Sitting of 13 November 1990

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

    Training Programmes
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to review the budget available for training programmes.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Miichael Howard): The results of a review of the whole of my Department's spending plans were published in the Chancellor's autumn statement. The public expenditure settlement provides both the resources needed for training programmes and the flexibility to deploy those resources to best effect.
    Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that unemployment is rising and set to rise further, that there are skill shortages throughout Britain and that Britain is massively less skilled than our European competitors? Given that situation, how can he possibly defend the £300 million cut in real terms in his Department's budget set out in the autumn statement? Is not that a disaster for our future competitiveness in Europe?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the position. We are increasing planned spending on youth training, increasing spending on TVEI—the technical and vocational education initiative—and we have been reviewing the way in which we can most effectively help the long-term unemployed. We are making available up to 100,000 places in job clubs and on job interview guarantee schemes as well as introducing other ways in which to help the long-term unemployed more effectively. We shall still be spending some £750 million next year on employment training.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, throughout his welcome experiment on training and enterprise councils, one of the principal difficulties that the chairmen have brought to his attention has been the lack of flexibility in the way in which they can apply their funds? I hope that he will accept from me a warm welcome to his recent proposals to free up the use of funds to give the chairmen much greater responsibility.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right about the importance of the flexibility for which the TECs have been asking. His warm welcome for that flexibility has been echoed by the chairmen of the TECs. The TECs are now well beyond the experimental
    432
    stage. There are 82 in place across the country, forming a complete network, and no fewer than half of them—41—are now fully operational.
    Mr. Blair: With the worst balance of payments deficit in this country's history, with skill shortages in every tradeable sector of industry and with the single European market nearly upon us, which of our main competitors would even contemplate cutting £500 million from their training budgets in the next two years? If that is not for them, why is it for us in the Secretary of State's plans?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should look more carefully at the statement that has been made and devote his attention to the increased resources that have been made available for training our young people and giving them the necessary skills. He should also reflect on the fact that he has totally failed to persuade the shadow Chief Secretary that training should be one of the two priority areas to which the Labour party is prepared to commit extra spending. The hon. Gentleman ought to put up or shut up.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose——
    Mr. Cryer: Defend Heseltine against that ruthless attack by the Secretary of State—a Thatcher sycophant.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: You cannot bring Heseltine into everything.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This should be a question to the Front Bench.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is not just the money that the Government spend which matters, because, lamentably, the trade unions and industry do not spend enough money on training their own seed-corn labour for the future. Government money should be spent on encouraging industry and the unions to back labour training schemes because they are the people who will produce for tomorrow.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the importance of investment in training by employers. That investment has been steadily increasing, but I agree that it needs to increase even further. The TECs, as employer-led bodies in local areas, are in an unrivalled position to persuade fellow employers to do what needs to be done to increase their investment in training and to ensure that that investment is deployed even more effectively than it has been up to now.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies the Government intend to introduce to help small businesses expand to create more local employment prospects.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The Government will continue to give priority to maintaining the best possible business environment and, in particular, the control of inflation and the reduction of unnecessary controls and red tape. This will benefit all small businesses, whether they are established or just starting up. At local level, training and enterprise councils are taking over responsibility for the

    433
    delivery of many enterprise support schemes and are ideally placed to ensure that such support is geared to the needs of local businesses.
    Mr. Vaz: None of that will give any comfort to those who currently run small businesses, especially in the textile and footwear sector. Is the Minister aware that one job is lost every 30 minutes in each of those industries? Is he further aware that if that trend continues, there will not be a British textile and footwear industry left by the turn of the century? When shall we have reasonable, decent proposals from the Minister rather than the nonsense that he has talked today?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must get tired of peddling stories of doom and gloom. It is regrettable that he is unable to say something positive even about the industries for which he alleges great support. It is encouraging to note that, even in the present difficult economic climate, there is a remarkable resurgence of new industry, with new people coming forward and new businesses being set up. That is what we are encouraging and shall continue to encourage and one of these days it will receive acknowledgement from the Opposition.
    Mr. Steen: It is not so much expansion but survival that is important for village shops. In my constituency, 12 village shops have closed since the introduction of the uniform business rate. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the maintenance of existing shops and small firms rather than the expansion of those that have not yet come into being?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the need to make a distinction, of which I am aware, between encouraging new small businesses—we are remarkably successful at doing that—and the position of existing businesses, in the retail sector and elsewhere. The uniform business rate has had varying effects in different parts of the country, as was the intention from the start. My colleagues at the Department of the Environment have taken great care to try to ensure that the burden of the uniform business rate is limited to the extent that it affects businesses adversely. I hope that the businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency will come to my Department for advice and help, which is available in many different ways, so that they have the best possible chance not just of surviving but of prospering.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that the loss of transitional relief under the uniform business rate when businesses move premises can not only restrict expansion but make it difficult for businesses in difficulties to scale down? What assessment has his Department made of that and has the hon. Gentleman made any representations on the subject to the Secretary of State for the Environment?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me on to territory on to which I dare not stray—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because another Government Department is responsible for that, as Opposition Members well know. [Interruption.] I am in touch with my colleagues at the Department of the Environment constantly to monitor the varying effects of the uniform business rate on small businesses. If hon. Members contact me with details of specific cases, I undertake to raise them with my colleagues in that Department to see what can best be done. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I urge hon. Members not to barrack in such an unseemly way. It is very disruptive.
    Mr. Wilkinson: At this time of undoubted recession, when small businesses are being hit particularly hard, it is important for them to be able to retain the greatest proportion possible of their hard-earned profits. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility in the next Budget of introducing relief against corporation tax on the first £500,000 of the profits of small businesses?
    Mr. Forth: The one thing that I cannot undertake to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is the word used by my hon. Friend, which I certainly would not dream of discussing with the Chancellor. My hon. Friend raised an important point and I hope that he will agree that we have gone a long way to ensuring that small businesses have one of the lowest rates of both personal and corporate taxation in the developed world, with the favourable rate for small businesses. Our remarkable success in setting up small businesses has reflected that in full. I am making representations on behalf of the small business community to our friends in the Treasury. I shall think carefully about my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion.

    Wages Inspectors
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many wages inspectors are now in post; and how many were in post in 1979.
    Mr. Forth: In 1979 there were 158 wages inspectors. The greatly simplified wages orders resulting from the Wages Act 1986 allowed the then complement of 120 inspectors to be adjusted to the present total of 71. There are currently 70 inspectors in post.
    Mr. Banks: May I say how much I agree with your strictures about barracking, Mr. Speaker? It is disgraceful, just like the figures given by the Minister. It is no surprise that so many employers break the law in view of the small number of inspectors. Why are the Government so soft and selective on law breaking? Apparently it is okay for Rupert Murdoch to break the law, seemingly with the connivance of the Prime Minister, and it was all right in 1989 for 5,528 employers to underpay workers in wages council sectors. Why are the Government soft on those law breakers? Is it because robbing the workers is no crime in the Tory book?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, displays an appalling lack of knowledge as to how the system works. The truth is that 96 to 97 per cent. of workers are paid the statutory minimum or above, so the non-compliance rate is low. The crucial factor is that not only do inspectors target employers and premises to ensure that they home in on those that they suspect may be in breach of the regulations, but when they find them, they use methods of persuasion and information—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]. The hon. Gentleman may have a blood lust for prosecutions——
    Mr. Banks: Yes.
    Mr. Forth: We are much more concerned with the employees' interests and to try to ensure that the employer will continue in business and pay the wages required by the

    435
    regulations. That is a far more fruitful way of approaching the issue than that which the hon. Gentleman seems to favour.
    Mr. Favell: As 57 wages inspectors to inspect the wages of more than 20 million people must be but a drop in the bucket, would not it be a good idea to clear away the whole system and save the taxpayer some money?
    Mr. Forth: I know that my hon. Friend is trying to be helpful, but I will quote from my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment, who said earlier this year:
    "I have decided not to proceed with the abolition of the councils for the present."
    he went on to say, and this may be of some consolation to my hon. Friend——
    "I therefore intend to keep its operation under close review."—[Official Report, 6 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 541.]
    That is as far as I can go at present to satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Has not the Minister just let the cat out of the bag? Is not the reason why we do not have a prosecution policy for underpayment and why there are so few inspections of premises and wages inspectors the fact that the Government intend to let the wages council system wither on the vine? The Minister accuses my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of being wrong, but the Minister is being outright misleading, because the reality is that 30 per cent. of firms visited were found to be underpaying their employees in one form or another. Is it not about time that the party of law and order made the law work in everyone's interests? When low pay in this country is a growing problem, as it is, Ministers have a responsibility to do something practical, get the inspectors in and get the prosecutions coming.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman obviously formulated his supplementary question before I gave my earlier answer, as he is apparently unaware of what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall therefore repeat it. The inspectors target their visits on those whom they suspect may not be paying the minima, which is why the non-compliance rate among those targeted is the higher figure that he mentioned, but the overall rate is as I stated earlier. The total non-compliance rate among employers is small. We and the inspectors believe that using persuasion and information is a much better way of dealing with the problem than blundering in with fines and penalties on small businesses which could be put out of business. There is no point in putting people out of business and destroying jobs in an effort to apply minimum wage levels.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that minimum wage legislation can only create unemployment among those receiving low wages, who are among the most vulnerable in our society? Is he therefore surprised by the Opposition's enthusiasm to introduce such legislation?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, it is worse than my hon. Friend suggests. The truth is that if there were a statutory minimum wage of 50 per cent. of average pay, which I understand may be the policy of the Labour party, my Department estimates that 750,000 jobs could disappear as
    436
    a result. If the Opposition want to be responsible for the destruction of 750,000 jobs that must be on their heads —it certainly will not be on ours.

    Employment Rehabilitation Centres
    Mrs. Heal: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the closure of employment rehabilitation centres.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I know that the lion. Lady has important and valuable experience in this area. In the consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", we announced plans for an improved employment rehabilitation service involving local assessment teams and rehabilitation agents supported by a reduced, but substantial, network of centres. No decisions on closure of particular centres will be taken until comments have been received on how best the plans might be implemented.
    Mrs. Heal: I recognise the establishment of the mobile assessment teams, which I see as complementary to the existing network of centres. The consultative document makes no reference to the importance of the three residential centres, Egham, Preston and Leicester. Does the Secretary of State regard those centres as essential to the convenience and well-being of disabled people, especially the more severely disabled, and to facilitating their entry into employment? After the next election the Minister and some of his colleagues may welcome the opportunity of assessment for alternative employment.
    Mr. Jackson: I do not know whether we shall have the opportunity to take advantage of the hon. Lady's kind offer, but there will continue to be a need for residential facilities, whether provided directly from the centre or by agents under contract, which is the general philosophy being applied in this area.
    Mr. Cash: Irrespective of my hon. Friend's comments on the contribution of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), will he confirm that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People this morning reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the disabled with a substantial increase in grants and allowances and that the Government are looking after the disabled in the way that they would expect?
    Mr. Jackson: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. What has been done with and for people with disabilities by this Government has been one of the success stories of the 1980s.
    It is important for the House to understand the background in relation to employment rehabilitation and ASSET centres. There are only about 30 of them, which means that about one third of the population have facilities beyond daily travelling distance. That is why we are planning to diversify and extend the network of provision to make facilities more widely available geographically.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister accept that the Government are spending less this year on training, including rehabilitation, than they did last year and that they will spend less next year than this year? When seeking to justify that, will he mention unemployment, which is

    437
    rising and will rise further as a result of joining the exchange rate mechanism? Does he accept that the Government's protestations about training will have no credibility so long as the Department acquiesces in cutting the training budget? The job of the Department is to defend that budget against the Treasury, not to acquiesce in cutting it, as it has done for two years.
    Mr. Jackson: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that joining the exchange rate mechanism will necessarily lead to increased unemployment. That will depend greatly on what happens in wage settlements and negotiations in the labour market, so there is a clear message for people there. Disabled people under training will continue to be part of the guarantee and aim groups in relation to employment training and we shall continue to fund the training of such groups.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as usual, the Opposition parties have got it wrong? The purpose of training is not training per se but finding people jobs at the end of training. In that context, is my hon. Friend's Department considering new ways of determining which training schemes are most effective in terms of job finding afterwards? Does he agree that such schemes need not by any means be the most expensive, as budgets are no indication of employment at the end of the day?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is one of the thoughts behind the flexibility that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has negotiated for the training and enterprise councils. That flexibility will enable a much greater range of experimentation to take place at local level, which will be led by people who are in contact with local labour markets. To return to the question posed by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), the basic purpose of our changes is not just to increase the geographical coverage of the facilities but to enable us to tap into the wide range of expertise that exists in voluntary bodies and we shall try to ensure that it is made more available to assist disabled people into better and more appropriate forms of employment.

    Employment and Ownership
    Mr. Michael:: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what fresh initiatives he plans to take to encourage the development of co-operative and mutual forms of employment and ownership.
    Mr. Forth: I have announced today that, as part of my Department's general policy to promote small firms, funding has been made available to provide short-term pump-priming support for projects submitted by the co-operative sector. This will be available over the next two financial years specifically for good quality innovative projects to promote co-operatives or to develop business training, advice and other strategies to improve the business performance and competitiveness of co-operatives.
    Mr. Michael: I welcome the coincidence of that announcement and my question. Is the Minister aware of the welcome that was given to two commitments by his predecessor, the first being money for the co-ordination of co-operative development work following the demise of the Co-operative Development Agency, and the second being the promotion of co-operative initiatives by the
    438
    training and enterprise councils? Will he assure the House that he will pursue those two undertakings during his tenure of office?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement of the follow-up to the commitment given by one of my predecessors. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the guidance to the training and enterprise councils there is explicit acknowledgment of their continuing responsibility to work in this area as part of the follow-up commitment that we gave earlier in the year. I am delighted to be able to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
    Mr. David Davis: Will my hon. Friend take some care in this area? I remind him of unfortunate precedents, particularly that of the Triumph motor cycle co-operative which, if anything, accelerated the departure of the motor cycle industry from Britain.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I emphasise that there is no intention to encourage such overblown and grandiose schemes. As my hon. Friend probably heard, 1 deliberately used the words "good quality innovative projects" and went on to emphasise elements such as business training and advice. I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—there is no way in which we shall get involved in the kind of disasters that overtook the Labour party when in government.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. John Greenway: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in work in the United Kingdom (a) now and (b) in 1979.
    Mr. Howard: The work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 27,346,000 in June 1990 and 25,365,000 in June 1979—an increase of just under 2 million over the period during which this Government have been in office.
    Mr. Greenway: Many people choose to take part-time jobs, but such jobs are now under threat because of European Community directives on part-time and temporary workers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Commission is proposing that all part-time staff who work more than eight hours a week will have to pay national insurance? If that is true, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a tax on jobs which could devastate the rural economy and that all hon. Members should unite to oppose it?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right, but he has identified only part of the damage that the European Commission's proposals would inflict on prospects for employment. The costs on employers, in addition to the costs on employees to which my hon. Friend referred, would run into billions of pounds. That is why we are endeavouring to persuade the Commission and other member states of the damage that these proposals would do to employment throughout the Community.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of registered disabled people out of work has more than doubled since 1979 and that this is mainly his fault, because he failed to implement the 3 per cent. quota system

    439
    and in some ways is condoning law breaking? As he is letting down disabled people, what does he propose to do about finding jobs for them?
    Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the difficulty with the quota system is that there are insufficient numbers of registered disabled people to allow employers to fill the quota. This is one matter on which we consulted in producing our recent consultation document, of which I know the right hon. Gentleman is aware. In direct answer to his question, I can say that, as I am sure he will be pleased to know, as part of the package announced last week, unemployed disabled people are to be included among the aim group for the purposes of eligibility for employment training. I am sure that many more of them will take advantage of those opportunities and will acquire jobs as a result.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the more heartening aspects of the situation is the number of people over the age of 50 who are in full-time employment? Is he aware that, at long last, British industry and commerce have recognised the value of older people and that, by and large, most are doing excellent jobs?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Employers are increasingly coming to recognise the value of workers aged over 50. They are getting jobs in increasing numbers and I expect that trend to continue.
    Mr. Beggs: What progress has been made to detect those who are claiming benefit while being employed and thereby distorting the true figures of unemployment?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have been concentrating our efforts in these matters on employers who are suspected of acting in collusion with workers and encouraging workers to break the law in this way. Our efforts are achieving considerable success and have resulted in many prosecutions.

    Tourism
    Mr. Barry Field:: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate he has as to the level of tourism-related employment in Britain; and what the figure was three years ago.
    Mr. Forth: In June 1990 there were an estimated 1·43 million employees in employment in tourism-related industries in Great Britain compared with 1·28 million three years before.
    Mr. Field: Is not this excellent record entirely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend? Will he confirm that, just ahead of the Isle of Wight, Great Britain ranks fifth in the world for earnings from overseas tourism? Is not it a signpost to encourage the Government in their endeavours to introduce quality into the United Kingdom product that tonight the English tourist board will be presenting the "England for excellence" award?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. Few in the House are more qualified to speak on the matter than my hon. Friend, whose constituency leads the way, in the rest of England and the United Kingdom, in our efforts to attract tourists, which are ever more successful. This pleases me, particularly with my responsibility for small businesses, and I pay tribute to
    440
    our colleague, Viscount Ullswater, who is responsible for tourism in my Department. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and let us hope that the efforts will continue, both in his constituency and throughout the realm.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that there is a deficit in invisible earnings, which have become truly invisible under this Government? Jobs in tourism are no substitute for jobs with good training in manufacturing industry which, under the Government, have been reduced by over 2 million. That has helped us to a record balance of trade deficit not met by the increase in tourism. When will the Government improve and increase manufacturing industry and restore some of the 2 million jobs that they have thrown on the scrap heap?
    Mr. Forth: I regret and deprecate what the hon. Gentleman has said, on two important grounds. One is that the hon. Gentleman has hidden in what he said the welcome fact that our people are sufficiently prosperous that they decide, in ever-greater numbers, to exercise their freedom to take holidays abroad. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are a disgraceful slander on all those who do such excellent work in tourism and I am surprised that he should bring himself to make them.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, an increasing number of people are undertaking quality jobs, providing a quality product and boosting overseas earnings. If the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition do not understand that, they are even less fit for government than I thought.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Government Front Bench wearing his current hat? Bradford?the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not even mention the city which he represents in part?has demonstrated that the market has changed in terms of jobs and opportunities and that people want to spend money and leisure time on tourist-related activities. Bradford constituents, and my constituents in Dorset, South have shown that many new and excellent jobs can be created, to the delight of the many people from overseas and from the United Kingdom who enjoy the facilities that they provide.
    Mr. Forth: It is a sign of the times that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) had to say what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should have said. That Conservative Members have to do the job of Labour Members is no more than a sign of the times.

    Unemployment, Lambeth
    Mr. Fraser:: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to reduce unemployment in Lambeth.
    Mr. Jackson: My Department's full range of employment, enterprise and training measures is available in Lambeth to help unemployed people and others to find new jobs, to retrain or to set up businesses of their own.
    We also have our specialist inner city initiatives, which operate in the borough, including the inner London jobs team and an inner city officer based in Brixton. In addition, under the urban programme the borough has been allocated £9·28 million in 1990–91.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that Lambeth has the highest unemployment in London and a large black population and that racial discrimination is always injurious to employment opportunities? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that some employment agencies connive at racial discrimination? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a particular allegation that Eileen Dupont of Conservative party central office gave a requirement to employment agencies that she wanted only English-rose type secretaries and to the discrimination that is implicit in that requirement? Will the hon. Gentleman investigate the matter and ensure that both the Conservative party and the Government promote principle, not prejudice?
    Mr. Jackson: I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters which goes back to the time when he was a Minister at the Department of Employment.
    The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise the importance of the achievement of a 19·4 per cent. fall in long-term unemployment over the past 12 months in the Lambeth area. Racial discrimination in employment is serious and the hon. Gentleman has made some allegations. I invite him to provide me with more detail, perhaps in writing, after the end of questions.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his most recent estimate of the total of the work force who are employed in more than one job and are thus counted twice in the employment statistics.
    Mr. Howard: Precise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available.
    However, the labour force survey estimated that 708,000 people held a second job as an employee in the spring of 1989.
    Mr. Flynn: Do the Government agree that there is as much truth in their job statistics as there was in the claim, made in 1945 from a bunker by Josef Goebbels just before he took cyanide, that Germany was about to win the war? Before the Government exit in similar circumstances and in a similar fashion, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confess that counting 750,000 double-jobbers twice, including 1 million non-existent self-employed in the totals and multiplying the value of part-time jobs twice corrupts the Government's job statistics into a meaningless, propagandist fantasy?
    Mr. Howard: Before the hon. Gentleman engaged in such far-fetched fantasies, he would have done well to check the fact that there has been no change from the practice followed by previous Governments in these respects. However we calculate the figures, there are more people in work now than there have ever been. Opposition Members should be welcoming that fact instead of constantly trying to decry it.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the employment statistics, will he bear in mind the case of Terry Deane of Ealing, who was refused employment by the then Labour Ealing council
    442
    —which has since been found guilty by an industrial tribunal of the most blatant discrimination—in its housing department in 1987?
    Mr. Howard: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition arrived in time to hear my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the House yet another respect in which the previous Labour Ealing council behaved disgracefully. No doubt that council was elected by, among others, the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jackson: In September 1990 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the north-west region was 232,300—[Interruption.] Labour Members must be celebrating the fact that there has been a fall of 40 per cent. in unemployment in the north-west region during the past three years.
    Mr. Fields: Are not those figures unrealistic? Are not they made up of part-time workers and people who have been conscripted to phoney schemes in a deceitful way? What will be the effects of ERM entry on unemployment? Why are the Government closing job and retraining centres in Merseyside? What will be the effects of the disastrous poll tax figures on councils such as Liverpool city council, which is the largest employer in the area? What will it all mean for employment for the people of Liverpool?
    Mr. Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that overall employment in the north-west was risen by 347,000 since March 1983, an increase of 14 per cent. There have been many significant developments. I visited the north-west only last week to open the new Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get in touch with his local TEC and give it his full support.
    Mr. Lee: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the second-highest level of manufacturing employment in Britain, at more than 55 per cent? Will he encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to visit Pendle early in the new year—perhaps they could come together—to see some examples of its manufacturing base?
    Mr. Jackson: I should be happy to make that suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has, in fact, heard it. If he cannot visit Pendle, I shall do so.
    Mr. McLeish: Why were the unemployed ritually sacrificed in last week's autumn statement, despite the fact that it is estimated that unemployment will rise to 2 million next year? Is the Minister aware that in regional blackspots such as Liverpool, Riverside the male unemployment level is 31·7 per cent?
    Can the Minister explain the extraordinary decision to cut £1 billion from the Department's budget in real terms for the period 1988 to 1994? Will he confirm that the Government are opting out of the slick sloganising of the skills revolution, or is it simply a question of the unemployed being asked to eat cake?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing his speech for today's debate. Employment training remains an important programme and we shall continue to fulfil our guarantee of training for all 18 to 24-year-olds. We

    443
    shall continue to provide training for the aim group, who are older than that. Our evaluation of employment training—we are about to place a summary in the Library—suggests that training may not always, in all circumstances, be the answer to help the long-term unemployed. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend recently made his announcement about jobs clubs and the job interview guarantee scheme. The hon. Gentleman should set that in the context of what he described.

    Overseas Visitors
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his revised estimate for the numbers and value of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom for 1990; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: During the first eight months of 1990, the latest period for which figures are available, overseas residents made an estimated 12·3 million visits to the United Kingdom, 4 per cent. more than in the same period of 1989. For the same period it is provisionally estimated that overseas residents spent £4,920 million in the United Kingdom, 10 per cent. higher than for the same period in 1989.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that overseas visitors contribute substantially to employment opportunities, particularly in centres such as York, and will he hold urgent discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science so that more courses in hotel and catering management may be made available and so that youngsters entering that great industry are not put off by the Opposition's antics in referring to jobs for ice-cream salesmen?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I pay tribute to the leading way in which his constituency is a tourist attraction, providing many more jobs in tourism than it has done in the past. I urge my hon. Friend to approach his local training and enterprise council and work with it to respond to local training needs, helping to boost yet further his already successful tourism industry.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)rose——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to behave reasonably at this time. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Professor Landsbergis of Lithuania. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that her attempts to privatise the national health service have resulted in the loss of nearly 5,000 hospital beds so far
    444
    this year, including 100 in the Wakefield area? Has she any idea of the pain and discomfort facing vast numbers of patients on waiting lists as a direct result of her policies?Have not we reached the stage when she should be spending more time at home with Denis, making way for a Labour Prime Minister who believes in the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: Our policies have resulted in 1 million more patients a year being treated. In the past four years expenditure on the health service has risen from £24 billion in 1988 to £26 billion, to £29 billion and to £32 billion—an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since we took over. That is a very good record which would never have been surpassed, let alone equalled, by the Labour party.
    Mr. Atkinson: What advice did my right hon. Friend give to President Landsbergis of Lithuania in support of his demand for his country's independence?
    The Prime Minister: The same advice as I have given him before—that we have never recognised that Lithuania was legally annexed and, therefore, have never allowed ambassadors or consuls in that country. We recognise the difficulties that Lithuania is in now. We believe that they can be resolved by negotiations. We recognise, too, that those have run into unexpected difficulties recently and we shall do our level best to take them up so that negotiations resume.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister join me in agreeing with her new Secretary of State for Education and Science in his very firm opposition to the daft idea of education vouchers?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for Education and Science said almost precisely the same as I did in the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework before he came in, he would know that.
    Mr. Kinnock: That gives a new meaning to the word "almost". Why is the Prime Minister being so evasive about the question of education vouchers? After all, all that I asked her was whether she agreed with a Minister in her Cabinet. Why cannot she simply say that she backs the Secretary of State for Education and Science on this important question?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, the Secretary of State for Education and Science backed me. [Interruption.] We said—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a great deal of time from Back Benchers.
    The Prime Minister: May I now read to the right hon. Gentleman what he should have read before he came into the Chamber? He will find that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said precisely the same as I did, and that I said precisely the same as he did. He will find it—[Interruption]. They never like the facts, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I can get them out. On 18 October in oral answers to questions, I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman:
    "In education we are attempting to increase choice—in city technology colleges, in grant-maintained schools and with open rolls."
    The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about vouchers, and I pointed out that vouchers

    445
    "are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil."
    —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Of course, I am reading. Had the right hon. Gentleman read the remarks before he came into the Chamber, he could have saved himself a question.
    May I read the sentence again:
    "They are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil. That is a form of giving extra choice and of giving the voucher to the parent for the pupil."—[Official Report, 18 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1374.]
    Mr. Kinnock: I thought that the Prime Minister had formally declared herself against stonewalling, but it appears that that does not extend to Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Let me put it very simply to the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for Education and Science said that education vouchers were "not on the agenda". He said:
    "I have never been in favour of vouchers. I don't think they play any part in the Government's plans … I don't think you need vouchers."
    Does the Prime Minister agree with him?
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the complete answer that I gave at column 1374 of Hansard, when I pointed out that we are already introducing a pilot scheme for vouchers in training. That is Cabinet policy and in education we are increasing choice. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is against increasing choice, but I repeat that, if he had read my reply, he would not have needed to ask the question. Perhaps he had better go back to bowling from the nursery end.
    Mr. Chris Butler: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to watch Sky Television—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall make very slow progress at this rate.
    Mr. Butler: Last night there was an absolutely devastating exposure of conditions in Romanian orphanages. The conditions are absolutely disgusting. Will my right hon. Friend review the programme and see whether any initiative can be taken by the United Kingdom Government?
    The Prime Minister: I did not see that particular television programme, but I have seen other programmes showing those conditions. Obviously it is something that we would wish to help with. When we received a request from Romania for disposable syringes, for example, we met it immediately. I am very well aware of the problem and we will look at it again.
    Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister see today's disgraceful attack in The Sun today made by the supporters of her cause on three of her colleagues? As, in her position, she should set the standards of public life in Britain, will she take this opportunity unequivocally to condemn that attempt to smear her colleagues, undermine democracy in her party and cheapen public life?
    The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Politics is about policy; it should never be about personal attacks on people's way of living. I totally condemn any such personal attacks.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep concern is felt in our armed forces about the continual suggestions that there should be cuts in our Army manpower at a time when both the Gulf and Northern Ireland place great calls on our strength? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say categorically that our armed forces will be kept at the level that is necessary for the task facing them?
    The Prime Minister: That is an undertaking that I can give. The tasks which face us are changing, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House. We are therefore looking at "Options for Change" and my right hon. Friend is coming across with policies to meet those "Options for Change" which are intended always to ensure that our defence is sure enough to meet whatever attack may come, from whatever quarter it may come.

    Gulf Crisis
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the discussions in Geneva with King Hussein of Jordan in relation to the ecological consequences of war in the middle east.
    The Prime Minister: My bilateral discussions with King Hussein did not cover this subject, as I made clear to the hon. Gentleman on 7 November. However, if a tyrant is never to be fought in order that freedom and justice may be restored, tyranny will triumph with all its brutality and the environment of human rights, which we seek to extend, will have received a fatal blow.
    Mr. Dalyell: If King Hussein is right and 50,000 million barrels of oil equivalent go up in flames, what will be the result in terms of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, and what would that do to people and the planet?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avert such a tragedy, there is one method which would do it easily—that is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw totally from Kuwait and for a legitimate Government to be restored. I do not necessarily accept King Hussein's figures —mine are a little different—but that is not the main point. Saddam Hussein's withdrawal would not put right a wrong, because of the brutality that has been perpetrated in his name, but that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Was there on the occasion referred to any discussion of the human consequences of Saddam Hussein's actions so far, such as the killing of tens of thousands of his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan by the use of poison gas and, for example, the killing and torturing of Kuwaiti citizens that is taking place even today in the territory that his armies have occupied? If we are to have such statements, let a proper balance be struck.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons both in war and on his own people, the Kurds. We were one of the foremost countries to condemn him. We believe that he also has biological weapons at his disposal. It is contrary to the law to make them, let alone to use them. We also believe that he is not far from having nuclear weapons. However, the strongest point is that the

    447
    terrible brutalities and barbarities that he has perpetrated cannot just be left. Kuwait must be restored. If Saddam Hussein will not withdraw, we must do it by the military option.

    Engagements
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: May I wish the Prime Minister well in her current difficulty? Although I cannot speak for Conservative Members, many Opposition Members are rooting for her. Is the Prime Minister aware that an auction is taking place today in Sunderland of the assets of the last remaining shipyard, despite the fact that bids were received from companies that were willing, without subsidy, to build and repair ships in that yard? Is the Prime Minister aware that if she had resisted the EC veto with a fraction of the resistance that she has offered in her other European adventures, she would have enjoyed wider support? Will she take this opportunity to apologise to the people of Sunderland?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the closure of that shipyard was announced in 1988 after negotiations with the Commission in Europe. In return for the closure we had a new enterprise zone in Sunderland and a £45 million package to assist the people of Sunderland to come into new industries, the industries of
    448
    tomorrow, because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we had too much shipbuilding capacity in this country. It was a reasonable deal for Sunderland and a better one than if we had put subsidies into an old industry. We could not put in extra subsidies because of our agreement with the Commission and, indeed, it would not have been the right thing to do.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the autumn statement has been received by the financial markets and our constituents with great satisfaction, does my right hon. Friend feel that the decision to spend an extra £3,000 million on health will finally give the lie to any suggestion that the Government are not firmly committed to an excellent NHS?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a settlement which kept firm control of public spending, which is necessary for financial prudence. Nevertheless, it found sufficient resources to meet our commitments to the social services, pensioners and health and extra for the disabled, while at the same time redeeming some past debt, much of which was built up by the Opposition. That is an account of very good stewardship on the part of my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I congratulate them both.

Telecommunications
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on telecommunications.
I shall make proposals aimed at increasing competition, stimulating innovation and widening customer choice in all areas of the market. In November 1983 the Government gave a commitment that—(Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please?
Mr. Lilley: —for a period of seven years, they did not intend to license operators other than British Telecom and Mercury to provide basic telecommunications services over fixed links. We said that this commitment, which became known as the duopoly policy, would be reviewed at the end of that period.
I am today publishing a wide-ranging consultative document entitled "Competition and Choice: Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s". Copies are available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document invites comments by 14 January 1991. I will announce the conclusions as soon as possible thereafter.
This country enjoys one of the most open and dynamic telecommunications markets in the world. In the past 10 years, the Government have introduced competition into all sectors of the market, including the supply of equipment, the running of networks and the provision of services. We have also privatised our main operating company, British Telecom.
The benefits of those decisions are now clear. Customers have a real choice in the equipment that they buy; they no longer have to wait for months to have a telephone line installed; BT investment has doubled to around £3 billion a year; Mercury is established as a serious competitor and has installed a national digital network that far exceeds in coverage its licence obligations; prices have fallen by over 20 per cent. in real terms since BT's privatisation and by a third in areas where competition is strongest, for example trunk calls; we have the two largest mobile phone networks in the world; and companies are now committed to major investments in cable television and personal communications networks.
Those benefits have been greatest where the market is most open and competition is strongest. It is time to build on these achievements by further opening up our telecommunications market to increased choice and competition.
My main proposal is that we should end the present duopoly policy. There would in future be a presumption that applications for licences to run telecommunications systems should be granted unless there were specific reasons to the contrary. The proposals in the document are aimed at strengthening competition and increasing customer choice in all three tiers of the telecommunications system: the local network, the trunk network and international services.
In the local network there is little competition as yet, but nearly 70 per cent. of the homes in the country fall within franchises awarded to cable television companies.
450
The Government and the Director General of Telecommunications wish to encourage these companies to provide telecommunications as well as entertainment services. The director general proposes several measures, in particular to reconsider the restriction on cable companies providing voice telephony except in conjunction with BT or Mercury.
I have considered whether BT and other national public telecommunications operators should be allowed to provide entertainment services over their main networks. Consumers might theoretically benefit from that through lower prices. However, the prospect of BT entering the market might deter cable companies from investing, even if BT did not enter the market itself. The consumer would then lose out, both on the provision of cable entertainment and on the benefits of competition in local telephone services.
I am therefore proposing that BT should not be allowed to provide entertainment services until 10 years after the completion of the duopoly review. If, however, seven years after the completion of the review the director general advises that an earlier date would be likely to promote more effective competition, we would consider bringing forward the 10-year limit.
In the trunk area of the market, I would be inclined to consider favourably applications for new licences to run networks. The director general favours the progressive introduction of equal access to give customers greater choice over who should carry their calls. I also propose that utilities should be able to develop their assets for telecommunications purposes, provided that the resulting competition is fair and firmly in the private sector.
In the area of international telecommunications, the director general has already made it clear that he intends to seek a price cap on BT's international services. The director general has also considered the remaining restrictions on the ability of companies to compete with BT and Mercury by leasing circuits from them and reselling capacity to third parties. He has advised me that those restrictions should be lifted in relation to countries which allow an equivalent resale of international capacity. I welcome that advice and invite comments on the director general's conclusions and on the timing of their implementation.
I propose that the duopoly policy should be ended for international telecommunications as elsewhere. I propose also a major liberalisation of two-way satellite services.
BT's prices are subject to regulatory control. It argues that its call charges are too high relative to cost, while its charges for exchange line rental and connection are too low. It therefore seeks to be allowed to restructure its prices, so as to recover more revenue from rentals and connection charges and correspondingly less from calls.
BT is already allowed to restructure its prices to a certain extent as part of the existing price controls that it agreed as recently as 1988. In the light of that and other considerations, the director general has concluded that a case has not yet been made for any greater restructuring than is currently allowed. He therefore proposes that the present price constraints should remain in place until they are reviewed in 1993.
This country has already benefited from our policies of privatisation and competition. Other countries are now following our example. Privatisation has recently taken place in New Zealand and is being actively considered in countries as diverse as Malaysia, Poland and Mexico.

451
Competition is being introduced not just in places such as Japan and Australia, but even in the tightly regulated markets elsewhere in Europe. Moreover, because of the United Kingdom's lead, this country is becoming a telecommunications "hub" for western Europe.
The Government are committed to reinforce that lead and to ensure that consumers have the widest possible choice of high quality services at the most competitive price.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister agree that the real test of his duopoly review will not be theoretical but practical—that of a genuine improvement in standards and of a reduction in cost for the 19 million households currently each paying a £78 standing charge, a 15 per cent. increase in cheap rate local calls, and an average 9 per cent. rise in bills? All that is on top of a £148 connection charge, for a service that generates half a million complaints every year.
Why do the Minister's proposals do nothing to set targets for the quality of service, set no objectives for long-term research and investment, offer no promise of lower prices and do nothing for more than 3 million households that cannot afford a phone? While we welcome competition in the area of mobile communications and personal communication networks, and believe that, if there is to be genuine competition, British Telecom should not be excluded from competing in those areas—as the Minister has proposed today—or from distributing television pictures, and although we will endorse further competition where it is in the public interest, we hold the view that competition is not itself a substitute for regulation in the interests of the consumer. No telephone company in Europe or the world successfully meets the needs of ordinary consumers without active public regulation.
Will the Minister explain why, according to his statement, Britain is to be the only country in Europe that intends to reduce consumer regulation over the coming years? Will he repudiate the Minister of State's statement that regulation should be reduced and instead state clearly that competition in new areas will not provide the excuse for the Government's complete abdication of their responsibilities?
Will the Minister now face up to his regulatory responsibilities in the public interest? Will he impose on all companies clear quality of service targets encompassing speed of repairs, accuracy of bills and automatic refunds where service is poor? Will he set the objective for all companies of reducing installation and standing charges? Given that British Telecom is enjoying record profits, will he act to prevent charges to ordinary consumers for directory inquiry services? Will he lay down guidelines for improved investment in new high technology, to make Britain genuinely a world leader and put an end to the situation in which British Telecom spends only 2 per cent. of its income on research—and Cable and Wireless substantially less—compared with 4 per cent. in Japan, France and other competitor countries?
Given that 90 per cent. of homes in Germany, 93 per cent. in America and 98 per cent. in France have telephones, but that only 86 per cent. of British households have a phone, will the Minister set targets for increasing connections, so that phone ownership will reach the level enjoyed by our major competitors by the year 2000? Will the Minister insist on the provision of a proper service for
452
low-income users of the telephone—one that does not offer most benefits to rich people having high incomes and second homes, when those in real difficulty are people on low incomes living in their first and only homes—
Will the Minister expand Oftel's role to that of a genuine consumer protection commission whose activities will include public hearings, so that telephone executives will not be able to hide from public criticisms, which should be answered, concerning British Telecom's pricing policy, quality of service, profits, and future plans—
Six years after privatisation, Britain's call costs are the highest in Europe. Its connection and standing charges are also among the highest and now there are plans for new charges. However, the Minister spoke today only of "the theoretical" benefit of his proposals to the ordinary consumer. When will he realise that 19 million households want not a charter primarily to allow foreign cable companies to make money, but one that serves British consumers—and a Government who are prepared to act in the public interest in ensuring improved standards, lower prices, and a telecommunications service that is run for the many and not simply to make huge profits for the few?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) wants to go back to a nationalised system, fully regulated, with no choice, no competition, poor standards and the difficulties we once had to get lines installed. He pays lip service to competition, but all his emphasis is on regulation. That is an extraordinary paradox, because under Labour there was no regulator for the telecommunications industry. The Fabian Society document, which I note the hon. Gentleman has read, recorded that the Post Office was left to regulate itself. We introduced a regulator independent of the Government and of the telecommunications suppliers, which is by far the best system and much superior to the one that preceded it.
The hon. Gentleman has claimed that we are the only country to be reducing regulations, but that is nonsense. Throughout the world, countries are learning from our example and are seeking to reduce unnecessary regulation and introduce more competition. Competition is beneficial, but it cannot be relied on exclusively in an industry where there is a single, dominant supplier. That is why we continue with an effective regulator.
The hon. Gentleman wants us to lay down quality standards, but he ignores the fact that, for the first time, we have introduced penalties for delays in repairs or the installation of a new line. We are the only country to have such penalties and they are much more effective than the mere indicative standards that the hon. Gentleman has sought.
The hon. Gentleman wants to increase the mismatch between prices and costs. That is an extraordinarily bad policy to adopt towards prices; I believe that it is more sensible that they should reflect underlying costs. The hon. Gentleman wants to go back to a system whereby £250 million is paid by ordinary households for directory inquiries, when the bulk of them are undertaken by commercial organisations. Now that BT is introducing a charge for directory inquiries, the costs will be transferred to the people who seek those inquiries and, as a result, a quarter of a billion pounds will be taken off the charges that households face. In March next year, charges will be

453
reduced by 4·5 per cent. on local calls and 7 per cent. on trunk calls. Those reductions will be introduced at the same time as the charges for directory inquiries.
The hon. Gentleman claims that British Telecom only spends 1·9 per cent. on R and D. That is correct, and it is exactly the same as was spent under the previous Labour Government. The big difference is that BT's turnover has increased enormously, so the extent of R and D has increased. The international comparisons in which the hon.Gentleman indulged are a dangerous game, because in different countries research and development might be carried out by the telecom operators or by the equipment suppliers. In this country, our equipment suppliers invest a higher proportion of turnover in R and D than do our continental competitors.
The hon. Gentleman has claimed that our charges are higher than those on the continent, but the director general carried out an independent survey of a basket of charges and deduced that our charges are broadly the same. The hon. Gentleman has argued that the benefits will go primarily to foreign cable operators, but I believe that the harm that the Labour party would cause would be felt by the millions of shareholders in BT and Cable and Wireless who directly participate in the industry. We should support them and pay no attention to the criticisms of the Labour party.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have an important debate ahead of us today, when a large number of right hon. and hon. Members want to participate. I shall allow questions on this statement to continue until 4·15. We will then have the introduction of Members, followed by that important debate.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the course of the consultations, the office of the regulator and the efficiency with which that office carries out its task will be taken into account and be open to discussion? May I also be assured that the regulatory system that is introduced after the consultations will in no way debilitate the ability of Mercury and British Telecom, because of increased competition available thereafter to foreigners in this country, in the world markets in which they seek to operate?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes two good points. First, I assure him that the director general will be consulted at all stages of the consultation, that he has participated fully in drawing up the document and that he supports all the recommendations in it. Secondly, I agree that it is important that British companies should be enabled and encouraged to participate on the world stage. Indeed, they are well placed to do so, because they are privately owned and are the favoured operators in many countries. That is why British Telecom, for example, has won a contract for 3 million telephones to be installed in Thailand, Cable and Wireless is a participant in Japan and so on. We shall do nothing to undermine that and everything to support it.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Why are there no proposals in the document about the particular problems and needs of disabled people?
Mr. Lilley: That matter is discussed in the document. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will not have had time to read it in full. The director general has consulted British Telecom and is seeking to encourage BT to spend yet more. Last year it spent £3 million on the disabled. I believe that it is committed to spending £4 million on a special unit for the deaf and, naturally, we support BT undertaking such social obligations.
Mr. Michael Grylls: It is odd to hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) running down BT, when his party's Fabian Society said recently that it was hard not to be impressed with the pace of change in the last few years. Is it not a fact that the Government's telecommunications policy has been one of our great success stories? Following liberalisation and privatisation, we now have two international companies of great esteem, BT and Mercury and, even more important, thousands of small companies that could never have entered the market without that liberalisation. May we have an assurance that, under his proposals, there will not be any unfair advantage to nationalised companies compared with private sector companies, which want competition to be increased? In other words, may we be assured that he will not lean in favour of public sector companies?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellent Fabian Society document, with which I found much to agree, and to emphasise the importance of jobs in the industry, in the many subsidiary companies engaged in activities related to telecommunications, in the importance for industry as a whole of having an efficient and dynamic telecommunications sector and in the importance of winning markets abroad. As for the position of foreign state-owned companies that wish to participate in this country, I shall, of course, pay close attention to the degree of state ownership when considering granting a licence. Privatisation has been successful, and we do not wish to encourage nationalisation by the back door.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while all the smart waffle from the Labour Front Bench fails to disguise the freephone line to renationalisation, the Minister's commitment to privatisation appears to be somewhat limited? Is it not a fact that the apparent decision not to liberalise the price regime until 1993 is likely to keep British Telecom profits up artificially? How far is that related to the Government's wish to maintain a high value of their own shareholding of BT? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, whatever happens in the necessary freeing of the telecommunications industry to market forces, a fair deal is ensured for rural subscribers?
Mr. Lilley: I am not sure that I understood the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to make. The regulatory system puts a limit on the amount by which prices can rise. It does not boost prices. We have in the review increased the scope and extent of competition, which may keep prices below their limit in some areas of the market, and increasingly so as competition spreads. The agreement with the director general runs to 1993 and can subsequently be extended with another agreement.
We have made it absolutely clear, as has the director general, that we wish to see continuing adequate provision

455
for rural users. There must be grave doubts about whether it is more expensive to supply them, as some people suggest, or much the same, as others allege.
Mr. Edward Heath: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Telecom has dramatically, in one step, raised the cost of a wake-up call to £2·49 per call—£17·46 a week? Therefore, is he surprised that the greater part of the nation can no longer afford to be woken up?
Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has never had that problem or needed that service. He will be pleased to know that, now that there is competition on so-called value added services over the line, he will be able to seek a more cost-effective competitor, and I suggest he does so.
Mr. John McWilliam: May I declare my interest, which is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott)? I am sponsored by the engineering section of the National Communications Union. Does not the Minister accept that his proposals for the local loop will produce no competition in reality, particularly in rural districts? Does he also accept that the development of a national broad band network, which industry and commerce need going into the next century, will not happen under his proposals? Finally, does he accept that the proposals to allow foreign cable competitors into our market, while we do not have equal access into theirs, could be widely seen by many of us as little short of economic treason?
Mr. Lilley: First, I pay tribute to the members of the hon. Member's union and employees of British Telecom and other companies generally. They have demonstrated that, once freed from the shackles of nationalisation, they are well able to compete internationally, and produce excellent and improving services and that there is nothing wrong with them.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's points. His suggestion that there has been no additional competition in rural districts is not necessarily the case. We are looking for competition to come into local networks in three ways—first, the cable operation, which might not extend into some regional districts; secondly, the expansion of the mobile networks, possibly allowing them to introduce relationships with fixed links that might be of value in those districts—radio communication is already being used by BT in rural districts, which is one reason, as I have said, that it is not necessarily more expensive; and thirdly, equal access will be made available to people progressively across the country, if that is the eventual conclusion of the consultation. That will ultimately be just as available to those in rural districts as to those in urban ones.
As for international companies, we are seeking to enable BT and other companies to participate in other markets, just as we allow other companies to participate in ours.
Mr. John Gorst: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether it is possible to hope now, as a result of what he is implementing, a reduction in the cost of calls from car telephones and other forms of mobile telephones? Can we now look forward to an acceleration in the use of mobile telephones in Europe?
Mr. Lilley: As my hon. Friend knows, we recently licensed three new PCN operators, in addition to the two mobile operators and the four telepoint operators. Competition between them should extend the coverage of mobile networks and ultimately reduce charges, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no competition over telephones in my community and there is no likelihood of delivering the number of television services unless cable television is introduced? The Minister has shut the door on the possibility of British Telecom delivering cable television. Surely that option should remain open if the Minister is to force other cable television companies to come into communities such as mine.
Mr. Lilley: The danger is that, if we gave British Telecom the right to pass entertainment services over its network, the cable operators would never invest in the necessary network because they would fear the eventual entry of BT. So we might end up with the worst of all possible worlds: neither BT nor the cable operators. That is why we believe that there is a need for a degree of regulation in this area to allow alternative competitors to build up over a period of up to 10 years. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that those on the Opposition Front Bench agree with him on this.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend increase the powers of Oftel? Is he aware that the Director General of Oftel wrote to me a short while ago agreeing with me that the restrictive practices that British Telecom operates by not allowing the addresses which are freely available in telephone directories to be revealed to those who inquire of telephone directory inquiries are indeed restrictive practices and should be abolished? Why should a service that is so widely in demand by people who merely want to write a letter to someone who happens to live in another part of the country be refused by British Telecom and not be allowed to be provided to any other agencies that might like to provide it?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I shall discuss it with the Director General and see whether there is a case for taking it forward.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is dealing with a complicated and important issue in the context of areas such as Scotland? Not only do the proposals deal with communications by telephone; they have an important impact on information technology, too.
Why does the infant industry argument apply to protecting areas in which 70 per cent. of people have cable television but not to rural areas? Why is there no positive discrimination to ensure that rural areas and other parts of Scotland get the services they require if industry and commerce are to be sited there after 1992?
Mr. Lilley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the Highlands and Islands area made a principal sales pitch out of the fact that it is in the forefront of introducing digital technology, which is a great attraction to new service industries and companies coming to the area. That has been achieved by this Government.
Mr. Roger Knapman: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement? Will he disagree with the opinion that BT is a natural and necessary monopoly, the phrase used by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?
Mr. Lilley: It is clearly the dominant supplier at the moment. Through these proposals and this review we are seeking to determine whether we can extend competition into areas that it has not reached and deepen it where it exists already. There is nothing natural and inevitable about a monopoly in this area, especially as new technologies open up new opportunities for introducing competition. Happily, we are at the forefront of exploiting these new technologies world wide.
Mr. Terry Lewis: With the introduction of new players to the field, will the Secretary of State consider statutory supervision of the entertainment services?
Mr. Lilley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and the campaign that he has waged on this, with which I have some sympathy. He will know that people already can be prosecuted for obscene communications over the telecommunications network, either by individuals or by the police; and that there is a voluntary code of practice with a number of safeguards to prevent the abuse of these services.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Like the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), I declare a financial interest in this matter: it is the subject of public record. Will my right hon. Friend give serious attention not only to state-owned companies but to privately owned monopolies in other countries that might make bids for trunk operations? What time scale does he have in mind for implementing this document?
Mr. Lilley: It is not our practice to exclude foreign private investment in this country. As one of the largest investors overseas, we would be the last to try to introduce barriers to the flow of investment in either direction. We shall try to ensure that companies that inhibit BT, Cable and Wireless or other companies from operating in their countries remove those restrictions. We shall argue that within the context of the GATT round.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when considering in his statement the various organisations that are competing in the telecommunications market, he made a serious omission? He left out Kingston Telecommunications a company which provides cheaper telephone services and a far better quality service than BT and which is developing value-added networks. Will he confirm that the review will in no way impair the excellent work over recent years to develop this high-technology company, which is much loved by the people of Humberside?
Mr. Lilley: I can confirm that to the hon. Gentleman. That company has been a little beacon of competition in the former state sector and it has pioneered a form of equal access which will undoubtedly have lessons for the rest of the country. We welcome that.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the fact that, since 1979, the Opposition have opposed every attempt by the Government to introduce more competition to the telecommunications system, does
458
my right hon. Friend agree that they have a cheek to sneer at his statement? Do they think that people easily forget that if they had had their way over the past 11 years we would still have a telecommunications system that was a cosy state-run monopoly, run for the benefit of the unions and not the consumers, and probably still supplying dial telephones after a six-month wait?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one wants a case study, one has only to look at the introduction of mobile telephones in Britain and Germany. Here we introduced two competitors, but in Germany there is a state-run monopoly. Now Britain has a market that is five times the size of the market in Germany.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that at least part of the increased profits shown by British Telecommunications arises from its disgraceful decision to take a contributions holiday from the workers' pension fund because it decided that there was a surplus in that fund? When the Secretary of State pays tribute to those workers, will he condemn the action of BT in robbing the pension fund in order to inflate its profits? When he was asked about provision for disabled people, he said that it was mentioned in the document. What are the specific proposals?
Mr. Lilley: I mentioned some of the specific proposals in answer to an earlier question. Already BT spends about £3 million on the disabled. There is special provision in the charge for directory inquiries to exempt blind people, and they will have the benefit of lower call charges and so on.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cable television industry is poised to make an investment of some £4 billion in the infrastructure of this country and that that will have considerable benefits for both domestic and business consumers? I think that my right hon. Friend may know about my interest in this case. Does he agree that that investment would be prejudiced unless it is made on fair terms and that therefore the bar on BT carrying entertainment is critical? will he explain how the 10-year bar on BT carrying entertainment might be reduced to seven years and how that would operate?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In our judgment, a guarantee period is necessary. Initially, we propose 10 years, but it is suggested in the document that if, after seven years, the director general believes that the industry is sufficiently well established and profitable and that competition can be further enhanced by shortening that time scale, he will do that. However, he will not make that decision until seven years have passed and then only if he judges that things have gone very well until then. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked about pension funds. I never question points made by actuaries. I can only assume that the actuary was well satisfied with the success of British Telecom's pension fund in investing in other healthy British companies.
Mr. Roger Stott: The Secretary of State will be aware of the great strides made by British Telecom in the fibre-optic broad band networks. Before that network can be introduced to the local loop, it will be necessary for British Telecom to provide finance for the loop. Is the Secretary of State aware that that can only be done if the

459
asymmetry rule is withdrawn'? Why is he forbidding competition by not allowing British Telecom to carry entertainment on its lines? That would provide finance for fibre optics in the local loop. Why is he against such competition?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member is right. There have been considerable advances in the use of fibre optics. Before privatisation, BT had 13,000 km of fibre optics entrenched. It now has 1·1 million km of fibre optics installed. The question is whether we should compel or artificially encourage the further extension of this. The Labour party is committed to making BT cover the country with fibre optics. I agree with the Fabian Society that that is a silly policy and that it is not for the Government to choose between alternative technologies. As to whether this could be facilitated by removing the asymmetrical policy, I believe that my other arguments are compelling. It is open to BT to introduce fibre optics and other devices to bring telephony to the household before the 10 years are up, if it so wishes.
Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the view, promoted by Mercury among others, that ending the duopoly at this point will reinforce BT in its predominant market share, while myriad smaller suppliers compete for 15 per cent. or whatever of the market, in turn making it difficult for any competitor of comparable size to BT to emerge. I do not necessarily subscribe to that view, which could be dismissed in the case of Mercury by saying, "It would say that anyway," but I invite my right hon. Friend to give us his views on that issue.
Mr. Lilley: Yes, that is an important question, to which one needs to respond. Mercury is well established and a viable and strong company. It will potentially benefit from a number of proposals in this document. For example, the extension of competition to local networks will, even if not carried by Mercury itself, feed more calls into the Mercury network as, very often, those new competitors will wish to channel calls through the competitive Mercury system. The introduction of equal access, if we go ahead with it, will also probably help Mercury, and it has advocated it. A number of the measures that we have proposed will strengthen rather than undermine Mercury.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I warmly welcome the statement, because competition and choice will benefit customers. As we have two of the largest mobile telephone networks in the world, has the Minister any plans to recommend to the manufacturers of mobile telephones that they should carry a security warning?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may be pleased to know that the introduction of the new digital technology next year will make interception far more difficult. I shall make sure that a certain Minister in the Northern Ireland Office is one of the first to receive the new technology.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend referred to the importance of fibre optics. Will he undertake to allow British Rail to use its fibre optic network? Does he think that the decision to offer more licences will have any impact on BT's proposals to charge for directory inquiries?
Mr. Lilley: I propose in the document that utilities such as British Rail should be able to compete and receive licences so long as they do so fairly and firmly in the private sector. That means that they must not give exclusive wayleaves over their land to one private company, and if they participate in a private company, it should be majority private owned. I hope that that will meet my hon. Friend's concerns.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Did the Secretary of State use the clout that goes with retaining 49 per cent. of the shares in BT to argue against the introduction of charges for directory inquiries? Does he intend to sell that stake before May 1992?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member is quite unaware that the quarter of a billion pounds spent on directory inquiries will be paid by those making the inquiries and that every penny of it will come off the charges paid by ordinary users. Charges will be reduced by 4·5 per cent. for local calls and 7·3 per cent. on trunk calls, at the same time as charges are introduced. Many of these inquiries are carried out by commercial organisations such as marketing firms. I see no reason why households should subsidise marketing organisations.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has referred to the fact that the Government remain a 49 per cent. shareholder in BT, and he alluded to the fact that, although some things may be legal, they are highly undesirable, such as nasty phone lines. We know that BT responded to widespread anger at the way in which they were being used. May I refer my right hon. Friend to the BT advertisement that appears on page 19 of The Sun and to that on page 10, which draws attention to the privatisation of electricity supply, and say to him, as the thought of the day, that we should judge people by their supporters and that Government advertising should no longer support The Sun if is behaves as it did on the front page of today's edition, which is how the Russians behaved during the mid-1960s to Commander Courtney?
Mr. Lilley: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I thought that the front page of The Sun was disgusting and I did not get to page 19. I hope that it will not be repeated. However, I do not want to see Government advertising used in a discriminatory way according to the contents of newspapers.

Telecommunications

  NEW MEMBERS
  The following Members took and subscribed the oath:
  Terence Henry Rooney Esq., for Bradford, North.
  Joseph Edward Benton Esq., for Bootle.

Personal Statement
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that a resignation statement is heard in silence and without interruption.
4.19 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find to my astonishment that a quarter of a century has passed since I last spoke from one of the Back Benches. Fortunately, however, it has been my privilege to serve for the past 12 months of that time as Leader of the House of Commons, so I have been reminded quite recently of the traditional generosity and tolerance of this place. I hope that I may count on that today as I offer to the House a statement about my resignation from the Government.
It has been suggested—even, indeed, by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that I decided to resign solely because of questions of style and not on matters of substance at all. Indeed, if some of my former colleagues are to be believed, I must be the first Minister in history who has resigned because he was in full agreement with Government policy. The truth is that, in many aspects of politics, style and substance complement each other. Very often, they are two sides of the same coin.
The Prime Minister and I have shared something like 700 meetings of Cabinet or shadow Cabinet during the past 18 years, and some 400 hours alongside each other, at more than 30 international summit meetings. For both of us, I suspect, it is a pretty daunting record. The House might well feel that something more than simple matters of style would be necessary to rupture such a well-tried relationship.
It was a privilege to serve as my right hon. Friend's first Chancellor of the Exchequer; to share in the transformation of our industrial relations scene; to help launch our free market programme, commencing with the abolition of exchange control; and, above all, to achieve such substantial success against inflation, getting it down within four years from 22 per cent. to 4 per cent. upon the basis of the strict monetary discipline involved in the medium-term financial strategy. Not one of our economic achievements would have been possible without the courage and leadership of my right hon. Friend—and, if I may say so, they possibly derived some little benefit from the presence of a Chancellor who was not exactly a wet himself.
It was a great honour to serve for six years as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and to share with my right hon. Friend in some notable achievements in the European Community—from Fontainebleau to the Single European Act. But it was as we moved on to consider the crucial monetary issues in the European context that I came to feel increasing concern. Some of the reasons for that anxiety were made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in his resignation speech just over 12 months ago. Like him, I concluded at least five years ago that the conduct of our policy against inflation could no longer rest solely on attempts to measure and control the domestic money supply. We had no doubt that we should be helped in that battle, and, indeed, in other respects, by joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
There was, or should have been, nothing novel about joining the ERM; it has been a long-standing commitment. For a quarter of a century after the second
462
world war, we found that the very similar Bretton Woods regime did serve as a useful discipline. Now, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged two weeks ago, our entry into the ERM can be seen as an
"extra discipline for keeping down inflation."—[Official Report, 30 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 888.]
However, it must be said that that practical conclusion has been achieved only at the cost of substantial damage to her Administration and, more serious still, to its inflation achievements.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby explained:
"The real tragedy is that we did not join the exchange rate mechanism … at least five years ago."
As he also made clear,
"That was not for want of trying."—[Official Report, 23 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 216.]
Indeed, the so-called Madrid conditions came into existence only after the then Chancellor and I, as Foreign Secretary, made it clear that we could not continue in office unless a specific commitment to join the ERM was made.
As the House will no doubt have observed, neither member of that particular partnership now remains in office. Our successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer has, during the past year, had to devote a great deal of his considerable talents to demonstrating exactly how those Madrid conditions have been attained, so as to make it possible to fulfil a commitment whose achievement has long been in the national interest.
It is now, alas, impossible to resist the conclusion that today's higher rates of inflation could well have been avoided had the question of ERM membership been properly considered and resolved at a much earlier stage. There are, I fear, developing grounds for similar anxiety over the handling—not just at and after the Rome summit—of the wider, much more open question of economic and monetary union.
Let me first make clear certain important points on which I have no disagreement with my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister. I do not regard the Delors report as some kind of sacred text that has to be accepted, or even rejected, on the nod. But it is an important working document. As I have often made plain, it is seriously deficient in significant respects.
I do not regard the Italian presidency's management of the Rome summit as a model of its kind—far from it. It was much the same, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will recall, in Milan some five years ago.
I do not regard it as in any sense wrong for Britain to make criticisms of that kind plainly and courteously, nor in any sense wrong for us to do so, if necessary, alone. As I have already made clear, I have, like the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends, fought too many European battles in a minority of one to have any illusions on that score.
But it is crucially important that we should conduct those arguments upon the basis of a clear understanding of the true relationship between this country, the Community and our Community partners. And it is here, I fear, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister increasingly risks leading herself and others astray in matters of substance as well as of style.
It was the late Lord Stockton, formerly Harold Macmillan, who first put the central point clearly. As long ago as 1962, he argued that we had to place and keep ourselves within the EC. He saw it as essential then, as it is today, not to cut ourselves off from the realities of

463
power; not to retreat into a ghetto of sentimentality about our past and so diminish our own control over our own destiny in the future.
The pity is that the Macmillan view had not been perceived more clearly a decade before in the 1950s. It would have spared us so many of the struggles of the last 20 years had we been in the Community from the outset; had we been ready, in the much too simple phrase, to "surrender some sovereignty" at a much earlier stage.
If we had been in from the start, as almost everybody now acknowledges, we should have had more, not less, influence over the Europe in which we live today. We should never forget the lesson of that isolation, of being on the outside looking in, for the conduct of today's affairs.
We have done best when we have seen the Community not as a static entity to be resisted and contained, but as an active process which we can shape, often decisively, provided that we allow ourselves to be fully engaged in it, with confidence, with enthusiasm and in good faith.
We must at all costs avoid presenting ourselves yet again with an over-simplified choice, a false antithesis, a bogus dilemma, between one alternative, starkly labelled "co-operation between independent sovereign states" and a second, equally crudely labelled alternative, "centralised, federal super-state", as if there were no middle way in between.
We commit a serious error if we think always in terms of "surrendering" sovereignty and seek to stand pat for all time on a given deal—by proclaiming, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did two weeks ago, that we have "surrendered enough".
The European enterprise is not and should not be seen like that—as some kind of zero sum game. Sir Winston Churchill put it much more positively 40 years ago, when he said:
"It is also possible and not less agreeable to regard"
this sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty
"as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions."
I have to say that I find Winston Churchill's perception a good deal more convincing, and more encouraging for the interests of our nation, than the nightmare image sometimes conjured up by my right hon. Friend, who seems sometimes to look out upon a continent that is positively teeming with ill-intentioned people, scheming, in her words, to "extinguish democracy", to
"dissolve our national identities"
and to lead us
"through the back-door into a federal Europe".
What kind of vision is that for our business people, who trade there each day, for our financiers, who seek to make London the money capital of Europe or for all the young people of today?
These concerns are especially important as we approach the crucial topic of economic and monetary union. We must be positively and centrally involved in this debate and not fearfully and negatively detached. The costs of disengagement here could be very serious indeed.
There is talk, of course, of a single currency for Europe. I agree that there are many difficulties about the concept—both economic and political. Of course, as I said in my letter of resignation, none of us wants the imposition of a single currency. But that is not the real risk. The 11 others cannot impose their solution on the 12th country against its will, but they can go ahead without us. The risk is not
464
imposition but isolation. The real threat is that of leaving ourselves with no say in the monetary arrangements that the rest of Europe chooses for itself, with Britain once again scrambling to join the club later, after the rules have been set and after the power has been distributed by others to our disadvantage. That would be the worst possible outcome.
It is to avoid just that outcome and to find a compromise both acceptable in the Government and sellable in Europe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put forward his hard ecu proposal. This lays careful emphasis on the possibility that the hard ecu as a common currency could, given time, evolve into a single currency. I have of course supported the hard ecu plan. But after Rome, and after the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister two weeks ago, there is grave danger that the hard ecu proposal is becoming untenable, because two things have happened.
The first is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has appeared to rule out from the start any compromise at any stage on any of the basic components that all the 11 other countries believe to be a part of EMU—a single currency or a permanently fixed exchange rate, a central bank or common monetary policy. Asked whether we would veto any arrangement that jeopardised the pound sterling, my right hon. Friend replied simply, "Yes." That statement means not that we can block EMU but that they can go ahead without us. Is that a position that is likely to ensure, as I put it in my resignation letter, that
"we hold, and retain, a position of influence in this vital debate"?
I fear not. Rather, to do so, we must, as I said, take care not to rule in or rule out any one solution absolutely. We must be seen to be part of the same negotiation.
The second thing that happened was, I fear, even more disturbing. Reporting to this House, my right hon. Friend almost casually remarked that she did not think that many people would want to use the hard ecu anyway—even as a common currency, let alone as a single one. It was remarkable—indeed, it was tragic—to hear my right hon. Friend dismissing, with such personalised incredulity, the very idea that the hard ecu proposal might find growing favour amoung the peoples of Europe, just as it was extraordinary to hear her assert that the whole idea of EMU might be open for consideration only by future generations. Those future generations are with us today.
How on earth are the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, commending the hard ecu as they strive to, to be taken as serious participants in the debate against that kind of background noise? I believe that both the Chancellor and the Governor are cricketing enthusiasts, so I hope that there is no monopoly of cricketing metaphors. It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.
The point was perhaps more sharply put by a British business man, trading in Brussels and elsewhere, who wrote to me last week, stating:
"People throughout Europe see our Prime Minister's finger-wagging and hear her passionate, 'No, No, No', much more clearly than the content of the carefully worded formal texts."
He went on:
"It is too easy for them to believe that we all share her attitudes; for why else has she been our Prime Minister for so long?"

465
My correspondent concluded:
"This is a desperately serious situation for our country."
And sadly, I have to agree.
The tragedy is—and it is for me personally, for my party, for our whole people and for my right hon. Friend herself, a very real tragedy—that the Prime Minister's perceived attitude towards Europe is running increasingly serious risks for the future of our nation. It risks minimising our influence and maximising our chances of being once again shut out. We have paid heavily in the past for late starts and squandered opportunities in Europe. We dare not let that happen again. If we detach ourselves completely, as a party or a nation, from the middle ground of Europe, the effects will be incalculable and very hard ever to correct.
In my letter of resignation, which I tendered with the utmost sadness and dismay, I said:
"Cabinet Government is all about trying to persuade one another from within".
That was my commitment to Government by persuasion—persuading colleagues and the nation. I have tried to do that as Foreign Secretary and since, but I realise now that the task has become futile: trying to stretch the meaning of words beyond what was credible, and trying to pretend that there was a common policy when every step forward risked being subverted by some casual comment or impulsive answer.
The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real—and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned. In doing so, I have done what I believe to be right for my party and my country. The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    FIFTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 November].
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Younger.].
    Question again proposed.

    Education and Training
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce that I have selected the first amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and that furthermore today, because of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. I should have liked to put the limit on somewhat earlier, but we have two maiden speeches today and that would have been unnecessarily harsh and perhaps unfair to those hon. Members. Therefore, I ask hon. Members who are called before 7 pm to bear it in mind that I should be most grateful and the whole House would applaud them if they could keep their speeches to approximately 10 minutes in length.
    4.38 pm
    Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
    But humbly note the increasing anxiety of parents and employers that the education and training policies of Her Majesty's Government have seriously undermined choice and opportunity and placed standards at risk; express anxiety and concern that Britain's investment and achievement in education and training is leaving the country further behind its major European and other competitors; condemn Her Majesty's Government for its incompetence towards, and mismanagement of, the education service and its profound failure to fulfil its proper and necessary role in improving and upgrading the skills base of the nation; and believe that standards will only be raised and opportunities increased by a change of administration to a government committed to serious investment in the nation's future.
    It is customary to congratulate a new Secretary of State on his appointment to office, and that I do. The presence of a new Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box results from the deep political crisis that faces this broken-backed Administration. It is not only a crisis about the future role of Britain in Europe but a crisis of confidence in the Government's ability—indeed, their inability—to provide the standards of education and training enjoyed by our major competitors in Europe and beyond. Never has public anxiety about the state of Britain's education system been greater. Never has public confidence in the Government's ability to deliver a decent standard of education been lower.
    In last week's Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph,82 per cent. of respondents said that Britain was not giving

    467
    enough attention to education; 73 per cent. believed that the quality of education in Britain was declining. 'When asked who was to blame, just 10 per cent. blamed the Government's usual scapegoat, the local education authorities; 4 per cent. blamed the teachers' unions and 68 per cent. blamed the Government. So much for the Prime Minister's claim in February:
    "The education service is in better shape than it has ever been."—[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 757.]
    If the Government had set out on a deliberate strategy to ensure that Britain fell further and further behind its major competitors in education and training, they could hardly have done better. In the early and mid-1980s, the Government undermined the foundations of the education service by deep cuts in spending and continuous abuse of the teaching profession. Then the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) put intolerable pressures on the system by imposing contentious and ill-conceived changes on all schools without consultation.
    Then came the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is now the Leader of the House. I believe that he recognised the damage and havoc caused by his predecessor, but he lacked the political clout to do much about it and was consistently and publicly undermined and humiliated by Downing street, the chairman of the Conservative party and central office. So now we have the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The man who, at the Department of Health, increased hospital waiting lists, closed wards and alienated health workers and patients alike is now to be responsible for the education of our children. How long will it be before the Secretary of State who derided professional ambulance personnel as mere drivers calls professional and highly trained teachers just minders?
    The Secretary of State may be new to the Department of Education and Science, but he is not new to Conservative education policy. In his speech 17 months ago he proudly admitted part authorship of the education section of the Government's 1987 manifesto. In that speech he claimed that in education and health the Government were not
    "opposed by left or right"
    and that the only opposition to the Government's education policies were
    "the forces of pure reaction and the resistance to change of the trades unions—the middle class and professional trade unions in particular—who represent the deliverers of the service … the teachers."
    He concluded in a spectacular passage:
    "The National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers are now looking like powerless spectators as Kenneth Baker's reforms sweep on past them to mounting public approval."
    Even as the Secretary of State spoke, what little public approval had existed for the promise of the Baker reforms evaporated as their desperate practice dawned. It even dawned on many Conservative associations. In a resolution the Conservative association of Doncaster, North complained of
    "the manifest failure of the Baker education reforms to improve standards of learning."
    The simple truth is that after 11 years the Government's education policies have collapsed.
    The Government lack ambition for the nation's children and have failed to provide the leadership, funding and effective management which the education and training services so desperately need.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I must admit that I do not know what goes on in Doncaster. However, I have made a wide-ranging tour particularly of the primary schools in my constituency. The heads of those primary schools are almost unanimous in their approval of the recent changes to the system under which they have to operate.
    Mr. Straw: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that his experience is not that of almost any other head teacher in the country. Nor is it the experience of the chairman of the Kent education committee who recently wrote to parents condemning the Government's proposals for
    The Government's lack of ambition is shown most emphatically by their failure during 11 years significantly to increase the proportion of young people aged between 16 and 19 in full-time education and high-quality training.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
    Recent figures from the DES show that, at 35 per cent., the proportion of young people staying on at 17 in Britain is lower than in any of our major competitors—half the rate of most.
    "What an incredible disregard of human potential to accept that 60 per cent. of our children leave school at 16 while in our competitor countries that number is 10 per cent. or less."
    So said Peter Morgan, the director general of the Institute of Directors, earlier this year.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
    There is no strategy to tackle that disregard of human potential, only ministerial confusion and contradiction. The former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), said in his speech last December that on behalf of the Government he would set stretching targets under which by 1992—just two years away—the number of young people obtaining the equivalent of five 0-levels or GCSEs grades A to C would be doubled to more than two thirds, and that in three years 25 per cent. of our young people should reach the national vocational qualification level 3, equivalent to two A-levels or more.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: I have told the hon. Lady that I shall give way in a moment.
    That was the promise made by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government. Within four weeks, he had left the Government, and every word that he said in that speech was repudiated by the Prime Minister and his successor.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: If the hon. Lady does not sit down, I shall not give way to her. I have told her that I shall give way. She must simply wait her turn.
    What the right hon. Gentleman said should be stretching targets were totally repudiated by the Prime Minister in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Leader of

    469
    the Opposition. She said that those stretching targets could not be "specific Government targets." The whole policy was simply dumped within four weeks of being formulated. In contrast to the shambles of the Government, Labour will set targets and those targets will be achievable. They will have the support of both sides of industry.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman referred to opted-out schools. I have two of those in my constituency and they are doing exceedingly well. The first has already appointed four extra members of staff and is about to appoint two more. The schools have been given 25 per cent. more cash in every subject department for equipment. They are managing their affairs infinitely better than Lancashire county council did on their behalf. We now hope that others will follow their excellent example.
    Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the detail of opting-out policy later, but the hon. Lady should know that opted-out schools have had more money because of the deliberate fiddling of the formulae. Opted-out schools are being bribed and given extra cash, for which the ratepayers and poll tax payers of Lancashire have to fork out.
    The Government's lack of ambition is also shown in nursery education. Britain has the lowest pre-school and child care provision of any of our major competitors and the Government have no strategy whatever for tackling it. In many Conservative areas, there is no choice or opportunity for nursery education for thousands of children, because there are insufficient nursery schools or nursery classes. In contrast to the Government, Labour will ensure that the Prime Minister's pledge of 1972 of nursery education for all is turned into a reality.
    Good leadership requires clarity, consistency and consent, but the education service has had none of them. Instead, it has been subjected to a lurch in one direction and a retreat in another. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley was told by everyone who knew anything about education that an inflexible, 10-subject national curriculum and associated testing would not work. Reality dawned on his successor. He set about a retreat, but it was never clear where that retreat would take him.
    As a result we got decision-making on the hoof, with different Ministers saying different things. In a speech in July, the former Secretary of State announced one series of so-called solutions to the problems left by his predecessor. Then up popped the new Minister of State, anxious for a headline, with another prescription. On 30 October he told The Daily Telegraph that the Government were planning
    "radical changes in secondary schools to allow less academic children to concentrate on vocational education from 14."
    It is not remotely clear whether that is to be the start of a great new reform along West German lines, some variant of the French system or, as I suspect, the introduction by the back door of a grammar stream to an unreformed A-level, and a secondary modern stream for the rest.
    The chaos in the curriculum before 16 is replicated post-16. The reform of education and training opportunities beyond 16 is of profound importance to the creation of real choice for young people and to secure the skills base of the economy. The present range of vocational qualifications and courses is, as the senior chief inspector of schools put it,
    470
    "a jungle in which talent and opportunity are lost",
    while A-levels as an examination are outdated and outmoded.
    The argument is, indeed, about standards. A-levels cause pointless over-specialisation which leads to the under-education of each generation, especially in science and technology. A-levels are even failing on their own terms. The number of entrants for A-levels in physics and mathematics, for example, has declined markedly. This country cannot possibly compete until the jungle at 16-plus is sorted out, as Labour has proposed. Everyone bar the Government knows that. There is no coherence from the Government, just confusion.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What the hon. Gentleman has said is extremely serious. The country will want to know now what alternatives he proposes to A-levels. He cannot undermine A-levels, which are valuable to a great many pupils, without proposing alternatives. That should be done in the same breath.
    Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman had waited, both would have been almost in the same breath. He knows as well as anybody that we have spoken a thousand times and published documents about our alternatives to A-levels and the reform of 16-plus education. Everyone bar the Government knows that there must be changes to 16-plus examinations.
    In 1988 the Government established a committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Higginson, with the remit to reform A-levels. Two weeks before it published its report, the members of that committee were privately told that the Government would accept their recommendations for a sensible system of a five-subject, slimmer but no less rigorous A-level qualification. Two weeks later, the report was publicly rejected as a result of a prime ministerial veto of the wishes of the previous Secretary of State. It is not just on European policy that Downing street disrupts Cabinet government. It is on educational policy and in many other areas. Two years were then wasted as various groups tried to salvage something from the mess. A-levels, AS-levels and some core skills were to be combined.
    In the summer, near-anarchy broke out on the ministerial corridor at the DES. The Secretary of State went on holiday, leaving the shop to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). On 17 August The Independent announced:
    "Minister rules out A-level changes."
    There were to be no changes to A-levels and no five-subject examination. Then the Under-Secretary went on holiday and the Secretary of State returned.
    "MacGregor hints at big A-level changes",
    he announced to The Independent on 11 September. He continued:
    "Major changes might be needed to A-levels to increase the number of pupils staying on."
    The Secretary of State was summoned to Downing street. The Under-Secretary of State returned from holiday, started up the war of words against his Secretary of State, attacked his advisory body and accused those who want reform of having been "hijacked" by progressive elements.
    Mr. James Pawsey: Be serious.
    Mr. Straw: I am serious.

    471
    The Government's indecision, chaos and failure of leadership is beyond belief. The shambles is all too characteristic of a Government who treat the education service like a plaything and experiment with the education of other people's children as though they were animals in some laboratory. What kind of lead can be given when the service has had three Secretaries of State in 15 months and when not one of the present ministerial team has held his present job for longer than four months?
    There is similar incoherence on the critical issue of vouchers—the scheme by which the Conservative party would end free state education. The Under-Secretary of State is a member of the No Turning Back group of right-wing Tory Members of Parliament. Eight weeks ago, the group published from Conservative central office a pamphlet calling for vouchers. As we well know, the Prime Minister said at the Conservative party conference that she hoped that the training voucher scheme
    "would not be the last".
    As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned just an hour and a half ago, the Secretary of State takes a different view. On television at the weekend he said emphatically of vouchers:
    "I don't think they play any part in the Government's plans."
    I do not know whether he was present for the exchange between my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister, but when the Prime Minister was asked three times whether she endorsed those words, she three times denied her Secretary of State.
    I offer him this chance to intervene in my speech. Will he tell us not what he thinks but what he knows about whether vouchers will play any part in the Government's plans? Will vouchers be in the next Conservative manifesto? Does he have the Prime Minister's approval of his answer?
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Plainly they will not. As my right hon. Friend and I have explained frequently, we have set out to achieve choice and money following the pupil. We have done that by open enrolment, local management of schools and the formula allocation of funds to children who go to those schools. As a result, all the aims pursued by those who advocated vouchers are being achieved by our present reforms. The idea of vouchers for schools is not on the Government's agenda,. It need not be arid will not be on the agenda, because we have found a better way of pursuing those highly desirable objectives.
    Mr. Straw: I am glad to have that categorical undertaking. It begs the questions why the Prime Minister did not say so and where it leaves the Under-Secretary of State, who does not remotely take that view. The No Turning Back group has written a pamphlet proposing the extension of the education voucher system to all parents.
    The Government have shown a fundamental lack of ambition and a failure of leadership, alongside a failure to provide funding and management. When the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box, he will probably tell us what a priority education spending has been for the Government. Since 1979, the Government have allowed the share of national income spent on education and science to fall by one eighth, from 5·5 per cent. in 1979 to 4·8 per cent. last year, which is equal to £3·5 billion at today's prices. The Secretary of State has been muttering
    472
    that national income has increased. If so, why could not education have enjoyed an increased share of it, instead of its being flung away in tax cuts for the rich?
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Under the Labour Government, when national income was not rising so quickly, the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education fell. The records of the two Governments show that we have given higher priority to education in our spending plans, and we continue to do so. The success of our economic policies has enabled us to increase spending in real terms per pupil by almost half as much again.
    Mr. Straw: That is simply not correct. The Secretary of State knows that the proportion of spending under the Labour Government rose, and that under the Labour Government previous to that, for the first time education took a greater share of the budget than defence. If the Secretary of State is so proud of the Government's record, perhaps he could explain why teachers have had to suffer real cuts in pay for each of the past three years. Why, since 1979, has the central Government share of educational spending been cut by more than a quarter in real terms?
    Why will the latest poll tax settlement mean enforced cuts in education budgets in areas such as Avon, where the local Conservatives are pushing for a £10 million cuts package for next year?
    The figures in last week's autumn statement for current spending will not even make good the 10 per cent. inflation with which local authorities have had to cope. As to capital spending, there is a £4 billion backlog of repairs and renewals. The Government's latest allocation means that urgent schemes will be put off yet again, and that pupils must continue to receive their education in crumbling schools. Last week's allocation is less in real terms than that made by the Labour Government in 1979. As a result of that measly allocation, in the summer the former Secretary of State banned church schools even from applying for money to build nursery classes, and suddenly announced that school building regulations passed by the House in July 1981 and due to be enforced next year were to be deferred for another five years.
    Those regulations are of great importance, as they lay down minimum standards for teaching areas for junior and middle schools and for sixth forms, and stipulate better changing accommodation for all schools, and separate recreation and play areas for nursery children. When those regulations were introduced, the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), said:
    "it is intended that in 10 years"—
    that is, next year—
    "all schools should be under the minimum regulations." —[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 28 July 1981; c. 21.]
    They will not, because 10 years of accumulated neglect by the Government will mean, on the Government's own admission, that millions of children will continue to receive their education in substandard accommodation.
    The Secretary of State referred to local management. It has become a terrible embarrassment for the Government, and in a characteristic effort to pass the buck, Ministers spent the summer claiming that wicked local education authorities have withheld thousands of pounds that should have been delegated to schools' budgets. Today's Daily Mail carries three pages of complaints about the red tape that is strangling our schools, the scandal of missing

    473
    teachers, the growing army of bureaucrats who do not teach even one child, and the fact that the number of non-classroom teachers has doubled in eight years.
    The Daily Mail quotes the Secretary of State as saying:
    "The Daily Mail has done a service to education by exposing this burgeoning bureaucracy."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be well advised in future to look before he fires, for by making that comment, he has shot his foot off. The number of non-classroom teachers has increased, but does the Secretary of State understand why, and who is responsible? That increase is the direct result of Government policies. Through the education support grant and training grant schemes, the Government are paying local authorities for non-classroom teachers to provide training in the national curriculum and testing, and to support all the other Government programmes.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his explanation does not excuse the disparity between the different local education authorities cited by the Daily Mail. Is he really leaping to the defence of bureaucracies such as that in Newcastle upon Tyne, where the proportion of non-teaching, non-classroom staff at 54 per cent. exceeds that of classroom teachers? If the hon. Gentleman will examine the league table in the Daily Mail, he will discover that Labour councils in particular spend more on bureaucracy than they do on their classrooms, which is the Labour party's consistent approach to public services.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State should also examine his Department. Bureaucracy has increased over the past three or four years because of the massive growth in the demands made on the education service by Government policies. The number of civil servants in the Secretary of State's Department has increased by 131 over the past three years, and the number of inspectors has risen by 22 per cent., to cope with the unrealistic demands on it.
    Labour-controlled Lancashire county council says:
    "We have checked the position in the summer term. We had 70 advisory teachers, 59 of whom are funded by programmes initiated and paid for by central Government, mainly the education support grant programme."
    Where non-classroom teachers in the Daily Mail survey are not paid by central Government, many are supply teachers used to cover vacancies caused by teacher shortages which have in turn been created by Government policies.
    I will explain to the Secretary of State why many Labour authorities have a higher proportion of non-teaching staff. It is because those authorities run nursery schools, which use a high proportion of such staff, including nursery nurses. Increasingly in Labour-controlled areas, nursery nurses are used in reception classes, to release primary school teachers to train in running the Government's national curriculum and assessment system. Labour areas also provide school meals services, which need people to run them.
    The level of holdback has been endorsed by every Education Minister in respect of all education authorities. It was endorsed by the former Secretary of State and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's new colleagues. The Government complain that one authority has a percentage holdback of X, and another of Y—but the
    474
    Government approved that power being given to local authorities. Holdback is higher in some authorities than in others because they have done what the Government asked in respect of competitive tendering for cleaning and catering services, and the proportion of holdback greatly increases in those cases.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman dodged all my questions about comparisons. The city having the highest proportion of non-classroom staff is Newcastle upon Tyne, and the city having the lowest is Leeds. Both are Labour-controlled. The same variations occur in the percentage holdback for local management of schools. It betrays the hon. Gentleman's real instincts to leap to the defence of authorities that are employing most people away from the classroom, and who are holding back a bigger proportion of their budget. He defends bureaucracy rather than classroom spending.
    Mr. Straw: I do not defend bureaucracy, and the Secretary of State has every reason to know that. We did not create the massive bureaucracy in town and country reorganisation: the Government did, by making repeated changes. Can the Secretary of State imagine the extent of the chaos created in an education dept by all the changes, made one after the other, to the national curriculum? Does he not appreciate that the reorganisation of local schools management—which may achieve in the long run a reduction in the number employed in the town halls and country halls—is bound to impose greater pressure initially? The Government circular acknowledges with one voice that it will mean an increase in the number of so-called bureaucrats about whom the Secretary of State complains.
    As to the variations, I believe in local democracy and that different boroughs should have the right to determine how much is spent on their local education service, and to sort out that matter with their own electors. That is for local authorities, not central Government.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene on that point?
    Mr. Straw: No. Many other hon. Members want to speak, and I have already given way several times.
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has made it clear that he will not give way.
    Mr. Straw: Not only is the whole education system short of money, but the Government have squandered money on irrelevant and doctrinaire projects that have mocked the needs of the 93 per cent. of children in the maintained sector. I refer to policies such as the assisted places scheme, opting out and city technology colleges. The worst favour that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley did for his party's supporters in Bradford was to site a city technology college in that city.
    Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
    Mr. Straw: No. I have already given way six times, and many other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am usually generous in allowing interventions.
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) must not persist when the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor has made it clear that he does not want to give way.
    Mr. Straw: Twelve days ago, the former Secretary of State said on television, that he could not understand why there is such opposition in Bradford to a city technology college. As I watched him on television, I was struck by the fact that he genuinely did not understand. Had he done so, he would never have agreed to the official opening of the CTC just a week before polling day in Bradford, North. The teachers and parents of Killingholme first school in Bradford understand why the children are housed in temporary buildings, and so do those not far away at St. Augustine's Church of England school—I visited it last week—where the ceiling has fallen down and the school has therefore closed. They understand that, had it not been for the £7 million squandered on the CTC, their schools would have been renewed. There would still be £4 million left to spend on other crumbling schools in Bradford.
    Opting out has palpably failed as a policy. It is known that Ministers do not want it to succeed. On 13 October, the then Secretary of State was reported in the Financial Times as believing that
    "if a majority of the nation's schools did opt out, the result could be an administrative nightmare for central government, which would have to supervise and fund thousands of schools."
    The failure has been so complete that that Secretary of State abandoned categorical pledges that he and his predecessor had given to the effect that opt-out schools would be treated no better financially than were LEA schools. Instead, at the Conservative party conference, the right hon. Gentleman brazenly announced a series of bribes for schools that left a local education authority. How can that bribery possibly be squared with the repeated undertaking made by one Secretary of State after another that there would be no difference between the financial treatment of local education authority and of opt-out schools?
    Although opting out has failed, it has paralysed the ability of LEAs to do what the Government say they want —to remove surplus places. The number of surplus places has shot up to more than 1,700,000, while the number of places removed by statutory closures in this Parliament is running at half the level achieved in the previous Parliament. The cost of that waste is at least £360 million. That money has been deliberately denied to our children while Ministers seek cynically to trap LEAs into naming schools for closure. The aim of the policy is not to improve the efficiency of the service, but to trigger opting out. Similar perverted priorities have been followed in higher education.
    Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of good education and said that that required clarity and consent. Does he agree that grant-maintained schools represent clarity and consent? It is necessary to have a ballot before opting out. What greater consent can one have than that? Will he give a commitment from the Dispatch Box that he will not abolish grant-maintained schools in the event of Labour coming into office?
    Mr. Straw: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that, on taking office, one of the first steps of the Labour Government will be to take opt-out schools back into the
    476
    local community and the LEAs. I am glad to say that that policy has the full support of the Conservative chairman of education on Kent county council.
    Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: No.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he give a further commitment that CTCs will also be taken back into LEA control?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has given me a chance to find the letter written by the Conservative chairman of Kent education committee, Mr. Ronnie Norman, who has protested about the evils of opting out. In a letter to the parents of those attending Wilmington grammar school for boys, he opposed opting out, and the argument that he advanced is exactly the same as ours. He stated:
    "We also want our schools to be open to the whole community and to be part of it. Schools which opt-out frustrate these aims."
    That argument applies to opt-out schools as well as to CTCs. Contrary to what the Prime Minister said, we will not close the CTCs or opt-out schools, but we shall bring them back into the local community through the LEAs.
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to a school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). Would not it be in order, or at least good manners, for him to give way to my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the hon. Member for Blackburn. I remind all hon. Members that a large number of Members want to take part in this debate.
    Mr. Straw: The deliberate disruption practised by Conservative Members simply reduces their chances of participating.
    The Government have also followed perverted priorities when it comes to higher education. The former Secretary of State but one announced plans in January 1989 to expand higher education, but without announcing plans for paying for it. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of extra pounds have been allocated to the student loans scheme, which has managed to impoverish students in need while costing the taxpayer much more than the grant system that it is designed to replace. What has happened? The loan scheme is another embarrassing failure, with fewer than one student in 25 taking a loan while the administrative costs of the scheme rocket. At the same time, the university funding system has all but collapsed and one university after another is now forced to announce the imposition of top-up tuition fees.
    I hope that the new Secretary of State will tell us whether it is Government policy that we should abandon the central principle of free tuition in higher education. Are students on normal undergraduate courses expected to pay additional top-up tuitional fees?
    Overall, the Government's record is one of incompetence on an unbelievable scale——
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Straw: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
    The Government's record is marked by no ambition, no leadership, inadequate funding and wholly ineffective management. The prime duty of the Secretary of State is to manage sensibly those 400,000 people, teachers, on whom the quality of education depends.
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Straw: In place of management——
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Straw: Are you going to do anything about this, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    In place of management, we have had nothing but complacency and abuse. The Government are totally complacent about the shortage of teachers. The previous Secretary of State told the House on 24 January:
    "There is no evidence that teacher shortages are dramatically worse than they were in previous years or that we are facing a nationwide crisis."—[Official Report, 24 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 917.]
    However, the Government cannot guarantee that pupils will not be sent home because of a shortage of teachers.
    The Government cannot even introduce, as we would, a national system of teacher appraisal, because that would require the full-time equivalent of about 1,800 additional teachers. The new Secretary of State has got off to a typical start. Faced by a detailed, carefully researched survey published last week which reveals that teacher shortages have yet again increased, his response was as ignorant and aggressive as ever. He accused the six teacher associations that published the report of being alarmist and he said that it was ludicrous to include in the definition of a vacancy those covered by supply teachers.
    The only ludicrous thing about that remark was that the Secretary of State should make it. Has he any idea what can happen to a class of children when they have no permanent teacher and when they are taught by a succession of teachers? It is completely different for children to have a succession of supply teachers rather than one permanent teacher.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his party does not support giving maternity leave to teachers? The supply teachers who cover maternity leave were counted by the unions as being equivalent to temporary vacancies.
    Mr. Straw: We do not propose to restrict maternity leave, but when the Minister was at the Department of Employment he resisted any extension of that leave under the social charter or any other measure—[Interruption.] The fact that we have a major shortage of teachers is no laughing matter. The vast majority of long-term supply teachers are covering permanent post vacancies. it was entirely legitimate for the teacher associations to include in the definition of a permanent post one that is not filled by a permanent teacher.
    The great error of the Conservative party is to believe that the creation of some sort of market in education can be a substitute for the proper management of the service. The Queen's Speech includes a Bill to restore teachers' pay bargaining rights. That restoration is long overdue, since
    478
    the imposition by diktat of pay rises denied teachers their fundamental trade union rights and greatly worsened morale.
    The Bill will include proposals to break up national pay bargaining by allowing local education authorities, such as Westminster and Wandsworth, and grant-maintained schools, to opt out of national negotiations—to asset-strip experienced teachers from neighbouring schools and from local authorities with no funds to enhance teacher salaries.
    Will the Secretary of State explain how that would improve the management of the service and the quality of education for each child? Perhaps he will explain how this shambles which passes for a policy—these market mechanisms—will do something to increase the choice and opportunity of the one third of children—according to Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools, over 2 million children—who are getting a raw deal at school.
    What proposals does the Secretary of State have to match our proposals to reorganise the education inspectorate nationally and locally, to establish an independent education standards council, to ensure that choice and opportunity have a reality beyond their mouthing by Conservative politicians, and to ensure that every child is guaranteed the best education that the country can offer?
    In education and training, as in so much else, the Conservatives have failed. The quicker the Government leave office the better for our nation and our young people. In their place will be a Labour Government with the clear ambition to make Britain the best educated and trained nation in Europe. With the policies to make that ambition a reality, that Labour Government will be determined to invest in the only resources on which we can rely—the skills and talents of our people.
    5.21 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I come to my new office determined to produce improvements in the state education service of this country. I am as dedicated to the pursuit of high standards in state schools as I was completely wedded to the creation of a better national health service.
    The aim of the whole Government in their third term has been to deliver a great programme of improvement in our public services. We will deliver that programme, particularly in the key areas of health and education, so that future generations will have a better NHS and better schools. The Prime Minister, the present chairman of the party, the present Leader of the House and several others have all had a hand in our education reforms. I was on the policy group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) that looked at our manifesto on education before the last election. Shortly afterwards, I found myself Secretary of State for Health.
    A deal of controversy has surrounded both fields since the last election, as one can appreciate, since the prospect of change causes concern in any large organisation and it is easy to arouse fears among people working in services when one is embarking on such changes of culture and objectives. But the present situation is different. The present Secretary of State for Health, my successor in that office, and I find ourselves past the worst of the controversy and the pain of the debate in both services. We

    479
    are charged with the steady bringing into practice of the reforms and the delivery of the main benefits for pupils, parents, patients and the public.
    Modernising and improving British education means giving the public more choice, with which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) agreed today, and giving them more influence over how their children are taught. It means setting standards and then measuring the success of the pupils who achieve them.
    It means restoring the morale and self-esteem of the teaching profession by mapping our clearly the sensible curriculum that they should teach and the testing of their pupils' achievements as they progress through that curriculum. It means the delegation of responsibilities so that the management of each school is in the hands of the governors, head teachers and staff who can account directly to the parents for the achievements of that school.
    Ms. Mildred Gordon rose——
    Mr. Clarke: I will give way to the hon. Lady shortly.
    It means dismantling bureaucratic barriers, not defending—in the way that the hon. Member for Blackburn did—those barriers against parental choice so that popular schools can admit pupils to fill all the available places.
    We all realise the background, and I believe that we share many of the aims, although they are more clearly and coherently presented and addressed by Conservative Members. As we know, the background to it all is he fact that the state education system, to which we are committed on both sides of the House, has been in danger of losing the confidence of the public.
    Rightly or wrongly, many parents undoubtedly feel that the standards of education that their children are getting are not as good as they used to be or as they should be. The public are suspicious of new teaching methods and of today's systems of examination and grading. Some fear that, at worse, too many children are still leaving school who cannot express themselves clearly, who cannot read or write adequately, who cannot count and who behave in an anti-social fashion. That is the problem that the public ask us to address.
    It is almost impossible to measure accurately, and to everybody's satisfaction, whether standards generally have been rising or declining. But everyone is, or should be, agreed that standards of education and training in Britain must be raised to higher levels than they have ever been in the past. Tomorrow's world will require Britain to give much higher real priority to education and training than ever before. We must give better quality teaching and training to our children and young people to prepare them for jobs and to be citizens in a more attractive society.
    The Opposition amendment catches the flavour of that public concern and then makes the absurd proposition that a return to a Labour Administration will satisfy public expectations. In education, apparently, we and the public are asked to believe that the party that abolished, for example, direct grant schools is now committed to quality and achievement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear Labour Members chanting, "Hear, hear," but the Labour and trade union movement has for years been closely identified with less formal teaching methods, all ability classes and attacks on academic standards, which
    480
    they usually describe as elitist and divisive. That has been the whole ethos of the Labour party for years on this subject.
    I would guess that half the present Members of the House of Commons, including myself, are 11-plus products of the former system of education. The Labour party set about changing education in the 1960s and 1970s in such a way that they destroyed most of the opportunities that the 1944 Act had opened up for working-class children in Britain.
    Mr. Richard Tracy: At the heart of the whole argument about standards is the fact that about two thirds of education authorities are controlled by Labour. In other words, when the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) say that a future Labour Government would lift standards, he means that that Government would achieve the same standards as are being reached by authorities currently controlled by his party, and they are low standards by any measurement. They are bumping along at the bottom of the league.
    Mr. Clarke: One could make an extremely good base for saying that, on average, Labour-controlled local education authorities achieve lower standards than Conservative-controlled authorities. That is in part because they often draw from different populations, but it is not the complete explanation. It was not even the one chosen by the hon. Member for Blackburn. The hon. Gentleman criticised central Government on standards, and he then leaped to the defence of local government by, for example, defending their right to spend the majority of their budgets outside the classroom on advisers and staff at headquarters; and he defended their right to withhold immensely high proportions of their budgets from the local management of schools to provide for central costs. That approach, combined with the traditional ethic of the Labour party—the traditional belief in attacking academic standards—explains a great deal of where we are at present in education.
    Ms. Gordon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's fine words about freedom and choice are all very well, but what does he intend to do for Tower Hamlets—where people are unable to pay the poll tax—to provide us with more money? About 160 children there—the number would probably be as high as 300 if we could discover all those who have not been registered—have no school places. What will he do to ensure that places are provided for them and that money is made available to meet the rapidly increasing birth rate and the influx of children from refugee families?
    Mr. Clarke: I am told that Tower Hamlets has received extra money to cover its rising rolls. Further, all local government is benefiting from the settlement, announced recently, which has greatly increased the standard spending assessment for schools way ahead of inflation, a subject to which I shall return.
    We espouse the same views, have the same commitment to the public education system and believe in choice and higher standards, but the hon. Member for Blackburn sets about it in a different way, as I have said. Incidentally, I am grateful to him for his welcome to me in my post and for his courtesy in giving way to me frequently during his speech. He was not so friendly when I was first appointed. Always a man of fashionable opinions, he did not seem to

    481
    know that Rottweiler jokes had gone out of fashion—better that than being the poodle of the National Union of Teachers, which he is likely to become if the Labour party gets into office. He is a parlour socialist in the tradition of Shirley Williams and others, who have done more to damage educational standards in this country recently than most other groups of people.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall in a moment.
    If we take the sentiments of the hon. Member for Blackburn at face value, it seems that he has perhaps changed. It he changing the Labour party's tradition? The amendment says that he and his right hon. Friends are committed to
    "serious investment in the nation's future."
    That is all that the amendment says about policy. It is designed to give the totally false impression that he is committed to spending more money on state education—but he is not. The Labour party has made two hugely expensive promises on child benefit and retirement pensions. Its Treasury spokesmen have made it clear that there is no commitment to any spending promises in any other sector.
    Last week, we had the autumn statement, often best described as the real Budget, it comes before the House to announce the public spending round. Last week, it announced a 16 per cent. increase in standard spending assessments for schools and 10·5 per cent. more central expenditure on higher education—real-terms increases, ahead of inflation, of 10 per cent. and 4·5 per cent. respectively. The Labour party could not outbid that, and to be fair to it, it did not seriously attack the public spending settlement for education or health.
    I read an account of an interview that the hon. Member for Blackburn gave Brian Walden. When questioned about how much he would spend on education, I hate to say it, but the hon. Gentleman was reduced to incoherent waffle. He is usually quite lucid, but he sounded on this occasion like the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of Labour's policy towards Europe. It was quite impossible to follow what he was trying to say. He was evading the fact that he knew that he was not in a position to promise more money. However, the problem is not only money.
    During one section of the Walden interview, the hon. Gentleman tried to get away from the fact that he was not promising to spend more on education, although the Labour party likes to imply that it would, as we see in the amendment. He said, and I agree:
    "I think the most challenging issue in education is not so much the issue of resources but how you manage the service and if I have one overwhelming criticism of the government it is for their incompetence in monitoring and managing the service."
    I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman will manage. Given his remarks on expenditure on central costs of local government, I do not think that management is his strong suit. If the House will allow me one final comparison, he takes the same approach to education as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) took when speaking on health. The hon. Member for Blackburn cannot promise to spend more public money because our record is not outbiddable
    482
    with any credibility, and he does not have any original policy of his own on how to maximise choice and raise standards with the extra resources that we are putting in.
    I now give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dunn: I thought for a moment that I was invisible today.
    The Labour party has attempted to steal our clothes by talking about consumer choice and raising standards. How can choice be improved and standards raised with a commitment to take CTCs and grant-maintained schools under local authority control and abolish grammar schools? I would have said to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), had he not been so churlish and refused to let me intervene, that the Labour party is not prepared to place on record the fact that it will close down the grammar schools in Dartford and other parts of the country.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—as usual, I need a haircut, and the eyes in the back of my head are not working with their usual accuracy. My hon. Friend has caused more problems for the Labour party.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn began with references to more choice and vague commitments, given with great solemnity, of how grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges would be taken back into the local community. What the devil does that mean? It is about as meaningful as what the Leader of the Opposition says in his more evasive moments. We know that it means that the hon. Gentleman would put such schools back under the control of local authorities and their bureaucracy. A great failing of British public service is that it is smothered in bureaucracy, most of it created by the Labour party in local town halls and defended by it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes rose——
    Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then, as I have accepted several interventions, I shall try to make more progress.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and, by definition, I hold no brief for the Labour party.
    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how his Government, at one and the same time, spend £10 million on a city technology college in a borough such as mine—a private sector-supported enterprise with limited entry—while the local education authority, which happens to be Labour, suffers a £7 million cut in education and the hospital schools in Guy's, the Bethlem royal hospital and the Maudsley hospital are at risk because there is no local authority funding for them? How can that be described as the commitment to state education with which he opened his speech?
    Mr. Clarke: Expenditure on state education is rising rapidly, and pupil numbers are dropping.
    Mr. Straw: They are not dropping.
    Mr. Clarke: They have dropped over the decade, and the standard spending assessment has risen 16 per cent., 10 per cent. ahead of inflation. We are not cutting back on state schools to make way for the CTCs. They are drawing in a great deal of private sector support from the business

    483
    community that wants to help us raise standards in schools and place in our state education system, schools that are attractive to parents and teachers.
    We hope that the generality of state education will respond to the incentive and example of good practice where it is achieved in the city technology colleges. which is already happening. Some £40 million-worth of private investment is being brought into state education by the city technology college system.
    With the greatest respect, the argument, "We cannot have such investment in my constituency because there is another school that would like some more money," is a policy of equal misery for all, whereas our policy is to spend more money on existing state schools, within the economy's ability to afford it, but also to go in for a partnership between the public and private sectors to bring excellent and popular new schools into the state system.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is new to his job, but he should look at the disgraceful and seedy history of the development of the city technology college programme. He would discover that the original proposition was that all, or a substantial part of, the capital costs should come from business sponsors, but that today well over 80 per cent. comes from the taxpayer. Contrary to what Sir Cyril Taylor, who is not a man to be relied on, may have said, cash paid over by businesses is not £40 million, but £7 million.
    That compares with a budget from the taxpayer of £130 million, which is plainly money denied those children and schools most in need in inner cities. If the system's funding is so good, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman now claims, will he here and now give a guarantee that, if the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions makes a recommendation within its terms of reference, he will fund it fully?
    Mr. Clarke: That is a sudden change of subject, but I do not mind.
    Of course I realise that the original estimates of the proportion of public spending on CTCs have not always been borne out. There is a CTC in Nottingham, supported by Harry Djanogly and others, who have put in a great deal of finance. There is public sector investment in it and the others too, and private investment has been drawn in. It will be regarded as churlish by the people who live in these cities to resist investment in what are obviously great new schools. The Labour party commits itself to taking them all back under local authority control, because local authorities resent the fact that there are great new schools in their patch. They are hugely popular—the one in Nottingham is heavily over-subscribed. It is an attractive place to teach. I am told that the one in Croydon recently held a open day for parents which caused traffic jams because so many people tried to get to the site.
    Private sector involvement in the CTCs is anathema to the Labour party. What does its commitment to quality mean, given that it is against some of the most popular new schools in the country, in unattractive parts of our cities? The Opposition are against them. The teachers and the unions do not like them; neither do Labour councils, because they are not controlled by the bureaucracy which is the main source of the Labour party's advice. So the Opposition attack some of the most popular schools in the country by trying to undermine them, by seeking to
    484
    discourage future sponsorship, and by the sort of commitment that we heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn a moment ago.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is it not evidence of the Labour party's destructive attitude to standards that, after criticising the A-level system which has been in place for 30 years and been the cause of more people going to university and successfully completing their course than ever before, the Opposition spokesman made absolutely no reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who asked him about Labour's alternative policies?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree. Perhaps I should say something about A-levels and post-16 education and training.
    I hope that we all agree that A-levels are a successful and trusted part of our education system. The numbers of A-level students are increasing, despite a demographic decline in the number of young people aged 16 to 19. But A-levels are not the whole picture. I shall certainly strive to increase dramatically the number of people receiving some form of education and training after the age of 16.
    I realise that more breadth and variety of academic study and vocational training are required if we are to achieve this, but it is foolish to start by dismantling the A-level system, which has served the needs of people going into higher education so well. I am certainly not persuaded that we need one system of examinations and qualifications for everyone after the age of 16. Too often in the past, reform in education has started by dismantling existing systems of higher academic quality and then submerging them in untried broader arrangements.
    I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) received no sensible reply. This image of the new Labour party trying reform is terribly reminiscent of what it tried in the past. In the name of breadth and wider opportunity, it latches on to the one proven and tried system which is valuable for admission to higher education and calls it a failure, under the guise of making the obvious point that we need to look again at the breadth of study and extend the number of people going in to higher education. The Labour party is specific only when attacking an extremely popular and well-tried system of exams which ensures good quality intake——
    Mr. Straw: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that virtually everyone who has to use the products of the education service, from the vice-chancellors of the universities through to the CBI, has said that A-levels are no longer appropriate? What they have sought and we have proposed is to implement what the Government wanted to do—the Higginson proposals for five-subject A-levels. If that is so bad, will the Secretary of State explain why, in Scotland, which has a broader system, a much higher proportion of young people stay on through higher education?
    Mr. Clarke: We are out to consultation on this with the School Examinations and Assessment Council at the moment. I do not share the Labour party's starting point, which is to begin by abolishing A-levels and then move towards other ideas for widening the system. I also do not believe that there is universal acclaim for Higginson's proposals, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member

    485
    for Ealing, North that getting rid of A-levels before we have a satisfactory replacement should not be a high priority.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: I hesitate to intervene in this English debate, but will the Secretary of State devote at least part of his speech to the part of higher education that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland all share—the universities? There is a crisis in our universities and they are anxiously waiting to know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to do to resolve it.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman rightly urges me to get on with my speech by ceasing to give way——
    Mrs. Rosie Barnes rose——
    Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way again, even to the hon. Lady. I intend to move on the universities and to our reforms in higher education.
    More young people than ever before are entering higher education. One in eight of the relevant age group entered higher education before we came to office. Today it is one in six, and the number seems likely to be one in five by next year. I believe that we should aim at one in four by the end of the century. That is a result of equality of opportunity, and it is a great asset to this country. More of our young people than ever before are entering our universities, polytechnics and colleges, which achieve excellent academic standards.
    I do not think that most people appreciate the extent to which student numbers have spectacularly risen, especially in the past two or three years. I realise that morale in higher education is not as high as it should be. We have some of the best higher education institutions in the world. Britain's universities, polytechnics and colleges are among the most efficient in Europe and the west. We have higher standards for admission, and about 90 per cent. of entrants to higher education gain proper qualifications.
    This is an amazing contrast with other countries which appear to have high levels of access. As an extreme example, in Italy, only 1·7 per cent. of entrants to higher education manage to obtain degrees within four years. A rising proportion of our young people enter higher education, and they have a much better success rate in their courses. The hon. Member for Blackburn has conceded as much. At 33 per cent., the proportion of the college-going age group achieving higher education qualifications in the United Kingdom is one of the highest in Europe. It is exceeded only by France, at 36 per cent. So we get out of our system a higher proportion of young people with qualifications than all but one of the other European Community member states.
    As we increase participation, which is our policy, we must not lower academic standards. And we must continue to raise our efficiency. That depends on the dedication and commitment of our academic staff. I shall make it a high priority in my new high office to deal with their concerns, with which I am reasonably familiar from my work as a Member of Parliament. Incidentally, I am delighted to note how well the polytechnics are doing since we gave them and their directors freedom from local government control. Lord Glenamara, a Labour peer and former deputy Prime Minister, who is committed to the
    486
    polytechnic movement, was quoted this morning as saying what a difference the Government abolishing local government control of polytechnics has made.
    In the schools, the national curriculum is the most important element of reform of state education since 1944. It will raise standards by giving pupils an all-round education in a sensible range of subjects. It sets clear targets for what children should know, understand and be able to do in all these subjects at different stages of their schooling. Children and their teachers and parents will know more clearly what they are aiming to achieve. The delivery of good quality service of any kind—not only in education and health—requires the setting of clear objectives and standards at the outset.
    Secondly, it requires the measurement of success in delivering those standards and clear reporting of the results to the consumer. All schools will report to parents with a clear assessment based on tests of children's progress in reaching levels of attainment in each subject of the national curriculum as appropriate. That is an extremely valuable and important reform. It is wholly negative for the hon. Member for Blackburn to describe as rubbish a change which is being increasingly recognised as valuable by those who work in the service and which will certainly be recognised as valuable by the parents.
    Full implementation of most of the proposals is still a matter for the future. The national curriculum will steadily be put into practice in the 1990s and by 1992 the framework will be complete. Thereafter, it will evolve in the light of experience. The improvements in standards are beginning and will steadily emerge throughout the next decade. My predecessor recently announced that standard assessment tests for the core subjects to be taken by seven-year-olds in 1991 will focus on the basics of literacy, numeracy and scientific skills. I trust that the results of those tests will be given with clarity to parents who are anxious to know what progress is being made by their children. Tests for II-year-olds and 14-year-olds and changes to the GCSE for 16-year-olds will all be steadily tried out and introduced over the next few years.
    We have already talked generally about local management of schools and about grant-maintained schools, which take the matter to its logical conclusion. One of the most important effects of more local management public services of this kind is the effect on morale and motivation of the staff who work in them. One of the reasons for the holding back of our 1940s-style public services was their smothering by bureaucracy. As I have said, great central administration was imposed on the schools. It is difficult for those who work in the service to feel that they are in contact with day-to-day decisions and can influence them. Key decisions are taken by somebody who works in county hall or in Whitehall.
    The local management of schools enables people to know who is making the decisions because they are working at first hand. That enables the governors and the teachers to know exactly where the key choice is being made and to have some chance of exerting an influence. Obviously, that raises the involvement of parents with governors and teachers, and it is important for parents to know that such people are able to run the school efficiently.
    We have already discussed the fact that some local authorities are holding too much back for their central services and administration. It is a disgrace for the Labour party to defend that. It is also extremely foolish, and

    487
    Labour will be unpopular if it keeps defending county council control vis-a-vis local governor, parent and teacher control.
    Grant-maintained schools are rapidly becoming more popular. Labour may laugh at them now, but it will weep thereafter over its unpopular commitment. Opposition Members, when they visit places in which grant-maintained schools are popular, will walk into the same elephant trap that has caught them over national health service hospital trusts. A year ago, there were 18 grant-maintained schools in operation. By September, the number had grown to 44, and 54 applications have now been approved. I am determined to encourage many more.
    City technology colleges have been discussed. It is impossible for the Labour party to pose as a party of choice and standards while at the same time engaging in a bitter political battle against new colleges that are a welcome introduction to the education system.
    I have set out a policy. I do not think that the hon. Member for Blackburn has a policy. He has a series of carping complaints and seeks to capitalise on a public mood without having the first idea of what he would do about it. He nearly found a policy recently, when he went on about teacher appraisal. He did that vigorously, and tried to set himself up as a man who might break away from the controlled teachers' unions. He did that because some of the teacher unions agreed with the system that he proposed. We have an open mind on the matter. We shall put teacher appraisal out to consultation and see where we go from there.
    Mr. Straw: The previous Secretary of State said quite categorically in his announcement that the Government would not establish teacher appraisal by statutory regulation. Is this Secretary of State now saying that he might introduce it by statutory regulation?
    Mr. Clarke: My predecessor was minded not to at that moment. He has put it out to consultation. I will address that question when it comes back and shall give the hon. Gentleman's opinion the regard that it deserves, on this matter as on others. His only reason for his remarks was that he thought he was disagreeing with my predecessor. That appears to be the only basis for his policy. He has no commitment to money. Not only has the Labour party made no promises about money, but it does not look credible when it tries to get rid of its past traditions of the wreckage that it created in the state education system. It does not appear to have a vision for the future.
    The Leader of the Opposition recently attended our debate. At his party conference, he held up France as a model of the education system that the Labour party would like to give Britain. It is always easy to think that the grass is greener on the other side. I am a great francophile and an admirer of French peaks of academic excellence, such as the polytechnique and the ecole normale. But Britain spends more in current expenditure per pupil than does France. The purchasing power of teachers' salaries is higher in the United Kingdom under a Conservative Government than it is in socialist France. Only 67 per cent. of the posts were filled at the 1990 teaching entrance competition in France.
    This morning's edition of The Times has an interesting story of what is going on in Paris, in this model country whose education system is to be emulated by an
    488
    Opposition that aspires to government. I shall read the first sentence. This is the model to which the Leader of the Opposition aspires:
    "French riot police used tear gas and water cannon to disband hundreds of stone-throwing youths as they rampaged through the streets of Paris yesterday, marring a mass protest by thousands of students over falling standards in their schools."
    On past performance, the Labour party only comes to life over the public services when there are strikes or disturbances. It would be interesting to know on which side of the barricades various Opposition Members would find themselves when we reach this dream scenario.
    Obviously, the rather vacuous nature of Opposition policies is not our principal concern. Our concern is to press on with positive steps to a better state education system for all our children and our young people. The Government remain firmly committed to that, and we shall deliver that better education system over the next few years.
    5.57 pm
    Mr. Edward O'Hara: I confess to being slightly abashed at having opted to make my maiden speech, a significant occasion for me, in this debate, because I find that I am very much a supporting act to the grand main event which we witnessed earlier today. I am at least gratified if that means that there is still a slightly wider audience to hear my speech about my constituency. One might say" sic transit gloria Knowsley. I shall make sure in future in less privileged circumstances that the attention of the House to Knowsley, South is more than transient.
    It is fitting for me to make a brief but hearfelt tribute to Sean, my predecessor, who I know was widely respected by all hon. Members. Sean Hughes was a man of conscience, courage, dignity and quiet humour, and he was an excellent and well loved constituency Member of Parliament, whose promising career in the House and, quite likely, in government was so tragically cut short. I mourn the passing of a close friend and colleague of half a lifetime. Mutual friends may be interested to know that my family continues to have a close and affectionate relationship with Tricia and baby Charlotte.
    I chose to make my maiden speech during this debate on education because education in Knowsley has been spoken about in uncomplimentary terms. I welcome this privileged opportunity to balance the record. I recognise the obligation that goes with that privilege—that I should refrain from polemic and controversy. I shall respect that obligation, although it is difficult for me to do so if I am adequately to represent the mood that I detected among the electorate of Knowsley, South, an overwhelming proportion of whom voted for me. I shall be content to have adequately represented them if, when I sit down, hon. Members on both sides of the House better understand the circumstances that inspired that mood.
    The people of Knowsley, South include some old rural communities, in Whiston, Tarbock and Cronton, but overwhelmingly we are Scousers, resident in large pre and post-war overspill housing estates from Liverpool. The people exhibit the well-known Scouse qualities of humour, fortitude in adversity and a strong sense of community. A topical example of Scouse humour came recently when the deputy Prime Minister resigned and it was suggested that, as the main qualification for his successor was a lack of

    489
    consuming desire to go into Europe, the Prime Minister might go on a recruiting drive to Everton football club.
    I hasten to say that that joke was told to me by an Evertonian and it is a typical example of Scouse humour. We laugh at ourselves and each other unmercifully but woe betide anyone who laughs at us. Had the joke been made by an outsider, it would have been seen for the gross calumny that it is—a calumny that will be confounded soon when Everton once again starts winning trophies.
    That humour is needed to sustain the people's fortitude in adversity—a commodity that is in abundant supply in Knowsley, South. In Knowsley as a whole, unemployment is sticking at twice the national average, no matter how it is calculated and in Knowsley, South, 47 per cent. of those who are unemployed have been out of work for over a year. Knowsley suffered disproportionately in the general shake-out of jobs in the early 1980s. Although there has been a recent nascent recovery in the economy, helped by an excellent and effective economic development unit run by the local authority, I share the fear of many locally that that delicate bud will be shrivelled by the frosts of entry into the exchange rate mechanism. I am trying not to be controversial. I have avoided the r word. At no point have I said r-e-c-e-s-s-i-o-n and I look forward to less privileged occasions when I shall be able to do so. I appeal to appropriate Ministers to note those concerns.
    I shall explore the margins of licence by respectfully asking hon. Members on both sides of the House to reflect that market solutions, which may well work in other circumstances, may not work as well in certain environments, such as for industrial development in an area of underdeveloped infrastructure, for housing where the residual land values are negative and speculative investors may lose their investments, and for health provision in an area where there is both a disproportionate endemic incidence of chronic illnesses such as heart disease and cancer and a depressed economy. In many ways, it is as if the rules that may work well elsewhere do not work in the special circumstances of Knowsley, South.
    This is true of education as well. Knowsley is notorious for one statistic—its position in the league table of selected examination results. It is sad that too seldom is there reference to the excellent achievements of schools and pupils in Knowsley and I shall not miss this once-and-for-all chance to draw attention to them. That statistic ignores the result of our tertiary college institution, the excellent Knowsley community college. Education for most of our pupils is organised on a primary, secondary, tertiary basis and the GCSE and A-level results in that college are better than the national average, but are never included in the statistics.
    I was interested to hear the Secretary of State speak about the concept of added value and I accept it as a valid one. It is the weighting of raw examination results by taking account of various measures of deprivation. When measured by such criteria, Knowsley has been placed in the top 20 most efficient local education authorities. That is no wonder when it has been placed 456th out of 456 local education authorities on measures of deprivation. In the heart of Huyton there is a church parish that has achieved the astounding Z score of seven, and that is with hardly any ethnic minority families within its boundary.
    490
    The adverse comparisons ignore various vocational examinations achievements such as those validated by the City and Guilds, the Royal Society of Arts, the Business and Technician Education Council and various regional education boards. There are other examples of excellence in Knowsley, South. With the technical and vocational education initiative—an initiative which I know will be respected by Conservative Members—Knowsley was the first local authority to have its extension bid not only approved but held up as an example to the nation.
    Another example of excellence is the use of computers in Knowsley. In any school there, one can see not only secondary school pupils but infants and children with special education needs manipulating keyboards and software in a way that puts us adults to shame. Leading Japanese educationists, no less, came to Knowsley, as one of two authorities which they chose to visit last year, to observe and learn from practices there.
    Portage—the involvement of parents in the education of children in their early years—is something in which Knowsley is a national leader. That example, and the 70 per cent. provision of nursery places, mean that, at a time when there is national concern about declining reading standards at seven-plus, those standards are rising in Knowsley.
    We are also justly proud of our youth orchestras and choirs. One of each were the only two invited to perform together in the national festival of music for youth, and they have an outstanding repertoire, ranging from Duke Ellington's "Caravan" to the "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi" from Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. It brought tears to the eyes to hear the children of Knowsley
    The House will know that curriculum awards are prestigious, are made every four years and are rather scarce. There are eight county comprehensive schools in Knowsley and three of them have received these awards, as has one of the special schools. There has been an interesting achievement in special education and Knowsley finds itself a national leader in educating and caring for children with physical disabilities. It has attracted considerable attention as a result of its achievements in toilet control for spina bifida children. These achievements have increased the confidence of such children and, as a result, their education attainments. Their life expectancy has also been increased. That is the sort of achievement in education that we value in Knowsley, and it is unfortunate that it is not recognised in the league tables to which I have referred.
    Perhaps the most striking success of the education service in Knowsley was the massive vote of confidence that was shown in the opting-out ballot held for Ruffwood comprehensive school. In a 75 per cent. turnout, 97·4 per cent. of parents voted in support of the local authority. I believe that that is still a record. Some hon. Members might think that that was a flash in the pan. It might have come to their notice, however, that recently the Boundary Commission for England came up with the bright idea that Knowsley might be abolished. It was overwhelmed by 80,000 letters of protest. There are only about 160,000 people in Knowsley, 88,000 of whom are in Knowsley, South. What clearer demonstration of a strong sense of community could there be?
    The teaching force of Knowsley was among the many sections of the community that came out overwhelmingly in support of the future of the authority. We have a loyal and dedicated teaching force and we have never felt the

    491
    need for local pay bargaining to retain its loyalty, although we must wonder whether such loyalty may be undermined if other local authorities start making money talk.
    I have presented a picture of a proud, distinctive and deserving community in Knowsley, South, with responsible civic leaders who are respected—my people, whom I am proud to represent. They and their civic leaders need and deserve the sympathy, confidence and full support of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. In the context of the debate, the education service of Knowsley, South needs more adequate recognition than it has had in the past. I pledge myself to be vigilant and diligent on behalf of my constituents. If I am half successful, that will be my best tribute to Sean Hughes.
    6.14 pm
    Mr. Michael Jopling: It gives me great pleasure to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) in his maiden speech. I think that we all remember the great feeling of elation and relief once that moment is over. I am sure that everyone would agree that that hon. Gentleman spoke with great pride, charm and eloquence. I congratulate him on having overcome the ordeal of his maiden speech.
    The hon. Member for Knowsley, South paid a tribute to Sean Hughes which was generous, worthy and justified. I am sure that we all join with him in expressing sadness for the reasons for which he finds himself in this place. The hon. Gentleman spoke extremely well and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing him on other occasions. He was right to be non-controversial. I am sure that he will have many opportunities to attempt to beat the hell out of the Government as time goes on. His return to the old custom of non-controversial maiden speeches is one that many other new Members may like to follow in future.
    I welcome enormously the decision to have a debate on education today. I wish to draw the Government's attention to what I consider to be a serious crisis in education in Cumbria, which includes my constituency. It arises from the introduction of the local management of schools—LMS. That move, which was made by the Government, was generally welcomed by parents and governors. Most governors were eager to play a much greater part in the management of their local schools, and they began their new work with a great deal of enthusiasm and dedication. Already, however, many are disillusioned. Almost all schools in Cumbria suffer from a considerable shortage of cash as many schools are seriously underfunded.
    The reason for underfunding is not difficult to find. The problem is traceable directly to Cumbria county council's distribution of funds to schools from its education budget. I tabled a question shortly before the prorogation of Parliament and I received a reply on Wednesday 31 October. It appears that the shire county's average distribution from its potential schools budget to schools for LMS amounts over the county as a whole to an average of 77·4 per cent. If Cumbria were able to distribute that average of its £130 million potential school budget, the schools would receive £101 million. That is the sum that the schools would receive if Cumbria county council were in line with the average.
    Unfortunately Cumbria does no such thing. It distributes only 71·2 per cent. of the potential schools budget, and that is only £93 million. It means that the
    492
    schools are being underfunded by £8 million. That is the sum that they would receive if Cumbria had a distribution that was as generous as only the average for shire counties. On average, the 360 schools in Cumbria each receive £22,000 less than they would receive if the county made an average distribution. Unfortunately, Cumbria distributes the lowest percentage of its education budget to schools for LMS of any shire county. Cumbria is therefore the meanest education authority in Britain, and that meanness affects governors, staff and children.
    It will not have escaped the memory of many of my colleagues that Cumbria county council is controlled by a consortium of the Labour and Liberal parties. It is that consortium, and that alone, which is responsible for the underfunding. Its decision to hold back excessive sums to prop up a top-heavy administration means that school governors have been placed in an impossible position.
    At the beginning of his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke of education being smothered by local bureaucracy. If he wants to see an example of that, he should look only to Cumbria. The independent Audit Commission examined Cumbria county council's education administration and inspection system and its costs earlier this year. The commission demonstrated that, compared with a group of similar shire counties—far-flung and scattered areas—Cumbria county council spends between £1·2 million and £2·1 million more on education administration and inspection than the average sum for counties that are similar and within its own family, as it were. It is a tragedy that those Liberal and Labour councillors—who have been made fully aware of the meanness and the inefficiency that have resulted from their policies—have not knocked heads together and put Cumbria at the top of the league table for generosity towards schools. Instead, they are content for Cumbria to languish at the bottom.
    Some governors of some schools have been thinking seriously whether it would be in the best interests of their schools, the children and the parents to seek grant-maintained status. For example, Kirkbie Kendal school has almost unanimously decided to move towards grant-maintained status. One reason for that—there are several—is that, instead of the current £30,000 deficit on its budget, on gaining grant-maintained status, its financial affairs would turn round and it would have an £80,000 surplus. That would make a tremendous difference to the school. That decision has been taken objectively, in the interests of the school, the parents and the children. I am not aware of any political pressures being applied on the governors to make such a move.
    The purpose of my speech is to urge Ministers at once to force Cumbria county council to be more generous to its schools. During past months, Ministers have made various noises about the unsatisfactory distribution of money to schools, but there has been no action. The governors, parents and pupils in Cumbria are fed up with their schools being starved of cash, and they want help. They are turning to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State because he is the one person who can unlock the till and be more generous. I hope that he will listen.
    6.22 pm
    Mr. John Garrett: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on an eloquent and articulate maiden speech. We were deeply hurt by the loss of Sean Hughes. I thought that my hon. Friend's speech showed an excellent understanding of the conditions in his part of the world and a deep feeling for the people. We look forward to his long and successful career in the House.
    The sole education proposal in the Gracious Speech is for new negotiating machinery for the pay and conditions of teachers. In a way, that was overshadowed by the autumn statement the next day, which revealed that the increase in spending on education—of which much was made at the time—was not even sufficient to meet the backlog of building maintenance necessary in our schools. On the face of it, the Gracious Speech removes the teachers' long-standing grievance about the removal of their negotiating rights since the 1987 dispute. However, there is a real fear that the break-up of national bargaining will drive down salaries and lead to a free-for-all in which teachers will be no better off.
    The observations that I wish to make on education will relate to the county that I represent. Norfolk is a typical Tory shire county, although its policies are made by Tories that we could describe as being of the primitive tendency. Such examples that I cite will be homely, but they will be drawn from the council's figures and will therefore be hard to dispute.
    In Norfolk, one in five secondary school teachers are expected to leave their posts this year. The number of primary school teacher resignations has also soared this year. In 1987, the turnover of Norfolk teachers was below the national average. In two years, it has risen from 8 per cent. to almost 20 per cent. In primary education during those two years, the turnover has risen from 8 per cent. to 13·5 per cent. It is not a high wage area, so it is not as though treachers are being poached by high-paying local employers.
    We do not have to look far for the reason for that rapid upsurge in the level of teacher resignations. Their average salaries are now 40 per cent. below the level of the 1974 Houghton award. Year after year since then, teachers' pay has lagged behind other settlements. It is not surprising that the Department of Education and Science has projected a national shortfall of 12,000 teachers in the national curriculum subjects. There is a crisis in teacher supply. Fewer graduates are entering the profession, which is not surprising because the starting salary is significantly below the average wage offered by industry to a graduate. More teachers are leaving the profession. Education can no longer compete for top-quality graduates. The enormous load on teachers following the Education Reform Act 1988 has not been recompensed and the teaching service is being irrevocably damaged.
    In Norfolk, the arrangements for the local management of schools will lead to more teacher redundancies. According to headmasters in the county—16 of them met recently to discuss the matter—some schools have lost up to £40,000 a year in funding. As I believe that it is proper that we should represent the grass roots feeling on these matters, I wish to refer to the Angel road middle school in my constituency. Its head, Mr. Holman, wrote to parents:
    "You may have heard that the Government are in the process of handing the entire responsibility for school finance
    494
    to the Head and Governors. In theory, this should give us greater flexibility to provide the right education for your children.
    However, what has happened is that the Local Education Authority have drawn up a formula by which they allocate money to schools. Based on the Authority's formula we stand to lose a colossal amount of money compared to this present financial year. So great is the deficit that we are having to look at terminating the employment of two full-time teachers and one part-time teacher. The effect on your child's education will be very serious. There will be no help given to children in small groups. Maths, Science and Craft groups will have to stop. All children will be in classes of over 30 pupils and indeed some may have to be vertically grouped. This means mixing older and younger children together in the same class."
    That is in a county which has always been a notorious low spender on education.
    The Eastern Daily Press said:
    "NORFOLK came bottom of the class in the whole of England for the number of youngsters who left school without a single GCSE qualification.
    Out of every 100 Norfolk pupils to leave county-run schools last year, 13 had no GCSE qualifications—the worst record of any shire county in England, according to statistics produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy."
    It is also the case that in Tory Norfolk an average of 1·9 per cent. of under-fives receive nursery education, compared with a national average of 6·8 per cent. There are a mere 195 pupils in four nursery schools in a county with a population of 600,000. There are just 200 places in nursery classes and 3,000 places in under-five reception classes. Education is grossly underfunded. It should be a matter of shame that there are still 60 schools with outside toilets. Children of the county are ill-served. Conservative Members would not want to send their children to schools with outside toilets, so I do not understand why my constituents have to do so.
    It is outrageous that, nationally, 65 per cent. of our young people end their education at 16. There are plenty of studies—for example, those by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—that show that our relatively low productivity as a nation results in the low level of spending on education and vocational training. The institute has carried out countless studies of British productivity compared with German productivity, and time and again the disparity—the German superiority—in productivity can be directly traced to the level of education and vocational training of its workers.
    There is plenty of evidence that our spending nationally on post-school education directly affects our competitive economic performance. I have spent my life working in management in industry and I know that the inferiority of a company's productivity is often due to the lack of qualifications of its supervisory and managerial staff.
    We have the lowest proportion of 18-year-olds in part or full-time education in Europe—about 20 per cent. in Britain compared with 80 per cent. in Germany—in full-time education. Our education system produces an elite, but fails to provide anything for the bulk of school leavers. That is not new. That disparity was pointed out more than 100 years ago. In the 1880s, Lyon Playfair on the Board of Education referred to it and studies throughout the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s showed the effect of the neglect of higher and further education.
    My constituency has the extremely successful university of East Anglia, the planning provision for which has been thrown into chaos by the disaster of the University Funding Council's planning exercise for 1991–95 and its

    495
    decision to withdraw from long-term planning. Commenting on that, the university of East Anglia's vice-chancellor, Professor Derek Burke, said:
    "It is ironic, to say the least, that after encouraging universities to produce coherent, sensible plans for the next five years the UFC has been unable to do the same. A-level scores at all universities are rising, applications to UCCA are booming and it is clear to me that we have a high quality and much sought after product. However, without a firm basis for planning it is quite possible that we shall be unable to offer many able young people the opportunity to benefit from the higher education they deserve. That will be a tragedy and the blame for that tragedy will lie squarely with the Government and their agents in this matter—the UFC."
    I could not have put it better.
    Our education system is not adequate to support an advanced technological economy. It fails to make the best use of the talents of our people, which are criminally wasted. The Government are not committed to the development of educational excellence. That is not surprising when we have a Prime Minister whose only accomplishment as Secretary of State for Education and Science was to take milk from schoolchildren. The Government's education policy is a thing of shreds and tatters and it fails our young people disgracefully.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: I listened with some interest to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). He devoted a considerable part of his remarks to teachers' pay and teacher shortages, to which I shall also refer. I suspect that he will not be unduly surprised to discover that I draw rather different conclusions from his.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is well intentioned and I would not be at all surprised to hear that he was against sin and generally in favour of motherhood. But he is something of a blackbird in a shadow Cabinet full of vultures. Whenever he says that he would like to increase spending on schools, buildings and advanced education, one can always hear the vultures in the background croaking, "Only as resources allow." That was the catchphrase which those of us who have served on Standing Committees considering education Bills with the hon. Gentleman will recall. As hon. Members will know, the way to improved education is not paved with qualified promises.
    However, by contrast, I can tell the House that the Government have made resources available to education and in 1991–92 we shall be spending some £17·5 billion—16 per cent. more than in the preceding year. That truly is an enormous sum, which gives the lie to those who seek to claim that the Government are cutting education. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Spending on education is probably equalled only by the growth in admissions to advanced education. For example, in 1989 some 350,000 full-time students were in higher education. But even that truly enormous figure has improved this year, with admissions being increased by a further 7 per cent. That underlines two points. First, it shows that the prophets who claimed that the Education (Student Loans) Act 1989 would mean the end of advanced education as we have known it were wrong. It has not proved to be a disincentive.
    Secondly, the higher number of admissions to advanced education could take place only if a sufficient number of properly qualified young people were coming forward. A
    496
    larger student population must be based on a greater number of our young people taking A-levels, not only in the right subjects but to the right standards. That was a point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
    That brings me quite naturally to the first of my cautionary notes to my right hon. and learned Friend he Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his new post. It is critical that we maintain the rigour and quality of A-levels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said, they set the gold standard. He was right to draw specific attention to that. If we seek to devalue the quality of A-levels we shall in turn undermine the quality of degrees. Therefore, it is of greatest importance that my right hon. and hon. Friends resist the blandishments of he so-called reformers, who apparently include the hon. Member for Blackburn, who seek to undermine the discipline and standards of A-levels.
    My second cautionary note refers to the Education Reform Act 1988. It is fair to remind the House that that has been in place for only two years and it will take time for the reforms to work through. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to grant-maintained schools, about 50 or 60 of which exist. That is nothing like enough. The reason why there are not more such schools is not that they are unpopular but that we built too many obstacles into the Act. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to make it easier for schools to opt out.
    I was grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn for clarifying the Labour party's policy in response to my intervention. Its policy, so far as it has one, is one of abolition. It would abolish the remaining grammar schools, the city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme and grant-maintained schools. It is the party of the abolitionists. As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman confirmed that grant-maintained schools would be abolished despite the fact that each and every grant-maintained school has a ballot in which parents are required to express their preferences. Despite that, Labour Members would take choice away from those parents.
    Labour Members would seek to introduce a uniform greyness across the nation's schools, with all excellence and brightness being extinguished. But Conservative Members want grant-maintained schools to survive, and if we are to guarantee that, we need more grant-maintained schools to emerge. Labour Members will abolish grant-maintained schools at their peril, because they will be denying parents the right freely to express their opinion. The greater the number of grant-maintained schools, the harder and more difficult it will be for Labour Members to destroy those schools if they should ever come to office.
    My third cautionary note relates to vouchers. I substantially with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said at the weekend, and again today at the Dispatch Box. I am convinced that the Education Reform Act 1988—specifically, in its references to open enrolment, local management of schools and grant maintained schools—takes us a long way down the road signposted by the proponents of the voucher. The voucher is not a panacea, but I believe that it might have a place and I therefore urge my right hon. and learned Friend to consider the introduction of the voucher system for pre-school education—for the non-statutory sector of education. Vouchers could be used by parents to obtain good nursery or playschool education for their children.

    497
    I wish to reflect for a moment—that is all that it will take—on the comments of the Leader of the Opposition at the Labour party's recent conference. Evidently, the right hon. Gentleman believes that we should be following the educational example of France and Germany. As he was the Opposition spokesman in the days before the hon. Member for Blackburn came to the House, I assume that he knows that Germany has the system that we once had in the United Kingdom, which the Opposition and some of their supporters in the teacher unions did so much to dismantle.
    The system was based on three different types of schools—grammar schools, technical schools and elementary schools. That system works as well in Germany as it once did in the United Kingdom. I find it ironic that the leader of the party that did so much to wreck what was so good should now have the impudence and cheek to mourn its passing. As I said earlier, Opposition Members even now wish to abolish the remaining grammar schools. Evidently, in Opposition Members' minds, grammar schools are acceptable only in Paris or Bonn. They are not acceptable in London, Sheffield or Coventry. It is a remarkable example of how distance lends acceptability. The latest initiative by the Leader of the Opposition is simply a smokescreeen designed to disguise the Opposition's complete lack of policy.
    The present Government have not so far reaped the credit for increasing spending or educational reform.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Oh!
    Mr. Pawsey: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-East (Mr. Turner) to laugh. He is a stranger to our debates on education. His ignorance about education is matched only by his ignorance about other matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "] Withdraw."] I will not withdraw. I do not believe that education——
    Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman can wait a moment. He must contain himself. I shall give way to him, but he will have to be patient. I have to say to him that I do not regard education as in any way a laughing matter.
    Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman says that I do not take an interest in education. He is mistaken. I am very keen on education, but I am not keen on listening to his Luddite remarks.
    Mr. Pawsey: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's showing more interest in educational issues in future.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Pawsey: No. I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman, and he requires dealing with. If hon. Members care to take part sensibly in our debate, we shall hear their contributions.
    Given time, our reforms will substantially improve the quality and standard of state education and that is the sector in which the majority of our children are educated. One reason why we have not been given the credit that we deserve is that we have not so far captured the hearts and minds of the teaching profession. It is true that teachers feel isolated, and the reasons are not hard to see. One has only to remember the recent trade union conference, at
    498
    which the general secretary was shouted down by his own members. Such spectacles—together with recent demands for industrial action—tend to undermine public confidence in the profession as a whole.
    Most hon. Members will know that the majority of teachers are committed both to their profession and to the children in their charge. The problem is that many of those teachers are content to be led by the militants in the teachers' unions. The Opposition should be aware that, if teachers wish to be treated as professionals, they must act as professionals. Can anyone remember the last time that a doctor or lawyer debated taking industrial action against his own client group?
    Teaching is a genuinely important job, although the remuneration for it does not always reflect that importance. It is true that there have been substantial improvements in teachers' pay in the past few years. Teachers' pay will have risen by more than 50 per cent. on average in cash terms since March 1986. That is a substantial amount, but, to some extent, it underlines the fact that teachers' pay has drifted behind that of comparable professions. I believe that we need a method of targeting—I hate to use the word—the best and most committed teachers so that they receive additional remuneration, commensurate with their abilities, talents and enthusiasm for their work. Those who should not be in the profession and could not care less about the children in their charge should be treated far less generously than those who have a genuine commitment to the children.
    I welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech for a new negotiating machinery for teachers' pay, which will allow direct negotiations between local authorities and teachers' unions. In addition, the Government have undertaken that they will not normally override a settlement in the range between the bottom 25 per cent. and the top 25 per cent. of settlements in the non-manual private sector. There is also provision, in the event of disagreement, for a reference back to a type of interim advisory committee. The new negotiating machinery is not "son of Burnham". It does not take us back to the appalling days when there was no agreement in the profession but only chaos.
    I should like to close—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—by referring to teacher shortages. I am interested that hon. Members are so anxious that I should bring my remarks to a close; goodness knows, we certainly have to suffer their remarks.
    I have recently read that the teaching unions believe that there is a teacher shortage of about 10,000. That contrasts sharply with the results of the Department's September 1990 vacancy survey. In the 104 LEA areas that supplied the figures for that survey, more than 24,000 posts were filled during the summer, leaving only 1,400 posts unfilled as of 3 September, and temporary arrangements have been made to cover all but a very few of those vacancies. Only three of the 104 LEAs reported a larger number of vacancies than they had had in January.
    I wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State well in his new post. I have no doubt that his will be a firm hand but that that firmness will be tempered by his well-known and customary charm and courtesy.
    6.49 pm
    Mr. David Bellotti: I am grateful for your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in calling two hon. Members to make their maiden speeches today.
    I am only the third Member of Parliament to represent Eastbourne in 55 years. Sir Charles Taylor represented Eastbourne for 30 years from 1935—a record of service rarely equalled in the House. Ian Gow represented Eastbourne for 16 years from 1974 until that despicable act of terrorism, which we all equally condemn, so tragically took him from us. Ian Gow's record of service was also rarely equalled, due to his dedication, concern and loyalty, which were so freely given. We will always remember him, and I know that all hon. Members will join me in recording our expression of deep sympathy to his family and friends.
    Two of the issues that Ian Gow raised in his maiden speech remain important today—the fight against the centralisation of power and to the need to secure investment in British industry. I shall continue to raise those concerns in this House.
    Eastbourne is a marvellous constituency. It has the benefit of an excellent climate, a wonderful shoreline and the south downs as a backcloth. As many hon. Members already know, it is a first-class tourist resort. Its people are truly friendly and about one third of them are retired. However, we are a growth area and large increases in the under-14 and the 25-to-44 age groups are planned in the coming decade. By the turn of the century, the proportion of Eastbourne's people who are retired will have fallen to 25 per cent.—a significant change.
    Our local economy has in the past been hugely dependent on tourism, but that is now supplemented by the development of an industrial estate, an active business services sector, and a growth in retail outlets. The importance of those activities was much in evidence during the recent election.
    Of course, we received many visitors during the election. It may amuse or interest the House to know that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was among them and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick, and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) commented when we met that he was the first definite Conservative we had met all day.
    Another visitor was the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who accompanied his visit with a personal letter to me, inviting me to join his party. I am sure that the House will acknowledge my good judgment in declining that invitation and staying with a party that is increasing in the polls day by day, with a leader to whom we give our unanimous support. I am sure that even the Prime Minister is now aware that our squawk is getting louder and louder day by day.
    We also received a visit from the Leader of the Opposition, who saw one of our excellent schools, which has the benefit of extra teachers who were appointed following a Liberal Democrat initiative, which was supported by Labour, when I was chairman of the education committee.
    My constituents made it clear during the election that they will always welcome visitors but, of course, their main concerns were the real issues that affect their lives. They and I now look upon the Gracious Speech to see whether it addresses those issues and concerns.
    500
    Our local economy has suffered in recent years. We have seen large-scale redundancies from local companies. We have empty hotels boarded up on the sea front and many local shops are standing empty. What we need in our economy is what the country needs—a massive fall in interest rates to get the economy going again. Without investment, there is no hope of turning the tide of local recession, and without a healthy economy, how can we pay for the essential public services?
    My constituents are also concerned about the 28 per cent. increase in burglaries that they have seen this year. The Gracious Speech states that the Government will "vigorously pursue … policies" to fight crime, but will they agree to the repeated requests from the Sussex police authority to employ more police officers on the beat? Nearly all the extra officers who have been employed in recent years have had to be used to police Gatwick airport, for which the Government are reimbursed.
    My constituents are also concerned about health care. The number of hospital beds availabe has decreased while the waiting lists for many operations have increased. Mentally ill patients have been discharged into the community with less than the support that they deserve. The Gracious Speech states that the Government will
    "improve the quality of Health and Social Services",
    yet the Government proceed with the opting-out proposals in adjoining areas which do not, to my constituents, address the key issue of quality. When my constituents visit their local district general hospital, they are charged 40p to use the car park. That is nothing but a disgrace and a tax on the relatives of the sick and the dying. I hope that that can be changed if there is any semblance left of a caring society.
    The Government's proposals for care in the community are vital for Eastbourne. The postponement of the provisions for care of the elderly, when some local authorities were ready for their responsibilities, was not a good start. The test will come when the level of resources is agreed. Already in East Sussex, we are not happy about the financial proposals for the mentally ill from April 1991. I shall watch the arrangements for the transfer of care in the community to local authorities very carefully, and the Government will be given a hard time if they fail to deliver their promises.
    Parents in Eastbourne are very concerned about the education of their children. They perceive the Government passing the buck back to them for the management and funding of schools. The Gracious Speech refers to
    "action to improve quality in education",
    yet there cannot be improvements in quality when a service is so under-resourced and its professionals so regularly attacked by the Government. When I was listening to the Secretary of State for Education and Science earlier, I realised just how out of touch the Government are with the delivery of education at a local level.
    There is no large-scale bureaucracy in our county hall in Lewes in East Sussex. The staff there are working flat out to meet the demands placed on them by central Government. The Government's proposal for a city technology college in Sussex led to the loss of an important proposal for a new secondary school, which had been put forward by the Church. The CTC then withdrew, and the county council was left to mop up the consequences. Class sizes in our county continue to rise because we do not have

    501
    the funds to employ the teachers to bring those sizes down. Yes, we need to improve quality, but that is not achievable under the current Government's policies.
    There are no proposals on housing in the Gracious Speech, yet we have a problem with homelessness in Eastbourne. There are homeless people on our streets every night. The ability of the local authority to respond to that crisis is hampered time and again by central Government. The recent Government proposal to change the subsidy determination relating to leases has very serious implications for our area. I ask the Government to think again on that matter. Surely it makes sense for empty properties to be used to house homeless families rather than to use expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Unless the Government change their mind, in Eastbourne alone over 100 families every year will not be housed.
    I was interested in, and I welcome, the reference in the Gracious Speech to promoting efficiency in transport. I trust that that extends to the time that journeys take. Eastbourne has one of the busiest railway level crossings in Europe. The Hampden park crossing costs industry dear, as lorries from the nearby industrial estate queue time after time, wasting precious work hours. If the Government are serious about efficiency, they will address that local concern, affecting my constituents, immediately.
    At the core of many of the issues that I have raised lies the delivery of local services. The quality of those services has declined during the past decade. The whole of the blame for that lies at the door of this Government. In 1981, when I joined the East Sussex county council, we received a grant from the Government to cover 40 per cent. of our costs. In 1990, that grant is just 16 per cent. of our costs. Local services cannot be delivered with quality in mind when central Government have such an appalling disregard for local services. Instead of curbing the powers of local government and centralising power in their own hands, the Government should work in partnership to deliver services which our local communities need and deserve.
    As the Government reduce their services, further burdens are placed on the voluntary sector. In many cases voluntary organisations have become the lifeline for local people. But the very curbs on public expenditure which reduce local services hit the voluntary sector too. While greater reliance is placed on them, funding from local and central government is reduced. In Eastbourne we have 10,000 carers. Our community depends on them and without their dedication there would be great suffering. But I see nothing in the Gracious Speech to give them the support that they so richly deserve.
    My constituents raise with me matters such as the future of our planet, the suffering of animals in transit abroad for slaughter—I welcome the RSPCA's initiative today on that matter—the unjust burden of the poll tax and the poor level of pensions compared to our colleagues in Europe. I shall return to some of those matters in future speeches.
    Unlike the Government, I was elected with the support of over 50 per cent. of those who voted. The message from Eastbourne is loud and clear. Over a wide range of policies, the Government have got it wrong. The Gracious Speech offers very little comfort to my constituents. They can only look forward to the day when the Government
    502
    are replaced by a caring and compassionate Government who will begin to address the real needs of the community that I now proudly represent.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation.
    7.1 pm
    Sir Ian Lloyd: The House has been entertained by two most distinguished maiden speeches. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on not only the wit and humour that he brought to this place—that is never in sufficient supply—but the generous tribute that he paid to Ian Gow, a man who was greatly respected on both sides of the House. The beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech had the complete agreement of every party and every hon. Member.
    Bismarck once said that his respect for a man was based on what was left when all his vanities were stripped away. In this place our respect tends to be based on what is left when all invective is stripped away. As the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) will discover, invective is a popular and fashionable tool. What we hope for and sense that we may have from them is more rationality and sound information in their speeches. Of course they will be challenged in due course on many matters, but this evening they got away with it.
    This may be the last occasion on which I have the privilege of speaking in the debate on the Address although it is just possible that it may be the last but one. I begin by confirming my broad support for the content of the Gracious Speech. I shall concentrate on a relatively narrow matter which is neglected by not only this Gracious Speech but virtually every one that I have heard since 1964. If there is one profound regret that I shall carry away with me in due course, it is that our system of political allegiance and loyalty seems to preclude our ever asking the most important and significant question that we should ask ourselves from time to time—"What components of our national failure in any sphere continue to endure under all political Administrations?"
    Corelli Barnett asked that question in his most fascinating book entitled "Audit of War", but it seems that we have not learnt to ask it in times of peace. I suspect that the reason why we do not ask it is that the answer is too embarrassing, for it deprives some of us—indeed, all of us—of our raison d'etre. In the long term, if we do not govern by reason, mankind will fail. In the short term, alas, if we do not respect political emotion, prejudice and the ignorance which is often entrenched by that process or by vested interests, the democratic system will never hand us the levers of power. That dilemma underlies, if it does not at times undermine, the democratic system.
    It is to an area of national failure that I now turn. The subject of today's debate is described as education and training. Those are topics of immense importance with a high political profile. All politicians in all parties have been educated and, therefore, are prima facie experts on the subject and have strong views on it. Moreover, today's "educorate", to coin a term, is tomorrow's electorate. The Jesuits knew a thing or two when they said, "Give me the

    503
    child and you may have the man." Both my hon. Friends and Oppositon Members say, "Give me the child and you may have the voter."
    It is astonishing and disturbing that nowhere in the Gracious Speech or the programme for debate is the word "science" mentioned. It was not even mentioned by Ministers in the Department which theoretically carries responsibility for it. Yet the Prime Minister rightly and with genuine conviction repeatedly emphasises its importance. Industry recognises its dependence on science. Document after document and report after report consider our national research and development in the general scheme of things and express continuing anxiety. That follows from one Administration to another, one inquiry to another and one failure of industrial performance to another. Like the double bass, it is in every symphony orchestra. It provides a deep and disturbing accompaniment to every theme. Yet we ignore it. Why? Many hon. Members will have their own explanations but I shall not give mine. My purpose is to focus on a central issue. I hope to demonstrate the significance of the Procedure Select Committee's recommendation that:
    "science and technology is too important to be absent from the agenda of the House of Commons."
    I have no wish to appear unduly alarmist or to suggest that the Government's approach to the problem of global warming is necessarily wrong or inadequate. However, I have followed the matter closely for some years, and each time I return to it the circumstantial evidence is more alarming, the scientific unanimity, although not complete, is greater, and the tocsin sounds with ever greater urgency. As there should be, a worldwide debate is in progress in scientific, governmental and other conferences, such as that recently hosted by the Canadian Government and the Council of Europe in Ottawa. At many such conferences we read papers which not only pose formidable policy options but with ever greater frequency confront us with the terrifying phrase, "the extinction of the human race". I cannot confirm that prediction with any authority, but I find some of the papers both convincing and disturbing.
    Three important conclusions can be drawn. First, we shall not have scientific proof before the end of the century, if then. Secondly, whether we do anything or not, the proof may arrive too late. Thirdly, we must contain the deterioration of the atmosphere, and technology alone, based on the best available science, can provide us with the means to avoid the collapse of the atmosphere.
    There are no national solutions for global problems. The mechanisms for agreeing, let alone implementing, solutions are weak, primitive and unlikely to be effective. There is no agreement about the allocation of responsibility, causes and effects, who is to pay for what, how soon targets may be achieved or whether the targets will be adequate. Within the next decade there is at [east a probability that we shall have to agree, first, that the Chinese should not increase their coal burn by 400 million tonnes per annum, as their energy plan contemplates; secondly, that massive carbon taxes will have to be placed on fossil fuels not only in this country but worldwide; thirdly, that the priority given to energy efficiency will have to be raised to unprecedented levels; fourthly. that non-fossil fuel energy technology will have to be both developed and transferred to the third and fourth worlds; and, finally, if, as a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study concluded, the most efficient method of capturing carbon dioxide and fossil fuel power increases
    504
    the cost of that power by 80 per cent., no less, we shall have to accept and legislate for the economic and social consequences of massive increases in the real cost of electricity.
    In case the House concludes that there is no evidence to justify such conclusions, I put the following facts before it. First, examination of the Antarctic ice cores shows that throughout history the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has never exceeded 0·03 per cent. or been less than 0·018 per cent. Since the 1930s it has risen to 0·035 per cent. It will reach 0·4 per cent. by the year 2010 and 0·6 per cent. by the end of the next century.
    In a 2,300 page report on the subject the Bundestag has concluded that the rise in the earth's temperature will probably be three times higher than the ecosystem can withstand. It has proposed an international trust fund of £7 billion to deal with Third world industrialisation, and another fund of £3 billion per annum to preserve tropical rain forests. Much will depend on whether the feedback processes are positive or negative.
    We are looking at policy options which involve expenditure on a scale never hitherto conceived by the human race, if the deterioration exceeds the case and scale predicted. One estimate, which is based on predicted increases in energy consumption and fossil fuel burn, implies massive reafforestation and afforestation programmes which could cost £10,000 billion a year, or $1,000 per capita of the human race. If our population rises to 10 billion, as is predicted, and by then gross world product rises to $4,000 per capita, which is double the present, the cost of saving the world's atmosphere could rise to 25 per cent. of gross world product.
    Politicians generally are criticised for being too alarmist about this, but that charge cannot be sustained. If the political implications of scientific research are little understood, the scientific implications of political neglect will feed back into the political arena rapidly and possibly with devastating consequences. Starving, freezing or flooded communities will not show much sympathy or tolerance for political leaders who in the coming critical decade put the subject at the bottom of their agenda.
    Nor will they respect those who starve science of the funds needed to attach significant assessments of probability to various technical options, and who concentrate on deploring the erosion of national sovereignty, when it is becoming an irrelevance, or on redistributing national wealth, when the energy systems on which wealth creation depends have been shown to cause unacceptable damage to the planet as a whole wherever and whenever that energy is created by consuming fossil fuels or producing chlorofluorocarbons.
    Where does that leave our priorities? [Interruption.] I see that I have run out of time. Science is consuming less than 0·5 per cent. of our national public expenditure. The analysis of that in the document$$
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sorry, but I must call the hon. Gentleman to order after 10 minutes.
    7.12 pm
    Mr. Bill Michie: I realise that we are all short of time and I shall endeavour to limit myself to 10 minutes. First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on their excellent

    505
    speeches. It is clear that they will make good contributions to our debates and, no doubt, they will become accustomed to the idea of being restricted to 10 minutes at this time in the evening.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that we face a crisis in education. It comes at a time when both the Government and the Opposition are saying that we have a desperate shortage of skills, whether in engineering, science or other areas. The only way in which the country can change that is by investing more in the education of our children and young people from nursery school onwards. It is important that we get the equation on educational funding right.
    Our country is losing out because of a lack of competitiveness. Our European Community partners and most of our competitor nations are far ahead of us in new technology, marketing and the rest. We can hold our own only by educating our people to higher standards than those we have at present. Despite that, the Government seem unable to put the matter right.
    The Queen's Speech mentions that the Government will
    "strengthen parental responsibility for children"
    and
    "improve quality in education."
    Obviously it is a short speech and does not say how that will come about. I have listened to other speeches and I am not convinced that the Government will do that. We undoubtedly need to strengthen parental responsibility for children, but when will the Government accept their responsibility for educating children to the necessary standards?
    The Government claim that they will improve the quality of education, yet local authorities—mine as well as many others—are continually starved of funds. They are massively underfunded. That affects school buildings, which is bad enough in itself. How can we have a successful education system when the buildings are dilapidated? One school in my constituency must be closed every time there is a heavy rainfall. What sort of modern system do we have when our children and teaching staff must tolerate that sort of condition? It is no good the Government blaming local authorities. Clearly, they are underfunded for buildings, books, appropriate teacher-pupil ratios and youth provision. There is also a lack of funding for nursery and rising-five provision.
    I have received letters, as I am sure most hon. Members have, from institutes of higher education as well as heads of primary schools pleading for the Government to wake up to the problems of our schools and colleges. Not long ago the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science received a letter from the South Yorkshire, Humberside and North Derbyshire in-service advisory committee, pleading for more funding. Its full-time and part-time courses are inadequately funded, which means that we shall not have the skills necessary to compete. That does not bode well for our economic future.
    It is not just education that suffers from underfunding. It is apparent in all local authority services. It is estimated that next year Sheffield will be at least £35 million short on its budget. That means that it will be £12 million to £14 million short on its education budget. What sort of a future do we have when we start off with such a shortfall?
    I have here an article from The Star in Sheffield on the funding of local government and education. It is headed,
    506
    "The dark ages". I could not put it better myself. Education and services are indeed almost back in the dark ages. I know that the Prime Minister wants Victorian values, but I am not sure that she intends a return to poor educational facilities for our children and students. Perhaps she does. The article states that there will be less cash for
    "schools, libraries, parks, swimming pools, sports halls, concerts, road sweeping, refuse collection, housing"
    and social services.
    Social services are near and dear to my heart. How can we claim to care for our children and elderly when our social workers are under tremendous strain? How can we say to the parents of this nation who are looking after their children that they are to go back to work to make their contribution when child-care facilities are not available? They are not backed up by the resources that should be provided.
    Social workers, like teachers, are under tremendous strain. Occasionally, things go wrong. Then some case of child abuse or neglect hits the headlines. Immediately the judges and politicians, particularly Tory politicians, ask what the social workers were doing. We know what they were doing—working with twice as many clients as they should have been.
    Time and again legislation has forced local authorities to carry out certain services, yet they have not been given the resources to do so. That applies to the educational curriculum. We do not need to be reminded that people need to be taken care of. Every authority knows that, and asks only for the resources that it needs. I am concerned about children not being properly cared for from the age of four or three, or even younger. Unless we care for them from the very beginning, they can never hope to achieve the standards and skills that this nation needs.
    The Government have squandered billions and billions of pounds. They threw that money away or, as in most cases, gave it to their fat friends. Meanwhile, the very fabric of our society and democracy, and our country's future prosperity, are disintegrating before our eyes. The Government's bigotry has ruined opportunities for thousands of our citizens.
    I make this special plea. Teachers, social workers, local government officers and councillors are willing and able to undertake the work that is necessary to develop Britain's schools and the skills of our people, but they cannot do that without the right resources. I hope that the Government will one day get it right.
    7.20 pm
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On behalf of Unionists, I congratulate the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on their maiden speeches.
    As we debate this evening, Ulster is burying her dead. Northern Ireland's present security situation can be described in only one word—carnage. This week marks five years of living under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Those concerned may note that before it was signed, there was a welcome tapering down of terrorist killings, as was evident in the Chief Constable's report. However, on the signing of the agreement, that agonising and ugly spiral of killings rose sharply.
    In 1985, when the agreement was signed on 15 November, there were 54 killings when the year was almost ended. The following year, 1986, there were 61

    507
    killings; in 1987 there were 93 killings; in 1988, there were 93 killings; in 1989, 62 killings, and so far this year, 1990, there have been 71 killings. Who can measure the agony, sorrow, heartbreak, hurt and loss behind every innocent victim? We see that heartbreak in the form of a long and ever-increasing procession of maimed and bereaved mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives daughters, and sons, of all religions—for terrorism has no respect for age, creed, or class.
    Last weekend, a speech was made by a Roman Catholic priest called Faul in Dungannon, who said that the RUC is full of rogues who are in cahoots with Protestant paramilitaries. At the weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that we would soon see the consequences of that allegation—and we did, in the form of four killings.
    The figures show that there have been 346 murders in the past five years. Of those, 74·5 per cent. were slaughtered by the Irish Republican Army. Of that number, 119 were Roman Catholics and 41 per cent. of these were slaughtered by the IRA. Those figures are not mine but are official. Forty-one per cent. of all murders by so-called loyalist organisations resulted in court appearances and charges being upheld by the courts—but of all the IRA atrocities, only 11 per cent. resulted in court appearances and charges being upheld.
    What can I say about the past few days? On 23 October, a Protestant taxi driver was shot at the Royal Victoria hospital. On 24 October, human bombs at Londonderry killed five soldiers and a civilian driver who had been strapped to his van by the terrorists. Another soldier died in a human bomb attack the same day at Newry checkpoint. Also on 24 October, a Roman Catholic taxi driver was shot in Dungannon. On 26 October, a Sinn Fein member was shot dead in Cookstown, and on 2 November, Albert Cooper, an Ulster Defence Regiment officer, was blown up in his garage in Cookstown. On 7 November, a Roman Catholic was shot in New Lodge, Belfast, and the next day another Roman Catholic was shot at a garage near Stewartstown. On 9 November—a sad day for Ulster—four men were shot dead returning from wildfowling. They were RUC Inspector William Murphy, Reserve Constable Thomas Taylor, former UDR member Norman Kendall, and Keith Dowley, a Department of the Environment water service official.
    I listened with interest to the remarks of the right: hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) at the memorial service for Ian Gow at St. Margaret's, Westminster, when he took credit for the Anglo-Irish Agreement—although he did not do so in his speech today—as one of its architects and initiators, and was thus prepared to part company with Ian Gow over that issue. Today, he spoke of the supposed nightmares that would come with Britain's closer association with the rest of Europe.
    We in Ulster have had the nightmare, and we are still having that nightmare. I have read of the night of the long knives, but in the House today, we witnessed the day of the long bayonets. I have no respect for a man who did not tell the House today of the contribution that he made to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be severe in denouncing others, but, as a spokesman for Northern Ireland, I indict the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. The blood is upon him and upon his skirts, for the part that he played in what has happened.
    508
    I am glad that the people of the south of Ireland are learning, and that the Republic now has a president who repudiates the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That alone may give this House a message, which I hope it will heed. I hope also that the Government will convene the meeting that was postponed on 5 July, when the long hand of the Irish Government stretched into this House and a Minister of the Crown was not permitted to make the speech that he had promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself. I trust that there will be negotiations soon on replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement with one that will bring some hope and a future to the people of Northern Ireland.
    7.27 pm
    Mr. Robert Litherland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who moved us all with the kind sentiments that he expressed about his predecessor, Sean Hughes. My hon. Friend spoke with passion and knowledge about his constituency, and by tradition, Knowsley has returned a first-class Member of Parliament, who will certainly look after his constituents' interests.
    We join the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), in condemning the evil act that took Ian Gow's life, and we wish him well. He displayed a good sense of humour.
    I want to confine my contribution to the subject of infant schools in my constituency. The Gracious Speech stated:
    "My Government will continue to take action to improve quality in education."
    Her Majesty would be extremely embarrassed if she realised the emptiness of those words, and if she knew the true state of primary education in the inner cities, I am sure that those words would have frozen on her lips. However, Her Majesty does not write the Gracious Speech, so the blame must be laid elsewhere. My postbag leaves not the slightest doubt about where the blame lies. The letters that educate me of the reality of the situation come from the frontliners—the teachers themselves.
    Many aspects of Government policy affect education, and I want to advance the protestations made to me by head teachers from all parts of my constituency because of their concern about the quality of education in primary and infant schools. The pressures and problems facing those schools, teachers and children are of crisis proportions.
    A former Secretary of State, now chairman of the Conservative party, when informed of the difficulties experienced in schools in the state sector, said, "Show me the evidence." There was a response to that challenge, and the effects of Government policy on those who work to educate our children have been placed before the Secretary of State. That last magician created the illusion that something would be done, but that was before he vanished into obscurity. There is no doubt that those arguments will also be placed before the new Secretary of State who must provide some answers to the serious problem of quality of education and how teachers can address that without adequate resources to meet the needs of the children.
    I sincerely trust that the present Secretary of State will pay heed to what the teachers are telling him. However, if he brings to the Department of Education and Science the same arrogance that he displayed against the nurses,

    509
    doctors and patients in the health service, the situation will become even more desperate. At least the former Secretary of State listened, if nothing else.
    Many head teachers stress that the problem has nothing to do with low pay awards. They are not griping about self-interest but expressing deep concern for a profession in which they take pride. Regrettably, that profession is suffering from the negative effects of the stress and low morale felt by teachers.
    The pressures are unremittingendless DES circulars demanding immediate response and implementation, demands on top of the national curriculum that have created an increased work load and disruption for all children, hastily organised courses and workshops and weekly governors' meetings. Teachers' partners have complained that family life has been affected by the amount of time that their spouses are having to spend in the evening and at weekends on school work—all at the expense of their family commitments.
    One head teacher wrote to me:
    "In twenty years of teaching I have never known morale to be so low and so widespread. Staff at all levels, both young and experienced alike, feel that they are being swept helplessly along by a tide of change which threatens their integrity and status as professional educators. I am left with a team of demoralised colleagues who are mentally and physically unable to give of their best in the classroom"
    Other head teachers describe numerous and valid problems including lack of teaching support for teachers who have up to 30 children in a class, lack of non-teaching support, lack of support for children with special needs as well as a lack of administrative and clerical support. The list is endless.
    Stress becomes more acute in an inner city with all its inherent problems. Teachers suffer from stress-related illness because of the extra burdens placed upon them. They are losing heart and seeking jobs elsewhere. They are losing interest because the Government do not appear to have grasped the seriousness of the problem.
    Teachers in the inner city are suffering from a growing disillusionment, especially in those schools in which there are added stress factors. The head teacher of an inner-city special school where the majority of children come from a deprived and disadvantaged background and suffer complex emotional and social problems recently informed me of that disillusionment among his staff. He wrote:
    "One very experienced teacher has, despite being a valued and committed teacher, reluctantly requested early retirement, solely because of the increased stress and pressures he feels under the new regime. It cannot be beneficial to the well-being of our children and of the state education system if our more experienced teachers cannot cope or are 'burned out' by these pressures."
    The response from the Secretary of State has been pathetic and insulting. He made no attempt to answer the letter in detail. His reply to me and that teacher was patronising in the extreme. He said:
    "The teaching profession deserves gratitude, recognition and respect … I value their commitment to the pupils"
    and so he whines on. They were empty words and empty gestures because at the end of the letter came the inevitable sting—the end of term report. He stated that the Government are providing the necessary resources and support for the introduction of their reforms. He said that he was confident that teachers will strive to raise standards in the schools, in other words, they must try harder.
    510
    A similar reply was given to the head teacher of Varna street primary school in Openshaw after he had taken the trouble to explain his dismay to the Secretary of State. He wrote:
    "I do this as an experienced and highly qualified headteacher who is increasingly angered and frustrated by the apparent lack of care the Government has for the young children in this country and the total ignorance it displays about the true conditions in which they and their teachers have to work in the schools."
    Varna street school is housed in a 90-year-old building on a cramped inner-city site, sandwiched between a railway station, a scrapyard and an old mill. The roof leaks, the windows and door frames do not fit well and water has penetrated through the walls. Despite those appalling physical conditions, the staff, parents and children care for their school.
    Children are our future and our greatest asset and best investment. Those who serve the educational needs of the country urge the Government not to destroy the seed corn, but to invest in our kids before it is too late. My speech is a protest from all the head teachers in my constituency who have written to me. The Government must do something, or make way for another Government who do care.
    7.35 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I join in congratulating those two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches tonight. I welcome them to the House, but I am sure that they will forgive me if I say that that welcome is slightly tempered because they replace two hon. Members who were widely respected and whom we miss very much.
    We have wanted a full day's debate on education for some time. It is a matter of regret that little in the way of constructive educational comment has been made in this debate so far. I should like to add some constructive thoughts and to address the problem we face in education.
    The reforms that have been introduced—or certainly the principle behind them—have received a large measure of support. We must recognise, however, that the work required to implement them has had a serious effect on our educational system. I welcome the new Secretary of State, and urge him to reflect upon what his predecessor started to do—he recognised that the momentum of the reforms could be increased by slightly easing the pressure placed upon schools.
    It was no coincidence that, in the first few days after the long recess, many colleagues told me that, during the course of their constituency work in the summer, they had received encouraging reports from teachers in many of their schools. Those teachers said that they were getting to grips with the reforms and were starting to implement them and that, in that respect, things were getting easier. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take that on board.
    The education reforms can only be delivered by teachers. In the past, I have said that all the political rhetoric in the world does not alter the fact that it is the teacher in the classroom who will deliver those reforms. Much of what we do to develop the education service must centre upon the teacher in the classroom.
    As I have told the House before, I have had the great privilege of being chairman of one of the largest primary schools in the country, a group 8 primary school, for 17 years. I am very much a hands-on chairman. I am also

    511
    married to the head teacher of a group 6 primary school, so I have had considerable day-to-day involvement with education at the sharp end.
    I am a great believer in primary education and I have seen as recently as last week, in Liscard primary school, the marvellous work that is being done to improve standards and implement the essential parts of the Government's reform programme. The work being done on that score is not limited to that one school. Many schools are delivering the commitment, by teachers, of the Government's reforms.
    But it would be futile to pretend that the reforms will happen without recognition of the fact that teachers need the support that extra resources into their profession demand. Unless those resources are allocated, as I have said before, the Government's reforms will not be implemented. Successive HMI reports have shown clearly that non-contact time in primary schools is virtually non-existent. If we are to give the amount of preparation time, over and above the time that is already being given by dedicated teachers, there must be an increase in non-contact time, and that has clear resource implications.
    I have no brief for LEAs that seek to build empires or create ever more advisory services, but LEAs can have a more dynamic and proactive role in future than they have had in the past, and they should be examining what they provide by way of in-service courses and support services and the amount of support that they can give to the qualitative improvement of the delivery of education in their areas. That does not mean that the warnings of Her Majesty's inspectorate should not be heeded. LEAs should look closely at the balance between the numbers in their administration departments and teaching in the schools.
    There has been too much short-termism in education. I have heard much today about the failure of the Government to bring about educational reforms. Nobody can pretend to know anything about education without accepting the leads and lags in education. It takes a long time, perhaps two decades, for policies to work through, and the problems that were sown by woolly thinking and political dogma in the 1960s and 1970s are with us today. They will not be solved by successive Acts that have been passed since the Conservatives came to power. It will take perhaps another 10 years before we reap the full rewards of those benefits. But reap them we shall, and improvements will be seen to be working through the system.
    The last HMI report showed that up to 40 per cent. of newly trained teachers felt that
    "education studies had received too much emphasis, while the more practical aspects such as teaching methods, classroom observation and teaching practice had received too little."
    Much expertise exists in the classrooms of many of the nation's schools. It is more important for the next generation of teachers to be trained by on the job experience, picking up the theory of education when they need it, rather than the other way round.
    Initiatives such as the articled teachers scheme can offer much to education. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts identified in its work the fact that it is pointless dropping such schemes into the education system and just hoping that it can cope. If teachers are to be mentors and tutors—call them what one will—they must be given the extra resources to benefit from that qualitative aspect of on-the-job training.
    512
    The two-year, classroom-based, on-the-job training which the articled teachers scheme gives means that 80 per cent. of time is spent in schools observing, assisting and teaching. What is more, the pay will be better than the one-year PGCE, and that will result in three times more supervised teaching practice, with less indigestible educational theory. That is a practical way forward, which will do much to improve the quality of our teaching force.
    Unless we devote the resources necessary to those who deliver education—I am not speaking of ever more resources; perhaps we should be thinking of the better deployment of existing resources—we shall not get the quality of teachers who will deliver the quality of education that the nation needs. They must have support in the classroom. If we give them the necessary support, they will deliver the reforms, remembering that we are speaking of reforms of which hon. Members in all parts of the House approve. Everybody who believes in education wants the reforms to be implemented. There is a practical way forward, and I commend it to the House.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Martin Flannery: I agreed with much that was said by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), but first I pay tribute to the elegant and interesting maiden speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). We look forward to hearing them speak in other debates.
    In the 10 minutes allocated to me, I shall speak about education generally before dealing with some specific aspects of education. The hon. Member for Crosby, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, and I have worked together, with other hon. Members who are present, for many years. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), also a member of the Select Committee, was accused of not taking part in education debates. I assure the House that, as a member of the Select Committee, he is a frequent participant in debates on educational issues.
    Naturally, we differ on many issues when we debate education. The hon. Member for Crosby did not mention those differences. He simply spoke about the reforms, many of which, in the view of many of my hon. Friends and myself, are deforms rather than reforms, a subject to which I shall return.
    Like the economy, the British education system is in deep crisis because of the policies of the Conservative party. They have done so much that is wrong that the Government are now dithering under the attack that is being launched against them. Conservative Members are split in a terrible way, and that split, we now discover, has been reflected in all their policies during the last 11 years.
    Parents, local education authorities, which Conservative Members loathe, and governors, many of whom will never be able to carry out the tasks that are allocated to them, are all complaining. I prophesy that many governors will give up their posts because of the responsibilities that the Government are placing, and will increasingly place, on them.
    Teachers and their employers are worried because they have too much to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) came into the Chamber to take part in a debate just before the last Recess carrying a pile of books perhaps 2 ft high and placed them on the

    513
    Opposition Front Bench. They represented reading material for teachers. Teachers do not have time to read that amount of literature. Many teachers have told me that it is absolutely insane to expect them, with all the work that they have to do, to read guff in that quantity.
    Hon. Members, especially those with an understanding of education, appreciate that we receive from the Department of Education and Science almost daily a dozen or so pieces of advice on what should or will be done in the future. There is no time to read that amount of stuff. How dare Conservative Members talk about bureaucrats, when that state of affairs has existed throughout the 11 years when they have been in power, during which time they have maligned and abused the teaching profession?
    Only when they have seen the degree of damage that they have caused have they begun to change their tune when referring to teachers, who are being worked to death. They are doing more hours than ever before, working during their lunchtimes, having to come in early in the morning and to stay late at night. Not only do many Conservative Members know that what I say is true, but I believe that I see some of them nodding in assent.
    The Government say teachers have choice and opportunity, but the Government have constantly undermined their freedom. Teachers feel undervalued and underpaid and have had no negotiating rights for years. The United Nations condemns the British Government for taking those rights away. Resources are short and getting shorter, books and equipment are lacking, hundreds of schools—possibly thousands—are crumbling due to lack of repairs, and the Government blithely deny it. The Government have received £100 million from North sea oil and gained another £30 billion to £50 billion by selling off the family silver. That money has been frittered away, instead of being used for education and kindred problems. Major and minor authorities up and down the country complain bitterly about the so-called local management of schools.
    As hon. Members know, the Select Committee produced an important report on the lack of teachers, which the Conservative party would not accept at the time. Local management of schools means that large numbers of teachers have to leave the profession. When the Government talk about putting one body in front of each class, they should remember that, whereas there were often 30 or 40 applications for some of those posts, now there are only one, two or three and the school has to accept a teacher who may have no knowledge of the relevant subject, merely so as to put a body in front of the class.
    No previous British Government have ever engaged in such dogma or taken such a doctrinaire attitude. The assisted places scheme and the so-called city technology colleges are two methods of siphoning off millions of pounds of public money into semi-private education, which is private education by the back door. Any idea that a Labour Government would keep those systems is a dream. We shall not keep methods that have cost all that money, at the expense of others. City technology colleges that should have been paid for by private industry are being paid for by us, and the money is taken away from the rest of the education system.
    It will be useful if I state how much money the assisted places scheme costs. In the first year, 1984–85, it cost £22
    514
    million, in 1985–86 it cost £30 million, in 1986–87 it cost £38 million, in 1987–88 it cost £46 million, in 1988–89 it cost £51 million, and in 1989–90 it cost £59 million. That is £246 million spent on the assisted places scheme. That was public money spent for private education. The Government plan to spend another £62 million in 1990–91, £60 million in 1991–92, £70 million in 1992–93—making a total of £438 million.
    The Minister has been boasting about getting £500 million, as though that were wonderful. Do the Government know how much the assisted places scheme and the city technology colleges will cost? By 1993, they will have cost £625 million. The figure is steadily heading towards £ 1 billion. That is public money siphoned off from the education of 95 per cent. of our children. That is no way to run an education system for 95 per cent. of our children.
    The education of the vast majority of our children is in the hands of people who never use the state education system. They can always boast that one or two of them did, but the reality is that they are the same people who would have destroyed our national health service, were it not for the struggle that we have put up, and they never use that service either. They do not understand what ordinary people need. Therefore, they are about to fall because of what they have done to our people—we have seen that coming this afternoon.
    The only real hope for this country's education system is to get rid of the Government so that we can work for the education of all our children. The Government have so little faith in the national curriculum that they do not even impose it in all private schools. The law does not say that such schools have to have it. We would put the national curriculum, which we think is good if looked into carefully, into private as well as state schools, to improve the whole of our education system.
    7.54 pm
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) for their excellent and erudite maiden speeches. I am sure that we shall hear more from them in future.
    It is sad, particularly for people who wish to see standards raised throughout the British education system, to see the vacuous and hypocritical amendment tabled by the Labour party. The amendment was followed up by a speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) which did not contain one constructive idea about how to raise education standards in primary or secondary schools. The only major proposal he made was that he would vandalise the high standards now achieved by the grant-maintained schools by bringing them back into the local authority sector. He failed to recognise that, during the past 10 years, spending per pupil in Britain's schools has risen by 40 per cent.—twice as fast as the rate achieved under the last Labour Government, when spending rose by only 11 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Knowsley, South spoke of the number of computers in primary and secondary schools, which is indicative of the sort of resources going into schools. Under the Conservative Government, teachers' pay has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms. Under the last Labour Government, it rose by only 4 per cent. in real terms. We have not heard much about training today, but

    515
    the Government are spending three times more, after inflation, than was spent 10 years ago. We have the largest employment training scheme in Europe.
    Opposition Members talk of a crisis in the education service, but the vast majority of teachers in our schools provide good education. I see that every time I go into schools in my constituency, and to say anything else is a gross calumny on their efforts. Between 1976 and 1988, the proportion of pupils who achieved five 0-levels at grades A to C or more, rose from 23 to 30 per cent., the number of 16-year-olds continuing education, either at school or at further education establishments, rose from 42 to 56 per cent. The number of people attending full-time or part-time courses in higher education at present is at a record all-time high of 1 million. That is not prima facie evidence of a crisis of standards in our schools, albeit some of them need to be improved.
    As evidence of the durability of the Government's reforms, the agenda is changing. Whereas the national curriculum was once opposed, we now hear those in the Labour party talk about the need for annual pupil appraisals; whereas once the secret garden occupied by members of the educational establishment in the teaching profession was something that nobody could enter, now we hear about the need for statutory appraisal for teachers; whereas open enrolment was once attacked, we now hear of the benefits of competition between schools.
    During the passage of the Education Reform Bill, the Labour party attacked the local management of schools, but now many of its authorities, such as Birmingham, are in the forefront of bringing forward pilot schemes to ensure that the allocation of more resources is decided at school level, so achieving greater efficiency and involvement by parents and teachers, and thus higher standards.
    The Government recognise that increasing choice for parents and giving them greater control over how their schools are run will inevitably lead to higher standards. That choice is anathema to the Labour party which, as we have heard, wants to abolish grant-maintained schools, strangle the independent sector and abolish the grammar schools, despite the fact that parents in Birmingham are forcing the Labour authority to set up another grammar school. The Opposition would like to abolish CTCs and have even called A-levels—the linchpin of educational standards for the past 30 years—into question.
    I wish to offer two examples of how our reforms, leading to greater spending control at a local level, have led to higher standards. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) I am the chairman of a large comprehensive school—in my case in Birmingham. Since we achieved local management of schools we have been able to increase the teaching force by two teachers and increase the equipment, tools and materials budget by no less than 50 per cent. in one year.
    I do not wish to discuss the success of grant-maintained schools in terms of academic results or statistics; I want to discuss them on the basis of what I know from people who are daily involved in them. In Birmingham, the first midlands school to go grant maintained was Baverstock—despite a campaign of vilification by the local education authority and its purblind governing body. Now, according to the headmaster, a school that used to be the local skinhead school, surrounded by competition in the
    516
    shape of two former and one existing grammar school, has turned the corner and become a place which provides proper education and marvellous opportunity. Grant-maintained status has benefited the school; it has six more staff members than it did when under the education authority. It has a new science technician and even a new school nurse. Every teacher who wants to go for in-service training—teachers pay for it out of the school's budget—can do so. The school has increased its equipment, tools and materials budget by four times. Whereas before it was grossly undersubscribed, a sink school to which no one wanted to go, there are now 400 applications a year for 240 places. Most importantly, whereas before the school had babysitters foisted on it—people who took over from absent teachers—now there are 20 applications for every science post that the school advertises for one week only in The Times Educational Supplement.
    Given the parental involvement and improved standards made possible by grant-maintained status at Baverstock school, without extra resources and in a deprived area of Birmingham, I should have thought that the Labour party would embrace the idea as one that gives hope to people who could not otherwise attain high educational standards. Instead, the Opposition reject it out of hand.
    It is a matter of regret that so far only 44 grant-maintained schools have been set up. I am sure that there will be more and the Government should consider reforms under which governing bodies, after a positive vote to opt out by parents, would have a statutory duty to co-operate with the opting-out procedure, instead of seeking to delay it, as has happened so often.
    Greater devolution for education and the higher standards that it brings hold lessons for our national curriculum. Although it is good that more 16-year-olds are staying on at school and that more people are achieving higher standards than ever before in GCSE, there are still anxieties in many urban schools, such as the one that I chair, about the fact that truancy rates of 14 and 15-year-olds, particularly less able pupils, remain high. In our school we have a clear policy of providing BTEC courses, oriented to the world of work and therefore seen as more relevant by less able pupils.
    I was glad to hear the previous Secretary of State say in Norwich on 20 October that he was looking at developing policies of more vocational qualifications after the age of 16. There is a strong case for developing BTEC qualifications to run alongside the national curriculum for less able pupils after the age of 14. I hope that the Government will give that serious consideration.
    Finally, I make a plea to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. There is a strong case for giving greater tax relief to people who provide training out of their own——
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must leave it there.
    8.4 pm
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: As we are all aware, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act became law early in 1987 and at the time the Government insisted that it was a temporary measure, but it has been extended year by year to 1991. The Government were condemned in May

    517
    1988 by the International Labour Organisation for denying teachers their negotiating rights. They have not complied with international law and they have flouted international conventions that they ratified. During the period in which the interim advisory committee has been in operation, and certainly by the end of March 1990, teachers' pay had increased by 2·5 per cent. less than inflation, and a teacher at the top of the main professional grade was more than £400 a year worse off. During the existence of the IAC the pay scale of a teacher at the top of the main professional grade, with an allowance, will have increased by almost 14 per cent. less than the increase in average earnings.
    Is not this one of the major reasons why we have a shortage of teachers? A detailed survey of vacancies carried out by the six main teaching unions made it clear that schools have about 10,000 vacancies, yet still the Government will not listen. The Secretary of State refused to listen even before he had sat down at his new desk—for that matter, before he knew where it was. We all know that graduates are not opting for teaching as a career in anything like the numbers needed. Only by removing the IAC and giving teachers back their negotiating rights can the restraints on them be lifted.
    The patience of teachers is almost ready to explode, and their morale is at its lowest for years. Proposals in the Gracious Speech to introduce a Bill to establish permanent negotiating arrangements covering teachers' pay and conditions will be very much welcomed, but to be a success any Bill must restore direct pay bargaining between employer and employee. Before I congratulate the Government too much, I want to study the Bill carefully, because I suspect that it will contain a number of stings in the tail.
    However quickly teachers get back their negotiating rights, like everything else in this country education and training are in a dreadful mess, thanks to 11 years of this Government. In the 1990s Britain spends less of its national wealth on education than it did in 1979. We are in danger of becoming the worst educated and trained nation in Europe. Beyond the age of 16, Britain's young people have half the opportunities for high-quality education and training that their counterparts in West Germany, the United States and Japan enjoy. That is a disgrace.
    Good quality training and education are the best ways of building a flexible and effective work force with high levels of skills which enable everyone to reach his or her full potential. Of all the imbalances in our country, no deficit is more damaging than the gap between the need for and the supply of modern skills. Just one third of 17-year-olds stayed on in full-time education in 1988, compared with two thirds in most European countries.
    The amount spent by the Government on training 16 to 19-year-olds is to be cut by £159 million between now and 1992. Surely this is a chance to expand quality, not to make savings. If the Government continue this policy, more opportunities will be lost.
    Although 16 to 19-year-olds are undoubtedly the most neglected group in the education system, the problem is wider than that and begins with the basic entitlement to education. Every child should be entitled to pre-school education. Nursery education gives youngsters a good
    518
    start in life, and after nursery school the under-fives are better prepared both educationally and socially for primary school. Tragically, less than a quarter of Britain's three and four-year-olds get a chance of a place in a nursery school. Fortunately, in my local education authority area of Durham we have a good record because more than 40 per cent. of our children have nursery places. Each year that is increasing, because the county has seen the necessity for such education. Over the next three years there will be a great expansion of nursery provision.
    Four-year-olds are being admitted early to primary school, but as a recent HMI report on the education of children under five states:
    "Children under 5 in nursery schools and classes generally receive a broader, better balanced education than those in primary classes."
    Nursery education is the answer, but the Government refuse to promote it. It is left to Labour-controlled local education authorities to advance the cause of nursery provision. A child in a Labour area has twice the chance of a nursery place than a child in any other area. However, it is no longer enough to rely on the whim and the good will of local education authorities. We need a strategy to increase the opportunity for quality education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. There is nothing in the Gracious Speech to improve that situation.
    Half Britain's children are educated in sub-standard accommodation. For a quarter of them the buildings are so bad that Her Majesty's inspectorate says that the children's education is suffering. The previous Secretary of State for Education's £500 million so-called victory means that each school might just get an extra coat of paint. We need between £3·5 billion and £4 billion just to put schools in the right condition. My local education authority in Durham needs £50 million for necessary repairs to schools in the area. This year, only emergency repairs will be carried out because the authority is so short of finance.
    I should like to read from the minutes of a governors' meeting at a school in Neville's Cross in Durham. The minutes were sent to me and they state under general comments:
    "It was agreed that efforts should be made to have the high ceilings decorated, and the plastering work, carried out professionally. We could then seek the services of volunteers to paint the classrooms etc. and attempt to obtain the paint at favourable rates, free it possible.
    Mr. Dodsworth, Mr. Fenwick and myself would like to thank wholeheartedly Mr. Hudson and other members of staff who have given up their holidays to redecorate their classrooms. We would like the Governors to record this appreciation."
    Where is education going when teachers have to come into schools during their holidays to carry out decorating? That is a dreadful state of affairs.
    Her Majesty's inspectorate recently said that 30 per cent. of our children receive a sub-standard education. The Prime Minister's response was that 70 per cent. were therefore okay. That is a dreadful and uncaring response of the sort that we have come to expect from the Government. The next Labour Government will repeal the opting-out clauses of the Education Reform Act 1988 and will return all such schools, along with CTCs, to the local education authorities. That will start to cut the privilege that the Government so readily hand out. We also need to amend the local managers scheme so that local education authorities can plan more easily the distribution of the resources that are needed and will be needed. It is plain

    519
    that at present the system favours the big and already better financed schools, although that is still not saying much for the resources.
    On my way here on the train this morning, I read an incredible little article in the Daily Mirror. The heading was "Schools Kept Going by Raffles." The article states:
    "Teachers and parents with kids at Britain's hard-pressed schools are learning about a new version of the three R's … raffles, raising money and redecorating. They are digging more and more into their own pockets to help schools starved of cash by local councils."
    It is incredible that teachers have to spend more time trying to raise money than they spend teaching our kids. That is disgraceful.
    There can be little argument about the importance of raising education and training opportunities and standards for 16 to 19-year-olds. In Britain it is the norm to leave school at 16. It should be the norm to obtain as many qualifications as possible. The number of 16 and 18-year-olds in full-time education or college-based training must be doubled and opportunities widened, thereby increasing the number of youngsters with access to higher education.
    While the Government speak of doubling the numbers in higher education in 25 years, they reverse direction——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Gentleman. It is amazing that I have had to call so many hon. Members to order this evening. There is just half a minute left once the digital clock changes.
    8.16 pm
    Sir David Mitchell: As a preliminary to what I wish to say about education, I should like to speak about the benefits of choice and competition. Ten years ago, our internal air services were a British Airways monopoly and the service was known as the shuttle. It was utilitarian in the extreme. There were no meals, tea, coffee or papers. Then we licensed British Midland to fly in competition with British Airways. That gave choice to the user and ended the British Airways monopoly. Overnight, the shuttle service died and in its place was born super-shuttle. On that service passengers receive a newspaper when they arrive. There is a hot breakfast, free tea, coffee and drinks throughout the day and passengers count as people of importance.
    Five years ago, buses were utilitarian, moribund local monopolies. There were shrinking services, huge subsidies and no innovation. At that time no one outside Exeter had seen a minibus. We deregulated and introduced competition. Costs tumbled, services improved, and minibuses appeared in countless towns all over Britain. That was innovation for the benefit of the customer.
    A year ago, the doctors' new contract provided for per capita pay. The more patients a doctor had, the more he was paid. That was the start of competition in the national health service. Now the average doctor spends four hours a week more with the sick, the elderly and the dying than he did a year ago, and 75 per cent. of doctors have started or increased preventive health clinics.
    Choice and competition put suppliers of goods and services on their toes and they constantly seek to improve the standard of what they provide. Choice and competition are the great motivators for improving the lot of the customer, the user and the consumer.
    However, when choice and competition are proposed there is opposition from the monopolists. The workers, the
    520
    unions and their political friends and the owners and management all fiercely defend the retention of the status quo and oppose the opportunity for competition. Every ingenious argument is produced, and withering scorn is poured on those who dare to attack the concept of a continuing monopoly.
    If courage is shown and the monopoly is challenged, the benefits to the user are immense. That leads me to my argument that choice and competition is a valuable aid to education. We now have or will soon have the national curriculum defining what a child ought to know. We have testing at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16 to monitor whether a child knows the subjects that he or she is studying. That also provides an opportunity for extra teaching and coaching where such a need is shown to exist. There are objective data for comparing one school with another and there is parental choice. We do not yet have enough state schools offering free state education but run independently of the local education authority monopoly. We need more of these grant-maintained schools. In practice, they have substantial benefits such as more cash under the control of the governors; on average some 15 per cent. more.
    I have here a tale of administrative overheads. There is a dramatic difference between those in the private sector and those in the public sector. Hampshire is one of the better counties in terms of its costs and overheads, but over one third of the staff employed by the local education authority are not employed in teaching—a fact that is both unbelievable and staggering. The private sector in education would have nothing remotely like that proportion taken up by non-teaching personnel. Grant-maintained status would also give governors the opportunity to trim their overheads and have a higher proportion of their staff as teaching staff.
    Grant-maintained status will also give governors greater freedom of action, will improve teacher numbers and ensure self-management by staff and governors who are answerable to parents. I pay a tribute to the teachers in my constituency who are exceedingly professional. I have great respect for the standard of their dedication. Many of the schools in my constituency are so good that they would stand up well in a fully competitive system as grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: How many have opted out?
    Sir David Mitchell: I am coming to that. It is wholly desirable to raise standards, using the spur of choice and competition. Already, applications for school places al grant-maintained schools have increased by 40 per cent. That is a sign of parental confidence in the system.
    I come now to the point that was half raised in a seated intervention. I warn any who seek to follow this path that they will need as much political courage as those who have tackled other monopolies and secured large benefits elsewhere. Experience teaches that there will be fierce condemnation at county level, just as unscrupulous, ingenious and determined as any in industry in which we have broken monopolies. Even officials, who should be neutral in this matter, leaving policy to be made by the elected representatives of the people in the county, will in many cases be directly involved in campaigns of twisting arms of governors and frightening parents to ensure that a school does not go down that road.

    521
    Should a school go down that road, what huge benefits there will be for the children and for the standard of education. Grant-maintained status will ensure that those concerned will have in their own hands the management of the school, which will be answerable to the parents and which will set standards that will be higher than those anywhere else.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Tom Pendry: I add my congratulations to our two maiden speakers, who made excellent speeches. Listening to them, I wondered what would happen when the gloves were off, given that these were supposed to be non-controversial speeches. I shall welcome such speeches.
    I recognise that those who instigated this debate and therefore chose its title had in mind a debate on education and training in its narrow context. I shall broaden the meaning of training and refer to an important need in training provision, which has been highlighted by the social services inspectorate in its report on the Rochdale child abuse cases. The Gracious Speech committed the Government to improve the quality of the health and social services. The inspectorate's report made it clear that the resources allocated to the training of our social workers is woefully inadequate.
    I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), who spoke passionately on this subject. Those of us who have witnessed, as we all have, I dare say, the heartbreak of parents deprived of their children in such cases know how vital it is that tight codes of practice are in place for those social workers, police, education authorities and medical professionals involved at the sharp end of this difficult and sensitive problem. Recently, I had two fathers in my surgeries who were quite distraught at how they had been handled during the delicate process of investigation that surrounds such cases. I know that social workers would welcome extra resources and help in this sector. It must be a top priority.
    National vacancy rates for social workers average 10 per cent., with 14·5 per cent. in London and up to 30 per cent. in some boroughs. The Government have accepted figures produced by Professor Adrian Webb for a local government training board working party that argue that, although there is an output of 4,300 social workers a year, this still leaves a shortfall of around 700 a year. However, that is way below the figure envisaged by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, which estimates that, if we are to meet the needs of the statutory, voluntary and private sector, we need at least 5,000 new holders of the diploma in social work. This qualification trains students to develop and demonstrate a defined knowledge base, core skills, professional values and competence to practise as a social worker. It is a two-year course, which was introduced in 1988 following the Government's rejection of proposals, made by the council, for a comprehensive three-year course.
    The Government's refusal to accept that three-year course has had major consequences. The British Association of Social Workers, for example, tells me that the United Kingdom is the only EC country where social work training fails to meet the Commission's directive on
    522
    higher education diplomas and qualifications. That is a scandal which needs addressing. In the absence of a three-year course, it is imperative that the existing qualification is fully resourced, improved where necessary and given the backing required to meet the needs arising from the vast increase in statutory duties that results from the 50 Acts passed since 1970.
    The British Association of Social Workers is asking for signs of the Government's commitment to the profession. The Government must take at least three steps to allay its fears. First, they could publish a target figure to make up the shortfall in numbers of social workers and to make an early announcement of that target number of social workers to qualify each year. Secondly, they should commit additional resources to assist in providing adequate practice teaching opportunities. Thirdly, they must support an advertising programme showing social work as a career in the same way as nursing or teaching. By these measures, the Government would show some commitment to higher standards of treatment and care by social workers and training and resources for them.
    The reference in the Gracious Speech to improving the quality of health and social security would be laughable if it were not such a serious commitment. How can the Labour party, or the country at large, take that pledge except with a pinch of salt, when we see how Ministers dodge and weave and alter rules and regulations to avoid paying legitimate claimants their just deserts? I have a case with which to illustrate my point.
    My local authority, Tameside, firmly believes that the Minister of State is playing cat and mouse with severely disabled people. Its principal welfare rights officer, Alan Franco, has told me that, on behalf of the council, he was the first to highlight the Government's inconsistencies under the Social Security Act 1986. He successfully represented a 26-year-old Tameside man who is severely handicapped. When he applied for another 150 such cases to be paid in the borough, he was firmly told that DSS officials had instructions to refuse all further claims but to pay any claims that were successfully pursued in local tribunals. In effect, this meant that only severely disabled people with a knowledge of social security law and access to expert advice would be paid the severe disability premium.
    The local authority lodged a test case with the Social Security Commission to settle the issue. Unfortunately the cat, in the shape of the Minister with responsibility for severely disabled people, noticed that the mouse, Simon Crompton, a man with Down's syndrome, might succeed in setting a precedent for severely disabled people. Therefore, he chose to amend an obscure proscriptive regulation, the net result of which was to limit the implications of the eventually successful test case to the period April 1988 to October 1989. Nevertheless, arrears of up to £1,955 became due to similar claimants. Once again, the Government cat moved to frustrate the hopes of severely disabled people throughout Britain.
    Paragraph 7 of schedule 6 to the Social Security Act 1990 came into force on Friday 13 July, the intention being to bar claimants who approached the Department of Social Security after that date from receiving the arrears due to them. Local DSS offices were instructed, however, to review all the cases known to them before that date and to pay the arrears due. The performance of local offices in carrying out this instruction can be judged from the reply

    523
    to my parliamentary question by the Minister of State, who is laughingly called the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, on 15 October.
    First, I congratulate the staff of the Mansfield office, who identified and paid 145 claimants. That office was top of the league. Can the Minister account for the 55 local offices that could not find one severely disabled person on their case loads? The generosity of the Wilmslow office should not go unnoticed. It found one eligible claimant, and then paid him or her £3·75. That example alone illustrates how the Government do not look after the disabled. The reference to the disabled in the Gracious Speech must be seen in that light. Whoever we finish up with as Prime Minister in the next few days will make no difference. The disabled will be looking for the entire Government to go, and soon.
    8.31 pm
    Dr. Ian Twinn: Having listened to Opposition Members, I am left with a nagging doubt whether they have any positive contribution to make to a debate on education. We have heard nothing but a diatribe of baseless criticism. It seems that they have nothing positive to offer. The Government's reforms i n the Education Reform Act 1988 have, however, been based upon positive and firm principles. First, they were designed to introduce nationally agreed higher standards in our schools. Secondly, they were designed to give parents freedom of choice for their children and teachers freedom of choice professionally to run the sort of schools they want, with parental support.
    I hope that our reforms will not be about prescribing too much from the centre—from the Department of Education and Science and from education establishments—how schools should be run, given the broad aims which the Act is designed to achieve.
    Nor should our reforms be about the structure of education. Good schools—successful schools that bring out the best from all their pupils, whatever the quality and the education of the pupils going into them—will be found in inner cities in Victorian buildings just as much as in single-class rural schools. They will be found in traditional grammar schools, in comprehensive schools and in secondary modern schools such as the one which I attended. Regardless of the structure and the name of the school, much will depend on the quality of leadership from the head, the governing body and the staff, and on support from parents. Our reforms are aimed at allowing that to happen in our schools.
    Freedom in schools has been enhanced by local management. I was distressed to hear this evening that Opposition Members want to end, to control or to rein in all local management and to claw back funds to the centre again, to allow bureaucrats in our city halls and county halls to take more money away from the teaching of pupils, so that more money can be spent on advisers and the friends of the education establishment, who offer so little that is constructive to help our schools.
    It is true that many head teachers and other members of staff are worried about local management of schools. That was true in my constituency. My ear was bent on many occasions when I visited schools. It was felt that those concerned did not have the skills to manage their schools properly. That is not surprising, because for many years head teachers have been denied the opportunity to
    524
    manage their schools. Our reforms have set them free to do that. In my experience, heads are struggling, but they are on a learning curve. They do not want to return to the time when they did not control their budgets.
    Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Twinn: No. The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself.
    Head teachers will not want to return to the period when they could not control their budgets, when they had to ask county hall or city hall—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member speak.
    Dr. Twinn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is typical of Opposition Members that they should want to stifle a debate when an attempt is made to draw attention to what happened in the past.
    When I was the manager of a primary school that came within the Inner London education authority, my colleagues and I had time and time again to go to county hall to ask for a simple repair to a window, for example, to be performed. We had to ask the head to spend all her time trying to get such repairs made. A head can now get a window repaired himself or herself. Heads can save money from their own budgets. They are able to control their budgets so that they can increase investment in their schools by having the staffing that they want.
    The Daily Mail has done us a favour today in exposing what has gone wrong in education authorities. It has drawn attention to the ratios of teachers to education staff. The neighbouring authority to Edmonton is Haringey, and it is not surprising that each day refugees troop over the borough boundary from Haringey into Edmonton to get away from the destructive elements in Haringey schools. Parents vote with their feet whenever they can in moving into my constituency. I am proud of that, but I want to see schools in Haringey set free from the local authority and given the freedom to manage themselves.
    The problem is not confined to local level; it is to be found also at national level. There is a problem with the education establishment trying to hold on to too much control. I think that it is nervous about losing the grasp that it now has on education policy. I am concerned, however, that the national curriculum is too detailed. It does not leave enough freedom for teachers to develop their professional skills and to use their own experience to teach what they need to teach.
    I am concerned that testing is too burdensome. I feel that it goes well over the top of what is necessary for teachers and parents to understand what children are learning in school. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who was Secretary of State for Education and Science and who is now Leader of the House, on his action in cutting down the testing of seven-year-olds. I hope that the DES will continue to simplify some of the excesses with the implementation of our reforms.
    A reform of the A-level system may come in future. I believe that A-level examinations provide a high standard of testing for those who are academically gifted. They provide, as far as possible, a means of testing which is independent of the school in which a pupil has been

    525
    taught. They are independent of the ability of teachers and of their assessments. It would be a tragedy if we lost the independence of the A-level system.
    I was not especially impressed by the arguments that led to the disappearance of 0-level examinations and the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education. After experience with the GCSE system, it is doubtful whether one examination can usefully test all ability ranges. It is fundamentally dishonest of us to try to fudge together systems which pretend to do that. Let us not make the same mistake with A-levels.
    Study in depth at A-level standard of two, three or four subjects provides the basis of our higher education system. If we destroy the level of knowledge and development and depth of study at A-level, we are in grave danger of finding ourselves with four-year degree courses. There is nothing to be gained by students remaining in higher education for four years. I spent much of my time as a higher education lecturer engaged in four-year degree courses. A three-year course is perfectly adequate for undergraduate training. I do not think that money is available for us to introduce widespread four-year degree courses. It is a warning not to meddle with a system of 16-plus examinations that works well. Certainly it could be improved, and there is room for course work assessment, although I hope not too much. There is still a place for final examination assessments that, as far as possible, provide a benchmark of ability across the nation.
    Sixteen-plus examinations need to be expanded. The A-level examination is not suitable for everyone. There is a strong need for vocational training within schools, not just within colleges. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) arguing for the wider use of BTEC in schools and the introduction of more BTEC training running parallel with the A-level in the sixth form. My authority has a collegiate sixth form system for the borough, under which colleges and schools come together to provide a much wider range of vocational and academic training. It is a useful model for urban areas where that sort of co-operation can work.
    The Labour party has not offered the House very much, whereas my hon. Friends have offered positive and constructive ideas on how the reforms can be put into practice, how they are already working to improve choice in our schools, and how they are providing freedom for parents and for teachers. All we have heard from the Opposition is that they want to destroy the remaining grammar schools, end assisted places and scrap the grant-maintained schools and the city technology colleges. Let them explain how that intolerance of choice will enhance education.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. Dick Douglas: This has been a remarkable parliamentary day and I regret that there is such a sparse number of Members now present. Labour Members have clearly said that whoever becomes head of school, if they had a free vote they would support the present headmistress. There is no doubt that it is in their interest to retain the headmistress.
    There was a statement about the abandonment of the duopoly, but one of the duopolies most irritating to Back-Benchers like me is the monopolising of time by
    526
    Front-Bench spokesmen in their opening and closing speeches. They made more than two-and-a-half hours of speeches when opening today's debate, yet Back-Bench speeches have been curtailed by the 10-minute rule. It is a ridiculous misallocation of time.
    Whatever the insularity of this place, it is the English Parliament. There has been a great deal of talk about changes in education, but hardly a word about universities—I think that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned them in passing—and hardly a word about education and training. I intend to spend most of my time dealing with further and higher education, with particular regard to Scotland. I make no apology for that. If Scotland gains its independence in Europe, we will make higher and further education a top priority—[ Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) may laugh, and I do not pretend that I would not have been sceptical about that some years ago. But I say to him, "Watch Paisley, my boy, because that will wipe the smirk off your face."—[ Interruption.] The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) should not mumble from a sedentary position.
    Scotland has more young people going into higher education than any other part of the United Kingdom—more than one in five. It is an essential part of that structure that we retain and advance the essential features. First among them is the relative openness of our centres of higher and further education to all classes in society. Some Conservative Members spoke about choice, but that depends very much on the locality in which one is horn. I am one of the few hon. Members who left school at 14. My choice was not to go into further or higher education, but to go into the shipyard. I left school on the Friday and started work on the Monday. It does not make me better than anyone else, but it illustrates the limitation on choice. If choice is to be extended, the opportunities must be expanded by keeping higher and further education as free as possible.
    One of the other features of choice in Scotland is the method of attaining the relevant educational qualifications in the post-compulsory school years which has operated in harmony with the general openness. We cannot oppose the setting up of the Howie committee to review the aims and purposes of such qualifications, but it would be a retrograde step to place any additional disincentives in the path of students who wish to attain the appropriate qualifications to go on to higher education.
    I am surprised that most English Members drew no comparison with Scotland's qualifications for going into higher education. We are jealous of the Scottish higher. As has been said, it is as certain as anything can be in social science that at least part of Scotland's advantage over England and Wales can be attributed to the fifth-year higher. That is possibly under threat. Any recommendations emanating from Howie must be examined against the need of Scotland to expand access to higher and further education and against the background of a decline in the numbers of the relevant age group coming forward in the immediate future and the possible increasing attractions of going straight into the labour market.
    During the past 20 years, Governments of all colours have imposed restrictions on universities, and they have had a severe impact on the ability of our centres of higher learning to retain their place as attractive employers and as leaders in fundamental research—an area in which we are living on the seed corn. I have no intention of speaking for

    527
    the universities in England and Wales. I should declare an interest as I am a member of the court of Stirling university. Any of the principals and vice-chancellors of Scotland's eight universities would say that they were worried about the status of their institutions as centres of research.
    I know that universities are teaching institutions, but research is fundamental, not only for them as institutions of higher learning, but for retaining people of the appropriate calibre that will provide a spin-off to the teaching function. If research disappears, so do other aspects. I accept that an increasing amount is being provided for the research budget, but let us compare it with the £2 billion that is spent on defence research and development. That is under attack, and if it is cut, the effect will be felt in the south-east and the midlands. The shortfall will not be made up by private institutions. They will not fund fundamental research in the universities because they mainly fund applied research. Therefore, the universities will continue to be severely worse off in fundamental research funding.
    It is no exaggeration to state that a whole generation of suitable lecturers and researchers have turned their backs on academic life and found employment elsewhere. Industry has proved much more attractive. If anyone doubts that, he should examine the continued decline in the proportion of academic staff under the age of 35 in universities. It is clear that they have failed to attract sufficient numbers of men and women of the appropriate calibre since the Government came to office.
    Even with North sea oil and gas, the regeneration of Scotland's industry and commerce will demand more skills and more training. That means that education and training must be a top priority, and Scotland's priorities cannot be set by English standards.
    There is no Scottish Minister present, so I hope that what I am about to say on education and training will be passed on. I am concerned that Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies are employer dominated. If employers of an appropriate calibre are to be involved, they will not be able to devote enough time to running their businesses. That is the quandary. If they devote time to education and training, they will desert their businesses. The danger of such an employer-dominated organisation is that employees will be trained for jobs that are in decline, not the jobs of the future. For example, shipbuilding employees who dominated an LEC might have trained people to be riveters when welding was coming in or shipbuilding was in decline.
    I have recently been talking to entrepreneurs, stalwarts in industry, particularly Clydeside. I shall not mention names for fear of embarrassing them. Their training was almost non-existent, but they are real men of character. One told me that he went to night school five nights a week as well as studying at the weekend. He is a man of great repute in shipbuilding. He was trained by an antiquated process, but we in Scotland cannot afford to retain such a process and we will not do so. An independent Scotland would set its own priorities which will meet the challenge of 1992. An independent Scotland within the EC would build on the standards and devotion of the education establishment. We will not be curtailed by the laggardly approach that has been adopted south of the border.
    8.51 pm
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The Labour party has recently targeted education and training for the coming election campaign. It has been wisely said—the adage is one that we all intuitively believe has much good sense in it—that the best and most sincere form of flattery is imitation. Therefore, Conservative Members would be less than human if they did not derive some gratification from the fact that, albeit somewhat belatedly, the Labour party has followed us down a path that we have been taking steadily for a number of years.
    When history comes to be written in future centuries, one of the great achievements of this Parliament will be the Education Reform Act 1988, which is quite the most thorough educational reform since Butler's Education Act in 1944. That was some three years before the Labour party apparently woke up to the enormous importance of education. That Act followed many years of internal discussion in the Government and in the Conservative party among interested professional groups and educationists on exactly the detailed form that those reforms should take.
    Fully a year before the Labour party woke up to the enormous importance of training, we had introduced the TECs, a completely new, radical and promising structure for managing the country's future training effort and the Government's important continuing contribution to that.
    I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not spend too much of their valuable time worrying about what the Labour party is saying, because its judgment in these areas has often proved to be wrong. Nevertheless, for what it is worth, we may take some encouragement from the Labour party's attitude in recent months. We should not be so churlish as not to welcome it. We should be extremely glad that it now sees the good sense of devoting effort and energy to these two areas of policy, as we have been doing, certainly since I have been a Member of the House and for a number of years before that.
    I take this opportunity to dwell on some of the essential principles of our reforms and the programme to which I have referred. Our education policy had essentially three aims. The first was to improve standards up to, and we hope, beyond the best international levels. Secondly, we thought that the best way to achieve that improvement in standards was to increase parental choice and competition between schools to ensure that schools felt that they were responding to a genuine market place, living up to the expectations of their consumers, the parents. The third great aim that completed the essential structure was to devolve powers from the local education authorities to the schools.
    All our reforms—whether strengthening the powers of head teachers and governors; open enrolment and abolition of the previous pernicious system of catchment areas, to which the Labour party has been wedded for a long time; the introduction of the national curriculum and assessment tests at seven, 11 and 14; or the introduction of GCSE—relate directly to one of those three aims, which hang together as an essential and coherent whole. That will, I believe, be the formula for a major secular improvement in Britain's education standards.
    I make one point which might serve to underline the importance of the two elements of devolving power to individual schools and opening up schools to parental

    529
    choice. We sometimes hear from the Opposition that independent schools enjoy an advantage over maintained schools. I do not believe that that is or has been generally true. Nevertheless, we are now enabling schools, where they so wish, to become essentially independent schools, responsible to their own governing bodies and dependent on the continuing support of the parents whose children they continue to attract.
    The only essential difference between a grant-maintained school and an independent school will be that, instead of the parents sending a cheque at the beginning of term, the Government will send a cheque. Under that structure, it will be possible for a number of different educational institutions to emerge, all of them holding their heads high—affording priority to different aspects of education, no doubt, but building their own authentic traditions, which will become proud traditions, and setting their own standards. That is, and has always been, the way to nurture educational institutions. That is how our great grammar schools emerged in the late middle ages. I have no doubt that we can look forward to a new era in education—an era holding enormous promise.
    I have already said that one of our great reforms in this Parliament has been in training. Conservative Members are the first to acknowledge that the key decisions on training—and, indeed, the key contributions to the costs of training—must come from the private sector. I do not know whether the Opposition believe in the private sector; we receive conflicting signals on the subject. But if they believe in the private sector, and if they believe that it is a fatal mistake to think that bureaucrats can second-guess the decisions of those involved in an enormously disparate market, they should welcome what we have done with the training and enterprise councils.
    We should welcome the fact that we are moving away from a bureaucratically driven training system under which the Government are supposed to take the lead not merely in providing but in directing resources. I hope and trust that the Opposition will welcome the establishment of the TECs—a system for focusing the initiatives of local businesses on the training programmes undertaken in their areas. That is an enormously important change.
    It is well known, I think—increasingly well known, I hope—that the Government are spending about twice as much public money on training as the Labour Government were spending when they left office. No Conservative Member is likely to fall prey to the illusion that is so prevalent among Opposition Members that simply by spending more one gets more value—that increased input automatically yields proportionately increased output. That is a fatal—and, I fear, a simple-minded—illusion. It is also a very dangerous illusion and one that can be very expensive. We should be the first to acknowledge that it is not enough to increase the training spend. We must ensure that money is spent as effectively, or more effectively, than it has been in the past.
    The first stage of that process has been to ensure that employers direct the spending of the Government's contribution to the national training effort. That is being achieved already and I can testify that, in Lincolnshire, the. TECs are taking up their new powers with great enthusiasm.
    530
    The second stage in the process is to enable individual trainees increasingly to drive the system—hence the importance of the pilot scheme for training vouchers. It is a pilot scheme and it would be quite wrong to prejudge the results of it, although personally I am confident that those results will be positive and that that, too, will form a permanent part of the training efforts of the future and will give new hope to millions of our young people.
    9.3 pm
    Mr. Ian McCartney: This is not the first occasion on which I have had to follow the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and I are somewhat notorious for our response to the hon. Gentleman's views on the marketplace. The hon. Gentleman has had the pleasure of serving with me on almost every Standing Committee on which I have served. Tonight, he has plumbed new depths in his pursuit of market philosophy: he has turned schools into warehouses and children into commodities.
    In the previous two Committees on which we have served, the hon. Gentleman has set great store by the privatisation of electricity and housing. He now seeks to apply market philosophy to education, turning children into commodities and saying that schools should operate according to the rules of the marketplace. He is not merely turning the clock back to Victorian times: as he suggested, he is taking us back to mediaeval times. That says a lot about the Conservative party.
    Today has been historic and not only because my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) made a compassionate and telling speech both about our friend, his predecessor who died so young, and about the work that is being done in deprived areas such as Knowsley by Labour local authorities to provide training and educational opportunities for many young people and children. Today is also historic because I believe that, for the first time in parliamentary history, the resignation speech of a Prime Minister was delivered by the deputy Prime Minister.
    In this debate, my party has been painting a picture not only of where we are today in terms of Government policy towards training and education, but of where we want to go, as a political party, after the next general election, and of the opportunities that await my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in that new Government as he takes forward our training proposals.
    Labour Members are not new to this subject. We not only have the experience of lifetimes spent in industry, but many of us in the past decade have been running successful training schemes on behalf of local authorities and in partnership with the private sector, the public sector, voluntary organisations and trade unions. Through those partnerships we have brought back new jobs, new opportunities and new skills into areas of dereliction that have been rejected by the Government.
    That has been done in partnership with local authorities with resources provided by them at a time when the Government have consistently reduced the resources available for training. Let us look at the Government's sorry record. According to the latest Government expenditure round this year, there will be a cut of £365 million in the training budget. Apparently, the Minister who will reply to the debate is happy and is rejoicing in the

    531
    fact that his own budget has been cut by £365 million. Next year the cut will be £350 million and in 1993–94 it will be £357 million. We are seeing the "zero option" in the Government's training policy because, by 1994, the Minister's Department will be spending almost nothing on employment training projects for people such as the long-term unemployed and those with special needs.
    As I have said, many of us have spent the past decade working in local government and trying to provide training resources in our areas. My own Wigan metropolitan borough and Newcastle are the only two boroughs to have been chosen by the EEC Commission to set up pilot projects for developing training initiatives with the private sector, local authorities and other public bodies. We have built on the experience of that original initiative several years ago by developing new TECs, information technology centres and the new centre that is now being set up under Metro TEC.
    Our view of training is quite different from that of the Government. We believe that any training system must first be effective at a local level. There must be strong local participation from industry and commerce; the public and the voluntary sectors; local authorities, including local education authorities; colleges, and women's organisations. It must involve the unemployed, especially those with special needs and the long-term unemployed, which is the very group that the Government are rejecting out of hand, as can be seen from the massive cuts in the already meagre budget. We want to see training at a local level which will identify the needs of the local community, both in terms of business and those people who require training, whether to move into industry, to make a new start in industry or to enter industry direct from education.
    We want to promote the principle and philosophy of training. Britain is saddled with an industry—this applies to both large industries and small businesses—in which training is not regarded as a major component of a company's philosophy. We want to promote and identify the benefits of training, not only to the community, but to the company and to its long-term needs in terms of its employees. We want to prioritise training because the Government's policy on training—I am talking not only about cuts in the budget, but about the schemes themselves and the changes made in them, year in, year out—has not only resulted in our being an unskilled nation, but has led to organisations in both the public and private sectors not knowing about the schemes that they can provide from year to year. For that reason we cannot develop a training network nationally, regionally or locally which meets the needs of industry and the community.
    We cannot train for the 1990s and the next century by changing the system according to the financial requirements of the Treasury year in and year out. There must be an absolute commitment to the training needs of the nation, especially young people, women returning to industry and special groups within the community. Unless that is recognised and there is a commitment to training over not one year or five years but a decade, the changes that we need to see will not take place and we have a continued piecemeal relationship between training in the community and the needs of industry.
    We must take serious measures to help the short-term unemployed. It is the view not only of the Opposition but of the Confederation of British Industry and other bodies independent of the Government that we are heading for a recession deeper than that of the early 1980s. Unless we
    532
    take measures to help the short-term unemployed, they will quickly become an ever-increasing pool of long-term unemployed. Therefore, we must provide resources at the local level to deal with the short-term unemployed.
    We must also consider the interests of people with disabilities. That means providing specific resources to encourage large and small employers in both the public and private sectors to employ disabled people. It is no good simply setting a national norm for the employment by private companies and local authorities of people with physical or mental disabilities unless we provide the financial incentive to allow that to happen. We must include in the training programme incentives for companies to employ disabled people.
    We must also widen access to women who wish to return to the workplace. From now until the turn of the century and beyond, there will be a growing need to encourage women back into the work place—not to work on the tills at Asda or Tesco but to do increasingly skilled work. That work should not be part-time but part of a growing spectrum of jobs for women. To do that, we require resources to give women access to training and employment. That means providing resources at local level to examine the provision of child minding. Unless child minding is part and parcel of the local philosophy of training, many women will be locked out of the labour market and prevented from taking advantage of local training schemes.
    There is much that needs to be done. We need a national consensus on training. Without a consensus between those employed in industry and employers and unless the needs of young people who want to enter industry are met, all that we shall see is a growing spiral of unemployment and a pool of short-term unskilled labour. That will increasingly enable our overseas competitors to steal our markets.
    The position is dire, but an incoming Labour Government will not only tackle the issue but turn it round. That is what the public want. They want to get rid of this Government and have a Government committed to training and education.
    9.13 pm
    Mr. Dennis Turner: If we needed any evidence of the paucity of the Government's arguments in response to our amendment opposing the measures in the Gracious Speech on education and training—I suppose that we should call it education, training and employment—we were given it in the speeches that we heard tonight.
    We heard from the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). He was the ideologue called upon to tell us all about competition, the marketplace and all the doctrinaire attitudes which he contends are part of the Government's philosophy. I am sure that the Ministers on the Front Bench must have been extremely embarrassed by that speech. Clearly, that is not what they want the general public and the world at large to hear. They want the presentation to be more subtle and appealing.
    The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) spoke about the terrible militancy of teachers and their organisations. He said that they had adopted unprofessional and unethical tactics. Another hon. Member talked about bureaucrats as those little people in town halls up and down the country who were causing

    533
    unimaginable problems for our education service. That has been the tenor of the speeches from Tory Members. In a word, it is called scapegoating. That have no answers to the problems.
    We have seen through the Government's Education Reform Act 1988. We reject most of the arguments on which they have based their policies. We reject opting out, open enrolment and other measures in the Act as being divisive. The Government have ideological reasons for their policies—to divide and rule. Many of their policies are based on that premise.
    Parents, teachers and governors all tell us of the daily problems facing them. I cannot cover the whole education service, but there is no greater problem than that of post-16 education. Even the Government agree that that must be tackled. The whole area is fragmented. I asked the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science to create a royal commission to evaluate all the problems and the missed opportunities that should be grasped in the post-16 education sector.
    I make no apologies for being in favour of tertiary education. It comprehensively delivers the great benefits of vocational and academic learning. It assists youngsters over 16 to stay with it. Nevertheless, 50 per cent. of our youngsters decide at 16 to take no further part in higher or further education.
    Would it not be possible tonight just for once to hear from a Minister his appreciation of the teachers and lecturers in our schools and colleges who deliver education to our youngsters? Could a Minister couple with that an appreciation of those who have again been attacked tonight who work in our civic centres to provide services to our population? Welfare officers, school psychologists, school staff and those who sort out the grants that must be made to further and higher education institutions give of their time and energy to help create the education system that we all claim we need.
    Turning briefly to training, I hope that the Minister does not equate 82 individual training enterprise councils with the provision of a unified, co-ordinated, national, training plan, because that certainly is not the case. I know from my constituency of the contribution that employers are making in that training and enterprise plan and of how they are assisting the Government in their objectives. However, those councils, which have employers placed on them, will have appeal for the well-motivated youngsters who are capable of achieving qualifications.
    I ask the Minister what is to happen to the broad swathe of youngsters who are not so highly motivated. I have in mind the 16-year-olds who need to be personally encouraged to undertake further education. Under the Government's plan, they are likely to be left on the sidelines.
    You have appointed in Wolverhampton a chairman of the training enterprise council who is chairman also of the health authority. I ask a question that I have asked you before.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Turner: How can a person who has been appointed to those two major posts contribute sufficient time and energy to them both? When will you say——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member to order, to remind him that he should observe the common courtesies when referring to other hon. Members.
    Mr. Turner: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister again to examine that situation. In Wolverhampton, one person has responsibility for both the training and enterprise council and the town's health service. It is impossible for one person to do both jobs adequately. If the Minister takes his plans seriously, he should carefully examine the situation to which I have drawn his attention.
    9.21 pm
    Mr. Tony Blair: I have pleasure congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on their excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South made, by common consent, a superb contribution. He began by paying a moving tribute to his predecessor, Sean Hughes. As my hon. Friend knows from his conversations with many right hon. and hon. Members, Sean Hughes was very highly regarded by the House, and his loss is felt not only by the Labour party but throughout the country.
    I was delighted to support my hon. Friend at one of his press conferences during the by-election, at which he demonstrated his total command of the constituency, when the most taxing question he was asked washow large his majority should be, and he showed his good sense by refusing to answer. In fact, he had an excellent majority, which is a tribute to him. My hon. Friend spoke well on the subject of education, in which he has a distinguished record. He spoke with passion, intelligence, conviction and knowledge of his locality, and we look forward to hearing many more contributions from him.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne united the House by expressing strong sentiments about his predecessor, Ian Gow. We all felt sadness at his loss, and outrage at the manner of his death. The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke about the needs of his constituents in education and community care, and argued his case well from the point of view of his own locality. The hon. Gentleman also made a distinguished contribution to our debate, and we look forward to many further speeches from him.
    There is a consensus in Britain today that the 1990s should be the age of the trained, and that we will succeed or fail by the skills and learning of our people. The debate was about whether the mood of the country is matched by the commitment of the Government. We start from weakness, not strength. Last year, the Confederation of British Industry called for a skills revolution, and in its evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee in May this year, it described as "a considerable challenge" the skills crisis that Britain faces, and warned that the skills gap "may even be widening."
    Less than a year ago, the Department of Employment itself published its "Training in Britain" study. That study not only found that one in five employers provided no training, but that two thirds of the carefully taken sample of almost 3,000 people had received no training at any time in their employment., or none within the past three years. Almost half identified training needs that were not met, and 40 per cent. expected to receive no further training for the rest of their adult lives.

    535
    That report has been borne out by all other subsequent reports on skill shortages and their extent. In September, the Training Commission, shortly before it was wound up, conducted interviews with some 4,000 establishments employing more than 25 people. Two things stuck out from that report. The first was that almost half those enterprises experienced recruitment problems in 1989—for 40 per cent. it was a severe problem—and that nearly all of them expected their problems to continue. Secondly, the areas in which the skill shortages existed were engineering—mechanical and electrical—vehicle manufacturing and textiles, and, for those enterprises in the public sector, shortages were encountered in the health service.
    Those shortages have been confirmed by virtually every subsequent report. The Manpower Employment Agency found just a few weeks ago that 44 per cent. of all employers claimed skill shortages—that figure rose to 100 per cent. in the construction industry. Technicians and engineers are most in demand.
    A recent survey of small businesses and their skill shortages showed that one fifth had experienced severe skill shortages and one in 10 said that that was the most important problem they faced. Those shortages were identified in manufacturing, construction and financial services. Chambers of commerce have also recently drawn attention to our skill shortages.
    Our analysis of jobcentre vacancies for the latest quarter showed that in 60 key occupations—in science, technology, manufacturing and production processes—jobs took much longer to fill than on average—sometimes several months. In the past few days, another group of independent consultants published a review of engineering skills in Britain. It found a staggering 8 per cent. annual shortfall in engineering graduates. By 2000, the Engineering Council believes that we shall require another 200,000 engineers to cope with advances in technology. That report also showed that, by contrast, in Germany there was already a surplus of engineers. Surely that is what is crucial. The skills gap is not just a tragedy for the individual whose potential is unfulfilled but a crisis for the nation that needs that potential to succeed.
    It is not merely the absolute level of training in Britain that should concern us, but the level relative to our main competitors. A few months ago, a report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research compared us with Germany. It showed that we were behind in virtually every category of skills, from metal manufacturing through to kitchen furniture and the training of shop assistants.
    In August, Hilary Steedman published a study of workplace qualifications in Britain and France between 1979 and the present day. In 1979, France had similar levels of intermediate vocational qualifications to Britain. Now France has pulled ahead, so that 40 per cent. of its work force have those qualifications compared with 26 per cent. in Britain and 64 per cent. in Germany. As a result of fewer young people staying on at school in Britain, and poor vocational training when they leave school, the number of young people who obtain craft qualifications has remained constant in Britain, but increased by 50 per cent. in France.
    Report after report demonstrates the extent of the problem. In October 1990, the Institute of Manpower Studies published a report that showed how many fewer 16-year-olds there were in full-time education in Britain than there were in France, Germany or even Spain. A
    536
    recent report in relation to Germany showed that it may have as many as 10 million more qualified people than Britain.
    What can we see from those reports? We see, first, that we suffer major skill shortages in Britain and, secondly, that they are in the very areas where Britain's balance of payments problem is at its most acute. There could be no more established link than between the failure to invest in training and the failure of our overall economic performance.
    There may be signs of change in the attitude of employers. We are pleased that the latest CBI survey shows that employers are not cutting training investment. There may be signs of improvement in the attitude of individuals, showing a greater awareness of the benefits of training. But the question is whether the Government are prepared to make that commitment to training and skills.
    Even before the autumn statement, Government programmes were in major difficulties. There were cuts often of 15 to 20 per cent. in youth training programmes, and that happened right across industry. Hon. Members have received representations about national bodies cutting training places and making trainers redundant in youth training. In that sector, there is already a serious crisis.
    In recent weeks, the Industrial Society has published a report saying that, four years after the National Council for Vocational Qualifications was set up, 58 per cent. of personnel managers had not heard of the new national vocational qualification system, let alone taking part in it.
    As for the industry training bodies, the sectoral bodies vital for Britain's future, a report published by the Department showed that only just over half of them were fully effective in their sectors. Yet the former Secretary of State correctly said, when setting the targets for the upgrading of skills, that all those sectoral bodies should be fully effective by the end of 1992.
    The Select Committee on Employment said in its May report in relation to training for the unemployed that nobody even knew the number of employment trainees who got proper qualifications, and that there should be an increase in spending per trainee. So before coming to the autumn statement and considering the response of the Government, we see that Britain has a low level of skills, that it is experiencing major skill shortages, that that is an absolute phenomenon compared with competitor countries, and that, although individuals and employers are showing additional commitment, the Government are already experiencing difficulties with their programmes.
    That is the background against which we review the autumn statement. What is the Government's response to the skills crisis? In the coming two years, they will cut training in Britian by £500 million. It is scarcely conceivable to imagine anything less responsible or less in the future interest of the country; £300 million, 10 per cent. of the budget, will be cut in the next year alone. Altogether, from 1987 to 1992, we estimate that £1·6 billion, or one third of the entire budget, will have been cut. Taking account of inflation this year, not even the Department's budget will stand still compared with last year's plans. Even worse, the cuts will be targeted on the long-term unemployed, the most vulnerable in society.
    The Secretary of State says that he simply wishes to change the shape of the employment training programme, but the criticism of employment training was that it was not overfunded but underfunded. Employment training

    537
    was set up not because people did not believe training to be essential for the unemployed but because they thought training was critical to enable them to get back to work.
    A recent OECD report called for an increase in the training budget devoted to the long-term unemployed. To replace employment training with a better scheme would be one thing; to cut employment training and put nothing in its place is a cruel betrayal of the most vulnerable in society.
    Those cuts will be profoundly damaging to training. Even if they were justified in the programmes, as the Minister said, and we could save resources in existing systems, surely any sensible Government would not use that as an excuse to take that money out of the training budget, but would use it in the training budget to upgrade the skills of people in this country.
    Let us think of the uses to which, with a little imagination, we could have put that additional £500 million. We could have had a new initiative to improve the quality of training and the system of national qualifications, and a programme to target women returners and extend child care facilities. We could have revitalised the sectoral training organisations that are not effective at present.
    We could have had a proper, in-depth analysis of skill shortages, and a crash programme to deal with them, a system of incentives to upgrade the training of those already in work, an initiative to improve management training, one of the core skills that we so desperately need to improve in this country.
    Those are some of the missed opportunities of the autumn statement. The stark hypocrisy of the Government's position is surely shown by the fact that the very advice they tender to industry—"When in a recession, don't cut your training budgets"—is advice that the Government have ignored.
    Reading ministerial comments, one might think that our competitors were ahead but that we were catching up. That is a fundamental error. Our competitors are not standing still. Italy is increasing its spending on training this year. Germany has conducted a review of its dual system of apprenticeships to see how it can be made more flexible, major changes are being made with the active consent of unions and employers, and standards are being set even higher than before. The French intend to increase spending on training in the next two years by more than 35 per cent., and are launching new initiatives for people in work and young people.
    Mr. John Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blair: I am sorry, but I must get on.
    We must be the only country in the EC that will be cutting investment in training in the very year before the single European market. In Japan, the face of training is undergoing another transformation. The technology revolution is being replaced by the people revolution, in which the development of the individual at the workplace, of which his or her learning is merely a part, becomes the pivot on which each enterprise turns.
    To inculcate that new culture in Britain requires a new approach, a revolution in attitude. We believe that it must have at its heart two principles. First, it will require the
    538
    active involvement of Government, in partnership with industry. Training and enterprise councils cannot become a means of passing responsibility from Government to industry but should be a means of sharing that responsibility within a national training policy. Secondly, it cannot be achieved by a Government dogmatically wedded to a purely voluntary approach. Tory Ministers will exhort, but not oblige. They are cheerleaders, but not players.
    Every year, 100,000 or more young people leave school and go into work without any training. In France or Germany, that would be unthinkable, if not unlawful. What is good enough for France or Germany should be good enough for Britain.
    Mr. Butcher rose——
    Mr. Blair: Our belief is that training cannot be left to market forces. On the contrary, the failure to train has been a failure of the market, and that failure needs urgent action not complacency.
    Less than a year ago, the previous Secretary of State described Britain's skills crisis as a mountain to climb, but such language has gone. Instead, we are told by the new Secretary of State that we face "a golden decade". I confess that when I first heard the Secretary of State say that on the "Today" programme, I thought it was a mere passing eccentricity, a piece of early morning exuberance, but he repeats it every time he speaks.
    Presumably a golden decade starts with a golden year, which presumably starts with a golden month. Let us look at the autumn statement this month: falling investment, falling output, rising unemployment and a cut in the Department's budget. What a way to start a golden decade. That sort of hyperbole is the final refuge of a failed Government who have lost the will to tackle our problems and who fall back on denying their existence. A golden decade cannot be begun by a party which, as we saw earlier in the speech by the former deputy Prime Minister, is fundamentally and irrevocably split on the issues of the day. This is no longer just a party of competing personalities; it is a party of warring factions locked into internal conflict, while the interests of the country go unattended.
    If it were merely that the Prime Minister was isolated from her party, the solution for the nation would be clear: remove the Prime Minister. But when the Prime Minister is seen as the leader of a wing of a party divided and isolated from the country, then the only solution is to remove that party from government. That is why I say that this Government in all their policies—not only in education and training, but in the health service, rising interest rates, inflation, the balance of payments and rising unemployment—have created no social cohesion and no economic prosperity. They are no longer fit to govern the country. They are out of step abroad and out of touch at home, and the sooner they are out of office the better for the country.
    9.40 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I begin by congratulating the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on their excellent maiden speeches. All hon. Members will want to associate themselves with the tributes that they paid to their predecessors, Ian Gow and

    539
    Sean Hughes. We miss them both deeply and they will continue to be missed for as long as there are Members in this place who remember them.
    It is always sensible to consider the charges and counter-charges that we hear in debates such as this in context and proper perspective. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science outlined at the start of the debate the great strides forward that we have already made in education and the foundations that we have laid for further radical improvements in the near future. Most speeches in the debate were directed to education, and my right hon. and learned Friend will want to give them careful consideration.
    In training policy, too, despite the objections of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), we have made great progress in recent years. We are the only Government in the whole of Europe to guarantee a two-year training place to every young person who needs it. Investment in training by employers has risen to record levels. In recent years, employer contributions to youth training have increased fourfold and the number of employees receiving on-the-job training has risen by 70 per cent. in five years. A higher proportion of our young people have degrees than do those of France, Germany or Japan. We have attained a rate of productive growl h over the past decade which outstrips that of every other major country except Japan, and we have achieved a record number of jobs—2 million more than in 1979.
    Of course, none of this means that we can rest on our laurels. We have secured a sharp increase in the proportion of our youngsters who go into further education or training at the age of 16, but we need to do better still. So we shall introduce a world first next April—training vouchers. [Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh, but training vouchers for young school leavers are designed to achieve precisely what we were asked to consider by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). They are designed precisely to enable 16 and 17-year-old school leavers to take advantage of the training opportunities that are available to them. In 11 pilot areas next year, school leavers will each be issued with a voucher that they can use to purchase training of their choice for the career of their choice. Each voucher will have a face value, typically of about £1,000, and the value of some will be considerably more than that. Those vouchers will entitle young people to training at further education colleges or with other training providers, at the workplace during the day or elsewhere during the evening.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) appreciated, this voucher initiative will give young people the choice, the buying power and the incentive to train. I hope and expect that the 11 pilot projects will succeed, giving us an opportunity to consider expanding them to other parts of the country.
    Mr. Turner: I should not like to be excommunicated from my beloved movement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that I never gave him any reason to believe that I support vouchers? No hon. Member could say that in my speech I said that I supported that part of the Government's policy. I hope that all hon. Members will note that.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Howard: I did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of favouring vouchers. He did what his party always does. It identifies the problem but never identifies a solution. The hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent on the problem. We have a solution to that problem and we are implementing it. We shall deal with the important problem that the hon. Gentleman was entirely right to identify.
    The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition speaks of choice and opportunity. We are creating choice and opportunity of a kind and to an extent that young people in this country have never had before. The vouchers will be issued by training and enterprise councils. Right across the country, more than 1,200 top business leaders, all of them chairmen or chief executives of their own companies, have come together to form training and enterprise councils. Those TECs represent an unprecedented degree of co-operation between Government and employers who are dedicated to the cause of transforming attitudes towards training and enterprise in their areas.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East was right when he said that 82 local training and enterprise councils do not represent a unified approach to training. We think that training should reflect local circumstances and that the way to tackle the problem is to give local training and enterprise councils the discretion that they need to meet circumstances in their own areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding was entirely right to emphasise the role of employers in this exercise.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the ways that young people will use these welcome vouchers will be for computer training? Does he further agree that the creation of information technology centres is one of those excellent training initiatives that the Labour party is determined to abolish?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. The quality of training is steadily increasing and, as employer contributions to it steadily increase, the quality will improve even more.
    All 82 training and enterprise councils in England and Wales have now entered at least the development phase, completing the national network a full two years ahead of schedule. Half of them are now fully operational. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is in his place. This was his initiative, and we owe him a great deal for the striking progress that has been made.
    Training and enterprise councils will ensure that decisions about training policy are taken in the most responsive and effective way, because they will be taken at local level by employers who know the jobs that are available, those that will become available and the sort of skills that are needed to fill them. They are bringing into this sector the enthusiasm, the dynamism and the efficiency of the private sector. They will ensure that employer commitment to training continues to increase, that the training provided for young people and the unemployed leads directly into jobs, and that small and growing businesses receive the local support and advice they need as they get off the ground.
    The hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Sedgefield referred to the CBI's target. Both of them were

    541
    sadly out of date. Last month, the CBI published its consultative proposals on targets. It expressed the hope that the Government would welcome this initiative. Within days, I had issued my strategic guidance for the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members having private conversations please take them elsewhere?
    Mr. Howard: In that guidance, I welcomed the CBI's initiative. I did what it suggested would be appropriate and I defined the responsibilities of all those who have a role in this sector—Government, employers, the TECs, and training providers.
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield waxed indignant about the autumn statement. Let me put the record straight. Next year, the Government will be spending broadly as much on training, enterprise and vocational education as we are spending this year; two and a half times as much, in real terms, on training as the last Labour Government and a considerably higher proportion of GDP on Government investment than the United States, Germany or Japan.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Sedgefield did not give way once, I have given way twice, and I must get on.
    We shall be increasing planned spending on youth training and the technical and vocational education initiative, and providing £18 million more for the areas piloting training vouchers for young people.
    We have secured major increases in the financial flexibilities available to training and enterprise councils, reflecting the major priority of the TECs themselves, and ensuring that they will be able to secure significant increases in value for money for the taxpayer.
    They will, for example, be paid by results—by the number of people they train who get jobs or qualifications—for at least 25 per cent. of their youth training and employment training work.
    There will no longer be any limits on the periods of training in ET or YT, and they will have a single flexible budget for encouraging enterprise in their local area.
    We have also significantly increased the responsibilities of the TECs. They will take charge of our £105 million work-related further education programme. They will be able to bid for some additional resources to launch or extend education-business partnerships. TECs will have a powerful influence over the way in which the TVEI develops in our schools. This package reflects and protects the priorities that the training and enterprise councils wanted themselves.
    We have also reviewed the provision of our services to the long-term unemployed. Recent detailed surveys show that up to half of the long-term unemployed already have qualifications, often matching those required to fill local vacancies. We have taken into account sharp falls in the level of long-term unemployment by 60 per cent. since 1986 and by 20 per cent. over the last year alone. Against that background, we have given fresh consideration to the ways in which we can best help the unemployed back to work. We are widening the range of services available to them. We are creating 100,000 new job opportunities to
    542
    help people back into work. We have stressed that we will fully honour our guarantees under youth training and employment training. We have gone further, expanding the aim group to include for the first time unemployed people with disabilities.
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield has been very agitated about these changes. So let me ask him this: is he saying that we should never review the ways in which we can best help the unemployed back to work? Is he saying that, if the results of that review show that we can help them more effectively at lower cost, we should not implement it? Is he saying that we should have ignored the clear evidence that training is not always the right means to help the long-term unemployed back into work? Should we encourage people to go on training courses that may not be appropriate for their needs, when other more effective programmes could be offered to help them?
    There are clear choices about training policy facing this country, and the Government's view is clear. If the Opposition are to carry any credibility, they must tell the House where they stand. For example, do they believe in a voluntary or a compulsory approach? For 20 years, we had a compulsory approach to training in this country. We had levies, we had training boards—we had all the panoply of coercion. It failed. Does the Labour party want to return to that? Labour Members appear to be incapable of making up their minds on the issue.
    Last year, the Opposition's policy review was clear and explicit on these matters. It stated that a Labour Government would introduce a jobs tax of 0·5 per cent. of payroll to be paid "by all enterprises". On 6 February, the Leader of the Opposition made a speech in which he said that the Labour party would listen to the views of business men in making up its mind about the jobs tax. The CBI then made its view of the jobs tax very clear. It said that it would be
    "a nuisance and an irrelevance."
    On 12 March, the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Blackburn launched a policy document on training which did not mention the jobs tax. Two weeks later, on 26 March, the commitment returned. When I challenged the hon. Member for Sedgefield on it in the House, he even said that it would be a policy of "sanctions" against employers. Then the Leader of the Opposition made a speech which we were given to understand meant that the commitment to a levy had been dropped.
    The Labour party brings to this issue a huge amount of confusion. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will take every opportunity to explain to the House and the nation exactly where it stands on this issue.
    I have already described to the House the initiative that we have taken in setting up training and enterprise councils throughout the country. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has said that he supports the TECs because—I quote his welcome words—
    "there is one great advantage and that is that they have managed to generate an awful lot of enthusiasm among employers".
    That, the hon. Gentleman says, is "essential".
    The essence of the TECs, and the reason whey they have generated such enthusiasm among employers, is that they are employer-led bodies. That is because employers are best placed to identify the training and enterprise needs of their areas. Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield support this approach, or does he support the view which is set out in his policy document that these bodies should

    543
    be representative? Does he support the view of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who said that these bodies should be representative and that they should be packed with trade unionists, local authority delegates and others, to dilute the leading role of employers?
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield cannot have it both ways. Will he commit himself to support TECs as they are now composed or does he intend to change their very nature? Will he tell us today where he stands?
    The policy document of the hon. Member for Sedgefield states that TECs are to be the arms of a centralised training organisation called Skills UK, which the Opposition propose to set up. It is the essence of TECs, however, that they should be independent. Does the hon. Gentleman support this approach? Or does he support his party's policy document, in which it is stated that TECs should be the arms of Skills UK? Will he tell us today where he stands? Will he tell us now? I hope that he will disown his policy document. I hope that we can have consensus on this vital issue. These are crucial questions and we are entitled to have them answered.
    The Labour party's record on training is a lamentable one. That applies to the record of Labour Governments and to the Labour party's record in opposition. The Opposition have opposed every training initiative that the Government have introduced. They opposed YTS, YT and ET.
    A few days ago, I had a constructive encounter with the hon. Member for Blackburn. The hon. Gentleman came to see me because he was concerned about the funding of TVEI in his constituency. He was concerned that his constituents should not be deprived of the benefits of this excellent programme. Happily, I was able to set his fears at rest. But what happened when we introduced TVEI? The Labour party conference passed a resolution condemning it as
    "a divisive new form of educational segregation".
    The Opposition's shadow education spokesman of the time went throughout the country denouncing it because he said it was fit only
    "for hewers of wood and drawers of water".
    That shadow spokesman is now the Leader of the Opposition.
    The Opposition amendment speaks of choice and opportunity. We have provided an unprecedented range of choice and opportunity. Each choice and each opportunity has been opposed by the Opposition——
    Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 337.

    Division No. 1]

    [ 10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Battle, John

    Allen, Graham

    Beckett, Margaret

    Alton, David

    Beith, A. J.

    Anderson, Donald

    Bell, Stuart

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bellotti, David

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

    Ashton, Joe

    Benton, Joseph

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Blair, Tony

    Barron, Kevin

    Blunkett, David

    544

    Boateng, Paul

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Boyes, Roland

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Bradley, Keith

    Hoyle, Doug

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Buckley, George J.

    Illsley, Eric

    Caborn, Richard

    Ingram, Adam

    Callaghan, Jim

    Janner, Greville

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Cartwright, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Clay, Bob

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Clelland, David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lambie, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Lamond, James

    Coleman, Donald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Leighton, Ron

    Corbett, Robin

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lewis, Terry

    Cousins, Jim

    Litherland, Robert

    Cox, Tom

    Livingstone, Ken

    Crowther, Stan

    Livsey, Richard

    Cryer, Bob

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cummings, John

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McAllion, John

    Dalyell, Tarn

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Darling, Alistair

    McCartney, Ian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McKelvey, William

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

    McLeish, Henry

    Dixon, Don

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dobson, Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Doran, Frank

    McWilliam, John

    Douglas, Dick

    Madden, Max

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Marek, Dr John

    Eadie, Alexander

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Eastham, Ken

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Fatchett, Derek

    Meale, Alan

    Fearn, Ronald

    Michael, Alun

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fisher, Mark

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Flannery, Martin

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flynn, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Foster, Derek

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foulkes, George

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fraser, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Fyte, Maria

    Murphy, Paul

    Galloway, George

    Nellist, Dave

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    George, Bruce

    O'Brien, William

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    O'Hara, Edward

    Gordon, Mildred

    O'Neill, Martin

    Gould, Bryan

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Graham, Thomas

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Parry, Robert

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Patchett, Terry

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Pendry, Tom

    Grocott, Bruce

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hardy, Peter

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Prescott, John

    Haynes, Frank

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Radice, Giles

    Henderson, Doug

    Randall, Stuart

    Hinchliffe, David

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Reid, Dr John

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Richardson, Jo

    Home Robertson, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Hood, Jimmy

    Rogers, Allan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Rooney, Terence

    545

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Ruddock, Joan

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Salmond, Alex

    Turner, Dennis

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Vaz, Keith

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wallace, James

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Walley, Joan

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Warded, Gareth (Gower)

    Short, Clare

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Wilson, Brian

    Snape, Peter

    Winnick, David

    Soley, Clive

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Spearing, Nigel

    Worthington, Tony

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Stott, Roger

    Strang, Gavin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Straw, Jack

    Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Cash, William

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Alexander, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Churchill, Mr

    Allason, Rupert

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

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Amess, David

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Amos, Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Colvin, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Conway, Derek

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Ashby, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Atkins, Robert

    Cormack, Patrick

    Atkinson, David

    Couchman, James

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Cran, James

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Critchley, Julian

    Baldry, Tony

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Curry, David

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

    Beggs, Roy

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Day, Stephen

    Bendall, Vivian

    Devlin, Tim

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Benyon, W.

    Dicks, Terry

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dover, Den

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Durant, Tony

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Eggar, Tim

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Evennett, David

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Fallon, Michael

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Favell, Tony

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bowis, John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Brazier, Julian

    Forman, Nigel

    Bright, Graham

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

    Forth, Eric

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Franks, Cecil

    Burns, Simon

    Freeman, Roger

    Burt, Alistair

    French, Douglas

    Butcher, John

    Fry, Peter

    Butler, Chris

    Gale, Roger

    Butterfill, John

    Gardiner, George

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Gill, Christopher

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Carttiss, Michael

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    546

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Madel, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gorst, John

    Mans, Keith

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Maples, John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marlow, Tony

    Gregory, Conal

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Grist, Ian

    Mates, Michael

    Ground, Patrick

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Grylls, Michael

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Hague, William

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Miller, Sir Hal

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

    Mills, lain

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hayes, Jerry

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hayward, Robert

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Mudd, David

    Hill, James

    Needham, Richard

    Hind, Kenneth

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Neubert, Michael

    Holt, Richard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Norris, Steve

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Page, Richard

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Paice, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Patnick, Irvine

    Irvine, Michael

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Jack, Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jackson, Robert

    Pawsey, James

    Janman, Tim

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jessel, Toby

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Portillo, Michael

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Price, Sir David

    Key, Robert

    Raffan, Keith

    Kilfedder, James

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Redwood, John

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Riddick, Graham

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knowles, Michael

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Knox, David

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Lang, Ian

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Latham, Michael

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rost, Peter

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Ryder, Richard

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    McCrindle, Robert

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Shelton, Sir William

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    547

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Trippier, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Trotter, Neville

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Speed, Keith

    Viggers, Peter

    Speller, Tony

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Walden, George

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Walker, Bill (T"side North)

    Squire, Robin

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W"cester)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Waller, Gary

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Steen, Anthony

    Ward, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Watts, John

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wells, Bowen

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Stokes, Sir John

    Whitney, Ray

    Sumberg, David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wolfson, Mark

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Yeo, Tim

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Thurnham, Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sir George Young and Mr. David Lightbown.

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Princess of Wales RAF Hospital, Ely
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate, because on 4 August this year, the year in which we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain, I was one of thousands who celebrated in the city of Ely the 50th anniversary of the Princess of Wales Royal Air Force hospital—a hospital which was founded before the dark days of 1940. but which ever since has been part of the life of the community and the city of Ely, and a hospital to which, only three years, ago Her Royal Highness Princess Diana gave her name.
  In those 50 years, very large sums of money have been raised for the hospital. Many RAF personnel have retired to live in Ely. Indeed, on a number of occasions medical staff have left the service to become practitioners in the national health service in Ely. However, over the last few weeks there has been a cloud over that hospital, with rumours that it is to close. We know that the Surgeon General has been carrying out a review of all military hospitals. We know, of course, and everbody welcomes the fact, that, as a result of the end of the cold war and the abolition of the iron curtain, it has been possible for us to reduce defence expenditure. We heard in the House only last week about the way in which those savings are being channelled by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor into the important services that we all value so much. It is followed by today's announcement of the closure of two large RAF bases in Germany, which bodes somewhat ill for tonight's debate.
  If the rumours are right and Ely is to be closed, it would be sad and ironic that the widely acclaimed and welcome changes in priority spending, which I entirely support, should be at the expense of the people of Ely and their health care. There are two other RAF hospitals in Britain—the Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton and the Princess Mary hospital at Halton. In disciplines, there is little to choose between any of them. Ely and Wroughton have casualty and accident and emergency units and Halton does not. Halton has nuclear medicine and oncology units. Ely has renowned skills in tropical diseases. That stems largely from the fact that East Anglia's regiments were at the forefront of the fighting and subsequent imprisonment by the Japanese in the far east. Even today, many ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese still attend Ely for treatment.
  The actual numbers of patients from the services treated show clearly that Wroughton is the largest hospital. But more importantly in this context, Ely has consistently treated more service personnel than Halton. Only once in the past five years has Halton treated more service personnel in-patients than Ely. In every one of the past five years, Ely has treated considerably more out-patients from the services than Halton. In the past year, it has treated 3,000 more out-patients than Halton, and in the year before it treated 3,600 more. That is service out-patients, not dependants or NHS patients. So that discrepancy of 3,000 disproves any claim that Ely's location is inconvenient. On top of all that, there has been

  549
  massive public investment in facilities at Ely—£9 million in the past six years. That includes a complete new theatre block, costing £4·5 million.
  As we all know, rumours feed on each other. Originally, it was rumoured that RAF Halton had been selected for closure and Ely was to remain open, for the very reasons that I have described, as the most modern hospital which was best able to provide the full range of training for RAF staff. The rumour has now been reversed, and it is said that Ely is to close. The cynics believe that it is because Halton is a rather grand hospital and the home of so many senior RAF and retired personnel.
  I am the first to recognise that simply treating NHS patients is not a justification for keeping an RAF hospital open, but it is essential that the treatment of those patients is considered as part of any review of the hospital's future. The RAF provides a notional 65 beds across all specialties for NHS patients in the Ely area. It has a major out-patients department and, most importantly, a full accident and emergency casualty unit.
  The next nearest casualty unit to Ely is at Addenbrookes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). That is some 24 miles away, on the wrong side of Cambridge. When I checked the journey in my car at the weekend, I found that it is a good 45-minute run. To expect people in villages in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) and for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) to be taken all that way can have only one effect—greater risk to their lives. Indeed, only last week someone was seriously injured on the Littleport bypass, and it took 45 minutes for the ambulance to reach him. If it had had to return to Addenbrookes, he would have had to wait over one and a half hours before receiving treatment. That would be unnecessary risk to human life.
  The hospital at Ely provides acute surgical beds, acute medical beds, a coronary care unit, acute obstetric and gynaecological beds and, of course, pathological and radiological services to doctors in the area. If people did not have this facility they would have to go at least 24 miles to the next nearest facility. For the doctors in the area, that would mean a considerable delay in treatment.
  In 1988, 5,247 NHS patients were treated as in-patients, more than 31,000 as out-patients and over 6,500 through the casualty unit. You will see, Mr. Speaker, from all those figures, that the loss of these facilities would have a catastrophic effect on the health services provided to the people of Ely and the surrounding areas. In recognition of that, the local paper, the Ely Standard, organised a petition, which I have with me. This petition, with 15,000 names, was presented to me in Ely last Saturday. It urges and begs the Government to ensure that these facilities are retained for the use of the people of Ely.
  I shall try to be constructive about the future of that hospital. We could start by looking at a combined NHS and military hospital—a hospital with a military wing, such as has been so successful in Belfast. Yet another rumour is circulating, which is that the RAF would wish to have a military wing at a different hospital in Cambridgeshire. If the rumour is true, and if that were to
  550
  happen, it would be an immense insult to the hospital and the people of Ely. I and many others would resist it vehemently.
  There is the possibility of the NHS and the private sector having a joint operation to run those facilities. By far the most sensible course is that the hospital should be set up as a free-standing NHS trust. That would be a first-class opportunity for the Government to demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt what we on this side of the House know: that this aspect of our NHS reforms not only can but will work and will prove to be the salvation of this hospital.
  I recognise that there is a capital asset tied up in Ely hospital. I recognise also, as we all do, that the Treasury will look for receipts from that asset. However, it is not beyond the wit of man to find some mechanism whereby community gain and development can go hand in hand, to the advantage of the Treasury and, more important, to the advantage of the people of Ely. It would make absolutely no sense for these modern facilities to be lost with more than £9 million of public money invested in them in the past few years. There must be a way to ensure that we keep them, preferably under the RAF but, if not, certainly in some other guise, so that they are available for the treatment of any NHS patient in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends.
  We are awaiting an imminent decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the location of a new settlement of initially 1,500 houses, probably rising to 3,000 houses, which means an additional 10,000 people. We know that it will be within five or six miles of Ely. Ely, Littleport, Soham and other nearby settlements expect to take many hundreds of extra houses as part of the current structure plan. It would be ludicrous if this health care resource were to be lost to those people. Fenland people have long memories, as I have come to know in my years of helping and representing them. The loss of this hospital would not be quickly forgotten.
  I am looking at my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply. I am sure that he will recognise the strength of my arguments. I hope that I can leave here tonight able to tell the people of Ely that their hospital—they consider it their hospital, although it is nominally an RAF one—has a future. I hope that I will be able to inform them also that they can look forward with confidence to their future care.
  I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), who has worked closely with me and in the campaign that has been waged so far, and whose constituency boundary comes within a few miles of the hospital. I know that he too supports the case that I made tonight.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) for the opportunity to contribute to his very important Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on his success in securing it, and on the excellent and persuasive way in which he made the case for his constituents and mine.
  Before the 1983 boundary change, the Royal Air Force hospital was in the Isle of Ely constituency, but when the city of Ely was taken out of that constituency, it reverted

  551
  to north-east Cambridgeshire. The virtual boundary between my hon. Friend's constituency and my own is close to the hospital, and its catchment area includes a substantial proportion of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard).
  At the heart of the matter is not that the presence of the RAF hospital is crucial but that the existence of a hospital is vital. The RAF connection is, of course, important. It is valued by and has the affection of the people of Ely and its environs, and the community think of the hospital as their own—as Ely's hospital. I cannot emphasise enough that it would be most unwise to underestimate the strength of local feeling.
  My hon. Friend the member for Cambridgeshire, South-East drew attention to the substantial growth of housing and development earmarked for our area under the Cambridgeshire structure plan, and the settlement that he mentioned is in my own constituency, near the village of Wilburton.
  I believe that there are four options. The people of Cambridgeshire would, I think, vote for the status quo. If that is not achievable, the second option would be a revision of the current situation, taking into account Ministry of Defence considerations for greater NHS funding. Thirdly, the district health authority could take over the facilities. Finally, the district and regional health authorities could revise their priorities and the provision of health care in our area. They could utilise the existing facilities either wholly or in part, and adopt my hon. Friend's excellent suggestion for establishing an NHS trust to run the new hospital. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister and the House that such a development would have the overwhelming support of the local people.
  Whatever decision is made, it is imperative that the various agencies and Government Departments work in harmony with the local authorities, district and regional health authorities, general practitioners and the Treasury. The Ministry of Defence—more specifically, the RAF—has a long and distinguished association with Ely and the surrounding areas which has been reciprocated by the local people, and which has developed over the years into a very fruitful relationship to mutual advantage.
  The people of Ely, north-east Cambridgeshire, south-east Cambridgeshire and south-west Norfolk seek an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Ministry of Defence will not abandon the community's health needs to the forces of uncertainty and doubt but will co-operate in working for the continuation of health facilities at Ely, in some form or another.
  10.33 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) for raising the issue of the future of the Prince of Wales RAF hospital, Ely. I am also grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss). I am well aware of the keen interest that they have consistently shown in the hospital and in the contribution which it makes to the provision of treatment for national health service patients in the Cambridge district health authority. I am conscious that their interest is particularly shared by all those hon. Members with constituents who have had occasion to use the facilities of this RAF
  552
  hospital. It is helpful to have this opportunity to explain some of the background to the review of service hospitals to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East referred and to remove some of the uncertainty that arises when there is speculation about decisions of this nature.
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, the hospital has a long and distinguished record of service covering the past 50 years. It was constructed between 1938 and 1940 in response to the requirements of the second world war. During the war, there were nearly 50 operational flying stations in the area from which it drew its patients. As the pattern of casualties during the war became established, Ely became one of the national centres for the treatment of burns.
  With the changing requirements in military and civilian medical treatment, the hospital is now smaller than in its heyday and able to help with the treatment of a number of NHS patients which has been of great assistance both to individuals and the local health authorities. The out-patient and casualty departments were opened by the Princess Royal in April 1963. The hospital was granted the freedom of the city of Ely in 1977, and in July 1987 it was renamed the Princess of Wales RAF hospital during a visit by Her Royal Highness.
  The hospital has therefore given fine service and been justly honoured. There will be many who are indebted to it for its contribution to the service and civilian communities over the years. Nevertheless, despite its line record in the civilian community, it is a service hospital first and foremost and its future has to be determined against the current needs of the armed forces.
  It may be helpful if I now say a few general words about the role and function of service hospitals. The Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force medical services contribute together to the effectiveness of the armed forces by their commitment and ability to care for wounded service men in the event of armed conflict. Even as I speak, medical personnel from service hospitals in the United Kingdom and Germany are with our troops in the Gulf, ready to provide this service should the need arise.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of the defence medical services and the high standard of training and skills that go to make up that professionalism. It is with great credit that this enables them to step directly into the role assigned to them in such situations as the current deployment to the Gulf. Service medical and dental officers, the nurses and their supporting personnel both military and civilian fulfil an important role in the armed forces.
  I must emphasise that the primary role of the defence medical services is to treat the casualties of war, and where possible to return them fully fit to the front line. In this respect the defence medical services can be regarded as force multipliers. The main purpose of service hospitals in peacetime is to train the medical staff for their military medical role and to provide prompt treatment of service personnel by medical staff who are aware of the levels of fitness required and rigours of the tasks of their respective services. A distinction can be drawn between the hospital, as a building, and its staff, most of whom would in war practise their skills on the battlefield. Those factors must therefore be our main concern in any consideration of the numbers and location of the service hospitals that we require in the United Kingdom.

  553
  While the medical services are directly responsible for providing primary and secondary care for service personnel, they also provide treatment for NHS patients, where a service hospital is available and within the spare capacity not taken up by its primary functions. In general, this treatment is provided free of charge, although provision exists, as in the case of the Princess of Wales RAF hospital, for some services to be purchased by district health authorities at less than full cost.
  The advantage to the defence medical services is that the additional number and variety of patients which these arrangements enable them to treat help them to maintain the highest professional standards. In return, NHS hospitals provide treatment for service personnel. This arrangement thus benefits both the health authority and the defence medical services.
  The initial stimulus for the recent review of service hospitals which was undertaken by the previous surgeon general, was provided by the National Audit Office, whose report on this subject was considered by the Committee of Public Accounts in the 1987–88 Session of this Parliament. The Committee's report stated that United Kingdom service hospitals should be fully utilised in the interests of NHS patients and the taxpayer and urged the Ministry of Defence to consider
  "whether there need to be as many as eight separate Service hospitals and also to consider with the DHSS the practicability of a military wing in an NHS hospital."
  At the same time, the continuing pressures on the defence budget reinforced the need for the Ministry of Defence to scrutinise very carefully its future requirement for service hospitals. Accordingly, the Surgeon General put in hand a review of the numbers, size, function and location of the hospitals required by the services in the United Kingdom, taking account of the war roles of the defence medical services, including the training requirements of that role.
  The review was carried out in two main phases. The first report established that, if one service hospital was closed, the displaced military medical staff, who would still be required to meet the war role, could be absorbed into the remainder. It did not, however, recommend which hospital should be closed.
  The second phase of the review involved the complex task of determining which closure would result in the least detriment to the ability of the defence medical services to meet their war role and achieve the savings to the defence budget for which we were looking, even before the changes in defence policy and priorities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 25 July. I should say at this stage that, during the course of the studies for the review, the Department of Health and district health authorities which have service hospitals within their boundaries were consulted. Not unexpectedly, none welcomed the closure of a service hospital. Nevertheless, a choice has had to be made.
  I am now sorry to have to confirm to my hon. Friends that it has been decided to close the Princess of Wales RAF hospital, Ely, by 31 March 1993.
  Sir Anthony Grant: The Minister has made a grave statement. Has he considered the consequences of his decision on the famous
  554
  Addenbrookes hospital, which is in my constituency and which is under considerable pressure? Will he discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Department of Health?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are carrying out extensive consultations with local health authorities, and we are well aware that, if this closure were to go ahead and nothing else were to happen, it would put a considerable extra burden on the hospital in his constituency.
  I know that this will be a considerable disappointment to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members with a constituency interest, to the regional and district health authorities concerned and to the local community. All of them may dispute the decision, but on balance I believe it to be justified.
  Although the decision to close the Ely hospital has been made following work done before "Options for Change" began, it was taken with the principles which underly that work very much in mind. It is only right that I should also inform the House that we are looking again at the requirement for service hospitals in the United Kingdom and Germany in the light both of future changes in the roles and deployment of the armed forces and of the reductions in their size which were announced by my right hon. Friend. I cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility of announcing further closures as our plans develop.
  Last year, the Princess of Wales RAF hospital, Ely, treated 5,652 in-patients, 13,538 out-patients and 506 day patients who were NHS patients. That represented over 70 per cent. of all the patients treated there, and about 2 per cent. of all the NHS patients treated in the region. Bed occupancy rates are a widely used activity indicator in the NHS and in service hospitals. The Princess of Wales RAF hospital, Ely's bed occupancy is about 60 per cent. compared with about 80 per cent. in the NHS in England. Direct comparisons with the NHS are difficult, because of differing case mixes, but the Public Accounts Committee considered that service hospitals should aim for 70 per cent. occupancy.
  I assure hon. Members and others with an interest in Ely hospital that, while this decision must stand, the Ministry of Defence will do everything possible to minimise the problems associated with the transfer of reponsibility for patients to NHS authorities. Preliminary soundings have already been taken from East Anglia regional health authority. Now that the decision has been announced, the service authorities will lose no time in discussing further with the regional and district health authorities involved the timetable for the rundown and closure of the Princess of Wales RAF hospital.
  Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will understand that the people of Ely will be devastated when they hear this news in the morning. It is a great tragedy that this decision should have been made; had I realised that it would be, I might not have asked for the debate. My hon. Friend referred to a number of statistics, all of which clearly identify the importance of that hospital to the people of Ely for their NHS care. He has just referred to the running down and closure of that hospital and the transfer of patients, which is worrying because it does not imply anything about the future of the facilities. Can he give me any assurance that the RAF will talk to the regional and

  555
  district health authorities about the future of the facilities—the physical building, which is a modern, purpose-built hospital?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am just coming to that point in my remarks. I can give him that undertaking. As he mentioned, we are under an obligation to get the maximum proceeds from the site, but we are open to any offer that the health authority might make, as I am about to say.
  The service authorities will also be considering and, where appropriate, discussing with the responsible regional and district health authorities how best to provide secondary care for service personnel in East Anglia after the hospital closes. In this context, we shall be ready to consider, without prejudice, any proposals which those health authorities may wish to make on the possibilities for increased co-operation.
  We expect that this closure will save approximately £40 million over the 10 years of the Department's long-term costing. We have not yet decided on the specific disposal strategy for the site and will need to discuss the various options in detail with the relevant authorities. However, I should make it quite clear that our normal policy is to
  556
  maximise revenue by disposing of property on the open market and with the benefit of an agreed planning brief. We must do so, in view of financial accountability to this House and the taxpayer. Our intention would therefore be to dispose of the site at full market value as soon as any planning issues have been resolved with the relevant authorities.
  By its very nature, any hospital quickly assumes a place in the affections of the local community, and we would expect the closure of any one to be a cause for sadness to that community. Obviously, I am deeply conscious, too, of the feelings of those who are currently employed at the hospital, not least the civilian staff, who will be most concerned about their jobs. I regret that one side-effect of making an announcement of closure at this late hour in the evening is that personnel cannot be informed of the decision before tomorrow morning, and there is the possibility that they may hear it first through the media.
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Letters)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of letters that an inmate in prisons in England and Wales is allowed to send out per week if the inmate pays for the postage of his or her letter.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The minimum entitlement of letters that a convicted inmate may send out at his or her own expense is one per week—two in the case of young offenders. However, inmates at establishments where only a random sample of correspondence is read are usually able to send out more letters than the minimum entitlement. Inmates at establishments where there is no routine reading of correspondence may send as many letters as they like. Unconvicted inmates may pay for and send as many letters as they wish.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that cinema regulations are drafted to ensure that people with guide dogs, and wheelchair users, can be admitted to any performances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations 1955 do not prohibit access by people with guide dogs or wheelchairs. They provide that invalids may be permitted, notwithstanding other requirements of the regulations, with the consent of and subject to any conditions imposed by the licensing authority. Practical guidance on the accommodation of wheelchair users is contained in the Home Department's booklet "Recommendations on Safety in Cinemas" which was published in 1955. It is for cinema proprietors to make appropriate arrangements for wheelchair users in consultation with the licensing authority. In new buildings such access must be provided, but whether wheelchair users can in practice be given access and accommodated in existing buildings may well depend on the design and structure of the building.

  Prisons (Visitors Centres)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the amount of money allocated and paid by his Department to visitors centres in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The amounts allocated and paid towards running costs by the Department to visitors' centres at prisons in England and Wales are shown in the table:
  86

  Financial Year

  £

  1987–88

  12,000

  1988–89

  12,000

  1989–90

  49,000

  In the current financial year, 1990–91, grants totalling £103,000 will be paid.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the programme for the Boundaries Commission's examination of parliamentary constituencies, with particular reference to Kent.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Boundary Commission for England intends to start its general review of constituencies early in 1991. It will become clearer as the review proceeds when it will look at any particular area. The commission is required to report between 1993 and 1998.

  Rwakitangam Turyamureeba
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Rwakitangam Turyamureeba, a citizen of Uganda, has been held in detention since 17 May; and when a decision will be reached on his application for political asylum.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Turyamureeba has been detained because the immigration officer, having considered all the circumstances, could not be satisfied that he would comply with the terms of any temporary admission granted. It is expected that a final decision will be reached shortly.

  Malicious Communications
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list all cases of prosecutions brought since 1988 under the Malicious Communications Act; what was the nature of the offence in each case; and what was the outcome of those prosecutions.

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales in 1988 there were three prosecutions under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Of these, two were convicted; one fined and the other sentenced to immediate custody. Information is not collected centrally on the nature of the offence. Data for 1989 are not yet available.

  Football Matches
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department plans to issue a circular to police authorities advising them on whether to make a full economic charge for officers engaged at football matches; what factors are taken into account in assessing the full economic cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have consulted the football authorities, the local authority associations and police representative bodies on the terms of a Home Office circular advising police authorities to recover as far as practicable the full cost of providing police officers inside football grounds. We are now considering the comments made on the draft and hope to issue the circular as soon as practicable.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total Government expenditure on funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for 1989–90 and 1990–91, itemised by borough and identifying for each borough the amount of education expenditure for those financial years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 23 October at columns 126–28 for the amount of grant paid to each borough in 1989–90, under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.

  The figures for grant to be paid in 1990–91 are not yet available.

  Precise figures for the proportion of grant paid for education expenditure to each authority are not available, but it is estimated that education provision accounts for approximately 80 per cent. of total grant.

  Plant Theft
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made by the working party on plant theft.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The working party agreed proposals announced in September 1989 for a voluntary scheme to combat theft by manufacturers marking new plant with a 17-digit identifying number and issuing plant identity documents. The working party is giving further consideration to means of promoting implementation of the scheme nationally and internationally.

  Constituencies
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing in descending order of size the electorate of each parliamentary constituency, based on the 1990 register.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is published in "Electoral Statistics 1990"—Series EL no 17—a copy of which is

  Name of Defendant

  Date

  Court

  Result

  J. Kinnon

  March 1986

  Dudley Crown Court

  Convicted

  R. Trehane1

  March 1986

  Bodmin Crown Court

  Convicted

  D. Cullingford1

  Convicted

  R. Bearsford-Walker1

  Convicted

  L. Bearsford-Walker1

  Convicted

  K. Rowe1

  Convicted

  S. Knight1

  Convicted

  A. Shotton1

  April 1986

  Maidstone Crown Court

  Acquitted

  A. Waite1

  Acquitted

  D. Owens1

  May 1986

  Leeds Crown Court

  Convicted

  J. Tyndall1

  July 1986

  Southwark Crown Court

  Convicted

  J. Morse1

  Convicted

  M. Atkinson

  May 1988

  Chertsey Magistrates Court

  Convicted

  J. Kinnon

  August 1988

  Dudley Crown Court

  Convicted

  J. Kinnon

  February 1990

  Dudley Crown Court

  Bound over

  1 Denotes a prosecution involving an allegation that anti-Jewish material was published or distributed.

  88
  available in the Library. Table 1.3 lists, in order, the 20 parliamentary constituencies with the largest and smallest electorates in 1990 and table 1.4 shows the 1990 rank order of each constituency in the United Kingdom.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Housing Law
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor has any plans to introduce legislation to provide procedures for the resolution of housing law cases by means of arbitration or other alternative forms of dispute resolution; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  As part of his five year programme for the implementation of the civil justice review, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to introduce a new housing action based on the informal arbitration procedure used in small claims cases in the county courts. The precise scope and form of the new procedure, which will not be introduced before 1992, will depend on the results of prior consultation.

  Anti-Semitic literature
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list all cases of prosecutions brought by the Crown prosecution service since 1986, under the Public Order Acts, in respect of the distribution of anti-Semitic literature; what month and year and in which courts the cases were heard; and what was the outcome of those prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  Fifteen prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred have been brought under section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936, or under part III of the Public Order Act 1986, in 1986 and subsequent years. Of these, 11 prosecutions included allegations that anti-Jewish material had been published or distributed. Proceedings have been begun, but not concluded, in a further case; this too involves an allegation that anti-Jewish material has been distributed. The details of prosecutions that have been concluded are as follows:

ENVIRONMENT

  Litter
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue the code of practice on litter and refuse foreshadowed in part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid before Parliament the statutory code of practice on litter and refuse envisaged in section 89(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A copy is being sent to all local authorities and other interested bodies.

  Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act underpins the Government's drive to tackle the serious problem of litter, which scars our towns and our countryside. The Act places a duty on local authorities and certain other bodies throughout Great Britain to keep land clear of litter and refuse. We intend that the duty will apply to local authorities and the Crown from 1 April 1991; there will be certain transitional provisions in relation to authorities who have already let street cleaning contracts under the Local Government Act 1988. We will shortly be making an announcement about the other bodies to whom we propose that the duty should apply.

  The Act also increases the maximum fine for littering from £400 to £1,000 and gives powers to local authorities to introduce fixed penalty schemes, to designate litter control areas and to issue street litter control notices.

  The code of practice is another important part of our war against litter. It is designed to give practical guidance to local authorities and other bodies who will be covered by the litter duty. It was drawn up with the help of an advisory group containing experts from local authorities and other organisations.

  The code breaks new ground in its approach to litter clearance. For the first time, it sets out standards of cleanliness which should be achievable in different types of location under different circumstances. This should help to establish common standards of cleanliness throughout Britain; and will make it possible for an organisation under the litter duty to assess its performance.

  The code also concentrates on how clean land is rather than how often it is cleaned. This should change the approach taken by many authorities up till now. The emphasis will no longer be on sweeping frequencies but on targeting litter blackspots while reducing sweeping frequencies in areas which all but escape litter. The motto is "If it isn't dirty, don't clean it".

  I know that the Government's determination to deal with litter is shared by members of the public and by local authorities up and down the country. The code which we have published today should help to translate that determination into results.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which will benefit from the increase in support granted to assist tourist areas.

  Mr. Key
  The proposed increase in the weight given to the tourist element in the 1991–92 standard spending assessment formula benefits the following local authorities.90

  Allerdale

  Alnwick

  Arun

  Avon

  Babergh

  Bassetlaw

  Bath

  Berkshire

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Blackpool

  Bournemouth

  Breckland

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Cambridge

  Canterbury

  Caradon

  Carrick

  Chester

  Chichester

  Christchurch

  City of London

  Cleethorpes

  Cornwall

  Craven

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire Dales

  Devon

  Dorset

  Dover

  East Devon

  East Hampshire

  East Lindsey

  East Sussex

  East Yorkshire

  Eastbourne

  Eden

  Exeter

  Fylde

  Great Yarmouth

  Guildford

  Hambleton

  Hampshire

  Harrogate

  Hastings

  Havant

  Hereford

  High Peak

  Hillingdon

  Horsham

  Humberside

  Ipswich

  Isle of Wight

  Isles of Wight

  Isles of Scilly

  Kennet

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kent

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  Lancashire

  Lancaster

  Leicester

  Leominster

  Lewes

  Lincoln

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Malvern Hills

  Manchester

  Medina

  Mendip

  Mole Valley

  New Forest

  Norfolk

  North Bedfordshire

  North Cornwall

  North Devon

  North Dorset

  North Hertfordshire

  91

  North Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Northumberland

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Oxford

  Penwith

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Purbeck

  Reading

  Restormel

  Richmondshire

  Rochford

  Rother

  Salisbury

  Scarborough

  Sedgemoor

  Shepway

  Slough

  Somerset

  South Bedfordshire

  South Hams

  South Herefordshire

  South Lakeland

  South Shropshire

  South Wight

  Southampton

  Stratford on Avon

  Suffolk

  Suffolk Coastal

  Taunton Deane

  Teignbridge

  Tendring

  Tewkesbury

  Thanet

  Torbay

  Torridge

  Tunbridge Wells

  Tynedale

  Vale Royal

  Waveney

  West Devon

  West Dorset

  West Somerset

  West Sussex

  Westminster

  Weymouth and Portland

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Woodspring

  York

  Community Charge
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which he now expects to levy a community charge of below £200 in 1991 and those levying such a charge in 1990.

  Mr. Key
  The Government have not made any predictions of community charge levels for particular authorities for 1991–92. Wandsworth and Westminster set charges below £200 for 1990–91.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternative strategy for urban development corporations he is recommending to deal with recession in the property market; if he will now give local authorities, community development trusts and local businesses land and resources to enable them to come forward with alternative schemes to provide local employment and affordable housing in urban development corporation areas; and if he will make a statement.
  92
  Mr. Portillo
  I am content with the strategies currently being pursued by the urban development corporations.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which individual urban development corporation projects have been postponed; which individual projects have been cancelled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Urban development corporations budget for a wide range of projects. The precise mix is constantly under review and revision in the light of changing circumstances and priorities.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land is currently owned by urban development corporations in England; how long it has been in their ownership; and what plans there are for its development by the private sector.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Urban development corporations currently own about 2,000 hectares which they will put to a wide variety of development, environmental and infrastructure uses. Information on how long they have held each plot of land is not readily available.

  Vacant Public Land
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities in London were sent copies of the consultation paper encouraging the use of vacant public land; and when they were despatched.

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultation paper was sent to the local authority association on 12 September. I understand that some authorities have since received copies from their association. Eight authorities in London have requested and been sent copies directly by my Department.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many submissions he has received to the consultation paper on encouraging the use of vacant public land; and how many were from local authorities.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 73 responses had been received by 9 November. These included five from the local authority associations and 22 from individual authorities.

  SERPLAN Statement
  Mr. Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to respond to the SERPLAN regional statement, "A New Strategy for the South East".

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I welcome SERPLAN's regional statement which is an important step towards developing new regional planning guidance for the south-east. The existing regional guidance is set out in my Department's planning policy guidance note No. 9 of February 1989. Such guidance is intended to provide a framework for the preparation of structure plans by county councils. The Government will now review the existing guidance in the light of SERPLAN's statement. We will also take account of any relevant views expressed by other persons or organisations. Those wishing their views to be taken into account should send them to my Department by the end of 1990. To assist consideration of the issues concerned, my Department will be holding a conference early in 1991, at
  93
  which invited parties will be able to express their views. We will later publish—for consultation—draft regional planning guidance for the south-east.

  Satellite Television
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following the merger of British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky Television, he proposes to amend the revised planning controls over satellite television antennas that he announced on 1 November.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Clearly the position on satellite dishes has changed with the recently announced merger of BSB and Sky Television and the proposed adoption of the Astra satellite broadcasting system. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales will therefore be reviewing the proposed changes to the General Development Order in the light of developments.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of using methylene chloride in regard to Her Majesty's Government's policies towards protecting the ozone layer.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Methylene chloride is not thought to make any significant contribution to ozone depletion. It can be used as a substitute for CFC 11 in the manufacture of flexible foam.

  Somerset Levels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of the protection of the Somerset levels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: We will continue to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between nature conservation interests, the needs of the rural community, and all other interests of the area.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require the clearance from inland waterways of rubbish which neither threatens flood capacity nor inhibits the passage of barges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will place a new duty on local authorities, designated statutory undertakers—the definition of designated statutory undertakers given in the Act includes
  "any person authorised by an enactment to carry on any canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour or pier undertaking"
  and other bodies—to keep their land clear of litter and refuse. We expect the duty to apply to all urban waterway towpaths and embankments to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access. Land in this context does not include water. We consider that existing legislation contains adequate provision to deal with the problem of litter on and within bodies of water.

  Leybucht Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost to public funds of his Department's legal representation in support of the German Federal Republic against the European Commission in the Leybucht Bay case.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I regret that this information is not available.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state in the Official Report the bases of the figures and results used in the diagram on page 73 of Cm 1200, "Contribution of transport to CO2 levels" with particular reference to the comparable figures shown therein relating to the London underground and motor cars.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

ENERGY

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of electricity generated in Great Britain in 1989 was generated from coal, oil, gas, nuclear and renewables, respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The proportions of fuel used to generate electricity in 1989 in Great Britain are as follows:

  Fuel used in electricity generation1

  Percentage share

  Coal

  71

  Nuclear

  21

  Oil2

  6

  Renewables3

  2

  The amount of gas used to generate electricity accounts for less than 0·1 per cent. of the total.

  1Coverage relates to those generating companies formerly comprising the public electricity supply system in Great Britain: National Power, PowerGen, Nuclear Electric, National Grid Company, Scottish Power, Scottish Hydro, Scottish Nuclear, Midlands Electricity and South Western Electricity.

  2Including oil used in gas turbine and diesel plant or for lighting up coal fired boilers, and Orimulsion.

  3Mainly natural flow hydro.

  Energy Initiative Club
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by whom Dr. James Smith was advised not to address the Energy Initiative Club on 25 October.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for Dr. James Smith.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he plans to ask the European Commission to extend beyond 1998 the present favourable terms for the purchase by public electricity supply companies of electricity generated from renewable sources;

  (2) if he plans to approach the European Commission to extend beyond 1998 the present favourable terms for the purchasing of non-fossil fuel generated electricity.
  95
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department will continue to keep under review whether to seek the European Commission's approval to extend the fossil fuel levy beyond 1998. However, I am confident that the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales currently have the flexibilities that they need in order to be able to offer bankable contracts to renewables operators seeking to contract within the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any of the companies advising him on electricity privatisation have been criticised by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors since 1979 in reports which were not published.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I cannot disclose details of unpublished reports.

  Non-fossil Fuel Purchasing Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase the scope and funding for the Non-Fossil Fuel Purchasing Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales, whose agent the NFPA is.

  Electricity Generating Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those companies which have sought consent for projects for gas-fired electricity generating stations showing in the case of consortia the constituent companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Since the Electricity Act 1989 came into force on 31 March 1990 I have granted my consent under section 36 for the construction and operation of the following gas turbine stations.

  Company

  Killingholme "A", Humberside

  National Power plc

  Wilton, Cleveland

  Teeside Power Co. Ltd. (Enron/ ICI)

  I am currently considering applications for my consent under section 36 to construct and operate the following gas turbine stations.

  Company

  Little Barford, Bedfordshire

  National Power plc

  Rye House, Hertfordshire

  PowerGen plc

  Shotton, Clwyd

  Deeside Power Development Co. Ltd. (Asea Brown Boveri Energy Ventures Ltd.)

  Keadby, Humberside

  Energy Resources Ltd.

  Plymouth, Devon

  PowerGen plc

  Staythorpe "C", Nottinghamshire

  National Power plc

  Rugby, Warwickshire

  Rugby Power Co. Ltd. (John Brown Engineering Ltd., East Midlands Electricity)

  Angle Bay, Pembrokeshire

  Texaco Ltd.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cattle Carcases
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what facilities there are for the disposal of carcases of dead cattle in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  In disposing of carcases of dead animals, agriculture producers in Northern Ireland have options of burial on their own land, subject to meeting environmental requirements; an arrangement with a registered protein processor or his agent; or disposal at authorised land-fill sites by arrangement with licensees. In addition there is a limited kennel market outlet.

  Milk Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the industrial development boards have made representations to countries in the middle east to accept milk products from Northern Ireland; what support is being given to Pritchitt Foods in Newtownards; how many redundancies have been announced at its plant in Newtownards; what is the impact of the Gulf crisis on exports by the Northern Ireland milk industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 24 October at column 211. Representations to countries in the middle east to accept milk products from Northern Ireland have been made by the Ministry for Agriculture and Food, rather than the Industrial Development Board, as the restrictions are the result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Since 1984 the IDB has offered financial assistance to Pritchitt Foods totalling £1,941,040 towards three capital investment projects and three R and D projects. In addition, the company has been offered financial support totalling £125,970 on nine applications for marketing support assistance.

  Since 1 January 1988, the IDB's ability to assist the company financially has been constrained by EC restrictions on member states grant aiding dairy companies manufacturing the type of products in which Pritchitt Foods specialises.

  On 15 October 1990 the company announced 40 redundancies.

  One other Northern Ireland dairy company has been affected by the embargo on trade with Iraq and only in a marginal way. It has succeeded in diverting its products to alternative export markets.

  Parking, Donaghadee
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many days in October traffic wardens visited New street, Donaghadee; what arrangements have been made for business men to park their vehicles for loading at New street; what alternative proposals he has for a new central car park in Donaghadee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Detailed information on the frequency with which traffic

  97
  wardens visit individual streets in Donaghadee is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Roads (Restriction of waiting) Order (NI) 1982 permits a vehicle to wait on a public road for as long as may be necessary to enable goods to be loaded and unloaded. The roads service is currently investigating potential car parking sites in the centre of Donaghadee.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Professor Landsbergis of Lithuania. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRANSPORT

  M1
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be able to advise the House of the resull of the experiment involving the trial of 70 mph repeater signs on the M1 motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  The results of the experiment from September 1988 to September 1989 involving the trial of 70 mph repeater signs on a 20-mile stretch of the M I are available in a report published by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory entitled "An assessment of the effect of 70 mph repeater signs on the M1 motorway". I have placed a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

  EC Transport Council
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the meeting with the European Community Transport Council on 30 October.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport attended the meeting of the European Council of Transport Ministers which was held in Luxembourg on 30 October.

  Most of the items considered by the Council concerned inland transport. The Council discussed the recent disputes affecting certain border crossings and the transit negotiations with third countries—Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. It also discussed measures to be taken in the event of a crisis in the road haulage sector and an increase in the Community quotas of road haulage permits but did not come to any firm decisions on these two items. They will be discussed again at the December Transport Council. The Council did agree, however, that the Commission should be given a mandate, in consultation with the member states, to negotiate with non-EC countries on the alignment of the drivers hours' rules in the Community and AETR—the European agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport). The Council also agreed a resolution on setting up a high level group to study the prospects for a European combined transport network.

  At the June Transport Council, member states had reached agreement in principle on an ad hoc three-year
  98
  programme for EC transport infrastructure funding until the end of 1992. Some points, however, had remained outstanding, and the Council on 30 October made good progress towards resolving these. It now seems likely that the proposal will be finally adopted shortly

  The Council reached a general agreement on the text of a report to the European Council concerning the memorandum produced by the Netherlands entitled "A Transport Policy for Europe". The report welcomed the objective reaffirmed by the memorandum that an internal market in the transport sector should be achieved between now and 1 January 1993, and set out the Council's view of the lines along which Community transport policy should be developed. The Council also discussed fiscal harmonisation and the length of road trains, without coming to agreement on either topic.

  Under "other business", my hon. Friend raised the issue of airport slot allocations and stressed the Government's concern that the Commission's proposed block exemption regulation was premature in creating new policy in this area in view of the fact that in the near future the Council was due to consider another Commission proposal on common rules for slot allocations. Other issues also briefly discussed included the aviation negotiations with Norway and Sweden and the nationality clause in air services agreements.

  London Underground
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to reassess the feasibility of extending the London underground to Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Transport and the London Docklands development corporation intend to mount a further study of the case for extending the rail network through the royal docks to Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead. The option of extending the Jubilee line through the royal docks is being safeguarded by the provision of a step-plate junction for which powers are being sought in the Bill now before Parliament.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Networker rolling stock to be introduced on Kent Link services operated by Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the first class 465 Networker is due to be delivered to Kent Link in September 1991.

  Rail Track Pollution
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to take to reduce the risks of infection identified in the British Transport Commission report on track pollution problems, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Recent advice from the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service confirms that the risk of infection by material on railway tracks discharged from train toilets is slight. The railway industry advisory committee of the Health and Safety Commission, which is chaired by the chief inspecting
  99
  officer of railways has discussed this matter and keeps it under review. The railway inspectorate is in touch with the British Railways Board to consider whether any further measures are appropriate. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 12 November at column 62.

  Underground Escalators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will take steps to enable managers of London Underground Ltd. to study how other urban transport systems facilitate access to the underground system by the disabled, elderly or those with young children when escalators are out of action; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has any information as to how long the escalators at Walthamstow underground station were out of action this year; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he has any information as to why the escalators at Vauxhall underground station have been out of action for one year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The operation of escalators on London's underground system is the responsibility of London Underground Limited. I suggest that the hon. Member contact LUL direct. I have forwarded the hon. Member's comments to the managing director of London Underground Ltd.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Southern Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase aid to Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference for production and trade programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall be considering the future level, and uses, of our support for the regional programmes of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference—SADCC—in advance of the annual consultative conference in early 1991. The pledge of £10 million, made in January this year, brings the total of our support for SADCC since its inception in 1980 to £70 million.

  Mozambique
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase Britain's contribution to the United Nations Mozambique emergency appeal.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We pledged 10,000 tonnes of food and £3·5 million of non-food assistance in response to the United Nations emergency appeal in April and a further £3 million to UNHCR in June in support of Mozambican refugees. This brought the total of our emergency assistance to Mozambique since 1987 to more than £55 million, including our share of such aid from the European Community. We are in touch with the Mozambican authorities and with British voluntary agencies about allocation of funds pledged but not yet committed. We will continue to do what we can to assist.

  Development Council
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Development Council on 5 November.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Development Council addressed a range of important issues at its meeting on 5 November, including new proposals for assistance to Asia and Latin America, and to the Mediterranean. I stressed the importance of reforming the tropical forestry action plan, as described yesterday during my evidence to the Environment Select Committee of this House. I also expressed our grave concern at the situation in the Horn of Africa, and announced that Britain would give 10,000 tonnes of cereals and 400 tonnes of wheatflour worth approximately £2 million through CARE for the Sudan.

  Burma
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates when decisions were made to allocate United Kingdom aid to support contracts won by British companies, to provide power generating plant to Burma.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Aid and trade provision grants have been allocated in support of two contracts won by John Brown Engineering in Burma, each to provide three gas turbine generator sets and ancillary equipment. The dates of the agreements with the Burmese Government were 3 April 1980 and 6 August 1982 respectively.

  Military Training
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list all occasions on which the costs of providing military training to developing countries has been met by the Overseas Development Administration since 1979; and what was the amount paid in each case;

  (2) whether the Overseas Development Administration paid any amount towards the cost of providing free military training to the Filipino presidential security guard in March and April.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are none. The overseas aid programme is not used in the Philippines or elsewhere to finance military training.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Religious Education
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the projects funded by his Department in the field of religious education over the past five years giving the organisation funded and the cost of each project.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department funded a project by the Christian Education Movement from April 1988 to December 1989, when responsibility was transferred to the National Curriculum Council. The project is concerned with the teaching of personal and social values through religious education in secondary school years four and five. It is due to be completed in March 1991 at a total cost of £120,000.

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what numbers of pupils he has agreed should be admitted into the first-year group at the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college in September 1991; and how many places will be available in the current year group for(a) boys and (b) girls;

  (2) what is the total number of pupils he intends to fund at the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college when it becomes fully operational.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Haberdashers' Aske's CTC Trust has not yet submitted its admissions policy for my right hon. and learned Friend's agreement. Under the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, selection arrangements for the CTC may not pay regard to the sex of the applicants. It is, nevertheless, likely that numbers of boys and girls entering the CTC will be broadly balanced.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which specific circumstances applying to the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, different from those at maintained schools. made it appropriate to approve articles of association for the college under which parent governors will be barred from serving on its finance committee.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Secretary of State enters into agreement with private sponsors to establish and maintain city technology colleges, which are independent schools. It is therefore for the CTC trust to decide on the role of governors, including parent governors, providing that, in the Secretary of State's estimation, this does not conflict with the needs of the CTC.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how the sum provided in private sponsorship for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college is to be divided between(a) the value of the sites and premises of the proposed college and (b) other contributions to the capital costs of establishing the college; and what is the basis of his current valuation of the sites and premises.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Haberdashers' Company has agreed to make available a 99-year lease of the sites and premises of the Hatcham schools as its contribution towards initial capital costs of establishing the CTC. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State requested and received an assessment of their value for educational purposes from the district valuer. The Haberdashers' Company has also agreed to underwrite sponsorship of £1 million which may be contributed towards capital costs.

  Newham School Leavers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of Newham school leavers have no qualifications according to the most recent statistics.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest available information is for 1989. Because the data came from a sample survey, figures for the smaller LEAs, like Newham, are given on a three-year aggregate to reduce sampling error.
  102

  Leavers from maintained schools in 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89

  All leavers

  Leavers awarded no graded result

  (000s)

  percent

  Newham

  8·38

  21·0

  England

  1,856·99

  9·5

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if pupils at city technology colleges will be subject to any charges in respect of their participation in enrichment activities.

  Mr. Eggar
  CTCs may charge for enrichment activities provided outside school hours, so long as these are not an essential part of the curriculum. In common with maintained schools, CTCs may not charge for provision offered during school hours, with the exception of individual music tuition. These conditions are set out in paragraphs 19 to 22 of the model CTC funding agreement, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Stratford School, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the educational grounds taken into account when deciding to approve grant-maintained status for Stratford school, London E7.

  Mr. Eggar
  In approving this application for grant-maintained status, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State judged that, at its present size, Stratford school was able to provide cost effectively for pupils aged 11 to 18 and that it was capable of maintaining and improving its performance under new management.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what happened at the Internal Market Council meeting in Brussels on 8 November.

  Mr. Redwood
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Internal Market Council on 8 November. Two measures were adopted to liberalise the EC insurance market: the life services directive and the motor services directive. Two company law measures were adopted, extending the provisions of the 4th and 7th company law directives to certain partnerships and creating exemptions for small and medium-sized companies.

  The Council also heard a first report from Sir Leon Brittan on the operation of the EC merger regulation. It was agreed that annual progress reports should be made.

  I asked that the Commission should treat merger inquiries as an objective process; that clear rules should be observed in hearing evidence and offering fair opportunities to all interested parties; that the Competition Commissioner should stress to his colleagues the need for their final decision to be based the evidence and findings of the investigation and the need to preserve the confidentiality of the price sensitive company information; and reminded the Council that article 2 states clearly that

  103
  competition is the sole criterion to be used in the examination. The Vice President was sympathetic to these points.

  The Council discussed the copyright protection of computer software, and in particular the extent to which decompilation or reverse engineering should be permitted. The Council also discussed briefly progress reports on the fifth company law directive, the second diplomas directive, and the firearms directive.

  Australia
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the present state of trade between the United Kingdom and Australia; and what efforts are being made to improve the position.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Trade with Australia increased by over 24 per cent. last year, with United Kingdom exports totalling £1,711 million. Following the United Kingdom-Australia trade and investment conference in 1989, which was attended by the Prime Ministers of Australia and the United Kingdom, together with senior Ministers and business men from both countries, the DTI has put in place a programme of missions, fairs, seminars and other promotional events designed to promote British exports further and build on the success of the conference.

  Ministers' and other paid office holders' salaries

  Current official salary

  Proposed January 1991 official salary

  Percentage increase

  Current total salary (including reduced parliamentary salary of £20,101)

  Total January 1991 salary (including reduced parliamentary salary of £21,809)

  Total percentage increase

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  Prime Minister1

  46,750

  50,724

  8·5

  66,851

  72,533

  8·5

  Cabinet Ministers (C)

  35,120

  38,105

  8·5

  55,221

  59,914

  8·5

  Cabinet Ministers (L)

  44,591

  48,381

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Ministers of State (C)

  24,850

  26,962

  8·5

  44,951

  48,771

  8·5

  Ministers of State (L)

  39,641

  43,010

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Parliamentary Secretaries (C)

  18,860

  20,463

  8·5

  38,961

  42,272

  8·5

  Parliamentary Secretaries (L)

  33,241

  36,066

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Attorney General

  37,320

  40,492

  8·5

  57,421

  62,301

  8·5

  Solicitor General

  30,600

  33,201

  8·5

  50,701

  55,010

  8·5

  Lord Advocate

  44,661

  48,457

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Solicitor General for Scotland

  39,109

  42,433

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  House of Commons

  Mr. Speaker1

  36,850

  39,982

  8·5

  56,951

  61,791

  8·5

  Leader of the Opposition

  32,200

  34,937

  8·5

  52,301

  56,746

  8·5

  Chief Whip

  29,230

  31,715

  8·5

  49,331

  53,524

  8·5

  Deputy Chief Whip

  24,850

  26,962

  8·5

  44,951

  48,771

  8·5

  Opposition Chief Whip

  24,850

  26,962

  8·5

  44,951

  48,771

  8·5

  Government Whips and Assistant Government Whips

  15,990

  17,349

  8·5

  36,091

  39,158

  8·5

  Assistant Opposition Whip

  15,990

  17,349

  8·5

  36,091

  39,158

  8·5

  Chairman of Ways and Means

  24,850

  26,962

  8·5

  44,951

  48,771

  8·5

  Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means

  21,840

  23,696

  8·5

  41,941

  45,505

  8·5

  House of Lords

  Chief Whip

  39,641

  43,010

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Chief Whip

  33,241

  36,066

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Government Whips

  29,971

  32,519

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Opposition Leader

  33,241

  36,066

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Opposition Chief Whip

  29,971

  32,519

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Chairman of Committees

  39,641

  43,010

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

  36,131

  39,202

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response has been made to(a) the European Commission and (b) the Council in regards to Council document 8207/90 of 2 August 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  There has been no formal written response to the Commission. However, the United Kingdom abstained from voting at the Internal Market Council meeting in October at which the proposal was carried.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministers' Pay
  Mr. Richard Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about Ministers' pay.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The salaries of Ministers and other paid office holders were last increased from 1 January 1990 under the terms of the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1989 and will remain at these levels until changed by a new order. The salaries of Members of Parliament will increase by 8.5 per cent. from 1 January 1991 according to the terms of the resolution of 21 July 1987. In the light of this, the Government propose that ministerial salaries should increase by 8.5 per cent. also. The details are set out in the table, and I have today laid the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1990 to implement these changes.
  105

  Current official salary

  Proposed January 1991 official salary

  Percentage increase

  Current total salary (including reduced parliamentary salary of £20,101)

  Total January 1991 salary (including reduced parliamentary salary of £21,809)

  Total percentage increase

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  Members of Parliament

  26,701

  28,970

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  1The Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker have elected to receive the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Commons.

  Notes:

  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not accept his Ministerial salary.

  The Lord Chancellor's salary is governed by the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1989 and is not affected by this Order. (He receives £91,500 effective from 18 April 1989).

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any guidelines for use by his Department concerning criteria of demand in relation to provision of Welsh language forms under the Welsh Language Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Decisions on whether documents published by the Welsh Office should be available in Welsh or in a bilingual format are taken by reference to the Hughes Parry criteria of demand, expense, expediency and prestige. These criteria are currently being reviewed in the light of the guidelines prepared by the Welsh Language Board.

  Roads
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether there have been any changes in time scale or estimated cost for improvement of the north-south road communications in Wales on the A470, A487 and A483 trunk roads since the publication of "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on all road schemes listed in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" is currently being updated, for inclusion in a supplement to "Roads in Wales" to be published in the new year.

  International Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what official guidelines are issued to local authorities relating to international adoption procedures.

  Mr. Grist
  Guidance on adoption of children from overseas is contained in a letter of 2 October 1990 from the chief inspector, social services inspectorate, Wales, to directors of social services in Wales. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hospital Waiting lists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has made of the size of waiting lists in. Welsh hospitals(a) six months and (b) one year hence, and of the reasons for any increase or decrease over the preceding six months.
  106
  Mr. Grist
  Information about the size of prospective waiting lists and the length of time people may have to wait will become available only following the submission of district health authorities' final procurement plans in March 1991.

  The latest information on waiting lists is at 31 March 1990 and is contained in the "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1990: No. 2", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Hospital Bed Closures
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the total loss of in-patient care days that will result from the anticipated closure of hospital beds in Wales in the year ending April 1991.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Rod Richards
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his policy with regard to the appointment of ministerial advisers who may previously have been parliamentary candidates; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will outline his reasons for seeking to appoint Mr. Rod Richards as his personal adviser;

  (3) if he will list the specific topics on which Mr. Rod Richards will be employed to provide him with advice and Mr. Richards's qualifications and experience to each of those topics.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have appointed Mr. Richards to advise me on a range of subjects drawing on his knowledge and experience in the public and private sectors. Special advisers are appointed on a personal basis. Mr. Richards is my only such adviser at present. He is appointed as a civil servant and his terms and conditions are, where appropriate, the same as for civil servants. It is not the practice to reveal the salaries of advisers nor, in consequence, the total cost of an individual appointment as these are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. Special advisers are appointed after consultation with the Prime Minister.

  School (Llwyn Mawr)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations have been received from(a) Sketty Ward councillors and (b) the Sketty Schools

  107
  Parents Association by his Department in the last three years, prior to his directive for the sale of the site, about the need for a school on the Llwyn Mawr site.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has no record of having received such representations.

  NHS Operations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total number of patients in each of the Welsh area health authorities that have had national health service operations in the past three years(a) outside their own area health authority area and (b) in London hospitals.

  Mr. Grist
  The table shows, for each Welsh district health authority, the number of patient discharges and deaths having operations, including non-operative procedures, in NHS hospitals in Wales outside their own district health authority.

  Information on Welsh residents having operations outside Wales, including London hospitals, is not collected centrally.

  Patient discharges and deaths having operations in NHS hospitals in Wales outside their own district health authority1 2

  District health authority of residence

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Clwyd

  184

  199

  189

  East Dyfed

  4,708

  4,926

  4,850

  Pembrokeshire

  2,294

  2,566

  2,606

  Gwent

  2,810

  2,720

  2,752

  Gwynedd

  2,216

  2,170

  2,267

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,756

  9,517

  9,970

  Powys

  2,731

  3,140

  2,959

  South Glamorgan

  1,770

  2,029

  1,672

  West Glamorgan

  1,336

  1,312

  1,231

  1 The information may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths.

  2 The information is based on cases where details of the patient's district of residence has been supplied.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentages of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund budgeting loans and/or crisis loans by deductions from their benefit payments in the Doncaster area offices; and what is the average repayment in terms of a proportion of their income.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number of social fund loans being recovered from income support recipients aged under 60 at the end of August 1990 and the percentage of recipients in that age group that the figure represents.

  Number of recoveries August 1990

  Percentage of IS recipients under 60 repaying via benefit

  Doncaster East

  1,149

  16·3

  Doncaster West

  1,563

  16·2

  Wath on Dearne

  1,110

  18·6

  Information about the average repayment in terms of a proportion of income is not available.
  108
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the social fund budget will be in 1991–92 in(a) gross and (b) net terms; and what were the comparable figures for each year since the social fund's introduction.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall make an announcement about the 1991–92 budget nearer the time. Details of the previous years' budgets are in the table.

  Gross

  Net

  £ million

  £ million

  1988–89

  203

  125

  1989–90

  206

  99

  1990–91

  227

  100

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by office in the London borough of Newham the number of social fund applications(a) submitted and (b) refused since 1 April.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of applications processed and awards made can be obtained from information placed in the Library.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of recipients and of households claiming income support are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 24 October 1990 at column 226 and 1 November 1990 at column 671. The information given in those replies relates to income support recipients who may or may not be householders. Separate information relating to households is not available.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the introduction of water metering on families in receipt of income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The impact of water metering on families will vary according to a wide range of circumstances, including the rateable value of property which underpins the current system of water charges, and whether or not they pay sewerage charges. It has never been thought practicable or right to make specific provision for metered services such as gas and electricity within social security benefits.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he expects to take consequent on the shortfall shown between resources available for residential and nursing care and its costs for charitable and proprietorial homes as shown in the commissioned report of Price Waterhouse, summarised in the reply of 24 October 1990,Official Report, columns 228–29.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 24 October,Official Report columns 351–52, the proposed increases to the income support limits for residential care and nursing homes from April 1991. These increases, which will cost

  109
  £225 million in a full year, were arrived at in the light of the Price Waterhouse survey together with other available evidence.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to upgrade severe disablement allowance to the level of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Yesterday, regulations were laid before the House, introducing age-related additions to severe disablement allowance with effect from 3 December 1990. We estimate that 245,000 people will have their severe disablement allowance increased at a net cost of £50 million in a full year. We have no current plans to increase the rate of the allowance to that of invalidity benefit.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were receiving family credit at the latest available date, breaking these figures down into(a) one-parent and two-parent families and (b) one-earner and two-earner families.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information relates to the end of August 1990 when the family credit caseload stood at 323,000. The breakdowns requested are as follows:

  Families

  Number

  One-parent

  126,000

  Two-parent

  197,000

  One-earner

  308,000

  Two-earner

  15,000

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receiving family credit are(a) tenants or (b) homeowners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were in families receiving family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At the end of August 1990, there were 684,000 children in such families.

HEALTH

  Prescribing
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of his Department as to the grounds on which hospitals and general practices should make decisions to use particular medicines on clinical grounds and as to the use of preferred treatment lists to promote rational prescribing rather than budget savings.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Both hospital clinicians and general practitioners are free to prescribe the drug which in their clinical judgment best suits the patient and the condition. The Department encourages clinicians to develop formularies of preferred treatments in order to promote rational and cost effective prescribing.
  110
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the introduction of limited rights of prescribing for nurses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are to commission an independent analysis of the costs and benefits of implementing the proposals of the advisory group on nurse prescribing.

  Higham Grange Hospital
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received concerning the changes to management circumstances at Higham Grange hospital in Leicestershire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A number of representations concerning Higham Grange rehabilitation centre in Leicestershire has been received. The proposed venture at Higham Grange will enable a valuable service to continue in the area. It is a fine example of the private and public sector working together to provide a better health service for all.

  Congenital Toxoplasmosis
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide a general screening of pregnant mothers to discover the risks of congenital toxoplasmosis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In any screening programme, the benefits conferred by screening must clearly outweigh any risks. The Department recently sought the opinion of leading experts on the advantages and disadvantages of screening for toxoplasmosis in pregnancy. I am advised that such screening should not be introduced in the United Kingdom at present because the natural history of the disease, the accuracy of the tests and the efficiency of possible treatment are uncertain.

  Neonatal Hearing Screening
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the level of availability on the national health service of neonatal hearing screening by use of the auditory brainstem evoked potential apparatus, to those women who may be at risk.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Agency Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last five years to date the annual cost of the national health service in the Doncaster district health authority for staff who have been employed through agencies as(a) nurses, (b) operating department assistants and (c) ancillary and other staff.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally, and is not easily obtainable. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. J. G. S. Smith, chairman of Doncaster health authority, for the information that he requires.

  Dentists
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of dentists who have left the national health service in the past 12 months; and how many were in practice in the south-east.
  111
  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional data available show that 893 dentists ceased to provide general dental services in England during the year ended 30 September 1990; 1,084 dentists provided general dental services for the first time during that year, a net increase of 191. In the same period, the total number of dentists providing general dental services in the south-east (the four Thames regions and the Oxford region) reduced by 34 (0·6 per cent.).

  International Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the refusal by Hertfordshire county council to carry out a home assessment for couples wishing to adopt a Romanian child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Hertfordshire county council has confirmed to the Department that it does carry out home study assessments for couples who wish to adopt a Romanian child; the social services department is engaging additional social workers to provide services in accordance with recent Department of Health guidance CI(90)17, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Cancer Mortality, Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the increases registered in cancer mortality rates in the London borough of Newham since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of deaths from major forms of cancer to residents of the London borough of Newham have fluctuated over the years since 1985. The data does not show evidence of an overall upward trend in cancer mortality rates in the borough over these years.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 20 March 1990 at columns 563–65. Since then, we have answered four parliamentary questions and six letters from hon. Members on this issue. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and representatives of Cleveland social services department have also, on separate occasions, indicated support for full implementation.

  Halifax District General Hospital
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the reason for his decision to postpone the building of the new Halifax district general hospital for four years; and if he will now take steps to ensure the reopening of the wards closed to accommodate the new hospital and the re-building of the laundry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Decisions on the relative priority of schemes within Yorkshire regional health authority's capital programme are for the regional health authority.

THE ARTS

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much expenditure has been incurred under the business sponsorship incentive scheme in Scotland in respect of 1989 and 1990 to the latest available figures.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Arts organisations in Scotland have been highly successful in winning awards under my business sponsorship incentive scheme. In 1989–90, 38 awards totalling £288,003 were made to match £707,380 in new sponsorship. In the first half of this year alone there have been 53 awards amounting to £525,141 to match just over £1 million in new sponsorship money.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much expenditure has been incurred under the business sponsorship incentive scheme in respect of projects under Glasgow's year as European City of Culture.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I am delighted that under my business sponsorship incentive scheme, awards totalling £364,041 have been made to arts organisations in Glasgow to match £800,000 in new sponsorship money.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Arrears, Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has of the number of people(a) up to three months, (b) up to six months and (c) over 12 months in arrears on their mortgage repayments in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Maples
  That information is not available.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the Treasury has advised against the use of any company as an adviser on privatisation;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to advise Departments not to use as advisers on privatisation, companies which have been criticised by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Maude
  It is for Departments to decide on the appointment of their advisers, following consultation as appropriate, in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury maintains a list of approved advisers on privatisation.

  Mr. Maude
  No. The Treasury does, however, maintain a list, which it makes available to departments, setting out the appointments which various advisers have held in past privatisations.

  EC Gross Domestic Products
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the gross domestic products of the countries comprising the European Community, showing also the estimated respective size of the undeclared or black economies.
  113
  Mr. Major
  Following is the information requested:

  GDP at purchasing power parities 1989

  (United States dollars billions)

  United Kingdom

  818·4

  Germany

  941·7

  France

  820·0

  Italy

  798·6

  Belgium

  135·2

  Denmark

  73·8

  Greece

  73·2

  Ireland

  31·2

  Luxembourg

  6·3

  Netherlands

  205·1

  Portugal

  71·9

  Spain

  399·3

  Source: OECD.

  Some of these figures may include an allowance for activity in the undeclared, or black, economy, but no comprehensive statement is available on the size and extent of these allowances.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to enable some civil servants to remain in employment until the age of 70 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department will shortly be implementing one of the recommendations of an interdepartmental working group set up to consider ways of alleviating the effect of the forecast demographic changes to the work force in the 1990s. The decision to raise the maximum age at which civil servants retire from 65 to 70 will give Departments greater flexibility in meeting their staffing needs through the employment of older workers. My Department has also recently removed the upper age limits on recruitment for all service wide grades.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases there are in Wales where those registered for value-added tax either registered in Welsh or have subsequently requested for their value-added tax administration to be undertaken through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Ryder
  About 40 to 50 traders a year complete their applications for VAT registration in Welsh. Overall, approximately 470 traders are issued with VAT returns in Welsh by Customs and Excise.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for a set point in each quarter, the value of the £ sterling against the deutschmark, from May 1979 to the present.

  Mr. Maples
  The exchange rate for sterling against the deutschmark published on an average monthly basis is to be found in the Central Statistical Office publication, "Financial Statistics". Current and back copies are available for reference in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations will make concerning the recent visit by the United Nations special representative, Galindo Pohl, to Iran

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UN special representative has yet to publish the report of his second visit. We shall study it carefully when it issues. In the meantime we remain in regular contact with the centre for human rights in Geneva, where he is based.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he next plans to meet officials of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's London office to discuss the Gulf crisis and the question of occupied territories in Israel;

  (2) what is his Department's current assessment of the position of the Palestine Liberation Organisation on the Gulf crisis;

  (3) when he last met officials of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's London office; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not himself held discussions with officials of the PLO's London office and has no plans to do so. Ministers are not at present meeting PLO representatives because of the PLO's equivocation over the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. This was a great mistake which has seriously damaged their cause.

  But the PLO cannot be ignored and we remain in regular contact with it at official level on middle eastern issues.

  Fiji
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he will be meeting the the Ambassador of Fiji; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to meet the Ambassador of Fiji.

  Ethnic and Linguistic Communities
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made within the European Community to ensure cultural protection for the older and long-established ethnic and linguistic communities living within national boundaries.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Community has a small budget (1·1 mecu in 1990) for educational measures for minority languages and cultures. Additionally, the Commission has launched a pilot scheme to provide financial aid for translations of contemporary literary works. Priority is being given to works in minority languages.

  Anirudh Singh
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the arrest and detention of Anirudh Singh, of Leicester, in Fiji; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received no other representations apart from a letter from the hon. Member.

  We were disturbed to hear of the abduction and beating of Dr. Singh. We are pleased he has been released and that those thought to be responsible for his abduction are being prosecuted.

  Middle East Oil
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has on the number of oil refineries in the middle east; and how much oil they contain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Refineries in each of the middle eastern countries are listed in the table below, with their total refining capacity in barrels per calendar day. No information is available on storage capacity or on levels of stocks at refineries.

  Country

  Refinery

  Capacity

  Abu Dhabi, UAE

  Ruwais

  163,000

  2 refineries

  Ajman

  174,000

  Total

  337,000

  Bahrain

  Bahrain

  350,000

  1 refinery

  Iran

  Abadan

  155,000

  6 refineries

  Tabriz

  120,000

  Shiraz

  56,000

  Tehran

  325,000

  Isfahan

  335,000

  Bakhtran

  18,000

  Total

  1,009,000

  Iraq

  Basrah

  87,650

  8 refineries

  Daurah

  70,000

  Al Haditha

  7,000

  Kirkuk

  30,000

  Mufthiah

  4,500

  Baiull

  215,000

  Qaiyera

  2,000

  Khanaquin

  12,000

  Total

  418,000

  Kuwait

  Shuaiba

  314,000

  3 refineries

  Mina-Al-Ahmad

  372,000

  Mina Abdulla

  317,000

  Total

  1,003,000

  Oman

  Mina-Al-Fahal

  80,000

  1 refinery

  Qatar

  UMM Said

  62,000

  1 refinery

  Saudi Arabia

  Ras Tanura

  643,000

  7 refineries

  Jeddah (1)

  107,600

  Riyadh

  120,000

  Yanbu (1)

  170,000

  Yanbu (2)

  406,500

  Al Jubail

  362,000

  Jeddah (2)

  21,700

  116

  Country

  Refinery

  Capacity

  Total

  1,829,800

  Neutral Zone (Kuwait, Saudi)

  Ras-Al-Khafji

  30,000

  1 refinery

  Egypt

  Mex-Alexandria

  126,615

  6 refineries

  Amaria-Alexandria

  78,440

  Suez (1)

  91,520

  Suez (2)

  83,790

  Musturud

  134,140

  Tanta

  22,020

  Total

  536,525

  Israel

  Haifa

  200,000

  2 refineries

  Ashdod

  115,000

  Total

  315,000

  Jordan

  Zerka

  113,500

  1 refinery

  Lebanon

  Tripoli

  30,000

  2 refineries

  Sidon

  17,000

  Total

  47,000

  Syria

  Banias

  120,600

  2 refineries

  Horns

  102,440

  Total

  223,040

  Yemen (South)

  Total

  178,000

  1 refinery

  The Gulf
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are being held with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on their proposals for a diplomatic solution to the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close touch with the Soviet Union on all aspects of the Gulf crises, based on our shared commitment to the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any further trips are planned to Iraq in an effort to secure the release of British hostages.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The declaration issued by the European Council in Rome on 28 October made clear the determination of the Twelve not to send representatives to Baghdad to negotiate with Saddam Hussein over the release of foreign hostages in Iraq and Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council is engaged in this matter and the Twelve have agreed to encourage the United Nations Secretary-General to send a personal representative to Iraq to achieve the immediate departure of all hostages.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are being held with the French Government on their proposals for a diplomatic solution to the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close touch with the French Government on all aspects of the Gulf crisis. The basis of our discussions, including those on 27 October
  117
  between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Mitterrand, is our shared commitment to the full implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with France about the methods that it used to achieve the release of French nationals in Kuwait and Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The French Government have affirmed that the release of the French hostages took placed entirely at Iraqi initiative. The delaration issued by the European Council in Rome on 28 October made clear the determination of the Twelve not to send representatives to Baghdad to negotiate with the Iraqis over the release of foreign hostages in Iraq and Kuwait.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Linlithgow may expect a substantive answer to his letter to the Foreign Secretary relating to a document supposedly found in Kuwait by Iraqi troops concerning the destabilisation of Iraq by fluctuations in oil prices, and subsequent translation from Arabic to English by the Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about this on 9 November. My right hon. Friend replied on 13 November.

  Temple Mount Killings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the British Government to the Government of Israel about their refusal to admit a United Nations investigation into the killing of Palestinians at Temple Mount.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs urged members of the Israeli Government to reconsider their decision not to receive the United Nations Secretary-General's mission during his talks with them on 16 and 17 October. We voted for SCR 673 regretting Israel's failure to respond positively.

  UN Military Staff Committee
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there are any plans permanently to revitalise the United Nations military staff committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Military Staff Committee has met formally and briefly at United Nations headquarters approximately twice a month since 1945. Separately there have been five ad hoc meetings of members of the military staff committee since the Gulf crisis began. These have proved a useful forum for the exchange of information.

  Sri Lanka
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sri Lankan Government concerning the abuse of human rights of the Tamil population.
  118
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regularly raised our concerns about human rights issues with the Sri Lankan Government, both in London and Colombo. Both bilaterally and with our European partners we have urged the Sri Lankan Government to observe their international obligations in this field and have made clear that future decisions on development aid will be affected by the Government's performance on human rights.

  Filipino Security Guard
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning human rights abuses and executions carried out by the presidential security guard in the Philippines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no recent information about abuses of human rights or of executions alleged to have been carried out by the presidential security guard in the Philippines.

  Albania
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent talks with Albania on establishing diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Officials from the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office held talks in Rome on 5 and 6 November. The talks were conducted in a positive atmosphere and covered bilateral issues, including the possible restoration of diplomatic relations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Household Food
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount of consumer expenditure on household food in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1989 in percentage terms in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the United States of America and Japan.

  Mr. Curry
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Household expenditure on food as a percentage of total consumer expenditure

  1960

  1970

  1980

  1988

  United Kingdom

  25·0

  20·0

  16·9

  12·2

  West Germany1

  33·4

  27·3

  22·0

  20·0

  France

  2

  22·5

  18·0

  16·6

  United States of America

  17·8

  15·2

  12·8

  10·8

  Japan3

  2

  30·0

  24·4

  20·2

  1 Includes alcoholic beverages.

  2 Figure not available.

  3 Includes alcoholic beverages and tobacco.

  Sources: National Accounts for OECD countries, OECD United Kingdom National Accounts, CSO.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the amount of consurner expenditure on household food in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1989, in actual and percentage terms and at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  119

  Consumers' expenditure on household food in the United Kingdom

  Household expenditure on food at current prices

  Expenditure on food as a percentage of total

  Household expenditure on food in real terms1

  (£ million)

  (per cent.)

  (Index 1989 = 100)

  1960

  4,228

  25·0

  99·5

  1970

  6,369

  20·0

  101·2

  1980

  23,655

  16·9

  104·1

  1989

  39,181

  11·9

  100·0

  1 United Kingdom household expenditure on food at current prices deflated by the retail price index (all items) and expressed as an index (1989= 100).

  Source: United Kingdom National Accounts, CSO.

  Fish Processing and Marketing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's press release on the autumn statement explaining how ports may now take advantage of the extra funding to improve the processing and marketing of fish.

  Mr. Curry
  On 5 November the agriculture departments in the United Kingdom issued a joint press notice inviting applications for grant aid for projects related to the marketing and processing of fishery products. That notice gave a contact point for potential applicants wishing to learn more about the details of the scheme.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the parishes and the counties in which they are located which have just been designated as less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  The extension to our less-favoured area has cleared an important hurdle. That is acceptance by the committee on agricultural structures and rural development, but it has not yet been formally designated by the EC Commission. As soon as this designation has been notified to my Department I will inform the House.

  Subsidy Reforms
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the subsidy reforms agreed by the Council of Agriculture Ministers; and if he will explain what procedures are to be followed to repay to farmers any losses which they might sustain in consequence of the proposed reduction of subsidy support.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on 8 November at column 8. The European Commission will in due course make proposals for Community measures to accompany any agreement reached in the current GATT negotiations to reduce levels of agricultural support worldwide. The Council of Ministers will discuss the Commission's proposals under its normal procedures.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food following the wrongful declarations of fish taken from area VII, what steps he is taking to redistribute fish to ensure the non-sector quota for this area is not disadvantaged.
  120
  Mr. Curry
  Following a full assessment of the up-to-date catch position, and the agreement of some producer organisations to release some of their allocations to the non-sector, we have now been able to reopen the non-sector Irish sea cod fishery.

  It would only be possible to redistribute fish along the lines suggested by the hon. Member where fishermen had been successfully prosecuted for misdeclaration. In order to provide the non-sector with some protection against misdeclaration in the future, Fisheries Departments have consulted the industry on a proposal to require producer organisations which opt to manage a sectoral allocation for a species in one main sea area to take sectoral allocations for that species in all areas in the same year.

  In addition, fisheries departments have consulted the industry on a proposal to omit 1990 from the reference period for the calculation of vessels' track records in respect of those area VII stocks for which the pattern of fishing in 1990 appears to be atypical of previous years. This would ensure that for any stock in area VII where misdeclaration had caused the pattern of fishing to change significantly in 1990, those who had misdeclared would not benefit by building up track records in these fisheries. Departments are considering the industry's response, with particular emphasis on the question of which stocks had unusual fishing patterns in 1990.

  East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's press release on the autumn statement, explaining how(a) local authorities and (b) the National Rivers Authority will be able to draw on the extra funding additionally to protect the East Anglian coastline in its entirety.

  Mr. Curry
  An additional £7·1 million of grant and £9·9 million of supplementary credit approval are being made available over the next three years for coast protection work undertaken by maritime district councils. This means that support is now available for a programme of local authority coast protection work to nearly £88 million over this period. Funding is allocated to local authorities when schemes have been approved by the Department, and is provided according to need and priority.

  For the National Rivers Authority, an extra £14·5 million of grant is being made available over the next three years for flood and sea defence work, which means that support will be available for an NRA programme over this period of nearly £245 million. The Anglian region of the NRA will benefit from funding within this total on a programme of about £95 million.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current daily cost of the deployment of United Kingdom forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current estimate of the full daily operating cost of our forces in the Gulf is £2 million.

  Alvis Stormer Vehclees
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when delivery will be taken of the first Alvis Stormer vehicles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is planned that the Department will take delivery of the first Alvis Stormer vehicles by January 1991.

  NATO Defence Market
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the recommendation of the conference of national armaments directors that there should be an open defence market among the NATO countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The NATO conference of national armaments directors is considering ways in which the conditions for defence trade within the NATO nations can be improved. A group has been established to consider this issue and to make recommendations. This initiative is welcome and I hope that the report will give support for practical moves towards an open defence market within NATO as a whole.

  Panavia and Euro Fighter
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary cif State for Defence what is his policy towards a merger of the consortia Panavia and Euro Fighter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This is a matter for the companies involved.

  Filipino Security Guard
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether reported abuses of human rights and executions by the Filipino presidential security guard were taken into account in Her Majesty's Government's decision to provide military training to the guard in March and April.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In deciding whether or not to provide military training to overseas countries, Her Majesty's Government take all relevant factors into account, including the treatment of human rights in the country concerned.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether military training provided by the British Government to the Filipino presidential security guard in March and April of the current year included any consideration of, or training in, respect for human rights.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to disclose the content of military training provided by Her Majesty's Government to other countries as such details are generally confidential between the Governments involved.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to Britain of providing military training to the Filipino presidential security guard in March and April; and from which budget this was paid.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of providing military training to the Government of the Philippines was met from the United Kingdom military training assistance 122
  scheme which is part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's budget. It is not our practice to disclose the costs of training for individual countries.

  RAF Bases, Germany
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Royal Air Force bases in Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 25 July on "Options for Change", we have reviewed RAF basing requirements in Germany in the light of our commitments to NATO and of local, economic and environmental factors. After consultations with our allies, and in particular the German Government, we have decided to redeploy units from RAF Wildenrath during 1991–92 and from RAF Gutersloh subsequently. Flying activity will reduce progressively from 1991. We are now considering, in consultation with the German authorities, the future of these bases after RAF operations cease.

  Trident
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the order for the third Vanguard class Trident missile submarine.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am pleased to be able to announce that an order has been placed today with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. at Barrow-in-Furness for the construction of the Royal Navy's third Vanguard class Trident missile submarine. Negotiations have resulted in a keenly priced contract, and at a price lower on a comparable basis than those for the first two submarines. This reflects the improvements in productivity at VSEL and the considerable experience the company now has in building this class of submarine.

  The order demonstrates the Government's commitment to the United Kingdom programme, and to the effective maintenance of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent, while obtaining value for money for the taxpayer. Trident remains firmly on course for introduction into service in the mid-1990s.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest unemployment levels in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  In September 1990, the unadjusted level of unemployment in the Liverpool travel-to-work area was 62,324, a fall of 35 per cent. since the June 1987 election. The comparison is affected by the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds in September 1988 as well as seasonal influences.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In September 1990 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,666,700 or 5·8 per cent. of the work force. The United Kingdom has one of the very lowest rates of unemployment in the European Community.
  123
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the member states of the European Community with a higher rate of unemployment than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  Using the latest available internationally comparable figures, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain all have a higher rate of unemployment than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the statistics for unemployment in Gravesham in June 1987 and in the most recent month for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  In June 1987 the numbers of unemployed claimants, not seasonally adjusted, in the Gravesham parliamentary constituency were 4,159. This compares with 2,262 in September 1990, a fall of 84 per cent.

  The comparison is affected by the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds in September 1988 as well as seasonal influences.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the unemployment rate by ethnic origin and age in inner and outer London in 1970, 1980 and the latest date available.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The estimates below compare the unemployment rates amongst ethnic minority groups in Greater London in spring 1989 with those in spring 1984. The 1989 labour force survey (LFS) is the latest for which information is available and the earliest comparable data is from the 1984 LFS.

  Unemployment rates by ethnic origin in Greater London Aged 16 and over

  Per cent.

  1984

  1989

  All persons

  9·9

  6·7

  White

  8·7

  5·8

  Non-white

  17·5

  11·9

  —West Indian/Guyanese

  20·0

  13·5

  —Indian

  11·5

  8·9

  —Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  28·1

  27·3

  —Other ethnic origins

  19·3

  9·1

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  The LFS is a sample survey of approximately 60,000 households in Great Britain conducted in the spring of each year. Because of this small sample size, the LFS does not provide reliable detailed estimates for small proportion groups within regions.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local enterprise agencies are currently operating; and if he will make a statement on their progress to date.

  Mr. Forth
  We know of 419 local enterprise agencies operating in the United Kingdom. Of these, 406 are approved by my Department under the statutory provisions which allow for tax relief on donations to them.

  Many local enterprise agencies have now developed close working relationships with training and enterprise councils, bringing positive benefits to themselves, the TECs and to local small businesses.
  124
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many enterprise agencies have been established since 1979; how many were established in the period 1974 to 1979; how many jobs are estimated to have been generated in each case; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The first enterprise agencies were established in 1978. At present we know of 324 operating in England.

  Information on the number of jobs estimated to have been created by these agencies is not collected centrally by my Department.

  Since April 1986, Government funding of local enterprise agencies in England has been primarily through my Department's local enterprise agency grant and project schemes. To date, more than £10 million has been paid to more than 200 agencies through these schemes.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the launch of the new logo and code of practice for the employment of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  There has been a positive and encouraging response from a large number of employers and voluntary organisations to this initiative. The new symbol which we have introduced will play an important part in encouraging employers to adopt good policies and practices in employing people with disabilities, and will enable them to communicate their commitment to existing and potential employees.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to introduce full anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people.

  Mr. Jackson
  The consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", which was published on 29 June, sets out various options for encouraging the employment of people with disabilities. What action to take will be considered in the light of the comments we receive.

  Low Pay
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to tackle the problem of low pay in Halifax and West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Forth
  Pay in Halifax and West Yorkshire, as elsewhere, is a matter for negotiators themselves to determine in the light of their particular financial, business and labour market circumstances.

  Training
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to review the remuneration of training agents and providers on YTS and employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The remuneration of training agents and providers on youth training and employment training is for local negotiation.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of young people under 18 years without a job can now be offered a suitable training place.
  125
  Mr. Howard
  The Government guarantee the offer of a suitable training place to all young people under 18 who are not in full-time education or a job.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many approved training places are taken up by women returnees to work in the latest available 12 months.

  Mr. Howard
  It is estimated that about 3 per cent. of all entrants to employment training are women returners.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether results from the 100 per cent. follow-up survey of employment training leavers have been made available to operational training and enterprise councils and Training Agency regional officers; and if similar information will be made available to hon. Members;

  (2) whether he is yet in a position to publish the results of the employment training leavers' survey; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he will place the results from the Training Agency's 100 per cent. follow-up survey of employment training leavers in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Results of the follow-up survey of employment training leavers have been provided on Training Agency regional offices and operational training and enterprise councils. Summaries of survey results are available for hon. Members and are also contained in the November Labour Market Quarterly Report which is published this week. The report will be available in the Library from 14 November.

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's policy concerning alternative employment opportunities in rural areas.

  Mr. Forth
  We wish to encourage the development of alternative employment opportunities for rural communities. The flexible and locally focussed approach of the training and enterprise councils and, in Scotland. local enterprise companies, will be particularly helpful in responding to the needs of rural areas.

  As we made clear in the Environment White Paper, the Government will also continue to work through agencies such as the Rural Development Commission to promote enterprise and economic diversity in a lively and prosperous countryside.

  Parents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to assist the return of parents with dependants to the labour market.

  Mr. Jackson
  My colleagues and I take every opportunity to impress upon employers the need to adopt working practices which make it easier for employees to combine work and family responsibilities. This means more flexibility in hours of work and in holidays, job-sharing, career breaks, part-time working and, where appropriate, help with child care costs. In this time of demographic change, it will be the employers who develop family-friendly policies and practices who will be best placed to attract and retain scarce resources.

  Further Education
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to increase the effectiveness of the work-related further education programme.

  Mr. Howard
  From April 1991 responsibility for payment for work-related further education monies formerly handled by the Training Agency will be transferred to the training and enterprise councils.

  I believe that the training and enterprise councils will use this new responsibility to foster a more flexible further education service which is responsive to the needs of employers and individuals.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department intends to improve the work of the wages councils.

  Mr. Forth
  The councils are empowered to set minimum rates of pay in certain industries. Checks by wages inspectors show that compliance with wages council orders is running at a very high level.

  EC Employment
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of British citizens who will seek work in other European Community countries following the implementation of the Single European Act.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has not estimated the number of United Kingdom citizens who will seek work in other EC countries following the Single European Act. However, the Act will remove barriers facing individuals who wish to work in other countries, and will also create many new jobs. We would therefore expect that movement both into and out of the United Kingdom, particularly by highly skilled workers, will increase after 1992.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the value of the present level of training and enterprise support given by his Department to companies in Lancashire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department is contributing some £39 million towards training and enterprise activities in Lancashire in 1990–91.

  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are currently being established to play a major role at local level in stimulating the high skill, high productivity economy we need and to take over responsibility for training and enterprise activities in their locality. The TEC covering East Lancashire (ELTEC) has been operational since April 1990 and the TEC covering West Lancashire (LAWTEC) is due to become operational in April 1991.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make available the list of board members from any additional training and enterprise councils which have signed operational contracts.

  Mr. Jackson
  Fourty one TECs are now fully operational. I have arranged for an updated list of board members covering these TECs to be placed in the House of Commons Library.
  127
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the implications of the Chancellor's autumn statement for the Government's policies on training and enterprise.

  Mr. Howard
  I recently published "1990s: the Skills Decade" which sets out strategic guidance for all involved in promoting the acquisition of skills and the development of enterprise in this country. The Chancellor's autumn statement provides the framework for this strategic guidance to be put into effect.

  My strategic guidance places particular emphasis on the major role that training and enterprise councils (TECs) have in stimulating the high skill, high productivity economy we need. I have been greatly encouraged by the response we have had from the country's top business leaders in joining and leading the TECs and at their request I am making a number of changes to funding arrangements for 1991–92 to allow TECs much greater discretion in tailoring programmes to meet local needs.

  First, more payments to TECs will depend on helping people to get jobs and qualifications through training rather than simply the time that they spend on programmes. At least 25 per cent. of TECs' funding for youth training (YT) and employment training (ET) will be dependent on results in terms of jobs and qualifications that are achieved. This will mean that many of the remaining rules for YT and ET will be removed. For example there will no longer be any limit on the maximum duration of training on ET. But priority will still be given to those in the guarantee and aim groups.

  Secondly, the budgets for business and enterprise training and for the enterprise allowance scheme (EAS) which were previously separate will be merged to become one budget and TECs will be free to decide their relative priorities, subject to ensuring that a reasonable level of provision for EAS is maintained and guarantees to unemployed people are met. TECs will also have considerable discretion over the way they organise and fund EAS in their local areas and how participation might be linked to related training or business assistance.

  Thirdly, TECs are being given a major new responsibility in work-related further education (WRFE). They will assume responsibility from 1 April for the WRFE budget that is currently managed by the Employment Department, amounting to over £105 millions. These funds will still be spent within the local education authority further education system. This will complement TECs' existing role in youth training and help ensure that college provision is more responsive to employment needs at local level.

  I also plan to give TECs a wider role in education in other ways. TECs are being given a powerful voice in the continued development of the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) at local level and local education authorities will be required to consult TECs when they draw up their plans.

  TECs will also be able to bid, as part of their business plans for 1991–92, for additional resources to launch or extend education business partnerships.

  Finally, Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools has agreed that where HMI inspections largely or wholly focus on TEC-funded provision, HMI will jointly report back their findings to the relevant TEC and local education authority.
  128
  This represents a significant widening of responsibilities and increase in discretion for TECs. I am confident that these changes will greatly increase TECs, ability to respond quickly and effectively to local needs in their area and to ensure that education and training meet employers' needs. Overall, the public expenditure settlement ensures that my Department has the resources it needs, and the means to deploy them effectively, so as to improve the skills of the workforce, help small businesses and enterprise and get unemployed people back to work.

SCOTLAND

  Primary Schools (Testing)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the responses he has received to the proposal to introduce tests at primary four and primary seven in Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposal to introduce primary testing was included in the consultation document "Curriculum and Assessment: A Policy for the 90s" issued in November 1987. Over 1,000 responses were received, most of which commented on the testing proposals. The decision to proceed with tests was announced on 3 October 1988 and all the responses were made available for public inspection during October and November of that year.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list by street and number of properties where Scottish Homes is the landlord within Govan constituency; and if he will show for each of the past 10 years the capital expenditure by Scottish Homes and its predecessor;

  (2) if he will list the projects within Glasgow where Scottish Homes is now involved by itself, with Glasgow district council or other bodies, showing the Scottish Homes financial input and the district council or other bodies' contribution; and if he will show the starting date of each project.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such information is not held by the Scottish Development Department. The hon. Member may wish to write directly to Scottish Homes, which may be able to provide the information that he has requested.

  Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of licences issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to permit the killing of(a) barnacle and (b) Greenland white-fronted geese on Islay to prevent serious agricultural damage, for each winter since 1985–86.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of barnacle licences issued

  Number of white-front licences issued

  1985–86

  26

  —

  1986–87

  29

  —

  1987–88

  40

  13

  1988–89

  30

  2

  1989–90

  28

  8

  129
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of(a) barnacle and (b) Greenland white-fronted geese killed under licence on Islay to prevent serious agricultural damage in each winter since 1985–86.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Barnacles reported shot

  White-fronts reported shot

  1985–86

  541

  —

  1986–87

  791

  —

  1987–88

  505

  76

  1988–89

  752

  6

  1989–90

  915

  45

  Over the same period, the estimated numbers of both species over-wintering on Islay have increased substantially.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that Her Majesty's Government comply with the requirements of article 7.4 of the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds 79/409 in respect of licences issued to permit the killing of migratory geese that would otherwise enjoy full protection, or be protected during the close season, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr Michael Forsyth
  Licences are issued under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 only after it has been established on the basis of a careful assessment of the situation on the ground that geese are causing sufficiently serious damage to crops or grassland to justify this step, and that there is no other satisfactory means of preventing such damage.

  Conditions to guard against misuse are attached to the licences. Arrangements are made for the licences to be revoked in time to give the migratory geese a suitable period of preparation without disturbance before returning to their breeding grounds.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many returns in respect of licences issued in winter 1989–90 to permit the killing of(a) barnacle and (b) Greenland white-fronted geese on Islay to prevent serious agricultural damage were incomplete; and whether he will withhold the giving of a new licence to those who failed to provide a comprehensive return in winter 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Returns for 1989–90, including supplementary information provided at the request of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, are generally satisfactory. Wilful refusal to provide information required would be an important factor in consideration of any fresh application from the individual concerned.

  Mrs. Margaret Smith
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will order a public inquiry into the death from Legionnaire's disease of Mrs. Margaret Smith, Westfield, Cumbernauld, while a patient at Glasgow royal infirmary: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I called for a full report on 10 October 1990 from Greater Glasgow health board on the recent incidences of Legionnaire's disease at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. A report was received on 12 November 1990 and is now being considered.

  M80
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the line of route for the proposed M80 motorway between Stells and Haggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The feasibility study was received from the Scottish Development Department's consulting engineers in October 1990 which was several months later than had earlier been anticipated. It is now the subject of ongoing discussions with regional and district councils and other affected parties and it is expected that a decision will be made on the preferred route soon. Following this, draft orders will be published early next year with a public exhibition being held at that time to explain the proposals in detail.

  Wildlife Conservation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce appropriate measures to prevent licences which are issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 from being misused by sporting interests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Appropriate conditions to guard against misuse are already attached to licences issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In addition licence holders are issued with notes of guidance which make clear to them the actions which are permitted and those which would constitute abuse of the licence.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many tonnes of cod from area Vila were landed by United Kingdom vessels in Scotland in the month of June for each of the years 1986 to 1990; and if he will make a statement on the figures for June 1990;

  (2) how many tonnes of cod from areas VII (ex 'Ma) and VIII EC were landed by United Kingdom vessels in Scotland in the month of June for each of the years 1986 to 1990; and if he will make a statement on the figures for June 1990;

  (3) how many tonnes of haddock from areas VII and VIII EC were landed by United Kingdom vessels in Scotland in the month of June for each of the years 1986 to 1990; and if he will make a statement on the figures for June 1990;

  (4) how many tonnes of saithe from areas VII and VIII EC were landed by United Kingdom vessels in Scotland in the month of June for each of the years 1986 to 1990; and if he will make a statement on the figures for June 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table sets out the details requested:

  Cod VIIa

  Cod VII (excluding VIIa) and VIII EC

  Haddock VII and VIII EC

  Saithe VII and VIII EC

  1986

  16

  6

  7

  2

  1987

  26

  —

  1

  2

  1988

  51

  align="right">—

  2

  19

  1989

  42

  —

  1

  9

  1990

  809

  175

  137

  420

  Hydro-electric Power
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what capacity of hydro-electric power is installed at present in Scotland; and what are his plans to encourage further generation by this means.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I understand that the total existing conventional hydro-electric installed capacity in Scotland is at present, 1,270 megawatts, of which Scottish Hydro-Electric owns and operates 1,064 megawatts and ScottishPower 121 megawatts, the balance being owned and operated independently. These figures do not include the pumped storage stations at Foyers and Cruachan.

  Hydro-electric power already supplies around 15 per cent. of electricity consumed in Scotland and, given the surplus generating capacity existing on the system, my right hon. and learned Friend has no specific plans at present to encourage further generation by hydro-electric power. However, the electricity companies keep their generation needs under constant review and I would expect them to continue to consider the respective merits of all sources of electricity generation and supply, including from possible hydro developments, in assessing the most efficient and economical means of meeting the needs of customers in the future.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what range of prices is being offered to private hydro-electricity generators in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The level of payments by the public electricity suppliers in Scotland to private hydro-electricity generators is a matter for the companies.

  Lothian Nurses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his response to representations from Lothian health board on the proposed strike of night nurses at Barrymour hospital, West Lothian and St. John's hospital, Livingston.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I have received no representations from Lothian health board about a strike. While Ministers have no locus in determining nurse duty rotas, I understand that the Health Board is currently consulting members of staff to determine how they will be affected by the proposals and discussing possible solutions. Where nurses' hours are reduced, they will continue to be paid at their present salary for up to one year depending on length of service. During that time the board hopes that nurses who wish to increase their hours to present levels will be able to do so. I can see no reason why strike action should be considered in those circumstances.

  Royal British Legion (Rating)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report any Scottish rating authorities that have granted rating relief to Royal British Legion premises under section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Information on organisations granted reduction or
  132
  remission of rates by local authorities under section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc) (Scotland) Act 1962 is not held centrally.

  Child Care Inquiries
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list any inquiries other than that into Fife established under section 99 of the Children Act 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: A section 99 inquiry was carried out in 1982 into the proposal by Orkney islands council to dismiss the reporter to the children's panel.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the board members, companies and organisations represented on each of the local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 1 November.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the extra nursery school places since 1979 have been provided through the urban programme; and what percentage the urban programme places are of the increase in places since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: A statistical record of nursery school places provided under the urban programme is not maintained separately and the information could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Care, Fife
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration was given to the publication of an interim report of the inquiry into child care policy in Fife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is entirely for Sheriff Kearney, as chairman of the inquiry, to decide on the form of reporting.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the cost of the inquiry into child care policy in Fife.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I refer to the reply that my hon. Friend gave on 25 April at column 152.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects the inquiry into child care policy in Fife region to finish;

  (2) when he expects to receive Sheriff Kearney's report on child care policy in Fife;

  (3) whether the findings of the inquiry into child care policy in Fife will be made public;

  (4) when he expects to publish the findings of the report into child care policy in Fife region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: I understand that the inquiry is likely to complete

  133
  taking oral evidence in mid-December. Thereafter my right hon. and learned Friend looks forward to receiving Sheriff Kearney's report, so that he can decide whether it should be published.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has assessed the impact of the inquiry into child care policies in Fife on the proper discharge of social work responsibilities by Fife regional council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Fife regional council welcomed the inquiry and agreed to co-operate fully with it. The council is responsible for the proper discharge of its responsibilities under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 during the period of the inquiry, as at all other times.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the persons or organisations consulted about child care policy in Fife prior to the announcement to set up the inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Officials of the social work services group discussed aspects of child care policy in Fife with senior officials of the regional council, as well as representatives of the children's panel.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the information and evidence upon which the decision was taken to hold an inquiry into child care policies in Fife.
  134
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The background to the remit to the inquiry was set out in the memorandum which social work services group provided for the chairman in April 1989 and which he had circulated to the parties to the inquiry.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any other form of investigation into child care policy in Fife was considered prior to the announcement to set up the inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The decision to initiate an Inquiry under section 99 of the Children Act 1975 was taken only after an investigation of certain cases by professional advisers in the Scottish Office and after extensive discussions with senior officials of Fife regional council about aspects of the region's child care policies.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the representations received about child care policy in Fife prior to the announcement to set up the inquiry;

  (2) what meeting or discussions were held with the chairman of the children's panel in Fife about child care policy in Fife prior to the announcement to set up the inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Serious concerns about certain aspects of child care policy in Fife were expressed by representatives of the children's panel, including successive panel chairmen.

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

Sunday Trading
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many summonses for alleged breaches of the law on Sunday trading have been dismissed by magistrates or on appeal in the last six months on the grounds that English law on the subject conflicts with the law of the European Community.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I regret that information in the form which is requested by my noble friend is not held centrally.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most interesting Answer. Is he aware that the information is available to, and in the hands of, those who look for it? It shows that during the period dismissals amounted to nine. Five cases were withdrawn and 59 cases were adjourned sine die. What is the cost to public funds of such fruitless proceedings and when will Her Majesty's Government summon up the courage to deal with the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the information of which I was not in possession. I am unable to tell him of the cost. My noble friend asks when the Government will summon up sufficient courage. I remind him of a fact that may have temporarily escaped his notice. In 1986 we summoned up enough courage to produce a Bill. It was passed by your Lordships but thrown out by another place. Quite frankly, until another place is prepared to accept proposals it is unlikely that the government of the day will produce them. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that rather than having a go at the Government his efforts would be better directed towards persuading his friends in another place to reach agreement so that when a Bill is introduced they pass it.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, when will the Government summon up the courage to give effect to the clear ruling given by Mr. Justice Hoffmann that the law is being properly carried out and that all that is lacking is will on the part of the Government to enforce it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not for the Government to enforce the law but the courts. As far as I know, the courts do their best to enforce the law as it stands.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that during 1990 there were more than 250 successful prosecutions for illegal Sunday trading?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting statistic but I am not sure what one draws from it. However, I am now aware of the fact.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am overcome with flattery by his answer and the suggestion that I have more influence over those in another place than Her Majesty's Government? However agreeable I may find that proposition, it is not true.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is surprising how, with a little persistence, people's characters change during their lives. Perhaps the noble Lord will find his character changing and will discover that he has more power over those in another place than at present he suspects.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if with tongue in cheek a local authority were to prosecute a cathedral bookshop for selling a bible on a Sunday, what would the magistrates be expected to do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the magistrates' job would be to carry out the law as it stands. As the noble Lord asked a hypothetical question I do not propose to give an answer.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is based on the premise that the English law on the subject conflicts with the law of the Community. I have a letter in front of me signed by the Attorney-General which states that a recent decision given by Mr. Justice Hoffmann has made it clear that the Shops Act provisions applying to Sunday trading are entirely consistent with this country's obligations under EC law. Are they consistent or are they not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is for the courts to interpret the law as it stands. It is a matter for the European Court to decide its judgment. Whatever the law, its enforcement is a matter for local authorities. It is for them to decide how best to discharge their duties under Section 71 of the Shops Act.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome, is it not possible for the courts to ask the opinion of the Luxembourg court about whether our law is consistent with the treaty?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is true. Under Article 177 any court can seek further clarification from the European Court in interpreting the Treaty of Rome. Of course, the courts did so and, to paraphrase, the European Court stated that the United Kingdom law is not necessarily in breach of the Treaty of Rome. It depends on particular circumstances whether there is a socio-economic justification for a law which would reasonably permit a reduction in imports in consequence. The European Court states that it is for the local courts to determine in each case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would it help my noble friend to form a view on the legality of the question to know that a recent High Court decision by Mr. Justice Hoffmann has made it clear that the Shops Act provisions applying to Sunday trading are entirely

195
consistent with this country's obligations under EC law and that this has been endorsed by his right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asked whether the information would be of help. I can tell him that anything would be of help. I am grateful to him for having produced that fact.

Air Services, UK-Mexico
2.43 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why there is no scheduled direct air service between the United Kingdom and Mexico, and when this will be established.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Air Services Agreement between the United Kingdom and Mexico signed in November 1988 established rights for an airline from each country to provide scheduled services on specified routes between our two countries. The decision whether to take advantage of these rights is a matter of commercial judgment for the airlines concerned.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting piece of information. Is he aware that the flag carriers of France, Spain, Holland and Germany all have direct flights to Mexico? Furthermore, is he aware that Britain is now the second largest investor in Mexico after the USA but that the lack of any direct flights is an impediment to the development of trade in an economy which is showing a remarkable state of rapid recovery? Therefore, will he do his utmost and use his best offices to lean on the airlines in question and inform them that direct flights would be of great benefit to this country and, indeed, to Mexico?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes and no. I appreciate the importance of trade with Mexico. Therefore, through the Air Services Agreement, the Government have set up the mechanism for establishing direct services. On the other hand, I am not prepared to lean on the judgment of commercial airlines on the question of whether or not they should mount such a service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that such services would be of great benefit to the airlines concerned? Indeed, if he were to approach them he would do them a great favour because this issue does not merely include improving cultural, economic and business relationships; it is also an idea which would do the airlines the world of good. Will he approach the airlines and point out that that service would be an advantage for them and also an advantage for the other reasons that I have mentioned?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no. The airlines are perfectly capable of forming their own judgment with a view to what the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said. It is entirely a matter for them as to whether or not they wish to mount such a service.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply, can he say whether any United Kingdom airline has considered applying for a direct link with Mexico? If so, what has been the result of that request? Is it a question of having a suitable airport slot in this country in respect of which the airlines could fly from and to?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think so. I understand that British Airways has applied for a route licence with a view to resuming services to Mexico City in 1992. The question of a slot in this country would be considered through the normal mechanism. However, I am not aware that that would be any problem as regards mounting such a service.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said that British Airways had made an application in 1982. Can he say why that request was refused?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it has not been refused.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, if British Airways is showing reluctance on this issue, is the Minister prepared to encourage regional airlines in the United Kingdom to fly from different airports because there are a very large number of efficient airports all over the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara; My Lords, there is nothing to prevent any airline from applying for a licence. Provided that the normal requirements for an issue are fulfilled, I can see no reason that such an application would be refused.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that British Airways seems to have done much better since it ceased to have a steady stream of government advice?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is rather the impression that I have been trying to create in answering this Question.

BT Charge Card
2.46 p.m.
Lord Parry Lord Parry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they know of any reason why the British Telecommunication charge card cannot be used for calls from Canada to the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I understand that, although there has been some disruption to the operation of the charge card service in Canada, it is possible to use the service to make calls to the UK via the UK-direct service. This will connect customers directly to a UK operator free of charge.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, delivered at characteristic machine-gun speed. Will he accept that since such a situation has existed for three months, card holders planning to go to Canada may like to know that they will have difficulty in meeting the charges which they must incur when telephoning home?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that will not be the case if they use the UK-direct service. However, I shall draw the noble Lord's Question to the attention of British Telecom.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for slowing down his utterance.

The Gulf
2.46 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, if a military attack is launched by United Nations forces on Kuwait, the object of the exercise will be to reinstate the regime ejected by Iraq whether it is expected that this will be accomplished by killing or disabling Iraqi soldiers who resist; and whether any estimates have been made of probable casualties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the United Nations has called for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces and the restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait. The Government hope that Iraq will comply and leave Kuwait, but, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we shall have to take the military option if they do not. The number of casualties which might result from any military action could vary considerably, depending on a wide range of factors.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that informative Answer. Will he address himself to the Question and particularly that aspect of it which asks for an estimate to be made? He said that it depends upon the circumstances, but is it not possible for him to answer more fully than that?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is not possible. We do not care to speculate on the number of casualties. All I can say is that if we must go to war, we hope that the casualties will be as few as possible and we are determined that that should be so.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not remarkable, in view of the solicitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for Iraqi casualties, both those killed and those disabled, that nothing is said regarding British casualties or those of their allies? Presumably they will be working either under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations or under Article 51.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is correct. I was under the impression that I was answering on behalf of British casualties, if any should occur.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will answer the middle part of the Question, to which he has not yet addressed himself. Is it the objective of Her Majesty's Government, through the United Nations, to restore the particular regime that was in Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion? Alternatively, are there any moves to make a more democratic regime acceptable, and for that regime to be reinstated after the withdrawal of the Iraqi forces?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must make it clear that it is the purpose of the United Nations to restore Kuwait to its rightful owners.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl bring us up to date regarding possible future discussions that may take place in the Security Council on military action in the Gulf? Are such discussions envisaged in the near future? Can he explain the attitude of Her Majesty's Government regarding the seeking of Chapter 7 clearance for military action rather than relying on Article 51?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, those are currently hypothetical questions. If the events envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, transpire, they will be dealt with at that time.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not strange that we are discussing this topic now when there are 41 people wishing to contribute to this very subject in a few minutes?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is your Lordships' wish. I understand what the noble Lord says.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, was not the noble Earl somewhat ambiguous in his reply to my question? Who does he consider to be the rightful owners of Kuwait?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the answer is the legitimate government.

Committee of Selection
2.52 pm
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any Committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—

Belstead, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Denham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Tordoff, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Kimball—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
2.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, before commencing the debate this afternoon I should like to offer a particularly warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on his appointment to the Front Bench. I look forward to discussing European Community matters with him, and shall pay particular attention to his closing address today. We wish him the very best congratulations.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, last year we were able, in the debate on the Address, to celebrate the beginnings of democracy in Eastern Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the year since we have experienced nine months of increasing joy followed by three months of increasing soberness. The watershed was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. I should therefore like to begin with the Gulf crisis, but will then move on to consider more hopeful developments in Europe, South Africa, Latin America and South-East Asia.
The present crisis in the Gulf is the result of naked Iraqi aggression. Saddam Hussein's invasion of a neighbouring country and, let us not forget, a fellow member of the United Nations, was unprovoked and unjustifiable. His aim is to snuff out a sovereign, independent state. He cannot be allowed to succeed. This Government's objectives are clear and unwavering. They are shared by the international community and have been spelled out in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
We seek complete and unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait; the restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait; and the release of all foreign nationals in Iraq and Kuwait. The means to achieve those objectives include Iraq's diplomatic isolation; the imposition of full and effective sanctions against Iraq; and the possibility of military actions. It must be made clear to Saddam Hussein that, if sanctions do not work, the military option exists and can be used against him.
Iraq's diplomatic isolation is almost complete. Sanctions continue to be broadly effective. There is evidence they are hitting Saddam where it hurts. Industrial production is slowing down, and vital imports are not getting through. Iraq is earning no foreign exchange. Economic agony is beginning to pile up. It is essential that the international community remains united in condemnation of Iraq, and steadily
200
tightens the pressure of sanctions. It is vital that we all remain firm. Even so, it would be hard to argue that sanctions alone are likely to be decisive in reversing Iraqi policy in the near future.
We are doing our level best to make diplomatic and economic pressure work. But we must face the possibility that Saddam Hussein will resist all the peaceful pressures. That is why it is essential to build up the military option and to show that it is not a bluff. The threat of military action can focus an aggressor's mind powerfully. Saddam Hussein must be receiving regular reports of the build-up of the international military force which opposes him. He must know that their deployment does not suggest a bluff. Forces are in fact moving into a position from which they can expel him from Kuwait. That must be gnawing at his mind. We have to be serious in our threat of force. We hope Saddam will conclude that he must change his mind and pull back his army into Iraq—even at the eleventh hour. That is the peaceful outcome for which we are all working.
The solidarity of the international coalition opposing Iraq is essential to the success of this work. The allies consult regularly. On 9th November Secretary of State Baker came to London for that purpose. The United States, like the UK, remains committed to trying to resolve this conflict by peaceful means if possible; by force if necessary.
Throughout the crisis the United Nations have shown unprecedented and heartening unity of purpose. We must work to maintain this united front. Some will look for compromises, for face-saving formulas. We must resist that. The route, the only possible route, to a peaceful solution is clear—full Iraqi compliance with the Security Council's resolution. We must not sell ourselves or the people of Kuwait short.
In the last few days horrific reports have been reaching us in Europe about the Iraqi army's rape of Kuwait. It is clear that, far from behaving in a disciplined fashion, Iraq's occupation forces have behaved brutally and without mercy. Eye witnesses report the murder of children, boys in their teens, in front of their mothers and sisters. Torture and imprisonment without trial are routine. This is part of a deliberate campaign of terror against the Kuwaiti people aimed at the systematic obliteration of Kuwait as a nation.
Iraq's conduct has been sickening. The taking of British and other Western hostages is a cynical and wicked action. Around 60 Britons are at strategic installations in Kuwait; 300 at installations in Iraq. This so-called "human shield" is an inhuman manipulation. There are also over 400 British citizens who are being prevented from leaving Iraq and another 500 in hiding in Kuwait, sometimes under appalling conditions. They are showing remarkable courage and resilience. Their plight is one of our first concerns. Our embassy in Kuwait—staffed now only by our ambassador, Michael Weston, and the consul, Larry Banks—continues to maintain contact with as

201
many of them as it can. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking the embassy staff for their work in such difficult circumstances.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we take every opportunity to make clear to the Iraqis that their continued illegal detention is unacceptable. All foreign nationals must be allowed to go. We are urging the UN and other international organisations to continue their efforts to help foreign nationals. So far the representations of the UN Secretary General have been repeatedly spurned. In a British initiative, we agreed yesterday with our European partners that a wide selection of countries should be pressed to urge Iraq to receive the Secretary General's special representative.
We have taken a number of practical steps to help those held at strategic sites and those prevented from leaving Iraq. Our consular emergency unit and embassy in Baghdad are manned 24 hours a day to assist with enquiries from their families. There is a new PO box to speed up the delivery of mail. With our encouragement British Telecom has cut the cost of telephone calls to Iraq and the BBC has extended its Gulf link programme. The embassy in Baghdad is sending, comfort parcels to British detainees and provides financial assistance to distressed Britons where necessary.
In all this activity, the sufferings of the relatives back home are very much at the front of our minds. I should like to pay tribute to the fortitude of the families of those affected. On the whole, in spite of their acute anxiety, these families have resisted the temptation to ask us to weaken our policies. We are committed to doing everything possible to bring our hostages home; but we cannot negotiate with hostage takers, whether terrorists or governments. Throughout our discussions and in our thoughts we must rot forget that Iraq, and Iraq alone, is responsible for the present situation. We would be in a far more dangerous world if we submitted to blackmail.
The Gulf crisis has absorbed much of our attention in foreign affairs in the last three months, but no one can have failed to notice the debate raging over the European Community. There is indeed argument. There is always in any normal family, whether in our home life or a family of nationals. The Community does not stand still and honest open debate is a prerequisite for sensible decisions on the next step forward. Discussions never stop, but occasionally the debate is focused in a formal conference. Two such conferences will be convened next month in Rome.
One will deal with economic and monetary union. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will represent the UK. There is much common ground between the UK and our EC partners. We all agree on the need for further economic integration, price stability, curbing budget deficits and moves beyond stage one of EMU to create a new monetary institution. The debate is over the way to achieve these goals. This Government believe a
202
European monetary fund and a hard ecu are the best way forward. In time, if consumers, markets and governments so chose, the common currency of a hard ecu could evolve towards a single currency. The people's choice, not the Eurocrats' imposition, is the key. In our deliberations we should examine this and decide substance before deciding timing.
The second intergovernmental conference will aim to improve the working of the Community institutions. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be the UK's representative. The UK's approach is guided by five principles: maintaining balance within the Community, both between Brussels and member states and between the institutions in Brussels; strengthened foreign policy co-ordination; better efficiency and more value for money; improved democratic accountability; and openness to new applicants qualified for Community membership.
The Community is taking notice of UK pressure for member states to respect, implement and enforce Community laws. Our proposals for improving financial accountability have been welcomed. The taxpayer deserves better scrutiny of budget and the Community should provide it.
We believe that subsidiarity must be a major element of IGC reform. This will ensure a clear division of responsibilities, leaving to national governments everything that does not need to be done in common. We recognise that national parliaments must play a greater role. The Parliamentary Conference of the European Community meets on 27th to 30th November. It can make a direct input. Westminster will be fully represented by eight noble Lords and 18 members of another place.
In both the intergovernmental conferences our aim is to help Members of the Community reach agreement to work more closely together. We will play a constructive part so that the Community can move forward as twelve. Despite all the rhetoric, all our partners realise that reform should be pragmatic and gradual.
The Community is advancing but there are some things it cannot and should not take on. We do not seek the EC taking on a defence role, but we want to see the European defence pillar strengthened and made more coherent within NATO. The NATO summit in London last July set the agenda. It is essential to preserve the fundamentals: an integrated military structure; the continued presence of the US in Europe; and a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons to counter-balance continued Soviet power. But at the summit we recognised that NATO had to change in order to survive. The NATO review is now looking at the alliance's political role, its strategy and force structures. We expect the outcome next spring. We do not want to pre-empt the conclusions of the review, but it is clear to us that a stronger European voice is needed to match Europe's increasing responsibility for its own defence. The Western European Union may have a useful role both politically and militarily.

203
The review will also doubtless take into account the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, due to be signed in Paris on the 19th of this month. This treaty is the visible expression of the post-cold war European security relationship, based on mutal confidence, openness and lower levels of armaments. It sets limits for major conventional weapons systems held by NATO and the Warsaw Pact between the Atlantic and the Urals and sets a sufficiency rule; that is, a limit on the numbers of each system that any one state can hold. This means a hugh quantity of Soviet military hardware—almost 100,000 pieces of equipment—will be removed from the European theatre. As a result, the risk of conflict will be greatly reduced.
The CFE Treaty will be signed in the margins of the conference on security co-operation in Europe summit. The CSCE has helped provide a framework for the democratic changes in the east of our Continent. The summit will celebrate that achievement but also relaunch the process. We expect the summit to agree to give CSCE a permament small secretariat for the first time and to set up a timetable for regular meetings at head of government, ministerial and official level to improve political consultation among the 34 signatory states.
Meanwhile, we must help the newly democratic countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Britain has contributed to the development of those democracies through the know-how funds. The know-how funds have been a substantial success. There are now over 130 projects. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development arrived in Budapest this morning at the start of a tour which will also take her to Poland and Czechoslovakia. In the next seven days she will have discussions with Ministers who are involved in managing the transition to a free market economy. Despite the rigour of the public expenditure round, in the next financial year we shall double our know-how fund assistance from £15 million to £30 million.
Chances for the better are not confined to Europe. The United Nations has seen not only good work in building and keeping together the international coalition opposing Iraq's takeover of Kuwait, but also valuable work over Cambodia. The five permament members of the Security Council proposed a framework for a settlement which all Cambodian parties have now accepted in its entirety. The UN General Assembly has unanimously endorsed that framework. Negotiations will continue in the coming weeks. We hope the Paris international conference on Cambodia will reconvene before the end of 1990 to sign a settlement agreement; but this will not be possible without co-operation among Cambodian parties. I am sure all noble Lords join the Government in calling on all Cambodian parties to stop fighting and settle their differences so that they can co-operate fully in working out the details of a comprehensive political settlement.
Negotiations also began to bear fruit this year in South Africa. Our aim has long been clear: to help a pluralist, non-racial and democratic South Africa
204
achieve stability and prosperity and take its place in the international community. For this, apartheid has to be replaced, through negotiation, by a system of government acceptable to the majority of South Africans. President de Klerk opened the door this year. Last month the South African Parliament repealed the Separate Amenities Act, one of the pillars of apartheid. In the next parliamentary session, President de Klerk is committed to repealing the Land Act, which prevents blacks from owning land in reserved areas, and the Group Areas Act, which delineates areas where blacks can live. Progress so far has been very significant. We hope all parties will now begin full constitutional negotiations as soon as possible.
I turn next to Hong Kong—an area for which I have special responsibility. Before doing so, however, I welcome both maiden speakers in our debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, brings an enormous amount of experience from his work at the UN. I know your Lordships will understand my wish to give a special welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who continues to do so much for Hong Kong. We all look forward to hearing their contributions to this important debate.
When I visited Hong Kong in September, I made it clear that the British Government were determined to do all in their power to secure a stable and prosperous future for Hong Kong. We remain determined to fulfil our responsibilities, building on the Sino-British Joint Declaration. To this end we are seeking to establish a better working relationship with China, not only because it is right and desirable in itself, but because it is a key to reassuring the people of Hong Kong. The visit of my honourable friend Mr. Maude to China in July was an important step in that process. Following the recent agreement in Luxembourg where we took a leading role in urging fellow members of the Community to restore more normal and improved relations with China, it is hoped that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and then I will visit next year.
In addition, we and the Hong Kong Government are planning actively for Hong Kong's future. The Hong Kong Government, with our full backing, are pressing ahead with plans for a new international airport and port extension. It is the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken in Hong Kong. The airport is essential if Hong Kong is to remain a major international financial and trading centre. Tai Tak airport is already crowded and will be saturated by the mid-1990s. The new airport will be a valuable asset for the new SAR Government of Hong Kong.
The passage of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act has had a steadying effect on confidence. The implementation of the scheme will begin on 1st December and the first passports will be issued next spring. Emigration from the territory is still a matter of serious concern. But we hope our nationality package, coupled with measures being taken by other countries, including the United States, Singapore and our Community partners, will succeed in anchoring key people.

205
The number of Vietnamese boat people and their dependants continues to be a matter of grave concern. There are still nearly 54,000 in Hong Kong of whom about 13,000 so far have been assessed, after appeal, using international criteria, as not being refugees. Sadly, only a small percentage have volunteered to return to Vietnam, a statistic which underlines the need for rapid progress in returning non-volunteers. An agreement on 21st September between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, Vietnam and the United Nations' High Commission for Refugees in Hanoi set up procedures for speeding up the return of volunteers and a new programme for returning non-volunteers who do not object (the so-called grey area) under UNHCR supervision. It remains to be seen how, indeed whether, this plan will work. Our objective remains the repatriation of all non-refugee Vietnamese boat people before the end of 1992.
Foreign affairs debates inevitably tend to develop into Cook's tours of the globe. Before I finish I should like to complete my world tour in Latin America. Democracy has broken out the length and breadth of the continent. The place of posturing generals has been taken by democratically-elected presidents. In February this year we resumed diplomatic relations with Argentina. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has met his Argentine opposite number on two occasions since then. My honourable friend the Minister of State paid a successful visit to Argentina and Chile in October. Trade is increasing rapidly. We welcome the Argentine trade mission at the end of this month when we hope to sign an investment promotion and protection agreement. The message across our relations with Latin American countries is not so much business as usual but rather business is booming. We are one of the largest foreign investors, with investments now in excess of £10 billion. We aim to build on that position.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that much of the international scene is encouraging. The events in Eastern Europe last winter have made us look again at the world. The cold war is over. Ideological antagonisms which used to play themselves out in the third world have resolved themselves: communism is in full retreat. The third world is now freer to pursue the policies of good government, no longer distracted by the false hopes of Marxist doctrine.
In so much of the world the news is hopeful. Peaceful change continues in Eastern Europe. We are more hopeful than ever that Western Europe, through its democratic institutions, the European Community, NATO and the CSCE, will respond constructively and imaginatively. But this year we face a new challenge from the Gulf to the whole world order. We are confident that we are pursuing the right policies to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait. We are determined to reverse this aggression. We are clear that, if our peaceful policies show no success, the military option exists and we will not be afraid to useit.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his wide-ranging introduction to the debate. As he said, one of the difficulties about debates on foreign affairs and defence is the impossibility of doing justice to every facet of so very large a subject. I shall try to concentrate on two or three of the immediate problems facing us at this time.
Like the noble Earl, I would very much like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. We look forward to hearing her maiden speech. We know of her outstanding work in Hong Kong and of the leadership that she has provided during this difficult transitional period. I hope that it will be possible for us to have a full debate on Hong Kong very soon. We also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest.
Since the last debate on the Address 12 months ago the world has seen great changes and new challenges. A year ago the Berlin Wall, symbol of a divided world and menacing confrontation between East and West, crumbled. A new hope was born and the suspicion and hatred of decades seemed to fade away. How do things look today? Is that hope still alive? These are two of the central questions that we must ask in this debate; I shall return to them in a moment.
We have known for years that the Middle East is the flashpoint where war could be triggered off. Iraq and Iran fought a cruel and unnecessary war throughout the 1980s. On 2nd August the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, ordered his forces to invade and occupy the small, independent country of Kuwait, although he had informed the President of Egypt that he had no such intention. This House returned to debate the crisis and its implications on 6th September. With my colleagues in another place I made it plain that we on this side of the House supported the actions of the Government and of the United Nations.
In the two months since that debate several events have taken place. But, notwithstanding the unprecedented unity of the United Nations in its condemnation of that criminal invasion, the Iraqi army remains in Kuwait. The United Nations resolutions are treated with contempt. Since Iraq occupied Kuwait the United Nations has passed 10 resolutions. The main object has been to bring pressure to bear on Iraq to withdraw peacefully. Economic sanctions are the spearhead of the resolutions. They are supported by a naval and air blockade.
The noble Earl referred to sanctions. He spoke of them with some confidence although Saddam Hussein gives the appearance of being as obdurate as ever. I hope that the noble Earl who is to wind up for the Government will give us the latest estimates on the efficacy of the economic sanctions. The United States' State Department, in its first report on the effect of sanctions, states that 97 per cent. of Iraq's oil exports have been choked off and that imports to Iraq of machinery, industrial goods, semi-finished goods and

207
raw materials have declined by 90 per cent. Furthermore, the report says that food prices have increased eightfold in Iraq.
Experts like Mr. Omar Hassan of the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies are saying that there is considerable ground for optimism that sanctions will work. Others are more sceptical. Mr. Leo Drollas, of the Centre for Global Energy, has said:
"Saddam just sits there and waits for others to lose heart".
It will be helpful to have the Government's latest reaction, especially as remarks made recently have tended to create an atmosphere of uncertainty. The announcement that a further 100,000 American troops are to be sent to Saudi Arabia and a report that additional British forces may well be going there reinforces the belief that war is imminent or at least inevitable.
I make no comment at this stage save to say that I hope that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, can give us some clarification and tell us whether the Government still believe that sanctions can lead to a peaceful solution. Some take the view that sanctions should be given six months to work. At one stage this was said to be the State Department's opinion and one that was shared by Her Majesty's Government. I note that Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Daniel Moynihan argued strongly in Congress yesterday that sanctions should be given time to work.
This leads me to another key question. Under what circumstances and under precisely what authority would military action be taken? The point was raised during Question Time a few minutes ago. Of course we understand that if Saddam Hussein takes further aggressive military action then there would be a military response by the United Nations forces. We assume that the objective would be to drive the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. But military action in response to Saddam Hussein's continuing refusal to recognise United Nations resolutions demanding his withdrawal raises other considerations.
The Prime Minister said outside No. 10 Downing Street on Friday last, when she stood there with the United States Secretary of State, Mr. James Baker:
"We have the legal authority to take military action".
Is Mrs. Thatcher saying that the United Nations forces in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf can and may launch an attack without further recourse to the Security Council? In short, are the Government now saying that they contemplate military action under Article 51 of Chapter 27 of the Charter, or do they think that a resolution under Article 42, which provides for the use of force, should be sought in the Security Council? This seems to me to be the crux of the matter, and, as the House will appreciate, there are deep waters here. I think that we must do all we can to preserve a united front in the United Nations. I was glad therefore to read Mr. Douglas Hurd's remarks in the Independent on 5th November. They were:
"There is much to be said for keeping the maximum support of the international coalition. So long as there is
208
confidence that a further resolution will not be put 'at the mercy of a minority who have the capacity to delay', there is an argument for one to reinforce solidarity".
It is important that all parties in Parliament should be united at this critical time. The Foreign Secretary's remarks help to that end.
We should also be grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and to his Eminence Cardinal Hume for the lead they have given. I note the Cardinal's remarks in his letter to The Times on Friday that the United Nations has become an effective vehicle for formulating the international response and that obtaining its authority for military action is of great importance.
In his opening speech, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the hostages in Iraq and Kuwait. We all have very deep sympathy for them and their families. I join him in paying tribute to all those who have worked to help the hostages. There is no defence whatsoever for the way the Iraqi leadership has treated them. They have been manipulated as pawns in a sinister game, when every rule of law between nations lays down that they should be allowed to return unconditionally to their own countries.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I also join the noble Earl in condemning and deploring the conduct of Iraqi forces in Kuwait. One of the pretexts for the invasion was that Kuwait was part of Iraq and that its people were Moslem brothers and sisters desiring to return to the family. But all the evidence shows that Kuwaitis and others resident there have been treated with extreme brutality. One report from Amnesty International, after interviews with scores of people who have fled Kuwait, reads as follows:
"their testimony builds up a horrifying picture of widespread arrests, torture under interrogation, summary executions and mass extra-judicial killings … scores of hangings have also been reported on the grounds of Kuwait University of people suspected of opposing Iraq's annexation of Kuwait".
It appears that Kuwait and its people are being systematically and deliberately destroyed and that the case for reparations is unanswerable. We must consider whether there is anything to be said for Saddam Hussein. Has he any defence for his actions? He has said that Kuwait belongs to Iraq but, even if that were true, which is strongly denied, it does not justify his criminal acts. He has claimed that he acts and speaks for Islam especially in the context of Israel. That is refuted by his Arab neighbours. He has tried to link the Gulf crisis with the Arab-Israel problem. It is an astute and unscrupulous argument because its object is to deflect world and Arab attention away from the main issue: namely, forcing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait without conditions.
A negotiated peace is desirable, if it is a just peace, and many believe that this can still be achieved. I hope they are right, although I believe that negotiation is only meaningful if it is carried out by or through the United Nations. Mr. Perez de Cuellar has made one attempt, as the House knows. We must always bear in mind that British forces are in the Middle East at the behest and under the authority of the United Nations.

209
They are there with the forces of other nations, and 54 nations, a third of the United Nations' membership, are now making a military or economic contribution to the great effort being made to resolve the problem. Let us hope—and I fear that it has to be a faint hope—that Saddam Hussein, or other Iraqi leaders, see sense and withdraw from Kuwait. The United Nations cannot reverse its resolutions, nor can it be humiliated; that could really plunge the world into chaos. That is something we cannot contemplate, and Britain, of all countries, must stand by and be loyal to the United Nations.
The second great issue which faces us at the present time is that of economic and monetary union. The Rome Summit in December will be of great importance and we must hope that the Government will have constructive policies to put forward. Incidentally, one lesson to be learnt is that the way a case is put is almost as important as the case itself. The key issues are the balance between national parliaments and the European Parliament; the question of subsidiarity, referred to by the noble Earl; and the need for real accountability, for it seems obvious that we could not contemplate a central bank reaching major decisions about national economies unless those countries had the opportunity to intervene beforehand. This is why economic union must be considered in parallel with political union.
The crucial point is that we must not be isolated in these discussions. We could and should play a leading role, not least because our experience of democratic government and the role of a civil service is not inconsiderable. I do not, however, intend to discuss this issue fully or further at this time because we shall have the opportunity in a few days' time for a full debate on economic and political union. That is the subject of a report by a Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I understand that the document, which I have not yet read, is a comprehensive one and can form the basis for a debate of the first importance.
Finally, I return to my first point; namely, the revolution in Eastern Europe, the collapse of communism and the gradual emergence of free societies from the ashes of oppression. The pace of progress over the past 12 months has varied from country to country but one thing is clear: acute economic and environmental problems remain to be overcome. Whatever may have been our doubts—there were apprehensions in this House and in the country—we wish the new reunited Germany success in raising the standards of the East up to the level of the West. The new Germany will be a great European and world power and the countries of central Europe in particular will be influenced by her policies. It is essential that the new Germany should remain within the European Community and in the new and reformed NATO.
This debate is concerned with defence as well as with foreign affairs, and my noble friend Lord Richard—I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind references to my noble friend—will deal more fully with them when he winds up for us. However, I should
210
just like to say this: the new and improved relations between East and West are leading to progress in all areas of disarmament. We urge the Government to take full advantage of the situation.
This debate gives me the opportunity to congratulate President Gorbachev on the award to him of the Nobel Peace Prize. In my view, he thoroughly deserves it. Without his initiative, the changes in Eastern Europe would not have taken place at this time. Let us then consider his achievement.
President Gorbachev did not demur when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe recovered their freedom. He gave his blessing to the reunification of Germany; he withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan; and he supported the moves for peace in southern Africa and South-East Asia. Glasnost and perestroika have created difficulties for him in his own country, difficulties which threaten his position and make him unpopular at home. However, be that as it may, the world is a very different place today from the way it looked five years ago. The man responsible for that deserves more than one Nobel Peace Prize! We do not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but we hope that he and Mr. Yeltsin, and others, will unite to resolve their problems very soon.
How has the West reacted to these historic changes? Of course, the great majority welcome them. For the first time in modern history there is a real prospect of permanent peace in Europe. Western Europe, America and Japan must surely wish to sustain the new democracies and to do everything possible to help President Gorbachev through his difficulties. Help along the lines of the Marshall Plan has been proposed: that would certainly be an investment in the future. I warmly welcome the announcement made by the noble Earl about the increase in the know-how fund which, as I know from the talks that I have had with representatives of Eastern European governments, is much appreciated. However, we in the West generally must think in more extensive terms than £15 million or £30 million.
When we look around the world there are times when we feel like weeping, primarily because of man's inhumanity to man. But there are other signs which give great cause for hope of a better future for mankind: the prospect of a lasting peace in Europe; the gradual change towards justice and equality in Africa; and, even in days of crisis, the emergence of the United Nations as a world force for peace. That is the vision which should strengthen and direct the Government in this historic hour.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I must first apologise for having arrived somewhat late for the debate; this was due to your Lordships' extremely exiguous Questions. I should like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. I greatly look forward to hearing the noble Baroness not only on this but on many subsequent occasions. I also extend that welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest.

211
I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the problem which this kind of debate presents, especially when so many noble Lords wish to speak. I shall therefore not follow the noble Earl in his tour d'horizon. It would be a waste of time and we would be here until very late tonight. In connection with events to which the noble Lord referred when making a tribute to Lord Gorbachev, I merely repeat—
Noble Lords: Not Lord Gorbachev!
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, we would welcome him in this House.
As I was saying, I shall merely repeat the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, in a recent debate. He said that the extraordinary thing about the present situation is that we have now achieved exactly what we wanted to achieve in 1949; that is, a united democratic Germany allied to the West, the collapse of communism and a free Eastern and Central Europe. Therefore, we have a second opportunity to rebuild Europe. It is an opportunity which we dare not fail to seize.
Huge issues are before the House. There is the Gulf crisis, about which my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham will be speaking later; there are the developments in the European Community and the forthcoming intergovernmental conference to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead will probably be turning his attention tomorrow; and there are the developments in Hong Kong about which all of us must be concerned. However, I do not propose to speak on any of those major subjects. I shall concentrate on events in Central and Eastern Europe.
I returned recently from an Anglo-Polish conference, the first to take place since a free government was installed in Warsaw. Much depends on the success of the revolution in which the hopes of so many millions of people are concentrated and invested and which is so important to Poland. In my view, we in this country have a special obligation to Poland. However, that is not to say that Central Europe, which I distinguish sharply from Eastern Europe—by Central Europe I mean Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Austria—can be considered in isolation. Indeed, it has been drastically affected by events in the Gulf, by the unification of Germany and by the chaos in the USSR.
When the present Polish Government took office they found raging, rampant inflation of the South American variety, a geriatric agricultural and industrial base and a country burdened with foreign debt of no less than 40 billion dollars. Their response was characteristically bold and courageous. They could reform the system and then stabilise the economy; or, they could try to stabilise the economy and then reform the system. They chose to do neither. They chose to stabilise and transform the economy simultaneously. That was to take an enormous and very substantial risk. But the results are remarkable. They abolished subsidies; they unified market and
212
official exchange rates; they liberalised foreign trade; and they embarked upon a programme of privatisation.
In August, inflation in Poland was 2 per cent.; it rose to 4 per cent. in September, owing to the Gulf crisis. The cost of living was put up 30 per cent. in January, but there have been no riots. Mr. Gomulka, Mr. Gierek and the last general secretary were all overturned because they moved subsidies by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. It is a most remarkable tribute to what a government can achieve with the confidence of the people, if they have the courage and initiative to do so.
Unemployment, which was nil, now stands at one million—not very much, it may be said, out of a working population of 17 million. However, if you are used to having no unemployment and if, owing to your economy, the unemployment pay which can be offered is very small, then that is a pretty savage increase. And it will go further.
Having achieved this remarkable result, having balanced their budget—in fact, they have a budget surplus—and having a surplus on foreign trade, the people of Poland have been ambushed, if I may put it that way, by three events. First. the Gulf has drastically raised the cost of oil and severely reduced remittances and debt repayments from Iraq, while Russian oil is in short supply and its price has increased. Secondly, they have been hit by German unification which has removed a hitherto safe and secure market for their exports. Thirdly, the chaos in Russia, especially as regards the Russian states on Poland's borders, has led to very serious economic losses.
Above all there is the Polish debt of 40 billion dollars. Rescheduling does not solve the problem; it merely postpones it. The existence of that debt is very serious in terms of the expectations of the Polish people. It is a very serious disincentive for foreign investors and for the transferability of profits which foreign investors may receive from Poland. As 75 per cent. of the debt is not to banks but to governments, it is a problem that we—who hope that the revolution in Central Europe will be a success—must take on board and must take seriously. We have to give the Polish people a chance to reform their society politically and economically. To reform it economically, that huge debt burden must be reduced. That is a very high priority.
I should like to speak briefly of the political situation in which the Polish people find themselves. It is typical of Central Europe. There are 40 million Poles. Poland is about the same size as Spain. It is in a central, crucial area lying between Russia in chaos and Germany reunited. Poland is searching for stability; that is what it needs. In addition, in order to provide that stability it needs to rebuild, to reinforce, and to institutionalise its relations with the West. It has to do so without neglecting its historical connections with the East, with its neighbours Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and also with the Ukraine and with the Baltic republics. A delicate balancing operation has to be achieved. But let no one

213
have any reservation that the Poles see themselves as part of western Christendom. That is where they see their home.
However, at the moment they see an asymmetry within Europe. On the one side they see Western Europe integrated politically and economically. That integration which they welcome is becoming stronger and closer day by day. In the East they see the disappearance, the redundancy, the decay of the Warsaw Treaty organisation, which exists only in name, and of COMECON which also exists only in name.
It is a moving and disturbing message that I bring home. The Poles see themselves isolated in a vacuum belonging to no defence or economic organisation but sitting between two giant neighbours. That is the problem we have to recognise. To deal with it, Poland urgently needs a pan-European security structure to which it can belong. It needs recognised limitation in conventional arms in Central Europe. It needs means for dealing with conflict which, in that part of Europe, with the rise of nationalism all over the place, is an urgent, dangerous and pressing problem of which they are acutely aware.
I was sorry that the noble Earl did not mention the Council of Europe in his tour d'horizon. The Council of Europe has an extraordinarily important role to play in all these matters. Above all Poland needs to strengthen its links with Western Europe through the Council of Europe, through OECD and ultimately through joining the European Community. Hence there is the importance of the association agreement and the importance for Poland of fixing a date, no matter the qualifications surrounding it, for making its dream of joining the European Community a reality. Poland knows that that means drastic reform of its economy. It knows that it cannot be achieved within the next decade. But if we had as an aim that it should join by the year 2000 in some shape or form, I believe that it would be a major step forward.
Finally the Poles are deeply concerned with their two neighbours, and with the consequences of the disintegration, as they see it, of the USSR in the Ukraine, in Byelorussia and in the Baltic republics. They say, "Let us suppose that there is famine in the Ukraine or an outbreak of some revolutionary movement." They may be invaded by floods of refugees. Who will deal with that, and how will they deal with it? Have we considered the consequences of that problem? What are we prepared to do to help them?
That is one fear. The other fear is of course economic domination by Germany. The Poles welcome Germany within the European Community. They welcome Germany within NATO. They welcome the new border agreement. But they are inevitably —and who would not be with their history? —alarmed, apprehensive and conscious of this giant economic and political force on their border. That is why our connection with Poland is so immensely important to it. That is why we have a real obligation to help ii to find a new security to help fill the vacuum
214
in which it considers that it is living in Central Europe. That is important not only for the Poles but for the future of democracy in Central Europe.
I believe that there are four matters that we should bear in mind. The first is very simple. Having abolished visas for Czechoslovakia and Hungary, it is truly insulting that we should insist on visas for Poland. Each year 60,000 Poles come here; 1,400,000 go to Germany. The Germans have announced that they are abolishing visas for the Poles. We stick to visas. I know that that is not the fault of the Foreign Office; it is the obsession of our dear old Home Office with immigration control. The visa regulations that we operate against Poland do more damage to our relations with that country than words can possibly express. Secondly, we ought to deal with the massive debt so that Poland can see light on the horizon. Thirdly, we can press forward with a pan-European security structure to which it can belong. Lastly, we can give the Poles a date at which they can aim to join the European Community.
3.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, perhaps it is not inappropriate for me as a fairly new Member of this House to say how impressive I found the first two speeches in the debate, with their note of solemn responsibility in the face of the present crisis and near unanimity. I thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
It may seem odd for a bishop to be speaking in the debate. However, bishops are fairly close to the people —almost more so than other Members of this House, and indeed Members of another place, dare I say? —because we go to our dioceses and are among our people. We talk about defence and armaments. Their costs affect the people, wherever they are.
In speaking about the broad content of the gracious Speech, in particular on defence and foreign affairs, we must of course keep up our guard. The Question on the Order Paper yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was important. I suppose that if two people were departing from a duel they would do so still keeping their eyes on each other. Yet in the face of the brave and quite remarkable initiatives by Mr. Gorbachev, who has coined the important words "perestroika" and "glasnost", is there no way in which we can constantly be ready to show an equal response and equal generosity?
Of course the disbandment of the Russian forces must be demanded and negotiated, but we must surely realise that this cannot take place overnight for social and economic reasons. I believe that we must all seek to dismantle the arsenals which we built up in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The building up of them has pauperised Russia and very nearly brought America low, for the national debt of America is into trillions.
As has already been said in this debate, 1989–90 was an annus mirabilis. I myself was in Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia, this summer. The sheer exhilaration of having cast off the dominance of Marxist communism was remarkable to see and wonderful to experience. The new initiatives in South Africa, the

215
release of Nelson Mandela and the lulling of the wars in central America, have all been good news. We were on the edge of a decade of peacemaking. I was in the UNICEF building about a month ago before the summit for children. There was a special appeal to the world's religions for the world's children. As I sat there seeing helicopters taking off from the pad across the East River, I realised that for the first time in my lifetime we could make the world a better place for all its inhabitants. We have the technology, the resources and the know-how.
However, all has been blighted by the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Perhaps I may say that the Standing Conference of European Churches has taken on a new and important role. Much is being done by the Churches—not, I hope, to replace a Mediterranean and medieval dominance but to stand alongside those who are trying to grapple with the issues which the new freedom has brought. There is much optimism and hope there. Nevertheless, it shows that however optimistic Europe may be, we cannot have peace by ourselves unless we are prepared to make peace for the one world in which we live and to take on board the frustrations and the angers of other nations, other races and other religions.
The bishops have been blamed recently for being silent on the question of the Gulf. That is a new approach because we are usually told to shut up. The reason is this. In the face of a situation which is deeply complex, where reticence and restraint are of the essence, it does not necessarily help for bishops from Worcester, Hereford or all over England to raise yet another strident voice. The fact is that we are emphatically for a peaceful solution. However, we do not want at the same time to give comfort to Saddam Hussein by anything we may say.
We cannot legitimise international piracy merely because we are too timid to take action. We cannot bow before insolent aggression merely because we fear that the cost of resistance would be too painful. Rightly, we have deployed our forces, together with those of America and many other nations, within the United Nations Organisation. We must constantly think of them. Indeed, I believe that in every church in the land last Sunday prayers were said for those who are in the Gulf on our behalf and for those who have critical decisions to make and the burden of awesome responsibility. We should at least be thankful that the end of the cold war has made this unanimity possible in the United Nations. Long may it be kept so. We dare not lose that; it is our trump card.
Yet we must desire, we must pray for, we must work for a peaceful solution. It is the number one requirement, if a war is to be just, that every possible avenue for peace has first been explored. Is it true that the American ambassador in Iraq gave it as her opinion that a move by Iraq into Kuwait would be regarded as an Arab matter? If this is so and if Saddam Hussein has misread the signals, is there no way by which we can find a ladder down which he can climb? I know that this is not easy, but it should not
216
be beyond our capacity. If it is the nature of Arab people to bargain, is it totally impossible for us to talk in some way, even if by secret diplomacy?
In so far as Saddam Hussein is an Arab soldier and a Moslem, will hurling threats at him have any effect but to generate in him a total defiance? Is there no way in which Her Majesty's Government can find methods other than the solution of war? Again, in the traditional doctrine of the just war, it is not right to go to war unless one can be confident of improving the situation. I took great interest in the remark made already in this debate that it would be absolutely fatal if the United Nations were humiliated. We have to be able to know that we can improve the situation by taking up arms.
Furthermore, it is part of the doctrine of the just war that action must be targeted, contained and economical of casualties. I fear that it is unlikely that any military action in the Gulf could take place without horrendous casualties, widespread damage both to oil installations and to the environment and the prodigious costs involved. It may be that tragically this cannot be avoided, but at least let us not be bland or jingoistic.
I do not believe that it is quite fair to make a comparison between today and 1939 because the weapons of modern-day warfare are so devastating that it would be hard to contain any conflagration that broke out. In the present situation, as opposed to 1939, there is the racial element. There is also the North-South divide and the question of religion. If there were to be a necessary war, decades of avowed revenge in the name of religion could well ensue.
I dare to finish with an apologia pro vita nostra for those on these Benches. It is sometimes said that we would be more respected in the country if we took a more combative stance. I hope that in everything I have said I have shown that the word "appeasement" should not be addressed in this direction. However, would anyone respect leaders in the Christian Church who did not speak out about the horrors of modern warfare? Do your Lordships really want a Bench of Bishops who have nothing to say on their own account but only place a sacramental coping-stone on the edifice of present-day society, and that recognised by perhaps only part of our society? I believe and hope that if by any chance we ever had a Labour government we should stand in solidarity with the government in any event—but in critical solidarity. Would noble Lords not agree with Rabbi Sachs, who recently said in an interview that he felt that it was the duty of religion to provoke questions and stimulate thought? I say that because sometimes an apologia is necessary. If I were a pacifist I should not be standing here annoying some noble Lords on my right.
I end by saying that if we know ourselves at all we know the feelings of aggression, of pugnacity and warlikeness which well up in us at the provocation of a ruthless man like Saddam Hussein. I believe that those are bad counsellors. Patience and strength are better—the patience and strength which will wait until sanctions bite and new talks can begin. I submit that as a contribution to this debate.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is almost with reluctance that I intervene in this debate. It is the first debate on the Queen's Speech in which I have spoken since I entered this House. I am reluctant because Northern Ireland and the problems of Ireland do not fit readily into any of the five categories of debate on the Queen's Speech. It does not fit into home affairs or into foreign affairs.
I have listened with interest to the intense interest, understanding and compassion already expressed by the four previous speakers regarding the affairs of Eastern Europe and the international problems that have arisen over the past year. However, the greatest problem that this House and the other place have had to consider over the past few years has been that of Northern Ireland. No soldiers have yet been killed in the Gulf, and I hope that no soldiers will be killed in a Gulf war. I attended the remembrance service on Sunday: I fervently hope that by this time next year there will not be more names added to the list of people killed in war. However, 429 young British soldiers have given their lives in Northern Ireland. Hundreds more, if not thousands, have been brutally maimed and injured. Yet this House does not seem to be able to come to any conclusion about how to deal with the problem.
I listened to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn this afternoon. He said that with the coming down of the Berlin wall the suspicion and hatred of decades seemed to have faded away. The Berlin wall came down last year, but three more were erected in Belfast this year. There are three more barriers to keep the communities apart. Nothing seems to have changed. As an Irishman who lives in these islands, I am as concerned about those world problems, but my more immediate concern is with what is happening in the country in which I have spent most of my life.
Five years ago, on 15th November, the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. I have the Hansard of the debates which took place in this House on Tuesday, 26th November 1985. A great deal of optimism was expressed then about what the Anglo-Irish Agreement would achieve, how it would bring about reconcilia-tion between the communities, end the alienation of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland, bring together the forces for peace, improve relations between this country and the Irish republic and allow the Irish republic to enter into extradition cases where necessary. I defy any Member of your Lordships' House to say that any of the objectives mentioned in Hansard for 26th November 1985 has been achieved. Not one of them has been achieved. In the meantime 300 more people have been killed in Northern Ireland. So Northern Ireland is a problem which is just as serious as any in other parts of the globe.
Not only has the Anglo-Irish Agreement failed to achieve any of its objectives and to bring about better conditions, it has led to far greater alienation and isolation of the communities in Northern Ireland than existed before the signing of the agreement. I believe that this House should show the same concern and compassion as has been shown here today in relation
218
to world problems and I intend to listen to other speakers in this debate and see whether we cannot do something to end the terrible divisions which exist in Northern Ireland.
In the five years of its existence, the Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed to grapple with the problem. However, the problem goes back much further. Is there anyone in this House who would deny that however the situation in the Middle East may develop, however long it may continue, however long a possible war may last and whatever the number of casualties that that war may bring about, at the end of that war we shall still have the problem of Northern Ireland? As Churchill said at the end of the First World War, after cataclysmic changes had taken place throughout the world the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and South Tyrone rose again. Therefore, I believe that this House should take a greater interest in discovering whether anything can be done in relation to the Irish problem.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has not achieved any success. It must be looked at again. If any Act of Parliament which was designed to achieve a particular aim in relation to Ireland is seen to have been an abject failure let us recognise that fact. In the field of extradition, which was one of the objectives of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, what has been achieved? There has been the Father Ryan affair. Week after week and month after month Irish courts say that they cannot extradite people who have been found guilty of the most horrendous crimes and release them on the grounds that the offences were political offences and it is a constitutional imperative to comply with Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Those people are freely roaming the streets of the Republic of Ireland, much to the anger and distress not only of the Unionist Protestant population but of people like myself who are opposed to murder. That is one reason why the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not been a success.
We were also told that the agreement would bring about devolved government and create political structures in which the Protestant and Catholic communities could get together in some form of executive. We have now been told—no later than last week—that that is no longer attainable. The SDLP and the Irish Government have said that they do not want a devolved government. They want to create some other structure which will involve the Unionist Party. So there are two objectives of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which are not attainable.
Last week I was considering whether to take part in this debate and I wondered what the justification would be for doing so. Then I heard on the radio that four men had been murdered in a very brutal way when they were on a duck hunting expedition. That is my justification for taking part in this debate—that and all the other murders that have taken place. The IRA has sunk to depths of depravity that I as a Catholic and an Irishman cannot begin fully to understand or imagine. How can anyone take an innocent man, strap or tie him into a car, load it with explosive and tell him to drive into an army post and

219
kill five young British soldiers? Yet those are people who are supposed to have been born into the same community as I was.
Again, I watched the funeral of the late Cardinal O'Fiaich. I saw Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, two representatives of Sinn Fein, taking communion. They were taking communion at that funeral. It made me sick to the heart to see it because those people proclaim that they are of the same faith as I am. I should find it very difficult to kneel down at the same altar, even in a symbolic way to associate with people who have been so instrumental in supporting and condoning the terrible acts of murder which have taken place in Ireland.
Noble Lords were told that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would lead to better co-operation between the Government of the Republic and the Government in Britain. Last week the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that in this Parliament he would promulgate emergency provisions to take account of happenings in Northern Ireland. His co-chairman, Mr. Gerry Collins, immediately went on radio and television in the Republic of Ireland to say that he would not accept any further emergency legislation. That can do nothing but give support and succour to the people who are committing acts of violence.
Yet the Anglo-Irish Agreement was alleged to mean that the British and the Irish governments would have meetings in silence and that they would not use megaphone diplomacy. That is exactly what is happening at the moment.
A ray of hope came from Ireland last week in the appointment of Bishop Cahal Daly to be Primate of All Ireland. I believe that that is the best Catholic ecclesiastical appointment that I have seen in my lifetime. I regard Cahal Daly as one of the great ecclesiastical figures of this century. My only regret is that he was not made Primate of All Ireland 15 or 20 years ago. I believe that he is a man of great intellect and compassion. He is a man opposed to every action of the IRA and has made himself very unpopular in some circles by saying so.
I am no expert in ecclesiastical matters, much less in canon law, but the other morning on radio I heard Bishop Cahal Daly speak on the question of his appointment. He said that there was only a small number of people in Ireland—Catholics—supporting the IRA. I am not too sure that he is correct. I should like to know just how many people of the Catholic faith and community support the horrendous murder campaign that the IRA has been commissioning over the past 20 years. But if there is only a small number —I sincerely hope that it is a small number—as a humble Catholic I urge the Primate of All Ireland to consider excommunication.
Many people have said—they may be right—that it would not change anything. I believe that it would change the situation. I believe that if the Catholic Church under its new Primate were to take the view that those people have committed acts which are not
220
only anti-Catholic but anti-Christian and anti-human and have therefore debarred themselves from any solace that the Catholic Church can give, and excommunicated them if they are a small number, then when the next murders take place (and we can be assured that murders will take place) the Catholic Church can say that they are not its members. It can say that they cannot attend and are not welcome at any of its services.
As at present constituted, the IRA is a disgrace to the island of Ireland, a disgrace to Christianity and to humanity. The Catholic Church under its new Primate should have absolutely no hesitation in saying so.
I am glad, although not in any personal sense, that there is such a large audience in your Lordships' House to hear me speak today. Normally when the affairs of Ireland are discussed it is late in the evening in a very small House. That is unfair to the problems and the people of Ireland.
Last week, as has already been commented upon, there was the election of a woman, Mary Robinson, as President of Ireland. I was delighted to see that big breakaway from the civil war attitudes that have existed in Ireland for so many years. I know Mary Robinson. She is a woman of great intellect. She will be concerned. I have no hesitation in predicting that there will be a new type of presidency in the island of Ireland. She was a member of the Labour Party. A few days after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed she resigned from the Labour Party with the very same objections that I had; namely, on the grounds that the agreement was too one-sided, gave too much to the SDLP, to Nationalists and the Irish Government and was absolutely nothing but betrayal to the majority community in Northern Ireland. She resigned on that issue.
Mr. Gow, the MP, also resigned on the same issue. So it is not only a concern for Unionists, Right-wingers, Left-wingers or Protestants. People who understand Ireland objected to the conditions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I hope that, limited as the new presidential powers in Ireland may be, Mary Robinson, who has such an understanding of the Northern Ireland problem, will find it easier to talk to the Unionist population and that the Unionist population will find it easier to talk to a President of Ireland who understands its problems.
The malaise has existed in Ireland for the past 20 years. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Brooke, began an initiative earlier this year, in January. He was well intentioned and sincere. He thought that he could bring the warring communities together to create some form of political structure which would be in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland. He has been unsuccessful. I do not blame him for being unsuccessful. I am aware of the 700 years of frustration and suspicion which have led to the attitudes in Northern Ireland today. But I make an appeal to him: do not try to maintain the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the hope that it will bring success five years or 10 years in the future.

221
I know that there are five former Secretaries of State now in your Lordships' House. Anyone who speaks to them privately will hear them concede that the present political arrangements under the Anglo-Irish Agreement will not bring peace to Northern Ireland. I know that many people will meet me in the corridor and say, "What would you do?" That is a question which does not have an easy answer. I think that I would tell the Irish Government that they must deliver on extradition. They must ensure that murderers who are identified in the Republic of Ireland are handed over when they have committed such atrocious crimes. In itself, that would do a lot to relieve the tensions and suspicions that exist within the community in Northern Ireland.
We have direct rule at the moment. It is not the best way to govern Northern Ireland but to me it is the only acceptable way. The Unionists in Northern Ireland and the minority community will accept direct rule, with all its imperfections, rather than try to get together in a way that would begin to take the first tentative steps towards reconciling the communities.
I end on the note on which I began. There are many problems in Europe that certainly seek the attention of this House and every other democratic forum, but in the process of looking into those problems of Europe let us not forget that long problem vis-á-vis the relations between this country and Ireland.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to become a Member of your Lordships' House and to speak today. My subject will of course be my home town, Hong Kong, to which reference was made in the gracious Speech and by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his opening statement. First of all I should like to say how much I have appreciated the courtesy and attention I have received from Members of your Lordships' House on the many visits on behalf of Hong Kong that I have paid over many years. I hope that I myself and Hong Kong can count on your continuing attention over the coming years.
We are now nearly half way between the initialling of the Joint Declaration in 1984 and the transfer of sovereignty to China in 1997. Viewed against the long span of history, I am sure that the century and a half of British administration of Hong Kong will come to be seen as a brief interlude between a Chinese past and a Chinese future. The humiliation visited upon China by those who took Hong Kong in 1841 as a safe haven for the opium and tea trades still loomed large in the minds of China's leaders when negotiations began in 1982 about Hong Kong's future. But whatever one's view of the circumstances in which the link with Britain was forged, Britain can be proud of the legacy it will leave behind.
Colonialism is an outdated concept, but the quality, discipline, and decency of those who devoted their lives to administering British dependent territories deserve recognition, and I am glad of the opportunity to give it today. Hong Kong has been particularly well served by successive governors, notably the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. I know how closely the
222
present governor, Sir David Wilson, keeps the Government informed and how strongly he represents Hong Kong interests.
The years of British administration have given Hong Kong a firm respect for the rule of law; for a system of justice under which all are equal before an independent judiciary; for freedoms of speech, of association, of travel and of ideas. It has created a society that combines opportunities for individual wealth creation with compassion and concern for those who cannot fend for themselves, and which welcomes all who can contribute, regardless of race, colour or creed.
The fusion of these values with the energy, enterprise, determination and work ethic of the people of Hong Kong has produced a unique community of which I speak with pride. It is now up to us, the people of Hong Kong, to demonstrate that we are capable of generating from within our own community the same measure of discipline and accountability of the administration that Britain has exercised on our behalf for so long. We shall be taking a major step in this direction next year with the first direct elections to the Legislative Council. The timetable for building up our representative institutions to the point where they can take Hong Kong seamlessly through 1997, as provided in the Basic Law, is formidably tight, but succeed we must.
The greatest task ahead is developing a relationship of mutual respect and trust with China. Hong Kong's future is inextricably linked with China. For Hong Kong, a working relationship with China is not, and cannot be, a matter for diplomatic fine tuning; it is the only way to bring to reality the bold concept of "one country, two systems". Hong Kong people do not lack courage or self-confidence; their achievements in the last 40 years prove that. Nor do they lack faith in their own ability to meet the challenges of 1997. But they are required to take part in a constitutional, political and social experiment that is without precedent.
The agreement that brought this experiment about was negotiated by Britain and China and approved by this Parliament, without the formal representation of the people of Hong Kong when their fate was determined. They are asked to believe that because of the provisions of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law the expected course of their lives will not be subject to fundamental change, despite the essentially different political philosophy that prevails in China. That is bound to cause apprehensions—and they will not be dispelled by exhortations that people must have faith and be confident of their future. Indeed for Hong Kong people it is not easy to be tolerant of such exhortations when they come from those who share none of the personal risks.
My Lords, I make these points because if there are signs of anxiety and vulnerability in the last years of British rule, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will show understanding. The transition to Chinese rule will inevitably be difficult at times, perhaps even turbulent, and will require wisdom and sensitivity not

223
just in Hong Kong but also in London and Beijing. I am convinced that parliamentary interest can help during these years.
There is a tendency for Parliament to become involved only when there is a crisis in Hong Kong, and meanwhile to hope that we shall make it to the finishing line without causing too much bother. I know that Parliament has spent more time on Hong Kong in these last years than ever before, and we are grateful for your efforts, for instance, over the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. But in these years of transition it is in all our interests for Parliament to devote time and attention to Hong Kong to ensure that the influence that Parliament is capable of exercising has its effect.
A little time and attention spent by this House on Hong Kong and by Britain's opinion formers can do much to bring about a successful transition. Is Parliament satisfied with the progress of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group? Is enough being done to help Hong Kong establish a healthy relationship with China? Parliament's interest in such matters would alleviate suspicions in Hong Kong that British commitment is diminishing as we approach 1997, and that Hong Kong's needs take second place to Sino-British relations.
Looking further ahead, Britain's industrial leaders should look on the years beyond 1997 as years of opportunity for trade with Hong Kong and with China. The vision of American and Japanese investors and businessmen is not distorted by thoughts of the end of Empire. Their judgment of Hong Kong's trading prospects is measured on the basis of economic strength and relative advantage, regardless of the change of flag.
The most obvious symbols of Hong Kong's success are the gleaming skyscrapers, the expensive cars and the designer shops. But for me there are more telling, more enduring and more worthy symbols of that success. For every Hong Kong multi-millionaire, there are tens of thousands of ordinary people who started with nothing, but who have created prosperity for themselves and their families and provided employment for many more. For every spectacular story of overnight success, there are thousands of people who have had to pick themselves up from the floor and start all over again when bad luck or over-enthusiasm laid them low.
The same qualities of pragmatism, resilience and sense of life's purpose are bound to keep Hong Kong in the fore as one of the most dynamic economies in the world. Britain has cause to be proud, not just of the legacy it leaves behind, but also of the opportunities that Hong Kong will provide for China, for Asia and for Britain, too, long after 1997 has come and gone.
4.32 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, will have been aware how many of your Lordships were eagerly looking forward to her speech. I am very fortunate that it falls to me to tell her on
224
behalf, I think, of the whole House that her speech was something that we shall never forget. It was an example of courage from a small country against a very big shadow. That is the kind of example that we all need, because there are shadows everywhere. But let us just think what bravery is needed in Hong Kong to stand up to the great power of China next door. We hope very much that we shall hear her many times in the future.
The 12 members of the European Community are about to begin very difficult negotiations and I cannot help wondering whether they will pay enough attention to the end of the cold war. That was what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was talking about. Power is being redistributed right across Europe and beyond at a startling rate.
When the Delors plan was put upon the table there was nobody in Europe, not one person, who foresaw the collapse of communism, the reunification of Germany and all those countries in Eastern Europe wanting to have an association with the Community. I thought: surely that enormous revolution demands a pause in the negotiations. But not at all. We are told that we must hurry up and get on with stages two and three.
What is the reason for the hurry? It is that there is no time to lose to lock Germany into some kind of federated Europe. That excuse is ominous. It means that we should take a very careful look at the new factors which are affecting the relations not only between the members of the Community, but also between the Community and all these other countries which are now in line for membership or association. The door to the single market must be seen to be open and not on conditions which require anything so comprehensive as the Delors plan.
Therefore, in very broad terms it seems to me that the choice before us lies between centralisation in some kind of super-state, confined, of course, to the 12, and association and co-operation between a greater number of nations who are as much part of Europe as we are ourselves.
The British are bound to take a somewhat isolated position. We are an island. By sailing the seas we have acquired a sense of the world as a whole. The end of the cold war is a form of world liberation. It frees many countries to act differently, perhaps more aggressively, in their foreign relations than they could have done previously.
When a crisis arises it is no longer axiomatic that the United States will be on one side and the USSR will be on the other side. An illustration of the problem under the new conditions is, of course, the crisis in the Gulf. It looks very much as though the major problems ahead of us will be global and not continental. We have to rely more on, and put more hopes into, the United Nations.
There is a very good reason why we should hesitate to hand our foreign policy to a European government. We have to remember that all governments are selfish and understandably so. They do not, and they will not, put the interests of another country in front of the

225
interests of their own electors. Therefore one asks: is it reasonable to count on the disappearance of this ingrained selfishness? Yet a super-state in Europe would be unworkable if it could not rely on a common standard of good international behaviour. That standard does not exist today. In time, could it be developed?
There was something like it in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church laid down the rules for all Christendom. The Reformation put an end to that. There followed the rise of the nation states held together not by religion but by patriotism. Since then patriotism has been the lifeblood of every great nation in Europe. France and Germany have made attempts to unite Europe by force of arms. Ironically a Frenchman is today trying to do by diplomacy exactly what Napoleon failed to achieve by war.
Who stopped those Imperial advances? We did, my Lords. And why did we stop them? It was because we saw very clearly that our own independence was doomed if one nation dominated the continent.
It is difficult but important to be clear about the origin and strength of the instinct that life is better in a country in control of its economic and social affairs. This conviction—or perhaps the opposite—is not the sum of individual opinions canvassed on a particular issue such as whether there should be a common currency in the place of sterling. The conviction resides in a collective consciousness which has grown up like a plant out of the successes and failures of our history.
I know well that distinguished noble Lords such as those who sit on the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Aldington—I have not yet read its report—can make a rational argument for the subordination of our economic and financial policies to European institutions. Even I could do that. However, the best intellectual plan will not work if it conflicts with the deepest instincts of the people. Therefore, one must ask how strong those instincts are in 1990. My pro-Brussels friends tell me that the young feel hardly a twinge of the old-fashioned patriotism. They say that the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Britain meant little or nothing to the young. I wonder whether that really is a sign that they have lost their patriotism.
Then consider this: no other member of the Community can celebrate a victory comparable to the Battle of Britain. On the contrary, their experience during the last war may have persuaded them to fall for a vision of a superstate. They would not be the first to rush into marriage without contemplating the dangers and difficulties of a joint account. Britain's relations with Europe are not precipitate like that. We should expect that when the wedding is over our partners in Europe will continue to put the interests of their people before the interests of the Community. Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand said that the votes of their farmers were more important than the expansion of world trade. They will continue to talk like that.
226
What about the judgments of the European Court? They are often disregarded especially when they conflict with the interests of a Latin member of the Community. What about ourselves? Is the Prime Minister right or wrong to tell us that Parliament would refuse to hand over key domestic issues to a majority-voting council in Europe? The Prime Minister knows a good deal more about another place than do some of us in this House. I am not saying that a superstate could not manage our monetary affairs better than Her Majesty's Treasury—I expect that it could. I merely ask whether the British people, especially the working people, will give it the power to do so.
We all want the prosperity of Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic. General de Gaulle had that vision and recommended that we should try to achieve it through an association of nation states. The success of NATO shows that that is not impossible. People say that perhaps NATO worked only because of the fear of Soviet aggression. That threat has gone but in its place there is the fear of German economic power.
However great that power may become, will not your Lordships agree that we are likely to be able to live more comfortably with it as a reliable ally than as a treaty-bound satellite? I use the word "satellite" with care because satellite we should be if Europe adopted a single currency. The quantity of that currency would have to be controlled by a single central hank. That central bank, however the board were appointed, would have to be managed by the Germans or they would not support it. That is the crux that is coming.
Some of my noble friends say that a German-controlled currency and bank are not only inevitable but alluring. I can see that if the overriding object in life is material wealth a merger of our economy with those of Europe makes sense. But suppose life has other objects such as the integrity of the country of our ancestors, loyalty to the place from which we come, and a guarantee of the freedom to govern ourselves? If that should be so, surely we must strive for a compromise in Europe based on the single market —we all want that—but not going as far as to corrupt or destroy the best instincts of a great people.
I wish that the major political parties could agree on the main objectives to be pursued in the forthcoming negotiations. Our negotiators, whoever they are, will not obtain the best deal for Britain unless they are supported by a manifest consensus at home. This is a great issue; it is much greater than party politics.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that domestic responsibilities which I am finding difficult to devolve may make it impossible for me to stay until the end of the debate. I shall certainly stay as late as I can. I wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, on her most eloquent and moving speech. Last week the Commonwealth Press Union, an organisation on whose committee I serve, held a conference in Hong Kong. Its members went there with the idea that the press throughout the

227
Commonwealth should have a better idea of the anxieties and hopes of Hong Kong. I am sure that they returned home fortified by what they learnt.
I have found this to be the most moving debate that I have heard for 20 years. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, talk about the plight of the Poles, the right reverend Prelate talk about the problems of the just war and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, describe the terrible situation in Ireland. Their comments will give me great cause for thought and feeling during the next few days.
I was not so moved by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I shall not attempt to reply to him. My recollection, which may be faulty, is that when 40 years ago he and I attended the first meeting of the Council of Europe he was a stronger European than he is today.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. In those days, I thought that we could run the show. I do not believe that we can do that now.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, that is exactly the insular prejudice which distressed me in the noble Viscount's speech this evening.
For a few weeks within the past year or so, we seemed to be living, like Candide's tutor, in the best of all possible worlds. In the Eastern bloc, nation after nation was turning out its cruel communist government and proclaiming its freedom while Mr. Gorbachev looked on benevolently and continued his historic transformation of the Soviet Union into something resembling a democracy. I was rather surprised that, when my noble friend mentioned the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, there was not a single cheer or murmur from the other side of the House, especially in view of the generosity which Mrs. Thatcher has shown to Mr. Gorbachev.
The right wings of the parties throughout Europe and the right-wingers in the parties yet to be formed were as naive about the consequences of abandoning communism as were left-wingers about its advent 70 years before. Let the East European countries convert themselves into free enterprise capitalist economies, they thought, and political freedom and commerce would soon flourish, as in the United States and Western Germany. Our own Prime Minister seems to have regarded herself, and indeed to have been regarded by some people in those countries, as a major inspirer of the unexpected miracle.
Now we see that the transitional period will be slow, painful and dangerous. Even those of us who were pessimistic about the state of communist countries—and I am thinking particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—did not appreciate to what depths the political corruption had sunk, to what extent the economies had decayed and to what extent the environment had been polluted. Some parts were less terrible than others but everywhere in central Europe and the East matters were becoming worse and not better.
I do not believe that any of us realised how complex
228
is our own system and how difficult it is to introduce it when there is no professional corps available to procure the materials, to bring the finished goods to market and when there are no experienced people to create the market itself.
Eastern Germany is more prosperous and sophisticated than its neighbours. However, even in union with affluent and efficient Western Germany, it is embarking upon a long and arduous path. I read a report the other day of a committee of West German businessmen. In advising which enterprises were ready for privatisation, one of their basic difficulties was to assess the potential value of a company which, under a command economy, has not kept a conventional record of its costs and sales.
However, it is not only the economics which give cause for anxiety. Among many of the liberated peoples, there is a moral vacuum. They have nothing to replace the conditioned social morality which was part of the discredited communist system and which has perished with it. There seems to be a reluctance even to help the police—once the dangerous henchmen of an oppressive regime—to discourage and detect crime.
Even more dangerous is the manifestation of ethnic and religious hatreds which the old authorities suppressed along with all other discontents. The anti-Semites raise their heads and voices again, and next they may raise their weapons. Every day we tremble for Mr. Gorbachev struggling with his economic reforms against those who are crying for full speed ahead and those who are telling him to hang back.
What is to be feared is not so much a return to the bad old days as a solidly destructive, simplistic neo-liberalism. Looming over that is the danger of the Soviet Union being fragmented by the demands for total independence of some of its constituent states. There is better news today of the new effort by Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin to work out a new agreement.
Our burden in the West has changed completely from the one we have carried so long and so well of physically and morally containing communism. We must help the central and eastern part of our continent to live at peace with itself, to preserve its new-found internal and external freedoms while it patiently builds decent economies and provides good social welfare. It must learn from all of us in the Community that not everything publicly owned is bad—for example, there is a place for publicly owned utilities—and not every collective is dangerous—for example, there is a place in good democracies for a trade union movement.
Now, as the Foreign Secretary and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have reminded us in the speeches on the Address, we must take a fresh look at our institutions in Europe and see what changes are needed. It seems to me that the necessary adaptations needed are almost revolutionary and can be found only by patient examination, by experiment and by

229
evolution. There are no blueprints available. There are great problems which we must approach humbly but with courage.
It is to be hoped that we shall start that process with the meting in a few days' time at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—the CSCE as it is usually called. That summit, which is to be attended by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, will take place in the hopeful light of the signing of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a treaty which will procure the removal of an enormous quantity of Soviet heavy weapons and which provides for the exchange of information and for inspection.
However, the CSCE will go on to strengthen the basic principles of Helsinki—the Helsinki Final Act; that is, the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law through a charter of rights and the creation of a centre for the prevention of conflict and possibly a voluntary conciliation mechanism throughout Europe. I believe that that is a suggestion from the British Government.
As the noble Earl said, the CSCE is at last to have its own permanent secretariat. The presence there of the old Warsaw Pact nations alongside the Soviet Union, the United States and Canada has led many of us to have high hopes that the CSCE can become a great and vital institution for European security. However, we still do not know how that will develop.
The new Europe which must be created on the basis of a larger Germany and a weakened and possibly fragmented Soviet Union will be led largely by the Western Europe of the European Community. We should thank God that the revolution in Central and Eastern Europe happened after the European Community had shed its sclerosis and now that it has found a new dynamism. It is to the Community that the Central and Eastern European countries are now looking. Of course, the time that they will have the developed economies and steady democracies which will qualify them for full membership is fairly distant. However, we should promise them closer and closer association and also bring them under the wider umbrella of the Council of Europe. Any other plans for opening wide the Community and it going back to a free trade area would be of very little use in the present situation and nobody would listen to that.
In the Community we must reach a deeper stage of integration impelled by the Single European Act. The Community's institutional structure also may need strengthening if it is to bear the weight of resolving issues created by the development of the great single market. The Prime Minister may be right in her apprehension that the Community may regulate where nations have deregulated. But that regulation is inevitable. The social dimension of the Community will be pushed ahead. That is one reason—though only one—why some of my friends have at last come on board the European train.
In the face of great historical developments this is no time for turning our backs on economic and monetary union. We must press on with it. The loss of sovereignty is largely nominal. There have been many
230
exaggerations of the degree of federalism that it will entail. That is all rhetoric and propaganda. The resistance is based less on reason than on pride and prejudice. It is a complex problem and needs much technical exploration and explanation. I hope we shall obtain some of that from our own committee when we debate the subject shortly.
There remains one other great institution with an uncertain future; that is NATO. The North Atlantic Assembly of parliamentarians is to hold its six monthly plenary in London this month. That is still too soon for anyone to see clearly where NATO is going and where it should be going. We must beware of the military and industrial lobbyists who want to keep their salaries and their profits. We must still keep in the forefront of our mind the Harmel objectives: sufficient military strength to prevent war, and a willingness to explore political solutions.
All our hopes for the future are being explored as we deal with the remote conflict in the Gulf. That belongs to another world. Yet the two worlds could collide and cause more turmoil. I shall not go into the problems of the Gulf, except to suggest that the Harmel principles now have an out-of-area validity.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Haden-Guest: My Lords, before I proceed further perhaps I may express my appreciation for the friendly and courteous reception I received as a new Member of your Lordships' House and for the kind remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and other noble Lords during the present debate.
If I presume to speak on foreign affairs—as I do with some trepidation—it is because I grew up in and absorbed the atmosphere of a family deeply concerned with international and domestic politics. My father, a Fabian in the company of H.G. Wells and Bernard Shaw at the beginning of the century, entered politics in the 'twenties in another place. As more than a few noble Lords will recall, some 40 years ago he continued his career of public service in your Lordships' House.
My own experience of the international scene includes 26 years with the secretariat of the United Nations in New York. Perhaps it was rather like seeing the world stage from a fauteuil de luxe, but it had its points. It is difficult, as your Lordships know, to deal with such a wide expanse as foreign affairs, especially when so many matters have already been covered in the debate by most able and respected figures, as has been the case today. But there is nevertheless an advantage to be found from that. It forcedly sets decent limits to the length of the debate. Having said that, there are some points I should like to make, but I should like first, if I may, to put the events with which we are now dealing into perspective.
In the winter of last year your Lordships were concerned with the vast changes which had already occurred and were still occurring in the Soviet Union and certain countries of the Warsaw Pact and also the expected emergence of a single Germany. How long ago that seems today. As the months went by it became clear to all that these changes, far from

231
slowing down, were continuing at a quite extraordin-ary pace. Governments, jolted by events, were prompted with unaccustomed speed to rethink their policies and commitments and, as necessary, make readjustments of all kinds to these new facts of life.
As the year ends there is much to consider. Though the cold war, at least in its old form, appears to have run its course, the possibility of sudden spasms of the sort associated with rigor mortis cannot be ruled out. In place of the two super powers of cold war days we find instead two great countries now somewhat reduced, each still immensely powerful in a military sense, but for different reasons with diminishing authority in relative terms in a world of newly emerging power blocs.
Her Majesty's Government are confronting those vital questions which face all governments in this state of flux and are, as indicated in the gracious Speech, now dealing with some of them. In particular they have announced their policy of adapting NATO strategy to reflect the welcome changes in Europe.
As regards the European Community, the Government have announced steps to work with our Community partners on various matters. That must be welcomed. Of course the fuller picture is not likely to emerge until a policy evolves in the course of the probably long and no doubt protracted debate. However, it is reassuring to see that, despite the new emphasis on ties with Europe—which must come— the Government, in the words of the gracious Speech,
"will continue to play a full part in the Commonwealth".—[Official Report, 7/11/90; col. 3.]
Regarding the larger world scene, Her Majesty's Government will continue to uphold the purposes and principles of the charter. In connection with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq they have undertaken to work for the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. It is of particular importance in that troubled part of the world that Her Majesty's Government have also undertaken to continue to work for long-term peace in the Middle East, including a settlement of the Palestinian problem. That was an undertaking not given in last year's gracious Speech and is one to be warmly supported now.
As noble Lords will be aware, the United Nations has not always received the unequivocal support of its member states. Indeed, for much of its existence the cold war and other related factors served to inhibit its effectiveness. More recently, as the thaw in relations between East and West continues, the organisation has achieved much.
In the present confrontation between the newly formed Alliance and Iraq, there is no doubt that the Security Council plays the principal role—one of patience, caution and supple strength. In the first of its resolutions on the question, adopted on 2nd August, the Security Council in operative paragraph 3 called upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences. It supported all efforts in that regard and especially those of the League of Arab states. That paragraph
232
was subsequently continued in force by other, later resolutions which themselves imposed sanctions that are exceptionally tough.
It is important to stress now, in the face of mounting pressure from many quarters for a military solution, that this paragraph, together with the rest of those resolutions, is in force today. Representing, as it does, the agreed policy and the will and wisdom of all the permanent members of the Security Council, it remains the single hope both for the avoidance of a grisly war, with consequences which no one can foresee, and the achievement of a peaceful settlement in the Gulf. Does it not continue to deserve the world's support?
5.10 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, I feel fortunate that the privilege of being the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, on his maiden speech falls to me. It was an authoritative speech, based on a lifetime of experience in international affairs. I am certain that I speak for everyone in the House when I say how much we look forward to his future contributions. Following the admirable maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, the House has today enjoyed two maiden speeches of exceptional quality.
I should like to say also how much I appreciated the way in which this debate was opened by my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I thought that the latter made a most valuable contribution to the unity of our Parliament and the unity of our nation in handling the difficult matter of events in the Gulf, which I shall come to later.
As the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, said, we are holding this debate at a time when really huge changes are taking place in the world; so much so that in my view it is no exaggeration to say that the world is at a turning point—a rare event in history. At a fundamental level, the accelerating development of technology has so shrunk the world that many of the issues confronting mankind today are no longer capable of resolution by one nation or even a group of nations. They can be tackled only on a global basis.
This is a new environment, a new fact of life, with implications for the sovereignty of every nation and with implications for our international institutions. All our existing international institutions have served us, and still serve us, very well. They have done so since they were set up after World War II, but I believe that they are inadequate now for the tasks that they face. The rapid acceleration of international business of all kinds means that the existing institutions are required to carry a load which is far heavier than that for which they were designed. I should like to see a lot more thought given to that.
We know from our own history how important are our institutions. The same applies to the world's present needs. These generalisations are relevant to the two absolutely major world events we have witnessed since our debate a year ago, about which I wish to speak—the revolutions in Europe and the

233
Iraqi aggression in the Gulf. Both will have far-reaching effects. On the first event, the point is that, in the end, even the Iron Curtain and all that went with it could not stem the tide of interdependence. It is inexorable. The Soviet empire was bound to collapse at some time—only the timing was in question. Thanks to Mr. Gorbachev, it happened a year ago —one of the most courageous political decisions of this century and worthy of the Nobel peace prize twice over. As a result, we have the opportunity now to rebuild Europe once again.
Already the peace treaty that should have been signed in 1946, but was not, has been signed in Moscow. The foundation stone for rebuilding is in place, but what a colossal task faces the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke of Poland. The same could be said, in different terms, of all those countries. On the political side, the kind of democratic institutions and practices that we in Western Europe take for granted are foreign to them. They leapt free from communism into a vacuum. It will take those countries a great deal of time, skill and patience to fashion their own democratic systems from scratch.
To add to their difficulties, they have deep-seated ethnic problems, already clearly revealed in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. They are long-standing problems, now exacerbated by the fact that after being held in a straitjacket for 50 years it is very natural for a strong sense of nationalism to sway people's emotions. Somehow we have to support their fragile democracies and help them to bring their conflicting interests into some degree of harmony. At present, the machinery for that does not exist.
On the economic side, those countries must revise their economies from scratch and fit them into the real world. They have little or no knowledge or experience of the market economy. They have no capitalists and they are burdened with immense debts. However bright their long-term prospects may seem, their near-term prospect is bleak indeed. All that presents the Western world with a major challenge and in my view Western leaders have come nowhere near to matching up to it yet. I say that notwithstanding what my noble friend on the Front Bench said in opening the debate. To quote the image taken by Sir Julian Bullard in an address he gave to the Atlantic Treaty Association last week:
"There are more carts stuck in the mud in Central and Eastern Europe than there are tractors in the West to pull them out".
If those peoples are not to become too down-hearted or unstable, and if they are to be pulled out of the mud, a great deal of help and support is required.
The whole financial, industrial and business world needs to be involved and governments need to provide the leadership. The West Germans are doing a great deal, not only in East Germany but also in Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere. The collapse of the Berlin Wall has meant that Germany is now closer to the East and sees rich opportunities in that sub-continent.
234
There is a real danger that Europe could again become unbalanced. That can be prevented in two ways: first, by creating more co-ordination and integration in Western Europe, including all countries inside and outside the European Community, leading to a pattern that encompasses the whole of Europe. What matters is the European context into which a united Germany fits, and that can ensure that a balance is maintained. Secondly, the rest of us must invest more in Eastern Europe and not leave most of it to the Germans, which is what is now happening.
A strong international structure is needed which will watch developments, nurture the emerging democracies, assess the needs of these countries and collectively organise investment, management training and whatever they need. I believe that the CSCE can provide that structure and I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lord Caithness said on this matter—that a permanent headquarters is to be set up and that there is to be a programme of work and regular meetings. I believe that that is the right way ahead. In my view, failure to appreciate fully and to react to the magnitude of the problems facing the eastern half of our continent would be a major strategic mistake.
Turning to the Gulf, the whole world will be affected by this event and its consequences. For a start, there is the potential conflict between the Christian West and the Moslem East, the smoulderings of which are already evident. Whatever else happens, the last thing we want is a re-run of the Crusades. Within the Arab world, divisions are more acute than ever and it is difficult to see how the situation will improve. Israel could become involved in various ways, and that would be a very complicating factor.
However, underlying the whole situation is the opportunity to start a new chapter in world affairs, made possible by the revolutions in Europe. Those revolutions have closed the intellectual divide and suddenly virtually all of us find ourselves on the same side. It is the Gulf crisis, hideous though it is, that has revealed this truth in such a bright light. It is revealed by the extraordinarily wide degree of international agreement on action to undo Saddam Hussein's aggression. The extent of that agreement is new and obviously very significant. Virtually the whole world is saying that military aggression cannot and will not be allowed to succeed. The challenge to statesmanship today is to build on this wholly new accord for the benefit of all mankind. With our allies we have been striving for 45 years to create just such an opportunity and, thanks to the resolution of NATO, we have finally achieved it. So we are at a turning point.
In weighing up the various ways of dealing with Saddam Hussein in the coming months, in my view the most important factor is the maintenance of the international accord already achieved. In this connection we should pay tribute to the work of Mr. James Baker. Kuwait is going to be regained in the end one way or the other. The key to achieving that by peaceful means is the solidarity of the international community. There are those who think that this

235
solidarity is more vulnerable if military action is delayed. But I believe the opposite. Hostilities will put it under extreme strain. There are those who seem, or sound, enthusiastic for war, or at any rate regard it as so likely that they give the impression of favouring it. I am not one of them. War in the Gulf is the last resort. It may have to happen. Aggressors do not usually volunteer to retreat. But there is a very widespread desire held to end this conflict without war, including notably by our principal Arab allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria.
In our September debate I stressed the need for the strict and rigid application of sanctions and for patience while those sanctions and diplomatic pressures take effect. I believe that that is still the right approach today. I wish that individuals representing nobody but themselves would stop going to Baghdad. I do not know, and I suspect that none of your Lordships knows, the military appreciation except possibly those who were earlier chiefs of the defence staff. Reports in the press are confused on this matter, sometimes saying that the military would prefer early action and sometimes the opposite. Obviously the military appreciation is a crucial factor, but in the particular and peculiar circumstances in the Gulf today other considerations are no less weighty. We must do everything possible to prevent conflagration, with all its horrendous consequences. If in the end it has to be faced, then of course we shall face it.
In conclusion, I believe that the world is at the beginning of a very profound change in its thinking. For four centuries since the Renaissance we have had a particular attitude towards our planet. Its secrets were discoverable and capable of being harnessed by mankind for its own benefit. Our century has seen the apotheosis of that approach at Ypres, Hiroshima, Auschwitz and in the rain forests of the Amazon. In addition, but in a less major way although still horrendous, today we have in Kuwait the brutality to the Kuwaitis and the cruelty to hostages and refugees.
These and many other equally awful events contributed to the turning of the tide. There is a change now. At last we have been driven to realise that we are not quite as clever as we thought. The earth's resources are finite and there is a limit to growth. We are going to have to learn new methods and take new attitudes. We are at a turning point. In my view it is the new level of accord achieved by the United Nations which points the way ahead clearly. If we adhere to that and build on it, we can be much more optimistic for a better world order and for peace in the future.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I feel that the House will remember for some time the two remarkable maiden speeches that we have been pleased to listen to today. Both the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, lived up to their reputations, as reflected in their speeches. For some time I have been interested in Hong Kong in the other place as well as in your Lordships' House.
236
A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of being in Hong Kong. I met the Governor and the council. We had very interesting talks. They charged me with a responsibility which I am now going to fulfil. It is to convey to Lydia their very best wishes. They even knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, was going to make her maiden speech today. I say to her that her good friends in Hong Kong are proud of what she has achieved and, like me, know that it was well worth creating her a Peer of the Realm to sit in this House.
I hope that the House will take full cognisance of the speech we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It was very moving and realistic. We should be absolutely uncouth if we ignored it. It is about time that our Government and Opposition told those in America who supply large sums of money to the IRA that they are killers and murderers. Is that not so? That is what we must have the courage to say. Such people should not shield behind religion and say that they are good Roman Catholics. They send money to the IRA to butcher Protestants. That is an appalling attitude of mind. I also believe that the Church of England, the Methodists and the Baptists have not said this loudly enough. Perhaps they are a little scared. I do not know. But it is about time that they and the politicians began to make this clear.
When I served in the other place the proposition was put that all parties in Ireland should have 30 to 40 years to get together to form a new country under a new form of democracy. They had to do away with killing. I believe that was a reasonable proposition. I hope that Her Majesty's Opposition and the Government will continue with it with the co-operation of the sensible and reasonable people who exist in what is called Northern Ireland and Eire.
I have very recently visited Australia. There I was privileged to have talks with the Prime Minister, Mr. Bob Hawke, and with Mr. Gareth Evans, the Foreign Secretary. I was deeply and emotionally moved by their expressions of absolute loyalty to our country over the situation in the Gulf. The Australians had a brilliant history in the First World War and also a magnificent one in the second. They are in no way losing the spark of their idealism in being faithful and loyal to the United Kingdom.
Some time ago I was privileged to open a debate in this House on Cambodia. Speeches were made by people who had lived in Cambodia and who realised that since 1941 there had been no peace in that part of the world. We had tremendous speeches, primarily from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lords, Lord Fanshawe of Richmond and Lord Rea. There was also a very good speech from ray noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. Those speeches, with the tiny contribution that I made, outlined what was necessary in order to relieve the appalling suffering in Cambodia and described what had happened to the people of that country under the Khmer Rouge and probably the world's greatest and most poisonous villain, Pol Pot. When are the Churches going to begin shouting about it? When are other politicians going to

237
begin shouting about it? The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, were speaking from their personal experiences in Cambodia.
The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, at the end of the debate was highly commendable. That debate, particularly the speeches made by those with personal experience of Cambodia, showed what a powerful influence this House can be on world affairs if it is listened to as respectfully as it should be. The situation in Cambodia has now changed for the better but there is still a lot to do. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has written to me on the position in Cambodia and I thank him for doing so. I am sure that the letter is a mark of respect for the speeches made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and all those who participated in that debate.
Although the position in Cambodia has improved, there is still a grave threat. Many people in Cambodia, in this country, in the United States and in Australia are still very anxious as to whether members of the Khmer Rouge, with the blessing of the United Nations and of the Government, are still in authority. That is an extremely serious thing to say. It is what I said to the Australians and it is what I said to people in Hong Kong. The people in Hong Kong were worried about what had happened in Tiananmen Square, but being Hong Kong people they got over it. They too are worried about the position in Cambodia. Therefore I hope that we shall have a further opportunity to discuss the matter. Horrible though the Holocaust was, one must realise that tens of thousands of human beings were deliberately put to death in Cambodia so that their bodies could be interred to raise forests. There is no real anger in the rest of the rich Western world about it. There ought to be.
I want to turn briefly to an issue of vital importance which rarely gets a mention. We have spoken about the Gulf and Saddam Hussein. What really worries me is that Saddam Hussein, with the largest army in the Middle East, might withdraw and stay just a few inches over the border. What will we do then? He will have committed no crime. He will have responded to the United Nations but kept his huge army on the borders of Saudi Arabia, his own country and Kuwait. We have to give this matter careful thought. I wonder, for example, having been on a number of occasions in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, whether sometimes the ordinary people and ordinary soldiers do not quite understand precisely what is happening. Why do we not use a little initiative and distribute leaflet propaganda among the soldiers of Saddam Hussein?
I am reliably informed by people who have escaped from Kuwait that in the first few days there was among Iraqi soldiers an elated feeling of victory. Then they realised that they were punishing, harming and killing fellow Arabs. This has sown a tiny amount of dissent in the Iraqi army. We ought to take full advantage of that. I hope that the Government will consider this point with our United States allies. There are soldiers in Kuwait who are becoming somewhat
238
perturbed. Let us encourage that feeling. Whether we do it through leaflets or in some other way, such action ought to be taken.
I turn now to a subject very near to my own feelings and one which is seldom mentioned. Whenever there is a threat of a war, whether it be in Kuwait or in the Middle East, there is great consternation and debate. But on every single day of the year 10,000 children die in Africa and India. The war which we should be permanently fighting is the war against poverty, ignorance and disease. Is it realised, for example, that since this debate started about 20,000 children have died of starvation? That should be food, paradoxically, for thought in this great Christian nation. Forty thousand people die every day and tens of millions every year.
Perhaps I may give some statistics to put matters into perspective. The average person requires 2,400 calories a day. The world produces enough for nearly 4,000 calories a day for every person. We do not know how to share that wherewithal with those who are starving in India, in China, in the Sudan and in other parts of Africa. Since the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made his speech, and since my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition made his admirable response, about 20,000 people have died from diseases which could have been cured, but primarily from starvation.
It is right and proper that when discussing foreign affairs we give priority to the position in the Gulf. I hope that the Government realise that if Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait and stays on the border or if there is a war it will undoubtedly be most horrendous. Saddam Hussein has a massive army. For that reason alone he should be resisted or others will think that all they have to do is to build a huge army, defy humanity, as represented by the United Nations, and take whatever they like. He has to be resisted. I hope that thought will be given to the points I have made.
When the crisis is over—and one day it will be—I hope that the Government will continue the good work they are doing in the third world with various international organisations. It is the war that goes on and on: the war against poverty, ignorance and disease. I hope that my country will continue to give a lead in bringing an end to suffering and in bringing relief to millions of people in other parts of the world—what I would call the cruel part of the world. If any nation can do it, it is my nation.
That was the feeling and attitude last Sunday of my comrades in the Royal British Legion. I am privileged to be the president of the metropolitan area, the largest area. They have the highest regard for those who fought in the First World War, for the gallant few in 1940, for the Desert Rats and for all those who helped to produce things in this country. They are also mindful of the fact that we have the capacity to beat dictators and to fight, if necessary alone, to save democracy for the world. It is this nation above all others which can give a lead in the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease and in helping suffering humanity in other parts of the world.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, whatever our views, we must surely now all admit that war with Iraq in the comparatively near future is now, unfortunately, a distinct possibility. Failing some climbdown on the part of the present allies—which would in fact be a victory for Saddam Hussein—no peaceful or diplomatic solution of the crisis is possible, unless Iraq conforms to the various resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, chief of which is that demanding the immediate and unconditional evacuation of Kuwait. The Iraqis have now flatly rejected this, maintaining that Kuwait no longer exists or, as they say, that it is part of Iraq for ever.
That being so, it is difficult to imagine that the allies, and notably the Americans—though it is arguable that they should do so—will keep large armies in the desert for another year or more until sanctions may oblige the Iraqis, if they do, to take the action required of them. If sanctions have not worked after several months, force is therefore surely on the cards. It may be—and as we must certainly still hope—that when war is actually imminent Saddam Hussein may disappear, but no one should count on this happening. Therefore, we must, however reluctantly, be prepared for hostilities, the nature and length of which no one can with certainty predict.
As I understand it, this prospect is accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government and, to a large extent, by the Official Opposition. But it must be admitted that there is a strong body of opinion in all our countries, but more especially in the United States, which, while admitting that continuous pressure should be put on Iraq, recoils from the actual use of force on the grounds that a war would inevitably spread and quite possibly in the long run have the reverse effect of that intended. It is also alleged that we should not in any case go to war to restore a sheikdom that could hardly be said to be democratic, and that our oil interests do not necessarily demand the continued presence of enormous forces in the Persian Gulf.
I see why this attitude appeals to many whom I respect, but I cannot accept it. Ultimate military action against a recalcitrant aggressor is clearly laid down in Article 42 of the United Nations Charter, to which we have all subscribed and which we have all underwritten. If the charter is not applied in this case of open aggression, what hope is there of preserving eventual peace of the world? Just when, with the end of the cold war, the possibility of some effective world authority is emerging, it would surely be a tragedy if we were to revert to,
"the ancient plan that he will take who has the power and he will keep who can".
How, therefore, can military action be both legally authorised and duly enforced? It can be done only by a suitably drafted resolution by the Security Council of the United Nations based on Article 42 of the charter, providing, in effect, for action whenever the United States (which must evidently take the lead) judges this to be necessary after due consultation with its allies. Is such a resolution obtainable?
240
To be valid, such a resolution requires the approval of nine out of the 15 members of the council, including that of the five permanent members. Any one of the latter can, if it so desires, apply a veto, in which case the whole resolution fails. But equally a permanent member can abstain. Both the Soviet Union and China have apparently now said that they would not oppose military action—presumably at what is in their view the appropriate time—which must mean either that they would eventually vote for it or at the least not vote at all. Even if they both abstained, the resolution would still have the full force of law provided that the three permanent members—namely, the United States, the United Kingdom and France—voted for it, together with six non-permanent members.
Therefore, even in the unlikely event of the abstention of two permanent members, would the consent of at least six non-permanent members be forthcoming? There seems good reason to think that it would be. Cuba and Yemen would doubtless vote against. Columbia and Malaysia might be doubtful. But the remainder, judging from their attitude up until now, would seemingly approve, while France, I should have thought, could hardly fail to vote for the resolution in the event. It need hardly be added that the prospects of getting it approved would be greatly enhanced if President Bush felt able to announce his support for a conference to deal with the Palestine issue once the Kuwaiti crisis is over.
If, therefore, the Americans after, say, another month or two feel that they can wait no longer, everything points to their seeking the authority of the United Nations for military action—for only so can that moral sanction for war be obtained which is so essential if the objections to it on the part of many are to be overcome and for which Cardinal Hume has so eloquently pleaded in his recent letter to The Times.
The alternative is action by the Americans and some of the allies under Article 51 of the charter, presumably on the invitation of the exiled government of Kuwait. Whether this would be legally justified—I am among those who doubt it —the fact remains that the invocation of Article 51 only would be likely to divide the present alliance and reinforce the already strong peace movement in the United States. Rather than action under this article, it may indeed be better to have some patience in the hope that sanctions will after all have the desired effect or that action under Article 42 will still be possible.
I should like to say a word in conclusion on the possible conduct of the war should it come to pass. In the first place, the American generals could hardly recommend war with Iraq unless they were confident of their ability to eliminate the Iraqi air force after a short engagement. That should not result in many civilian casualties—Iraqi aircraft could hardly take refuge in urban centres. If the Iraqis were so misguided as to employ their few and highly inaccurate missiles, the launchers should likewise be destroyed. They can do little damage, even in Israel, unless chemical or biological weapons are employed, in which case all-out war would doubtless result.

241
After complete mastery of the air had been obtained, Iraqi tanks could then be gradually accounted for by, among other things, cluster bombs dropped from aircraft, with the reoccupation of Kuwait being perhaps undertaken largely by Arab troops. There seems little reason to suppose that this whole operation, though it might well take some time, should result in enormous casualties. In any case, Iraq's threat of turning the whole Gulf into a lake of fire is an obvious absurdity. This generally optimistic scenario is, however, based on the assumption that early elimination of the Iraqi air force is possible and that the Iraqis could not put to good use the latest United States anti-aircraft weapons which they are said to have captured in Kuwait. The main conclusion, in any case, lies in the ancient saying, si vis pacem Para bellum; or, if you want peace, prepare for a war which you are confident of winning with the full backing of the law.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, first, I should like to join in the many tributes being paid throughout the country to the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. The majority of noble Lords consider that he is serving the country very well with great energy and distinction.
There are two foreign affairs issues which demand immediate attention: Europe and the Gulf crisis. The House will have an opportunity to debate European policy fully when the report of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, comes before it on 22nd November. But whatever the significance of the intergovernmental conferences in December and afterwards, there can be no doubt that the Middle East crisis is of more immediate importance. That crisis carries with it risk of a horrible war in a nightmare setting. It is already bringing economic disaster to several innocent and undeserving countries and hardship and financial ruin to numberless families and individuals.
However, it is hard to contribute usefully to the debate while we are unaware of the contents discussed in the shuttle diplomacy conducted by prime ministers, ex-ministers and every kind of limelight seeker from East and West. How it must entertain Saddam Hussein to spread doubt and confusion by telling each of them a slightly different story and handing them, like Santa Claus, a small present of hostages as they leave.
We are told by reliable personalities that the alliance is solid; I very much hope that it is. However, one cannot ignore a statement by M. Cheysson, adviser to President Mitterrand, who recently observed that the Middle East crisis was of little importance to the European Community.
When I spoke in the debate on 6th September, I raised two points. I should like to make them again in slightly more detail. They could show the way—admittedly, over a long period—towards a peaceful settlement of the dangerous situation in which we now find ourselves. The points are, first, the priority objectives of the Security Council and the majority of UN members; and, secondly, the quite different
242
priority objectives of many Arab countries and, I suggest, the majority of Moslem people. Can those two conflicting objectives be peacefully reconciled?
The priority objective of the UN powers is the establishment at last of an effective system of worldwide collective security for which the United Nations was founded. With the revolution in the relations of the super powers, the chances of achieving that objective are better now than they have been for half a century. The opportunity on no account should be lost. However, the priorities of some Middle East governments, and perhaps the majority of Arab and Moslem peoples, are quite different. I enumerated them on 6th September. They include the settlement of the Palestine problem, the equitable division of oil wealth and the modernisation of out-dated means of government in the area.
It is manifestly difficult, and perhaps impossible, to reconcile fully those apparently conflicting objectives. However, we should try by attempting two steps. First, it is entirely right to insist on Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The threat of the use of force and the pressure of sanctions may yet succeed. The second step is just as difficult but should be pursued with some persistence. I suggest that it should be on the following lines. The UN security powers, with the support of as many others as possible, should give an assurance that they would be prepared to back fair settlements made by Middle East countries between themselves. Those would have to include a UN guarantee of the frontiers agreed, and the mutual disarmament of the confronting countries and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.
Such a settlement would require a tremendous diplomatic effort. In the past two years seemingly impossible revolutions of policy have been achieved in Europe by negotiation, and stubborn minds have been changed. I should like to ask one question of the Minister. Would it not be sensible and indeed normal for a senior member of the alliance to make direct contact with Saddam Hussein? Perhaps such contact already exists and is held very secretly. It is normal in a dangerous confrontation to have direct contact, and it could possibly help. In addition it would be evidence that all reasonable steps have been taken to avert hostilities.
Noble Lords may well ask what is to be done if Saddam Hussein does not withdraw in spite of all pressures. There is now firm agreement apparently that an allied attack then seems the only course. What would be the right time has still to be judged. An unattractive but seductive alternative might be to try to set in train some of the diplomatic steps that I have outlined without insisting on prior Iraqi withdrawal, as Saddam Hussein now appears to suggest. That would concede a partial victory to him. It would ensure the demise of Kuwait and probably the break up of the present alliance in the UN. Above all it would fatally weaken the authority of the UN. To some, however, it would have the overriding advantage of avoiding a war. It is something that I

243
believe we should not contemplate; but in the event of the failure of the alliance and a lack of cohesion in the UN it may be forced upon us.
The overriding priority is to try to achieve the establishment of an effective system of worldwide security based on strengthening the United Nations. The balance of power in the world is changing very fast. The problems are not just Europe and the Middle East. They are global problems—political, economic and scientific—which can be managed only through the influence of a world organisation. I believe that even a partial concession to Saddam Hussein would fatally delay the establishment of such an organisation.
Lastly, as a former member of the diplomatic service, I should like to say that we watch with pride the performance of our staffs in Baghdad and Kuwait.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, we are also filled with admiration and sympathy for the hostages still held there and the patience of their families in this country.
6 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I start by joining in the congratulations offered to the two distinguished maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. I had met Lydia Dunn, as she then was, in Hong Kong on a number of occasions in various capacities when I was a Minister in the Government here and later when I was a commissioner of the European Community. She brings great experience and knowledge to your Lordships' House, together with a considerable measure of wisdom, which leavens it. I am sure that we shall have much to learn from her.
It is impossible for me to participate in a debate on foreign affairs without paying tribute to my right honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Howe. His resignation was a great loss to the Government, but it was an even greater loss to the country. He was one of the most distinguished and successful Chancellors of the Exchequer. I was both honoured and happy to serve with him as a Minister of State at the Treasury. Indeed, it was in that capacity that I first sat on the Front Bench in your Lordships' House. As Foreign Secretary, his diplomatic skills, his invariable courtesy and clear convictions on important issues of policy served this country extraordinarily well in the international field and particularly in regard to our relations with our fellow members of the European Community. Not only was his style and mode right; so too was his stand on matters of substance and of principle.
I have, if I may say so, a less agreeable comment to make regarding the attitude taken in some quarters in this country—I am glad to say not in your Lordships' House—towards Jacques Delors, the President of the European Commission. At times remarks have been made which verged on personal abuse. Jacques Delors is a distinguished statesman of international stature. He was recognised not least in this country as a most
244
successful finance minister. He was the unanimous choice of the 12 member states. Without his constant support I should never have succeeded in launching the single market programme and driving it through to success. I may say also that it was Jacques Delors, not the United Kingdom, who was responsible for the total liberalisation of capital movements throughout the Community. I know this because I sat with him when, by sheer willpower and determination, he pressed these proposals through that most reluctant body, the Council of Finance Ministers.
It was Jacques Delors who secured what reforms have been made in the common agricultural policy. The part played by the ministers of agriculture—including, I regret to say, from time to time our own—was to water down, never to strengthen the Commission's proposals. Despite what from time to time has been barely concealed hostility on our part, he has always been helpful to this country. The only criticism that can be made of him is that when we have too patently displayed a national tendency to wander off on our own he has striven very hard to keep his wayward flock together.
I do not propose to say very much about economic and monetary union and political union. The report of your Lordships' Select Committee was published on Friday and we will have what I hope will be an extended debate on that subject next week. I simply have one comment to make at this stage because it goes to the heart of our relations with the European Community. The claim constantly made that an attempt is being made to impose—and "impose" is the word which is being used—a single currency on the United Kingdom is complete nonsense. No one wants to impose a single currency on us; no one has tried to impose a single currency on us and no one legally has any power to impose a single currency on us.
Monetary union could be embodied in Community legislation in one of two ways: either by amendment of the Treaty of Rome under Article 236 (but that requires unanimity); or, following precedent, a separate treaty could be negotiated. Clearly no one could compel the United Kingdom to sign such a treaty if we did not wish to do so. Thus whatever route is chosen, nothing can be imposed upon the United Kingdom.
The real issue, I suspect, is precisely the opposite. Eleven member states have decided to go ahead with a single currency. What we are trying to do is stop them. In other words, it is not a question of 11 imposing their views on one; it is one endeavouring to impose its views on the other 11. Perhaps I may say quite categorically that there is no way in which we can do so. We can of course block action under Article 236, but the major developments in the Community in the past have always taken the form of a separate treaty. Indeed, the report of the Delors Committee refers repeatedly to a new treaty. That treaty can be signed by all 12, or, if we stand out, by 11 only. We simply cannot stop them. All we can do is knot the rope around our own neck. I sincerely hope that we will not do so.

245
I have made this point in some detail because it illustrates the fundamental problem that we, or at least some members of our Government, have with the European Community. They simply do not understand it. They do not know its history. They do not understand its philosophy; or, if they did, they would disagree with it. They do not understand its policies and most certainly they do not understand its law.
This is a situation which I had to face in the years during which I was at the Commission, and I see no change since I left. These attitudes are rooted in nostalgia for the past, in the hope of reviving once again what were described as the Victorian values, in a regret for the passing of the era in which we were the most powerful industrial nation in the world, in which we had the largest navy in the world and in which we were a political power of the first order. This is an honourable dream but it is a dream of an era which has long since passed. There is no way in which we can revive it.
What we have to do is live in the present and live in relation to the facts of the present, because the onus on our shoulders is not only to act correctly in the light of present circumstances but also to ensure that the heritage we hand down to the next generation is a sound inheritance. One fact we must accept—and I know it is regrettable—is that we now have one of the weakest economies in the Western world. Some time ago, when I was clearing out my personal papers, I found a copy of Hansard for 1955. It included a table showing the income per head in the major countries in Europe. We in the United Kingdom stood at the head of that table. Today we are poorer than any of the original members of the European Community; we are poorer than any of the members of the EFTA group; we are poorer than the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan; and so one could go on. It is all very regrettable and very tragic.
It means that the future of this country can no longer be built on our own domestic market. That future can only be found in Europe—in the European Community whose population will, by 1992, be 325 million people, and in the greater Europe where the developing policy of the Community is to create a free trade area. We have broken away from the old type of trading co-operation agreements. The policy now is to establish a free trade area extending from the Atlantic to the Russian border and comprising a population of 500 million people. That is where the future of the British economy and the British people must lie.
It would be wrong, and indeed foolish, to pretend that there are not important divisions of opinion in this country on these matters. Those divisions exist not just in one party, they appear in most parties. They appear in Parliament, in the media and in the country as a whole. It requires a great effort of statesmanship to resolve those problems. As we look forward to the years ahead we have to hope that that effort and that degree of statesmanship will be forthcoming. Unless it is, we shall find ourselves in a position of genteel poverty. I know that there are some people who would regard a position of genteel poverty as preferable to
246
losing some of the trappings of sovereignty which have long since disappeared. That is not the view of trade and industry in this country.
Although I do not myself belong to the younger generation, I believe that the younger generation does not take that view either. We ought to remember that when the next general election is held the people who vote in that election for the first time will have been born after we joined the European Community. They will have lived all their lives in a period in which we were members of the Community. That, more than anything else, will shape their attitudes both to the Community and to the future.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to take part in a debate which has included two such excellent maiden speeches on subjects of very great interest. I reiterate the congratulations that have already been given.
I choose to speak on an aspect of British foreign policy which has not been touched upon often today, namely, overseas aid. I feel some regret, having heard Sir Geoffrey Howe put his position on the European Community in unequivocal terms, and following the very strong speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, on the same subject, that I have not elected to follow up that central plank of British foreign policy—Britain's position in the European Community. However, the Government made a very strong commitment in the gracious Speech to overseas aid. They said that they would maintain a substantial programme aimed at promoting sustainable economic and social progress and good government in developing countries. It would be useful to examine that commitment to see whether government action is fulfilling those objectives.
Can the Government's aid programme be described as substantial? Many would question the assertion. In 1989 British aid amounted to 0.31 per cent. of GNP, which was not only lower than that of most of our European partners but also well below the UN target for official development assistance, which is set at 0.7 per cent. of GNP. Another reason why the amount gives cause for alarm is the growing demands placed upon it. For example, extra funds are now needed to allow for the environmental standards applied to development aid. Extra funds are needed for the debt relief being given to the Gulf front line states, such as Egypt and Turkey. Additional funds are also required for the emergency relief which is constantly required for catastrophes in Africa.
In addition, there are funds for the know-how fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I was happy to hear the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, say that funds for the know-how fund were to be doubled. However, there is always concern that those funds will not be treated as additional sums. I have met those anxieties in Africa, and in particular in the Sudan. I shall be very happy if the Minister can give an assurance today that overseas development aid for developing countries is separate from contributions to the know-how fund

247
and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I should also like to hear of any plans the Government have to increase the percentage of GNP allocated to overseas development aid.
I recognise that aid should not only be measured by quantity but also by quality. Is British aid really aimed at promoting sustainable economic and social progress in developing countries. I am sure that we are all agreed that that is the right objective. I believe, however, that the Government have mixed motives when allocating their aid budget. The ODA's 1989 anniversary review asserted:
"We concentrate British aid on poor countries, poor people and on their basic needs".
Yet the all-party Foreign Affairs Committee disagreed. It reported:
"The purpose of bilateral aid programmes in the UK, as in most other countries, has rarely been viewed as the purely selfless promotion of other countries' and peoples' welfare. It has always been understood that such programmes should be carried out with British commercial and industrial interests and political interests in mind".
It is a fact that aid largely consists of funding from western governments for services, machines, technical exports and consultants to be supplied by companies in rich countries, frequently their own. Therefore it is true to say that most aid money is spent in the rich world. That is directly contrary to the charitable instincts of most people in this country. When they are asked to provide funds for an emergency in a developing country they are most generous and dig deeply into their pockets. There is a sharp division between what people expect from overseas aid—that it should go to the poorest countries—and the way in which the ODA ties aid to the commercial and industrial interests of this country.
In its recent report on overseas aid the Select Committee on Science and Technology recommended that where there is a conflict in our aid programme between the needs of the recipient and the potential benefits to the UK the needs of the recipient must be paramount. That is a very clear message. When one looks back to the 1970s one sees that much greater effort was made to focus aid on the poorest. In Britain the Labour Party set out policies which indeed helped the poorest people in the poorest countries. Agencies such as the International Labour Organisation established a basic needs approach to development and in 1977 the International Fund for Agricultural Development was established with a strong mandate to reduce malnutrition and alleviate rural poverty specifically in ways such as supporting small farmers, the landless and others of the rural poor. As we know, that movement was brought to an end by the pressures of a debt crisis, followed by the overriding obsession of aid policy-makers with adjustment programmes and all the terrible social and environmental consequences which that brought on so many people of the developing countries.
However, now we feel that there may be a movement back to more altruistic aid. I hope that that is the direction in which the Government are moving. One test that their intentions are changing for the
248
better will be if aid is switched away from large-scale infrastructure projects, such as power plants, high-level city services and telephone systems, which did not help the poorest people in the country and towards agriculture, community forestry and fishing, cottage industries and social programmes in health and education.
It is also a key priority that women should be at the centre of a development process, which has not been the case until recently. After all, in Africa women are the farmers, yet there are few projects directly aimed at helping to grow more food and allowing them to profit from new technology, training and credit schemes. When all is said and done, if aid-givers want economic and social progress to be sustainable they must ensure that in those countries there are men and women who are equipped and able to sustain the aid that they are given. If they do not, there will be no way of sustaining it.
The year 1990 is International Literacy Year. UNESCO is making literacy for women a great priority. When one considers the proportion of women who are literate in the developing countries, it is clearly an important priority. Will the Minister say what funds Her Majesty's Government are allocating to International Literacy Year and whether they are reconsidering their withdrawal from UNESCO, which does so much in that field?
Her Majesty's Government were a signatory to the Convention on Rights of the Child. There is no doubt that social progress must increase the emphasis which is placed on children's welfare. Her Majesty's Government have not ratified the convention. Does the Minister have any news on the matter?
The Prime Minister attended the World Summit for Children where it was agreed by no fewer than 71 world leaders that aid programmes should be adjusted to take into account the welfare of women and children in the poorer countries. That means that the ODA must make some adjustment in its aid programmes in the direction of women and children to accommodate that commitment.
Finally, the gracious Speech states that our aid programme aims to promote good government in developing countries. There are many ways to do that: one area in which governments in some of the poorest countries could be strengthened and helped to rule more wisely is education and training. However, it seems that that is not happening.
There is a worrying trend. In 1979 education received as much as 17 per cent. of all aid from western industrialised countries. By 1987 that figure had gone down to a mere 10 per cent. Again, overseas student numbers in this country show a worrying trend. It is the numbers of students from the USA and the European Community countries which are up and those from the poorest developing countries which have decreased. To give only one example: in 1980 there were 5,200 Nigerian students in Britain; in 1988 there were only 1,300. On the other hand, the numbers from the USA rose from 2,900 in 1980 to 15,000 in

249
1988. Our overseas student numbers are thus more or less maintaining the same level but the change in balance is very pronounced.
If we wish to give support to governments in developing countries it is surely best to invest in training and education programmes rather than give an ultimatum about withdrawal of aid if those governments do not move swiftly enough towards the democratic process that we require. We see that happening in Kenya. We are withdrawing certain aid from Kenya because of what is happening there. It can only make the poorest people of that country suffer if their government are impoverished in that way.
I repeat that Her Majesty's Government should increase their aid budget. There are more demands put upon it but it is well below the level of many of our European partners. Secondly, the primary motive in allocating aid must be to help the poorest rather than to tie it to British commercial and industrial interests. Lastly, well directed aid can give support to weak governments through the ways that I have suggested.
I hope very much that those kinds of change can be made. In that way the commitment made in the gracious Speech about Britain's overseas aid programme will be truly substantiated.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I last spoke on this general subject in the House when we debated the defence White Paper on 17th July. Since then two important events have occurred which are relevant to both that debate and the one in which we are engaged today. The first event was the Government's announcement on 25th July of the decisions that they had reached as a result of the study called Options for Change about future reductions in the armed forces. The second was the Gulf crisis. In my opinion both reinforced the views that I expressed in the former debate.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of what I said. I concentrated on the question of a future security organisation for Europe, noting that the future of our own armed forces would to a large degree depend on how that evolved. I stressed that the principle must be observed that the military organisation should be designed to suit the political one, and not vice versa. I accepted that it would depend on how Europe developed politically and that that depended on developments within the Soviet Union which could not be forecast now and which were unlikely to become clear for some time. Therefore, I said, it was right for the Government and NATO to be cautious at that stage, to rely on existing structures and institutions and not to make major changes in the structure of our own armed forces. The Government followed that path and I commend them for it.
However, I went on to say that we must look further ahead, on the assumption that events in Europe would develop in such a way that the threat which NATO was established to meet would disappear. Almost everybody now seems to accept that it has already disappeared. The co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union over
250
the Gulf crisis has reinforced that view. If and when we are confident that we have reached that state of affairs and that it will endure, I suggest that Europe will need something very different from NATO.
But there will still be threats to the security of Europe, on which the security of our own island depends. Whatever happens in the Soviet Union, its constituent parts—especially Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine—by their very size, resources and geographical position will pose a potential threat to their neighbours, as they have done for many centuries. The age-old rivalries and animosities that exist between the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, aggravated perhaps by the combination of raised hopes and economic difficulties, are even now a potential threat to stability.
But there will still be threats to the security of Europe, on which the security of our own island depends. Whatever happens in the Soviet Union, its constituent parts—especially Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine—by their very size, resources and geographical position will pose a potential threat to their neighbours, as they have done for many centuries. The age-old rivalries and animosities that exist between the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, aggravated perhaps by the combination of raised hopes and economic difficulties, are even now a potential threat to stability. Finally there are, and will remain, fears about how an 80-million strong Germany will behave. These are the internal threats to the security of Europe, to counter and contain which a European security organisation will have to be created.
But the ill wind in the Gulf has brought with it one benefit —proof that Europe, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall emphasised in the same debate, must also look to its security against threats to its interests from other parts of the world. Some people say that those events have shown that NATO must continue to exist in something like its present form, and that the hesitant and divided attitude taken by other European members of NATO, whose dependence on Middle Eastern oil is greater than ours, shows that it would be fatal to rely on a more European organisation to defend our interests.
I take the opposite view, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his speech in the debate in this House on the Gulf crisis on 6th September. He said at col. 1827 of Hansard:
"For those of us who believe, as I do, that, if the Community is to have any influence in world affairs and that after 1992 there must inevitably be a closer political element to match the economic integration, there are urgent lessons to be learnt from the past month.
In the future, the Community must concern itself with its own security and … there are, it seems to me, ways in which that could be done in association with an evolution of NATO in a rather different form from what it is now".
I support that view. I consider that NATO should eventually develop into a treaty relationship between, on the one hand, the United States and Canada, and, on the other, a European defence community linked to

251
or integrated with the European economic community which is developing into, and I hope will develop further into, a European political community.
However, it is too early to see what the pattern should be of a European security organisation to meet the needs of a Europe that is no longer menaced by the overwhelming threat of a massive attack by the Soviet Union. But it seems to me that, whatever form it takes, it should not resemble NATO as it is today and as we have known it for the last 40 years; that is to say, a tightly integrated military command and training organisation dominated by the United States and dedicated to the production of detailed military plans to counter a Soviet attack on Europe with both conventional and nuclear weapons.
The first question to be faced is that of membership of such an organisation. Should it include the superpowers? Should it be built up from existing organisations, or should it move directly to some sort of pan-European membership based on CSCE or the Council of Europe? The authorities of NATO themselves envisage an expansion and transformation of NATO for the purpose. They say that this is welcomed by members of the Warsaw Pact, including the Soviet Union, as it would ensure the continued involvement of the United States in the maintenance of stability in Europe, providing a counterweight both to a strong Germany, which could dominate a purely European organisation, and to the Soviet Union in whatever form it develops, and also to the danger of too close an association between those two.
I do not favour that solution. I believe that it would retain too great an American dominance in European affairs, complicating them with the nuclear weapon issue. In my opinion we should bring to an end, a situation in which Europe's security needs are determined in bilateral meetings between Washington and Moscow. It would perpetuate the trend for European nations to seek to influence the United States separately instead of getting their act together, and, as a community, dealing with the United States and with the Soviet Union.
It would not be practicable now to move to a much looser and wider organisation based on CSCE or the Council of Europe; and it would be imprudent to try to do so until we can see more clearly how things develop within the Soviet Union. But CSCE should be the forum in which these matters are discussed. Meanwhile, I believe that we should begin to build up a European defence community at the same time as we loosen and gradually dismantle NATO's military command organisation. The forces which European members of NATO now contribute to the alliance—and they are bound to be greatly reduced—should be transformed into forces of the European defence community. That should either be linked to or integrated with the European Community, absorbing Western union as it did so. In my opinion, some simplification of European institutions would seem to be desirable in any case.
I have hardly mentioned nuclear weapons. They greatly complicate the issue, which is one of the
252
reasons why I believe that we must see how things develop within the Soviet Union before we can decide on the form of a security organisation. If the Soviet Union remains in something like its present form, I hope that we can get rid of nuclear weapons in Europe, at least outside the borders of the Soviet Union and at least land-based and air-delivered ones. We could then leave it to the United States and the Soviet Union to negotiate between them reductions to a very much lower level, designed just to maintain the existential threat.
I have said little about the Gulf crisis. Speculation by retired senior officers about what might or might not, should or should not, happen when active operations may be pending is almost always unhelpful. If they are wrong, they are misleading. If they are right, they may help the enemy. I wish to emphasise one thing only: the need for clarity of the aim. The political aim must be clear if the military are to be given a clear strategic or operational aim. That must be something that will achieve the political aim, and is itself attainable with the resources made available. History abounds with examples of failure when these principles have not been observed. They are seldom easy to achieve, but without them lives will almost certainly be sacrificed in vain.
I should like strongly to reinforce the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Pym, for patience. Patience is needed now in order to ensure that we do not get pushed into some political or military action just for the sake of satisfying people's impatience fuelled by the media. Patience will be needed later on when the Iraqi forces have been removed from the territory of Kuwait, whether they have been removed by political action or by military action. That will not solve all the problems by any means, and a great deal of patience will be needed then.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, all noble Lords who have so far addressed themselves to the crisis in the Gulf in this debate have, not surprisingly, concurred about its gravity. Some but by no means all have agreed with the conclusions which were expressed clearly and forcibly by both my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, at the beginning of the debate. But there has been general agreement—this was a point stressed particularly by my noble friend Lord Pym—that on no occasion in the 45 years since San Francisco has United Nations' opinion been nearly so unanimous as in its sanctions policy of the present day.
For most of the nations who have agreed to impose sanctions on Iraq, the policy, costly as it is, makes no very painful demands. While they could continue it without disaster for many more months, it all too evidently places a state such as Jordan, which is a good and reliable friend of Britain and on whose stability much depends, in a position of great danger. Allied to this danger is the question which was cogently asked on Wednesday by my noble friend Lord Kimball — will the policy of sanctions work? I suspect, as has

253
been echoed in one or two speeches this afternoon, that past experience fills very few of us with a great deal of optimism.
It has at least become evident over the last few months that the leaders of the nations are now acutely aware that it may become necessary to repel aggressors by the use of force. As a very young man I was able to observe at close quarters the weight of responsibility thrust upon a former Foreign Secretary in the late summer of 1939. Now, as then, there can be no doubt of the grave consequences should hostilities begin both immediately for those still held hostage and ultimately in their effect upon a large part of the world well beyond the borders of Iraq.
Everything that I have learnt in my life and all that I observe now convinces me that such a decision therefore cannot be lightly taken. Nonetheless signs are increasing that the time of decision may be drawing near and many—certainly I include myself—are haunted by the unwelcome conclusion that reliance for too long on the hoped-for success of the sanctions policy could result in a disastrous failure to redress this wrong, with incalculable consequences for the whole world. This is one of the lessons of the past that I suggested last year had been faithfully learnt.
Like many others, I regard the attempt to link the present dispute with the hostile atmosphere that has persisted and still divides Israel from the Arab world as a cynical exercise designed to divert attention from an inexcusable act of aggression. But I go along I think completely with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, when he suggests that once this dispute is resolved there can be no more worthy objective for the diplomatic skill of the whole world than the seating and creation of a true and comprehensive stability throughout the Middle East.
In honesty and justice, one more theme must be added. Israel will not disappear and Israel must be afforded the right and the means to defend herself. But accompanying that right must go an obligation on Israel to respect the property, the interests and indeed the lives of individuals who live within or near its assumed borders.
It seems to me, and probably to most of us, that the collective suffering of few peoples in the long history of the world can begin to be compared with that of the Jews, and Israel's power today is founded largely on the persecutions of the past. But in my admiration for their achievements and in my gratitude for all that the Jews have given to the world, I find myself sometimes looking sadly and in vain for the expression of justice and mercy in Israel which one, perhaps wrongly, imagines might be the natural inheritance of those who have themselves suffered and escaped from the vicious anti-semitic brutalities of this century.
International law may not be perfect or complete, but there should be no more right for nations than for individuals to live outside or beyond the law, which the state of Israel, too often in my observation and opinion, attempts to do. If therefore a worldwide effort to achieve this kind of stability could follow the resolution of this present dispute, any sacrifices that
254
the nations have made and any sacrifices that they must make in the future may be seen in the years ahead to have been well worth while.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in the Guardian newspaper last week, there was a letter signed by 17 Labour Members of Parliament. Not all of them were known left-wingers, though I had better say at the beginning that the names of Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone were among them. But so were those of Andrew Faulds, who I think would not object to being described as rather on the right of the parliamentary Labour Party, and of Tam Dalyell who, as I think everybody knows, is nobody's man but his own.
That letter drew attention to what it described as,
"the growing world demand for a peaceful negotiated settlement to the crisis in the Gulf."
The signatories saw a changing tide of public perception in the United States and across Europe, shown, they said, in one opinion poll after another, and drew attention to protest demonstrations against the drift to war in 15 cities in both continents.
The letter went on to say that calls for negotiation were being heard in government circles in France, as well as in the Soviet Union, and that one-third of the membership of the American Congress had written to President Bush opposing a major war in the Middle East. On the other hand, they said, the British Government, in the voice of the Prime Minister, was rigidly in favour of confrontation. They called for a change.
This was followed in the same paper by a rather futile letter from a Durham academic, in which he argued in favour of a just war provided that not many were killed. The trouble with war is that it often starts with good intentions and finishes by killing thousands, if not millions, quite apart from the fact that it sometimes reaches quite different ends from the one aimed at at the beginning. This is particularly true of modern war, but even Napoleon Bonaparte was one man's tyrant and another's liberator.
In the present case we should be in grave danger at the end of a war in the Middle East of finishing with the Western world on one side and many Arabs on the other; and, whatever happens, it is unlikely to be a case of a small war in the Middle East with not many killed.
So I want to make it clear that there are voices who believe, with those from another place who signed the letter which I have just quoted, that, as Winston Churchill put it,
"Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."
I call upon our Government to recognise that the glow of rectitude which comes from a refusal to negotiate does not last and may cost many lives and worse.
The decision to send troops to the Gulf may have preceded consideration of what they are likely to face if and when an attack is launched. Saddam is unlikely to attempt to defend the whole country and will probably concentrate on Kuwait City and the oil installations. I am quite sure that that is the advice his

255
commanders will give him, and I think he will take it. This is just where the majority of non-Kuwaitis is greatest and aerial bombardment of those areas would be likely to kill a large number of people, but very few Iraqis.
The inhabitants of those areas not only are not Iraqis; they are not even Kuwaitis. Most of them are nationals of other countries or nationals of no countries, including a large number from the European area, as well as an even larger number from Asia and a few from Africa. So a surgical strike in such circumstances is a figment of the imagination of a non-military person.
Therefore we might finish up with a hand-to-hand conflict in the streets of Kuwait City and around the oil installations, which is just the point at which the overwhelming superiority of the United Nations forces would be least effective. The environmental consequences are most alarming. It is to be hoped that the all-party Inter-Parliamentary Union group, mentioned by the noble Earl when introducing the debate, which is visiting Libya may be able to initiate a breakthrough towards a negotiated settlement, especially as Saddam is now making conciliatory indications.
If we turn our minds away from the imminent dangers in the Middle East we may find that the second paragraph of the gracious Speech is curiously out of date, as suggested by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. However, before doing so we might reflect that the number of NATO-made weapons pointed against us in the Gulf emphasises once again the inadequacy of present methods of arms control. Surely that is a lesson that we must at long last begin to learn. The gracious Speech stated:
"My Government attach the highest priority to national security and to the preservation of international peace with freedom and justice. They will give full support to NATO as the basis for collective Western defence, and will maintain adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces. They will play a full part in adapting NATO strategy and will take forward work on reconstructing our forces to reflect the welcome changes in Europe and threats to peace in other parts of the world".
The statement is rather like the curate's egg; it makes gestures towards change but retreats to the verbiage which would have been appropriate a few years ago. However, I suggest that it is not relevant to the situation in which we now find ourselves.
Quite by accident I recently came across a perspicacious article in the Christian Science Monitor. It was written by Daniel Plesch and a colleague who are respectively director and associate director of the British American Security Information Council. He stated:
"In the area of international security, the effective disintegration of the Warsaw Pact leaves just one military alliance in place. If the West continues to view NATO as the central mechanism for guaranteeing European security, it will perpetuate a confrontation with the Soviet Union that has lost its ideological basis".
There is a lot to be said for that point of view.
Mr. Plesch and his colleague go on to point out that NATO is not constructed to fulfil the role of
256
integrating Eastern Europe into the decision-making process of the Continent. They suggest that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, known as CSCE or the Helsinki process and mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is more fitted for the job. They point out that the recent CSCE meeting in New York, which was attended by our Foreign Secretary, was held precisely for the purpose of creating an infrastructure to give the CSCE permanence and authority.
The noble Earl mentioned that in opening the debate. I suggest that it would be better than inviting Eastern European nations to join NATO. Among many others, Mr. Havel, the president of Czechoslovakia, sees a strengthening of the CSCE rather than the enlargement of NATO as being the way forward. It would be interesting to have the Government's views on the subject. As the noble Earl said, a meeting of heads of government is to take place next week in Paris. It is hoped that decisions on these matters will be approached or perhaps even made. If there is time, it would be helpful to the House to know a little more about the matter.
There is an argument against creating further international bureaucracy. It has been suggested that a small staff of less than a dozen would be sufficient at the beginning. I am no friend of bureaucracy in Europe but the case against it comes ill from NATO, with its 5,000 employees in Brussels alone. The Helsinki process would not be able to replace NATO overnight, as the noble and gallant Lord correctly pointed out. However, as regards the future it has the makings of a permanent security arrangement for the whole of Europe, whereas, in my view, NATO is obsolescent if not yet redundant.
I return to the subject of the Gulf. I suggest that it would be a mistake to regard the Iraqi forces in Kuwait as a pushover. That mistake was made in Vietnam with disastrous results. However, at least the lesson about the necessity for strict international controls on arms exports can be learnt. Western arms firms flocked to the Baghdad arms fair all too recently. There is also the danger of the nature of the war changing once it has begun. The US Government have seen that and appear to be seeking specific United Nations endorsement for military action. It would be better for this country to be seen as an advocate of strict sanctions and a little more time rather than as one eager for a war as soon as possible. Such a situation would be for the worse rather than for the better. If there is one lesson to be learnt from modern warfare, it is that it has a momentum of its own. Once unleashed the dogs of war are out of control.
I was horrified to learn that we are to test yet another nuclear warhead underground in Nevada. We shall do so just prior to the holding of a conference in New York which is designed to bring to an end nuclear testing. The Government's claim to support the non-proliferation treaty rings hollow in the ears of non-nuclear states as Britain refuses to take the medicine it prescribes for others. Government spokesmen who quote the treaty ignore Article 6 which obliges nuclear states to pursue negotiations

257
relating to nuclear disarmament. The Government's concern that others shall not acquire nuclear weapons while we ignore the obligation upon nuclear states to become non-nuclear is regarded by the non-nuclear states as a supreme example of British hypocrisy—and they are right. It is time the Government realised that, in order to rid the world of nuclear weapons, one must start at home. It would be a good idea if Her Majesty's loyal Opposition reiterated constantly its understanding of this essential fact of life at the end of the 20th century.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, the gracious Speech makes only perfunctory reference to the Commonwealth—included seemingly as an afterthought. My noble friend Lord Caithness did not mention it in his speech. That is evidence of how during the past 20 years the attitude of this country has changed towards a worldwide association which represents perhaps the greatest achievement of our history and in which everyone in these islands shares. In many ways it is a sign of the declining standards of values and vitality of Britain that our attitude to the Commonwealth should be increasingly characterised nowadays by neglect, petty resentment and even open hostility.
No doubt there are many reasons for the changes which have taken place. Those include a consciousness that we are no longer the imperial superpower which we were in the lifetime of many of your Lordships and that we have become just one of the 12 members of a newfangled Europe. The debilitating consequences of two world wars, in spite of the fact that we were victorious in both, have had a profound effect on our human and economic resources. Our relationship with our fellow members of the Commonwealth has changed radically so that leaders of even the smallest countries bring to the conference table criticism of Britain's policies and even abuse beyond the normal standards of diplomatic usage.
For many people in this country, some aspects of our relationships with dependent peoples in the colonial era have left a sense of guilt. For others, the belief that our natural self interest lies within Europe and in association with the United States has greatly reduced the importance placed on Commonwealth relations. We tend to forget that, despite all those changes, the historic association of a quarter of the world with our institutions and our political values and our common economic interests, language and culture give Great Britain an inheritance of unique value.
I believe that there is some significance in the fact that when the current Gulf crisis arose, the first countries to respond with support were Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course they did that as independent members of the United Nations.
We should not forget that a year ago Pakistan applied, and was accepted, to rejoin the Commonwealth. We should consider the significance of the application this year of Namibia, which never previously had any direct association with the Commonwealth. We should remember that, whereas
258
our trade balance with Europe in 1989 was £16 billion in the red, there was a favourable £1 billion balance with the Commonwealth. Nor should we forget the thousands of students from every country in the Commonwealth who come to Britain for their education and professional qualifications and in so many of whom their years here have left a lasting sense of affection for this country.
If my argument that the creation of the Commonwealth is a major part of the heritage of this country, what should we do to preserve this great legacy? First, our representatives at Commonwealth conferences should realise that the principles governing our diplomatic relations with Commonwealth countries are not the same as those which apply to our diplomatic contacts with foreign countries. Her Majesty will open the conference in Zimbabwe next year. For her, her role as head of the Commonwealth remains of the greatest significance.
Secondly, we should understand the susceptibilities which their past relationships with Great Britain have created in each Commonwealth country. Since the demise of the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Foreign Office has tended to treat Commonwealth countries on exactly the same basis as it treats foreign countries. The confrontation between Britain and its European partners is parallelled by the confrontation between Britain and other Commonwealth countries on the question of South African sanctions. Although Germany and France may understand and laugh off the abrasive diplomacy of the last Rome conference and may even welcome it as evidence of Britain's vulnerability and decline, for many Commonwealth countries which, despite the legacy of years of dependence, look to Britain for a conciliatory and balanced judgment it produces a sense of disillusionment and almost of shock.
While I think that the blame for the neglect of our Commonwealth heritage rests mainly with the political leadership of Britain during the past 20 years, some of it also belongs to the Foreign Office. In the belief that nations which have become independent within the Commonwealth should be treated in exactly the same way as any other foreign country, the special relationship of Britain with other Commonwealth countries has been gradually eroded.
Perhaps I may take the Department for Overseas Development as an example. The ODA was created during the premiership of the late Lord Stockton to administer aid to the Commonwealth and its dependent territories on the basis of their needs and without any political strings. I know that because, as Minister at that time and influenced by the Canadian example, I persuaded Lord Duncan-Sandys, the Secretary of State, to present the idea to the Prime Minister, and it was accepted. It was to be outward, practical evidence of Britain's anxiety for the Commonwealth and particularly for those members belonging to the third world. At the Foreign Office, overseas aid, although under the direction of an able Minister, has become an instrument designed simply to reinforce British interests in any part of the world. The criterion for the grant of aid, as the Foreign

259
Secretary outlined in his speech to the Overseas Development Institute on 6th June, is best described as "getting Britain value for money". Thus, a contribution to the maintenance of our relations with the Commonwealth becomes an instrument of contemporary British foreign policy. Aid will now go not to help needy Commonwealth countries, but to serve our policy interests in Eastern Europe.
What should be done? I believe that, as a start, the Secretary of State's deputy at the Foreign Office should be designated Minister for Commonwealth Relations and should have responsibility for all matters involving our relations with the Commonwealth—political, economic and cultural. In particular, he or she should have the resources needed to promote a better understanding of the Commonwealth among the younger generation in Britain and to give evidence overseas of Britain's continuing special relationship with Commonwealth countries. He or she should be able to advise the Prime Minister, through the Secretary of State, of the implications for various Commonwealth countries of developments in British foreign policy. I believe that a dedicated and able Minister, with the support of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, would be able to begin to repair some of the ravages of our neglect of relations with the Commonwealth during the past 20 years.
I am sure that evidence of the importance which Britain attaches to the special relationship which we have inherited with those countries, great and small, throughout the world, would be widely welcomed by them. Today Britain needs friends perhaps more than at any time in her history and our best friends remain in the Commonwealth.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, one of the great privileges of being a Member of your Lordships' House is the relatively free ability which one has to go on learning. Today I have learnt more in a few short hours than I have for many a month, not least from our two maiden speeches.
I am not sure that I can teach your Lordships anything. Therefore, I must rely upon history. In my intervention, which will be on Europe and the Middle East, I wish to take us back to 1974, for the same period of confusion seemed to exist then as exists now. There was some form of turmoil or doubt over our membership of the EC and the Middle East was in disarray, at that time because of rising oil prices.
Today we find that my own party appears to be somewhat in disarray over EC issues. I recall well that in 1974, when I was joint treasurer of the Conservative Group for Europe, having desperately to go out and raise money to support our delegation for the European Parliament because members of the Labour Party had flatly refused to go or to participate. I should hesitate to call them renegades or turncoats but I would defend to the last the right of everybody on European issues to hold their own views and to seek to impose them on other people.
260
In those days we had a relatively small European Community. It began as the European Coal and Steel Community. It then became the European Economic Community and then the European Community—the EC. All of a sudden the "C" has been dropped and we are back to where we all came in many years ago; namely, Europe.
The question is: where does Europe begin and end? Is that a political or a geographical lesson? To me, Europe runs to the Bosporus and the Urals. However, I find already that I have a limited knowledge of history and can no longer name the countries which made up Europe in the days when Europe was united before the first and second worlds were created. Presumably, the second world now disappears and we struggle desperately to create the wealth of the first world across Europe.
With that change come other problems which relate not least to defence, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, pointed out. NATO must find a new role. The end of the cold war does not necessarily bring stability, as many commentators pointed out; it creates an opportunity for instability outside Europe. We have had and still have an unstable situation in the Middle East. Perhaps it was only in 1974 when the oil prices rose in the way that they did that people realised the importance of the area, although it has been of importance to Europe throughout the generations.
I remind your Lordships that my only contribution in that area is that for six years I was chairman of the Government's Committee for Middle East Trade, CMET. I have the privilege of having met most of the Ministers out there and of seeing people I used to call friends appear on television in uniform. The Iraqi people are intelligent. Most of the Middle East has a strange intelligentsia which many of us fail to understand.
At the back of it all lies oil. Seventy per cent. of the proven oil reserves of the world are in the Middle East: 65 per cent. are in the Gulf and 25 per cent. are in Saudi Arabia; another 9 per cent. are in Iraq, Kuwait, Iran and so on. That is fairly significant as long as the world, and Europe in particular, is dependent upon imported oil.
One can also see that after the price rise of 1974, which suddenly enhanced the economies of that region, those who found that they had overspent, such as the Iraqi people, longed for a rise in oil prices. The arguments began to take place in OPEC and OAPEC. It is probably true to say that if many of the governments of the Arab world had been as wise as they always claimed to be they would have seen what was coming long ago. This crisis could then have been averted.
We are now forced to play a role, though not necessarily a reluctant role. The strength that the United Nations has given us all is encouraging for world stability. From an economic point of view we recognise that our pattern of trade has shifted inexorably towards the European Community or to Europe, where in many cases it used to be. But we should not forget the significance of our trade with the

261
Middle East, which runs at around £6 billion a year and gives us a £3.5 billion surplus. It is mainly in manufactures, where exports are hard to come by. We should also not forget that whatever may happen at this time there will always be trading opportunities there. Trade is always followed by finance, and finance should never leave trade.
What is the solution? What can happen now in the Middle East? I am not able to assess the outcome. But the old pearl divers I used to see—they once provided the main economy of that part of the world—would tell us to look back to the empires and try to understand the ambition for territorial, political and economic gain that has always rested with many of these nations. There has been coup after coup over time. The desires of Iraq, having fought a bloody and costly war, to extend its empire and increase and boost its economy are understandable. But it should never have been allowed to get away with it. One of the rules I learnt a long time ago is that one cannot negotiate out there except from a position of strength: the stronger one's position, the easier one's negotiation.
We must also say today that a position of strength is one in which one can isolate completely the man who is probably now the sole enemy of the world. He has isolated his own people from any knowledge or news externally. We cannot know how the people in the middle of Iraq think today. But we can be sure of one thing. They know nothing other than what is fed to them. They may believe that they have been invaded by a hostile, aggressive force which seeks to destroy them. The truth is that we cannot get through unless we negotiate from strength.
If we look back over time we must ask what the point of war is. I know not. There are many quotations. I shall pick one which I enjoy and which was given to me in the Middle East:
"The aim of war is to live unhurt in peace".
That was said by one of the old colonialists or imperialists, Cicero.
If one follows the Arab world, the history of Babylon and the developments over time of the Darian empires, one sees that people have behaved in roughly the same way. Those who, like me, were not very good at construing Latin or Greek, will remember at the end of the chapters on the Punic, Gallic or other wars the phrase, "and they exchanged hostages". Even today there is confusion over the word "hostage". Perhaps to some extent in using the word "guest" the Iraqis are correct. I believe it descends from hostis, an enemy, and hoste meaning guest. They are not hostages. They were people taken in exchange for good behaviour. The people out there at the moment are prisoners or internees. If the word used is 'hostage", how do we equate that with the hostage held in Buckingham Palace when Her Majesty opens this House? I believe one of the Whips is held there as a hostage to ensure her safe return.
What a scenario. When trying to negotiate from strength we fail to recognise that, like some strange and peculiar game of chess, the opponents will seek forever to entice one's pawn into their net. Great
262
pieces will move out there in the belief that they are trying to save or help a few. One must admire those who struggle to bring back their family and friends by whatever means at their disposal. But they play into the hands of someone else. Before I came here tonight I looked up in your Lordships' House the definition of a pawn:
"The pawns are the humblest pieces on the board and their promotion is rare".
We must stop pawns going out there; they have no role to play.
When we come to what happens next, there will undoubtedly need to be a position where either Iraq stands off or there is war. That war may be limited in some stages or it may not. Another quotation comes to mind. It was given to me by one of my chief petty officers in the Navy when I was being rather slow. He used to say, "Don't worry. The strategy should always be diu apparandum est bellum ut vincas celerius". That translates to mean, to win a war quickly takes long preparation.
We already have control of the sea. I am told it is only a matter of 10 daylight hours before we have total control of the air, and gradually the isolation of Iraq will be complete. As noble Lords pointed out, Iraq must have a way out; it will probably be a last minute retirement or nothing.
Who are we? We are backing the United Nations, providing the strength for the Arab world to conduct its own negotiations. It will not be our role after any aggression or withdrawal to negotiate; it must be for the governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf to do that. As I sit down I recall another great empire, that of Alexander the Great. As your Lordships will know, he died in Babylon of malaria. But it was his father, Philip of Macedon, who said,
"No fortress is impregnable if a donkey laden with gold can be driven up to its gate".
7.18 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I add my congratulations and admiration for the two maiden speeches to which we listened. I believe that there will be general agreement in your Lordships' House that of all the issues touched on—some more profoundly than others—the issue of war is by far the most ominous. It is not necessary for me to go as far as some of those who regard the present situation as potentially terminal, though there is no argument for the final immortality of this planet.
I find that there is considerable apprehension today among those who claim to be scientifically minded that the fact of human self-consumption is a dreadful prospect. Whereas within the world as we know it a swarm of locusts is inclined to eat almost anything other than another swarm of locusts, it is the human species which seems to be bent on its own self-destruction. I do not necessarily believe that to be true. However, I find on my travels that many more people than hitherto are returning to the concept that this is a passing phase in our pilgrimage. I shall refer to that a little later. I believe that at this moment what

263
is pertinent to your Lordships' concern is this: what is the moral nature that can be attached to war? Is it permissible? Is it inevitable?
I deal with the three options which historically the Church has professed in relation to war. First, there is the attitude of complete neutrality on the basis of the supposition that this is a lost world anyway, that the various rules that belong, shall we say, to war have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, and to keep those two issues apart is the essence of sobriety and common sense. Unless one should think that that is not by any means the general view, I assure myself that it is a much more current opinion now among those young people who find the ministrations of the Church more or less concentrated on the prospects of eternity rather than the concept of immediate practical attitudes to evil as they find them.
The second of the options is that war can only be conducted in certain ways and with certain reservations if it can be equated with the Christian faith and Christian procedure. However, there is a third option and I make no apology for mentioning it as it has not yet been put forward. The pacifist position is, I believe, as academically acceptable and as respectable as any of the other two options. In fact, I believe that it is the only option that remains for the contemplation of those who look with confidence to the future. I believe that on the ground that when the just war is examined it falls into tatters.
In the first place, it is a corruption of language. The various arguments propounded for a just war turn out to be, on examination, a mixture of inaccuracy and indeed, in some cases, of sheer superstition. I put it this way. What is the difference between throwing a baby on the fire and throwing fire on the baby? The answer is 6,000 feet. If the airman, whether he be English, German or American, who drops his bombs on, shall we say, Hamburg, Warsaw or Dresden, were to go down with the implement of destruction rather than see some delightful little glow in the sky over the city and a white patch where the bomb apparently has landed, would he still do it? It is this corruption of words in which we associate things which are themselves far beyond our capacity to put into rational form but nevertheless belong to the higher nature of our concept that is, I believe, one of the supreme enemies of proper attachment to the proposition that a war can be just.
In the second place, as Augustine promulgated and St. Thomas Aquinas identified in a great deal of prolix argument, the composition of a war which can be regarded as just must be an economy of the requisite amount of force to provide the desired result. What nonsense that is in a nuclear age. We are told that when the crossbow was invented an abbot used one to shoot Richard the Lionheart. I am sorry that it was an abbot, but it was. The result was that the papacy pronounced that bows and arrows were acceptable in a just war but crossbows were out. It made no difference. However, it was one part of the process in the acceleration of the power of violence. Is it not true that at the Battle of Waterloo the fire power of a
264
brigade of the British was not much greater than that which can be carried on the back of one saboteur today?
However, that is not the end of the story—it is the beginning of it. I believe that a just war which is not confined within known limits cannot be reconciled because it passes all the judgments which belong to some circumspection and idea of what will be its results. Proportionality—a long and not very helpful word—is another aspect of the just war: that one's attitude must be proportional in what we do by violence to assure the possibility of a result which is acceptable and for which that war was first undertaken.
I do not believe that there is any further justification needed for the proposition that there is no such entity as a just war. The Christian Church should have the courage and intelligence to recognise that one cannot square the proposition of war today with any of the propositions that belong to the Kingdom of God and which are enunciated, shall we say, in the Sermon on the Mount.
Having said that—I hope not with truculence—I understand the difficulty of pronouncing. The pronouncement of no war under any circumstances because it is the total evil immediately provokes the question: then what do you do? I shall try to approach the answer to that imperative need. It is not enough to renounce war. It is, I believe, in the interests of everyone and certainly part of the essential characteristic of Christian teaching that when once we have said something is wrong, and unless we believe that this is a chaotic and useless universe, we are all in need of, and must perforce propound, what we believe to be right.
However, there is a precondition. I find that the general concept of the proposition that the wages of sin is death is only associated in the minds of the hearers with the fact that if you commit sin you will go to hell. That is not what it means. The wages of sin is paralysis, total inertia. That is what death is so far as we are concerned. I believe that there is a Christian doctrine—in fact, a necessary and proper doctrine that does not necessarily derive only from the Christian faith—that if you go on doing what is wrong for long enough you shut up the opportunities of doing what is right. Anybody who has had anything to do with an alcoholics' hostel, as I have for 20 years, will not doubt that proposition. Therefore, the itch for action, and the view that anything is better than doing nothing, is not necessarily a proposition to which we can attach any practical importance today.
We could have prevented Hitler in 1926. We could not have prevented Hitler in 1936. I believe that we have enough time left to provide the means whereby a way to avoid a future, proximate, inevitable conflict can emerge. That is why in my remaining time I want to say something about the practical alternative. It begins with the total renunciation of that war proposition. It goes on to say that if we are to regard anything active and constructive that is still available in the time left, the first proposition in that regard is not to say that we are righteous, that our enemies are

265
villainous, that they must primarily accept their condition of wickedness and that there is an absolute need for them to recognise that wickedness and to retire from its prosecution. I cannot believe that.
I remember that we supported Iraq when that country invaded Iran. I go further back. I learnt long ago that, as Winston Churchill said, "Lying in wartime is an indispensable ally". What did your Lordships or I know, when it happened, of the chopping up of the Ottoman empire in the interests of the Western world and pre-eminently in the interests of oil?
Perhaps your Lordships read in this morning's newspapers of the particular characteristics of the Islamic faith in, say, Saudi Arabia compared with the much more generous attitude to the Islamic faith elsewhere in that part of the world. These created in me the requirement of a confession that we cannot assume that we are in the robe of righteousness dealing with these sinners who need, first of all, to accept our repudiation of their behaviour and, alongside that, the repudiation of their continued villainy. Of course I regard the invasion of Kuwait as a crime. Was it very different from the crime involving Nicaragua? Was it very different from the crime of the invasion of Tibet? Is it very different from the occupation of the outstanding areas alongside Israel?
I do not for one moment deny that there is a need to reduce the evil which Saddam Hussein has begun and continues to do. However, it would be wrong to rule out the prospect of some coming together of this bunch of human sinners as part of the essential characteristic of any programme which may be constructive and helpful in the solution of this present problem, or the beginning of a solution to the problems that go with it. That is preferable to plunging into the awful catacomb of war. I believe that is the message of the Church, or it should be.
I am a pacifist, but not because I am antagonistic to war. I am a pacifist because I believe that the conduct of war essentially contrary to the spirit and teaching of Jesus. Those who take the sword will perish by it. It is contradicted in the spirit of Pentecost. It is very difficult to account for Pentecost, which is the giving of God's spirit to the early Church, and then to recognise that it went straight towards the Roman Empire and asked to become holy on the grounds that it would be supported. I do not believe that. The evidence that the early Church was pacifist is incontrovertible.
Having made this confession of faith, I wish to end by making a suggestion which I believe to be perfectly genuine and which at the same time is absolutely imperative. I want the Church to claim and the community to accept a total repudiation of war at least for the moment in order that there may be an opportunity, which we have to seize, to say that we should pt together not because we have righteousness on our side (although in many respects we have) but because the solution of this problem involves the recognition of penitence on the part of both sides or rather the acceptance of a sense of responsibility.
266
I end on what I hope is a more joyful note. I speak of the religious situation in Russia. I have with me a copy of the journal of the Patriarchate of Moscow. It is in English, so I can read it. It is a very interesting document. Do noble Lords know, for instance, that Pimen, just before he died a few months ago, was an elected member of the Soviet? I did not know that. I wonder whether your Lordships know that the number of inter-religious groupings in the Soviet Union promoted by the Church is about 10 times that of the West. There is evidence, for those who are prepared to look at the matter impartially, concerning the existing problem of how to reconcile the violence of Islam with, I hope, the lesser violence of the Christian faith. In the Soviet Union, stepping stones have already been provided to a common front in peacemaking.
It is a curious commentary on that old rascal, Stalin, that in the middle of the war he did not turn to piety first of all but recreated the patriarchate because it would reinstate the concept of holy Russia. It did. If one looks at the evidence today one will find that in Russian literature the Second World War was the Great Patriotic War. Part of the patriotism of the Church under Stalin was within the framework of peacemaking. I do not necessarily believe that all extraordinary events are miraculous. However, I invite your Lordships to believe that when we speak of an alternative to war we must not conclude that we have all the evidence yet. I still believe that obedience to the ultimate principles of the Prince of Peace is a better way to an understanding of the future that opens up before us than all the accoutrements of war. That is my testimony.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, I find this a remarkably interesting debate. We had the benefit of an excellent maiden speech from my noble friend Lady Dunn, which I heard with great pleasure. A number of other noble Lords remain to speak. Therefore, I shall concentrate on what seems to me to be the most immediate and important issue before us; namely, the Gulf crisis. I shall approach it from a rather different angle from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, whose views I heard with respect. I have a rather different approach to his.
My starting point is to thank the Government for the resolute and effective way in which they have handled this question in the United Nations, particularly during our presidency of the Security Council in October. We have been right to stress the primacy of collective security. For us, that is what the United Nations is all about. The countries of Western Europe cannot forget their failure to devise and execute an effective policy of collective security in the 1930s. It was consciousness of that failure which led the victors of 1945 to create the United Nations. It is only now that the frozen lines of the ideological divide have thawed and that we are able to use the resources of the organisation for the purposes for which it was originally designed for the first time since the Korean war.

267
If we are sure that collective security is the main issue for us in this crisis—and I am personally convinced of this—we should not cast it lightly aside. I was therefore particularly glad to read in the press that the Government have now agreed to seek a further Security Council resolution in advance of any military steps to free Kuwait from foreign occupation. That was my interpretation of what I read in the press. It appears that the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, has a slightly different view. In winding up it will be helpful if the Minister can explain the Government's attitude.
We may be legally entitled to act on the basis of the resolutions already passed and on Article 51 of the charter. Many would feel that on the basis of the principles involved we would be justified in taking that view. I suggest that the question is a broader one. The commencement of hostilities carries unpredictable risks and uncertainties. Action on the basis of a specific resolution would be a much wiser course. Only in that way would we have a real chance of retaining broad international support. In other words, this is a matter of politics rather than of law only, and it needs to be treated as such.
I am not qualified to speak of the military difficulties of such an operation, but I would like to draw attention to some of the political aspects which would arise. There is the war crimes and atrocity issue. We have all read of the barbarous acts committed during the occupation of Kuwait. We have also seen circumstantial accounts of the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of Iraq in the recent past. Revulsion at such activities has led, not surprisingly, to calls for the President of Iraq to be tried by a war crimes tribunal for his misdeeds.
While I share the repugnance felt at these horrible activities, I ask myself whether it would be wise to proceed down this path to the extent of making the punishment of the President of Iraq a stated objective of our common policy. My doubts arise not from any lack of moral outrage, because I feel as indignant as anyone else, but from the military consequences of that obligation. Surely, there is a vast difference in practical terms between restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait to its inhabitants and the capture, imprisonment and trial of the President of Iraq.
That would require the conquest and occupation of Iraq on the scale of the occupation and conquest of Germany in 1945. This extension of the military objective would surely add to the difficulty of a military campaign. I believe that the liberation of Kuwait is our essential and stated task and that it would not be prudent to make any formal commitment to aim more widely than that. If Iraq agrees to the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty or is obliged to cede it, no doubt the people of Iraq will draw their own conclusions.
Similar arguments apply to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, by which is meant her access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It is argued, and with some reason, that an outcome of this crisis which left such capabilities in Iraqi hands
268
would merely postpone the day of reckoning. That may be so, but we need to remember the long-term effect of Israel's earlier attack on Iraq's nuclear installations, which shows that destruction of such activities by military means may be effective only for a limited period. So long as the political will and the economic resources are available, such preparations for mass destruction can be started afresh, as has indeed happened in the case of Iraq.
Iraq is not the only state in the region to harbour the ambition of developing such weapons. I submit that we shall not remove the danger of armed conflict in the Middle East, involving such arsenals of mass destruction, without a wider and more general pacification. We may hope that Iraq would conclude, after two disastrous and expensive campaigns, that military adventure does not pay and will adapt her policies accordingly. We can encourage such conclusions if we, and above all the United States, pursue initiatives which permit all states in the region to devote fewer resources to armaments, which many of them can ill afford. This cannot be done effectively in relation to one country alone.
I should like to offer your Lordships a further broad reflection on this crisis. I do not myself believe that our objective—collective security—is widely recognised as such by many of the Middle Eastern states. I suspect that to most Arabs it is the security of oil supplies and the price of oil which are seen as the real motive underlying Western determination and military commitment. We also need to realise, here in Britain, that our alignment in this crisis with the traditional societies of southern Arabia and the Gulf will be clearly perceived by other states in the region. Except in the case of Egypt and of Syria, of which I shall say more in a moment, this observation by others is entirely correct. We are indeed aligned with the traditional rulers, our friends of many years, and against the more secular attitudes of the Iraqi Ba'ath. This is an important factor because there are many in the Arab world who are jealous of the riches disposed of in the past two decades by the rulers of southern Arabia. Should armed conflict be a prelude to a widespread social convulsion in the Middle East—and this might be one of the consequences —we need to be aware that we should be lined up with the old social order against the new.
If this identification does not worry us—and I think it should—we need to look carefully at the effect of conflict on the most fundamental of all issues in the Middle East, the divide between Israel and the Arabs. Fear and distrust of Israel is the highest common factor among the Arabs. The Arab leader who can most effectively champion the struggle against Israel will emerge as the hero of the Arab world. There must be an ultimate temptation here for Saddam Hussein. He might conceivably, in extremis, seek to bring Israel into this conflict, aiming to polarise the struggle between the just cause of the Arabs—and the rest. Such a decision would surely be as fatal for him as it was for Samson. But it would also be damaging to others, particularly the United States and the European Community. For the European

269
Community to be allied with Israel and the United States in armed conflict with the leader posing as champion of the Arabs is not a prospect any of us would care to contemplate. That is not the way that we would interpret the situation; but, regrettably, that is how it would appear to some others.
This subject is labelled, rather erroneously I think, as linkage. We are right to deny any direct connection between the occupation of Kuwait and the dispute between Israel and her Arab neighbours. But we should not be surprised if others see it in that light, after the persistent but ineffective struggles of intifada and the lack of any real effort in recent years to get on with the issue of Palestine. Of course there are Arabs using this crisis in an effort to get us more involved in a matter of great complexity and difficulty. But we have reasons of our own, the protection of our interests, for seeking to remove in the longer term causes of tension, strife and injustice. Conversely we expose ourselves unduly by any apparent passivity or partiality. Such exposure may be markedly increased by the outcome of the Gulf crisis. For that reason, like my noble friend Lord Haden-Guest in his maiden speech, I greatly welcome the passage in the gracious Speech which seems to herald some further visible endeavour to bring about a more general pacification in the Middle East. I hope that this may be followed up with some vigour; I believe that we cannot afford to do otherwise.
I should like to add a word about our relations with Syria, a subject not so far mentioned. We have no formal relations with Syria but we find ourselves unexpectedly in alliance with that state. We might do well to contemplate the situation for a moment. We all know the reasons for our past difficulties with Syria. To judge from certain press reports, the Government have at tempted to resume relations with Syria in the recent past, but without success. I feel sure that the Government were right to make the attempt and I regret that it has not succeeded. I hope that it will be possible to persist with such efforts. Of course we cannot condone the earlier Syrian activities; equally, we can hardly expect an explicit and public admission of error on its part. We should bear in mind that the existence of formal diplomatic relations with a state does not imply any moral approval or disapproval. It merely recognises a fact. There are ways in which Syria could give undertakings about the future which should give us sufficient satisfaction. I make these comments because I believe that we need to end the present state of affairs which is not only anomalous but deprives us of contact with a state of considerable importance in the Middle East.
In drawing these reflections together, I invite the Government to continue their policy of proceeding by means of Security Council resolution. This policy has been effective and deserves our thanks. It would be the only sure foundation for the military action now in prospect. Such a policy is right, not only because of its application in the present crisis but also to promote the broader cause of collective security which is going to be so significant for members of the United Nations in years to come. At the same time, we need to pay
270
attention to the perceptions of other states in the region which see the crisis from different points of view. If our motives are to be correctly judged on their merits—they are not ignoble motives—we should join others who are searching for a broader framework to enable the societies and nations in the region to concentrate their resources and efforts on peaceful development. That is what their peoples aspire to, and it has been for so long denied to them.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, when I ventured to address your Lordships' House in the debate for which we were recalled early in September, I put forward the suggestion that we must, above all, be careful not to delude ourselves as to the realities of the situation which was developing and with which we were confronted. Her Majesty's Government had by then set out a policy and that policy has, in essentials, been repeated in the interim period. The words which one might use to describe it are, "steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression". Those are not in fact the words of the present Foreign Secretary; they are the words used by Sir Samuel Hoare at the United Nations Assembly on 11th September 1935. Sanctions were adopted in a spate of enthusiasm and we know what happened to sanctions and to Ethiopia.
It may be, as other noble Lords suggested, that Iraq is perhaps vulnerable to sanctions. I do not question the validity of an attempt to use them. However, what I regard at present as a more important form of delusion is the belief that collective security has somehow been fortified and made manifest by the ability of the United Nations to pass no fewer than 10 resolutions, none of which, I observe, have had any impact on the course of events in the countries concerned.
When we look at this alliance, whether it is the alliance as regards voting in the Security Council or that in respect of the forces arranged against Iraq in the Gulf, we have an extraordinary collection of countries which would normally, and still perhaps do, find it very difficult to regard their national interests in this conflict, and indeed in many others, as being substantially the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to Syria. It is indeed curious to find ourselves the allies of Syria which, certainly only a year or two ago, was regarded in this country and widely in the West with the same opprobrium as Iraq; that is, as a nest for terrorists. We must necessarily depend upon Saudi Arabia. But that is a country where for the first time British troops on Remembrance Day were unable to have religious ceremonies performed. That is also a curious phenomenon, for both the United States and ourselves to have to witness. One could continue in that respect. In other words, we now face a much more complex situation. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who asked us to look at how it appears from other quarters.
We have, as has been said by several noble Lords, movements of opinion in our country, and perhaps

271
even more so in the United States, which look towards some kind of negotiated settlement without anyone so far, either in your Lordships' House or in the wider world, having been able to produce even the skeleton of a negotiated settlement which might be acceptable to the ruler of Iraq.
Looking back over the events of several weeks, it seemed at one time as though the Soviet Union, which had long connections with Iraq, would, through Mr. Gorbachev's envoy, bring about some move towards a settlement. However, it now appears that the Russians have abandoned their hopes in that respect and that the baton has now been taken up by China. I shall not refer, because I think it would be pointless, to the procession which has been referred to as the "three Gs"—namely, the great, the good and the gullible—starting with Mr. Edward Heath and finishing up as a final flourish of absurdity with Mr. Tony Benn who has announced that he will negotiate peace, although on whose behalf is something which has yet to be revealed.
Therefore, there are many aspects which must be taken into account. One of them—the only one I wish to talk about —was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Holderness and Lord Bridges. I refer to the implication, which I believe to be correct, that the Arab-Israeli dispute will be much affected by the course of events in the Gulf over the next few months or perhaps over a longer period of time.
As some noble Lords will be aware, I have constantly urged my friends in Israel, a country that I have close and intimate connections with, to embark upon a policy of negotiation out of pure self-interest on the grounds that their own society would be wrecked if they remained for ever in occupation of territories wholly populated by people hostile to that rule. I also attempted to assure my friends —this is where the Gulf Crisis comes into the issue —that simply to say, "Well, the United States will always bale us out and, therefore, we do not need to rethink our policies", was placing upon their relationship with the United States a burden which it may not tolerate in the long run. It is obvious, and has been shown to be so in the resolutions of the United Nations, that the United States is inevitably moving towards the view that that conflict must be settled.
On the other hand, I am sure that neither of the noble Lords who raised the subject would expect or wish the conflict to be settled by the further application of violence involving the invasion by Iraq or by Syria of those territories, though, no doubt, it would seem to their inhabitants to be liberation. In my view, it remains essential, even if the present government in Israel is impenetrable, that a government should be formed at some stage in Israel which would take an initiative in suggesting the lines upon which negotiation could proceed. I see no reason why any interlocutors who have something to offer should be excluded from such negotiation.
However, for that to come about—this is the main point I wish to make—the people of Israel must have a degree of confidence in their new government and
272
the desire to seek peace by negotiation. There must be confidence that, if they abandoned territories which they regard at present as being essential to their defence, there would be a substitute for them. For that reason I was delighted to understand from the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, that he thought some kind of international guarantee of the agreed frontiers of such a settlement would be essential. That confidence must be given.
It is very hard to inject confidence into the Israelis. Not only have they the memories of the holocaust —a large proportion of the population are either survivors or the descendants of survivors—but they also have the patent evidence all around them of what Arabs do to other Arabs. When Israelis read about the rape, looting and murder in Kuwait of fellow Arabs, as they were described by the ruler of Iraq; when they read of the appalling atrocities committed by the Syrian Government against their own people (more Syrians have perished at the hands of the Syrian Government than in any international conflict); and when they read of what has gone on in the Lebanon, even quite recently, and of the fate of some of the Christians of Beirut, is it surprising that they say, "If the Arabs do this to other Arabs, what can we Jews expect if we allow them a position from which they can inflict their will upon us?" To inject such confidence is therefore an enormous task. I believe that it should be faced because the end is worth it. We shall have to see a general settlement.
The mere solution of the Kuwait crisis is not in itself enough. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. We then have a major task of reassurance. I hope that that can be achieved. I am sure that it should be embarked upon as part of the diplomacy which the noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Holderness, recommended to Her Majesty's Government.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, as someone with a developing country—Commonwealth and Caribbean—background, I thought that I should take advantage of the debate to highlight the economic impact of some recent major world developments on developing countries, including those in the Commonwealth.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have an important duty to ensure that the problems facing those countries less fortunate than ourselves are not overlooked and that they are able to take advantage of the opportunities thrown up by the changes in the world. I therefore welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to,
"maintain a substantial aid programme aimed at promoting sustainable economic and social progress and good government in developing countries".
The recent events in the Gulf following the brutal annexation of Kuwait by Iraq have created great uncertainties, not least in the future outlook for the price of oil. The oil price rose sharply initially to about 40 dollars a barrel. Since then the price has remained highly volatile. Needless to say, the oil exporting developing countries have made windfall gains. For some severely indebted Commonwealth countries

273
such as Nigeria or my wife's native country of Trinidad and Tobago, the gains make their current adjustment efforts partially easier. For others, such as those in the Gulf, higher oil revenues help to pay for enlarged defence bills. But the main losers are the oil importing developing countries which form the majority of countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.
In addition, a number of countries—among them all the South Asian Commonwealth member countries —are likely to lose between 4 and 5 billion dollars annually from workers' remittances. All in all, the deterioration in the current account of the oil importing developing countries could be 14 billion dollars this year and close to 30 billion dollars in 1991. If war breaks out, causing great disruption in the supply of oil, the deterioration will be far worse.
I am pleased to note that the international community has mounted a major effort to aid some of the countries which are hardest hit. Through the Gulf Crisis Financial Co-ordination Group, about 13 billion dollars has been raised in emergency aid to help mainly Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. But for the majority of developing countries there is little available except further adjustment.
Adjustment is certainly necessary. Countries must face the realities of international life. However, for many countries which have been adjusting for almost a decade, a serious question must now be asked: can the fragile fabrics of their impoverished societies withstand further upheaval? For example, income per capita in the sub-Saharan African region fell on average by about 2.2 per cent. per annum during the 1980s. In 1989 the income of an average citizen in sub-Saharan Africa was almost a fifth lower than in 1980. The industrial community must therefore offer oil importing developing countries assistance to enable them to undertake orderly adjustment.
Some help may be forthcoming from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But that is not an adequate response to a crisis of such magnitude as that now facing oil importing developing countries. Even before the oil crisis broke, fears were being expressed in many developing countries about the effect that political and economic liberalisation in Eastern Europe could have on them.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. It is certainly right to provide East European countries with financial and technical help to assist them in implementing their reforms and in nurturing their new and fledgling democracies. Their financial needs will be immense if they are to reform and modernise their economies, raise living standards and tackle environmental problems. However, we must ensure that the assistance that we provide to East European countries is not given at the expense of developing countries. Poverty has at least as great a claim as liberation from communism.
Our Overseas Development Administration has given an assurance that aid will not be adversely affected. That is to be welcomed. However, such an assurance can be consistent with mere maintenance of
274
aid in real terms, while incremental aid is diverted to East European countries. That would mean that our aid in relation to our gross national product, which is already below the average of all donors, would fall further. It would thus move us even further away from the target of 0.7 per cent. which was collectively set by the international community some 30 years ago. Real growth in aid is all the more important at present because we are entering a decade when there is likely to be immense competition for private capital. It is also a fact that, for many developing countries, the 1980s were a lost decade.
We must come to grips with this problem, and I wish to suggest some of the actions that can be taken. First, I believe we can assist in the solution of the debt problem. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, John Major, on his proposals at the meeting of the Commonwealth finance ministers in Port of Spain, Trinidad, to make a large leap in the debt relief provided to the low income countries which are distressed with debt.
The United Kingdom has been in the forefront on this question of debt relief for very poor countries. It was Mr. Lawson who first outlined the debt relief proposals for low income countries which culminated in the agreement which is now known as the Toronto Terms. We must therefore engage all our skills to persuade other creditor countries to adopt the Trinidad and Tobago terms outlined by John Major.
However, it is not only the poorest who need debt relief. The lower and middle income countries like Jamaica owe a significant proportion of their debt to official creditors. Earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us of similar problems confronting Poland. These countries—less poor than the poorest but nevertheless poor—are also severely weighed down by debt. In fact, we have the peculiar situation now where the large debtors like Mexico and the very poor get some relief but those in between—often small countries—get virtually no relief. We must find a way of helping them.
My second suggestion concerns private capital. I urge Her Majesty's Government to ensure that those developing countries which wish to attract private capital are encouraged to do so through credit and investment guarantees and financial and technical assistance similar to that being offered to East European countries. I suggest also that they be helped to develop capital and stock markets and in the promotion of country funds in international capital markets. This could provide an important route for attracting portfolio investments. Such investment has a tremendous long-term potential for developing countries. In this respect I welcome the launching in September this year of the Commonwealth equity fund, an idea conceived and developed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. My congratulations go to the Secretariat for this forward-looking and innovative approach.
My third suggestion concerns increased opportunity for enhancing aid flows arising from the prospect of the peace dividend. The reduction in East-West tensions has given us an immense opportunity to

275
reduce defence expenditure and to reap a peace dividend; a dividend which, if properly used, could provide benefits to our citizens as well as those of developing countries.
I feel I ought to remind noble Lords that absolute poverty afflicts 1 billion people in the third world. That is a quarter of the total population of those countries and nearly one-fifth of the population of the world. If the present understanding and commitments being reached between the superpowers are translated into cold statistics, annual reductions in military spending of between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. are quite possible in the 1990s. This could give potential savings of 1.5 million to 2 trillion dollars during the course of the 1990s. These sums could be used to meet the social needs of the countries involved and also to help the countries that are less fortunate.
I believe that a major dialogue should now be encouraged here as well as in other countries on the potential size of such a peace dividend and the beneficial uses to which it could be put. A commitment to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product as official aid by the year 2000 could easily be one of the outcomes of this exercise. I wish tonight to invite Her Majesty's Government to make that commitment. Enlightened leadership can certainly make this possible.
I had intended to say something about the problems that will confront developing countries after 1992 but I have spoken for long enough. I conclude by saying that I read in the Independent on Sunday an article by Neal Ascherson. He wrote that an iron curtain had developed in Europe between rich and poor. It is not just in Europe; that iron curtain between rich and poor exists the world over. I implore Her Majesty's Government to play their full part in trying to remove it.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this has been a most informative and engrossing debate, not least the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. It has also already been a rather long debate which has led me to a personal embarrassment for which I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate this evening. I have a long-standing engagement to fulfil, for which I apologise.
I wish to make three substantive points about the situation in the Gulf and precede them by one short observation about the attitudes with which we approach the problems there. I urge your Lordships that in our approach to the Gulf we do not adopt an over-self-righteous and over-pious approach. I imagine that it is common ground from the tenor of the debate in this House that we are united against the international brigand that Saddam Hussein has proved to be and that we are determined to see that Kuwait is restored to its proper government and liberated. But at the same time we should remember
276
that we and other Western countries have our share of the responsibility for the situation in the Middle East today.
It is we who drew lines on the sand and called them national boundaries. It is we who for 40 years have left unsolved the Palestinian question. It is we who have poured profitable arms sales into the Middle East. Is it not a bitter paradox that we read in the newspapers that, as the Desert Rats left for the Middle East, they had not been able to obtain the proper kit or uniform? Why?—because those desert uniforms had been sold. To whom had they been sold? Two years ago they were sold to the Government of Iraq. Therefore, we should not approach these Middle East questions in a holier than thou spirit but in a spirit of realism. If we have a resolute approach let it not be a pious one.
There are three matters that I should like to share with your Lordships. First, I urge that we do not talk ourselves into a war psychosis and create an unstoppable momentum towards war. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn talked about the virtues of preparing for war. Of course we should prepare for war. We should, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, negotiate from a position of strength. On these Benches we support the action of the Government in sending forces to the Middle East and we support the increase in the level of forces undertaken by the Americans. However, we support them in the spirit of preparing for war, not as a prediction of war.
I do not know whether I am alone in this House in finding it curious that the right honourable lady the Prime Minister has twice in the past week used the word "soon", first in the debate in another place on the gracious Speech and then in the Guildhall last night. I cannot believe that that is militarily or politically well advised. If we are not careful we shall create a momentum that will take over. We should remember the events that led to the First World War. There was the sense of an unstoppable momentum carrying us forward which nobody could escape. To use the word "soon" does not help. Even in the most practical terms it removes the element of uncertainty which is essential when dealing with someone like Saddam Hussein.
The second point that I should like to make, which is a point that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is that we have not heard enough about how economic sanctions are working. When we sent our forces to the Gulf it was on the basis of a twin-track strategy, of protecting Saudi Arabia and enforcing economic sanctions through a blockade so that they would effect a stranglehold on Iraq. We have not been told in this House, or generally by Her Majesty's Government, how well those sanctions are working. Are we to assume from the fact that we hear very little about them that their significance is being diminished in order to prepare us for a military option? That is wrong. We must know and understand fully how far the declared strategy of the allies in the Gulf is working.
My third point is that if the strategy of economic sanctions and blockade ultimately proves to have failed we may have to face the prospect of the use of

277
force. As the right reverend Prelate said, having exhausted all other possibilities and peaceful avenues we may have to face the prospect of the use of force in the Gulf. It should be the last resort, not an easy next step.
I am sure that I do not need to remind those of your Lordships who have seen active service that the consequences of war are almost always unknown to politicians and predictions are almost always wrong. In August 1914, when the troops went off to France, people talked about them being home by Christmas. They did not come home four and a half months later; they came home four and a half years later—those of them who came home—after suffering massive casualties. Therefore, if we are faced, as we are, with the unknown when considering the prospect of the use of force there must be no facile optimism about the duration of any war, about the casualties likely to be incurred or about the political consequences for the Middle East as a whole.
Another point about the potential use of force which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords is that it is essential to hold the international community together. It has been said by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn—and we on these Benches agree with him—that a special Security Council resolution would be appropriate. My noble friend explained why that is so legally and I should like to say why it is also desirable politically. It is the outward and visible sign of the new world order about which the noble Lord, Lord Pym, spoke earlier in the debate. That would be expressed by a Security Council resolution. A Security Council resolution would represent the unity of the Soviet Union, the European allies, the moderate Arabs and the rest of the world community together.
In these deplorable events, the real prize that is at stake is a new international order. Let us make sure that we secure the real prize and do not grasp the fool's gold of hasty action for its own sake.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I should like to try to respond to the eloquent appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I want to refer to our closest neighbour, the Republic of Ireland, and later to mention the Soviet Union.
Last year at this time I spoke about Article 2 of the 1937 constitution of Ireland. It states:
"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial sea".
Article 3 merely limits the effect of Irish laws pending reintegration of the national territory.
As long ago as 1967 a committee of the Irish Parliament proposed amending Article 2 to make it clear that that was only an aspiration. That amending action was never taken. Some well-intentioned persons then maintained that the article in question should be understood as an aspiration. However, since the Supreme Court's ruling in this year's McGimpsey case such an interpretation is no longer possible. The learned judges ruled:
278
"The reintegration of the national territory is a constitutional imperative".
That dictum has an unfortunate, if not perverse, bearing on the application of the Extradition Act 1965 and the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1977. It means that terrorist offenders are less likely to be brought to justice in one jurisdiction or another, despite the welcome Irish ratification of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.
The greatest damage caused by Article 2 and the Supreme Court ruling lies in the political sphere. I suggest that it constitutes a major obstacle to political agreement within Northern Ireland and to the necessary reformulation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The article provokes deep-seated and historic fears within most northern Unionists while at the same time causing the Social Democratic and Labour Party to be less forthcoming and more Dublin oriented than it might otherwise be.
In 1985, ambiguity had to be used by those framing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That ambiguity now needs to be removed. We are in the era of the Vienna and Helsinki agreements and I believe that it is wrong for a friendly neighbouring state to claim the territory of another. That is the view that I tried to express in a letter to The Times of 8th August 1990.
Perhaps I may illustrate the harm of Article 2 by referring to the honourable Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The honourable gentleman is a Unionist, but by no means an extremist. In August he spoke at a summer school in Donegal in the Republic of Ireland to a largely Irish audience. He said that he had advocated responsibility sharing within Northern Ireland and had recognised the need for North-South liaison. He concluded that such developments would not be possible until some reasonable basis for trust had been established both within Northern Ireland and on the whole island. He felt openly threatened by the aggressive attitude of the Republic of Ireland toward Northern Ireland.
That is why we need the removal or substantial modification of Articles 2 and 3. However, I am glad to say that this issue is being actively discussed and addressed within the Republic. Mrs. Robinson, the newly elected President of Ireland, whom I am sure we all welcome most warmly, was asked during her campaign whether Articles 2 and 3 should be amended. She replied:
"We do need to modify them … It is not a question of denying the aspiration to national unity … It is a question of modifying in accordance with what is already guaranteed internationally in the Anglo-Irish Agreement".
She went on:
"I felt the Anglo-Irish Agreement process was not complete. It did not involve Unionists and it did not involve constitutional change here"—
and that means in the Republic.
A little later, on 27th September, Mr. John Bruton, the deputy leader of Fine Gael, addressed the conference on security and co-operation in Europe at Strasbourg. He called for amendment of Articles 2 and 3 to align the Republic's constitution with the Helsinki Final Act, which states that borders can only

279
be changed by peaceful means and by agreement. On 17th October Mr. Michael McDowell, chairman of the Progressive Democrats who form part of the governing coalition, spoke to law students in Dublin. He called for the removal of those articles and not just for them to become the subject of negotiations.
I have deliberately quoted leading personalities coming from three Irish political groups. I am sure that many members of the other main party, Fianna Fail, would agree that partition is a political reality which cannot and should not be overridden by constitutional imperatives however venerable. Change concerning Northern Ireland can only come about by consent and agreement. That is a very long way off, and repeated opinion polls taken in the Republic have shown that the majority there do not expect it to happen within their lifetime, if indeed ever.
The gracious Speech said that Her Majesty's Government would,
"maintain positive relations with the Republic of Ireland".
Such relationships need to be based on clarity and not on ambiguity. I believe that the Government can help the process of constitutional change in the Republic by making clear now what is the status of Northern Ireland. It should be something that is known, definite and not conditional, unlike what is stated in a recent press release from the Northern Ireland Office dated 8th November concerning security policy. It is necessary to remove the conditional status that has applied since 1948. If any review is later thought to be necessary, it should be at some remote date, perhaps 2050 AD.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with me when they turn their minds to such matters. For instance, in February a long-serving Minister in the Northern Ireland Office stated that existing boundaries were the fundamental first principle on which agreement had to be underwritten by the international community if greater ethnic strife were to be avoided. He was speaking in a context that included both Eastern Europe and Northern Ireland. I heartily concur with him. Will Her Majesty's Government join with others in establishing a service to help monitor and conciliate the grievances and legitimate political aspirations of minorities throughout Europe within existing state boundaries? That, I think, is something at which the noble Lord, Lord Pym, was probably hinting in the course of his speech.
With that transition via Eastern Europe, I come now to the Soviet Union. I was briefly in Moscow in January. Since then it has become clearer that that vast empire is changing character and structure. The component republics are gaining in both importance and autonomy. Despite that, our country is only represented in Moscow. Will Her Majesty's Government move rapidly to set up consulates in such places as Kiev, Riga, St. Petersburg, Tiflis, Vladivostock and even perhaps in western Siberia? There is regional business to be done and it is important that our competitors should not arrive first on the scene.
280
A month or two ago a small group from the Catholic organisation Pax Christi visited Siberia. It received a request from a district authority in the Republic of Yakutsk to help with the care of orphans and the transformation of their existing schools into all-purpose grammar schools. In Novosibirsk the same group had appeals from the university and a children's hospital. I mention those examples to point out how the official Soviet bodies recognise their need for help even from religious sources. They also show that the needs of remote places are likely to be discovered only by personal visits. I trust that this will be a stimulus both to your Lordships and to the Government. Our know-how in this country has never been in such demand as it is now.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am just, but only just, old enough to recognise for myself, without having them pointed out to me, the very close parallels that can be drawn between the present dictator of Iraq in 1989–90 and the dictator of Germany in 1939–40, just 50 years before. Each sought to exterminate a minority population using poison gas, each used the truth as a malleable substance to be manipulated to his own advantage and each seized neighbouring territory by force of arms and thus overthrew international law. But there the parallels should end.
Hitler was able to persuade himself that the warnings issued by the free world were without substance and we demonstrated to him, above all at Munich, that we were prepared to compromise. Saddam Hussein should not be under any such illusion, since his invasion has produced such startling unanimity across the world. It may in fact be a valuable by-product of the present tragic circumstances. That is not simply because he threatened the energy supply of the developed world possibly for the next decade but because he overturned the legal independence of a small sovereign state whose claim to an independent identity was exactly the same as that of countless other states throughout the world. All alike were threatened. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said in his opening speech, world order itself was threatened. All alike recognise the threat and, for the first time in human history, all have acted in concert.
Those circumstances did not exist in 1939. They have never been achieved before and, given skill, courage and steadfastness of purpose, that may yet prove to be the most important consequence of the invasion of Kuwait. If it does, I agree with my noble friend Lord Pym, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and other noble Lords that one day it will become clear that we are living at the beginning of a new and more hopeful age.
But, without that skill, courage and steadfastness of purpose, the consequences will be quite other. We are being borne along on the river of history at an ever-increasing pace with ever more dangerous rocks on either side of us. Failure now to uphold the rule of international law would not be just to let our immediate affairs slide into chaos; it would be to let go, perhaps for another 50 years, a chance at least to

281
begin to establish a worldwide consensus on the basis of that law and the proper means of upholding it in the future. That rock lies on one side of our narrow course. If, on the other hand, we fail to exercise the force at our disposal with wisdom, efficiency and both due vigour and due restraint, we shall be faced not with a short, victorious war but with a long and bloody struggle that will claim countless promising young lives. That rock lies on the other side of our course.
Those are dramatically obvious circumstances, and I draw a starkly simple conclusion from them, so simple indeed that it seems to have escaped the notice of some of my friends entirely. It is that, at supremely critical times such as the present, to precipitate a leadership struggle in this country seems to those of us not involved in it to be about as sensible as starting a fight over the paddle in a canoe at the head of the rapids.
It is not for us to offer Members of another place advice on how to conduct their affairs—any such advice would be counterproductive—but right now everybody—even Members of your Lordships' House —has a right to say that sometimes whoever is at the helm must be given the authority and the peace to exercise a calm, clear judgment on behalf of the nation. At such times too much of our future and too many of our children's lives are at stake for it to be otherwise. I believe that this is such a time.
It was very good indeed that we were able to act swiftly and effectively in response to an unexpected threat in the Gulf, and that we could do so, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, explained, because we had for long been prepared to meet a familiar threat in Europe, and that that threat had appeared to recede. We had already, I understand, counted some of the savings that could be expected from the receding of that threat, and they appear already to have been costed into the defence estimates.
If so, let us have a care. I do not doubt that, as in the now distant days of the Korean war, it has been necessary to concentrate on formations that face the immediate possibility of battle, supplies and resources that would normally have been spread more thinly over a larger number of troops in a lesser state of readiness. To what extent this may have been necessary I do not know, and it may have been minimal. I only ask as a taxpayer that it is noted by those planning the shape and size of our forces in future years and taken as a yardstick of efficiency.
We have surely learned over the last 45 years that only those who are prepared to go to war have any prospect of preserving peace. To the extent that contingent threats cannot be met from a reserve and it is necessary to rob troops already deployed in one area to supply those deployed in another, the troops that are robbed are not in practice available and not therefore effective in the preservation of peace. Is it not, therefore, open to question whether the deployment of those troops was not in some sense beyond our financial capability?
282
I only ask this to make the point that the size—any size —of the defence estimates must bear an actual and not just a theoretical relationship to the commitment our forces are meant to meet. Our forces must surely be trained and equipped to a standard that will enable them to meet that commitment readily, and paid at rates to enable them to recruit up to the necessary strength for the purpose. If they are not, we must either reduce the commitment or increase the estimates. If the commitment is inescapable, so is the expense. A peace dividend that resulted in forces that were either undertrained or underequipped, or under-recruited to meet their commitment would not be a peace dividend at all because it would not increase but reduce our ability to keep the peace and to maintain the rule of international law.
The subject of training brings me, telescoping my speech, briefly from the general to a much more particular matter. That is Salisbury Plain, on which a great deal of training is done. As Minister for the heritage, I was for a year and a half closely interested in the effects that military activity had had and was having on the training area on Salisbury Plain and particularly on the archaeology there. The area is astonishingly rich in archaeology because it is, paradoxically, the ploughshare and not the sword that does the real damage to archaeological remains, and the sword has held sway on Salisbury Plain for a long time.
Where else could you go to find the undisturbed foundations of an entire Romano-British village and its associated field system as just one of 12 major aggregations of archaeological sites among over 100 smaller ones? But first trenching tools and then armoured vehicles changed the almost wholly beneficial influence of army training on the plain. While it was clear that the army's training needs must prevail, it was also clear that with care they could be met in ways that are consistent with preserving the archaeological heritage.
A policy was worked out between the defence and environment departments when my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I were responsible as the respective Ministers of State there. My noble friend who is to reply to this debate is aware of my concern to see that this policy is fully and effectively implemented, and I ask him today only to confirm that this is the Government's clear intention.
The debate on the gracious Speech is the occasion on which your Lordships are expected to put down markers as to their intentions regarding legislation foreshadowed in it. I am advised by the usual channels that I should use this opportunity to refer very briefly indeed—and it will not take more than three and a half minutes—to two matters raised in an earlier debate. I do this because I was for three years Minister at the Home office responsible for prisons, and during that time I was impressed, as I am sure are all your Lordships who know the fact, by the quite unacceptable effects of prison overcrowding.
I shall not list the numerous steps that we then put in motion to try to reduce this—a task made no easier, may I say, by the conduct of the Prison Officers

283
Association, which was very ably illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on the first day. In two respects I feel that the Government can substantially assist the courts in doing more to reduce prison overcrowding. One of these consists in providing the courts with disposals other than imprisonment for a number of offenders for whom imprisonment is at present the only suitable sentence.
The probation service has a wealth of relevant experience for this, and many suitable staff. I welcome the steps that Her Majesty's Government have already taken to explore ways to use these resources, and particularly of adding to their scope and effectiveness by involving the private and the independent—and more particularly the independent—sectors. I particularly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the extensive practical experience of successful work of this sort that has been acquired by the voluntary sector in the juvenile field right up to the age of 16.
One effect of the present distinction in law between juveniles and young adults has been that the former are dealt with by the Department of Health and social workers, while the latter are dealt with by the Home Office and the probation service. I have been fortunate enough to have been a Minister in both departments and to see the excellent work done by both services, and I can assure my right honourable friend of two things. The first is that people do not suddenly and magically change their nature on their seventeenth birthday. Everyone matures at his or her own rate. But there are very few young adults who are not susceptible to some of the good effects of both the preventive and the curative regimes that go generally under the name of intermediate treatment.
This is something that has been developed in the voluntary sector under the aegis first of the DHSS and now of the DH. That sector has wide experience and a large number of local projects already operational up and down the country. Suitably supported by his own department, this could be an invaluable resource in the initiative which he is now contemplating, and I commend it to him.
Finally, I return to a matter I raised on the last Criminal Justice Bill and which I intend to raise in the next. I hope that I shall have the sympathetic ear of your Lordships and that you will return to debate it. A major contributory factor to the congestion of our prisons is the congestion in our courts. A great many of those who have to wait for their cases to be heard do so in the remand wings of local prisons where overcrowding is at its insanitary and corrupting worst.
If you are remanded into prison you have to wait for the court to be ready before your case can be heard, and it will not be ready until the cases ahead of yours have been dealt with, even though the accused in those numerous cases are all bailed and not remanded, waiting comfortably at home rather than in a cell, living with the family and not with a swarm of recidivists, and going to work or to outdoor leisure for eight to 12 hours rather than 60 minutes a day.
284
Most of the prisoners in these wings are queuing for the Crown Court, and the Crown Court is full. Need it be so full at such a very great price? I understand that recently 10 per cent. of Crown Court time and 8 per cent. of Crown Court business in the London area has consisted of cases of handling goods worth less than £100. Most of them involved trivial sums. I shall be asking your Lordships to consider again whether these lesser offences should be imprisonable and triable by jury at all. Surely there must be some way in which we can reduce the enormous price that must be paid in the degradation of other accused persons waiting in our prisons while this elaborate machinery is engaged on such trivial matters.
It is a controversial issue; it deserves your Lordships' attention. I do not expect my noble friend to reply to it; merely to pass it on to his right honourable friend at the Home Office. I thank your Lordships for your patience. If you will think kindly only of that proposal I shall weary you no longer.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will understand if I do not follow him in the very pertinent and interesting topics which he raised in his speech. There are three reasons why I shall try to keep my contribution short: the hour is late, I have a husky throat and, in his very challenging and emotional speech, my noble friend Lord Fitt ably dealt with a number of points that I had listed.
My noble friend Lord Fitt was right when he suggested that we ought to read the report of the debate in this House on the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 26th November 1985. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who was then the Leader of the House, presented the agreement on behalf of the Government. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, Leader of the Opposition, spoke with strong reservations about the possible difficulties arising from a unique international agreement.
I concluded my remarks in that debate—my noble friend Lord Fitt expressed similar sentiments today —with the hope that,
"the agreement is a flickering light in a very black situation. I appeal to everyone genuinely to try to keep that light alive by building trust with hope and compassion". [Official Report, 26/11/85; col. 829.]
That is the approach all must take when we are dealing with Northern Ireland affairs. It must be a constructive approach.
In the complexity of Irish affairs, we should seek to approach every genuine effort with reasoned hope and positive action. The troubles in Ireland did not arise from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The people in the Province have been subjected to political chaos, relentless terrorism, crippling conditions for essential social and economic developments and a vile sub-culture of despotic sectarianism, which ensnares many of our children and young people. Some sadly end up spending the best and most productive years of their lives in prison—yes, my Lords, in prison—while the mafioso godfathers go free.

285
I agree with my noble friend Lord Fitt. Just when it appeared that our tortured Province had endured every imaginable horror, the terrorists resorted to an even more sinister device for murder by using innocent civilians as human bombs.
The public highway, the workplace, the homes of citizens, shops, hospitals and even places of worship are places of risk in Northern Ireland. There is no place safe or sacred from the cruel deeds of the gunmen and the bombers. It appears that the terrorists have become hardened to human suffering in their ruthless determination to inflict death and terrible suffering on families and the whole community. What an insane, inhuman, inexplainable way to seek to promote support for the establishment of a political regime —a new state—and the election of a parliamentary democracy, with the essential international recognition to function in the modern world.
Here in England and in Europe these dastardly terrorist acts have sullied the "pride of being Irish". Such acts have not helped any legitimate political or community cause. They have made great difficulties for the personal and social lives of many thousands of honest, peaceable Irish people from the North and from the Republic, who have homes, families and employment here in Britain. As Bishop Cahal Daly said last Sunday,
"They bring shame and disgrace on the community from which they came".
Thank goodness, there is hope in Northern Ireland. There are some rays of light appearing on the Irish political scene. There are new feelings of hope that changes for betterment are slowly beginning to take shape. I refer briefly to some of these perceptible rays which shine, more or less, from the different political and community vantage points.
My noble friend Lord Fitt mentioned the election of Mrs. Mary Robinson as the first woman president of the Republic of Ireland. She is a lady with great personal political experience and proven ability. She is knowledgeable and interested in the practical affairs affecting the lives of the people of Ireland. She is limited in her political capacity to change affairs in Northern Ireland, but I believe that her election epitomises the qualities that make for political change in Ireland, qualities worthy of emulation.
The announcement of the election of Bishop Cahal Daly as Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland was received with generous and widespread welcome not only in Ireland but throughout these islands. He is justly recognised as an outstanding figure of courage, vision, lucidity, high intellect and deep spirituality—a man of the people. He is highly respected across the communities and has shown through his work a realistic approach to the day to day problems facing people of all creeds, especially the disadvantaged. I am confident that the standards of personal conduct that Dr. Daly upholds and the high value that he places on corporate action for community well-being will have a potent influence for good on future political attitudes and events in both parts of Ireland.
There are a number of noble Lords in this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has just
286
spoken, and the noble Lord the Leader on the Government Benches who have held high ministerial office in Northern Ireland. We know only too well the disappointments, the privation, the dangers and the sacrifice of the comforts of home and family life that those noble Lords experienced during their ministerial duties in the Province. Not only they; their families also suffered. Such an experience means that they have developed a very high degree of sensitivity, sympathy and appreciation for our police and our armed service personnel, which is always warmly expressed and demonstrated.
As one who lives in Northern Ireland, I can say that there is much genuine respect for the Secretary of State, Peter Brooke, and for the fair, courteous, sincere, patient and skilful way in which he has conducted the present political initiative to find a way forward to new political structures for the good government of Northern Ireland and for peace, prosperity and justice.
There is much more that I could say, but it has been a tradition in this House that we take a bipartisan approach to general affairs in Northern Ireland in the hope that the consensus may enable us to build peace and to encourage those who are seeking the proper constitutional and political way forward.
In conclusion, and in an attempt to be constructive, there have been failings in the way that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been operated, rather than in the textual or legal explanations. More could have been done to deal effectively with the promotion of cross-border co-operation and there is a whole list of matters such as agriculture, environment, terrorism, transport, shipping and so on which require attention. Many of these matters could have been dealt with in a much more forthright and public way.
Without going into detail about the important and useful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, there is a considerable amount of movement in Northern Ireland and in the Republic towards the need for change in Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. In any changes which might be forthcoming a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland should have been discussed.
There are hopeful signs amid the terrible ongoing murderous campaign of terrorism. It is not always helpful to say that in the presence of those who have suffered in Northern Ireland during the past years. However, let us build upon mutual understanding towards constitutional politics, community wellbeing and prosperity. There is no magic wand or formula for the resolution of the problems in Northern Ireland. It must be built on real, sensible and peaceful methods.
9 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I wish to address my remarks this evening to the Government's commitment to,
"their policy of encouragement to all sides in South Africa to enter negotiations to create through peaceful means a democratic non-racial society".

287
In this regard we all welcome the dramatic reforms and courage of President de Klerk. In addressing that goal it is important to consider not only the political climate but also the social and economic environment.
Of late, world attention has focused on the continuing tragic violence and deaths in the black townships of South Africa. Many commentators are of the opinion that if Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi were to meet they would be able to achieve an instant solution to those violent acts and would pour oil on the troubled waters. The root causes of the violence are however not so simple and such a meeting would not necessarily result in defusing such conflicts. That is not to say that the root causes of the violence cannot be overcome: they can be overcome. To do so requires that they are identified and understood as the consequences of social, economic and political developments in the country.
In my opinion the major contributors to the conflicts are, first, that the various political groupings are now jockeying to establish their support bases. In many instances that tends to reflect traditional or tribal allegiances, more specifically pitched battles between Xhosa and Zulu supporters. Secondly, there is much evidence that physical intimidation is one of the tactics used to secure this support. At the same time there is evidence of a total lack of control of lower ranking activists.
Thirdly, there is undoubtedly an element of apolitical opportunistic criminal behaviour which highlights the problems of maintaining an effective anti-crime programme including weapons control under these conditions. Fourthly, the social problems created by the accommodation in hostels of more than 500,000 single migrant workers has provided a ready flashpoint for many of the pent-up frustrations which have accumulated in the poverty stricken townships in South Africa. Finally, there is a distinct lack of trust for the impartiality and accountability of the police force. In my opinion, only when those factors have been comprehensively addressed as part of the normalisation process will any meeting between Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi produce a workable long-lasting result.
In opening today's debate the Minister referred to the repeal of the Separate Amenities Act followed by the Group Areas Act and at a later stage the Land Act. In addition to those measures repealing the last vestiges of apartheid, the South African Government have recently agreed to the release of political prisoners in the country. It is also noteworthy that the Nationalist Party has opened its membership to all South Africans. Indeed, last week for the first time ever all the main Churches and denominations in the country met to discuss their moral solidarity for a future South Africa. Most significant at the gathering was the public rejection by the main Church of the Afrikaners, the Dutch Reform Church, of its previous justifications in support of apartheid. This is a profound psychological step indicating the depth of
288
willingness and acceptance by the spiritual leaders of the Afrikaners of the necessity for fundamental reforms.
In focusing on the social and economic challenges facing the new South Africa one must consider the country's demographic peculiarities. It has a population of which more than 60 per cent. is under the age of 23. The current population growth rate among the black people is more than 3 per cent. With that rate of growth, 1 million people will be added to the population each year. There is more than 50 per cent. unemployment with a prognosis for the forthcoming year of negative economic growth. Even with negative growth in the economy, an estimated 1 million people a year migrate from the rural areas into the towns and cities. That places an increasing strain on the social and physical infrastructure of those areas.
Clearly, now is the time for the international community to show its recognition and acknowledgement of the dramatic reforms that the South African Government have achieved by easing sanctions, thus allowing economic growth and increasing job opportunities.
The decision of the South African Government to enter into the negotiating process was taken in the knowledge that the future was unpredictable. Many commentators tried to predict an outcome by applying experience from other African countries which had undergone a decolonialisation process. The fact is that South Africa is not a country which is being decolonised. Thus, that model has limited if any ability to predict the outcome of negotiations in the country.
The prospects of revolution or abdication of power, as spectres which have haunted the negotiation process, are rapidly receding. All the major participants in the debate have recently demonstrated their committed support to negotiating a solution which will transform the state and in which its benefits will be shared by all. Only yesterday I attended a conference on economic opportunities in post-apartheid South Africa at which a Minister of the South African Government, a member of the ANC executive committee, a leading South African trade unionist and leaders of the South African business community shared the same platform and expressed remarkably similar views for future developments of the economy.
From that significant experience and other personal contacts, I believe that while the final outcome cannot yet be determined the basically Liberal Democrat ideals espoused preclude some of the more extreme outcomes which may have been postulated at the beginning of that journey into the unknown. There are still many gates which need to be opened. However, the stage is in the process of being set so that those can be tackled in a systematic manner in an environment of mutual trust.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the road ahead in South Africa is complex. However, I am confident that with the joint resolve of all political groupings,

289
the strong existing infrastructure and, it is hoped, the support of the international community a non-racial, democratic South Africa can soon be achieved. To that end, I wholeheartedly support the approach taken by Her Majesty's Government.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, will forgive me if I do not follow him on South Africa. Over the past hour or so no noble Lord seems to have followed another on anything at all. I intend to confine my remarks this evening to a brief account of my impressions of the situation in Poland, a country with which I am connected by marriage and for which I have always had the greatest admiration and affection.
Before I say anything further, I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox. She is not present this evening but I told her that I would be saying this. She has been awarded the Commander Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland. She has richly deserved that honour, which I gather is the highest Polish honour given to foreigners. I believe that the whole House should be very proud of her. My noble friend has told your Lordships on many occasions of the very serious economic, social and environmental problems which Poland has inherited from the foreign-imposed communist regime. I underline and agree with everything that she has said. However, this evening I shall give your Lordships a quick look on the brighter side—and there is a brighter side.
I spent the whole of August 1989 in Poland and was there on the great day when Mr. Mazowiecki became Prime Minister, ending 50 years of foreign rule and foreign-imposed government. The occasion was not marked, as in most former communist countries, by mass disorders and demonstrations. Indeed, to all outward appearances, nothing much had happened. It was a year later, last August, when after a year's absence I was able to observe the quite remarkable consequences of that day.
At this late hour I shall give your Lordships only a few instances of the markers of change from oppression to liberty. Many problems remain but the air of liberty in Poland today is like champagne. The country has been denied that for a long time but has never forgotten it.
What are the signs of change? The food queues have vanished, but on the other hand, food is very expensive, and prohibitively so for some. However, it means that people have more time for constructive activities instead of standing in queues for half a day at a time. New businesses and shops are opening everywhere and even the decrepit old state shops must work for a living as otherwise they will close down, and many of them already have. They will certainly not be lamented.
Old attitudes have died, such as the saying which used to be addressed to the communist authorities: "You pretend to pay us and we pretend to work for you". Some of the more obnoxious activities of the Nova Huta steel complex near Krakow, where I spent
290
most of my time this year, have been closed down. In Krakow one can now see the sky in that beautiful city and breathe the air. Scaffolding round buildings which has been in place for more years than many people can remember now has workmen on it and the task of restoring the city to its former glory has started. The building of houses is going on everywhere, in both the city and the country areas. The airport building is being greatly enlarged, which is certainly needed.
I wish to make the point that Poland is now a country worth investing in. Private enterprise is already moving in from the West to reinforce the enterprise of the Polish people. To my mind that is far more important than government handouts and aid, which are so often misapplied.
If aid is given I make one suggestion. The telephone system in Poland continues to be quite awful. Speedy modernisation is vital and cannot be done quickly enough. The need is pressing. Businesses in this country and elsewhere cannot communicate with their opposite numbers and colleagues in Poland by telephone unless they are prepared to take half a day over it. In short, I would make telecommunications the number one priority in the present situation.
I should like once more to raise a point which I raised with Her Majesty's Government on previous occasions and which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He made today a quite outstanding speech on Poland. I should like briefly from these Benches to say that I agree with every word. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government will appreciate that agreement does not come simply from the Liberal Democrat Benches; it also comes from me.
The Iron Curtain has gone. It is easy for us to travel to Poland, and Poles are given passports and allowed to leave if they wish. The question now arises where they can go. The queues may have disappeared from the shops but my information is that they have not disappeared from the British Consulate or from the other West European consulates. East Germans can now come to Britain at will as EC citizens. Visas have been abolished in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but I find difficulty even in arranging for my wife's relatives to visit Britain due to the present unacceptable visa situation.
I understand that at a meeting between Chancellor Kohl and Mr. Mazowiecki last week it was agreed to abolish visas between Germany and Poland by Christmas. That is a wonderful advance for two countries whose histories have hardly been marked by mutual affection. If they can do it, surely we can. In concluding that point I underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Nothing does more damage to our relations with Poland than the present policy of Her Majesty's Government on visas. That is certainly my experience, and I spend much time with Polish people.
I have not mentioned the crisis in the Persian Gulf. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government are aware of the cost of sanctions to Poland and to the other newly liberated countries in East and Central Europe. It is all very well to say that it is better to go on with

291
these embargoes and sanctions than to make war. No one can foresee how all this will end, but an indefinite continuation of the present phoney war situation may in the end produce more suffering than war itself.
That is all I feel I should say about the matter. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will be aware of the cost to those countries like Poland which have loyally supported the policy of the United Nations, and that all possible help and understanding will be given to them while the situation lasts.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Cledwyn for not hearing their opening speeches. It was due to a long-standing appointment at the Home Office. I was fortunate enough to hear the two maiden speeches, and I add my congratulations and felicitations to both speakers.
Last year during the debate on the gracious Speech I drew attention to the appalling situation in the Sudan, particularly as it affected the substantial and heavily persecuted Christian minority in that country. I wish that I could now tell the House that it has improved; unfortunately it is as bad as ever. Crop failure, famine and starvation are rife, at the same time as reports are received that Al-Bashir is sending food to other countries including Iraq. We receive continuing reports of child slavery, and the situation is a disgrace. Christian-led rebels in the south continue to fight against the imposition of Islamic rule by Al-Bashir, who is one of the few remaining supporters of Saddam Hussein.
Last year I regretted the absence of contributions from the Bishops' Bench over the plight of the Sudanese Christians. It is true that after the debate one right reverend Prelate wrote to me sharing my concern and offering to take part in any future debate on the subject. Again this year I have to report that there has been a negative return from the right reverend Prelates on the subject of the Sudanese Christians. I am sure that it would give heart to their Christian brothers and sisters in the Sudan if the Bishops' Bench made a concerted effort to ventilate and publicise the appalling human tragedy unfolding in that country.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said that he hoped people did not regard remarks from that Bench as an apologia. He added some Latin tag which I could not even begin to try to understand. Speaking for myself I certainly welcome contributions from the Bishops' Bench on all aspects of persecuted minorities abroad.
It is not only the Sudan in this part of Africa that is concerned; the whole Horn of East Africa is in turmoil, with fighting in Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. The whole ghastly scene is overlaid by the continued failure of the rains and the consequent spectre of suffering and famine on an almost inconceivable scale. These dreadful affairs should be the concern of each and every one of us, doing what we can to focus attention on the problems and urging
292
those in authority to do what they can to expedite solutions and provide relief to the suffering through the established agencies.
The gracious Speech refers to continued efforts to secure the release of all Britons held hostage or detained in the Middle East. While fully recognising the plight of these innocent people and the anguish suffered by their relatives and friends, surely we should be louder in our condemnation of the groups who use this diabolical way of drawing attention to themselves. What sort of people are they, we must ask, who are prepared to subject so many innocent people to this form of mental torture for their own ends.
The gracious Speech naturally makes reference to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The newspapers and television have been full of the preparations which the forces sent to the Gulf have made in case chemical warfare should be used against them, including the difficulties of wearing protective equipment in the intense heat and carrying out practice drills while it is worn. It is estimated that the protective clothing can reduce the efficiency of infantrymen by between 30 per cent. and 80 per cent.
These are not overelaborate or unnecessary precautions. Unfortunately, the threat of chemical warfare is only too real. With their new research and development centre 25 miles outside Baghdad and a new manufacturing plant in Samarra, the Iraqis have the capacity to produce possibly as many as 3,000 tonnes of chemical warfare agents each year. It is not a hypothetical threat. Chemical weaponry has been used by Iraq against its own Kurdish people with appalling effects, as has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. An estimated 5,000 Kurds were killed and another 10,000 injured when Iraq attacked with nerve and mustard gas. The horror of Halabja has been well documented. It was by no means an isolated incident but part of a systematic and ruthless attack on the Kurdish people. The forces in the Gulf are right, therefore, to be wary of a similar attack by Iraq on themselves in the event of an outbreak of hostilities.
We are all concerned about possible chemical warfare in the Gulf, particularly the service men and women who are there and those near and dear to them. Let us consider for a moment how much greater the worries and anxieties would be if our forces faced the threat of nuclear warfare with Iraq. If that were so it would be easy to imagine a real doomsday situation with almost unimaginable consequences.
Why are the forces in the Gulf not faced with this nuclear threat? It is because on 7th June 1981 the Israeli air force attacked Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak to pre-empt the development of a nuclear weapons capability. When people are reminded of that they say, "Thank goodness the Israelis had the foresight to remove the threat all those years ago, or at least set back its development".
Yet how did the international community react at the time? No words were too strong to condemn Israel for its action. On 19th June 1981 the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 487, which, among

293
other things, strongly condemned the military attack by Israel and called for appropriate redress to Iraq for the destruction it had suffered. Moreover, on 13th November the General Assembly passed a similar resolution, Resolution 36/27, by 109 votes to two with 34 abstentions. That resolution also condemned Israeli threats to repeat such attacks on nuclear installations if and when it was deemed necessary.
When one looks at the continuing build-up of military might in the Gulf which is considered necessary for possible conflict with Iraq and then considers that Iraq is only one of several countries which have threatened Israel's continued existence, it is very understandable that Israel has to take a robust attitude in looking after itself.
Last year during the gracious Speech debate I remarked on the enormous concentration on the affairs of Israel, mentioning that Israel, a country the size of Wales, with a population of 5 million, attracts a quite inordinate amount of attention. I should like briefly to return to the theme again this year. When children first come across telescopes they soon discover that, while they magnify objects, if they are reversed things correspondingly diminish in size. I sometimes think that the world looks at Israel through a telescope and then turns it round to look at the rest of the world. Let me give an example. It must have been obvious to the Iraqis that the best way to ease the pressure on themselves would be for some well-publicised event to occur in Israel. Hence I believe that the allegations made by the Israelis about the Temple Mount trouble being plotted and planned are true. Certainly in terms of the world publicity that this incident received the plot was highly successful.
While all loss of life is to be deplored, let us contrast the Temple Mount publicity with current events in India. I shall weary your Lordships for a moment with a quotation from the Observer. Last Sunday week Peter Hillmore wrote a long article from Delhi about the problems there under the headlines:
"India's 'hour of peril' ends in days of slaughter".
A week later, last Sunday, he wrote another article from Delhi. I wish briefly to quote a paragraph towards the end:
"Over the past three days, as it happens, there have been fewer violent deaths than usual in India. A mere 20 people died in communal violence between Muslims and Hindus. Only a dozen were killed in fights in Kashmir between troops and separatists, and 25 in similar clashes in the Punjab.
Just seven people were killed in Amritsar when armed men opened fire on a coach, and only a few members of the Assam Liberation Front died in a shoot-out".
He goes on to say:
"Only four students set themselves on fire … In Ranchi, arrests of rioters remained static at 779.
All in all, a relatively peaceful time in a troubled country".
Can your Lordships imagine what would happen if the deaths described there had taken place in Israel? There would have been hostile Early Day Motions put down in another place collecting signatures. There would have been calls for a special meeting of the Security Council; and the various delegations would have been
294
lobbied as to whether they would support further heavy expressions against Israel. We have to consider very seriously how to get this matter into proportion.
People are suffering all over the world. We have mentioned the problems of India, the Kurds and the Sudanese. We need to have a much greater awareness and effort in solving all these problems. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that at the moment there is some cynicism that our great concern about the Gulf and Kuwait is oil. Only by showing a great concern for all the peoples of the world who are suffering in various ways can we counter that in the minds of other people in the world. If we do that we can actually begin to move towards the new world order of which the noble Lord, Lord Pym, gave us a glimpse in his most interesting speech.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate my two noble friends on their quite outstanding maiden speeches. Although he is not in his place, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on a superb speech on Northern Ireland. I shall return to that shortly.
When speaking about the current Middle East problems, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester wondered, if I interpreted him correctly, if there was any way in which a lifeline could be thrown to Saddam Hussein to allow him to pull out of Kuwait without totally losing face, in order to avoid the terrible casualties among both Western and Arab powers that war in the Gulf would entail.
Every civilized person must surely agree that a brutal burglar who breaks into a house, shoots the householder and one or more of his sons, rapes his wife and one or more of his daughters, steals every single item in the house, not only the furniture, carpets, silver and pictures, but also the fixtures and fittings, and then smashes up the house having meanwhile taken passers-by hostage, should not be allowed to keep even one tenth of 1 per cent. of his loot. Furthermore, he must be made to pay restitution in full. But, having said that, the West in general and the United States in particular has a very exposed Achilles heel so far as concerns morality in a Middle Eastern context.
The existing situation in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and other occupied territories cannot be tolerated indefinitely. I am not simply talking about the shooting of large numbers of demonstrators and stone throwers, many of them young people. These incidents are appalling but they are, sad to say, rather less than par for the course in a Near Eastern context. We must remember that the Syrians can get away with shooting 10 or 20 times as many people with virtually no response from the Western media or the public. As I understand it, following the Syrian incursion into East Beirut last month, somewhere between 100 and 200 Christian prisoners of war were murdered in cold blood without any Western response to speak of. One can imagine how the balloon would go up in the

295
unlikely event of the Israelis shooting 150 or so Moslem prisoners of war in cold blood. One would never hear the end of it.
No, my Lords, it is the fact of the occupation itself of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and other occupied territories, more than 23 years after the end of the Six Day War, that must be rectified for the sake of the Near East, the Middle East and not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, for the sake of the Israelis themselves.
The question of East Jerusalem is the hardest nut to crack. But surely even here some compromise could be found. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Moslem holy places and, if need be, the Christian holy places could come under United Nations protection and possibly even United Nations jurisdiction. I do not know about East Jerusalem—attitudes here may be different—but happily it appears from a news report in the Financial Times on Saturday that no less than 63 per cent. of the Israeli population also feel that they must get out of the Occupied Territories for the sake of peace. That being the case, the United States really must use its financial muscle to put pressure on the more intransigent people of Israel to follow the desires of their more moderate fellow countrymen in this regard while paying all due attention to Israeli security.
There is no need or even desirability to wait for Iraq to pull out of Kuwait. If some movement on the Palestinian question were initiated as soon as possible, it would then be possible for Saddam Hussein to pull totally out of Kuwait and pay massive compensation while being able to boast that his invasion was the catalyst for the solution of this long-running sore. It would certainly be extremely irritating but it would be a price worth paying if it avoided tens of thousands of casualties on all sides and solved the Palestine problem into the bargain.
I turn briefly to what those who presumably failed their geography 0-levels call Europe and what the rest of us call the EEC, or the EC if one absolutely must, although one notices that the French still officially refer to the CEE. We shall debate one important aspect of this subject next week and so in view of the hour I shall cut short what I proposed to say on this subject.
I should like to refute the disgraceful slurs being made on the Government in general and on the Prime Minister in particular, to wit that her position is extreme and that the Continental countries in contrast are taking what might be described as the middle way. That is the precise opposite of the truth. It is Britain which is promoting free trade by scrupulously lowering all barriers against foreign and, in particular, EC competition, while at the same time resisting Utopian extremism. All Utopianism is by definition extreme, in that it takes no account of human nature, history or traditions. In contrast, there are all too many on the Continent who veer to one or other extreme position; that is, either cynicism and grasping materialism —avoiding or ignoring entirely directives designed to ensure freedom of trade—on the one hand
296
or quasi-religious mystic idealism on the other. I should like to develop this theme more fully next week. Therefore, I shall leave the matter there for the time being.
Finally, I should like to touch upon the election of Mrs. Mary Robinson as President of the Irish Republic. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his splendid speech. Mrs. Robinson tends to be described in the British media as that very rare bird in the island of Ireland—a genuine Liberal—and as an advocate of women's rights. Indeed, she is both. But, as the noble Lord pointed out, she is also noteworthy for having resigned from the Irish Labour Party in protest against support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which she opposed, and still opposes, as being heavily biased against the unionists in the North. I emphasise the fact that I use the word "unionists" with a lower case letter "u". In her opposition she shows a much more acute intelligence and a much greater sense of fairness than the vast majority of Irish and British politicians. It is not only a question of morality or fairness; it is also a question of common sense.
There is a school of thought which suspects that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was a Machiavellian plot by those members of the British establishment, who are both numerous and to be found in all parties and not merely in those on the Left, whose instinctive loyalties are not to the United Kingdom as a whole within its present boundaries, but only to part of the United Kingdom. According to that interpretation, the alienation of the majority community in Ulster was actually an intended by-product of the agreement in the expectation that the more the unionists came to distrust and despise Westminster and Whitehall the more ready they would be to fall into the arms of Dublin as the lesser of two evils, thereby ridding mainland Britain of a long-standing problem.
There is another school of thought which believes that such Machiavellian scheming was unlikely, maintaining instead that once again the wily, subtle, glib and silver-tongued Celts had outwitted the plodding, slow-thinking, confused and guilt-ridden Saxons. Whichever interpretation is right, the fact is that alienation of the majority community is unlikely in the extreme to result in a peaceful, happy and united Ireland. Indeed, some bid for independence is a far more likely outcome, with all the dangers and uncertainties that this would produce. Moreover, alienation of the majority provokes a sullen reaction among that majority, which in turn weakens mainland Britain's already wilting will—a vicious circle—all of which plays right into the hands of the IRA. The cowardly murder of Ian Gow can only be explained by his high profile opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the IRA feeling that any success on his part might weaken its position.
The IRA is also assisted by other well-intentioned misunderstandings. Of course the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland means well. He has an enormous amount on his plate. None of us envies him or wishes to be in his shoes. Nevertheless, surely it was a terrible mistake to announce publicly on 9th November, first,

297
that Britain has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland—a rash thing to say with the world in its present turbulent and uncertain state; secondly, that Britain fully respected the desire for a united and sovereign Ireland—implying that the moment that 50.0001 per cent. of the population of the Province voted for unification, Britain would be out of there like a shot; and, thirdly, that Britain's role in Northern Ireland was,
"to ensure democratic debate and free democratic choice".
That is certainly one of Britain's roles; there is no doubting that fact. However, a more important role is to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom against subversion, sabotage, murder and torture. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but for the Secretary of State to talk in such terms frankly risks giving the IRA the impression that it requires only two or three major
atrocities on its part for Britain's nerve finally to fail completely.
Let me conclude by saying, "Well done, Mrs. Robinson. Let us hope that you can advance the cause of peace in your island by persuading your compatriots to agree to delete the offending Articles 2 and 3 from your country's constitution. If that is too much to hope for, let us at least hope that your wise and perceptive views on the Anglo-Irish Agreement percolate through to minds that are currently firmly closed".
9.40 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I was delighted to hear in the gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government,
"will work with the utmost determination … for the unconditional implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council which require the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, and the restoration of the independence and legitimate government of Kuwait."
Is it not reassuring to note that while Her Majesty's Government have not lost their political will to repulse the armies of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq from Kuwait other members of the alliance appear to be weakening? President Saddam Hussein's best hope for avoiding a direct military confrontation with the West has been to play for time. Central to his invasion strategy lies the assumption that whatever the strength of the West's response, by the time it comes to act some governments will have lost interest or heart, or both. Certainly there has been more than enough evidence to give President Saddam Hussein every encouragement that his ruthless gamble may yet pay a dividend. With the campaign only just entering its third month, there have been frequent reports of waning morale among US troops on the ground, no doubt a reaction to the barracking that President Bush received during his mid-term election campaign from redneck Vietnam war veterans chanting, "No blood for oil."
The French Government's decision to send troops to Saudi Arabia is now generally regarded as a classic exercise in Gallic opportunism which recently saw the French contingent vacating its front line positions to
298
be replaced by Moroccans. As one western official cynically observed, "They're here to sell arms, not to fight."
The fragility of the thread by which hangs the success or failure of Operation Desert Shield was highlighted by the rulers of Saudi Arabia—the very people for whom the 300,000-strong force now deployed around Kuwait was constructed to defend. If charges of appeasement have been levelled against the right honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for gaining the freedom of 40 elderly or infirm hostages from Baghdad, it is small wonder that comments attributed to King Fahd and his brother, Prince Sultan, the Defence Minister, prompted disbelief among the western diplomatic corps in Riyadh. Within hours of King Fahd and Prince Sultan making appeals to President Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait and avert bloodshed, senior diplomats were racing to Jeddah to see King Fahd and seek clarification. It was not so much the content as the style of the comments which caused alarm.
The tone of King Fahd's speech was decidedly conciliatory. Suddenly Saddam was King Fahd's "brother", the invasion nothing more than a blunder, and the Saudi monarch conveyed the singular impression that everything could be sorted out amicably if only Saddam would show a little more understanding.
Over the past few weeks there has been much speculation that the Iraqis are constructing a new defensive line along the Kuwait side of the Rumeilah oilfields taking in the islands of Bubiyan and Warbah at the head of the Shatt al Arab. The invasion of Kuwait followed the failure of negotiations to resolve Iraq's claim to the territory. One possibility now mooted is that Iraq might stage a partial withdrawal to the Rumeilah line to avert confrontation. All these expressions of doubt and lack of firm resolve should be deeply worrying to the allies and the West needs to ensure that the Saudis do not become the Achilles' heel of the whole enterprise.
Last week's visit by James Baker, the US Secretary of State, was no doubt an effort to concentrate Saudi minds on the daunting tasks ahead. That is just as well so far as the men of the 7th Armoured Brigade are concerned. The Camberley and Sandhurst manuals are, I am reliably informed by my military friends, rather vague on the question of how an army withdraws without ever having advanced.
Finally, I have a question for the noble Earl who will reply for the Government. In view of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, do the Government still intend to proceed with the far-reaching defence cuts announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 25th July? If the noble Earl, Lord Arran, would be so kind as to answer, I should be greatly in his debt.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, perhaps I may express my regrets that I was not here during the afternoon because of professional commitments and particularly because I missed the two maiden speeches. The year 1990 has been historic, pregnant with the possibilities

299
for a better world. To see Nelson Mandela walk free in February this year has lifted the spirits of people of all colours in all continents. While there are still many obstacles to a non-racial democracy in South Africa, I believe the process of change initiated by President de Klerk to be an irreversible and intensely hopeful development. In Europe, new democracies have been born and the cold war is effectively over. These events were hardly dreamt of 10 years ago.
However, all those possibilities and exciting developments are today overshadowed by the clouds of war, for if the crisis in the Gulf were to be resolved by war, the consequences would be so unspeakable for the whole world that it is the duty of every one of us to analyse with care whether such a war is necessary and morally justifiable.
The consequences of war are clearly foreseeable, given the scale of weaponry on both sides: massive military casualties for all forces involved in the hideous conditions of desert warfare; terrible loss of life and suffering for the Iraqi people, including those many Iraqi people who are bitterly opposed to Saddam Hussein; an environmental catastrophe for the Middle East, as King Hussein has accurately predicted; a rise in oil prices so steep as seriously to injure every economy in the world, especially the economies of the third world, whose people are already facing destitution because of the debt crisis and the unequal terms of trade about which my noble friend Lord Pitt spoke so eloquently. Yet President Bush and our Prime Minister in particular are seriously preparing to unleash those consequences on the world, not in the contingency of an attack upon Saudi Arabia, which was the original and proper purpose of sending troops, but as an act of deliberate policy to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait and to remove a tyrannical ruler.
Let us examine this. Certainly, Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. A ruler who has crushed all democratic opposition over years and who has used the horror of chemical weapons on the Kurdish people deserves only the condemnation and isolation which he should have received long before the invasion of Kuwait. But the world can find and has to find ways of dealing with ruthless dictators other than by unleashing war upon them. After all, dozens of ruthless dictators have risen and fallen in recent history; they have been removed from power by a combination of internal resistance by their people and external non-violent pressures. In the past 20 years we have seen the passing in Europe of Franco, Caetano, Papadopoulos and Ceausescu; on the American continent of Somoza, Duvalier and Pinochet; in Africa of Amin and Bokassa; and in Asia of Marcos and the Shah of Iran, to name but some. All of them have gone, as Saddam Hussein will go, without being threatened with war by the major powers.
Certainly Iraq has violated the United Nations Charter in a flagrant manner. However, even in such cases the world has been able to respond effectively without going to war, even if the alternatives to war are slower to take effect. The illegal rebellion of
300
Rhodesia was ended by a combination of internal resistance and external sanctions, even though in that case United Nations sanctions were massively breached. The invasion of Czechoslovakia has now been reversed, again by patient, long-suffering resistance by the Czechoslovak people. On the other side of the coin, the only modern instance of a superpower launching a major war to achieve its policies, the intervention in Vietnam, was so disastrous, causing such misery and devastation that it stands as a horrifying warning of what can happen if warmongering policies prevail.
I believe that our people are being misled by a barrage of rhetoric and jingoism into believing that a war in the Gulf could be a glamorous, glorious, even desirable way of dealing with Saddam Hussein. A recent opinion poll in the Observer of 28th October revealed that, while 62 per cent. of our people would like to see military action against Iraq within a year, the overwhelming majority does not wish this to result in injuries or deaths to British troops. That means that people are living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. They believe that this war can be won as if it were a television drama. We must find alternatives before the casualties, before the bereavements, before the incalculable suffering that a war can bring.
If a war is started on the terms now being declared by Her Majesty's Government—war within weeks if Saddam Hussein has not capitulated—I shall not support it. I shall oppose it with all my strength. I hope that organisations which think as I do will mobilise before it is too late, as they are doing in the United States.
What are the alternatives? The means to achieve our stated objectives without recourse to war lie ready to hand, although they are more difficult and they all take time and patience. First, the closest attention should be paid to the views of the Arab states. They have to take the worst of the brunt of any war. They have to live with Iraq. They are concerned with all the injustices of their region, including the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people. Judging by the West's response to King Hussein's peace-making efforts, the Arab states are receiving scant attention and respect.
Secondly, we have the unique opportunity of a common Western and Soviet effort to solve the crisis in collaboration. The patient efforts of President Gorbachev and his envoys stand in stark contrast to the sabre-rattling of President Bush. One might make the same contrast between the statesmanlike pronouncements of President Mitterrand and the bullishness of our Prime Minister. Let us give a chance for East and West to work together before the prospects of peace are swallowed up by war.
Thirdly, we must use to the full the present unanimity of the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council has ordered sanctions and the use of force but only to enforce sanctions. It has not agreed a counter-offensive to recapture Kuwait or to topple Saddam Hussein. It may well be that it will not agree to such a counter-offensive. Without such an agreement any such counter-offensive itself would be

301
a breach of international law. It would not be justified under Article 51. It would have nothing to do with a defence of Saudi Arabia against aggression. That objective, if it were at risk, has been successfully achieved. It is neither legal nor moral to punish one act of aggression by another more devastating act of aggression. The world must find other ways than war to remedy this wrong.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, two flying hours away from where American and British troops are stationed in the Gulf an ancient king, Croesus of Lydia, 2,500 years ago stood poised for battle and, hesitant, consulted the oracle, which told him, "If you cross the River Halys, you will destroy a mighty empire". He crossed, fought and destroyed an empire—his own. He had hesitated too long.
The mighty empire now at stake is not the tangible expanse of this country or the United States but the intangible realm of moral credibility and the validity of law. If Saddam Hussein were to be allowed to stay in power unscathed with even marginal rewards and in possession of his chemical, bacteriological and nuclear potential, he would emerge as victor and leader of a contagious revolt from one end to the other of the whole Arab world. No crown or sceptre, no presidential seal in moderate Moslem countries would remain safe.
But worse still, signals would go out to adventurous regimes throughout the world to the effect that violent change, subversion and aggression, given sly timing and tactics and terrorist accompaniment, can inevitably prevail over United Nations resolutions, world public opinion and grand alliances.
So far, President Bush has stood firm and the Prime Minister has probably come out more forcefully than anyone else with the triple objective of restoring the status quo in Kuwait, reparations and the punishment of war crimes. She has also more explicitly than anyone else insisted on removing the threat to the region from Iraq's unconventional armoury. But, as noble Lords have put it forcefully before, the grand alliance presents dangerous fissures and disturbing side effects.
Syria has lunged at Lebanon and probably destroyed the political identity of the Maronite Christians. France may have sent men, ships and arms, but also confusing messages, with whiffs of compromise and appeasement. The Russians have raised hopes, so far quite unsubstantiated, of a political solution. The guild of elder statesmen has sent its emissaries to trade hostages with hints of concession. All that only destabilises those most immediately involved, the anxious Saudis, the emirates and Egypt.
It is the aftermath of the crisis which vexes decision-makers. President Bush has rightly talked of the need to chart a regional new order of economic stability, military security, fair government and lasting peace. So has Saddam Hussein. Two nights ago the
302
Iraqi dictator used mellifluous words and propounded seemingly equitable solutions, but his new order in the Middle East means Iraqi domination.
So far, Iraq has scored in the propaganda war among the Arab masses, American isolationists and European faint hearts. He caught a raw nerve among those who see the issue as the price of oil, or link Kuwait with the unresolved grievances of the Palestinians. But whereas Lebanese Christians and Kurds are only rarely mentioned for fear of Syrian groans, Iranian scowls and Turkish scorn, the Palestinian issue is on top of the agenda.
Of course the Arab-Israeli conflict is indeed a vital central issue, but only in an ambience of good faith and compassionate comprehension can it be solved. I believe that the United Nations resolution on sending a commission to Jerusalem was lacking in evenhandedness. It failed to condemn the violence that gave rise to what the media now term as the Temple Mount massacre. If the government of Israel showed wariness on its account, you must recall the record of the United Nations and especially the General Assembly on issues involving the Jewish state. An international forum includes Cuba, whose leader we were recently told by a Soviet defector had tried to goad Kruschev into making a pre-emptive strike against the United States at the height of the missile crisis. If Israel is to be judged by China on the question of massacres in public squares, you may perhaps think more benevolently of the Jerusalem government's hesitation.
As for Iraq, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, reminded us, we would be sitting here a good deal less comfortably had Israel not destroyed the nuclear reactor in 1981. I have just looked at the record, and while I cannot find anything said at the time in your Lordships' House I noticed an exchange in the other place between the honourable Member for Davyhulme, Mr. Winston Churchill, and the then Minister of State, now Foreign Secretary, who roundly condemned the Israeli action, and added that it was a pity that some Israelis continued to use the tragic memories of the Holocaust as justification for breaking international law. Let history judge if Israel's sense of self-defence against terrorism and crude threats to her existence have justified, or at least attenuated, some of its actions.
What on a balanced view is clear to me is that Israel must, and will, seek the first opportunity after the crisis to resume the peace process. When that day comes there is a special role for this country and Europe. Britain was the mandatory power for that greater Palestine which now holds Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. It is that whole area that has to be pacified and freed from fear. Fear is at the root of the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict, much more than territory or even military security—fear of the future, fear of their neighbours, fear of no future.
Europe can present itself as a model of how erstwhile enemies can be turned into friendly neighbours. A master scheme that gives economic stability, military security and the prospect of peace to all the people in the greater Palestinian area should be

303
devised and propounded by Europe and notably Britain. The Americans are talking of something resembling the Marshall Plan. Europe still lives on the ideas of Jean Monnet, who preached European association during the darkest days of the last great European war.
This is the role for Europe in the future. By distancing itself from the notion of a free-standing Palestinian state, which would become a mini-Lebanon and proxy battleground for feuding neighbours, we should aim at the larger regional solution and encourage Palestinian leaders on the ground who are independent of the official PLO leadership, which is so clearly now in Saddam Hussein's camp, to sit down and negotiate with Israel. They can be found.
It is a received idea that Palestinian leaders, notables, are wholly and exclusively dependent on the PLO leadership. I have visited that part of the world for 40 years and have been in many Arab houses, known many Arab families—families of notables, professional people, businessmen—and brave Arab
304
patriots who lost their dependants in wars against Israel. They would sit down and talk but not out of fear of blackmail threats or murder on the part of people who are guided by foreign leaders or leaders living abroad. It would be a very challenging task for this country and for Europe to think in these broader terms of regional solutions and it would do justice to Arabs and Jews. But, first, we must not falter in our resolve to remove the present evil and threat of future terror, turmoil and nuclear war that stems from the Iraqi aggressor.
I began my speech by reminding your Lordships of the tragic fate of an ancient king, and perhaps I may in conclusion recall the ringing words of that venerable member of one of the most distinguished upper houses in all history, the Senate of Republican Rome, who said: "Carthage must be destroyed". It would be a very challenging task for this country and for Europe to think in these broader terms of regional solutions and it would do justice to Arabs and Jews. But first, we must not falter in our resolve to remove the present evil and threat of future terror, turmoil and nuclear war that stems from the Iraqi aggressor.
10.6 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, we have had a debate which has ranged widely over many parts of the globe—Europe, Hong Kong, the Gulf, Northern Ireland and many different places. But at this late hour I propose to return to the very beginning of this debate and speak to your Lordships about Latin America, as I have done on many occasions in the past.
Latin America was not mentioned in the gracious Speech; indeed it never is. It was therefore with some surprise, but with a great deal of pleasure, that I listened to my noble friend Lord Caithness and his encouraging comments on this subject. I have had many arguments with him in the past about Latin America, but I am delighted by his recent conversion. Long may it continue.
I believe that there are good reasons why this conversion is justified. In a troubled world, about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon, Latin America can be seen as a continent of stability, growth and opportunity. We have heard from a number of speakers today about the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the emergence of democracy. All this has taken place very suddenly. By contrast, in Latin America the demise of autocratic governments, mostly military, over the last decade has been gradual —different, of course, in each country but with the same result. Now all the republics of Latin America, except Cuba, are democracies and it is quite possible that that may change in the next few years.
Latin America has historically—certainly, since the end of World War Two—been very closely linked economically and politically to the United States, but is now seeking ties with Europe. In fact, the new democratic leaders are travelling extensively to Europe to promote their cause, which is a very welcome move. I hope that we shall see more of them all the time.
If I may turn for a moment to trade and economic matters, the past 15 years have been difficult for Latin America. Indeed a similar difficulty was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, in connection with the Caribbean and Africa, as indeed is the case for most developing countries. The oil crisis of 1973 hit Latin American countries hard. The terms of trade turned against hem. They adapted, but it was not easy.
Added to that has been the burden of debt. I would remind your Lordships that debts were contracted by largely autocratic military governments, but with the full support, and indeed encouragement, of the West at a time of excess liquidity. The debt burden, therefore, is something which is a shared responsibility between those who provided it and those who received it. It seems to me that dialogue and understanding are needed in order to resolve the problem. Debt in Latin America has also been a factor in fuelling inflation; something which has been referred to by others and which appears to be endemic in Latin America, but which is now being tackled vigorously by the new democratic governments.
306
Let me give your Lordships a few figures about Latin America and why it may seem important. First, the population of Latin America is now approaching 450 million. The gross domestic product is more than £430 billion. The market size in terms of import capacity is larger than south-east Asia, the Indian sub-continent and sub-Saharan Africa combined. Indeed, in economic terms Brazil is more important than what was previously described as Eastern Europe. In those circumstances it is gratifying that the UK is the second largest investor in many countries. Unfortunately, our share of the market in visible trade remains abysmally low, though that is changing gradually and during the past two years trade has begun to pick up.
Ten years ago China was all the rage. British exporters and industrialists were encouraged to go there. I am one of the few who did not then make the visit. China turned out to be disappointing. Now the rage is Eastern Europe but the change in state control and in the systems there will be slow and difficult. That is due to the nature of their history. By contrast, Latin America is naturally entrepreneurial. Therefore, the change in economic philosophy which has accompanied the return to democracy has brought with it the opening of markets, the introduction of market forces, the privatisation of cumbersome and inefficient state industries and the dismantling of central planning. All those factors will be readily accepted because of that entrepreneurial nature. Therefore, we in the UK and Europe have much in common with Latin America and I hope that we can profit by that.
I congratulate the Government on the appointment of Tristan Garel-Jones as Minister of State with responsibility for Latin America. He is a fluent Spanish speaker and, as far as I am aware, the first such Minister with that talent to be appointed for a long time. He understands the countries and his visits, which I hope will be frequent, will be well received by all concerned. I hope that he will continually repeat them. Sadly, few Cabinet Ministers, and no Prime Minister, have ever visited Latin America. That is surprising when one thinks that we have had the same Prime Minister for 11 years. She has travelled the globe extensively but has not gone to Latin America. Perhaps it is not too late.
In Latin America we can see a continent that has changed direction, is developing fast and is seeking closer ties with Europe. Up to now it has been ignored by Her Majesty's Government, but I hope that the new awakening indicated by my noble friend Lord Caithness will prosper and increase in the years to come.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I have the unenviable task of being tail-end Charlie in the debate. I had hoped that other Members of your Lordships' House would raise the topics about which I wish to speak and that, therefore, I need not speak for too long. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case. If I say straightaway that I shall talk about black hats,

307
white hats and blue hats it is probable that your Lordships will become confused and therefore I shall lead up to the subject gradually.
Like my noble friend Lord Fitt, one of my problems is that I wish to speak about topics other than foreign affairs and defence because they are all related. In a debate about foreign affairs and defence it is difficult to introduce them but let me see whether I can try.
The theme of my contribution is the partiality of this Government. Perhaps I may say as a small aside that this has been a very interesting and rewarding debate for everyone who has taken part in it. However, it becomes even more significant than we thought it would be at the beginning of the afternoon because of events in the other place and the possibility of significant change in the Government. If that should take place, one hopes that a reconstituted Conservative Government might take rather more notice of what has been said in your Lordships' House not only today but on preceding days and what is to be said tomorrow. Therefore, it is quite an interesting time at which to speak.
The partiality of this Government and their ability to create a climate which is most unhelpful and in some cases positively anti-social is the theme that I wish to talk about this evening. I want to talk about personal relationships, community, regional and international relations. I hope that I shall not take too long in doing so.
It may be wise at this time of night to start at the end and work back, but perhaps I may try to build my theme. One item in the Queen's Speech is the introduction of legislation to require errant parents to pay maintenance for their children. While I accept that the payment of maintenance causes a great deal of difficulty—for example, judging how much to pay, when to pay it, when to increase it and whose responsibility maintenance is and so on—placing emphasis on introducing legislation on the subject distorts the way in which we should look at the problems of marriage break-up, divorce and the results of those problems.
I had hoped that the welfare of the family and children would be uppermost in all our minds and not just as regards what appears to be uppermost in the Government's mind—namely, saving money and penalising people. That is what I have to say on personal relationships as regards my partiality theme.
Perhaps I may now talk about community relations and look at Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has already been mentioned today. I was interested in the subject and looked at the statement of the Government's security policy in Northern Ireland. On the first page, paragraph 2(c) states:
"to defend the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland against those who try to promote political objectives, including a change in the status of Northern Ireland, by violence or the threat of violence".
We can agree with some of the phrases in that paragraph but unfortunately two of them seem to introduce an element of partiality into the security
308
policy in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that both Protestants and Catholics are murdered by people on both sides of the divide. In fact there is a law on the statute book which prevents one side of the political debate being heard on radio and television but not the other side. That introduces an unfortunate note of partiality which I do not believe helps.
If one looks at regional relationships, there is the whole problem of the North-South divide. The other day I heard that a very senior industrialist not very far from the highest echelons in contact with the Government has forecast that the recession into which we are entering will be worse than that which we experienced in 1980 and 1981. In that recession we lost around one-third of our manufacturing industry. It decimated the Midlands, the North West, the North East of England and large parts of industrial Scotland. One of the results of that recession was rioting on the streets of Liverpool and Manchester. We need to be aware that we are heading into that kind of territory again. It stems from the partiality of this Government. They appear to be quite happy to see the further erosion of our manufacturing industry.
Perhaps I may now touch on the international relationships and demonstrate the partiality which occurs there. I turn first to Europe, about which there has been much talk. It seems to be a favourite theme in the other place. I feel that the problem is that the Government are looking at Europe from the point of view of national advantage—our advantage—rather than in terms of the people of the European Continent coming together and working to benefit each other. The theme of seeking partial advantage does not help this country or its people.
Finally, I turn to the Gulf, and here I introduce the concept of white, blue and black hats. The partiality of this Government suggests that the problem in the Gulf crisis is black and white. Saddam Hussein is black; the Americans and Brits are white; we will go in there and sort the problem out by military means. That unfortunately seems to be the only option the Prime Minister can think of.
The other problem that exists is that we are advised that the military action will occur under the aegis of the United Nations; we shall be part of the United Nations force. But that does not appear to be the case. Effectively we have a force in Saudi Arabia under American control; our troops and land forces are subject to American military command. The ultimate political command is in the hands of the President of the United States. In an action which is purported to be the upholding of international law, one hopes impartially, for the conflict to be effectively between one state and another is not constructive.
We seem to be very good at handing out advice to everyone but ourselves. Various people who were not members of the Republic of Ireland offered advice to the Irish Government; we heard people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause offering advice to the Israeli Government and people who are sympathetic to the Israeli Government offering advice to the Palestinians. I shall follow in the footsteps of those before me and offer some advice to the

309
American people. They should place their armed forces under the control of the United Nations. By that I mean that the political control should effectively be surrendered or given to Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary General of the United Nations, subject to the actions, advice and orders, if I can put it that way, of the Security Council and the General Assembly.
That suggestion has already been laughed at. It is reasonable to laugh because it is laughable to think that the President of the United States would place 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the armed forces of the United States under the control of an international body. That is not going to happen.
However, the fact that it is not going to happen demonstrates the partiality of what is going on. What we are seeing is a conflict not between Saddam Hussein and the rest of the world but between Iraq and the United States. When one looks at it from that perspective the situation is very unsatisfactory. That is not what the Government are explaining to us. That is why I entered this debate—to demonstrate the partiality of this Government and to suggest that we need a little more impartiality from them.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it is hard to wind up a debate consisting of interesting and well-informed speeches on entirely disparate subjects. Today we have had speeches on Latin America, Cambodia, Poland, South Africa, the Sudan, Israel, development aid, Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth, terms of trade and, of course, Europe and the Gulf. We also had a truly memorable speech on Hong Kong. We had a speech on personal relations, social relations, community relations and international relations; and also on white hats, black hats and blue hats.
There has been little discussion on the defence of Europe There was a time in such debates when one-third or one-half of the speeches would be on that subject. For obvious reasons that has not been the case today—the most obvious reason being that quite quickly the threat of war in Europe has become extremely remote and the threat of war in the Gulf has become extremely acute. The only speech substantially on defence in Europe was that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Once again, I should like to associate my noble friends and myself with a great deal of what he said about the future of NATO. He envisaged a treaty relationship between, on the one hand, the United States and Canada and, on the other, a European defence community. It may be that such a European defence community would be different from but parallel to the European Community and might grow out of a reformed Western European Union.
I do not want to anticipate the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but so far we have had no partisan attack—indeed no attack of any kind—on the defence policy of the Government, though there are differences and perhaps on some other occasion we may explain them and press them. In general, another reason why in this debate there has been less discussion on European defence is undoubtedly
310
because, by and large and for one reason and another, the big issues between the parties have become much less sharp. The issues of unilateralism, forward defence and flexible response have become much less sharp than hitherto.
Indeed, if we look back at the long perspective of inter-party discussion on defence policy we see that the outstanding feature has been not disagreement between the parties but agreement on the fundamentals of support for NATO and containing the Soviet Union. In that sense we can all congratulate ourselves. Broadly speaking, we have all been right and have been proved spectacularly successful,
There has been a great deal of consensus today on the Gulf crisis. Certainly my noble friends and I wish to make clear, like others in all parts of the House, that we view the annexation of Kuwait as an outrage which cannot in any circumstances be allowed to continue. We welcome the dispatch of British troops and pledge our support to them. We join with noble Lords in all parts of the House in calling for a rigorous and, if necessary, a protracted use of sanctions at this time. There may come a time when sanctions begin to impose severe hardship on the Iraqi people and particularly on Iraqi women and children. However, there may also come a time when we have to remind ourselves that sanctions are a merciful alternative to war. That must be borne in mind at all times when trying to get a peaceful solution to this crisis.
My party will also not support military action unless and until the possibilities of sanctions have been tested to the limit. We also require military action to have very wide international support and a new resolution from the Security Council. I speak frankly on this point at the cost of causing some controversy. Doubts and differences must arise. There has been extraordinarily wide and confident international support for the Security Council resolutions. Everyone has said that. There are many countries which have deployed forces in the Gulf which would no doubt take part in military action to resist further Iraqi aggression. But how many of these countries would be willing to take part in a counter-offensive to liberate Kuwait? We have to ask ourselves that question.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to visits made by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, to the relevant countries. But there is no evidence that he achieved successful results in trying to persuade those countries to undertake to participate in a counter-offensive. I notice that the noble Earl made no reference to the results that Mr. Baker achieved. Perhaps the noble Earl who will wind up the debate will do that.
The situation is not satisfactory. The Chinese and the Russians have not deployed troops. They are plainly reluctant to approve the use of force. Either of them can prevent it under the auspices of the United Nations. Apart from that, it is hard to see, without Soviet acquiescence, that military action can succeed. The attitude of the French is not by any means clear. Apart from Kuwait the attitude of the Arab governments is not clear. Syria and Saudi Arabia have

311
not said plainly that they are willing to participate in action beyond the boundaries of Saudi Arabia even though both those governments have been amply rewarded already for the dispatch of troops to the coalition.
Yesterday President Mubarak said specifically that Egypt would not take part in military action across the Saudi frontier. He undertook only that Egypt would contribute a peacekeeping force afterwards in Kuwait. These governments have strong and particular reasons for wanting the downfall of Saddam Hussein, but all of them, including the government of Morocco, are plainly worried by reactions at home to the spectacle of their governments fighting an Arab country side by side with the United States. Incidentally, their troops are deployed between the British and American and the Iraqi troops. That is a comparatively minor matter but obviously it is an operational headache of the first order. The important point is that we must have grave misgivings about a United States and a United Kingdom commitment to engage Iraq unless there is also substantial Arab support by dispatch of troops to the coalition. The first Arab deaths through American bombing could produce what the noble Lord, Lord Pym, described very aptly as a re-run of the Crusades, and no outcome could be more disastrous than that. Yet it is a possibility.
The Americans perceive themselves as upholding international law and the resolutions of the Security Council—and in this instance they are right—but their posture is seriously undermined by their disregarding of international law and Security Council resolutions in other instances. The instance about which the Arabs are most keenly sensitive is that of Palestine. On resolutions concerned with the occupied territories, under President Reagan the United States used its veto 18 times. President Bush has so far used the veto four times and undoubtedly would have used it twice more recently had he not required more support from his Arab allies in the coalition. It is small wonder that the Saudi, Egyptian and Syrian governments hold back and hesitate when asked to ally themselves with the United States against an Arab country.
President Bush showed some awareness of this problem when he stated that after the Kuwait crisis was settled the time would come to handle the problem of Palestine. That does not seem to have had the major impact it should have had. It is not clear to me—and here I speak entirely for myself—why, during this difficult and perhaps long period of waiting for sanctions to take effect, a period when the United States urgently needs to build up its Arab support, President Bush's offer should not be brought forward and why the Security Council, quite independently of Iraq and entirely on its own merits, should not address itself now to the implementation of its resolutions on Palestine.
Such a move by the Security Council would certainly be supported by all Arabs unitedly, including the Iraqi people. It would help the anti-Saddam coalition to solidify. It would strengthen it. It would further isolate Saddam Hussein. If the coalition found
312
later that it needed to take military action, that action would be taken with greater moral authority and with greater Arab support. I do not expect the noble Earl to commit the Government to my proposal today but I should be most grateful if in due course he could let me know what the Government's attitude to it is.
The outlook in the Gulf is difficult and dark at the present time, but as other noble Lords have said during the debate the Gulf crisis could and should produce positive results as well—above all, the assertion of the authority of the Security Council in other parts of the Middle East besides the Gulf; and the deployment of a powerful United Nations force in the Gulf could be a very useful precedent. Several speakers have referred to the security of Israel. Is it simply dreaming—I do not think it is—after the precedents set in the Gulf to think that one could have a United Nations force, with American and European troops, in the West Bank and Gaza, guaranteeing the security of Israel, protecting the Palestinians, as they deserve to be protected, from the treatment they are receiving now from the occupying forces and thus also enabling Israel to dispense with control of South Lebanon, which it believes to be necessary, and which in itself might relieve the Syrians of the need to control the rest of the country?
Of course the realisation of such ideas is a long time away, but it seems to me that what has happened in the Gulf makes them more credible and practicable than before. In addition, as other speakers mentioned, they would make more possible the liberalisation of some of the Gulf regimes. Moreover, the redistribution of some of the vast assets of the oil-producing countries and of the oil companies would help to develop some of the poorer countries in the region.
It has been said that after the Gulf crisis the Middle East will never be the same again. Those of us who have had a lot to do with the region in past years may believe that that would not be a bad outcome.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall begin by dealing with two pleasant matters before I launch into the debate. I should like first to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his kind words about me in his opening speech. I am most grateful to him for them. Secondly, I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers, who both made extraordinary speeches today.
I am sure that everyone who listened to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, will agree with me when I say that it was a performance which we shall remember and indeed cherish. She reminded us in forthright terms of our obligation to history. She is of course quite right; British rule is a interlude so far as concerns Hong Kong. Empires comes and empires go. In some ways they always are an interlude. However, she was gracious enough to say that in her view successive British Governments have tried to govern wisely, though not always successfully. At least she was kind enough to give us the benefit of the doubt. I should like to say that we on this side of the House wish her and the people of Hong Kong well.

313
The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, spoke from personal experience and conviction. I agree with a great deal of what he said. His time in New York qualifies him as having a particular knowledge of the United Nations. I welcome much of his speech and look forward greatly to hearing from him again.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, winding up a debate of this character is an extraordinarily difficult task. The discussion has covered many countries, including Latin America, Northern Ireland, Southern Africa, Poland, Israel and Palestine. Indeed, I believe that it is impossible for anyone to do justice to the whole range of topics which have been mentioned.
I should like to draw the Government's attention to a few matters as regards Cambodia. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take all possible measures to ensure that the Khmer Rouge, and especially Pol Pot, have no role to play in the process which is now taking place in that country. It would be deeply offensive to those of us on this side of the House if the situaticn were other than that Pol Pot was excluded.
Secondly, if, as part of the settlement in Cambodia, the United Nations is to be brought in to man the temporary administration, or some kind of peacekeeping force, I hope that the Government will not be niggardly when it comes to paying for such a force. There is a tendency to believe that peace is cheap. Of course it is cheaper than war, but it is a jolly sight more expensive when it comes to paying the bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, spoke about the Commonwealth in his speech, a fair part of which I agreed with. However, I do not share the view which seemed to be implicit in much of what he said that somehow or other a policy which was positive towards Europe necessarily involved being antagonistic towards the Commonwealth. That is not a view I share.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, made what I thought was a preceptive speech. He looked forward to a post-NATO Europe. I believe that we are nearly in the position of being a post-NATO Europe. I listened to his words with interest and I look forward to pursuing that particular line of policy. I especially agreed with what he said about the Gulf. He said that there were two requirements: first, clarity in the aim —otherwise it is unfair to the soldiers (an attitude with which, I am bound to say, I totally agree); and, secondly, he said, we need patience. We need patience for two reasons. Sanctions will take a considerable time; and it is always bad to start a war out of impatience rather than out of deliberation and policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that we had not talked much about defence in this debate. He is quite right. However, I have given the Minister who is to reply notice of two purely defence matters which, if the House will allow me, I should like to raise so that I may hear his answer. With regard to Britain's nuclear Forces, we are disturbed that the Government have announced that another two of Britain's nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines—HMS "Warspite" and HMS "Churchill"—are to be decommissioned in
314
addition to HMS "Conqueror", whose decommissioning was announced in July as part of the options for change review. As I understand it, the two submarines were undergoing expensive refits when hairline cracks were found in their reactors' primary cooling circuit.
It is now thought—and I welcome the Government's views on this because if it is true it is of extreme importance—that the rest of the Valiant-Churchill class will have to be scrapped. The discovery of the cracks also raises questions about the future of the four Polaris submarines which have the same reactor system. If cracks develop in these submarines before they are replaced by the Trident II submarines, Britain's defence force will face major problems indeed.
Can the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate give us some reassurance on that issue? He will know that an independent nuclear engineer, Mr. Large, was quoted in the Observer on Sunday as saying:
"Since the reactors on the Polaris submarines are exactly the same design, as well as being older than the Valiant-Churchill submarines, then the same design defect is likely to exist. It seems as though the Ministry of Defence might be stretching its luck in continuing to operate these submarines until the Tridents come into commission".
Having given the Minister notice that I should do so, I pose that question in the hope that we can receive a definitive answer from the Government.
Secondly, I should like him to comment on the change that there has apparently been in the tour of duty in the Gulf of hundreds of men in the Royal Air Force. The tour of duty has been extended from three months to six months. The doubling of time spent in combat readiness will apparently take effect shortly. In The Times today there is a report about the effect on morale that that is supposed to have had. I should welcome some reassurance from the Minister on that matter.
Perhaps I may turn to the contributions in the debate. Understandably the debate was dominated by events in the Gulf. I believe that most noble Lords who took part agreed that the policy of sanctions should continue. They also agreed that the policy of sanctions will take time.
Different trends of opinion on that issue, and upon past policy in the Gulf, now seem to be emerging even in the United States. Perhaps we may envisage a solution to the problem in the Gulf in which Iraq withdraws from Kuwait; after a decent interval there is a negotiated settlement—primarily negotiated by the Arab states—and a negotiated settlement of the territorial claims, perhaps relating to the islands, and perhaps some concessions on the oilfields. As the Government will know, that issue seems to be raised more and more, in particular in the United States. I gather that Senators Nunn and Moynihan may have been questioning the trend of American policy up to now. As we all know, they are very senior politicians in the United States. If that emerges as an avenue which the Arabs themselves wish to explore, as a non-indigenous foreign country, can we really say no

315
to it? If indeed such exploration were to be successful, should we then be in a position to say no to a possible settlement along those lines?
I venture to suggest that it would be extremely difficult, even if the United States were as firm in its position now as it appears to have been at some stage in the past, for an Anglo-Saxon alliance of that kind to deny validity to an Arab settlement. I do not expect the Government to give us any firm declaration of their views on this tonight. It is obviously not a matter for overt politicking. I merely ask the Minister to comment on the reports coming out of the United States. Its views are entitled to be treated seriously.
I wish to press the Government on their position now on the possible use of force and their view on the need for a further Security Council resolution before embarking on a war. Perhaps I may say at the outset of this part of my speech to the House that it is not a question now of whether it is under Article 51 or Article 42. I have my own views, but perhaps it is no longer a legal issue. The question now seems to be much more a political than a legal one. Does it make sense for us to embark on war without the international stamp of approval that a Security Council resolution would give? I have to tell the Government why I think it would not make sense for us to do that. We all agree that it is essential to maintain as great a degree of international solidarity as possible. We all know that in his journey last week to various capitals, Mr Baker, the United States Secretary of State, seemed to be attempting to line up precisely that kind of international solidarity which is needed. I must therefore press the Government on this.
According to the press, the Prime Minister last week accepted—albeit, it is said, reluctantly—that before force is used there will have to be further recourse to the Security Council. Is this so? Is this the position of Her Majesty's Government tonight? If it is, it is a major shift in the Government's position and it is one upon which we are entitled to a greater degree of clarity. Can the Minister give us that assurance tonight? The House and indeed the country should not have to learn of a change of policy of this gravity and magnitude through a series of inspired leaks. It may be that an enabling resolution of the Security Council would do. The Chinese Foreign Minister in Baghdad yesterday apparently said that China would not veto a United Nations resolution authorising the use of force. So there is some ground for believing that Security Council action would be attainable.
The attitude of the Soviet Union on this issue is of course crucial in the Security Council. Can the Minister give us an indication of what the Government expect the Soviet attitude to be in the event of the matter going back to the council? Last week Mr Shevardnadze said that they did not rule out the use of force. Is this the message he is conveying to Her Majesty's Government? If so, we would like to know.
In short, I think we need from the Government tonight some indication of their current thinking as to
316
the way forward. Standing pat at the moment is hardly a policy, if I may say so. It is more an excuse for the absence of one. I must press the Minister on this. We cannot just drift into war. The British people are entitled to have the issues clearly presented to them. So far, as the Government know, the Opposition have given the Government our support. We have not given them a blank cheque, but we have broadly given them our support. I think that the time has come for a little more openness on the part of the Government.
I have listened to most of the debate today. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will not be surprised to hear me say that I agreed with a great deal of what he had to say about the intricacies of operating within the Community context. In considering the Government's European policy, the difficulty that one feels they have is in grappling with the problems of a world in which multilateral diplomacy has overtaken the bilateral pursuit of national interests. More and more, those national interests can only be safeguarded and accommodated and can only prosper by operating in a multilateral context and through multilateral institutions. That is true whether we are talking about the EC, NATO, the United Nations, GATT, the Commonwealth or the many other international institutions in which we operate. The inexorable trend of the last two or three decades has been the inability of nations, large as well as small, to defend their national interests on a bilateral basis only. National freedom of manoeuvre has declined inevitably as international events have become more and more soluble only on a multilateral basis.
A very distinguished former American ambassador to NATO, Mr. Harlan Cleveland, recently made a study of what American ambassadors do. He talked to American ambassadors in capital cities, analysing their day and seeing what occupied their minds. He discovered that approximately 75 per cent. of their time is spent not on relations with the host country but on multilateral issues, trying to decide how the host country will behave when an issue comes up in New York, Brussels or any other multilateral context.
If that is so, what does it mean in practice? It means that one has to operate in an atmosphere and environment in which consensus is the goal. One has to operate in an environment in which the winner in the game is the country which can gain a consensus nearest to the direction it wishes. However, in turn, consensus also means, first, that one has to be ready to listen to the other side's argument, and, secondly, that one has to be prepared to compromise. In addition, one has to show a decent respect for the institutions within which one operates and the direction in which they are moving.
The Government are not good at that, to put it moderately at this hour of the night. Speaking personally, I am fed up with Britain being the awkward squad, whether it is in the Community, the Commonwealth or any other international institution. Not only am I fed up with it, I believe that we achieve less that way. One tends to be marginalised more and more in the decision-making process. One tends to be less genuinely consulted and to become more isolated.

317
Decisions by the rest of the members tend to be formulated on the basis of a genuine give and take between them and are then presented to the odd man out, or the odd woman out, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. When that has resulted in the odd person out taking it, one's credibility is even further eroded. I wish it would end, not only in our own interests but in the interests of the very institutions that we are trying to influence.
The acid test of the way in which one runs one's foreign policy is whether it is successful. Have we managed to prevent a serious move towards a single currency in the EC? I think not. Have we increased or diminished our capacity to mould a Community consensus in that direction? I think that we have lessened it. As I said, it is time we stopped being the difficult member of the Community and being so by design rather than by accident. It is indefensible on grounds of success and it is doubtful in terms of the genuineness of our commitment.
Therefore, I conclude - I hope on not too philosophical a note - by saying to the Government, having personally tried to operate in two or three institutions which were all about consensus, that it is time the Government learnt how to operate that policy.
10.58 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships will agree that this has been a debate on a very high level, highlighted by some notable speeches but starred by two memorable maiden speeches, those of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. Not only were they a valuable contribution to the debate; once again they demonstrated that your Lordships' House is a House of diverse skills and talents. I am sure that we can look forward to further performances of equal talent from both of those speakers in the near future.
We have been discussing foreign affairs and defence at a time when we must consider profoundly different futures for areas of the world in which we have very important interests. In Europe, although the future remains uncertain, there are very hopeful signs that we may be able to look forward to the development of freedom and democracy throughout the Continent. In contrast, the Middle East is in turmoil and we have made a major commitment of forces as part of an unprecedented international operation to oppose blunt aggression by Iraq and to secure the freedom of Kuwait
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and to many other noble Lords, that our objectives are the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, the re-establishment of the legitimate Kuwaiti Government and the release of all foreign nationals in Iraq and Kuwait.
The United Kingdom has already committed some 17,000 service personnel to the multinational force and Awe are now considering whether further deployments may be necessary. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of our service personnel and their
318
civilian support who organised and undertook so large a deployment to such an unfamiliar environment with great efficiency and dispatch. For example, within 48 hours of the order being given to deploy forces to deter an invasion of Saudi Arabia a squadron of Tornados arrived at Dharan. Within two hours of the squadron's arrival a pair of Tornados was airborne on an operational mission.
We do not seek war. That is a point that I want most firmly to make to the right reverend Prelate, to the noble Lords, Lord Soper and Lord Gifford, and to many other noble Lords. Very often the threat of war is more effective than military action itself, but it is quite clear that the use of naked force to overrun and pillage a neighbouring country cannot and will not be tolerated by the international community. We must acknowledge frankly that our forces may have to be deployed to compel Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait if sanctions alone cannot achieve this.
"Can sanctions lead to a peaceful solution?" asked the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as did my noble friend Lord Holderness. We very much hope that they can. But Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and has already subjected his people to many years of futile sacrifice and war against Iraq.
Like many other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about legal authority for force and whether further resolutions are needed. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides the legal authority for the use of force for the Government fully recognise the need to keep together the unprecedented coalition against Iraq.
One of the few bright spots in the dark clouds that have surrounded the invasion of Kuwait has been the performance of the United Nations. In particular, the support of the Soviet Union for effective measures against an erstwhile client has been significant and important. No longer can an aggressor count on East-West antagonism to prevent concerted UN action. These are pointers towards a hopeful future for this institution and we shall work to make it even more effective in future. But that will only be possible if we can restore the legitimate government and territorial integrity of Kuwait. Any weakening of resolve on the part of the international community will fatally undermine the prospects for the United Nations taking a prominent role in maintaining international security. That point was most ably brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, in his extremely reflective maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, asked "Why not contact Saddam Hussein?" There is nothing to negotiate. The international community has made clear its requirement that Iraq should comply with Security Council resolutions. The aggressor cannot be rewarded for his crime.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon spoke of individuals seeking the release of hostages. While we warmly welcome the release of any hostages, we are firmly of the view that such initiatives serve only to help Saddam Hussein in his attempts to divide the unanimous international condemnation of his actions.

319
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, all mentioned the problem of Palestine. We all agree that the Palestinian problem requires strenuous efforts to achieve urgent solution. Saddam Hussein is the main obstacle to progress. We will pursue this with renewed vigour once the current crisis is over and we are ready to assist in the search for solutions.
Let me now turn to Europe, which has been the prime focus of our security planning for so many years and indeed about which so many of your Lordships have talked this evening. Europe is greatly changed from the Continent we viewed when your Lordships last debated the gracious Speech and it is almost unrecognisable compared with the Europe of two years ago. Such has been the pace of change.
If one single dramatic event epitomised the transformation of Eastern and Central Europe it was surely the unification of Germany last month—an event which was barely conceivable 12 months ago but which throughout this year had to be brought forward time and again as the governments of the Federal Republic and East Germany sought to keep pace with popular pressures and with events. The rebuilding of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said is an event that we must not fail to seize.
A major factor in removing the final obstacles to unification was the decision by President Gorbachev to agree that a united Germany should be free to choose to belong to NATO: a proposition for which the Federal German Government and its allies had consistently argued. That the Soviet Union was prepared to drop its opposition to German membership of NATO reflected the very welcome extent of the changes that have taken place in Soviet thinking about security and the shape of the new Europe. The new thinking on security matters in the Soviet Government has followed a fairly steady path of convergence with Western ideas during President Gorbachev's time at the helm, and we warmly welcome his being awarded the Nobel peace prize.
Part of this is a changing perception of the role of NATO. It is hardly surprising that the clear image the Soviet Union and our public have had of the alliance is of a military organisation. Of course it still is, but it always has been, in addition, a political organisation; and as the military threat in Europe recedes we need to develop and give greater emphasis to NATO's political role.
The London Declaration issued by NATO Heads of Government following the summit in July this year set out clearly the direction in which we intend to move. It reaffirmed the central point that NATO is a wholly defensive alliance and invited the Warsaw Pact states to join the Western nations in a joint declaration that we no longer regard each other as adversaries. We are engaged with our alliance partners in a review of NATO's military strategy and as Soviet troops leave Eastern Europe NATO will scale back the readiness of its forces. These and the other measures outlined in the London Declaration are already having the intended
320
effect of helping to reduce the sense of suspicion of the West and its intentions that has been such a potent force in Soviet policy making.
We continue also to take the opportunity to build bridges with the Soviet Government and its armed forces. Manfred Woerner, NATO's Secretary General, has already visited Moscow; General Galvin, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe—I had the opportunity of meeting both of them in Brussels only a few weeks ago—and General Eide, the Chairman of NATO's Military Committee, are there now. General Moiseyev, the Chief of the Soviet General Staff, visited NATO last month and addressed the Military Committee, and we hope that President Gorbachev will address the North Atlantic Council in Brussels before the end of the year. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff will both address audiences in Moscow in the coming weeks. These contacts are vital if we are to break down the legacy of years of mutual distrust.
The signing of the CFE treaty in Paris next week, to which my noble friend referred in opening the debate, will be a major event in the process of building confidence between the West and the Soviet Union as well as an important step in improving security. To some extent the CFE negotiations have already been overtaken by events: they were envisaged as essentially a bloc-to-bloc negotiation, but one of the blocs has effectively ceased to exist.
That does not mean that CFE has no positive military advantages to offer the West. It will achieve the removal of massive amounts of military hardware from Europe, the destruction of many of the items removed and intrusive verification of those remaining. Moreover, there is an important political component of CFE in that the process of painstakingly negotiating these reductions and exchanging information about military capabilities makes yet a further contribution to increasing trust between the Soviet Union and the West—that trust and confidence which we all regard as so vital.
All these hopeful developments are interpreted by some as having removed the rationale for the continued existence of NATO. If there is no longer a military threat in Europe, they argue, why should we need the military and political alliance that has existed to contain the Soviet threat? But although we can be justified in being optimistic, all in the garden is not yet rosy. The Soviet Union faces immense difficulties in reforming itself and these difficulties are creating terrible strains. Such apprehension and fear of the future was very clearly outlined by my noble friend Lord Pym. They are anxieties we all share.
We cannot predict what will be the structure of the Soviet Union in a year's time, much less five or ten years' time, nor what sort of government it will have. But we can be relatively confident, however unpalatable it may be to dwell on the fact, that Soviet military power, even after the CFE reductions have been implemented, will remain far greater than that of any other country in Europe. While we pursue further arms control agreements, and while the Soviet Union continues to wrestle with the problems of transition

321
towards a fully democratic state in which respect for individual freedom is irreversibly embedded in the social fabric, we shall need to maintain substantial armed forces as an insurance policy against the unforeseen.
NATO also performs a vital function by acting as the structural link by which the democracies of North America are integrated into European security planning. Our historical, cultural and political ties, as well as the vast military power that the United States can deploy, make it crucial that North America plays a central role in Europe's security planning. And the alliance continues to represent the close political co-operation of 16 sovereign, democratic nations in an area or great importance.
That co-operation has been developed and tightened over 40 years. To abandon it now, when the future is perhaps less clear than it has ever been, and to attempt to build a new pan-European security structure from scratch would be the height of folly. This is not to belittle the contribution that we hope the conference on security and co-operation in Europe can make to improving stability and human rights. We have high hopes for a successful meeting of CSCE next week in Paris. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the summit will further the principles of democracy, prosperity and stability. But we must remain realistic about what CSCE can reasonably achieve and the provision of a tried and tested collective security system embracing the whole of Europe is simply not yet an option. On that, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
However, we shall not need to maintain forces at the levels we have required in recent years. We and many of our allies have announced proposed reductions in forces that go beyond what will be required by the CFE treaty. We are still working out the details of the changes, and consultations on options for change are still in progress. I cannot therefore offer your Lordships many further details about possible changes in the structure of the armed forces at this stage.
But, as foreshadowed in the statement on options for change in July, we have reviewed our RAF basing requirements in Germany. After consultations with our allies and in particular the German Government we have decided to redeploy units from RAF Wildenrath during 1991–92 and from RAF Gutersloh subsequently. Flying activity will reduce progressively from 1991. We are now considering, in consultation with the German authorities, the future of these bases after RAF operations cease.
Perhaps I may now go across the world and take up some of the points which your Lordships have made, beginning in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked about the abolition of visas for Poland. We must consider national security and immigration requirements when looking at visa abolition. Poland continues to present immigration problems, particularly illegal working, not only for us but also for many of our EC partners. Last week Mr. Komorowski, a deputy defence minister, came to
322
London for talks with me. I found him to be a most warm and friendly person who showed intense interest in the West.
My noble friend Lord Eccles talked of the EC and foreign policy. Foreign policy co-operation in the EC is one of the most positive developments in recent years. It received its treaty base only in the Single European Act in 1986. Great strides have been made. We proceed on the basis of consensus. The Twelve make themselves heard better in the world when they speak with one voice.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield said that the UK was trying to impose its goodwill on the Eleven and not the other way round. That is not true. We are fighting Britain's case and fighting it hard. It puts the cart before the horse to set a date for the start of stage two before deciding what stage two will be. No one must pre-empt the work of the intergovernmental conference.
The noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Richard, spoke of the problems of Cambodia. We thoroughly agree with their comments on the excessive Pol Pot. We have repeatedly expressed our abhorrence of Pol Pot and would be the last to object if he were brought to trial for genocide. We shall make a significant contribution to the cost of settlement but it is likely to be expensive.
My noble friend Lord Alport spoke of the Commonwealth. The Government remain fully committed to the Commonwealth. It is a unique organisation held in huge respect. Membership is still expanding and the UK continues to play an important role. The Commonwealth is moving with the times and preparing to tackle current world affairs such as the environment, drugs and human rights.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, made a deeply thoughtful maiden speech to which I have already referred. I reassure her that the Government fully recognise their responsibility for the security of the colony until 1997. The garrison will continue to play an important role in countering smuggling and illegal immigration. Our plans for the withdrawal of the garrison will ensure that our ability to carry out those roles is not impaired.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, spoke of UNESCO and asked when we shall rejoin it. We are monitoring developments carefully and there is as yet no evidence to show that the reforms are sufficiently substantial to merit rejoining. She asked when we shall ratify the UN convention on the right of the child. The United Kingdom signed the convention on 19th April 1990 and will ratify it as soon as possible. The noble Baroness also asked about aid to Eastern Europe as did the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. Aid to Eastern Europe is separate and additional to the aid programme for developing countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke about consulates in the USSR. We have no plans at present to open a consulate outside Moscow. However, we are keeping the possibility under review.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, spoke about communal violence in South Africa. We

323
condemn violence from whatever source. It is not our business to take sides or apportion blame. The South African Government have a duty to ensure that their security forces enforce the law impartially but all political leaders have a responsibility to restrain their followers and maintain the momentum towards negotiations.
A major aim of options for change is to enhance the mobility and flexibility of our armed forces. While we anticipate a reduced need for forces primarily structured to fight if need be in the environment of North Europe, we shall need to maintain balanced forces capable of performing effectively within a wide range of environments to cope with whatever crises we may face. The forces we have deployed to the Middle East to counter Iraqi aggression all have NATO roles and they illustrate very well the flexibility which is so valuable and which we are determined to retain. In that context I can tell my noble friend Lord Ashbourne that the Gulf crisis will not affect our plans to reduce our armed forces under options for change.
Members of the services demonstrate that flexibility as they carry out a very different but also very demanding role assisting the RUC in maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland. For the Army this remains its largest peacetime commitment and the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force also make a substantial contribution to operations.
The terrorists are deeply mistaken if they believe that they can achieve their aims by butchering, coercing and intimidating the people of the Province. The IRA still clings to the mistaken belief that, having failed miserably to attract support for its cause through the ballot box in either part of Ireland, its campaign of violence can override the wishes of law-abiding people who form the vast majority of both communities of Northern Ireland. It fails to understand that we will never submit to its barbarity and that violence cannot advance its cause—a point which I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The people of Northern Ireland have been subjected to more than 20 years of terrorist savagery and they are tired of paramilitary posturing.
The job our service personnel do in Northern Ireland is demanding and dangerous. Ten regular soldiers have been murdered this year by the IRA. Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment also face the dangers involved in protecting peace in the Province and have the added strain of knowing that they and their families are under a constant threat of attack as they go about their everyday lives. Eight have been murdered this year. Despite all of this our people carry out their tasks in the Province with great courage, dedication and professionalism. Only last week the George Cross was awarded to Warrant Officer Johnson for his bravery and devotion to duty in ensuring the safe disposal of IRA mortar bombs found near a hospital and in the middle of a housing estate even though he had been severely wounded when one of the bombs exploded. I warmly congratulate him on his award, which reflects the selfless commitment to serving the community
324
displayed by all our service men and women in the Province. As regards the eloquent pleas of the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, on Northern Ireland, for the past 20 years successive governments have given profound and continuous thought to that troubled Province.
I make no apology for saying a few words on several defence issues which are currently topical. First, following options for change and changed training requirements for our restructured forces, the NATO summit declaration in July made plain our intention to reduce exercise activity. We are quite clear that our landholdings should be no greater than is absolutely necessary. But if we are to have effective forces it is essential to provide them with facilities where they can train properly. Consequently, while we seek to acquire additional land where there is a proven training need, we also have a comprehensive programme to dispose of land that is no longer required. I assure my noble friend Lord Elton that the recommendations of the Salisbury Plain training area working party are being implemented, notably the protection of the important Roman village at Chisenbury Warren. We hope that all our plans will be finalised by next summer.
The smaller forces we shall have as a result of options for change must be well trained, well motivated, well accommodated and well paid, a point firmly expressed by my noble friend Lord Elton. We rely heavily on the technical skills of our service personnel, skills that require much investment to develop and are difficult and expensive to replace. It, would be a poor use of public resources to fail to give proper priority to the retention of trained personnel. Since taking office in 1979 the Government have increased service pay in line with the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Indeed, service pay has increased by more than 30 per cent. more than inflation during this period—a record of which we can rightly be proud.
We are also determined to ensure that conditions of service remain relevant and appropriate to modern circumstances. Housing is a particular area that causes difficulties. Service personnel, like other members of the community, increasingly want to own their homes. Traditionally the demands of service life and the high degree of mobility required of service personnel have made it difficult for them to take full advantage of the opportunities available to civilians to invest in the housing market, although the extent to which that is true has varied between the services. We are continuing to look positively and imaginatively at a range of schemes to help overcome those problems. They include sales of surplus married quarters at a discount to non-home owning personnel and preferential savings schemes.
Before turning from the subject of personnel, I should mention the important contribution made to our defence by those who are prepared to devote their spare time to becoming effective members of the services. The volunteer reserves train to become as competent in their tasks as the regulars alongside whom they would serve in time of war. Their role has

325
expanded considerably in recent years and they contribute significantly to the front line support of the regular army. Reserves of all three services undertake vital roles in defence of the United Kingdom.
I turn briefly to the two questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The first concerned "Warspite". A decision was taken in line with our intention to move to a level of 16 submarines, as announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his statement on options for change. It is not our policy to comment on the material state of individual submarines.
Regarding tour lengths, the RAF is satisfied that six months is an appropriate period for its personnel to serve in the Gulf in the present crisis. The decision to extend the RAF tour from three to six months was not generally applied retrospectively to those already serving in the Gulf.
In approaching the end of this considerable debate, your Lordships will no doubt agree that this is a sombre time to be debating foreign affairs and defence. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have embarked on a new road that looks set to lead to greater security and stability on our continent. We can rightly be proud of our contribution to this change. But the possibility of further conflict in the Middle East is disturbing and is a harsh and timely reminder that the world remains an uncertain place where, overnight, our interests and our citizens can be threatened from unexpected quarters. While seeking peaceful solutions we need to retain the capability to take effective action to prevent and redress such situations.
326
The present crisis in the Middle East also underlines the importance of effective collective action to protect peace. The level of co-operation that has been achieved among the forces deployed there is an impressive testament to the strength of international solidarity. Maintaining the bonds of consultation, co-operation and obligation needed to make collective action possible is a long term process. In Europe this is one reason why NATO continues to remain important to us. The western alliance has been spectacularly successful in keeping the peace in Europe and in helping to end the cold war. Its role is not over. It also has a major part to play in maintaining stability in Europe as it passes through a difficult time of transition and in developing its political role to contribute to building new structures in Europe that can help ensure a stable peace. Our attention is now focused, naturally, more on the Middle East than on Europe. Both are important to us: both require our most serious consideration and earnest endeavours. We shall ensure that they both receive them.
Viscount Long: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—( Viscount Long.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at half past eleven o'clock.

  EC TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 30th OCTOBER
  EC TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 30th OCTOBER
  SATELLITE DISHES: PLANNING CONTROLS
  SATELLITE DISHES: PLANNING CONTROLS
  SERPLAN STATEMENT: REGIONAL PLANNING FOR THE SOUTH EAST
  SERPLAN STATEMENT: REGIONAL PLANNING FOR THE SOUTH EAST
  LITTER AND REFUSE: CODE OF PRACTICE
  LITTER AND REFUSE: CODE OF PRACTICE
  Ministers' Pay
  Ministers' Pay