of the 10 years before.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not readily available. I will reply to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. I. A. Alikazi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mr. Irfan Abdul Alikazi, whose date of birth is 13 October 1969, first applied to the post in Bombay to enter the United Kingdom; on what dates he has been interviewed at the post; and when a decision is to be taken on his application.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not readily available. A further reply will be sent to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. M. Yasin
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mr. Mohd Yasin, who was born in 1962 and whose reference is SN 81140, first applied to the post in Islamabad to enter the United Kingdom; and when a decision is going to be taken on his application.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not readily available. A further reply will be sent to the hon. Member in due course.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  No-fault Compensation
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made with Recommendation 62 of the Review Body on Civil Justice that consideration should be given to the feasibility of a no-fault scheme for less serious road accidents.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Government have accepted the recommendation of the report of the review body on civil justice that the Lord Chancellor should consider the feasibility of a no-fault compensation scheme, restricted to less serious road accidents and financed by private insurance.

  The review body pointed out that a number of advantages might flow from the introduction of such a scheme. It suggested that it would reduce uncertainty for claimants, avoid the delays and costs associated with litigation and, by removing disputes from the courts, reduce pressure on the court system.

  On the other hand, as the review body made clear, one disadavantage of such a scheme is that motor insurance premiums could rise. Such a proposal gives rise to a number of other difficult issues, including the threshold of seriousness that will determine whether an accident falls outside the scheme; whether it should cover accidents where the highway authority is held to have been at fault; and whether certain categories of driver, for example, drinking drivers, should be excluded from the scheme. There is also the danger that such a scheme could undermine efforts of insurance companies to make drivers who cause accidents bear some of the costs through higher premiums. These difficult issues will need to be carefully studied and weighed alongside the possible advantages before any such scheme can be taken forward.

  As the review body proposed, consideration of the feasibility of introducing such a scheme will be the subject of consultation with the insurance industry. Other interested parties, including the motoring organisations,
  676
  will also be invited to submit their views. Since no-fault insurance schemes are already in operation in various other countries, including New Zealand and a number of states in the United States, the study will need to take account of the experience of these countries.

  It must be emphasised that this is a feasibility study, and it would therefore be wrong to assume at this stage that it will necessarily result in a change in existing arrangements.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish illustrative figures for 1989–90 in respect of Her Majesty's Government's new system of local government finance so that comparison can be made with current local government taxes.

  Mr. Gummer
  I hope to publish illustrative figures for 1989–90 community charges later this month.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will tabulate what a typical married couple with two children and one wage-earner living in the London borough of Waltham Forest would pay(a) in community charge and (b) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in proportions of 80 to 20, respectively, if the wage earner earned (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000 and lived in (i) rented accommodation, (ii) property owned by that wage earner worth £60,000 and (iv) property owned by that wage earner worth £90,000, making the same assumptions as in his reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 22 March at column 626.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Illustrative annual liability in Waltham Forest under a system of capital value rates combined with local income tax 1988–89

  Earnings

  (i) and (ii) Property value £60,000 owned or rented

  (iii) Property value £90,000 owned or rented

  Illustrative community charge 1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  (i)10,000

  645

  925

  269

  (ii)15,000

  715

  995

  269

  (iii)20,000

  785

  1,070

  269

  (iv)25,000

  860

  1,140

  269

  (v)30,000

  930

  1,210

  269

  The ability of a person in rented accommodation would be the same as for a person living in property owned by that person of the same value. The figures are based on the illustrative tax rates placed in the Library on 23 June 1988 and are for 1988–89. It is assumed that the family has no entitlement to rebates. Taxable income is taken as earnings less £4,095, the married man's allowance in each case.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment from his latest information how much local authorities are planning to spend in 1988–89 and 1989–90 on(a) revenue and (b) capital in setting up the community charge; what were the comparable allowances made in the rate support grant settlement and in capital allocations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  On revenue, returns made by authorities in England show a provisional outturn of £33 million for 1988–89 and a budget figure of £203 million for 1989–90. On capital, the provisional outturn figure is £28 million for 1988–89. No figures are yet available for 1989–90. The resources made available to authorities are, on revenue, £110 million in the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90; and on capital, allocations of £25 million for 1988–89 and allocations of £135 million for 1989–90.

  Football Matches (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of occasions when he or any of his Ministers visited a football ground or football match within(a) the last 12 months and (b) the last two years; and if he will state the grounds or matches visited.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have attended the following football matches since my appointment as Minister for Sport:

  Venue

  Date

  Charlton Athletic v Arsenal

  3 October 1987

  Tottenham Hotspur v Wimbledon

  31 October 1987

  Charlton Athletic v Chelsea

  20 December 1987

  Right to buy shared ownership claims received by DOE region

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  East Midlands

  5

  2

  5

  —

  —

  Eastern

  10

  18

  7

  7

  8

  London

  49

  78

  29

  25

  33

  South East

  35

  36

  64

  100

  19

  South West

  6

  8

  4

  2

  2

  West Midlands

  2

  1

  —

  —

  8

  North West (including Cumbria)

  14

  6

  —

  —

  —

  England

  122

  150

  111

  136

  70

  Playgrounds
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the regulations covering the construction of children's playgrounds.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The construction of childrens' playgrounds is not subject to regulation. However, British Standard BS 5696 recommends specifications for construction and performance of play equipment intended for permanent installation out of doors, and a code of practice for its installation and maintenance. The code of practice is currently under revision. Furthermore, a new British Standard BS 7188, which will specify methods of test for impact-absorbing playground surfaces, is to be published later this year.
  678

  Venue

  Date

  Manchester United v Charlton Athletic

  1 January 1988

  Luton Town v Derby County

  16 January 1988

  Charlton Athletic v Liverpool

  23 January 1988

  Hartlepool United v Crewe Alexandra

  27 February 1988

  Derby County v Arsenal

  26 March 1988

  Charlton Athletic v Newcastle United

  23 April 1988

  Millwall v Newcastle United

  19 November 1988

  Charlton Athletic v Luton Town

  14 January 1989

  Charlton Athletic v Kettering Town

  28 January 1989

  Millwall v Liverpool

  29 January 1989

  Fulham v Bristol City

  18 February 1989

  Brentford v Bury

  25 February 1989

  Charlton Athletic v Manchester United

  22 April 1989

  I have also attended the FA Cup and Littlewoods Cup finals in 1988 and 1989 as well as attending international matches.

  In addition I have visited the grounds of Reading FC, Liverpool FC and Aston Villa FC on non-match days.

  I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Mr. Chope), have also attended matches.

  Shared Ownership Claims
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of shared ownership claims received by local authorities by each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The available information is shown in the table:

  Bristol Channel (Beaches)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to the beaches along the English side of the Bristol channel, to observe the degree of pollution apparent both on the beach and in the sea.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the Bristol channel. He receives regular reports from the Wessex and South West water authorities on the quality of bathing waters along the English side of the Bristol channel, and local authorities are responsible for dealing with the pollution of beaches. Water authorities have been asked to draw up improvement programmes with the aim of bringing all bathing waters identified under the EEC bathing water directive into compliance by the mid-1990s.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take in the light of the findings of the Warren Spring laboratories on the problems associated with the United Kingdom chlorofluorocarbon bank contained in refrigeration equipment and plastic foam estimated to comprise 100,000 tonnes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 10 May that he was commissioning an independent study of the impact of business of the existing and envisaged control on emissions of ozone-depleting substances. The consultants engaged should deliver their report to him late this summer. The commissioning of a second phase at an early date is under consideration. It would study the technology-practical arrangements and economics of the recovery, recycling or destruction of such substances from products and industrial processes: this would cover the question of the CFC bank referred to by my hon. Friend.

  National Rivers Authority
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional posts have been created in(a) the water authorities and (b) the National Rivers Authority as a result of the split of regulatory functions for each water authority region.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The establishment of the National Rivers Authority as a separate regulatory body has been undertaken on the basis that the NRA must have the staff it needs to carry out its statutory functions. It is recognised that this may require some additional staff in the areas of pollution control, water resources and support services, but it is not possible to assess how many additional posts in either the water authorities or the NRA are specifically attributable to the separation of the regulatory functions beyond the 55 to 60 new posts at the NRA's central policy unit.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people will be employed by the National Rivers Authority for each regional unit on 1 September.
  680
  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The best estimate of the numbers of staff who will be employed in the regional units of the National Rivers Authority on 1 September is as follows:

  Number

  Anglian

  1,015

  Northumbrian

  130

  North West

  762

  Severn Trent

  784

  Southern

  543

  South West

  379

  Thames

  1,290

  Welsh

  664

  Wessex

  371

  Yorkshire

  531

  These figures may be subject to minor changes between now and vesting day. In addition, there will be some 55 to 60 staff in the central policy unit in London.

  K Formulae
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends(a) to issue and (b) to make public the K formulae for each water authority and each statutory water company.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: I intend if possible to issue decisions on K formulae to the water authorities and to announce those decisions within the next month. Ks for the statutory water companies will be finalised and announced later in the year.

  EC Competition Policy
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has recently had discussions with the European Commissioner for Competition on the implications for European competition policy of water privatisation.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: I have had no recent discussions with the Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, who issued a statement on 7 February saying that the Commission had not found anything in the Government's water privatisation proposals which would raise problems as far as Community law is concerned in the fields of competition or company capital structure.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Industrial Training Boards
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure the success of the industrial training boards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young pointed out earlier this week, the statutory training system in general has not worked. Therefore, the chairman of each industrial training board has been asked to bring forward by the end of the month proposals for future arrangements that command the support of employers in the industry.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Tuesday, when industrial training boards were discussed in a parliamentary Question to which he has referred, the Secretary of State stressed that voluntary arrangements will be better than the former statutory boards? Indeed that has been confirmed in the Answer which the Minister has just given to me. The Secretary of State also said that that view was based largely on the change of attitude in industry. Will the Minister accept, as I think he must, that not every industry will meet the objectives that he thinks are necessary—that we all think are necessary—in that way? What will happen in those sectors of industry in which it is hoped that those arrangements will be made but in which they are not made, which may well be crucial sectors of our economy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the evidence shows that employers will respond to the voluntary arrangements and many non-statutory training organisations already have the active support of employers. In addition, there are already many non-statutory training organisations outside what was the statutory board system which are supported voluntarily by industry and are able to provide relevant training services to industry's requirements.
Of course we are aware that every board will not go down the same route. We have not yet heard from all the chairmen, but it is quite clear that the construction industry and the engineering construction industry sector covered by the EITB have continued to support a collective funding system as a result of several factors, including the highly mobile workforce, the growth of labour-only subcontracting, the large number of small firms and the fluctuations in demand. Of course we are discussing these matters fully with the board
514
chairmen and consulting the industries on the way forward for those two boards.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister really say that the Government have so much confidence in the work of the non-statutory boards, which after all have been in existence for some time, when his own department has published documents, which are on sale to the general public, showing how little industry has done in the way of training? How does he explain that apparent contradiction?
Lord Skelmersdale: Because, my Lords, the department has also published the results of a survey which was carried out last year which show that the majority of non-statutory training boards were indeed effective. A National Council for Industry Training Organisations has been formed to help pull the NSTO network closer together and to assist dialogue between the Government and the non-statutory training organisations.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does that mean that the previous publication was therefore wrong?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we all know that employment is a changing picture.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning I received a Westminster briefing from the Engineering Industry Training Board which states that the board's aim is to ensure that it is fully representative of all engineering employers and that trade unions and education interests are also represented? Can the Minister tell the House whether any direct consultations have taken place with the unions involved to find out what they think about the scheme and how their representatives will be selected? Bearing in mind that my own trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, is by far the largest trade union involved in the manufacturing sector in this country, has it been consulted? Have the other trade unions been consulted? If not, why not? Without their co-operation the board will fail.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to answer the first supplementary question, no, I was not aware that the noble Lord had received that particular missive, which I have not seen. There are currently union representatives on the board. As I said, we are in consultation with the chairmen of boards, and I should find it inconceivable that the chairmen were not in consultation with their own board members.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that ever since the war there has been a serious shortage of skilled labour in certain identified skills? Is he also aware that before the development of modern technologies the Donovan Report adverted to the desperate need for improvement in this regard? Now, on reading the papers, is it not right for the demand for those particular skills which are again in seriously short supply to be met by those who wish to employ them, and for employers to provide training rather than have a form of government intervention, albeit in changed circumstances?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, without getting into the 1965 Donovan Report, despite the conspicuous success of this Government in reducing unemployment—the number went down again last month—it is still at historically high levels. With historically high levels of unemployment, if the industrial training boards had in fact been working properly we should not be seeing as many skill shortages as currently exist.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the construction industry training board, to which reference has been made, is extremely concerned about what happens in regard to resources? It wants to know what will happen if there is no statutory training levy. Its belief is that the needs of that industry will require a great deal more resourcing than the Government appear to think because it also has a health and safety obligation in the industry. Will the Minister be kind enough to answer that point?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has somewhat confused me; I thought that I had answered that question. I said that we are aware that the construction industry has continued to support a collective funding system. Whether it will be identical to the present one or a future one that will eventually evolve, we do not know of course until we have heard from the chairman. I am well aware of the points that the noble Baroness has made.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the remarks of the Front Bench. The construction industry training board has been in operation for many years and has achieved enormous success. Let me ask a straight question. Am I to understand that the Government's proposals are to help the board to succeed further and that they will back it financially? Is it in fact the case that the construction industry board will not in any way be affected by government decisions?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I cannot give that commitment on behalf of the Government. All the boards will be affected by government decisions to some extent or another. I have said that the construction industry has continued and, for all I know, will continue to support a collective funding system. That collective funding system is spread across the whole of the industry. So long as it supports it, clearly that would be a sensible way forward for financing that particular board.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Minister is a reasonable man. He says that the statutory system has not worked. Will he take the point that we are saying that the non-statutory system has not worked either, did not work before, and that is why a statutory system was brought in? What does he intend to do if it turns out that this non-statutory system does not work? Will he come forward with any further plans to increase training in this country, which he knows is much too low?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I do know that, but I do not think that this is the moment, when we
516
are again reviewing the statutory boards—I think I am right in saying that we last did it in 1984—to suggest that we or any government will fail. Clearly, if the situation changes—as I pointed out, employment law, conditions and everything else tend to change on a fairly fast track—we shall have to go back to the drawing board.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the situation may not be very good at the moment, it would have been a great deal worse without any statutory boards at all?
Lord Skelmersdale: Absolutely not, my Lords.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister now answer my question which was repeated by my noble friend Lord McCarthy? What will happen in those parts of industry in which a voluntary organisation is not set up? Does he agree that there will be some parts where it will not happen? If the Government are to be so inflexible in this matter, will they at least agree to consider a code of practice?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is asking us not for the continuation of the current statutory boards in some form or another but for new boards in other parts of the industry. The noble Lord shakes his head. I cannot answer off the top of my head. I shall have to consider this matter and, if he will allow me, write to the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to rise to my feet again. However, with reference to the construction industry training board, is it not a fact that the Government have already taken the decision quite recently to decentralise that board's activities and base them at local level against the declared wishes of the Building Employers' Confederation and the trades unions involved?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not so far as I am aware. As I said in my original Answer some 11 minutes ago, we are consulting with the chairman of each industrial training board. It would be next to impossible for any decisions to have been made in advance of our consideration of that consultation.

Medical Negligence: Indemnity Proposal
11.18 a.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received concerning their proposal to implement a scheme for Crown indemnity for National Health Service hospital doctors in medical negligence cases.
Lord Henley: My Lords, replies have been received from most of the organisations consulted by the health departments in March. The great majority are in favour of the principle of a health authority indemnity in cases of medical negligence but a

517
number have raised questions about the operation of the proposed system. The Government are considering the responses and will make an announcement as soon as possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the transfer of responsibility to the National Health Service hospitals and authorities will not in any way prevent or even reduce claims for negligence and that probably a considerable degree of expertise will be needed in this field? Are the Government considering a contracted-out basis which would enable the existing expertise to be used, or are they considering that it should be done in-house?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously it is up to the health authorities themselves. They may find it useful to use the expertise of the medical defence organisations. It would be up to them to decide.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the great increase in recent years in medical negligence claims and the increase in individual awards?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, we are aware of that. Obviously the size of the awards is a matter for the courts.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, up to now the system of justice has weighed heavily against the plaintiffs. It is to be welcomed that an initiative is now being considered. Perhaps I may ask two questions of the noble Lord. First, is the department thinking of earmarking some national fund that would thus help to prevent a situation in which justice for claimants was paid at the expense of justice for other patients? Secondly, what is the department's thinking on retrospection and cases that may have occurred prior to the period when the legislation is introduced?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we originally said that we hoped the new arrangements would be in place preferably from 1st July. The noble Lord raises an issue which remains to be resolved; notably, the precise financial arrangements. We shall consider the issue and when it is resolved a decision will be taken on the scheme.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord write to me?
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the degree of confusion that the indeterminate date of commencement is causing to practitioners most of whom renew at this time of the year their subscriptions to the societies which act for them? The renewal time at which most people start to pay their annual subscription appears to be related to the date of qualification. We have read in the press of the reduction that will take place. It is very difficult for both the practitioner and for the body concerned to work out what the cost of the
518
subscription should be or exactly how it will work. Is he aware of the need for a definite date to be set as soon as possible to remedy the confusion that exists?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes. I am aware of this problem. At the moment I can only say that a decision will be made as soon as possible. We have recently written to the general managers of the regional health authorities advising them that the existing arrangements will certainly continue until 31st December 1989 unless the letter is cancelled prior to that.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with reference to the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will the Government bear in mind that a very ugly situation might arise if patients were to feel that their operations were being further delayed or that they were not receiving treatment because so much existing health service money was being pushed into paying indemnities for the doctors who had been sued? Is there not a danger that such an arrangement would make the patients who had suffered accidents on the operating table objects of resentment among patients who had not?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord says. I do not think that those fears would arise.

Helicopters: Insurance
11.23 a.m.
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make third party insurance compulsory for helicopters and their pilots.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my right honourable friend has been considering the whole question of compulsory third party insurance for aircraft registered in the UK and will shortly be asking the Civil Aviation Authority to advise him on the form a scheme might take.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will this consideration include microlight aircraft?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can see to it that the Civil Aviation Authority is asked to look at the question of microlights.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is slightly ludicrous that one should have compulsory third party insurance on a motor car but not at present on a helicopter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it arises from a historical anomaly. Helicopters that carry fee-paying passengers must have insurance, but not private helicopters. It is only in fairly recent years that people have been able to own private helicopters.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, can the Minister inform us how quickly the inquiry will be conducted? Can he assure us that it will not take a period of years? I have in mind the increasing number of helicopter and light aircraft incidents.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that we shall receive a reply from the CAA within six months.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, what is the position in agriculture if a helicopter pilot makes a mistake while spraying and sprays a neighbour's field?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, contractors who do spraying would normally carry insurance against such an event arising.

Nuclear Power Stations: Objections
11.26 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider extending the time for objections from the public to be submitted on the Wylfa B and Sizewell C power stations if representations are made by citizens in the localities affected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, no. The Government believe that the period of three months that my right honourable friend has allowed for objections on the Wylfa B and Sizewell C applications is ample time for anyone who wishes to become a registered objector.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that although the Government may believe that, the people in the localities do not? Are the Government not concerned with the weight of local opinion as increasing details emerge about the danger of leukaemia in particular to children in these areas as well as other dangers from nuclear installations? Will she also consider whether the Government should not influence the local authorities whose time limit for objections to the planning application appears to be much shorter than that which is demanded by the Secretary of State?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord is well aware the statutory minimum period for objections to be made to the Secretary of State is 21 days. We therefore believe that three months is a very ample period of time. Given the publicity that attaches to these applications, there is no question of anybody not hearing about the application until the last minute. It is for the local planning authorities to make their own arrangements in this respect. It is not for the Government to interfere in those arrangements.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify one aspect of these inquiries in relation to the Bill going through your Lordships' House? Will the representations being made about these power
520
stations be affected by the non-fossil fuel requirements that will be written into the Bill which will presumably become an Act before very long?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said previously in relation to this question, the non-fossil fuel obligation will of course be a consideration. However, the planning arrangements and procedures are not in any other way affected by it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Baroness appears simply to have repeated her first Answer. Is she not concerned about the local opinion among people who have to live in the vicinity of these power stations? If that local opinion is expressed in an organised way to the Secretary of State, will he at least consider extending the time? In view of the snide comments of the Secretary of State this week concerning the various green organisations, is it not essential that the representations of those organisations that represent objectors to the building of nuclear power stations—in particular those at Wylfa and Sizewell—should be given full weight before a decision is taken? Is it not essential that every effort should be made by the Government to ensure that all such people and organisations representing them have a full opportunity to put their point of view before any decision is taken?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, of course the Government are concerned about the objections which are raised. That is why a period of three months has been given to enable local people to make their objections. It seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is now seeking is two tranches to the procedure. He seems to want an initial period in which people can dispute the length of time for registering objections and then a further period for actually registering the objections. In my view the registration of objection can happen right away.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is not I who ask for an extension. It is the local people. Will the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State not take notice of organised public opinion in that area? It is public opinion that counts, not my view.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, of course the Government will consider any objections that are raised. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will help the local communities by explaining to them that instead of objecting to the period for objections they should get on and make their objections.

Employment Bill
11.31 a.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The essential purpose of the Bill is to give women and young people wider employment opportunities and to remove unnecessary burdens on business. Both employees and employers will benefit from the

521
simplification or removal of legal restrictions, thus taking a further important step towards a freer and more efficient market for jobs.
I stress the important role of women in the economy of the 1990s. In the last 10 years we have already seen a growing involvement of women in the labour market, by no means confined to low-paid or routine jobs. The role of women as administrators and managers, engineers and scientists, doctors, lawyers and accountants, not to say Prime Ministers, has increased dramatically within the last 10 years. For demographic reasons the contribution of women will be all the more important in the coming decade.
The impact of demographic trends will be even greater where young people generally are concerned. There will be fewer school-leavers looking for jobs, both absolutely and as a proportion of the working population. But that does not mean that we can relax our efforts in the field of young people's employment and training. One of this Government's highest priorities is to give our children and young people the grounding they need for the whole of their working life, through education and training that gives the fullest scope to their potential.
In the interests of both young people and employers, we also need to look carefully at the legislation that regulates young people's employment. Controls and restrictions that were introduced in entirely different conditions may no longer be relevant. One of the aims of the Bill is to remove such restrictions wherever possible.
Effective training will be essential if we are to meet the challenges of the 1990s. The White Paper, Employment for the 1990s, set out a new framework for training. This new framework will help to deliver relevant and effective training where it is needed. It will be responsive to changing labour market conditions both nationally and locally. It will help employers and individuals to make the right decisions about their training needs; and it will enable employers—the main consumers and providers of training—to make decisions about what the needs are and how best to fill them.
Having set the Bill in context, I should like briefly to describe its main provisions. The first six clauses change the relationship between the legislation of sex discrimination—principally the Sex Discrimination Act 1975—and other legislation. The 1975 Act in general prohibited sex discrimination in employment, but it did not remove all existing legislation which treated men and women differently. Under Section 51 of the Act any earlier legislation which requires people to discriminate between the sexes automatically overrides the prohibition of discrimination in the 1975 Act.
The Bill reverses this approach by providing that the prohibition of sex discrimination in employment is to override requirements of legislation enacted before the 1975 Act, except in narrowly defined circumtances. We have conducted a thorough review of legislation enacted before the 1975 Act to identify requirements which discriminate between the sexes. The results of this review are set out in a consultative document which was published in 1987. Where such requirements are, we believe, still justified and
522
consistent with our European Community obligations, the Bill allows them to continue in force.
We are retaining protection for women in areas, such as working with lead or radiation, where there could be danger to an unborn child. We are also retaining an exemption for different treatment of the sexes in a few special cases in the eductional field. Where, on the other hand, discriminatory provisions are not justified the Bill will repeal them or amend them to remove the unjustified discrimination. Matters outside the field of employment and vocational training, which may raise a variety of complex issues, will continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We are firmly committed to removing unnecessary discrimination in all areas.
I shall briefly mention Clause 8, which was introduced towards the end of the proceedings in another place and was generally welcomed. Clause 8 ensures, following a recent development in case law, that the Government's programmes of training for employment can continue to give special help to parents who, for whatever reason, are bringing up children alone. This category of parent would otherwise find it more difficult to get the training needed to re-enter the labour market making full use of individual talents and abilities. I should mention at this point that the wording of Clause 8 as it stands may not cover all employment schemes where special assistance to lone parents would be desirable. An amendment may therefore be brought forward for your Lordships' consideration later.
Clause 9 repeals a number of archaic restrictions on the employment of women. The most important of these is the prohibition on women working for any length of time underground in mines and quarries. This prohibition goes back in part to the 1840s. Conditions in those days were very different. Some may suggest that we want to return to the bad old days, but of course we do not. It is doubtful whether large numbers of women will wish to work at the coal face, even in the most modern and highly mechanised of pits, though if some do there is no good reason why they should not. In any event the present restrictions are an obstacle to women working not only as face workers but as surveyors, engineers, or in other professional functions underground, and to their being promoted to management positions. This is a quite unjustified restraint and we shall remove it.
Clause 10 deals with restrictions on young people's employment. The Government have reviewed this area and uncovered a complex tangle of restrictions on young people's hours. Different rules apply to factories, mines and shops, while some sectors, such as offices, farms and hospitals have never been regulated. There are many inconsistencies between different industries and often no clear reason for restrictions at all.
It is essential to bear in mind that most of these restrictions on young people's hours of work were introduced many decades ago, when the economic, social and legal context of young people's employment was very different. There has been a general reduction in hours of work since Victorian or even pre-war times, and the economic pressure

523
on young people to work excessive hours has been lifted. Moreover, in most cases the restrictions were introduced when the school-leaving age was lower and a younger age group was covered. We also now have a comprehensive framework of protection under the Health and Safety at Work Act which imposes general duties on employers not to expose employees to conditions, including hours of work, which would endanger their health and safety. Finally, young people now have many opportunities for education and training after they leave school. The prevailing circumstances are entirely different.
We therefore believe that the whole regime of protection for young people in employment needs to be looked at afresh and without preconceptions. In our review of the legislation we have concluded that many of the restrictions are now unnecessary. The Bill will remove them. But I stress that we are keeping all the safeguards—for instance, on working with dangerous machinery and chemicals—that the Health and Safety Commission advise us are desirable for health and safety reasons. We are also keeping restrictions on employment in selling alcohol and in betting and gaming, where there are considerations of young people's moral welfare to be taken into account. We recognise that these are special cases.
The provisions of the Bill will greatly simplify the rules on employment of young people. It will widen their opportunities and remove disincentives to employers. In our view the simplification is long overdue.
The Bill also provides for a number of amendments to be made to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to ease the burden of regulation on employers. Let me make it plain that these amendments are in no way an attack on employees' legitimate rights. Equally, however, we are committed to lifting the burdens on employers where it makes sense to do so. The point is that there has to be an appropriate balance; a balance between safeguarding employees' rights and enabling employers to improve their competitiveness and create new job opportunities. The Bill will help to strike that balance.
I shall mention two of these deregulatory measures in particular. First, we do not believe that there is any justification for imposing on employers the cost of paid time off for trade union officials to deal with matters which are outside the scope of the employer's recognition of the union. Clause 12 of the Bill will restrict the duties for which paid time off must be allowed to those concerned with matters for which the employer recognises the union.
Secondly, Clause 18 will help to deter ill-founded applications to industrial tribunals. The clause enables the Secretary of State to provide that the chairman of an industrial tribunal can hold a pre-hearing review of a tribunal case and, where a party's case has no reasonable prospect of success or appears to be frivolous, vexatious or unreasonable, to require that party to make a deposit of up to £150 as a condition of taking the case further. This does not mean that all applicants will have to make a
524
deposit. Nor is £150 a set amount: it is the maximum. It seems entirely reasonable that where a party has a very weak case he or she should think carefully before involving everyone in unnecessary trouble and expense.
The deregulatory provisions of the Bill, although individually relatively modest, collectively take a further important step in our wider deregulatory strategy to remove unnecessary burdens on employers.
In Clause 14, the Bill provides for women to receive statutory redundancy payments up to the same age as men—that is, up to age 65—or to the same normal retiring age if this is lower in the particular firm.
Earlier I explained our strategy for training. It remains to mention Clause 20 of the Bill, which provides for the dissolution of the Training Commission. The majority of the functions of the commission have already been transferred to the Employment Department Group under existing powers and administrative procedures. Clause 20 provides for the transfer of some residual legal rights and liabilities and makes consequential amendments to legislation where the commission is mentioned.
Clause 21 is also related to the Government's training strategy; it makes provision for the status of the staff of skills training centres if these activities are operated in future in the private sector. We shall shortly bring forward amendments for your Lordships' consideration to ensure a smooth transition to employer-led training organisations in the areas covered by the present statutory industrial training boards.
Before concluding, I should like to give your Lordships notice of a new clause that the Government intend to bring forward. The Government have announced in another place that regulations are to be made requiring construction workers to wear head protection. This had caused concern among the Sikh community, many of whom work in the construction industry and who for religious reasons will not wear anything on their heads except a turban.
The Government propose to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirement to wear head protection in construction work. There will be a parallel exemption for employers from civil liability towards Sikhs using the exemption. Many thousands of Sikhs in the construction industry might otherwise feel compelled to choose between their religion and their job. I hope that your Lordships will therefore view an exemption sympathetically.
In summary, the Bill takes a further step towards the rationalisation of employment law and freedom in the labour market. Its guiding principles are equality of opportunity, flexibility, and the removal of unnecessary regulation, while retaining all essential safeguards. I am sure that few of your Lordships will disagree with those aims, though some, no doubt, will dispute our case for particular provisions in the Bill. I believe the Bill is a constructive and realistic measure. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this is another short Bill on employment. As with social security,we seem to have a short Bill in this area every year. Like its predecessor, in many respects it is a nasty little Bill. I say that even though I welcome the Minister's comments about the importance of women in the labour market. He has claimed that it is an important measure concerned with the equality of opportunity for women and young people.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that that is a highly commendable objective. But the majority of the clauses in that area are not fully acceptable to these Benches and I want to explain precisely why that is so. As the Minister has indicated, one clause would enable women to work underground in mines and quarries and to clean heavy machinery. There is also the proposal to enable young people aged 16 to 17 to have the opportunity to work long hours and night shifts.
I shall return to the matter of women working underground. However, I say at the outset that if the Government are concerned about opportunities for women they should do a great deal more than hitherto to provide essential support services. We had a debate about that matter in this House on 21st June. I said then that I was disappointed with the Government's response.
Moreover, in my view real concern about equality would have led the Government to look with more favour on the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission for changes in the law. The EOC wants to see the complete repeal of Section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act. In order to achieve some kind of hearing and justice in the industrial tribunals and the courts it has made a series of recommendations designed to make it easier for the individual claimant and less cumbersome and difficult than it is at the moment.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has made a total of 43 recommendations to improve the law on equality. But the Bill does not deal with many of them. Instead we have the proposition that women should be able to work underground in mines and to clean heavy machinery. No doubt I shall be challenged on the matter, but whatever is said about modernisation, about circumstances being greatly improved and so forth, the fact remains that we are talking about an industry which continues to be dangerous, where the level of accidents is still unacceptably high and where the unions would be the first to agree that a great deal more could be done in welfare and sanitary facilities.
That being so, I do not see why we should acquiesce in handing over another section of the workforce to suffer such conditions Therefore, until appropriate improvements have been made and safeguards introduced for both sexes, we shall continue to remain sceptical about that provision in the Bill.
As regards young people, the Government's case appears to be that the present restrictions constitute a barrier to business and that, in any event, they are old-fashioned because nowadays young people grow up much quicker. Of course, they cannot vote until the age of 18, but I suppose that that is a different matter.
526
The main effect of the proposition in the Bill will be to remove restrictions on young people's hours of work and related provisions on overtime, Saturday and Sunday working, rest periods, holidays and restrictions on night-work. At present there are approximately 900,000 16 to 18 year-olds in the workforce. About two-thirds will be affected by the provisions in the Bill.
But there are compelling reasons why young people should continue to be protected. The Government do not appear to have understood that the transition from school to work can be traumatic for young people. It takes some getting used to. In industrial environments that are hazardous it is even more important that there should be protection. There have been some pretty nasty accidents involving young people and there could be more if they are allowed to work longer hours.
It is not sufficient to rely on the Health and Safety at Work Act and on the Health and Safety Commission, good though that commission is. There are not enough inspectors. The number has decreased over the past 10 years. No doubt we shall be told that the Health and Safety Executive has fairly regularly written special exemption orders in regard to young people's hours. However, those exemption orders normally have conditions attached like adequate supervision, proper and adequate transport arrangements and so on. It is by no means clear what will happen to such conditions under this Bill. I suppose that they will disappear altogether and I should regard that as quite unacceptable.
Incidentally, adequate transport arrangements can be a significant and important issue particularly where young people are concerned, given the fears that many young women in particular have about going home late in the evening and the fears about public violence, which are very widespread.
While on discrimination, I have received a number of letters, as perhaps have a number of other noble Lords, from sufferers from AIDS or people diagnosed as HIV positive. They are concerned about discrimination in employment. I know that an amendment on that issue was moved in Committee in another place but it was defeated. However, it is possible that the Government may have had second thoughts on that matter because the impression that I gained from reading Hansard was that although the amendment was then opposed by the Government, there was a certain amount of sympathy for the principle involved. Perhaps we may hear more about that when the Minister replies to the debate.
There is also the question of age discrimination—and again that was a matter raised in the other place. However, I believe that if we are to have a Bill about discrimination, it might have been a good idea to include some reference to that because I believe that that is now quite a problem in some areas of industry and commerce.
The Minister made reference to the provision to exempt firms with less than 20 employees from the requirement to include a note on disciplinary procedures with a written statement of terms and conditions. I believe that that is regarded as one of

527
the burdens on small employers. I really cannot see it in that light. Good employers would probably do that anyway but the Bill seems to be helping bad employers. Very often workers in small firms are in a more vulnerable position than those in larger ones and there seems no reason to remove that small right from such workers.
Clause 10 seeks to put limitations on the rights which at present exist for lay trade union officers to have time off with pay to carry out their industrial relations duties and also to have training of an improved kind to enable them to do so. The present arrangements appear to be working quite well. Their purpose is to aid and improve the conduct of industrial relations. Why do the Government want to interfere with that? Why cannot they let well alone? That does not seem to me to represent very much of a burden on business.
Another mean little provision extends from six months to two years the qualifying period of employment after which an employee becomes entitled to a written statement of the reasons for dismissal. Surely all sacked workers, irrespective of the length of service, should be entitled to know the reason for their dismissal. There is very little to be gained by that provision except the removal of another small, individual employment right.
There is one particular clause in the Bill which can be wholeheartedly welcomed; that is, the clause in respect of redundancy. As the Minister explained, the Bill provides that where women are working on until the age of 65, they shall be entitled to receive redundancy pay up to that time and if along with men they retire at an earlier age, they shall be entitled to receive it up until that age. That is a very sensible provision and is in line with recommendations made by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Clause 13 abolishes redundancy rebates to employees altogether. I am not happy about that. The Wages Act 1986 restricted the payment of rebates to employers with less than 10 workers and this provision abolishes that altogether. Even though the fund is in surplus, it seems unfair to propose this change while proposing no change in the level of contributions. It may make it more difficult to persuade employers in this category to pay more than minimum redundancy pay when an ability to pay more than the minimum would enable them to negotiate terms more satisfactory to themselves and to the redundant employees. Again, I see no pressing reason for that proposition.
We then come to the whole matter of industrial tribunals. Here we have one of the most objectionable measures in this Bill. The clause in question provides for a pre-hearing review before an industrial tribunal hearing at which either side may be required to deposit £150 as a condition for proceeding with their case.
There is little evidence that industrial tribunals have been flooded with frivolous cases. The situation is quite to the contrary. When industrial tribunals were first established, it was intended that they should be informal courts where justice could be cheaply and quickly dispensed and where the
528
individual employee could, if he wished, present his own case. However, gradually hearings have become more and more formal and the proceedings are increasingly legalistic. It is not too much to say that in some places they have become proving grounds for aspiring young advocates. Therefore, people must be fairly strongly motivated to go to an IT in the first place. Unions do not normally support cases which they believe to have little chance of success—and I have a great deal of experience in that regard and would never have recommended taking a case which did not at least have a marginal chance of success.
A deposit of £150 will not deter someone with enough money if he or she is determined to have his or her day in court. The vexatious litigant will not be put off by these proposals. He will find the money anyway. The person deterred will be the person with no money, irrespective of whether the case is good or bad; and that is disgraceful.
Moreover, we already have a provision for pre-hearing assessments. According to my information, in 1986 some 16 per cent. of applicants who proceeded to a full IT hearing, despite a costs warning given at a pre-hearing assessment, succeeded in their cases. Therefore, pre-hearing assessments do not always succeed in sorting out frivolous cases or cases which do not have much chance of success.
There are already enough hurdles placed in the way of the individual who wishes to proceed against his employer to an industrial tribunal. It would make more sense if claimants—who sometimes have to wait a long time before they receive money awarded to them, particularly if there have been appeals—received interest on their money. I have heard of cases which have lasted two or three years before being finally resolved. At least that would be an individual employee's right which I am afraid the Government are not likely to favour and it certainly does not feature in this Bill.
There is then a very short clause about the storage of celluloid film. I do not know why the Government have used this Bill as a vehicle for that. I understand that the material is often not stable and therefore can be dangerous unless properly stored and monitored. Why should that not continue to be the responsibility of the local authority? I know that those specifically concerned in this industry are very worried about the proposition in this clause and I have received some letters on that score. I should like to hear further from the Minister in that regard.
Finally, we come to the dissolution of the Training Commission. The last time we had an employment Bill before this House, there was a proposition to which we took strong exception; namely, that the number of employers on the commission should be substantially increased, thus undermining the tripartite nature of the commission. There was then the sudden announcement last year that the Government intended to do away with the commission altogether, since when the Secretary of State has taken over the function of the commission and its staff. I do not believe that that will in any way contribute to the improved training provision

529
which everybody here says is so necessary and which we have so frequently debated. Indeed, we debated that earlier today on the Question concerning the continuing function of the industrial training boards.
There it is. This is not a Bill which I feel able to welcome. There were opportunities to improve the law on discrimination and those have not been taken. Instead we have a collection of oddments connected with employment, some of which seem to me not to be necessary at all and others which seem to be downright objectionable.
11.59 a.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the clear way in which he has presented the Bill to the House. We support the first part of the Bill, which gives women more equality of opportunity in the fields of employment and training. We do not think that that will result in a return to the time when women were sent unwillingly down coal mines. It should instead give the increasing number of women who are now happily taking higher education courses in engineering, and who are at present unable to follow a career in mining, the opportunity to do so in future. That seems to us a most desirable development and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Seear will have more to say later on that part of the Bill.
While we support the removal of much anomalous legislation relating to the employment of young people, we regret the Bill's failure to maintain what we regard as adequate protection for them. It is significant that the CBI itself has suggested that in that respect the Bill could lead to the exploitation of young people by unscrupulous employers.
The parts of the Bill which are likely to concern us most in Committee are those which seek to restrict individual employment rights in a number of important ways. An example is the provision in Clause 11, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already referred, which exempts firms employing less than 20 people from the need to include notes of disciplinary procedures in written statements of the main terms and conditions of their employment. We are concerned also about Clause 13, which increases from six months to two years the period for which an employee must have worked continuously before he is entitled, if dismissed, to obtain a written statement of the reasons for his dismissal.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who is to reply, will know that the British Institute of Management accepted that the extension of that qualifying period brought it into line with the qualifying period for a claim of unfair dismissal, but it did not see that as a sufficient argument in favour of the Government's provision. Indeed, when BIM members were questioned last October, 78 per cent. said that in their view the current level of employment protection was about right. That does not seem to tally with the Government's contention that the Bill will somehow lift the burden from small businesses.
In Committee, we shall further wish to question the Government closely about why, under Clause
530
15, firms employing less than 10 people will no longer be entitled to receive rebates on their redundancy payments. As far as possible the determining factor in all these matters should, in our view, be the principle that is involved and not the number of people who may be affected by it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already reminded us, under Clause 18 the Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations providing for pre-hearing reviews to be concluded before industrial tribunal proceedings and at such reviews to order employees to pay deposits of up to as much as £150 if they wish to pursue their cases. Like the noble Baroness, we shall want to discuss in Committee the point that the possibility of having to put up such a large sum might well deter certain deserving people from taking the first step in seeking to right a claimed wrong.
There are a number of other matters that my noble friends and I will wish to scrutinise on later stages of the Bill, but I hope I have said enough to indicate our general attitude to its clauses.
There is one other point I wish to raise, of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It does not stem directly from the Bill but rather, as he will recall, from the discussion that took place during the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill on 22nd June. The question that then arose was whether, in order to qualify for benefit, unemployed people should have to demonstrate that they are actively seeking work. In that context, my noble friend Lord Russell argued that there should be more willingness to recognise that unemployment is not normally the fault of those who suffer it and that more attempts should be made to persuade employers to take on the long-term unemployed. In his reply, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said:
"Of course we must help those who need it to find work … Clearly putting pressure on employers, as the noble Earl suggested is not right for a social security Bill, but it might be right in certain circumstances for an employment Bill. I take his point on that. The noble Earl will know that there is an employment Bill just around the corner. He might like to consider amending that perhaps in the way he desires,"—[Official Report, 22/6/89; col. 377.]
We have now turned the corner and the Employment Bill is before us. However, having examined it in the light of the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I do not readily see at what point a relevant amendment could be inserted. Since the Minister was kind enough to suggest that my noble friend should do just that, I should be grateful for his advice as to where in the Bill I might now set about the task. If a suitable place can be found I should be even more pleased if the Minister would give me some indication of how the Government believe employers might be encouraged, beyond what they are already doing under the employment training project, to take on more long-term unemployed people.
In conclusion, I say this. Speaking on behalf of my noble friends at the Third Reading of what is now the Employment Act 1988, I expressed the view that there should be a minimum of law in industrial relations and that, where the law applies, it should strike a fair balance between the interests of employers and those of employees and their

531
representatives. This Bill is not concerned, except indirectly, with industrial relations but in our view it is an employment Bill of considerable significance. Like its predecessor, the 1988 Act, in a number of ways this Bill appears to tilt the balance still further in favour of employers. We on these Benches look forward to the day—I confess, without much optimism—when the Government think less in terms of continuing restrictive legislation and more of the need to improve conditions in industry by positively encouraging greater co-operation between management and employees.
12.10 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, it may be that before the end of the debate I shall have to leave in order to satisfy a previous engagement in north London at two o'clock. I have written to the Minister to express my apprehension that this may be so. If it should happen then I hope that the House will forgive me.
I certainly share the disappointment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, at the end of this speech. This Bill and the Minister's speech could have been the occasion for exploring some of the most important employment issues which we have—collectively I hope—to tackle in the near future. These issues stem from the change in the age structure of the employed and the general population and from the trend towards early retirement with the loss of the skills and experience of older workers which characterised the face of industry in recent years. The debate would also have been an opportunity to reflect on some of the lessons that we can learn from the experience of other countries in the European Community, notably regarding the training and education of young workers on which I believe the Bill goes precisely in the wrong direction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, regrettably the Bill adds up to another tilt in the scales notably towards small employers, some of whom, on their own may be paragons of virtue, but many of whom, I know, are among the most exploitative employers in industry. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, the Bill makes it easier to sack people with no questions being asked or answered. There is scant regard for the effect on individuals and families when they seek further employment and are asked why they lost their previous job.
In that respect and in others I fear that the Bill is another step towards the irresponsible industrial society. We are already seeing trailers for the next episode in the saga of union bashing. In the form of amendments to the Bill at a later stage, the Minister may be able to cast some light on the Government's intention or, as my noble friend Lady Turner has reminded us, that may be shown in next year's Employment Bill. I refer of course to the threats that we are continually hearing of further limits to the right of working men to withdraw their labour and to refuse to work except on voluntarily agreed conditions. That is one of the tests of a free society—a test I would have thought applicable on
532
both sides of the Iron Curtain in Europe and in the Government's own thinking.
Now there are hints of the intention to limit the right to strike in essential services. I hope that if such a measure is in the minds of Ministers they will either re-read their own speeches on this subject in previous years when they rejected the idea or they will consider recent and current events coolly and objectively. We are seeing a surge of strikes which has been compared to the winter of discontent. There is of course one major difference between that period and this. The winter of discontent was the culmination of four years of tight wage restraint accepted for long by trade unions and their members and to the undoubted advantage of the nation in terms of the reduction in the rate of inflation. Of course, that is typically ignored by noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
That period saw a growth of anomalies and tensions which was predictable given the importance of market forces in the labour market as elsewhere. It was relieved, as it always is, by employers in the private sector. However, the Government tried to hold down wages in the public sector. If the Government are moved to think in terms of limiting or even removing the right to strike in certain areas of the public sector, I beg them to think again.
It was this perceived discrimination against workers in the public sector which led to their resentment and action in the winter of 1978–79. It was action by workers; it was not stimulated by the unions. The latter were typically trying to hold back the flood. The action was stimulated by the members. Some similarity exists in the present situation. We see very substantial wage increases in much of the private sector. We see employees in the public sector taking at face value the Government's emphasis on allowing market forces to operate.
When railwaymen and local government employees ask whether they are to be excluded from the operation of this eternal and divine law, astonishingly we hear once again the familiar strains of the ministerial lament that such people are ruining the nation. The clear purpose of Ministers is to exercise pressure on the public sector. I do not know, but Ministers and civil servants may be talking behind their hands to the British Railways Board and others. What I do know is that the board never needed instructions at any time when I dealt with it to do what it thought Ministers would approve of and wanted it to do.
Where the comparison between 1978–79 and the present is accurate is that the pressure is coming from working people. It is not inspired or channelled by trade unions. But there is this addition: the action that is now being taken has been preceded by ballots which have validated the action. We would not have had some settlements in the winter of 1978–79 if the agreements reached by national officials and others had been put out to ballot. At that time it was the extreme Left which was demanding ballots before there was a return to work. There is not very much that a general secretary and an executive council can do if they are faced by a seven to one vote in favour of industrial action.

533
If ever the Government made a rod for their own back it was through imposing compulsory ballots by law. Of course there is a place for ballots and also a place for law in the conduct of industrial relations. It is dangerous to expect too much and to allow spite and prejudice to be used as a guide instead of calm analysis.
We heard warnings from the Benches opposite during the debate regarding the proposed legal reforms of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We heard warnings from the Benches opposite about the dangers of proceeding without empirical evidence and proper study. I agree with that: the same principles apply to the reform of industrial relations. The real answer concerning essential services is obvious. It is to insulate certain groups from the need to take strike action. An obvious success was the case of the firemen. We all remember the traumas of the last dispute involving them. The dispute was terminated by an agreement to keep the wages of that group of workers broadly in line with the movement of wages in manufacturing industry.
The TUC helped to reach that agreement and, frankly, we had to force it down the throats of the firemen who at the time did not understand the value of it. The value was not only to the firemen but to the nation as a whole. It has given us a virtually strike-free area by removing the need to strike. I stand firmly against any attempt to remove that guarantee to firemen—it has been hinted at in the past—as I shall stand most firmly against any attempt to deny the right to strike. The removal of need is an entirely different matter and I commend that to the Government, hoping that they will take some note of the warnings in this area. We have warned against imposing automatic and compulsory ballots; we have warned against the enforced election of all senior officers. We have seen the chickens come home to roost in both these areas. And there are some very funny looking chickens among them! I do not expect a public act of repentance, but I do expect the Government to learn from experience.
If changes in the law are so successful how can pay settlements possibly be as high as they are now? How can inflation possibly exceed 8 per cent. when there are still more than two million people unemployed? Why have members not walked away from their unions? The Government have unleashed market forces and now they have to live with them. Those who take the sword—noble Lords know the rest of the quotation. The Government are not doing very well at stemming wage pressures generally. So, true to form, they have a go through this Bill at some of the weakest and most exposed groups, not pour encourager les autres so much as to keep with the spirits of their backwoodsmen.
Young people—16 year-olds—are a case in point. Faced by a shortage of school leavers and a fall in numbers in the 16 to 19 age group, we have to treat this group who are our scarcest resource with special care. But not a bit of it. They are to be treated as a source of cheap labour. The Bill will give the worst employers an incentive to snatch up school leavers, to half train them and to sack them with no questions
534
asked when they are at the point of getting an adult wage. Good employers will not do it—they never have—but this will expose the good employers to unfair competition from the worst kind of employer.
I echo the question that has already been asked. Where is the evidence that existing protection discourages employers? Nothing is revealed in the Government's reports. There is no evidence from the CBI, the BIM or the Institute of Personnel Management. It is one more example of how the Government see the solution to our problems. Their underlying view is to see the solution in terms of low wages. It is common ground that the key to keeping down costs and beating inflation is productivity. The key to that is the way we develop and use our skills. Training is not the sole answer but it is an integral part. Again I fear that the proposals in the Bill will not be conducive to achieving that end.
There are two major weaknesses in the Government's attitude to training as expressed in their actions and in this tying-up operation in the Bill. First, they see training as something which is done to people rather than with them, whereas training, if it is to be effective, has to be with people and worked out with them. The strength of the MSC, in respect of which we heard figures earlier, lay in involving work people through their unions. In a previous incarnation the noble Lord, Lord Young, saw that and recognised how the TUC put pressure on the unions to get members to change their attitudes. It is no good pulling up this root every few years and looking at it. It takes a generation to change attitudes towards training and towards job utilisation.
It is so much simpler to impose a period of wage restraint. That is why Governments have so often reacted to pressures in market forces by using wage restraint rather than persevering with effective training systems. The youth training scheme would never have got off the ground but for trade union pressure. It was not a perfect system by any means but there would have been a much lower content had there not been continuing trade union pressure on and monitoring of what employers were doing. We are now seeing it again in the employment training scheme. The TUC made a silly decision in September under pressure from certain unions which did not have the sense to realise that the Ayatollahs in the Government were falling over themselves to announce the death sentence on the MSC. I prophesy that we shall have to come back to some form of tripartite action. The best exponents of training —Sweden and Germany—have shown that it is the way to go.
The second major weakness in the Government's plans is their reliance on employers to make things happen. It does not pay employers to train. If it did we would have seen them falling over themselves to train. We have not seen that. However, it pays employers to poach trained people from other employers. This is one of the few places where one can get a free lunch.
The Minister referred to the training of trade union officials. In this respect I agreed strongly with

535
what my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden said. We at the TUC always saw the purpose of such training as improving the content of industrial relations. Our training courses and those of unions were essentially courses in problem solving, and how to deal with grievances and smooth the path. The more that is neglected and discouraged, the worse will be the record. This is a false economy. It will be grabbed by the worst and the most shortsighted employers. We hope to persuade the Government to have second thoughts about this and other parts of the Bill.
12.25 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I welcome the clause of the Bill which reduces discrimination against women. It gives them greater opportunities than they have had previously and makes much needed changes to the 1975 Act. Women will now have the ability, if they so wish, to work in mines. I happen to be the daughter of a mining engineer. I am not unaware of what conditions in mines would be like. It is extremely improbable that many women will wish to work in mines, but it is true that there are desirable jobs in the technical and managerial grades which some women will wish to have. If they wish to get those jobs they must be able to work underground.
That is where my enthusiasm for the Bill ends. In many ways it is an extremely disappointing Bill and a Bill of lost opportunities even in relation to women. It starts off with good intentions towards women, but despite all that has been said over and over again until one is almost embarrassed to repeat it, the Government have not gone further to get women into employment. Why have they not done this in the policies which have been repeatedly urged upon them?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, one cannot get more women satisfactorily into employment unless one does something—and something on a quite large scale—about child care. One has to invest in child care if one is to make proper use of womanpower in this country. If that is not done their contribution to employment is bound to be seriously interrupted. They will not receive the training and build up the experience which they need if they are in and out of employment and are seen as unreliable employees because of the demands of family life.
Child care is not just a matter of crèches, very important though crèches are. It is also a matter of the type of child care that is available. Child care needs to go on through school holiday periods right up to the school leaving age. Is it really too late to beg the Government once again to adopt an overall view of what is needed in the way of child care? Are they serious about getting women back into employment and keeping them there? Women are at present debarred because of the absence of child care facilities.
Other countries are doing it. Our competitors are doing it. We shall be woefully behind if we still refuse to take the measures which have been urged in this
536
country and of which there are excellent examples overseas. Why do the Government continue to resist the EC recommendations about parental leave? That is one example of the way in which our competitors in the Community are adopting progressive and useful measures which this Government refuse to support.
Older women who now want to come back to work are an important resource for industry. There are two major areas of blockage of opportunities for women. One is child care and the other is re-entry after women have been away from work bringing up their children. A great mass of those women were not eligible to take part in employment training because they were not registered as unemployed. Therefore, facilities for training such women do not exist. Of course, there have been some small concessions, but nowhere near on the scale that is needed. Many of those women are of very high potential indeed.
There are only a few examples of training for these women. Hatfield Polytechnic, as I have mentioned in this House before, put on a most imaginative scheme for the updating of women in professional categories. It was a small scheme for about a dozen women, all of whom, except one, obtained good jobs before the course was finished. It pays in the harshest economic terms to invest in these women and to produce grants for them so that they can be retrained. Moreover, they will pay the cost back in tax within a very short period of time, if they are just given the chance to do so. But, at the moment the resources are not there.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, started off with a great panegyric about the importance of women. But, if the Government really mean business as regards women, let them follow it through with practical measures of this kind which are long overdue and which, in anything other than the most short-term view, are value for money and would pay off extremely well.
I turn now to the question of young persons. I say "young persons" deliberately, because I was slightly entertained when the Minister said that of course the situation is altered now because the school-leaving age has been increased. He must know that the old factory legislation divided the protection of youngsters into two categories: 14 to 16 year-olds and then young persons of 16 to 18 years.
The protection for young persons aged between the years of 16 to 18 is what it always was; indeed, it existed under previous legislation. However, what has disappeared is the protection for 14 to 16 year-olds. Those are the youngsters who do not come on to the labour market because of the increase in the school-leaving age. But there is nothing new about the protection for 16 to 18 year-olds. It was always thought necessary that they should have protection of a different kind. There were quite substantial differences between the requirements laid on employers as regards 14 to 16 year-olds and as regards 16 to 18 year-olds. But that, in a sense, is a minor point.
I find it difficult to accept that the health and safety of young persons—indeed, not only of young

537
persons but also of other people; but it is young persons upon whom we are concentrating now—is adequately safeguarded by the Health and Safety Commission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said—and this has been the experience of all of us who have had anything in practice to do with this aspect—Her Majesty's inspectors from the Health and Safety Commission are excellent people. But, there has never been enough of them. It is an absolute farce to pretend that the commission can by its inspectors see that everything is as it should be. In particular, it has never been any good at dealing with small employers, because there are just too many of them.
If you are employed by a large organisation you receive irregular, but certainly occasional, visits from Her Majesty's inspectors. I say "occasional" not because they are slacking in any way—indeed, they certainly are not—but because there are not enough of them to go around. However, they certainly do not spend their time visiting the small woodwork shops, the garages and all the other places where small employers operate. I was about to say that they get away with murder; but I think that I may need parliamentary protection if I put it quite so strongly, although it is not far off in some cases. To imagine that the inspectors will be able to keep tabs on what goes on in all the small undertakings is simply ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about the practical working of the scheme knows that that is true.
Therefore to fob us off by saying that everything will be all right because the Health and Safety Commission will look after the situation is just transparent nonsense. I repeat, this is no criticism of the Health and Safety Executive; indeed, it does an extremely good job. But no organisation can do more than its manpower will permit. That is not the way in which youngsters are likely to be safeguarded.
That, however, is not my main objection to what the Government propose as regards 16 to 18 year-olds. I am absolutely astonished that the Government can in the same speech and in the same Bill talk about the importance of training and then say that they will allow unlimited hours of working, including night work, for 16 to 18 year-olds. It must be clear to everyone by now, as it is to our competitors, that the years from 16 to 18 ought to be years for education and training. I accept that a great deal of it will be employer-based; but, it ought to be predominantly training. That time should be spent investing in young people to ensure that they obtain the knowledge, the skills and the attitudes which will make them capable of dealing with the vastly changing demands of industry over the years ahead. That means proper, planned training. Far from this legislation helping, the fact that the level of unemployment is dropping will make training more difficult.
At least youngsters went into the youth employment training scheme because they could not find another job. But, as the noble Lord knows, and as he repeatedly tells us, unemployment is dropping. Thank goodness it is! However, when the level of unemployment drops youngsters say, "I'll go and get a full-time job which pays better than YTS". In
538
that situation, how many employers give the proper training to those aged between 16 and 18 years of age? YTS was far from perfect, but it provided some form of training.
When I asked a Question in this House only a month or two ago about how many of the youngsters who were not in a YTS scheme were being released for day-time training, the Answer which I received was 5 per cent. Is that evidence that under the present circumstances youngsters between 16 and 18 years of age will be properly trained in an increasingly full employment economy? We shall be back where we were; that is, taking people on and giving them no training. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, in the worst cases such youngsters will be thrown out just as they reach the age of 18, because they become more expensive. But, even if they are not thrown out, they will pass ultimately into the great mass of totally under-trained labour to face a future in which only people with trained competencies have a hope of holding their own. Cannot the Government think again about the whole question as regards 16 to 18 year-olds?
Then we come to the familiar saga of taking the burdens off business. I am bound to say that a good deal of this looks like shifting the burdens from the employer to the employee. That may well be the purpose. However, there is no evidence that such burdens are so heavy that they are stopping employers making the kind of progress that they should.
The Government are obsessed with the small employer. Of course small employers are very important. Indeed, we had far too few small businesses in the past. It is good that we have increased the number of small businesses. However, the Government cannot really believe that people working in small businesses for some mysterious reason need less protection than those working in large businesses. Surely the other way around is normally the case. For a variety of reasons the large employer is much better organised and has people specially trained and equipped to look after such issues.
Moreover, it is much easier to introduce trade unions into large businesses. But to do so in small businesses is very difficult and time-consuming. The employee in a small business has far less protection than the employee in a large business. Of course there are very good employers among small businesses; but there is no reason to suppose that all of them are the same. Indeed, we know perfectly well that they are not. I find it difficult to follow the argument that because it is such a nuisance for small businessses they do not have to comply with regulations which apply elsewhere. That argument just will not wash.
I find it unacceptable that this period of two years is now to be used. Indeed, I have always found it unacceptable in connection with redundancy. The fact that it should be extended now to cover other considerations seems to me to be a retrogressive step. The two-year limit invites the unscrupulous employer to get rid of people towards the end of the two-year period. That is an undesirable way of

539
handling things. It may be a burden that is removed from the employer to the employee, but it is a burden that the employer should properly be expected to carry.
With regard to restrictions on trade unionism, I would say, in general terms only, why do the Government not stop bashing trade unions? From these Benches we have supported, and continue to support, much of the trade union legislation brought forward by the Government, but no economy can run without responsible trade unions, as our competitors have shown; and continuous attempts to put still further restrictions on to trade unions will breed the kind of industrial relations which we thought were a thing of the past.
I am aware that the Government do not want to develop bad industrial relations, but they have never faced the fact that the so-called peace in industry of recent years has, to a considerable extent, been maintained through unemployment. We have to strengthen industrial relations policy when we return to full employment. There is not much sign that that is what we have.
Finally, on the question of the abolition of the Training Commission I want to say just two things, one of which, to my surprise, has not, from what I have seen, been raised to any extent in discussions. The Manpower Services Commission was brought into being by Act of Parliament. The Training Commission was abolished when Parliament was not sitting and when there was no opportunity, either in this House or for the elected representatives in the other place, to raise issues in connection with that abolition. That is yet another example of the contempt in which the Government hold Parliament.
It is retrospective legislation. We are now asked to pass legislation abolishing the Training Commission. It has been abolished. When discussing the Bill, there will be no opportunity to say that it is all a great mistake; that it should not have been done; and to put up possible alternatives to abolishing the commission. It was done in August when Parliament had no opportunity to say anything. I want it on the record that that is, in our view, no way in which major changes, previously embodied in legislation, should come about.
We have said a great deal already about our disbelief that employers, who in the past have done so little about training in this country, are the best people to be almost exclusively entrusted with the vitally important development of training in the future. Now that that training is to be put into the employers' hands, what opportunity will Parliament have to discuss the progress in training? Will we get any regular reports on the TECs so that we can see what is happening? After all, it is a matter of the greatest concern for the country as a whole, and to its economy, that training should develop properly. What chance will there be for Parliament regularly to monitor what happens under the new regime? Will the Minister please tell us?
12.44 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, those of us with a sense of history, if not of irony, cannot help feeling that there is piquancy in the fact that, in this noble House, we are considering on the 200th anniversary of Bastille Day yet another Bill to abolish workers' rights. That has not been mentioned by the Government. We know that the French Revolution is an event which the Prime Minister told French viewers the other day, she does not wish to remember and would not care to see repeated. We know that she believes that our own revolution, as she calls it—we would say counter-revolution—is much more important, much better managed and, as she said, quieter. What we say today is that it is becoming noisier and more divisive every minute. What we are saying today is that this irrelevant and small-minded Bill is unlikely to calm things down.
The problem that I have with the Minister's opening statement is that he did not see that point. He said that he wanted to put everything into its context. He then talked about the importance of women, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. He said that he had no wish to return to the good old days, and went through the clauses.
The Minister appeared to be unaware, for example, that much of what is in the Bill, as speakers have said, is against the advice of employer organisations (the CBI, the British Institute of Management, the IPM and even, in some cases, the Institute of Directors). He was unaware that what he proposes to do in relation to the equal opportunities aspect of the Bill is against the advice of the Equal Opportunities Commission; that the Government may well have trouble again with the convention on international labour standards as a result of aspects of the Bill; that they may have trouble with the Commission's equal treatment directive; that Article 7 of the European charter, as I understand it, is against the employment on night work of persons under 18; but once again the Government produce legislation which will put us further in breach of ILO conventions, EC directives and rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
I ask the Government once again, as I have before: what is their answer? I do not want prevarication or hypocrisy. What is their straight answer to the charge made by the ILO committee of experts that their legislation has already added to the complexity of labour relations law and the difficulty that ordinary people have in understanding it. What is their answer to the demand that they should be called upon to codify, clarify and simplify? Their answer appears to be to introduce more.
A democratic, advanced industrial country, we are in danger of being classified, by international labour standards in Europe and elsewhere, with Chile, Brazil, Ghana, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or, if one wants to go East of the Iron Curtain, with Czechoslavakia and Romania. That is where the Government are taking us in the field of labour standards, and the Bill takes us further still.
I ask the Minister: is that the Government's intention? After all, we are now on the fifth son of Frankenstein. We are promised that the sixth son of

541
Frankenstein will work its way through the other place in October. We know that, if the Government do what they threaten to do, for example, on essential services, they will break another ILO convention, because the railway industry is not regarded as an essential service. We know that, if the Government do what they say they will do about unofficial strikes, they will break another convention. What is the reason for that? What is the justification? Why are we the only country in Western Europe which argues that it can stand on its feet and produce prosperity only by breaking every international labour standard in the book?
The Government perhaps will not think it funny, but there was a joke which was going around the annual ILO convention in Geneva this summer that the only European international standard that the Government will observe, and which is safe from future legislation, is the one on forced labour. They did not think it funny. I do not think it funny, and, in that context, I come to the Bill.
In broad terms, the Bill, as the Minister said when he reached the clause-by-clause analysis, is designed to do three things. I leave out what it does about the Training Commission because, as the noble Baroness said, that has already been done and discussed, and one or two other things about redundancy. There are three main points. The first relates to the removal of protection from young persons on hours, holidays, rest periods, overtime and so on. There will be no protection especially directed at young persons, although this will breach another international convention. We shall further narrow employee protection in general on discipline, dismissal and time off.
We shall frustrate—that is what it amounts to—the full implications of the EC directive on equal treatment, because to carry out that directive in full would involve abolishing Section 51 of the 1975 Act. We are not doing that. Clause 1 of the Bill would make us believe that we are, but we are not. We are only abolishing it for training, vocational training and employment. We are leaving it, for example, for education, for the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises. That is, I believe, contrary to the evidence and advice which we have had from the commission which have not been published and contrary to the arguments put forward which have been published by the Equal Opportunities Commission. That is what we are doing.
There are number of things which we can say about young people. First, most of our major competitors in other countries in Europe do not need to have a policy which abolishes protection for young people. In Germany they can beat us at our own game, while having restrictions not simply on young people but on hours of work for men and women as well. They can do the same in many other European countries.
Secondly, the evidence suggests that protection for young people, far from not being required, is more necessary than ever. Since 1980 there has been a doubling of fatal and serious accidents among young people and there is coming to be accepted an increasing relationship between accidents of various
542
kinds and working for unnecessarily long hours. This is the time when we decide to be the country which removes the protections.
The only justification which has been put forward for this that I can follow is the old argument which we saw so well rehearsed at the time of the Dock Work Bill: unless everybody has it, nobody can have it. The Government make great play of the fact that there are anomalies—we shall be hearing from them—in the coverage of this legislation. For example, it affects people in industry and factories but it does not affect people in distribution and in shops. As long as everybody does not have it, nobody can have it. It is the old policy of equality and misery. We rejected it on this side of the House on the Dock Work Bill and we reject it on this Bill.
The second main thrust of the Bill which the Minister mentioned was the further narrowing of the general protections, as the noble Baroness has said, in the name of removing the burdens on business. Most of the points which could have been made about this have already been made in the House this morning. I suppose it is in some ways comforting that the Government no longer pretend to bring up evidence for any of this. In the first few years of their period in office they were forced to publish a number of research papers from the Department of Employment which blew up the whole idea that there was any connection between employment protection legislation and the problems of small businesses.
Then there were some PSI and other studies, all of which came to the general conclusion that what worries small employers are interest rates, VAT rates, commercial uncertainty and so on and not all these silly little things which the Government believe are strangling the dwarf employer. The trouble with the Government is that they think that the dwarf employer cannot read. Therefore all the regulations have to be taken away because if the poor man or woman has to read all this he will collapse and go out of business.
Further, as has been said, there is no support for any of this from representative employer bodies. In general terms, the representative employer bodies fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester said, that this will represent unfair competition.
Moreover, as several speakers on this side of the House have said, some of the proposals are particularly nasty, mean and spiteful, even for this Government. One is that workers should not be told the reasons for their dismissal. What possible justification can there be for that? Why should not all workers deserve to be told their reasons for dismissal? Another one is that there should be a £150 tax on justice. Unless an employee feels that he has a good case, the fear that he may be fined £150 will deter him from pursuing it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, it will deter not the bad case, but the poor case, the person who cannot afford it. What possible reason can there be for that? Of course, there is an exception: we shall not be doing that in trade union cases. The special commissioner for the trade union members, will continue to be able to take any case, however bad that case may be.

543
So we come to the clauses on equal treatment. Again, many of the points have already been made. They do not go far enough and I believe that they do not keep the Government safe in terms of our international obligations under the European equal treatment directive.
So I come to my final point. When we complain in the House, as we do, in labour debates about justice, about unfairness, we are always told, "Sorry. You see, the burden is on business. We must set the employers free. We must clear the way for the wealth creators". On this side of the House we have come to accept that we cannot get very far with this argument because the Government are committed to it and perhaps we might say in their favour that at least they are consistent.
However, they are not consistent. I was thinking about this after the Third Reading of the Dock Work Bill. It may be that I nodded off during the final Third Reading of the Dock Work Bill because I awoke to find the Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. I heard the dulcet tones of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in the Second Reading speech. I must admit that at that moment I thought that maybe they had shot the Prime Minister or maybe the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was outside his brief. What he was talking about—the noble Lord nods. That may be the explanation, and if so I hope that he will get up and say so. I hope that more Ministers can go outside their brief if that is the result.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was talking about religious or political discrimination. The Government want to free employers, they do not believe in burdens on business, but what do they do in Northern Ireland, faced with religious or political discrimination? They propose to impose an obligation on employers to keep a register of those whom they employ by religious convictions, and to observe a policy which the Government or the agencies will lay down, to change their recruitment and promotion patterns until equality of treatment exists and—much more important—until equality of treatment can be proved to the satisfaction of the agency. If some employer, however small, however dwarfish, goes away from these ratios which are set down, he can be fined up to £30,000 as a backslider and he can be denied all government funds and grants.
The really amazing thing about this is not that the Government do it—we all know why they do it—but the reasons that they give for doing it. That is why I was transfixed by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the irresistibility of his arguments. He did not say, as we might have expected the Government to say, that they are reluctantly required to do this in defiance of their sacred principles and beliefs in order to buy support in the Catholic community for the fight against the IRA. That at least would have been honest. Or they might even have said, as we sometimes say—to reassure workers who may feel this, however unjustifiably —that some of the smaller or larger employers in Northern Ireland are a little bigoted, narrow and prejudiced. No, that is not what the Minister said.
544
At col. 795 of Hansard on 28th June, when defining the purposes of the Bill the noble Lord said that equality of opportunity in employment was the central aim, and that,
"Such equality is morally right".
That is a strange phrase coming from this Government.
"and that, in itself, is sufficient justification for the Bill before us this evening. But it is much more than that. It is first a political priority—"
here it comes—
"secondly a social necessity; and thirdly an economic imperative".
So it is an economic imperative to regulate and to put burdens on business. The Minister then continued:
"Each individual has a right to expect fairness in competing for employment. Politically no government could condone the denial of such fairness, whether intentional or in any way unintentional, and it is self-evident that equality of job opportunity is vital to social stability. But it is also of central economic importance".
We agree that each individual has a right to expect fairness in competing for employment. However, when the theme of fairness of opportunity in employment was referred to in connection with central economic importance, I thought the Prime Minister must have been shot. The Minister continued:
"Essentially equality of opportunity is about recruiting the best man or woman for the job. It is about canvassing job opportunities as widely and openly as possible. It is about ensuring that all compete on an equal basis and are assessed by the same criteria. It is about selecting on the basis of job-related ability or aptitude; namely, on the basis of merit".—[Official Report, 28.6.89; col. 795.]
We salute the idea that equality of opportunity will come about through recruiting the best person for the job. We echo the Minister's words about sex discrimination, race discrimination, trade union membership and activity and protection of individuals against victimisation in cases of unfair dismissal. Indeed, I am told that the £150 levy of the Government on industrial tribunals is itself an abrogation of the European Charter of Human Rights. The Government will probably have to appear before the industrial courts in connection with that.
But I ask the Minister why such concepts as equality, fairness, regulation, monitoring, and all those things we would not dare suggest to this Government are wrong in the field of race discrimination, sex discrimination, worker discrimination or trade union discrimination, but are right in Northern Ireland? We cannot see that, and that is why we oppose this Bill. We look forward to the Minister's reply.
1.2 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, with his inevitable skill at speaking had allowed me to go to sleep, I would have woken up and thought quite naturally that we were talking either about the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill or the Dock Work Bill. Therefore, I shall not talk about either of those Bills. However, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today on the Employment Bill 1989.

545
In his opening speech this morning, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne clearly expounded the central themes of the Bill as the Government see them. I shall try not to weary the House with repetition, but, as the speeches of some noble Lords have shown a misapprehension of the aims and effects of the Bill, I fear this may, to some extent, be unavoidable.
First, however, as the noble Lord is still present, I shall comment on the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, that this debate was not more general. His speech was, in general, about what is not in the Bill. I shall not complain about that because I found it a very interesting speech which will repay much study. However, I would gently point out to the noble Lord that the House debated Employment for the 1990s as recently as 5th April. Since then of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, there have been industrial relations problems in the public sector. However, although I do not believe the noble Lord mentioned this, he will know that the problems in the public sector among the various industries, employees and unions which are striking at the moment have arisen for reasons totally different from those the noble Lord referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made the point that unless everyone has it, no one should have it. I thought that was an excellent description of Labour Party policy. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, cannot get away with that before a social security Minister of all people. A lot of this debate has been about training—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, as the noble Lord is quoting me, I am allowed to correct him. I said the Government's policy was to say that they could do away with anything that everybody did not have. That is not fair.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government's policy is not that. Just look at social security, upon which this House has spent many hours during the past few days.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord is now changing the subject.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have two roles in your Lordships' House. One is as a spokesman on social security and the other is as a spokesman on employment. However, I take the point that this is an employment Bill—something which the noble Lord opposite has obviously just remembered—and I shall now try to reply to this debate.
The debate has centred to a great extent on training. Practically all the speakers mentioned training. My noble friend explained how the provisions of the Bill on training will assist the introduction of our new framework for training provision through training and enterprise councils. I accept that this will be a fundamental change, and a change for the better in the way training and enterprise arrangements are handled in this country. The system will be more flexible and responsive to local needs, and it will give the main consumers of training a greater role in deciding how best to meet the country's training needs. We are confident that
546
our new approach has strong support from the business community. We are most encouraged by the progress which has already been made and we look forward with confidence to the success of this major reform.
Another point which has arisen, inevitably, is the matter of Europe. As regards the European Commission's draft social charter, the Government believe it is the wrong approach to achieving the objective of increasing employment and bringing down the number of people out of work. Indeed, it includes measures which have already been tried and have failed in the United Kingdom. All our experience in this country shows that the best way of creating new jobs and reducing unemployment is to remove unnecessary restrictions and barriers to employment, some of which this Bill achieves. Without businesses, there would be no employees. Thus the interests of employees are inextricably entwined with those of business. The Single Market will provide the opportunities for firms to expand and to create the jobs and the wealth we need to pay for continuing improvements in living conditions. Moreover, the Commission wants to impose harmonised and burdensome regulations on to all twelve member states, irrespective of their traditions and legal systems. This is something this country cannot accept.
Much of the debate has concerned sex discrimination. Noble Lords opposite have questioned the Government's commitment to the principle of equal opportunities. There is some irony in this as, under the present Government, we have seen a dramatic expansion in women's employment, not least in managerial and professional jobs, and perhaps in what I might loosely call trade jobs. My great aunt was looked at askance for driving an ambulance in the first world war. I am glad to say that the situation has changed. Only a few months ago I was glad to give a passing out certificate to a female forklift truck driver. In the past month I have seen women heavy goods lorry drivers, van drivers and cabbies on the streets of London. Moreover, women have created many outstandingly successful businesses of their own.
There has been an increase of over 1·8 million women in paid work since 1983. Women now make up 43 per cent. of the labour force and 25 per cent, of the self-employed. The United Kingdom is also the only country in the EC where women's unemployment is lower than men's, and we have the second highest women's participation rate in the EC. These are the facts against which the Government's record should be judged.
I now turn to the subject of women working underground. Whether or not conditions in mines have improved sufficiently to allow women to work below ground is rather beside the point. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that no one is forcing women to work below ground. The question is therefore: why should women not be free to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to work below ground? That is what this Bill achieves.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister reminded the House that he is a social

547
security Minister. There is before your Lordships' House at the moment a new Social Security Bill which includes reference to entitlement to unemployment pay. Will a woman who refuses a job underground face the loss of possible benefit?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is something we should debate within the context of the Social Security Bill. That reminds me to answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who took exactly the reverse point from something I said the other day on the Social Security Bill.
I am glad that the noble Lord recognised the strength of my comments on the Social Security Bill as an unsuitable vehicle for a provision to encourage employers to give greater consideration to recruiting long-term unemployed people. This is clearly an employment issue and therefore, if appropriate at all, a matter to be discussed in an employment Bill. Having said that, I cannot, of course, comment on any particular amendment, nor say where in the Employment Bill it may arise. But the noble Lord might note that an amendment along these lines was tabled and defeated after full discussion during the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons last month.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked why we had not gone the whole hog in response to the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals for amendments to the sex discrimination legislation. Those proposals are currently under consideration by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in consultation with colleagues. With regard to the particular proposal that Section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act should be repealed in its entirety, my noble friend made the point in his opening speech that matters outside the field of employment and training will frequently raise a variety of complex issues. We consider it right that those should continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. For example, women's colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, it is generally agreed, would not benefit from having male principals.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there is a male principal at Lady Margaret Hall.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but that is by choice, not by law.
So far as concerns child care, a matter which is raised in both the Bills in which I am currently interested, the Government believe that parents should be free to choose to make child care arrangements appropriate to their own circumstances. That is not to say that the Government do not have a role to play: clearly they do. Only on Wednesday I reported to the House the policy of the Ministerial Group on Womens' Issues. Our assistance for child care for lone parents on employment training is a pioneering measure and one that the Bill seeks to retain beyond doubt.
I turn now to another aspect of discrimination raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—that of discrimination against people who are HIV positive.
548
The Department of Employment has recently published an advisory booklet on AIDS and employment. In most circumstances, an individual who is HIV positive presents no danger to other employees or to the public. The dismissal of an employee simply because he or she is HIV positive might well amount to unfair dismissal for which that employee could obtain redress from an industrial tribunal.
I believe that there has been some misunderstanding about the removal of restrictions on employment, and those in Clause 9(5) of the Bill in particular. That provision will not in any way reduce the level of protection. On the contrary, it will in principle increase it by removing the possibility of exceptions. I should explain that in practice the repeals will not affect the existing levels of protection as regulations have never been made to activate the exceptions in Section 17 of the 1963 Act. However, the repeals remove any possibility of a reduction of protection for young people which would arise if we were simply to provide that young people were to be placed on the same footing as adults.
So far as concerns the health and safety of young people, it has been claimed that lengthy hours or night work will put young people at special risk. I do not think that it is necessarily the case that lengthy hours or night shifts will become at all common for young people. However, I accept that in some cases young people will work longer or later than they are allowed to at present. If that presented a special danger to health and safety it would be right for your Lordships to be concerned. However, no such danger has been demonstrated and we have a great deal of experience on that point.
First, many workplaces such as hospitals and computer centres are not and have never been regulated. Secondly, even under the present rules, young people in industry already exceed the normal limits if their employers obtain special exemption orders. Thirdly, a considerable body of research has been carried out into the effects of longer and later hours. The Harrington Report of 1978 made a careful analysis of the evidence on the effects of shift work and night work on health. It concluded that in general there was little evidence of any major effects on the health of either adults or, more importantly in this context, young people, except the disruption of circadian rhythms and sleep patterns, which apply equally to people of all ages.
Nor is there any evidence to suggest that when the present, complex set of regulations is removed there will be a dramatic change in the terms and conditions encountered by young people. Even at present, in most cases young people's hours of work are well within the maximum permitted under the law. In those sectors which have never been regulated in this way there is no evidence of the widespread exploitation which has been envisaged. I see no reason why the pressures of the labour market should suddenly change so as to make young people more vulnerable to exploitation. On the contrary, for demographic reasons young people will be in a very strong position. They will be in a sellers' market.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the subject of training accountability through TECs. The normal

549
parliamentary procedure will apply. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to raise questions and to debate the subject. At local level, TECs will be accountable to their communities. Each TEC must publish an annual report and a synopsis of its plans and hold at least one public meeting a year. To be successful, each TEC will need to collaborate with a range of local partners. Training and enterprise councils will be encouraged to consult such local partners as part of their annual planning process.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, this is a point of very considerable importance. Will the Minister's department issue any regular reports about what is going on? Asking questions without the data is not very fruitful. At present we receive a great deal of information from his department about training. What will happen in the future?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I understand it, the present arrangement is that training reports are placed in the Library of both Houses of Parliament. Although I cannot confirm definitely that that will continue, I shall be very surprised if it does not. If I am wrong I shall let the House know at an appropriate moment during the course of the Bill.
With regard to the abolition of the Training Commission and the complaints that there has been no opportunity for Parliament to discuss it, there has been a mini discussion today. I can confirm that the Training Commission will not be abolished until this Bill receives Royal Assent. It was necessary to do something rather different and that was to return the power of the Training Commission to the Secretary of State because of the TUC's unacceptable and unilateral rejection of Employment Training, a programme which, incidentally, the trades unions helped to develop through the commission in the first place.
That brings me to the question of tribunals and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about the ease of access to tribunals. Applicants to an industrial tribunal rarely have anything to lose. There is currently no fee to be paid for administrative costs and in only a tiny minority of cases are costs awarded. The possibilities for abuse of such a free system are therefore greater than under a system that operates in the ordinary courts, where a fee is required to recover the administrative costs of the case and where costs are regularly awarded against the losing party.
On the other hand, the costs to an individual employer of defending a case which has little prospect of success can be considerable. Such cases are also a drain on the public purse. The deposit proposal will ensure that weak cases can be filtered out of the system before the time and expense of a full hearing is wasted and enable tribunals to concentrate their resources on resolving genuine complaints.
There continues to be a proportion of ill-founded claims to tribunals. These, as I have said, represent an unnecessary burden. The new procedure is designed to weed out cases at the pre-hearing stage. A deposit will not be required in every case, but only in those which at the pre-hearing stage are thought
550
to have little prospect of success or appear to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable. Moreover, the £150 deposit is a maximum figure; in most cases we expect it to be much lower. It is important to note that the depositor will forfeit the deposit only if he loses the case and has a costs award made against him, in which case the deposit will form part of the costs settlement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is half wrong in saying that there is no provision for interest to be paid on industrial tribunal awards and the Government are unlikely to introduce such a provision. She will remember the consultation paper on industrial tribunals of May 1988 which said that the Government intended to implement the provision in the Employment Act 1982 to enable interest to be payable on tribunal awards. The paper put forward for consultation detailed proposals for implementation, and we expect to implement this provision later this year.
A certain amount of angst has been expressed on the subject of a written statement of reasons for dismissal in Clause 13 or rather the absence thereof. The right to written reasons for dismissal is intended to help people decide whether or not they have a basis for a complaint of unfair dismissal to a tribunal. The amendment will simply bring the qualifying period into line with that for unfair dismissal complaints. There is nothing to prevent employers providing written reasons on a voluntary basis to employees who do not qualify under the legislation.
Lastly, the noble Baroness Lady Turner, suggested that the restriction of the right to paid time off for trade union duties represents an attack on trade union members and representatives. This is not the case for a number of reasons. The right has always been restricted to members of "recognised" trade unions and to "duties" concerned with industrial relations with the employer. The clause merely adds that the duties themselves must be limited to matters within the scope of recognition. The clause will not change the range of purposes for which paid time off will be warranted as long as the union is recognised in these areas. A trade union member's right to take part in trade union activities is not affected by the clause. The amendment effected by the clause is a modest one but the Government are responding to the justified concern of employers over what is seen as an unreasonable legislative burden.
In conclusion, notwithstanding some alarmist comments on the Bill (one noble Lord described it as a "nasty little Bill"—which statement I totally contradict) I think that it is a perfectly reasonable Bill, carrying forward a progressive series of measures in the employment field. I do not believe that there should be any cause whatsoever for concern that any essential safeguards are in danger. I hope that I have been able to give your Lordships some reassurance on that score.
The Government believe that the Bill contains a positive package of measures which will increase equality of opportunity between men and women, free young people and employers from an archaic confusion of unnecessary restrictions and lift unjustified burdens from business, thus stimulating

551
continued employment growth. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, with regard to equal treatment, is he saying that he cannot explain the inconsistency between the interventionist policy in Northern Ireland and the abstentionist policy elsewhere; or that he does not care to explain the inconsistency; or that he will write and explain it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the circumstances in Northern Ireland are completely different. This is an Employment Bill for Great Britain, and the answer is, I won't.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Post Office
1.23 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will identify the factors which are currently influencing the Post Office Board's failure to achieve satisfactory quality of service standards and what representations they have received in respect of plans by Post Office Counters plc to close or downgrade some 750 Crown offices.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question I am particularly concerned about the quality of the Post Office service and staff worries over the plans of Post Office Counters.
I have an interest to declare. I am a stamp collector; I specialise in British stamps. The year 1990 will be very important—the 150th anniversary of the introduction and use of the penny black stamp. There will be a large exhibition at Alexandra Palace and throughout the country philatelists will be organising all kinds of events to celebrate the occasion. I hope that people visiting this country for the celebrations will find a Post Office that is rendering good service.
I do not want to imply that the deterioration in the service is an entirely new phenomenon. Noble Lords are not allowed to bring exhibits into this Chamber but one is allowed to bring in correspondence and quote from it. I have with me a letter with a penny black stamp which was posted in January 1841. It is addressed to Cullompton, Devon, However, it was mis-sent to Liverpool and another stamp on it shows that it was then mis-sent to Exeter. So even in those early days there were little infelicities.
Today, the quality of the service has been criticised in a report by the Mail Users' Association and by the Association of Mail Order Publishers. They describe industrial relations in the letters business as a shambles and go on to pinpoint low staff morale and inefficient or inept management as key problems which must be resolved to improve what is described as a "wretched quality of service".
I approached the main union concerned in Post Office affairs—the Union of Communication Workers—and asked for its comments on the service and suggestions about it. The union described it in very much the same terms as did the Mail Users' Association. One problem is the high level of industrial stoppages from which Royal Mail Letters has suffered over the past few years. Indeed, disputes in Royal Mail Letters have accounted for 40 per cent. of all disputes and some one-third of all working days lost in the country as a whole. My contacts in the union point out several reasons which they feel are largely responsible for that situation. The first stems from reorganisation in 1986 which split the business into several parts: letters, parcels, counters and Giro bank. That led to structural confusion and contradictory management strategies.
My contacts also mentioned decentralisation. This had not brought the economic liberalisation of monetary budgets at district level which had been hoped for. The finances of Royal Mail Letters are rigidly based on a national budget which, in its execution, has a constraining effect on district budgets thoughout the country. I was told that one consequence is that if there is an unnaturally large amount of mail coming into the office to be disposed of, local managers do not always have the necessary financial clout to be able to engage the extra staff to cope with it. So that is an inhibiting factor.
The Royal Mail letters section also argued in 1985–86 that reorganisation of the Post Office structure would bring about an enhanced enterprise and that decentralisation would bring dedicated managers to the fore and lead to the introduction of many service improvements. Unfortunately, there is as yet no strong evidence to show that that has happened. The general public do not believe that improvements in the quality of service have taken place. In fact, the Post Office's own figures do not support it.
The watchdog of the service, the Post Office Users' National Council in its 1987–88 annual report referred to three surveys that it had carried out to monitor performance in the delivery area. The chairman of the council commented on the poor quality of service, relating it to under-investment by central government in the Post Office over the past five years. He said;
"We also believe that the target set for the improvement of efficiency has been unchanged over such a period that the only way it can now be reasonably attained is by cutting services rather than improving efficiency".
The union raised with me the question of financial controls and said that the extraordinary application of the Government's external finance limit, which accounts for about half of the Post Office's total profit each year—in other words, it is clawed back—is very inhibiting. That is one of the reasons why Post Office Counters in particular is feeling the deleterious effects—a factor mentioned in the fifth report of the House of Commons industry and trade committee for the Session 1981 to 1982 when it concluded:
"The application of negative External Financing Limits is not appropriate to the Post Office. We recommend that the Government should cease applying them to the Post Office".
The users' council in its 1987–88 annual report also criticised the Government in these terms:
"In recent years the Council has been extremely critical of government's inflexible and irrational policy regarding the financing of nationalised industries and especially how that policy affected the Post Office. Some of the injurious effects of this policy are that surpluses in one year cannot be carried over to benefit the following financial year, surpluses are sterilised within the business and each year's investment is required to be financed out of cash generated in the same year".
My union colleagues went on to tell me about working conditions. The comparatively poor working conditions have to be set against a background when the Post Office's growth of letter business has burgeoned enormously at some 30 per cent. over the past six years. There are forecasts of an even greater traffic load. However, there are government restrictions which prevent the Post Office investing as it wishes. This gives rise to a situation where the majority of postal workers are having to use old, out-of-date equipment in gradually deteriorating conditions. The 1987–88 report of the Post Office Users' National Council refers to the effects that this external financial limit is having.
"Nothing has changed to alter our view that this policy is damaging the Post Office and greatly inhibits much needed investment. In the late 1970s mail seemed to be in long term decline and the decision was made to cut the number of mechanised letter offices to handle mail from 120 to 80. Over the last five years mail volume has soared year by year and is forecast to continue doing so for at least the next five years".
The situation is doubly unfortunate because the changes that are needed in the industry have not been resisted by the principal union which is concerned with this—the Union of Communication Workers. It has co-operated thoroughly with management efforts to improve the quality of postal services. Most recently this has been manifest in the re-introduction of Sunday collections. The union has agreed with the introduction of new technology. It has been free of the disputes and arguments often associated with the introduction of new technology in other industries. Examples of events that have happened recently are the completion of the mechanisation programme for sorting, the new computerised pre-sorting system, and the introduction of optical character recognition machines. In addition the union has negotiated efficiency schemes which boosted productivity by 25 per cent. in the five years up to 1988. Over the same period real unit costs were reduced by nearly 15 per cent., saving £463 million which was well in excess of the target set by the Government.
Nevertheless, all these agreements made on introducing changes in working practices, technology and productivity schemes are not enough to improve the quality of service. What is needed is more capital investment and greater investment in staffing.
Perhaps I may mention once more the 1987–88 annual report of the Post Office Users' National Council. It stated:
"Despite steps taken to improve and modernise working practices, network and services, the quality of service has not improved. We are convinced that much more investment is needed now in buildings, machinery, transport networks and other areas to secure a proper level of service and to exploit the growth opportunities".
The main union concerned with the workers in this industry has repeatedly called for an inquiry to investigate the weaknesses and associated problems inherent in Post Office structures and procedures. That request, I believe, should be granted. Although Royal Mail Parcels has now agreed a joint working party with an independent member, Royal Mail Letters is still dragging its feet and has rejected such an approach. Each time the union has put in this request, it has been rebuffed. The answer has been that such an inquiry is not necessary or that an internal management assessment is being made. This is just fobbing off. It is especially regrettable in view of the union's stated willingness to have its own organisation and procedures placed under scrutiny as well as those of management. I believe that the public deserve a much better response from Royal Mail Letters.
In conclusion, I hope that whatever influence the Minister may have in these matters can be brought to bear not only on the point of the external financial limit but possibly in suggesting to the board of the Post Office that this inquiry should be granted.
1.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe for raising this Question today. It is a very important issue and ranges somewhat wider than the issue of the Post Office. It is the issue of quality of service in monopoly services which cannot and should not be privatised. I am not a philatelist like my noble friend. I therefore did not know that 1990 was the 150th anniversary of the penny black. In my youth I was a philatelist, as many of us were. If ever I had a penny black, I sold it, alas, at the wrong price and at the wrong time. I wish now that I had kept it.
There is no doubt that the Post Office service has deteriorated. Forty years ago we could post a letter in the afternoon on a Sunday and be absolutely certain that it would be delivered to its destination on the Monday morning. Thirty years ago we could post at a quarter to twelve in the evening on a weekday and be assured that it would be received at its destination the following morning.
We now have to post by five o'clock, or in some districts by 5.30, to have any chance of delivery the following morning even in the neighbouring postal district. There are some hopeful signs, as my noble friend has said, that there will be restoration of Sunday collection services. We are told that in some areas letters posted before 9.15 in the morning will have same-day delivery in neighbouring postal districts. We note that, following pressure from consumer associations and others, the Post Office has followed the clearing banks in Saturday morning opening in some places. Nevertheless, as my noble friend has pointed out, there is a general level of public dissatisfaction not only by individuals but also by businesses in the operation of the Royal Mail. It is that question which we have to address today.
Nobody believes the figures of the Post Office. The Post Office Users' National Council certainly

555
does not believe the Post Office figures. When it produced its own figures about following-day delivery, the figures were 10 per cent. below those of the Post Office. The target of the Post Office on first-class mail is 90 per cent. delivery on the following day. POUNC has not endorsed that. Indeed it has-produced figures that cast a great deal of doubt on it. I hope very much that the Post Office and the Post Office Users' National Council will get together to try to establish a proper statutory basis for the quality of service that the Post Office is producing.
There is equally no doubt, as my noble friend has said, that the Post Office is under an enormous financial squeeze. It is certainly not true that the decentralisation of budgets has introduced a new flexibility into the system. What happens is that in an average sorting office there may, on a Wednesday for instance, be a dump of mail. The manager's budget for the week has run out, and he does not have the authority to engage extra staff to sort it out. If a local firm happens to produce a large load of mail on the Thursday, that overturns the whole system. There is no flexibility for the manager of that sorting office to call in extra staff. It therefore remains uncleared.
In addition we have the phenomenon known as junk mail. Junk mail, as your Lordships will know, is mail that is produced ad infinitum to be directed at random at whoever happens to be in the telephone directory or on the electoral roll to advertise certain services or to communicate certain information which may or may not be useful or which may or may not be useless. That is a great profit to the Post Office. Nevertheless it overloads the system. It would be extraordinary and sad if the arrival of junk mail were to reduce the level of service that the private and proper business correspondent is offered by the Post Office.
Lastly, as was referred to by my noble friend, there is what is known as negative financial external limits. Negative external financial limits are a very odd phenomenon. We understand external financial limits, which are the limits imposed by the Treasury on the Post Office to borrow. Negative external financial limits are the cash return which the Treasury insists on from the Post Office. If it were in the private sector it would be called dividend stripping. The profit made by the Post Office is stripped out by the Treasury in the form of what in the private sector would be called a dividend.
The problem with this, quite apart from the difficulty or the generality of it, is that the Post Office cannot carry forward its surplus from year to year. Whereas in the private sector it would be possible for the Post Office or any other company to accumulate reserves on which it could plan its investment programme for the following two years, that is not possible under the annual external financing limits or the negative external financing limits that the Treasury has imposed.
The problem is that investment needs over the years, which have been properly planned by the Post Office and all identified, cannot be met because the
556
Treasury insists on dividend stripping. Now we have a situation where many sorting offices in the Post Office system are trying to handle double the traffic for which they were designed. I am afraid that the result is chaos.
My noble friend referred to the reorganisation in 1986. There is no doubt that that reorganisation has led to low staff morale. It was insufficiently planned. It was inadequately carried out. The Post Office staff feel that they are the cinderellas of the business. After all, they have to carry the burden of public complaints. They are the people who are sworn at by the public when letters are not properly handled or delivered on time. They are the people who bear the brunt.
The House ought to recognise that that is a severe burden to be laid on the staff of the Post Office. Furthermore, particularly in major urban centres such as London, they see the rise in courier services which lead to this extraordinary profusion of kamikaze motor cycles running around London, smashing themselves up and smashing everybody else up because there is in some way some virtue in privatisation. It is the Prime Minister herself who encouraged this industry by saying that this was a new example of private entrepreneurship. Anybody who has driven around London—I know the noble Lord does not drive around London because he is far to rich to do that—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I ride a bike!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, anybody who drives around London knows the social and economic detriments to London of that service.
As my noble friend has said, the traffic load is forecast to increase. As my noble friend has also said, the attitude of the United Union of Communication Workers has been extremely positive. It has co-operated with management in every way possible.
There is a bottom line. The bottom line is that the Government have to ensure that there is proper investment in this industry. There will not be proper investment in the industry unless the Treasury changes its view of negative external financial limits. I cannot say that more clearly than I am saying it at the moment. I hope that the noble Lord will pass on to his right honourable friend the very strong view of the Opposition that this is not the way in which to run a public service.
There is, of course, a vicious circle—we have seen it in other nationalised industries. If one cuts the amount of money available for investment, the service goes down. It is then said that the service cannot be handled by a nationalised industry and therefore it is privatised. That is strangulation. That is not the proper policy for the Royal Mail. So that vicious circle should be avoided and the Government have to change course.
The public and business require a proper service from the Royal Mail and the general postal services. The buck stops with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. I very much hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will be more successful in arguing the case with the Treasury than it has been in the past.
1.47 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, for asking his Question in such a typically clear and concise way. The noble Lord was kind enough to give me a slight warning of some of the areas that he would mention and I am grateful to him for that. At the same time the noble Lord told me that he was a philatelist. When I expressed interest he replied that he could give me a lecture on it for at least 10 minutes. I am grateful that he restrained himself. However, if I do change my mind about philately I shall certainly come to the noble Lord for advice.
The point that the noble Lord made by demonstrating from part of his collection was particularly valid in showing that criticism of the Post Office is nothing new. The Post Office is not just another nationalised industry. It is an important national institution. We are all consumers of the Post Office, so everyone, quite rightly, has an opinion on it.
We take for granted aspects of our postal service, such as delivery right to our doors, which are far from the norm in other countries. The Post Office's delivery performance compares well with other European countries and its stamp prices are among the lowest. For example, while the Bundespost offers a slightly better letter delivery performance, it charges 31p to deliver a first-class letter and is heavily loss-making.
In common with other nationalised industries, the Post Office's investment and financing requirements for three years ahead are reviewed annually by the Government, following the fullest possible consultation with the industry. Once financial plans have been established, the Government wish the Post Office to be as free as possible to manage its business commercially.
The Post Office is a profitable organisation. In each of the last two financial years it made profits of well over £100 million on turnover of between £3 and £4 billion. Since its profits, which are not excessive, have exceeded its capital requirements, it seems to me quite reasonable that the taxpayer should share in the benefit through the investment of the surplus elsewhere within the public sector. This is not a one-way approach.
The Government have always recognised that, since nationalised industries are trading organisations, external financing limits cannot be immutable. It is always open for any industry to make a case for changes in agreed investment plans from one annual review to the next. The Post Office's external financing limits for this and the next two years already provided for a very substantial increase in investment aimed precisely at improving service quality. That is hardly a case of the Government tying the Post Office's hands behind its back. It shows the Government's commitment to better service quality.
Both noble Lords criticised the means of government finance. I must remind your Lordships—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Williams—that that position has not changed since
558
the Labour Party were in power 10 years ago. I know that that is a long time ago: perhaps, if his party return to power, he might decide upon a change.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, were there negative external financial limits before 1979?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all I understand is that the basis of government financing has not changed greatly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Answer the question!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must emphasise that since the Post Office became a public corporation some 20 years ago, the Government's role has been confined to broad issues of general policy and matters of overall financial control. Operational matters are rightly the responsibility of the Post Office Board. Many of the issues raised by the noble Lord will fall into this category.
Improved performance and the economic recovery of recent years have combined to create a rapid increase in demand for postal services. The Post Office now handles some 50 million individually-addressed letters every day, placing serious strains on the network, and growth is expected to continue, as both noble Lords said. That is not so much a problem but it will undoubtedly present a challenge to Post Office management and employees in meeting the need to improve quality of service targets.
The Post Office has had its fair share of problems, particularly over the last year. Most obvious has been the level of industrial action. The protracted national postal strike last September caused great inconvenience to both business and domestic users. There has also been a high level of local disruption, often an unofficial response to changes in working practices. Such industrial action has inevitably had wide-ranging and lasting deleterious effects.
But it would be unfair to attribute all quality of service problems to industrial disputes. Like many other employers, the Post Office has experienced severe difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in those areas of the country where demand for labour is high.
The Post Office is taking a number of measures to address these difficulties. The need for an independent joint inquiry into industrial relations is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, suggests, a matter for the board. However, I understand that the chairman has set up a high level industrial relations review team to examine industrial relations within the Post Office and to consider ways in which they might be improved. There are already signs of better industrial relations in the letters business. The number of days lost during the first six months of this year is one-tenth of the number lost over the corresponding period last year.
Secondly, the letters business has recently introduced local pay supplements to address the problem of recruitment and retention in areas of labour shortage. I was glad that this scheme was endorsed by the Union of Communication Workers'

559
membership in March. I believe it is an important step to alleviating the employment difficulties which have had adverse repercussions on quality of service. The Post Office has also begun to recruit from unemployment blackspots in the North to fill staff shortages in the South-East. Finally, wherever feasible, mail handling is being moved to areas where it is easier to recruit and retain staff.
The Post Office is also taking steps to address quality of service directly. I know that this is an area of particular concern to which the chairman attaches high priority. The Post Office has announced several significant measures to improve service of which I should like to remind noble Lords. One such improvement which I believe consumers will welcome is the phased reintroduction of Sunday collections which will start in the autumn. Later Saturday delivery and later collections from selected letter boxes are also being studied. Another welcome step has been the wider availability of stamps through some 35,000 retail outlets in addition to 21,000 post offices.
Finally, the Post Office has introduced a system of end-to-end letter delivery performance measurement developed jointly with POUNC, the statutory body representing postal users' interests. Thus, statistics, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was concerned, should improve. There has been no significant change in service quality over the past 12 months according to Post Office figures based on an end-to-end measurement. Performance varies widely among districts. This system will inform customers of the quality of service they can expect in their locality. The Post Office has committed itself to improving on the current figures by an average of 3 per cent. this year and to meeting within five years its 90 per cent. next-day delivery target for first-class mail in all districts.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that these measures provide encouraging evidence of the Post Office's will to devote resources to improving quality of service.
560
I turn to Crown Office regrading mentioned in the original Question. I should begin by saying that decisions on the precise location or type of office that is most appropriate in individual local circumstances are operational matters for the Post Office Board. However, the Government are confident that the regrading programme will allow the Post Office to fulfil its obligations—to have regard to economy and efficiency and to the social, industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom—and will not affect service quality. Indeed, it will help the Post Office to fulfil its obligations more economically by reducing overheads.
Clearly, there is scope for improvement in the quality of the postal service. I hope noble Lords will agree that the measures that I have outlined provide encouraging evidence not only of the Post Office's commitment to a comprehensive service of improved quality but also of the positive steps that the Post Office is taking to achieve that improved quality. We welcome that commitment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer my question? How will the Post Office plan its investment programme if every year it is set negative external limits by the Treasury?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said in my answer, the Post Office's external financing limits already provide for a very substantial increase in investment. It is basically investment that we are talking about.

Midland Metro Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at three minutes before two o'clock.

  ROAD ACCIDENT NO-FAULT SCHEME PROPOSAL
  ROAD ACCIDENT NO-FAULT SCHEME PROPOSAL
  ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  COCAINE AND HEROIN SEIZURES
  COCAINE AND HEROIN SEIZURES