Sitting of 21 January 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the absence of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and other Labour Members who are attending the funeral of the late hon. Member for Neath, Mr. Donald Coleman? The Minister of State and representatives of other parties are absent for the same purpose.
I am sure that all of us who must be present today to represent our parties in the House wish to place on record our sense of loss, our appreciation of Donald's contribution to the House over a quarter of a century and our sympathy for his widow and family.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I know that the whole House fully understands why Welsh Members cannot be here, and I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) for representing me today at Donald Coleman's funeral.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Secure Accommodation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the directors and chairpersons of social services departments in Wales to discuss secure accommodation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Although my right hon. Friend currently has no such plans, a review of secure care policy is being undertaken by my Department.
    Mr. Flynn: I welcome the Minister to his new duties, and wish him well.
    On a day when the fragility of human life is very much in our minds, I need not emphasise to the House or the Minister—who has lost a constituent who was on remand in Swansea gaol—the supreme importance of this issue. Wales has no secure accommodation in which to put greatly troubled children. I understand that a Welsh Office working party met to consider the question of severely disturbed children in 1981 and 1982 and has yet to report. Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will give urgent priority to the need to provide secure accommodation for such young people, who have suffered greatly?
    Mr. Bennett: As the hon. Gentleman said, we have been considering the matter. The review that I mentioned was introduced in August last year. We hope that it will be able to report in the next couple of months, but it is contingent on the Home Office review of young people in prisons. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however, and I thank him personally for his kind remarks about my appointment.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: South Wales police have told me that 25 per cent. of all crime is auto-related, much of it committed by juveniles who are often on remand awaiting

    3
    sentence for an earlier crime. In the type of accommodation provided in south Wales, juveniles can go in through the front door and no one stops them going out the back door. That is clearly not good enough; it is quite inadequate. May I press my hon. Friend to take steps as early possible to provide the necessary secure accommodation and thus make a major contribution to reducing the crime rate?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is true that the peak offending age in this country is between fourteen and a half and fifteen, and that auto crimes constitute an important proportion of those offences. This is one of the points that we are examining in the review of secure accommodation.
    Mr. Wigley: May I, too, welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities? He may be aware that I lost a constituent in Risley; he may also be aware that a 15-year-old from Bangor was sent there just before Christmas because of the absence of secure units in north Wales. Can he given an assurance that the needs of north Wales will be taken into account in his review?
    Mr. Bennett: Yes, I can give that assurance. All of Wales, north and south, is being considered so that we can decide whether that sort of secure accommodation will be necessary. As I said, however, we must await the review from the Home Office and the associated review from the Department of Health.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about my appointment.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a civilised society, it is entirely unacceptable for juveniles to be put in adult prison accommodation or for them to have to travel long distances to reach secure accommodation? Is he aware that a large proportion of juvenile crime is committed by the very same hardened young criminals who are in deep need of such accommodation?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clearly not acceptable for youngsters of 14, 15 and 16 to be committed to prison and we want the practice to end as soon as possible. Clearly, however, we must ensure that we have the right sort of accommodation to deal with some of the very hardened cases. I have been particularly concerned about this issue, because one of my constituents hanged himself in Swansea prison only last year. We are pressing forward as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Michael: May I join in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State to his new duties? I took an interest in this issue for many years before I became a Member of Parliament. In the light of previous Government replies, does the Minister accept that, because of the present financial burdens on local authorities, it is not enough simply to pass the buck to them and tell them to find the money? Is he aware of the evidence given by the all-party group on penal affairs to the Wolff inquiry which highlighted the need for secure accommodation for young people on remand in Wales? Does he also accept the panel's view that secure accommodation will help only if the Welsh Office faces up to its responsibility to initiate and finance comprehensive action throughout Wales to divert young people from crime and to root out the causes of juvenile crime? Will he take those points into account in his review?
    Mr. Bennett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall certainly look at what causes young people to be involved in crime. A range of measures is used at the moment—for instance, intermediate treatment—that do not involve youngsters being put into secure accommodation. We want those measures to be extended as far as possible. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about finance, if we recommend that new secure accommodation should be provided, we intend to look into how it should be paid for.

    Pay Rates
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on average current weekly rates of pay in (a) Powys and (b) the rest of Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): The average weekly wage in Powys is £210 compared with £232 for Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Livsey: First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) relating to the late Donald Coleman? Secondly, may I take this opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State to his new duties on the Treasury Bench?
    Is the Secretary of State aware that average earnings in Wales are 27 per cent. lower than those in south-east England? The figure that he has just quoted for Powys is considerably lower than the Welsh average. Will he confirm that average wages in Powys are the lowest in mainland Britain? What does he intend to do to secure a better quality of employment in Powys so that people can earn higher wages and have a decent standard of living?
    Mr. Hunt: On the first point, the thoughts of all of us will be elsewhere this afternoon—with the Minister of State and many of our colleagues at the funeral.
    Low average wages in Powys and Wales as a whole are part of our history and I very much hope that we shall make them history. The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with south-east England. He will recognise that that has always been the case. We should reflect on the fact that during the past five years the average weekly wage has increased by 9·7 per cent. in real terms. That compares favourably with the position in the 1970s.
    Dr. Thomas: May I, too, on behalf of Plaid Cymru, associate myself with the expressions of sympathy to Donald Coleman's family and say how grateful we are for his life and work in the House and outside in his constituency.
    As for wage rates in Powys and other parts of Wales, has the Secretary of State studied the budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales following its restructuring? Does he intend to extend the boundaries and functions of the board beyond Powys, south Gwynedd and Ceredigion to improve wages throughout rural Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales only last week. The hon. Gentleman knows that our commitment to the Development Board for Rural Wales is very strong. That is why we have substantially increased its budget. However, we are always considering other means of achieving the objective he describes.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point? When the uniform business rate was introduced, constituencies such as mine in the south-east of England were prepared to accept it if it helped areas like Wales by enabling companies to keep their weekly wages at a relatively favourable rate. Has that system come into practice?
    Mr. Hunt: I recognise my hon. Friend's point. A large proportion of the uniform business rate comes from businesses in the south-east, but, as I travel through the Principality, I am constantly reminded how much better the quality of life is in Wales compared with the south-east of England. We want to enhance, and continue to enhance, the environment and quality of life while ensuring that employees in Wales share in the prosperity that we are determined to achieve. The prospects for the medium to longer term in Wales are as good as ever.

    Recession
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ameliorate the effects of the recession on Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: The substantial improvements in the Welsh economy in recent years—[Interruption.] The substantial improvements in the Welsh economy in recent years, for which my predecessors and I take full credit, together with our other partners in Wales, mean that Wales is better placed to withstand the present downturn and to resume its successful growth once inflation is under control. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall respond swiftly to any opportunities that arise to assist in that process of growth.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State and I note that for the first part of his answer he did not have a straight face. The deep recession is bound to hit areas such as mine —rural areas—harder and earlier than the rest of the country, as was instanced by the problem with Biddulphs in my constituency, where 50 employees lost their jobs just before Christmas. What will he do in the next few months to help people who lost their jobs at Biddulphs and at other factories and places of work in my area to get back to work?
    Mr. Hunt: Although Hansard may not show it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was interrupted by a series of heckles from the Opposition Front Bench which I would not want to repeat. I strongly believe that Wales has benefited enormously in the past few years from increased diversification in its economy. It has moved away from the traditional dependence on a few industries to reliance on a far broader base. In their generous moments, Labour Members will recognise and admit that. Naturally, I am concerned about job losses in Wales, but the real threat to jobs is inflation and the signs are that we are bringing it quickly under control.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing would do more to prolong or deepen a recession than the introduction of a statutory minimum wage, as the Labour party proposes? Does he agree that that would lead to the loss of as many as 55,000 jobs in Wales, including at least 1,400 in my constituency?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. In their more serious moments, Opposition Members will acknowledge the decisiveness of the point that he makes. A statutory minimum wage would be a serious blow to Welsh industry.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that, as a result of the Gulf war, the recession will be even deeper than expected? Does he agree, therefore, that there must be an ongoing role for the UN Security Council to bring about a quick solution to this conflict, thereby benefiting the economies of Wales and the third world?
    Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for managing to introduce the Gulf conflict in a question on Wales. I had hoped that she might pay tribute to the initiative that brought about the Gooding Sanken project at Abercynon in her constituency. I am delighted to announce that in 1990, compared with 1989, when there were 100 inward investment projects, there are 142 inward investment projects, including the project in the hon. Lady's constituency, to which I hope she will have an opportunity to pay tribute.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend compare the economic activity in Wales during this so-called recession with that under the previous Labour Government? For example, will he tell us about long-term unemployment during the past five years? Will he tell me what I should say to my constituents in Swindon who lost jobs in factories that moved to south Wales because of the great help that the Government gave to the people in that previously depressed area?
    Mr. Hunt: One of the best pieces of news to come to Wales recently is the fall in long-term unemployment. If I recall correctly, in January 1986, the number of long-term unemployed was about 78,000. According to the latest statistics, that figure has fallen to just under 23,000. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that fact. We shall continue to broadcast it, just as we shall continue our attempts to attract industries to Wales from whichever part of the country or the world they come.
    Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State will be aware that the development of the Welsh economy to which he referred is not seen in the Wrexham area, where the Brymbo steelworks recently closed, resulting in 1,200 people losing their well-paid jobs. The county council is seeking to acquire the site for regeneration and redevelopment. If it can agree a sensible sum with United Engineering Steels, will the right hon. Gentleman give that project his blessing and ensure that there is no hindrance from the Department?
    Mr. Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that Wrexham and north-east Wales have received a tremendous boost from inward investment, but he is right to point to areas of disappointment. Brymbo's closure was certainly a great disappointment to Wales. I asked the Welsh Development Agency to move in quickly to examine the opportunities for the site and that review is continuing. I hope that any local authority that wishes to advance a project will endeavour to work in partnership not only with other local authorities but with the WDA and the Welsh Office.

    Second Severn Crossing
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the expected increase in economic activity in Wales resulting from the separate southern link to the second Severn crossing.
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that the improved communications that will flow from the second Severn crossing will bring significant economic benefits to both sides of the Severn estuary.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I entirely concur with him, at least in respect of the non-Welsh end of the Severn link. Is he aware of the concern expressed in my constituency that one effect of the link will be greatly to increase the traffic debouching from Wales on to the road system at Avonmouth in my constituency and heading for Bristol and the south? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the effects of that traffic are completely taken into account in the Road Traffic Bill?
    Mr. Hunt: I am aware of that point, but only because my hon. Friend continually makes representations on behalf of his constituents. He will recognise that these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As soon as I leave the Chamber, I shall take steps to bring them, once again, to his attention.
    Mr. Flynn: I assure the Secretary of State that I speak in a serious and generous mood. Does he recall that when he spoke in a serious and generous mood—his moments are rarer than mine—he told the House that he thought that low pay was one of the most serious economic problems in Wales? Although construction of the new bridge may affect the economy, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the great problem in Wales is the poverty not of those unemployed but of those in low-paid employment? Does he agree that the solution that has been successfully applied in other countries by the provision of minimum pay has given dignity and decency to those on low pay?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I explained, the Labour party's proposals, as described by my hon Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), would deal a heavy blow to industry in Wales and would constitute the wrong policy. The sooner the Labour party realises that, the better it will be for the Principality.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many properties have been sold in Wales under the provisions of the right-to-buy sections of the Housing Act 1980.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: About 82,340 local authority and new town dwellings have been sold in Wales under the right-to-buy scheme.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: May I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion to his present position?
    What percentage of houses have been sold under the Housing Act 1980? As I understand it, the percentage of home ownership in Wales is a great deal higher than in many other parts of the country—perhaps than in any other part of the country. Will my hon. Friend confirm
    8
    that people who own their houses are that much more likely to have a greater commitment to the society in which they live?
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my appointment.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have sold 27 per cent. of council stock to tenants, which means that, in Wales, 71 per cent. of homes are in the hands of owner-occupiers. That figure is 4 per cent. above the Great Britain average.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that the number of homeless young people in Wales has increased substantially since 1980? If so, to what causes would he ascribe the increase?
    Mr. Bennett: I, too, was interested to look at the homelessness figures. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be interested to know that one third of young people who leave home do so as a result of disagreements with their families. One problem is that there is a much greater incidence of the break-up of family life at the moment which leads to young people leaving home.
    Mr. Carlile: That is no excuse.
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to argue, but the figures show that 33 per cent. of homelessness is caused by people leaving home following family disagreements.
    A considerable amount of homelessness has also resulted from the increased divorce rate and resultant family break-ups. We have been taking action on that important issue. For example, we have given eight local authorities more than £2 million in supplementary credit for homelessness. We have also reserved £2·9 million of the cash available to deal with homelessness which is open to bids by local authorities.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: May I put it to my hon. Friend that there is more vacant council accommodation in Wales than there are homeless people? In some areas, there are up to five times as many vacant council houses as there are homeless people on the council's register. What is my hon. Friend doing to make those local councils use their housing stock better?
    Mr. Bennett: In general, local authorities in Wales are better at looking after their property than those elsewhere in the country, but I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to local authorities' attention. Clearly, it is important that there should be as quick a turn round of void properties as possible, and anyone who is homeless will get very annoyed if he sees local authority properties vacant for any length of time.

    "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action"
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action" issued in December.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The agenda for action in the NHS in Wales was published on 19 December 1990. The agenda sets out the key management objectives and the time scale within which they are to be achieved to ensure that the service continues to build on the progress made in the past decade.
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend and I go back a long way, so it is a particular pleasure for me to welcome him to the Dispatch Box and to participate in his first Question Time.
    Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policies, which have been most welcome and which will do much to improve services in the hospitals, are part of the plan for action and that the people of Wales will benefit greatly from them? At this difficult time, when we are at war in the Gulf, I assume that a number of Welsh hospitals will make their full contribution should casualties need to be treated. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the hospitals will be able to cope fully with the stress and strain that will come their way and will the hospitals be fully recompensed for the inevitable cost of treating those people?
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, but I wish that he had not drawn attention to the fact that we go back a long way because the comparison of the way in which I have aged in relation to him is dramatically in his favour. Perhaps my hon. Friend has a portrait in his attic.
    We all hope that there will not be a large number of casualties from the Gulf war which will have to be treated by our hospitals. The Welsh health service is being held in reserve should the number of casualties be too great for military hospitals in England and for the national health service regions there. If any flights are diverted to Cardiff airport, we will deal with those casualties in Wales. We have ensured that facilities are available at St. Lawrence hospital in Chepstow to deal with burns and provide plastic surgery should those skills be needed to treat any casualties from the Gulf war.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's point about finance, we have already made it clear that any money spent by the health service in Wales to deal with Gulf casualties will be fully reimbursed by the NHS.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not there a marked difference between this Government's attitude to the provision of health services and the opt-out of particular hospitals in Wales and the way in which they can find money when pressure arises from the Gulf war? Would not it be better to abandon any question of opting-out any hospital in the national health service so that the whole service is properly integrated and provision can be made for all Welsh patients wherever they are and under any circumstances?
    Mr. Bennett: First, there is no question of any hospital in Wales opting out. The proposals made by hospitals in England and in the Pembrokeshire health authority in Wales are proposals not to opt out of the health service, but to become self-governing trusts within the health service in Wales.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Rubbish.
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Lady may say rubbish, but that is a matter of fact. With regard to a comparison of the running of the health service under this Government and under the previous Labour Government, there is indeed a marked difference. Under the last Labour Government, the increase in real-terms spending on the health service in Wales was 1 per cent. a year. Under this Government it is 4 per cent. a year.
    Mr. Fayell: Will my hon. Friend continue to bear in mind in his new position, to which I welcome him, that what is important with regard to the health service and the
    10
    patient is the quality of service and the speed at which it is delivered and not whether a hospital is self-governing within the national health service or run by the private sector? Will my hon. Friend visit the two kidney dialysis units in Wales that are run by the private sector and were introduced by the former Secretary of State for Wales who is now Lord Crickhowell? Those units substantially increased the number of units offering kidney dialysis to Welsh people which have saved many lives.
    Mr. Bennett: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating my predecessor as hon. Member for Pembroke who did such excellent work during his eight years as Secretary of State for Wales.
    My hon. Friend was quite right to refer to kidney dialysis and I hope to visit the units to which he referred in the fairly near future. In the six weeks that I have held this office I have visited seven hospitals and everything that I have seen so far illustrates the tremendous job being done by people who work in the NHS and the support that they are receiving from the Government.
    Mr. Michael: May I suggest that if the Minister wants the welcome offered to him today to extend beyond today, he should set aside his extreme right-wing views on the health service. Will he specifically tell us how much extra money will be spent on administration as a result of the "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action" especially bearing in mind the Government's appalling record to date with the increase of the administrative burden on the NHS and the number of senior administrators that has been driven up by more than 100 per cent. over a 10-year period?
    Mr. BennettWe need no lessons from the Labour party about spending on the NHS. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the figures that I gave to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) which show that spending on the national health service is now lour times as high every year in real terms than it was under the previous Labour Government. We will continue to ensure that the NHS has the wholehearted commitment of everyone in the Welsh Office team and of everyone on the Government Benches. We believe that we are doing an excellent job and we will continue to improve and progress.

    Hospital Patients
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figures were in 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In 1979, 349,695 in-patients and 1,803,728 out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales. The latest comparable information for the year ended 31 March 1990 shows that 469,928 in-patients and 2,313,309 out-patients were treated. That is an increase of 34 per cent. in in-patients and 28 per cent. in out-patients treated.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures, above all others, show the improvement in the health service in Wales during the past 10 years?
    Mr. Bennett: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to make sure that we treat as many people as

    11
    possible in the health service as quickly as possible. People talk about the waiting list. I am concerned to ensure that the times for which people in Wales have to wait to have their operations are brought down as quickly as possible. That is one of the key parts of the NHS "Agenda for Action".

    Water Act 1989
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of his powers under the Water Act 1989 he has exercised since taking up his office; and whether he has any plans to seek to increase those powers.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend has used a number of powers under the Water Act 1989, and, with permission, I have arranged for a list to be circulated in the Official Report. He has at present no plans to seek any increase in his powers under the Act.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister or, preferably, the Secretary of State remember the firm promises that were given by their predecessors on the strict regulation of the water industry in Wales following the passage of the Water Act? Will the Minister explain how any benefit can accrue to water consumers as a result of the purchase of electricity shares, which could not have been achieved without that £31 million-plus purchase? Does he have any powers to investigate that purchase to give the public the full facts of the matter?
    Mr. Bennett: Welsh Water is a private commercial company. It is a matter for the shareholders of Welsh Water to decide the investments made by that company. From correspondence that he has had with the Director General of Water Services, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a limit of 15 per cent. on ownership in the South Wales electricity board and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State retains his golden share in the water industry. Also, it has been made clear to the hon. Gentleman in a letter of 4 January 1991 from the Director General of Water Services that he is content that Welsh Water is doing what is required of it and that, if there is any indication that consumers of Welsh Water will be harmed in any way, he will take action to prevent it.
    Following is the information:

    Water Act 1989

    List of powers used by the Secretary of State for Wales since taking office

    Section

    Description

    3

    Payment of members of the Advisory Committee for Wales

    20

    Acceptance of undertakings by undertakers

    37

    General authorisation to the Director General to enforce the duties of water undertakers under this section

    60

    Appointment of technical assessors and the designation of those appointed in relation to the provisions of section 60(4)

    67

    General authorisation to the Director General to enforce the duties of sewerage undertakers under this section

    74 and 185

    Regulations related to trade effluent

    89

    The fixing of a target investment limit for the Government shareholding in Welsh Water plc

    Section

    Description

    131

    General drought order

    141

    Determination of the payment to be made to the Chairman of the National Rivers Authority's Welsh Region's Advisory Committee

    Secure Accommodation
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about secure accommodation for youngsters in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: It would be premature to make a statement in advance of the findings of the present review of secure care, which it is hoped will be completed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Rowe: May I start by saying what a pleasure it is that an hon. Friend who has spent many years improving the standards of behaviour and achievement of young people in my constituency has now moved to apply, I hope, the same talents to Wales? I ask my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to remember how young a 141/2 or 15-year-old youngster seems in his or her own acquaintance and family. Will my hon. Friend assure us that, in the review of secure accommodation for such young people, consideration will be given to the kind of support and care that those children often require?
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I remember with affection the five years during which I taught at school in his constituency and the very good support that he gave us as a constituency Member of Parliament. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. We will take them into account in our review of secure accommodation.

    Housebuilding
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of houses built in Wales this year to date (a) by district councils and (b) by housing associations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Provisional data on completions between January and October 1990 show that 529 dwellings were completed by local authorities and 1, 278 by housing associations.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that those figures are absolutely appalling? The figures that he quoted for district councils compare with 200,000 dwellings a year being built in the 1970s and the acknowledged housing association need of 5,000 new dwellings a year. Is he aware that the 40,000 homeless people in Wales and the 80,000 people who are living in unfit houses just cannot wait for that level of programme to meet their needs? There needs to be an awareness in the Welsh Office that we have a housing crisis, and something must be done about it now.
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman spoils his argument by exaggerating the figures. The figures that he gave are nowhere near those that exist either for homelessness or for completions. Private sector completions in Wales in 1989 were at the highest level for 17 years. We are also concerned to increase the stock of housing available in

    13
    Wales. Housing associations, in conjunction with Housing for Wales, are now on target for 3,000 completions for the year.
    Mr. Raffan: Will the Minister do his utmost to encourage local authorities in Wales to increase the amount of sheltered accommodation, as this is one of the most effective ways of reducing the amount of homelessness in Wales by enabling single elderly people to move out of two and three-bedroom council houses?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, not only in the number of houses released; it is also good sense for the elderly people concerned, as it enables them to maintain their independence by living within the community without having to go into residential homes.

    National Library of Wales
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to publish the recommendations of the recent staff inspection report into the National Library of Wales once they have been considered by the institution.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: It is not the practice to publish staff inspection reports and we have no plans to publish any part of the report on the National Library of Wales.
    Dr. Marek: I hope that the Minister will think again. While there are clearly items in it that should be kept confidential, there other items, such as charging for exhibitions and closure of the printing press, which merit a wide discussion in the Principality before they are enacted. I hope that the Minister will think again and I ask him to think again about publishing a summary of the recommendations of the report and the actions that he proposes to take.
    Mr. Bennett: I understand that this report was prepared with co-operation of the staff on the understanding that it would not be published. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to go back on the word that was given to the staff at the time. Clearly some of the issues that were addressed in the report will have to be addressed by the House at some stage and of course that will occur.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Bishops' Stipends
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissions, if he has any plans to review the stipends of bishops; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Bishops' stipends are set annually by the Church Commissioners acting as the central stipend authority of the Church of England. They are increased by the same percentage as the average stipends of incumbents. These arrangements were last reviewed in 1985.
    Mr. Greenway: When my right hon. Friend and his associates look at the stipend of bishops again will he look at the stipend of suffragan bishops? Will he look at the emoluments of suffragan bishops to see whether these could not be improved to enable these bishops better to do
    14
    the work that they have to do? When the final cheque is sent to the Bishop of London, Dr. Graham Leonard, will they send with it a fine tribute to his excellent tenancy of the bishopric of London and express the hope that a suitable successor will be found for him?
    Mr. Alison: I am sure that my hon. Friend's reference to the Bishop of London, Dr. Graham Leonard, will be well received in every part of this House and that the Bishop himself will be very glad that my hon. Friend found the opportunity to make the point. On the question of the differential between the pay of suffragan and diocesan bishops, I point out that there is a genuine differential in the work that they have to do. My hon. Friend will be aware that the differential tends to be narrowed by the fact that both suffragan and diocesan bishops receive free housing and a non-contributory pension as well as the costs of their expenses and staff.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Since the Government so often advise us that increases in salaries should be related to productivity and not to the rate of inflation, will the right hon. Member take into account that there has been a marked increase in attendances at Church of England churches in the past year?
    Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the productivity of the clergy is noted in the cure of souls. If he can find an appropriate visible and tangible measure of assessing the progression of souls into the Kingdom of Heaven, we shall be glad to see it.

    Henry VIII Quincentenary
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will set aside funds to mark the quincentenary of the birth in 1491 of King Henry VIII.
    Mr. Alison: No, Sir. The Commissioners' funds are directed to the support of the clergy of the Church of England and their widowed spouses and may be used for no other purposes without specific legislative authority.
    Mr. Jessel: As the question was, of course, tabled before Christmas and as our minds are very much now on the middle east, may I remind my right hon. Friend that without King Henry VIII there might be no Church of England or Church Commissioners and that, at Hampton Court palace in my constituency, between 27 and 29 June, there will be a splendid celebration to mark the birthday of King Henry VIII?
    Mr. Alison: I take careful note of the important event, mentioned by my hon. Friend, in his Twickenham constituency, at Hampton Court. I am glad that my hon. Friend has survived so many years as the admirable representative of the Twickenham constituency. I suspect that, had he been a courtier at the time of King Henry VIII, he would, through his love of music, have survived just as long. We shall all do our best to support. the Hampton Court celebration of King Henry VIII's birthday.
    Mr. Alton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of your illustrious predecessors, Mr. Speaker, might have lived longer had it not been for Henry VIII, a king who did not have an unblemished record?
    Mr. Alison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out that King Henry VIII let off missiles that were multi-headed, or whatever the correct technical term is. I am afraid that he slew a few people whom we might have preferred to have been kept alive for a little longer, even if he slew a few people whom we thought were well dead. The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that the Church of England nowadays is thoroughly ecumenical in outlook and, to that extent, has taken a different path from that taken by King Henry VIII.

    Women Deacons
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment has been made of the financial implications of numbers seeking ordination as women deacons during the next five years.
    Mr. Alison: Tentative projections of the numbers of women being ordained as deacons do not suggest the need for any significant change in the balance of the Commissioners' expenditure in future years. However, I understand that the General Synod is currently consulting dioceses on numbers, cost and deployment in the ordained ministry, including women. The Commissioners will carefully consider any implications for them flowing from this exercise.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that many look forward to the day when these ladies can become not only fully frocked priests but bishops of the Church?
    Mr. Alison: That is an interesting, and perhaps even controversial, supplementary question. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the decision on whether women can be ordained as priests in the Church of England is properly a decision to be reached by the new General Synod, and it has not yet had a definitive and final vote on the matter. Therefore, any reply that I gave my hon. Friend would be hypothetical.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Refreshment Department Staff
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what discussions he has had about payments made to Refreshment Department staff; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Commission has a statutory duty to ensure that the pay and other conditions of service of all staff of the House are kept broadly in line with those in the civil service.
    The pay of Refreshment Department staff is linked to that of civil service industiral grades and was last increased on 1 July 1990 by £11 a week. A review of the pay and grading structures of grades linked to the industrial grades is currently being undertaken and if, as a result, changes are proposed, the trade unions will be consulted.
    The Commission believes, however, that the pay of the Refreshment Department staff compares reasonably favourably with pay in the catering industry as a whole.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, when the staff in the Refreshment Department were paid single-time payments for coming to the Houses of Parliament on Christmas eve and new year's eve, without a proper unsocial hours payment, that was in accordance with the practices of other civil service Departments and catering establishments outside? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has immediate discussions with the trades unions concerned, makes retrospective payments for those two days at double time, and makes sure that it does not happen again.
    Mr. Beith: A small number of Refreshment Department staff manned outlets in the House as a result of a request from the staff side of the Whitley council, on account of the number of members of staff of other Departments, and of hon. Members, who were working on those days. There has been, as far as I know, no request from the trade unions for alternative arrangements.

    Child Care
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on child care provision for members of staff.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission is awaiting the advice of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on the results of a feasibility study undertaken by the Administration Department into the possible provision of child care facilities, either on-site or in conjunction with other public services in the Westminster area, for the children of Members, their staff and the staff of the House. I understand that the Services Committee will be considering its response to the study in early February and I expect the Commission to consider the matter shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Cohen: In the feasibility study of the Administration Department, there is no real barrier to the provision of child care. The problem is lack of political will. When the gymnasium recently vacated its room—a very large room with washing facilities which were ideal for a crèche—why was that not handed over for a creche on that occasion, as recommended by the local branch of the Transport and General Workers Union? When will this Parliament become a decent employer and provide proper facilities for children?
    Mr. Beith: I have a great deal of sympathy with the case that the hon. Gentleman is advancing. One of the reasons why the former gymnasium area was not considered suitable is that it has no access to any outside area, which is normal when providing play facilities for children. These matters are under discussion. The complicated nature of the discussions that have had to take place illustrates the case for the reforms that we discussed last Thursday.

    Sitting Hours
    Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the current cost in wages and salaries of the House sitting after 7 pm; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Beith: The rates of night duty payments to non-industrial staff required to be on regular duty as a result of evening sittings of the House are set out in the Commission's annual report. Industrial staff are paid at appropriate overtime rates.
    The financial information systems now available, to which I referred in the debate last Thursday on the Ibbs report—Official Report, 17 January 1991, column 1049 —do not make it possible at present to identify without disproportionate cost the total wage and salary costs directly attributable to sitting after 7 pm.
    Mr. Allen: The hon. Member will be aware that there is now considerable interest in getting some more sensible hours in this place. Has he in his travels discussed with members of staff their views on having, for example, a regular 12 to 7 pm sitting of this House so that they could get home at a reasonable time?
    Mr. Beith: I have found this to be a more common subject among Members than among the staff of the House, who are always very ready to provide the services that the House needs at whatever hours it chooses to sit. I have a great deal of personal sympathy with the hon. Member, but my job as a Commissioner is to ensure that the House is staffed at the hours it chooses to sit, whatever they may be.

    Refreshment Department (Profit Sharing)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he has any plans for profit sharing amongst the staff in the Refreshment Department.
    Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Commission has a statutory obligation, as I have reminded the House, to keep the pay and conditions of its staff in line with those of the civil service; and I understand that their current conditions make no provision for profit sharing. Given that much of the staff costs and administrative overheads of the Refreshment Department is met from the House of Commons administration vote, it is debatable whether the trading fund's accumulated surplus can be counted as a profit. The long-term financial future of the Refreshment Department is under active consideration by the Commission.
    Mr. Banks: Then why cannot we change the conditions? Everyone in this House knows how hard the staff in the kiosk work, particularly over the Christmas period. One sees Members going away with wheelbarrows full of sticky comestibles to bribe their constituents, their friends and the Conservative party. Is it not about time that we started treating our staff decently and that we stopped taking advantage of them?
    Mr. Beith: I agree that the staff in the kiosk worked very hard over the Christmas period. The Commission is constrained by a statutory duty to keep pay broadly in line with civil service conditions, but I shall ensure that the hon. Member's suggestion is again looked at to see whether in any way it can be pursued.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Sitting Hours
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the hours of sitting of the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I am considering how best to take the matter forward.
    Mr. Allen: I wonder whether I could encourage the Lord President to be a little more forthcoming? What steps does he see having to be taken between our current position and eventually arriving at some sort of sensible hours, again perhaps from 12 to 7 pm with an automatic closure? Has he mapped out in his own mind any steps or obstacles that need to be overcome?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have had discussions with many Members and also with the Chairman of the Committee on Procedure. It is very clear from those, and indeed from the public debate since this matter was recently re-raised, that there is a wide difference of views in the House about these issues. On the broader issues, it is important that I should look at how widely to take it and at exactly what method to use to enable all Members to express their views. In regard to immediate steps, one thing that can be done to which I have attached priority is the setting up of the European Standing Committees which will certainly ease the pressures on the Chamber in regard to late hours. I hope that the hon. Member will support what we shall try to do tomorrow night.
    Mr. Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to report that when an experiment not too many years ago involved an alteration in sitting hours, it was abandoned in the best interests of what we are here to do, which is to legislate for the country?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend suggests, there are wide differences of view. Any step that is taken needs to have the full co-operation of the House, or it will be ineffective.
    Dr. Cunningham: I welcome hearing that the Leader of the House wants to take forward the reform of the sitting hours of the House. With that in mind, will he publish a Green Paper or place in the Library a comparative study of the hours of sitting and the methods of work of other legislatures in western democracies?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In considering how to take any reform forward, I have been contemplating how we might examine some of the issues that are relevant to the House that arise in other legislatures. We must be careful, because it is not always possible to translate back to the House what other legislatures do.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend has probably heard much from lady Members representing London constituencies, who would like to work between 12 noon and 6 or 7pm. What of the wives of Members who represent northern constituencies, who are working in the north and whose jobs do not permit them to come to London during the working week? The fear of many hon. Members, such as myself, who represent northern constituencies, is that if

    19
    we have normal office hours we shall work for five days a week and the recesses will become shorter. That will mean that we shall have less time with our families and less time to spend with our constituents.
    Mr. MacGregor: It is striking that that point of view has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House since the proposal was first aired.

    Visitors
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any proposals for improving facilities for visitors to the House.
    Mr. MacGregor: Arrangements to speed up access for line-of-route visitors and to afford them protection from the weather while they wait are now in place. The Catering Sub-Committee has made certain proposals in relation to catering for visitors to Parliament that are to be considered in the near future by the Services Committee. Consideration is also being given to the special needs of disabled visitors to the House.
    Mr. Banks: The entire House will look forward to the proposals being put before it. Is it not a fact, however, that, as things stand, this Parliament treats its visitors far worse than perhaps any other Parliament in the world, although I must confess that I do not know what conditions are like in Baghdad at present? Would it not be possible to use Westminster Hall—I have put this question to the Lord President before—where seats could be provided? Cover and necessary access to toilets and refreshment facilities could be made available. We must start making visitors welcome to this place rather than treating them like pariahs.
    Mr. MacGregor: Quite a few steps have been taken, especially in respect of the disabled. I am keen to see what more can be done. The hon. Gentleman will know that mass lobbies of the disabled are permitted access to Westminster Hall. That is obviously a carefully controlled situation. I understand that previous studies have suggested that wider use of the facility could raise certain security problems.
    Mr. Devlin: Is it not the case that in years gone by Westminster Hall was used extensively for the purpose of shopping and for providing facilities both for Members and for city merchants? Why is it not possible for those arrangements to be reinstituted, with a proper bookshop, proper gift and souvenir facilities, suitable waiting areas and appropriate televison areas and other areas in which our constituents, out of the rain and snow, could wait to see us?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that all hon. Members would welcome great shopping parades in Westminster Hall. In phase 1 of the new parliamentary building, there will be limited shopping and kiosk facilities.

    Office Heating
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements to keep the offices of Members and their staffs heated during recesses.
    Mr. MacGregor: Heating is already provided during recesses
    Mr. Cohen: Were not the offices of Members and their staffs, as well as the Corridors, appallingly cold during the recent winter recess and overbearingly hot during the summer recess? Are not these conditions the result of a lack of proper ventilation? Surely the fact that the majority of Members do not attend the House during the recess is no reason why those who do, and their staffs, should freeze or fry.
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that some of the difficulties arising from heat in the summer and cold in the winter are due to the nature of the building, most of which was constructed before the introduction of modern facilities. In that respect, the new parliamentary building will be quite different.
    However, heating is provided during recesses. Sometimes problems are due to the breakdown of specific pieces of equipment.

    Wheelchair Access
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will carry out a survey of wheelchair access in the Palace of Westminister.
    Mr.MacGregor: The parliamentary works officer is carrying out feasibility studies into a number of proposals to improve wheelchair access—proposals which were received last month from the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), chairman of the all-party disablement group. Once these studies have been completed, the results will be forwarded to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee for its consideration.
    Mr. Janner: Can the Leader of the House assure hon. Members that steps will be taken swiftly to make these premises accessible to people in wheelchairs? In the meantime, will he please arrange to have railings provided at the steps leading down to the Committee Rooms off Westminster Hall? It is well known that a distinguished Peer going to a meeting two weeks ago fell. Indeed, he was very lucky not to be severely injured.
    Mr. MacGregor: That is one of the access improvements currently being considered following suggestions from the hon. and learned Member. These relate to the Grand Committee Room, the Jubilee Room and the Interview Rooms.

    Souvenir Kiosk
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to improve the access of visitors to the Refreshment Department shop.
    Mr. MacGregor: There are no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Butler: I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter. When one has a party of visitors from one's constituency it is very difficult to take them in small groups to the shop.
    Mr. MacGregor: There are certain advantages in having the shop located where it is. In particular, the current location means that people going there have to be taken in by an hon. Member. When phase one of the new parliamentary building comes into operation it will have a branch kiosk.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he took to discover the opinions of hon. Members before giving his answer to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on the ecological consequences of a Gulf war on 10 December, Official Report, column 658.
    Mr. MacGregor: It was not necessary to do so.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's answer a symptom of the difficulties that this House faces when the two Front Benches are agreed on a course of action? In the light of this difficulty, may we ask for consideration of an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) expressing the minority point of view?
    Mr. Speaker: What does that have to do with this question?
    Mr. MacGregor: The point made before Christmas was that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said, ecological difficulties in the Gulf can be avoided if Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait immediately. I saw no need for wider consultation towards agreement with that view, as it had already been expressed very clearly in votes in this House.

    Statutory Instruments &c.
    Ordered,
    That the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Hyperbolic Systems) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[John M. Taylor.]

The Gulf
Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Prime Minister to move the motion in his name, I wish to announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
I should draw the attention of hon. Members that no fewer than 58 right hon. and hon. Members have expressed an interest in this debate. I propose—I hope that hon. Members will think this fair—to give precedence to those Members who were not called in either of the last three debates on this subject. Further, I propose to impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches delivered between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. I hope that Members who speak before or after that period will also bear that limit in mind.
Mr. Tony Benn: The whole House accepts entirely, Mr. Speaker, your right to decide which amendments should be selected and which should not be selected. I should, however, like to put to you now, Sir, a point that I raised with you privately, concerning the handling of this Gulf war by the House of Commons. It is a matter of great concern, not least because of our anxiety in respect of the troops and their families. We have had three debates on the Adjournment without substance. Today, we are having a debate without choice. As I understand the situation, the Government intend to accept the Opposition amendment—[Interruption.] That is a fact. They will accept it. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members support the military action that is being taken, as do both Front Benches.
But a substantial minority do not take that view—57 hon. Members went into the Lobby to vote against war and, even if the opinion poll in The Sunday Times is right, 20 per cent., or 8 million people, do not support the war [Interruption.] I am putting this to you, Mr. Speaker, because of the handling of this matter in the future. There is no one in the House who supports the invasion of Kuwait and no one who is opposed to the United Nations or who wants to embarrass our troops—
Mr. Speaker: Order. When the right hon. Gentleman came to see me, he said that he would raise this matter briefly.
Mr. Benn: The point I am seeking to make is not only that different views should be expressed, but that they should be able to be tested in the Lobby, so that Parliament is seen as a place where different views can be registered.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of whether amendments have been accepted or not. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. The whole House knows that I select amendments on their merits. As to the minority view, there will be plenty of opportunity today for hon. Members on both sides of the argument to express alternative views if they hold such views.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I know that you have a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, about making a judgment on amendments, but may I point out to you that the Government motion and the Opposition amendment were tabled at 2.15 pm on Friday. One of the factors enabling Mr. Speaker to make a judgment as to whether to select an amendment is often the strength of feeling expressed by supporters of it. However, when a
24
motion is tabled at 2.15 on a Friday afternoon—one cannot table an amendment until the motion is tabled first—the opportunity for gauging support is virtually nil. I hope that you will therefore take that into account in order to give a wider choice to hon. Members to express support for forces in the Gulf, but linked with other important considerations.
In conclusion, I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order No. 31(3), under which you can, if you think fit,
"call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment … to give such explanation of the object thereof as may enable him"—
you, Mr. Speaker—
"to form a judgment upon it."
I should be happy to do so during the course of the debate.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It takes up time in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has previously been called in the debates and I ask him not to cut out those of his hon. Friends who want to participate. Is it a point of order that I can answer?
Mr. Canavan: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. The amendment that is down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and myself is the only amendment on the Order Paper that specifically calls for
"a halt to hostilities to provide for a peaceful settlement."
There is a significant body of opinion in this House, albeit a minority, in support of that amendment. Millions of people outside the House also support that amendment, and they fail to understand why the House is being deprived of an opportunity to express an opinion and to vote upon this important matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will find that, as the debate goes on, the House will have plenty of opportunity for those opinions to be expressed.
3.33 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House expresses its full support for British forces in the Gulf and their contribution to the implementation of United Nations resolutions by the multinational force, as authorised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.
It is of course essential that the House should be fully informed of events in the Gulf and have the opportunity to debate them. With this in mind, I can assure the House that my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Defence Secretaries will make regular statements as events unfold, and there will be contacts through the usual channels to arrange appropriate debates.
This is the first time that the House has debated the situation since the start of hostilities on 17 January, but it is the third occasion on which I have spoken about the Gulf situation in the past week. I shall therefore be brief. This is an occasion for hon. Members to express their views and then to vote on a substantive motion.
We did not want this conflict. We tried hard, very hard, to avoid it. We failed because—to keep his spoils—Saddam Hussein was prepared for conflict. Because he made his decision, we were thereupon forced to ours. We are determined to give our forces every ounce of support

25
to ensure that Iraq is defeated and the United Nations Security Council's resolutions are implemented in full. Nothing more and nothing less will suffice.
It is as well to be aware what our forces face. They face an enemy that, having invaded Kuwait, is now well dug in; that has established extremely strong defensive positions, manned by many hundreds of thousands of his forces; that is equipped with thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, together with substantial numbers of aircraft and helicopters and anti-aircraft defences; and that has some of the best equipped and most experienced units of Saddam Hussein's armed forces, the Republican Guard, held in reserve on the borders of Iraq and Kuwait. These forces are supported by an elaborate war machine.
Throughout the past decade, Saddam Hussein has starved his country of economic resources precisely to build up that military machine. It has sophisticated military communications. It has missiles, and it has chemical and biological weapons that Saddam Hussein has threatened to use. As we well know, he has not scrupled to use chemical weapons in the past, even against his own people.
The conclusion to be drawn is clear. We should not for one second underestimate the scale and difficulty of the task which confronts our forces. Nor should we underestimate the time which it may take to complete this matter. We have deliberately set ourselves the aims of keeping casualties to a minimum, both among our forces and among the civilian populations of Iraq and Kuwait. and of avoiding damage to sites of religious and cultural significance.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister give way?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: In a moment, I shall give way to the hon. Gentlemen.
We must recognise that, by introducing these constraints, we are bound to lengthen the conflict. I am sure that that is right. The House should recognise what we are doing: by first destroying his air defences, we seek to save ourselves many casualties in any subsequent land battle. I give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister had any estimate from his advisers about the level of civilian casualties in Iraq?
The Prime Minister: I am going to deal precisely with that point in the next few moments.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I undertook the other day to give way to the hon. Gentleman and, regretfully, did not. If I may, at the conclusion of this point on casualties I most certainly will give way to him.
We have heard very little from Iraq so far on the subject of casualties. I will tell the House why I believe that is. I believe that it is because our efforts to avoid harm to innocent civilians have so far been successful. The figures of tens of thousands of civilian casualties quoted by some anti-war groups seem to be entirely fictitious. There is no evidence for those claims. The evidence is entirely to the contrary.
Mr. Dalyell: While accepting that Saddam Hussein, probably on purpose, placed his missile boosting factory near to Najaf and near Karbala; because of Karbala's associations with the grandson of the prophet and because Najaf is the seat of the Islamic university and the spiritual leader of the Shiahs, the Ayatollah Khoi He Marje, is it not important that, as far as possible, they should not be damaged?
Can the Prime Minister say something about the nuclear destruction? After all that has been said about Chernobyl in this House, when we talk about damage to nuclear installations, do we mean power stations, research facilities, cooling or what? Could we have the facts?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will deal particularly with the latter point in his reply. I reassure the hon. Gentleman on the former point that very clear instructions have gone to our troops to avoid sites of religious and cultural interest. That has been so since the beginning of this conflict and remains the case.
If I may, I shall return to the question of injuries. Although injuries on both sides so far have been relatively few, no one should imagine that this war will be an easy or painless business. There may well he times in the days and weeks ahead when we shall all need to bear bad news with fortitude.
Against that background, the first priority of the multinational force has been to engage and destroy military targets in Iraq and Kuwait through a massive air campaign. The targets in Iraq are chosen for one of two reasons—either because they are supporting the military occupation of Kuwait, or because they are of strategic importance. They include the Iraqi command and control system, communications, airfields, aircraft, missile sites, nuclear, chemical and biological sites, and other targets that enable Iraq to make war. Success in this air campaign will make it impossible for Iraq over time to sustain its forces in Kuwait, which will then become far more vulnerable to attack from the air and from land.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate at this stage to tell the House that the International Red Cross will be asked by the allied Governments to make urgent inquiries about the position of allied prisoners of war? Would it not also be appropriate for the allied Governments to make it perfectly clear that, if any ill treatment and worse is given to allied prisoners of war in defiance of the Geneva convention, those who carry out such treatment will be held personally responsible and will not be able to get off later by saying that they were given instructions? Nuremberg dealt with that.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I will be dealing specifically with that point, and with the news that we all heard this morning, later in my speech.
At present, the air campaign is still in progress, and, because there are many targets to be attacked, it will continue for some time. No one expects it to end speedily; certainly I do not. While it is clear that Iraqi air defences have been considerably weakened, in no sense have they been eliminated. As more and more military targets in Iraq are destroyed, the weight of the air campaign will shift increasingly to attacks on Iraqi ground forces in and around Kuwait.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make some progress. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this afternoon's debate.
Because of the attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia over the past two days, a particular effort has been devoted to eliminating Iraq's Scud missile delivery systems, both fixed sites and mobile launchers. General Schwarzkopf has assessed that some 16 mobile launchers have been destroyed, but we estimate that a significant number still remain. The hunt for them goes on by day and by night, and will continue.
An especially important part in the air campaign has been played by RAF Tornado and Jaguar ground attack aircraft, supported by VC 1 Os and Victor tanker aircraft. They have attacked large numbers of targets in western, central and south-eastern Iraq and in Kuwait. They have concentrated in particular on low-level attacks at night on highly defended airfields, using the JP233 runway cratering weapon, and have done considerable damage. The nature of these attacks makes them particularly hazardous, and they have been carried out with great skill and bravery.
One striking feature of the air campaign has been the way in which the air forces of seven nations have successfully worked together. The United States has made by far the largest contribution, but the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, France, Canada and Italy have all been involved.
In relation to the number of sorties flown—and by all historical precedents—the number of losses so far has been remarkably small, with 17 aircraft lost. Sadly, these have included three RAF Tornados lost in action, whose crews are missing. The House will be aware that Iraqi television apparently showed seven captured airmen yesterday, among whom seem to be the crew of one of our Tornados. Such broadcasts themselves are wholly objectionable in every respect.
Today, there has been a reported threat to use captured airmen as human shields. Such action would be inhuman, illegal and totally contrary to the third Geneva convention. The convention expressly provides that prisoners of war shall be evacuated as soon as possible after their capture to camps situated far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. It expressly prohibits the sending of a prisoner of war to an area where he may be exposed to fire, or his detention there, and forbids the use of the presence of prisoners of war to render points or areas immune from military operations.
There is no doubt about Iraq's obligations under the Geneva convention. I can assure the House that we have reminded Iraq very forcefully indeed of its obligations under that convention. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, summoned the Iraqi ambassador once again this morning to register beyond doubt what our views are in this matter. I remind the Iraqis that they are bound to give us the names of any prisoners that they take and to notify the International Red Cross and provide it with access. They are also bound to grant those taken prisoner all their rights under the convention. We shall hold them to that completely.
We have already asked the International Red Cross to seek access at the earliest opportunity to the two RAF air
28
crew apparently being held. Meanwhile, I am sure that the whole House joins me in expressing sympathy to the families of those air crews of all nationalities who are unaccounted for. We can only guess at the distress that their families must feel at present.
Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely plain that, if war crimes are committed, those responsible will be held to account after the war is over?
The Prime Minister: I can absolutely reaffirm that point. That is most certainly the position.
While the air campaign goes ahead, we and our allies have continued to build up our ground forces and ready them for their part in liberating Kuwait. This calls for a massive logistics exercise. On average, over 3,000 tonnes of freight is arriving in the Gulf every day in support of British forces. The way in which these vast amounts of supplies and equipment have been brought to the area and then channelled to our forces can already be credited as one of the remarkable successes of this campaign.
So, too, can the activities of the Royal Navy. It continues to patrol the waters of the Gulf on anti-aircraft picket duty and to play a vital part in enforcing sanctions against Iraq, in escorting shipping and in keeping the shipping lanes free from mines. It has been responsible for challenging more than 2,800 ships and boarding 36 of them, as well as discovering and destroying a number of mines.
I pay tribute also to the many civilians who are playing a crucial part in the support for the multinational force in Saudi Arabia, among them those employed by British companies there. The way in which they have stayed at their posts and continued their work deserves our whole-hearted congratulations.
On Friday, I spoke directly to the commander of the British forces in the middle east, General de la Billiere, and was able to brief him on the tremendous support which there is in this country for our forces. In return, he was able to give me a very good report of their morale and their state of readiness. He left me in no doubt about his confidence in the outcome. Our forces want to get the job done and to get home to their families just as soon as they can. Our thoughts are very much with those families, both here and in Germany. More than any of us, they live with the war, day in and day out, and with the constant worry about the safety of those they love. They deserve and will have all the support that we can give them.
One most disturbing development' in this conflict has been the Iraqi missile attacks on population centres in Israel. Such attacks are deplorable—utterly deplorable and wholly unforgivable. They would be so against a belligerent, but they are even more so against a country which is not even a party to this particular conflict. We know why it has been done. We know what Saddam Hussein wants. We understand the cynical ploy. He wishes to draw Israel fully into the war in the hope of inflaming Arab opinion, breaking the multinational coalition and inciting a holy war. He will fail. He will not break the coalition in the Gulf against his invasion of Kuwait.
I believe that he wholly underestimates the cohesion and resolve of the international forces. There is no indication at all of any weakening of the will of our Arab allies. They remain determined to carry forward and sustain the campaign against Saddam Hussein, until he

29
and his forces leave Kuwait, either voluntarily or as a broken-backed, defeated military machine. It is their choice.
Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I wish to make a little progress.
I do not believe that that will change, because our Arab allies understand the threat that Saddam Hussein represents to the interests of the Arab countries. They know this, too: no one has been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims in Iran, Kuwait and Iraq than Saddam Hussein.
Every Government have the right to self-defence, and no one can take that away. But we have urged on the Israeli Government the importance, if at all possible, of not granting Saddam Hussein his objective of involving Israel in a conflict which is exclusively about his occupation of Kuwait and nothing else. The remarkable restraint which Israel has shown so far is a sign of strength, and not weakness and will be widely recognised as such throughout the world. I hope that the American decision to send Patriot missiles to Israel will be further reassurance to it, especially after the Patriot's splendid performance against the Scud missiles.
Mr. George Galloway: It is being widely speculated, especially in the United States, that a deal has been struck with Israel: that, in exchange for it not getting involved in the war, America will soft-pedal on European efforts to bring Israel to the negotiating table after the war is over. Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that, notwithstanding Israel's decision so far not to retaliate, the British Government's determination that Israel must come to the negotiating table eventually with the Palestinians and must grant them their rights of self-determination is unmoved by current events around that subject?
The Prime Minister: There is no such deal, and I shall come to the British Government's position in a short while.
There is one aspect of the conflict to which I want to run —the very real threat from terrorism. We are dealing with a vicious enemy, and we have learnt that his threats must be taken seriously. There is therefore a risk of terrorist action in this country, of terrorist attacks against British premises and communities abroad, and a more general threat to air travellers. We must recognise and take account of that.
To counter that, the Government have taken several steps to protect people. One hundred and thirty members of the Iraqi community suspected of readiness to engage in terrorist acts have been deported or detained. Security has been tightened at airports, Government offices and other public places, as well as at embassies and high commissions abroad. We are also encouraging other countries to improve airport security. The dangers are considerable; everyone will need to be vigilant.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? Many hon. Members wish to speak.
In the days and weeks ahead, there will undoubtedly be many calls for a pause in military operations to enable
30
negotiations to take place. It will be said that negotiations should be given another chance and that compromises should be explored. We do not wish the conflict to continue a day longer than necessary. We do not wish to risk the lives of our forces if implementation of the Security Council resolution can be achieved by peaceful means, but I must say to the House that the Government do not favour such a pause. A pause in the period up to 15 January was one thing, but a pause after 15 January is quite another. Our forces are now engaged. Our prime consideration must be to protect them and to avoid any unnecessary casualties, and that we shall do.
We cannot agree to any suspension of hostilities, which would allow Saddam Hussein to regroup and strengthen his position, simply in the hope that that might lead to negotiations on the basis of some vague promise about his intentions. Hostilities cannot end—or pause—until we know that all Iraqi forces are out of Kuwait. There can be no other basis on which we can ever agree to explore any proposals for peace: once again, it is in Saddam Hussein's hands.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the country and the House agree that Saddam Hussein must be removed from Kuwait? How much safer will we be if this evil man decides to withdraw his forces from Kuwait and regroups within Iraq's borders? Is it not a fact that our argument is not with the Iraqi people but that, as long as a man as evil as Saddam Hussein stays in power, we can never hope for peace? If we do not beat this regime now, we shall have to beat it in two years' time. Will we chase him out of office, or will we allow him to withdraw when he is beaten in Kuwait?
The Prime Minister: We would need, of course, to be perfectly clear that there was no threat to Kuwait. That is absolutely clear under the Security Council resolutions, which we propose to implement in full.
Even while we are engaged in a conflict which may last for some considerable time to come, we are already giving thought to what might lie at the end of it: in particular, future security arrangements in the area, which will avoid any repetition of Saddam Hussein's aggression.
Clearly, it if for the Arab Governments themselves to give a lead in devising such arrangements and in providing the forces to sustain them. The Gulf states are far from reaching conclusions about this yet, but they need to be given attention now, so that, when Saddam Hussein is defeated, the necessary arrangements can be instituted rapidly and effectively.
Those arrangements will almost certainly involve a contribution from countries outside the area: and if the Gulf states wish it, we will be ready to play our part. There are a number of options which will need to be carefully considered. They include guarantees, the pre-positioning of equipment, visits and exercises by military units and the continued stationing in the area of naval and air forces. I see no circumstances in which we would envisage the permanent stationing of ground forces in the area.
Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little more progress.
We shall play our full part, too, in the vigorous efforts to solve the Arab-Israel problem which the international

31
community will need to renew once the war is over and Saddam Hussein is out of Kuwait. This will be crucial to the search for stability in the region as a whole. We must recognise that what Saddam Hussein has done by invading Kuwait and now by attacking Israel has made a solution harder to achieve, but I believe that, once the war is won, there will be a general recognition by all parties to the Arab-Israel dispute that the time has come for some new thinking. We shall do everything we can to promote this.
At the end of the first few days of the conflict, we can be well satisfied with what has been achieved. Our forces have performed effectively and bravely. The air campaign has caused significant damage to Iraq's massive war machine. Casualties and losses have been kept down. The international coalition has held together well.
By any yardstick, it has been a good start. There is no doubt about the outcome. As every day passes, it becomes clearer that Saddam Hussein cannot win this conflict, but there is still some considerable way to go before he has lost it. It is important only that he should not doubt our resolve. He should have no such false assurance. What he should have is the absolute certainty that our forces have the total support of the House as they risk their lives in a just and necessary conflict.
4.4 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add
"commends the instruction to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible; and expresses its determination that, once the aggression in Kuwait is reversed, the United Nations and the international community must return with renewed vigour to resolving the wider problems in the Middle East."
Let me begin by giving clear support to our forces in the Gulf. We have had recent and, I believe, justifiable argument in the House about the timing and consequences of the use of force in the Gulf, but there can be absolutely no doubt about the legitimacy of the military action against the Iraqi dictator.
Our forces are now engaged in fighting for the lawful purposes set out in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
My party has endorsed those resolutions repeatedly. We consider the fulfilment of those resolutions to be critical to the future authority of the United Nations, and British forces—along with others in the coalition—are being used for the precise purpose of maintaining international law and sustaining the authority of the United Nations. They are doing their duty bravely and will continue to do so. It is our duty to give them our firm backing, and that we do.
The Prime Minister has been right, both today and on previous occasions, to add his voice to those warning that this war is not likely to be a war of weeks, and that the Iraqi forces are very large, well equipped and, in many respects, well protected and dug in. No one is more aware of all that than our forces engaged in the fighting. [Interruption.] That knowledge makes their courage all the clearer—as, indeed, does the way in which they scrupulously make every effort to avoid civilian casualties and damage to holy places. [[Interruption.] Their courage is demonstrated in a particularly praiseworthy way by the
32
way in which they express themselves—as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is seeing fit to do, continually, as I speak.
No one can fail to admire the young RAF officer who, returning from his first mission, described himself, without affectation or bravado, as terrified. People like that are certainly worthy of our support. Those of our forces who have been captured thus far, and who may be captured in future, also deserve support, as do their anxious families. The Prime Minister gave fair notice to Saddam Hussein and to the Iraqi forces that we expect full adherence to the requirements of the Geneva convention. But, thus far—on the basis of rumours about the use of prisoners of war as human shields—it has yet again become clear that, although Saddam Hussein may wear the uniform of a soldier, he certainly does not take the risks of a soldier or follow any soldier's code that I know of.
Support for our forces must amount to more than recording our esteem. They are risking all their youth and all their strength, and our support for them must involve a great deal more than cheering them on. It must mean doing everything that we can to ensure that what they are doing in the name of our country and for the sake of the United Nations has worthwhile results.
In giving our support to the services, this House, and all the Governments who have committed forces against Saddam Hussein, must be able to say honestly to the men and women involved in the conflict that the war that they are waging for the liberation of Kuwait is a necessary part of the efforts to free the middle east from tension and from fear. If, in the wake of this war, the powers that be—and the people who, like us, debate—leave the roots of the conflict to grow again or let the middle east continue to be a cauldron, we shall have failed in our duty and we shall have failed those who now fight. No one in the House wants that, and no one would be content with it.
Even now, in these early days of war, when everybody is naturally and necessarily preoccupied with the immediate conflict, it is important for us to look to the future and to try to influence its shape.
In many ways, of course, the future after this conflict will be strongly determined by the way in which the war is fought, the way in which the objectives of the use of force are adhered to by the coalition, and the way in which the conflict is concluded. I am sure that it goes without saying that, at the earliest time that the basic purpose of resolution 660 is properly fulfilled, the Security Council will want to take steps quickly to end the conflict. That is certainly our strong hope, and everything that we hear conveys the message—again this afternoon from the Prime Minister—that it is the Government's hope too.
Of course there are some who want the fighting to stop immediately and renewed efforts then to be made for a peaceful solution. The motives are entirely understandable, especially to anyone who is part of that great majority who did not want fighting to start if it was at all avoidable. There can be no one—at least no one of any humanity—who does not recoil from the dreadful carnage; and there can be no one who does not want it mitigated as much as possible and ended as completely and as quickly as possible.
However, we must ask whether a ceasefire would produce that result. Would it really be likely to reduce the toll of lives? The answer must be that a ceasefire could reduce the toll of lives only if there was certainty that it would definitely produce an immediate and permanent

33
withdrawal from Kuwait and the complete laying down of arms by Saddam Hussein. It is obvious that, in the absence of such certainty, a pause in the attack on Saddam's forces and facilities would simply provide him with an opportunity to regroup, to resupply and consequently to resist even more stubbornly.
In Iraq, a ceasefire by the coalition could not fail to give substance to Saddam's propaganda and to add further to that resistance. The result would be to prolong, not to shorten, the conflict, to postpone, not to promote, the end of fighting and to increase, not to decrease, the slaughter. None of that outcome could conform to any definition of peace or peace-making. It would not fulfil the purposes of mercy, and it would not even promote post-war stability, since it has every likelihood not of mitigating the slaughter but of leading to the increase of slaughter.
Meanwhile, as the war rages, two points must fairly be made: first, Saddam Hussein shows absolutely no inclination to comply with the basic requirements of the United Nations and quit Kuwait. On the contrary, all his words are of fanatical defiance, and all his actions of military offence. Secondly, it must be said that, by withdrawing from Kuwait, Saddam could have prevented any possibility of war. Even now, he can stop the war immediately by withdrawing from Kuwait and laying down his arms. Whatever else may be said or thought about the Iraqi dictator, some things are obvious: he wilfully refused to follow a course that guaranteed no war; he does not as yet want peace, and he will not as yet allow peace. If he does, he will get peace.
On both sides of the House and among the general public there is a general and a strong desire to play a part in influencing the future after the war. It is therefore obvious that, while this debate and those that will undoubtedly follow must be about war aims, they must also be about peace aims.
The war aims of liberating Kuwait from occupation and restoring the legitimate Government are precise and limited, and rightly so. However, the peace aims must be broader. They must relate not just to the crime that Saddam Hussein committed against international law by invading Kuwait last August; they must also relate to depriving him of the ability to commit such a crime again. The war aims do not relate to the dismembering of Iraq, and rightly so. That would provoke instability, not prevent it.
Peace aims must therefore include the purpose of keeping Iraq whole and secure from outside attack after the cessation of this war. The war aims do not include the deposing of a Government or the death of a dictator, and rightly so. They are not fit objectives for the United Nations. But the peace aims must involve the substantial disarming of Iraq by the reduction of conventional forces and the verified and complete removal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means of making them. Peace aims must relate to ending regional super-power status for Iraq and for every other country in the region if they truly are peace aims. To ignore that is to ignore the fact that great disparities of military strength and conventional and non-conventional armaments are of themselves major sources of instability.
That unavoidably means that, in the wake of this war, the peace aims must be geared to the stability of the whole of the middle east. That requires firm and dependable long-term security structures for the region, as the Prime Minister indicated. It requires freedom from the fear of
34
invasion or attack for nations. For peoples, it requires the recognition of their identity and their right to self-determination in their own homeland. Stability in the middle east demands, in short, collective security operated through a United Nations with the influence to achieve political resolutions to disputes and the power to deter aggression. That influence and power cannot be wielded by one nation or by a group of nations—certainly not a grouping of nations—from outside the middle east.
It would never be wise, desirable or feasible for the United States or any power to attempt the task. Indeed, for reasons of practicality as well as reasons of principle, it is clear that no power has any realistic ambition to assume such a role. Although the United States of America, like Britain, the Soviet Union and other countries, can and must therefore help in providing, through the United Nations, the architecture of collective security in the middle east, the construction—the actual task of building—is really going to have to be done by the countries of that region. For reasons that everyone here will readily and sadly recognise, no task is more challenging to the world community. As the Prime Minister said, that task has in no way been made easier by the events of recent times.
Frankly, in all the years of tension, conflict and deadlock, there has never been a better time to address the question and, more important, there has never been a time when there was more necessity to address the question. The intractability of the continual crisis of the middle east has caused deep concern for decades, but, because the insecurity and the suffering of that crisis was the plight of others, those wars were often merely regretted and even more often tolerated. Surely that cannot continue where instability in the middle east has now pulled half the world into war. Certainly, when men and women from our country are in the midst of that war and in the midst of its perils, Britain, under any Government, must insist upon effective international efforts to overcome that lethal instability.
We not only have a general responsibility to do that as part of the world community; we have a right to do it, and anyone who does not understand that is ignoring the risks being taken and the sacrifices being made now by British forces in the middle east. Their risks provide the right for direct participation and influence—insistent influence—on the achievement of a durable and just settlement of the disputes of the middle east. That new dimension—
Mr. Robert Adley: I find nothing at all in the Leader of the Opposition's speech with which I would disagree, but will he agree with me that the United Nations resolutions must be the basis for the future peace of which he speaks and for which we all pray? Resolutions 242 and 338 must be the basis and we must get cross-party agreement on this. Would the right hon. Member also agree with me that both Lebanon and Syria are entitled to the return of their lands, which have been occupied in flagrant violation of the United Nations resolutions, just as has Kuwait?
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the hon. Member. The purpose of the context of an international conference—I will come to that in a moment—is not only so that we get the substance of resolutions 242, 338 and 681 as the basis upon which to discuss the future security structures of the Middle East, but so that there is also a real opportunity for

35
bilateral and multilateral discussions to achieve just those purposes of durable security for which countries throughout the region are searching. I know that, in this House, there is a real readiness to provide energy to that area.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before we leave the list of things that we would all like to see happen in order to achieve peace, would he agree that we must not forget the problems of Lebanon? To this end, one of the objectives should be to obtain the release of the hostages, including Terry Waite and others, who have been held for four years.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say what I intended to say later —to remember those, both from our own country and from other countries, who are being held hostage in Lebanon, and to express the hope that efforts that are being made, both here and elsewhere, to secure their release will bear fruit as soon as possible.
There is this new dimension to the treatment of vexed problems of the Middle East produced by the fact of war and our forces' engagement in that war. That new dimension must be recognised by all the countries in the region, including Israel. Last week, with his terror bombing of Israel, Saddam Hussein hoped to suck that country into the war and by so doing cause a fracture between the Arab and non-Arab members of the anti Saddam Hussein coalition. He also wanted to add to Israeli insecurity and to make Israel even less disposed to participate in an international conference.
Thus far, his first objective has not been realised, partly because of the resilience shown by the Israeli Government in the face of great provocation and partly because of the resilience shown by the leaders of Arab countries in the coalition. Saddam Hussein must continue to fail in his enterprise. Israel's decision not to make a pre-emptive attack on Iraq before 15 January and the conduct of the Israeli Government since, despite Iraqi missiles falling on Israeli territory, has demonstrated wisdom which is worthy of respect from the whole world.
Israel now has every reason to continue with that course. As the Prime Minister said, it is evidence of strength and not weakness. The security, economy and, as others have pointed out, democratic integrity of that country require that Israel become a full part of international efforts to achieve a just and durable solution to the condition of the Palestinian people.
When Israel has been subjected to attack and remains a target, and when the Palestinian Liberation Organisation has such close association with Saddam Hussein, no one can or should underestimate the resistance to change. But the present condition is and has been unsustainable for a very long time. The interests of the region and the world community are direct and urgent, and the war in the Gulf banishes any possibility that there can be a return to pre-war conditions when the fighting ends.
Ms. Clare Short: We all share my right hon. Friend's views that the restraint shown by Israel is very welcome, so that the war does not escalate. I also share his view that we have to look to a just settlement in the Middle East, but would he repeat to
36
Israel our demand that it too should also abide by the Geneva convention and cease to breach it in its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories?
Mr. Kinnock: I have put that point not only to the Israeli Prime Minister and other representatives of the Israeli Government but to previous holders of that office. My hon. Friend will be aware that her opinion, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, is, remarkably in some ways but certainly commendably, shared by a large section of the Israeli population, the Israeli Labour party, and people associated with the Likud.
It is of this that Abba Eban and others speak when they talk about the democratic integrity of the state of Israel. That has rightly been a source of respect for that state and that is the basis of our demand that the integrity of Israel, and its security and existence, are accepted and recognised. On that basis, we ceaselessly appeal to the Israeli Government and forces to ensure that all international conventions are accepted and applied, without exception.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kinnock: I am anxious to get on. The Prime Minister was commendably brief, and I shall try not to exceed the time he took.
When the war to reverse Saddam Hussein's aggression is over, no effort should be spared in fulfilling those peace aims by convening the international conference and making it effective. As United Nations resolution 681, following resolutions 342 and 338, has as its objective the security of all states in the region, there is another feature of tension in that region that must be addressed in all attempts to solve the wider problems of the middle east. The middle east is packed with weapons. It has been obvious for a long time that there is such a surfeit of weaponry there that armaments long ago stopped being a source of security and became, of themselves, a major cause of insecurity.
Iraq, against which our forces and the coalition forces are fighting, is a terrible case in point. For several years, that country, under Saddam Hussein, has been the second biggest arms importer. Between 1983 and 1989, Iraq bought about $23 billion-worth of armaments from the rest of the world. The Soviet Union was the biggest supplier, providing, among other things, tanks, armoured vehicles, multiple rocket launchers, war planes, artillery, and short and medium-range missiles, including the Scud missiles.
France has provided substantial numbers of fighters, fighter-bombers and helicopters, armoured vehicles, artillery and missiles of various kinds, including substantial numbers of Exocets. China is a major source of tanks, bombers and ground attack aircraft. Brazil has sold armoured vehicles, armoured personnel carriers and multiple rocket launchers. In this arms bazaar, West Germany, Austria, Italy, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and South Africa have all sold Saddam Hussein weaponry and military vehicles. In our recent history, while we may not have sold arms, we have sold the means to make arms and to build an indigenous weapons industry in Iraq.
While all that was going on, Saddam Hussein and his regime were inflicting the most ruthless cruelty and oppression on the Iraqi people. They are now suffering

37
because of Saddam's aggression against others. They have long suffered because of his aggression against them. The Amnesty International reports have annually reported the murderous details of Saddam's regime. They give details of terrible physical and mental torture. They give evidence of the extermination of whole clans. There are records of children of eight and nine being arrested and then detained for long periods, and of children as young as 14 being executed.
Mr. Eastham: The Prime Minister told us that 130 Iraqis had been expelled from the United Kingdom. The north-west has a number of Iraqis who have been living in Britain for a number of years and who fear Saddam Hussein's regime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must sincerely hope that the Government will see to it that such people are not exported to Iraq and, thus, ultimately, to their death?
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that it has been clear from the inquiries that I and my right hon. Friend have made about the treatment of Iraqi citizens in this country that very great care is being taken to discriminate between those who in many respects are refugees from the Saddam regime and who have every reason to fear return to Iraq and those who have associations with that regime. I am sure that the Home Office will be grateful for the vigilance that Members of Parliament can exercise in defence of the appropriate rights of their constituents, and I know that co-operation will be offered on that basis. Certainly it has been in the case of Iraqi citizens who fear Saddam Hussein and who live in my constituency.
All the list of barbarities compiled by Amnesty International have been carried out with a vile deliberation in Saddam's Iraq. While they were, Saddam Hussein, if not regarded as a bosom friend of the democracies, was certainly not regarded as the outcast that he should be. Surely that must change. Surely there must be a readiness to pull issues of human rights in from the margins of policy and to include them as matters that are central to the diplomatic, political and economic relations between countries.
I make that argument partly because it must be at the core of any concept of morality which we share on both sides of this House, but I am also arguing for change in the status of human rights issues in the conduct of policy because they are matters of material importance, too. If the tyrants of the world rehearse their oppression with their own people, if they do it with the power provided by imported arms and with the confidence that comes from being accepted or even courted by democracies, then they are always the leaders most likely to offend against their neighbours and against the world community.
I do not argue for our country to be the world's parson or the world's policeman or the world's probation officer. None of that is feasible. I do say that to supply aggressors or to ignore oppression is, by default, to encourage aggression itself. If that is not recognised—and acted upon —in the wake of this war, much of the talk of a global security order will mean little or nothing. More important in the immediate circumstances, the cause of combating aggression, the cause for which our forces are told they are fighting will dissolve in the cynicism of the men and women who are risking their lives.
38
In his Times article last Friday, the Foreign Secretary wrote:
"We are acting to uphold collective security and the authority of the UN. We have to prove around the world that the UN is not an organisation that can be discounted when one State is contemplating aggression against another."
I believe that that was a statement of conviction from the right hon. Gentleman; I share his conviction. People are fighting and dying for that principle now. It is being applied with force and must be sustained with determination. That is our task. It is the reason that we want the member countries of the United Nations, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council, to make cogent plans for a durable peace now, and then, when this war is ended, to put it into effect with deliberation.
The result of this war must be part of the foundation of peace. It must be a basis for the structure of security in the middle east. The innocent people now suffering, and the courageous people now fighting, deserve no less.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the first Back-Bench Member to contribute to the debate, I wish to ask hon. Members not to come to the Chair to inquire if they are likely to be called. There have been three debates on the extremely important matter that is being debated today, and I propose today to give priority to those Members who have not spoken in the previous debates. It may be possible later, if hon. Members are brief, to call others who have participated in previous debates on the Gulf.
4.34 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: It is a sombre fact that the House embarks once more in its long history on a debate against the background of Britain at war. We must be grateful that the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition demonstrate much unanimity and reflect the widespread support that is to be found within the Ho use and within the country generally for the way in which our troops have begun to engage in a conflict which none of us wanted and all of us hope passionately will soon be brought to an end. We all welcome the Leader of the Opposition's support for our forces.We welcome especially the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the bravery of our air crews in the first week of the war.
Many of us over recent years have been deluged with correspondence that has been critical of the disruption that has taken place in areas that have been subjected to a large amount of low-flying training by the Royal Air Force. That criticism has been accompanied by much anxiety. Low flying causes much disruption of and concern to the majority of people in the areas in which it takes place, but they accept it because they understand the need for it. Surely all those people, as well as those who do not accept low flying at all, recognise now how essential low-flying training has been. The Gulf war has demonstrated already how worthwhile that training was. The training of the Royal Air Force and the success that it has enjoyed have led to worldwide acclaim. Its professionalism is recognised generally. Those of us who live in areas where there is a good deal of low-flying are grateful for the way in which our pilots have been trained.
Mr. David Tredinnick: There is widespread agreement in the midlands, which suffers from much low-flying aircraft, that training to fly at low level is essential. My constituency suffers especially from this flying. I hope that the recognition of the need for low-flying training will lead to a review of public thinking.
Mr. Jopling: I am sure that that will be so, and I agree with my hon. Friend. He will probably agree that the Gulf war has demonstrated the importance of training our pilots to fly at night as well as at low level. Undoubtedly that poses a problem for the future in areas of the United Kingdom where low-flying training takes place. If low-level training at night needs to be extended, I guess that many people will have to start thinking about the future. Surely everyone understands that it is essential that our pilots are able to fly at low level at night.
Public relations will be crucial during the war. There has never been a time in the memory of most of us when broadcasters have had a greater responsibility for objectivity and fairness. There have been many occasions when Members have been irritated and infuriated by Ale bias of programme makers. Sometimes those feelings have been justified, and sometimes perhaps not. It is crucial that those in the broadcasting organisations who are in charge of the programme makers are more vigilant than they have ever been to ensure that there is fairness and objectivity.
Ministers have already commendably demonstrated their ability to appear before cameras and microphones in a way that I can never remember being demonstrated before. I do not believe that senior Ministers appeared anything like as frequently during the Falklands campaign as they are doing this time. I pay tribute to all of them for making themselves so readily available to help the broadcasters.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In this context, "public relations" is an unfortunate term. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some television journalists and so-called military experts ought to show more restraint and discretion, especially when they use toy weapons with demonstration boards? Perhaps that is what the right hon. Gentleman should be arguing for.
Mr. Jopling: There is a good deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was brought up to believe that an expert is an ordinary man a very long way from home. However, that is another matter.
Secondly, I hope that the broadcasters will not forget what else is going on in the world at the moment. If there were no war in the Gulf, the crucially important events taking place in the Baltic states would cause Members on both sides of the House to call for emergency debates. We must never forget that the Soviet Union is still by far the strongest military power in Europe. In recent weeks we have seen a dramatic change in the control of that military power. I read in a newspaper the other day something that, had it not been for the Gulf war, would have received a good deal more publicity. I refer to the Soviet military's proposal that in the forthcoming year there should be a 25 per cent. increase in its budget.
Mr. David Alton: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the danger of losing sight of events elsewhere in the world. I put it to him that the media, too, have a responsibility
40
—a responsibility not to harass or pursue families of service men who have been taken hostage. It would be quite improper to put pressure on such families, many of whom have suffered quite enough distress already.
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said just this morning that the media really ought to lay off these people. Thus, my right hon. Friend got in before the hon. Gentleman and myself. Anyhow, the point is very well taken.
In the case of the Soviet Union, I know that Governments will keep an ever vigilant eye on what is going on, especially in the Baltic states. But so must the broadcasters. The attention of the public must continue to be drawn to events there as well as to the important events in the Gulf.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could be better informed if the war were not given non-stop coverage? It is important that coverage should be accurate and regular, but not that it should be non-stop.
Mr. Jopling: I do not mind the non-stop coverage, but I am anxious that broadcasters should ensure that the Gulf war does not dominate the news to such an extent that other serious and hugely important situations are excluded.
Finally, I want to make the point that the population of Iraq, as well as the British public, must be properly informed. It is crucial that the Iraqi people, too, be told the truth. We know that Saddam Hussein is not exactly a fountain of either wisdom or truth. We know that what he tells his people is unlikely to help them to understand what is really going on in this conflict. It may well be that what he wants to say is failing to be heard because the allies have destroyed his communications system. I hope so. It is vital that those outside Iraq who broadcast the truth be given every opportunity to speak to the people of Iraq.
That brings me to a mention of the BBC World Service, which at this time has its greatest-ever responsibility and opportunity. I want to refer to some information that I have received from the World Service. I understand that the duration of broadcasts in Arabic was increased by one-and-a-half hours a day immediately after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait last August, and by a further three-and-a-half hours a day from 17 January. That brings the total Arabic boradcasting time to 14 hours, and I certainly welcome that. I gather that transmission in Persian is being increased by 15 minutes and that people in Iraq—especially casual and immigrant workers—are being provided with increased opportunities to find out precisely what is going on.
The World Service tells me:
"We are being hampered by a shortage of frequencies on which to broadcast both Arabic and English. However, due to resourceful work by the engineers we have managed to direct four frequencies at a minimum in Arabic, with six for the important dawn transmission. This has meant depriving other language streams of power, but this has been kept to a minimum."
That is welcome, but I hope that the Government will see that everything possible is done to help the BBC World Service to explain the truth to the people of Iraq, and that all possible facilities will be provided to ensure that transmissions are made at maximum power.

41
Finally—and perhaps most important—the Government must ensure that there is not a shortage of frequencies. I am no expert in these matters, but I have to say that, if at all possible, the Government must make further, more powerful frequencies available to the World Service so that it may present the truth to the people of Iraq. That can only help to bring this war to a close as soon as possible, which is what we all want to see.
4.47 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I agree with what the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said about the Baltic states and about the importance of the BBC World Service. There is another matter on which we agree, but I shall touch on that later.
Today's debate will send our forces a message of united support from the House—and they deserve nothing less. In recent days we have all marvelled at their bravery and their skill. I speak as the Member for a constituency in which there is a very large number of service families, many of whom have loved ones in the Gulf. We admire the very real courage of those families, who have to carry such a terrible burden. They need to know that we are proud of them and that we feel nothing but gratitude for their efforts.
The Prime Minister was right to keep his speech relatively short, and I shall endeavour to do the same. I want to say a few words about the course of the war and about what I think may happen in the next few weeks. Then I want, like the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to focus to some extent on the nature and shape of the peace that must follow the present confrontation and action.
The Government are right to stress that we are in the first phase of this war. Indeed, we are probably in the first part of the first phase. There is no doubt that things are going well, but we ought to recognise that there is still a venomous sting in the tail of the Iraqi war machine and that it will take some time to draw. That has been demonstrated in the past few days. It is right to concentrate on the fact that this operation is not going to be quick or easy. In fairness to all who have spoken from the Opposition and Government Benches, no one has ever claimed that it would be.
In many ways, we are in the easier phase of the war. By saying that I do not intend to diminish the tremendous courage, skill and ability of those who are now flying the air sorties. I have a recurring near-nightmare of a young man in a darkened cockpit hurtling across the desert at 100 ft or less, heading alone towards a target. It must take tremendous courage to do that once, but that is done night after night, after night. We appreciate that courage.
I do not want to diminish in any way the courage of those who are already participating in this war, but we are in the easier phase of what we may face. We are in the remote-control war—the war that is fought at the end of a laser beam and with the newest technology. If we move to the second phase—the war on the ground—it will be fought at close quarters. It will be fought between human beings who can see one another. It will not be fought with the newest technology, but with the oldest technology of all, the brute courage of the ordinary soldier on the ground.
We can expect further desperate attempts by Saddam Hussein to try to widen the conflict as he tries to draw others in and to provoke Israel. The Prime Minister has
42
also alluded to Saddam's attempts to try to provoke the allied nations, the western nations and others through acts of terrorism. That will be his determination, and it is right and proper for us to show an equal determination to stick to our war plan, which is now unfolding. It is on time and it has had a measured degree of success. Part of that war plan is, as the Prime Minister rightly said, the important policy of precision targeting—the targeting of military installations. We should understand that we pay a price for that policy, but it is right to pursue it, whatever provocations are levied against us.
We have seen an example of that provocation today in the disgraceful scenes on Iraqi television of prisoners of the coalition forces. The Prime Minister was correct—we on these Benches support him—that that act itself may be an infringement of the Geneva convention. I recall that article 7 of the convention specifically states that that type of activity is forbidden. Any question of taking our prisoners and putting them in locations where they may be close to military targets would be a clear contravention of the terms of the Geneva convention. Let the word go out from this House that that would be a crime against the rule of law and that those who perpetrate or are responsible in any way will suffer the due process of law as war criminals afterwards.
Let us consider our prisoners of war who are now alone, unsupported, in the hands of the Iraqis. I have had some small experience of interrogation and what it can mean. It is an appallingly difficult process in which one is alone, unsupported, while under the most immense pressures. I hope and believe that the nation and the press will understand the pressures that those young men are now under. I hope that they will be generous and understanding in the way in which they treat them.
I understand from what the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has said that the families of those involved have made a particular appeal to the press to give them the privacy they now need in their moment of terrible concern. I want to speak to some sections of the press. There is probably nothing that they could do that would do more to "support our boys", to put in in their terms, than to give those families, and the families of others who have troops in the area, the privacy to which they should be entitled.
I hope that a section of our press will have heard my appeal and will honour it by ensuring that they provide that privacy to which those families, under that terrible burden, are now entitled.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we hear British airmen, soldiers or sailors saying anything on Iraqi radio or television, the only effect that should have on us is to increase our contempt for Saddam Hussein as the war criminal that he is already shown to be?
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who is correct.
It is appropriate to move from discussing the conduct of the war to the peace which must follow it—a point to which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have already alluded. There will be those who will argue that it is too early to turn our attention to that, but that is not right. We need to begin now to draw up the framework of the peace that will follow. During the second world war, the allies started to talk about peace as early as

43
1941, four years before that war ended. I believe that making clear the framework for the peace that must follow will not only help the long-term achievement of that peace, but may help us in the short term in the prosecution of that war.
By laying out the terms of that peace, we can and will give justice to our cause now. We can provide reasons that will increase the cohesion of the coalition, particularly in relation to the moderate Arab countries. If we tackle the Palestinian situation with the energy and honesty that is needed, we may undermine Saddam Hussein's capacity to play the Palestinian card. We may be able to reassure Israel that it is the aim of the coalition to assure its security in the long term and that therefore it has no need to intervene in the war. As important as anything else, we may be able to give hope to those moderate forces in Iraq that will replace, or may even overthrow Saddam Hussein, that, in the humiliation of that nation's defeat, there will be no question of carving up that country. We want Iraq to be an integral part of the peace that will follow.
What is the nature of that peace? The Prime Minister has called this a just war, but, frankly, I cannot be an arbiter on such matters. I do not know how one judges a just war, but the right hon. Gentleman has described this as such and I accept that. One thing is certain: if this is to be a just war, it must be followed by a just peace. If we have fought this war to remove instability from the middle east we must establish a peace that creates stability. It must not be the job of that peace to retain western influence or to maintain the supply of oil. The primary purpose must be stability, for that is the cause for which we have fought this war. The Prime Minister rightly said that the war is being fought for the authority of the United Nations and, therefore, the peace cannot be a British peace or an American one; it must be a United Nations peace.
It is right, proper and correct that the conduct of the war should lie with those nations whose troops are at risk in that action. However, the assembly of the peace must lie with the United Nations. When we went to war, the Prime Minister said—most hon. Members agreed with him—that it was a war about preserving the authority of the United Nations. If we were not prepared to back that authority with action today, the United Nations's back would be broken, it would be useless and irreparably damaged just when we need it most. However, unless that rhetoric is backed with action to achieve peace, the United Nations will be equally damaged. It will be seen by others to have acted merely as a cover for western forces, which will inflict terrible damage to future confidence in the United Nations.
Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that the argument that the war is about upholding the authority of the United Nations would be more convincing if more statements were forthcoming from the United Nations through its Secretary-General? President Bush, instead of standing in front of the stars and stripes, should stand in front of the United Nations flag so that everyone clearly understands what is going on.
Mr. Ashdown: I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's argument. The United Nations has provided the legitimacy for the war, but those who have troops at risk in it must provide the direction of that war until the peace
44
is delivered. There can be no other way. I know that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have argued for a pause in the war. That pause would be folly. It is a seductive argument and one to which many will listen, but I am clear about one fact—given the statements from Saddam Hussein, even as late as last night, a pause would simply provide him with room to regroup his forces. We have the initiative in this war, but not without some cost. If we risk losing it now, it will cost the lives of our troops to regain it in future. Saddam Hussein can have a pause today provided that he withdraws from Kuwait. That is the basis on which a pause can be accomplished.
I fear that unless we begin to map out the ingredients of the peace—I do not for a moment pretend that this is the aim—it will be not like that of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which established regional stability, but like that following Versailles in 1918, when the powers that had achieved victory carved up the spoils and laid the ingredients for further instability and the begetting of another war.
What, then, should be the ingredients of a just peace? I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will address that in his winding-up speech. First, a just peace will inevitably be based on the terms of the United Nations resolutions in relation to Kuwait. It cannot be based on anything else. Nor can there be a compromise on that. Secondly, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, it must incorporate the other United Nations resolutions that are unfulfilled. Thirdly—it might be useful if the coalition forces could make this clear—a just peace would be based on the maintenance and preservation of existing recognised borders. There can be no question of allowing Iraq or other nations, such as Jordan, to be divided up. We must make it absolutely clear that the peace we seek is based on existing, recognised borders.
The fourth element of a just peace would involve the establishment over time of a regional security structure. The long-term aim should be that regional security should be in the hands of the nations of the region. Hard facts mean that that will not happen in the short term. It will be necessary to maintain troops in the area. I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that he does not foresee those troops being ground troops. However, I am bound to say that in that passage of his speech he did not give me the reassurance that I sought, which was that the troops that must remain to maintain peace until a proper, regional security structure is in place should not be left in the region on any basis other than under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. If that is the authority for our troops to be in the area now, it must be the authority for any troops that remain in the area afterwards. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will also address that point.
Mr. David Lambie: How can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee a just peace for the Palestinians on the West Bank when by the end of the year 1 million Soviet Jews will be occupying their area and the Palestinians will be expelled? How will we achieve a just peace for the Palestinians on that issue?
Mr. Ashdown: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I am coming to that point in a moment.
The fifth element of a just peace is that it should incorporate within it a programme of arms control and

45
arms reduction that addresses the questions of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the sale of arms to nations in this area.
I shall turn briefly to the question of Israel. This is the nub of the problem. It is the irreducible problem which we must sort out in the context of a framework for peace that gives stability in the long term. I can see no way to resolve the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians unless both sides scale down some of their demands. There must be two pillars on which such a peace is based. The first is that Israel should be provided with the means to have security within its recognised borders. In return, the Palestinians must be given self-determination. There is no dodging the fact that self-determination means the right to choose a state of their own. It may well be that those Palestinians will choose some sort of federation with Jordan. That is for them to decide in due course.
There is also the question of the Israeli problem with Syria. The bilateral discussions with Syria about the Golan heights with a view perhaps to creating a demilitarised zone, are now more possible because Syria is part of the coalition. Whatever the bilateral agreements between those two nations, ultimately they must be bounded in and protected by the overall settlement. A bilateral agreement which stands alone cannot be the basis.
Last week, I pressed the Foreign Secretary to tell us the aims of the war. He did so unequivocally, clearly and in a way in which I can fully support. I ask the Government to begin to think about defining the terms of the peace that must follow. The Government have said that the war is being fought for a new world order, and we concur. The Prime Minister has called the nation to arms because international law must be upheld, and we agree. Our service men are now in the field, not for Britain, but to uphold the authority of the United Nations, and we applaud and support them. In due course, and at some cost, they will deliver us a peace. It would be a tragedy if we did not know how to use it. It would be a catastrophe if the reasons for fighting the war were abandoned in the peace which will follow it.
It will help both in the prosecution of the war and in the building of a just peace to follow if the allies begin to lay out the framework for that peace now.
5.5 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: I cannot but contrast the fact that we in the House, widely representative of the British people as we are with every one of us having a constituent involved directly or indirectly, are debating within a few days of the outbreak of war the various elements that have brought us to it with what might be happening in Baghdad, where there is no assembly of any representative, let alone elected, kind which has a chance of offering informed opposition to the Government who have ruled Iraq.
Dr. Godman: What about Saudi Arabia?
Sir Giles Shaw: Yes, many other Arab states similarly have no democratically elected institution. In the light of what we are discussing, it is essential that we keep reminding ourselves why the war has been started following the invasion of Kuwait in August, although I do not wish to go into the niceties of the peace, as did the right
46
hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Obviously, we are here because of the enormous reactions to that invasion.
Never since the end of the second world war has the United Nations produced such a majority in favour of taking action. We are here because we are willed to be a party to this action by nations drawn from all points of the geographical compass, including many Muslim nations. We must remember that although not many Muslim nations are participating in the allied force, their reaction has been amazingly strong. The fact that Gaddafi has shown himself strongly antagonistic to Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait is an interesting, and unique, straw in the wind.
We are here because we are, as we have always been, a firm participator in United Nations activities. We seek to ensure that its resolutions, including 606 and 678, are upheld. We are here, too, because the five and a half months of effort to settle these issues peacefully and the many direct and multiple diplomatic efforts have failed.
Some have suggested that sanctions should have been continued for a longer period. That is possible, but there is no question in my mind that the type of leadership in Iraq would not respond to the threat posed by sanctions. If the large population of 16 million had an elected assembly, the democratic pressures could be observed, but that is not the case. The people of Iraq are used to privation in times of war: it takes much more than sanctions to stir them against their indigenous leadership. Iraq has a large and fertile capacity for food production and, in comparison with other Arab states, can expand it pretty easily.
Above all—as has been said so eloquently today—the scale of the military paraphernalia assembled in Iraq in the relatively recent past would be the last element in that state to be affected by the sort of sanctions that were imposed. It is not surprising that there has been no sign of any real change of mind on the part of the leadership, or of any real advantage in the imposition of sanctions—apart from the time that that has allowed for the preparation of an allied force and its assembly in Arabia as a defender of the UN's endeavour, a deterrent of further aggression and a body that can, if needs must, act as a strong retaliatory unit.
This is called "the Gulf war"; today's Order Paper states merely that the subject of our debate is "The Gulf". That Gulf—a vast and long sea inlet—is certainly a major geographical feature, and is aptly named, but the Persian Gulf is more than that: it is a meeting of civilisations from east and west, Christian and Muslim, Arab and Jew; the Kurds from the north and Nubians from the south; rich states and poor states, slave and free.
Those are all elements in the embroidery of history around this extraordinary area, which has been the historic cradle of several civilisations. The region, after all, includes both Ararat and Eden, both Persepolis and Babylon, both Bethlehem and Mecca. It has a violent and turbulent history, which has left the Gulf notoriously unstable. In that sense, the Gulf is an unfathomable abyss; certainly, it appears dark and full of foreboding to those who unwillingly become involved in it.
"Gulf", however, has another meaning in common parlance. It can signify a divide between peoples; a lack of understanding between man and man; the way in which suspicion and mistrust are so easily bred; religious differences—even within Islam; jealousy and bitterness

47
between the oil-rich states on the one hand and impoverished states on the other. That, too, is a significant element and we ignore it at our peril.
It is for those reasons that the course of the present conflict is so difficult to predict. Like everyone here, I am confident that the war will be won, but I am not confident that it will be short or easy. I very much admire the amazing, awesome technology that has been shown to offer a military precision never before achieved in war: long may it continue to be as effective as we believe it to be now. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily likely to persuade 16 million Iraqis to remove the style of leadership that they have endured for more than 30 years. Persuasion and reason may have all on to win the argument when the Muslim faith is seen as being under attack by the infidel outside and by western imperialists—as it always was.
That is the sort of reaction that we may face: it is the sort of strength that nations of this character may offer to deal with any sort of attack. We must see it through, however, and we must be absolutely firm in our support for those whose task is to prosecute the war.
We must also accept—again, this is in common parlance—that a gulf is there be be bridged. Is this the time, or the opportunity, for that to be done? To win the war will certainly not be easy, but, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil pointed out, to win the peace will be a Herculean task. Yet the allied cause already includes major, significant Muslim countries that are related to the region—Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria and Pakistan. All those states will be hugely influential in the ultimate peace described by the right hon. Gentleman. The allied cause is, moreover, underwritten by all the super-powers, which must give it an even better chance of emerging into a satisfactory peace.
The alliance must hold, and must be cultivated through the efforts that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary can make so well to ensure that it emerges victorious at the end of the day. Then, given United Nations support, the prospect of that satisfactory peace will be possible. The winning of a lasting peace will, however, require the patience and dedication of a saint—in God's name, and in Allah's, too.
5.16 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I still cannot believe that a civilised alliance has gone to war. I feel that I am living a nightmare. The most terrifying scenario is being played out nightly on our television screens, as the mightiest and most advanced technological war machine in the world rains down its armoury of death on the people of Iraq. On the other side, the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein—the mass murderer of Halabja—leads his desperate nation into further death and suffering, and terrorises the Saudi and Israeli civilian populations.
During the past five months—along with many of my colleagues and as part of a wide group of people—I have used what energies I possess, and what little talent and influence, to try to prevent the use of the military option. I have been derided for my efforts both in the House and outside—by Conservative Members, but never by my hon. Friends—but I was convinced that sanctions could work if
48
given a chance. It would seem, however, that President Bush never intended them to work; our Government now support his claims, and we have gone to war.
The director of the CIA, William Webster—whose credentials are, I should have thought, impeccable—told the United States armed services committee that sanctions were working: according to him,
"more than 90 per cent. of imports and 97 per cent. of exports have been shut off",
and smuggling across the border was on a very small scale.
We know that Iraq is not self-sufficient in most foodstuffs—it imports two thirds of its grain—and food was therefore a problem. Hon. Members who went to Iraq in a gallant attempt to get hostages out said that food prices were escalating and that great difficulties were being experienced; moreover, spare part shortages would affect the military sooner or later.
Now that we are at war, the debate on whether sanctions were given a fair chance to work will have to be delayed. Nevertheless, the House should hold the Chairmen of the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs and on Defence to account. They should be asked why sanctions were not monitored and why Committee discussions did not take place three or four times a week. If Select Committees cannot undertake such a task, what is their purpose?
We know that President Bush decided on the military option last November, if not before. Now we are in this dreadful war. Perhaps, however, we can learn some lessons from the way in which we behaved in the past. Perhaps we should start asking now why we went into this war. We did not go to war to safeguard human rights. We have traded with Saddam Hussein for a very long time. Today I received information from the Library about the export credits that were agreed bilaterally between the United Kingdom and Iraq up to 1989. In 1988, £200 million was spent on capital goods, £65 million on a power station project and £75 million on pharmaceuticals. I wonder whether it was that power station that was bombed with such precision?
We have been told for many years how evil is the Iraqi regime. For many years, I have supported the Campaign against Repression and for Democratic Representation in Iraq. The Prime Minister said, rightly, that Saddam Hussein starved his country of resources to build up his military machine. We knew that before 2 August 1990. I was one of the 91 Members of Parliament who, in May 1989, opposed the Government's financial support for the 17 British firms which exhibited at the Baghdad arms fair. I presume that senior members of the Government, who now form the war cabinet, knew about that. Eight days after Iraq bombed Halabja with chemical weapons, when 5,000 people were murdered by the butcher of Baghdad, the Government expressed their distress, but that did not prevent them from providing £400 million of export credits to British firms to increase their trade with Baghdad. We shall have to debate that question again and again when the war is over.
I have thought long and hard about whether the United Nations supports the upholding of international law. When I look at the list of abuses that have been committed over the years, I see that there were United Nations resolutions on Grenada, Panama, Cyprus, the occupied territories and Tibet, which could have been implemented, but they were not.

49
Hostilities have now begun, and our service men and women are in grave danger. I do not agree with all that has been said about the press. The Halifax Evening Courier, my local paper, has published pictures of all the young service men and women who are going to and who are in the Gulf. It has set up a support group for parents and relatives who are worried about their loved ones in the Gulf. I carry those pictures with me everywhere to remind myself of their humanity. Some of them probably went to school with my two sons. If the war goes on and on, my sons may be caught up in it.
I support that paper's initiative. I wrote to all of them this weekend—as citizens of Halifax were asked to do—saying, "I want you to come home soon, and I give you my total support." To try to "lift" the letter a little I said, "If you come back home quickly I shall buy you a drink in the House of Commons or in the Brass Cat in Halifax, whichever you prefer." They might think that to come to the House of Commons would be a punishment rather than a reward, but the offer is genuine.
I deeply resent the fact that the Government have not allowed a debate to be held on going to war. I am sad that we cannot vote on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) which I fully support. The amendment fully supports our brave men and women in the Gulf, but it also refers to the need for a peaceful settlement. It is beyond my comprehension why those who argue for peace and who urged that initiatives should be undertaken so that the killing would not start are derided and abused. I do not understand why it is said that it is wrong to argue the case for peace. If we are accused tonight of not supporting our service men and women, it will be a lie that stands truth on its head.
I shall let the parents of one person who is serving in the Gulf put that argument to the House for me. Many hon. Members received this letter just before the war started in the Gulf. The parents of that soldier say:
"We wish to register our concern at the way this country is being led into military conflict. We support our young men in the task they may have to undertake and as history shows they will, without doubt, do their duty. The question is, have this Government done their duty? They appear to have been pulled into this situation led initially by America, Mrs. Thatcher and the Government. I fear that the majority of the Labour party have unfortunately followed their example."
I do not agree; I do not believe that any of my hon. Friends want war. The letter also said:
"Surely if the entire world does condemn Saddam Hussein then the combined talents of their politicians could find a better way of bringing him to justice than the sacrifices of thousands of ordinary peoples lives on both sides … Our soldiers may be professionals, but they are also citizens and sons. Historically we have all been prepared to make sacrifices for the defence of freedom and democracy. I fear that these high ideals are not the motivating force in this situation. Our forces in the Gulf are showing skill, courage and loyalty which I am sure all admire. What a tragedy it would be if these talents were sacrificed needlessly on false altars."
I refuse to be bullied by the four press barons who own 93 per cent. of the press and who sit in their comfortable offices whipping up war hysteria and using the most foul invective against those who oppose this war. That must not deter any of us who support peace initiatives. The United Nations should be urged to stop listening to the United States and to stop acting solely on its behalf. It should be in permanent session and should examine every
50
proposal, wherever it may come from. I plead with the Government, even now, to listen to the United Nations before the horrendous ground war starts.
After the war is over, we shall have to overcome its bitter legacy. The Arab nations will take stock of the devastation inflicted on one Arab nation. What plans do we have to help the third world if Saddam Hussein carries out his threat to fire the oilfields? Thick black clouds will block out the sun and destroy crops in the subcontinent of India. Those poor people—arguably the poorest in the world—will face even greater hardships if the crops fail. Can we be told how we shall help them if we must carry forward this war? What plans do we have for the millions who will starve and suffer?
If Jordan ends in turmoil, President Assad of Syria—now our gallant ally, who has no better human rights record than Saddam Hussein—may seek his reward by stealing land. The murderous ayatollahs in Iran may extend their influence in a bitter and beaten Iraq. What plans do our leaders have to counter those threats? What guarantee can we give to the Palestinian people that there will be peace?
At the end of this awful bloodshed, people with the right credentials will have to sit down and work out a settlement. How much better for humankind it would have been if that could have been done without this war ever having started.
5.28 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) will not, I hope, under any circumstances be derided or abused for the words that she has used. I do not agree with what she said, but she spoke with great sincerity and she doubtless speaks for a significant number of people, including some hon. Members. It is right and proper that those views should be expressed strongly in this House. It is equally proper that those who disagree with her should be able to do so in our democratic forum. That is exactly the purpose of this debate, and that is why I welcome it.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
Mr. Latham: I have not said anything controversial, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has not said anything controversial, but given the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), with which I thoroughly agreed, is it not a pity that hon. Members who thoroughly agree with her will not have the opportunity to vote accordingly tonight?
Mr. Latham: It is not for me to legislate on such matters. I support the Government and the Opposition amendment, and I shall say more about that in a moment.
I want to begin by paying two tributes. There are four service bases in my constituency, two of the Royal Air Force and two of the Army. I want to pay tribute to all our service men and women in the Gulf and particularly their families, to whom the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew attention. The Tornado pilots who are performing so bravely are trained at RAF Cottesmore in my constituency, as are the pilots of the Italian air force who are engaged in this conflict. It is only proper that I should pay tribute to them.

51
I should like to take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) about the BBC World Service. I had the honour of visiting Caversham Park last Thursday morning and seeing the monitoring that is carried out there. I pay tribute to that work, which is sometimes regarded as the Cinderella of the World Service. What is done at Bush house is tremendously important, but the monitoring at Caversham Park of everything that is being said and of the political speeches that are being made in this conflict is terribly important. It is right that that work is recognised in the House.
I want to say something about Israel, and I do so having just returned from Israel with a deputation of Conservative Members. We met Labour Members who were there for a similar purpose, and had two joint meetings with Prime Minister Shamir and Defence Minister Arens. I am not a Jew. I have no Jewish relations, no Jewish constituents that I know of and certainly no business interests in Jewish circles or the middle east. I support the cause of Israel because I believe it to be a honourable and inspiring cause, and always have done.
Therefore, the House will understand that, like many other hon. Members, I was deeply moved by the sight of missiles landing on Tel Aviv, on a country that is not involved in the conflict, that has not taken any part so far in the coalition and that has not been asked to do so. I was delighted that the Leader of the Opposition, in a very good speech, strongly stressed his support for the restraint that Israel has shown, and in so doing echoed the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Israel's restraint has been quite extraordinary. I do not believe that any other country in the world would allow a country to rain missiles for two consecutive nights on its civilian population and not immediately retaliate. Any other country would have done so. Israel has not done so —I am delighted that it has not—despite the fact that no country can be more horrified of being attacked than Israel and no people can be more concerned about the possibility of a gas attack than the Jewish people in a Jewish state. Can we think of anything more emotive than for Jewish people in a Jewish state to be sealing their rooms and doors to keep out gas? The House will immediately realise, whatever its view on the middle east situation, that that position is one of the greatest possible emotion and that it has put immense pressure on the people and Government of Israel. That is why it is all the more remarkable and praiseworthy that they have not retaliated.
Many hon. Members have referred to the need to return to the overall peace settlement in the middle east after the war is over—as does the Opposition amendment, which I accept and support. It is right that that should be addressed. It will have to be addressed, as the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister rightly said, on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 and resolution 338, which in practice is a repetition of 242. We must remember that there are two sides to 242—the relinquishment of territories occupied by armed conflict, which undoubtedly must be discussed in the peace conference, and the security and integrity of all states in the region, including the state of Israel. Let there be no doubt whatever about those two points.
52
Equally, let there be no doubt that, if there is to be a successful peace conference, at the United Nations or in whatever forum is considered appropriate, it must be one to which the participants come willingly and from which they expect a just, honourable and lasting peace to emerge. The parties to the conference must not expect to be the victims of an imposed settlement. Therefore, although we must debate the structure of the middle east after the war has been successfully prosecuted, God willing, we must be clear in our own minds that the outcome must be agreeable to all the parties to the conference and must not be an imposed settlement.
As, unfortunately, the PLO has supported Saddam Hussein, it would be idle to pretend that the present situation is ideal for convincing the people of Israel that they should talk to the PLO. Nevertheless, I have advocated in the House that Israel should talk to the PLO. In his speech in Geneva two years ago, Mr. Arafat was prepared to recognise the state of Israel. However, the PLO's support of Saddam Hussein makes the climate difficult.
There is no doubt that Israel can make peace with Syria. The matters in dispute are clear.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman indicated assent.
Mr. Latham: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for his indicating assent. They are not easy to resolve, but they can be resolved. The United Nations has done outstanding work in implementing the disengagement agreements between Syria and Israel. There have been no difficulties on the frontier of the Golan heights since the disengagement agreements were reached in 1974. Such agreement could be negotiated directly between Syria and Israel or under United Nations supervision. If it is negotiated, the conflicts in the Lebanon could also be negotiated, as nine tenths of Lebanon is controlled by the Syrian army.
The situation on the West Bank and in Gaza is different and will have to be negotiated differently. Negotiations will certainly have to involve elected representatives of the Palestinians. We must face the fact that democratic elections, in Gaza in particular, may return not a PLO majority but a Hamas majority, and some PLO spokesmen have admitted that that may be so. If the forces of moderation are to emerge, it must be by Palestinian leaders being elected locally, with outside support and the involvement of Jordan. It is very important to address that now.
If there is to be a peace conference after the war—undoubtedly there must be—which resolves peace on the basis of resolution 242, which involves both territories and land, it will have to be one which the democratically elected Government of Israel can sell to their people. That would be impossible in the present circumstances of Israel suffering unprovoked attacks, but the Israeli Government must be able to say to their people, "This brings us a secure future."
There is a slogan in Israel, which unfortunately is linked to one political wing, but which should be the slogan of the whole nation—"Peace now, before it is too late." I say to the leaders of the world that, when they resolve these matters after the war is over, peace now will involve a secure Jewish state. It will undoubtedly involve proper rights for the Palestinian people, the integrity of all states

53
in the region and the Jewish mothers of Israel and of the Palestinian people being able to say to themselves, "Never again are our children going to be sent to war."
5.38 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I intend to pick up some of the points made in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), but I begin by addressing myself to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I disagree with some of her points, but she said that when she had been trying to secure peace, she had been derided. It is absurd to deride anyone seeking peace, and anyone who mocks my hon. Friend deserves contempt. It is preposterous to deride such an aim, whatever emerges.
My hon. Friend said that she did not want to be accused of not supporting our service men. Anyone who accuses her of not wanting to support them should be reprimanded. Clearly my hon. Friend passionately supports our service men. If such allegations were levelled at her across the Chamber, they would be outrageous. Of course, I fully endorse her comments about the need to help the third world, especially given the devastation that has been caused.
Nevertheless, I believe that my hon. Friend and people like her are sending the wrong signal to Baghdad in calling for a ceasefire. If there were an immediate ceasefire, it would be the biggest boost to unprovoked aggression since Chamberlain waved his little piece of paper 50 years or so ago. That would send entirely the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein, who would he further encouraged to invade more countries and to dominate the middle east. We do not want a ceasefire that makes it appear as though we are backing off.
There are two vital requirements now: to win the war, backing our service men all the way, and to win the peace, as many people have said. I have a constituency interest in the conflict, because the Staffordshire Regiment is involved. It contains troops from Stoke-on-Trent. They deserve all the encouragement that we can give and I hope that the House will give them overwhelming support. Their efforts, skill and, above all, sacrifice merit more than winning the war; we must move towards winning the peace. The prospects of winning the peace look much less secure now than they did a few weeks ago. We are winning the war, but we do not look as though we are beginning to win the peace. I am less sanguine now than I was.
One day, we must have a conference to discuss a permanent peace in the middle east, but the prospects for that conference will be damaged if commitments about the future are given in the heat of battle. There are reports today in the press that the United States has pledged Israel that it will oppose a United Nations-organised conference after the war. When the Prime Minister was challenged about that this afternoon, he said that there had been no such deal. Fine, but he did not say that there will be no such deal. It may be in the air.
It is vital that no unwise pledges are made by the western powers as a payment for Israeli restraint. Some Israeli spokesmen are already implying that there is a debt to be paid by the western powers for Israel's restraint. Some western spokesmen have said that they are grateful for Israel's restraint. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that it was extraordinary.
54
I admire and commend Israel's restraint. However, we should make it clear to Israel that we are glad but not grateful for that restraint. I draw that important distinction, because to be grateful implies that we are indebted to Israel. We are not indebted to Israel. We owe Israel no debt for that restraint. The Israelis are intelligent enough to appreciate that they have been restrained because their intervention would damage the western-Arab alliance, which would damage Israel's interests. Israel is acting with proper self-interest by being restrained.
I hope that the House will not misunderstand me. I am not attacking or criticising Israel; I am commending Israel for its restraint. We owe the Israelis no debt for their restraint because they are acting in their own self-interest. The moral which I would draw from those remarks is that we must have a United Nations-organised conference after the war concludes. Such a conference would help Israel as well as other nations.
It is also essential that we control the sale of arms worldwide. The Arab nations have a long, regrettable tradition of fighting among themselves. Those family quarrels are in danger of becoming a danger to the world if the participants are armed with weapons of mass destruction. To avoid a catastrophe, as distinct from this tragic war, we must not only limit but control the sale of arms to small but wealthy protagonists. It is a big order, but we must aspire to it.
Understandably, we have been preoccupied with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The non-proliferation measures are warmly welcomed, but in the past few days we have seen that the spread of remarkably sophisticated destructive weapons is almost as dangerous, in its cumulative effect, as nuclear weapons.
Two criteria have been associated with any country, however small, acquiring an arsenal to threaten world peace. The first criterion for acquiring that destructive arsenal has been that a country should be an enemy of an enemy of the United States. Those enemies of the enemies of the United States have been given sophisticated weapons by the United States, just as Iraq was given them. The other criterion is that a country should acquire great wealth, mainly through oil. That enables small nations to buy the means of threatening other countries, regardless of their size.
We must deal with this mad, inane system. Great wealth and technology make it possible for national minnows to challenge and threaten international whales. We must transform that system into something intelligent. How? If one thing emerges from this tragic war against Iraq, it must be that nations must demand a new order, under the auspices of the United Nations, to control the sale of major weapons.
During the past few days, the press has repeatedly used the word "Armageddon." It is not Armageddon yet, despite this tragic war, but unless the nations of the world prevent, rather than profit from, the sale of these remarkably destructive weapons—these weapons of death—Armageddon lies just round the corner. Either we control the sale of such weapons or the world perishes. The magnitude of the problem is no smaller and no greater than that.
5.50 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The House knows of my Royal Air Force interest and it will therefore come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that much of what I have to say will concern the contribution made to the Gulf war by the Royal Air Force—the air crew, the ground crew and the senior staff directing. Some of those involved are personal friends, and I sent some on their first solo flights. In addition, like many other hon. Members, I have constituents serving in the Gulf.
I believe that the United Nations force is engaged in a just and honourable task. The future of the United Nations and of the rule of international law are in their hands, and I believe that they are in good hands. Politicians of all parties should demonstrate and declare their support for the British armed forces in their very difficult and dangerous task. Even if some hon. Members did not support the decision to commit our forces to battle, they must recognise that those forces are now in battle. The Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, as well as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have clearly shown how they feel about the matter, and I hope that their leadership will be followed throughout the House.
The importance of aerial supremacy in reducing the number of casualties to the allied ground forces cannot be overstated. That aim has called for an allied air force composed of many different types of aircraft—aircraft with fixed and rotary wings, jet and propeller-driven aircraft. The aircraft cover many ranges and are engaged in many activities—reconnaissance, command and control, airborne early warning, strike, air supremacy, air defence, spotter aircraft activities, maritime patrol, air transport, in-flight refuelling, anti-submarine activities, close ground support and anti-tank activities.
The destruction of airfields, of enemy aircraft and radar, of early warning facilities, of command and communications facilities, of anti-aircraft facilities and of missile capability, both offensive and defensive—as well as of support capability—has been an essential first priority.
There must be no pause or we shall put at risk our own service men, not least the air service men who would then have to face Iraq's airborne capability. Do not let us forget that, although that capability is already dilapidated and depleted, it still exists in large part. A pause could give the Iraqis the opportunity to do what they could have done on day one had they been properly organised, which is to conduct an aerial battle producing ghastly casualties among the allied air forces.
The first few days of war have graphically demonstrated the awesome flexibility and destructive capability of modern weapons. We have seen the extent to which the forces have obeyed orders to avoid attacking civilian targets wherever possible. The first few days of war have also shown us how RAF and NATO air crews have benefited from many years of close co-operation and shared technology.
Low flying has been the cause of many complaints and a number of political campaigns, not least that conducted by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I was pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say the other day. His comments should be remembered by all. The hon. Gentleman believes that, now that our lads are committed, our support is called for. Operational low flying calls for continuous training and a
56
special aptitude and attitude among the crews involved. Today's fast-jet pilot is not a modern Biggles. There is nothing gung-ho in the attitude of the modern fast-jet pilots or navigators. They constitute a special, highly skilled, professional aviation team. Not all fast-jet pilots and navigators are young: some are well over 30, some are in their 40s and at least one is in his early 50s.
We have seen on our television screens just how important it is that our pilots are capable of flying low and accurately—particularly over the Iraqi airfields. We have watched them dropping the JP233—at least, we have seen simulated versions of such operations. We know what the JP233 is capable of. What we cannot imagine is the risk to the crew of a Tornado in the final stages of such an operation. Tornados have to fly down the runway at low heights if they are to drop the weaponry accurately, and are thus exposed to all kinds of anti-aircraft capability. To do it once is demanding. To do it twice is very demanding. To do it continually over a period of days calls for a special kind of individual with a special kind of courage.
Anyone who has served operationally will know what it means when one's best friend does not return from a mission. Families also share in the grief. In hitherto unknown circumstances, the operations are reported on television as they happen. That involves a new kind of grief, which those in my generation certainly did not experience. Indeed, when my colleagues were lost in battle in the middle east, it was some weeks before anyone knew.
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the Front Bench. I realise that "Options for Change" was brought into being before this new high-technology war began and before we saw missiles being shot out of the sky by the Patriot missile. I hope, that in considering "Options for Change", we shall bear in mind the lessons of the present campaign. We should also bear in mind the future of the United Nations and what it may need to call upon us to do. We must recognise the instability of the Soviet Union and the possible threat that that may pose. The need for a European fighter aircraft will grow, rather than diminish, in the light of the recent experience. Air superiority has been shown graphically on our television screens in a way which we have never seen before, and the European fighter aircraft will have a special role to play in the future.
Let me come to a subject that is close to my heart. It will not surprise my hon. Friends to learn that I want to mention the reserve forces and the auxiliaries who are providing a service to the RAF. Throughout my time in Parliament, I have argued that we should be building up, rather than reducing, our reserves. Nothing can have been illustrated more clearly by recent events. Fast-jet pilots are better used sitting in fast jets than behind desks. Reserves can fulfil certain important roles in times of hostility. They can act as air crew replacements. They can carry out many other duties to release pilots at present employed in less onerous tasks for fast-jet activities. In specialist fields, they have much to contribute.
Hon. Members have mentioned media coverage. I will not be critical of the media. What I have seen of the coverage so far has been balanced, informative and in many ways educational. I have not always been a great friend of the BBC, but I have nothing but compliments for what I have seen of the BBC's coverage.
The media have educated the public about the region. I served in that part of the world and I know something about it, but most people do not know about it. The media

57
have also reminded people of the value that they receive from the taxpayers' money that goes towards the United Kingdom's armed forces. By Jove, if people do not think that we get good value, they do not have good judgment.
After the war it will be necessary to establish a stable environment throughout the middle east. Not for the first time in the adult lifetime of many hon. Members, the British armed forces are engaged in battle to preserve the rule of law and the integrity of a nation's borders. Not for the first time, the United Nations has attempted to provide the circumstances in which the international rule of law can be implemented in the middle east.
In 1948 the United Nations mediator, whom I met on a couple of occasions, attempted to provide a resolution to a similar problem. In those days I did not talk the political stuff that we talk today. I was one of those simple chaps present when the United Nations mediator'a aircraft landed at our airfield. By the way, I was sorry that that individual died. He attempted to resolve the problems arising from the creation of the state of Israel and the aftermath of the first Arab-Israeli war. Sadly, as we know, those efforts failed, and the middle east has been in political and armed turmoil ever since.
No matter what side of the divide one occupies in terms of attitudes towards peace in the middle east—there are pro-Arabs and pro-Israelis—I hope no one is anti-peace. The realistic view is that we must sit down after the war and find a permanent solution to the problems facing that unstable region. That will not be easy, but we will owe that to the young men and women who have given their lives this time and in earlier conflicts in attempts to ensure that the United Nations could become what the founding fathers hoped it would be, but has never been—a means of resolving problems between nation states, so removing the need for any nation state to go to war.
Those hopes, aspirations and wishes have been thwarted because of territorial interests and for other reasons. In this post-cold-war era, we have a unique opportunity. I can only hope that politicians of this generation are better at finding answers than were politicians of previous generations who failed the service men in the past and failed the families of those who died or were badly disabled and wounded. This is not the first time that this has happened, but I certainly hope that it will be the last.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation.
6.3 pm
Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that no hon. Member is anti-peace. I remind him and other hon. Members tonight we should be debating whether the House is for or against the war which is being waged in the name of the House at this very moment and in which thousands of lives have been lost. It does not really matter whether those lives have all been lost on one side; no life should be lost. I denounce the House for failing to afford hon. Members the opportunity to express clearly either their support for or their opposition to the war.
The Prime Minister said that on this occasion all hon. Members would be given an opportunity to express their
58
views. I assume that he meant that those of us who hold the minority view in opposition to the war would be allowed to express their views as well. I have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but many other hon. Members have not been so fortunate, and they will not have an opportunity to speak. Their only opportunity to make clear their position on the war would have been to vote in the Lobby tonight.
The Government's motion, as amended by the official Opposition, denies those hon. Members the right to do that. Many hon. Members like me want to vote in support of our troops, but want also to vote in opposition to the waste of their lives in a war which we believe to be unnecessary. It is worse than regrettable that we have been denied that opportunity. That is a denial of democracy itself.
The fact that that is happening in the name of an institution that describes itself as the mother of Parliaments and the seat of democracy makes it even worse. Earlier, a Conservative Member said that he abhorred the lack of democracy in Baghdad. So do I, but I equally abhor the attempt to silence dissent that is taking place in this House tonight. There could and should have been more than one amendment for us to vote on tonight, and I deeply regret the fact that there is not.
Support for the British troops is nearly unanimous in the country, and it is unanimous in the House. There is nothing but admiration for the bravery of those prepared to put their lives on the line at the bidding of elected politicians. There will be nothing but support for them and their families during the days and possibly the weeks and months ahead, when all their waking hours will be haunted by the fear of death or serious injury.
All hon. Members pray for the safe and speedy return of our soldiers. However, as elected representatives, we have responsibilities other than the natural expression of support of that kind for our troops. I do not accept that, because a war is started, we must support it—the principle of "my country, right or wrong". That principle should not be applied indiscriminately, and it has never been supported by the Labour party. It is a matter of deep regret that some of my hon. Friends have tried to use that argument in our debates on the Gulf crisis.
Nor do I accept that, because a war is fought in pursuit of a cause that is just, it must therefore be supported. There are many just causes in this unjust world, not least the oppression of the Palestinians over the past 23 years or the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel, in defiance of United Nations resolutions over that period.
Fighting a war in pursuit of a just cause is a necessary condition for support of a war, but in itself it is not sufficient justification for supporting it. That point is worth making tonight. Before a war can be supported, it must be shown to have been necessary. We must be certain that the decision to send our troops to war was taken when there was no other alternative. I do not believe that that was the case. Not only could the war have been avoided —it should have been avoided.
I believe that the war can still be cut short and that a peaceful settlement can be reached on the condition that the United Nations Security Council is given a central role of influence in the conduct of the war. Hon. Members who have referred to the war as being about backing the authority of the United Nations should explain why the

59
war is being fought not under United Nations control, but under the control of the United States President and United States military.
I do not believe that it is unpatriotic or anti-British troops to hold those views and beliefs, or to give public expression to them. How can I express my beliefs at the end of the debate?
The motion and the amendment actually support the continuation of the war. The motion states:
"That this House expresses its full support for British troops in the Gulf and their contribution to the implementation of United Nations … Resolution 678."
That means support for the war that is now being waged. That is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who told us that he believed that there was no doubt about the legitimacy of the military action that has been taken against Iraq. I disagree with him. I believe that there are serious doubts about the legitimacy of the military action that is currently being taken. I will not be prevented from voicing those doubts by anyone in this House.
Let us be clear what resolution 678 says. It does not authorise war—it merely calls on member nations to use all necessary means to ensure that Iraq leaves Kuwait. There are different interpretations of "all necessary means". Those of us who favoured sanctions being given more time to work did not and still do not believe that war is necessary at this stage. Those who supported the war never made the case that war was necessary before launching the war on Wednesday night. Indeed, the decision was taken by the United States President, and he did not even bother to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations or arrange for the United Nations Security Council to be convened.
We went to war in the name of the United Nations, without even informing the United Nations that we were going to war. That is not a good enough foundation to support the sacrifice of thousands of human lives. I now face the stark alternative of voting for or against the motion or the amendment. That is not of my choosing. It is the result of choices that have already been made by both Front Benches and by Mr. Speaker. I bitterly regret that, but my position is clear. My support for the British troops is unqualified, but my opposition to their destruction in an unnecessary war is equally unqualified. That may be a minority view in the House, but I sincerely believe that it is the majority view in Scotland. In Scotland, the trade unions, the Churches, the peace movement and the people have made clear their opposition to an unnecessary war.
In a magnificent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that she had been derided for taking a brave stand on peace, and that she had been accused of not supporting British troops. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were very quick to dissociate themselves from such condemnation, and rightly so. However, it would be naive to expect anything else from the gutter press in this country than precisely that denunciation of those who speak out against the war.
The essence of democracy is not only the tolerance of dissent but respect for dissent. Precisely that respect has been denied tonight because of the manoeuvring in respect of the motion and the amendments. Those who oppose the war have been treated with disrespect by the House.
60
Others who are less fastidious than hon. Members will build on that disrespect and, in the days and weeks ahead, will begin the process that will bring about the denial of democracy. That should be of concern to hon. Members. Hon. Members have every right to hold views in support of the war and every right to express them in motions and amendments. However, they have no right whatsoever to deny that same right to myself and my hon. Friends. I shall vote against the motion, because I have no opportunity to do anything else. I shall vote against it because I support the troops and I oppose the waste of their lives in an unnecessary war.
6.13 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I rise with some trepidation because I never pretend that I am an expert on foreign affairs, nor have I ever professed to be an expert on defence affairs. In fact, I know very little about the middle east, so I suppose that I am speaking very much as the—[Interruption.] It might make a refreshing change to hear from somebody who does not pretend to be an expert. [Interruption.] It might mean that I am uniquely well qualified. Therefore, I cannot speak with the authority of certain right hon. and hon. Members.
I suppose that I am one of the lucky ones. I was too young for the previous war—that may surprise some people—and I am too old for this one. It may surprise people that I was still at school in 1945, when the war ended. When I left school in 1946, I went straight into the Navy to do my national service. That, perhaps, was not the most dazzling part of my career, because I basked under the title of PEM. When I came home on leave one weekend, the doctor came round on a social call—in fact, he came round for a drink—and asked my mother how I was doing. She proudly said that I was a PEM. The doctor said, "Pardon my ignorance, but what it does 'PEM' stand for?" My poor mother said, "Well, I am not sure." She shouted up to me, still languishing in bed, "What does 'PEM' stand for?" I shouted back, "Probationary electrician's mate." My mother never boasted about me again.
No Member in his or her right mind wants war. I must admit that I was rather perplexed by the performance of Miss Emma Thompson, who is apparently an actress, or, as Mr. Paul Johnson referred to her in today's Daily Mail, a showbizibody. There she was, wearing her heart on her sleeve, saying how necessary it was that our boys came back safely. We all want that. People should remember that people gave their lives in the 1939–45 war to give her the right of free speech and the right to demonstrate against war.
That is one of our great assets. We can say what we believe and get away with our views, no matter how unacceptable or unpalatable they are to other people. I have not noticed any anti-war demonstrations taking place in Iraq. I wonder why. Could it be that Saddam Hussein would not permit them?
Never has a war been entered into more reluctantly than this one. The international community has leaned over backwards, ever since 2 August, in an attempt to avoid conflict. We have pleaded with Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait, but that has had no effect. Sanctions have been tried. Some hon. Members believe that sanctions should have been given more time to work. That is the theme of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member

61
for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I disagree with him. I am afraid that I cannot accept what he says. If Saddam Hussein was not put off by the prospect of force being used against his country, with all that that would have entailed, can we honestly believe that a few more months of sanctions would have persuaded him to get out of Kuwait? Last Tuesday, the House overwhelmingly approved the Government's actions.
Tribute should be paid to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats. They have been extremely supportive and have presented a united front. That is extremely commendable. I approved both their speeches this afternoon—they were excellent. I pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Within weeks of taking over a tremendously important office, he has faced this crisis. He has earned the admiration of the overwhelming majority of people in this country for his coolness, his lack of histrionics and, above all, his determination.
It is not so long ago that cynics in this country were saying that the ties between the United Kingdom and the United States were not strong, that the great rapport between my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and President Reagan had gone, and that President Bush and the Americans were much more interested in getting on to better terms with Germany and France. The crisis has certainly settled that issue.
An editorial in The Wall Street Journal of Friday 18 January states:
"Britain has played a major role in this remarkable exercise in international peace-making. That raises a question: does this willingness to assert itself in a crisis suggest that Britain, not Germany, is the more natural leader for a Europe aspiring to greater political unity?"
It went on:
"Which country is best suited to take the leadership in a European foreign policy? Germany has wealth, but for historic and geographic reasons is reluctant to broaden its military role. France has the desire, but also a long record of contrariness towards the positions of others in the NATO alliance. Britain's performance against Saddam certainly heightens its stature."
It is obvious that there is a great rapport between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush. I think it is marvellous how, in this country, the right person always seems to come along at the right time. In the last war, we had Sir Winston Churchill. In 1981, at the time of the Falklands, we had my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Lady Thatcher). I noticed when she came into the House last week there were snide comments of, "Rejoice, rejoice," from hon. Members opposite. No doubt what they were getting at was the fact that my right hon. Friend used those words at the time of the capture of South Georgia. What they neglected to remember was that she was telling us to rejoice because no lives had been lost as a consequence of the capture of South Georgia. Now, in 1991, we have my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has inspired great confidence with his handling of the present crisis.
I hope that those who oppose the war will note the difference between the tactics being used by the two sides. The allies are taking infinite care to pinpoint military installations and avoid residential areas, whereas Saddam Hussein has made an unprovoked attack by missiles on Israel, deliberately aimed at centres of population. I believe that Israel has shown great restraint, because the
62
aim of Saddam Hussein has been to try to force that country into retaliation, in the hope that that will split the allied forces and that Syria and Egypt will change sides.
Had Israel responded, it would have fallen into a trap that was deliberately set for it by this evil man. I believe that the allies must retaliate on behalf of the Israelis by seeking out those centres from which the Scud missiles are being launched and destroying them.
I ask those who oppose military action how they would deal with this man. If any country should have learnt that appeasement does not pay, it is this country. We should have learnt the lessons of the 1930s. Had we not acted on the United Nations Security Council resolution 678, Saddam Hussein would have believed that he had got away with it. Then it would only have been a matter of time before we had to face up to this man.
Of course, this man is cunning. He is now saying that the invasion of Kuwait was all part of his aim to settle the Palestinian problem. But I remind the House that there was no mention of the Palestine problem when he invaded Kuwait in August. At that time, the invasion of Kuwait was to glorify Saddam Hussein, and to suggest that Kuwait was part of Iraq and the Iraqis were taking only what was rightfully theirs.
Of course the Palestinian problem is important, and once Saddam Hussein has withdrawn from Kuwait, I hope that there will be a peace conference that will deal with the underlying problems of the Middle East. If only this man would get out of Kuwait, there would be no loss of life among civilians anywhere; there would be no loss of life among military personnel on both sides of the conflict, and all further bloodshed would be prevented. If he would leave Kuwait, even at this late stage, we could have peace in the area.
Until Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait, I believe that the allies are quite right to continue their attacks on Iraq's military machine. The aim should be to do maximum damage there in order to lessen the loss of life if the conflict continues for any length of time. I hope that the war will be over quickly and that casualities will be kept to a minimum. As the Prime Minister said today, this is a just war, and right is on our side.
I despair for the unfortunate prisoners or war in Iraqi hands. These men have been paraded on television and forced to make statements—obviously under great duress —which I am sure they do not believe for one minute. I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) who made a plea to the press to leave the relatives of these men alone, because they must be going through a period of great strain and anxiety. The behaviour of the Iraqis is totally at variance with the Geneva convention, and that fact should be brought home to everyone in this country.
6.24 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am very glad to have a few minutes to endorse the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I, too, regret very much that this House of Commons, the mother of Parliaments, has somehow not found it possible to permit a vote which will reflect all the expressions of opinion on this matter. It is not just a problem for individuals who oppose the war and wish to vote accordingly: it also affects those people we represent, particularly in Scotland, who wish to have

63
that vote recorded in the House of Commons. This is an injustice which does nothing at all for the reputation of this Parliament. We are right to condemn the lack of democracy in some other regimes, but in doing so, it would be more fitting if we upheld standards of democracy ourselves. That will not happen in this House of Commons tonight.
Since I voted last Tuesday night, I have had more than 100 letters from people in Scotland, and all but two of them have supported the anti-war position I expressed a week ago. Many colleagues have had the same experience. There have been many anti-war demonstrations in Glasgow. None of these people supports Saddam Hussein and none believes that he should get away with his aggression.
A typical comment that I have heard is, "Who do these people think they're kidding? Do they think we are unaware that Hussein is a ruthless dictator? Do they think we are unaware of the torture that he has inflicted on his own people, particularly the Kurds? Of course not." However, they feel that selective indignation is being expressed here in the House of Commons.
The United States, which has been acting as the policeman of the world, has suddenly discovered a conscience, but in the past it has ignored United Nations resolutions and even rulings of the International Court in the Hague when it came to the question of Nicaragua. It actually supported an extreme right-wing group in order to bring down a democratically elected Government. The United States continually aided and abetted this right-wing group, totally ignoring the cruelty, the violations of justice, the mass disappearances and murders. That sort of thing has happened in other areas across the globe—it is not a new story. We are all aware of such things.
When it comes for standing up for justice, many of us on this side of the House have been trying to stand up for justice and human rights for many years. However, there are people in this House who even went so far as to invite the Contras leader to their party conference in Brighton not so long ago. Suddenly they have discovered that they care about killings, mutilations and all the rest of it. By heavens, I have heard much hypocrisy in my time in politics, but nothing to beat what I have been hearing in this House lately.
It is absolutely vital that we address ourselves to the question of how to end this war. I was opposed to starting it. I am still convinced that sanctions could have been made to work. I ask myself how it is that, in the name of the United Nations, only a tiny minority of countries are at war. The vast majority of United Nations members, who always pay their dues, are not actually at war. Are we to conclude that those nations support Saddam Hussein? Of course they do not, but their efforts have been ignored.
The United Nations should be in permanent session working on every possible way to stop the conflict and bring justice to the Middle East. I simply cannot understand the thought processes of anyone who would disagree with that proposition. It seems incredible that, in order to avenge the invasion of Kuwait, we should kill and maim innocent Iraqis who did not vote for Saddam Hussein and who deplore what is going on but have no say in it. How does it help the relatives of people who have
64
been killed in Kuwait if we murder Iraqis? That point of view is one that I simply cannot accept, and I have yet to hear any justification for it.
6.29 pm
Mr. David Sumberg: When I was very much younger and studied the 1930s, I always found it remarkable that we as a nation seemed unable to learn our lessons. If we allow a dictator who wants to embark on conquest to achieve his aim, in the end we will pay dearly for it. I found it difficult, looking at that period, to understand how men and women of good will and repute, who had served their country well in the first world war, could have believed that somebody else's country, somebody else's principles, and somebody else's interests should be sacrificed in the mistaken belief that that would prevent the horrors of war. Tragically, events not only proved them wrong, but made necessary great sacrifices by the people of this country and by those whose interests were threatened during the 1930s.
Over the past few weeks, we have had a replay of some of the arguments made then. Kuwait in the 1990s has been put in much the same position as Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Distinguished right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who served their country bravely in the second world war seem not to have learnt the lessons of the sacrifices made not only by them but by many of their friends. I am glad to say that this lesson has been learnt by the Government and by most Labour Members and Social Democrat Members as well. The country has learnt it. Ordinary people, with great quietness but determination, are supporting what is being done in their name by the forces in the sand of Saudi Arabia.
The events of the second world war and the sacrifices that had to be made proved to be essential not just to defeat Hitler and all he stood for, but to secure for the continent of Europe the long-term peace and security to which we can now look forward. In the same way, sadly, the sacrifices that are being made by young men and women in the Gulf have proved necessary to lay the foundations for the future peace and security of what is now the cauldron of the middle east.
Those who take an interest in these matters will know that many call on the state of Israel not just to sit down and negotiate with its Arab neighbours, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and those members of it who advocate violence but to take a gamble with its very existence as a nation state. Such people must now understand that, if ever that is to happen, if ever Israel is to sign a treaty with its Arab neighbours, and if ever peace rather than war is to be the norm for the region, Israel must have the certain knowledge that it is secure, that its people are safe from bombardment and attack and that, above all, if any treaty comes about—we all hope that it will—the nations of the world will not stand idly by if that treaty is breached or broken. That is the lesson of today's events.
To call, as some do, for a middle east peace conference while condemning the United Nations and the forces in the Gulf is both short-sighted and illogical. If the community of nations were to fail to reverse, if necessary by force, Iraqi aggression against Kuwait—a fellow Arab country with great oil wealth and great economic force—such a failure would send a clear message to all the states in the middle east, including Israel. That message would be,

65
"Rely on yourselves, do not listen to what the world says, depend on your armies and resources." What hope would there be for those nations and for the state of Israel for years to come?
In the hearts and homes of all our constituents there is a great and understandable anxiety, even fear, and my constituents are no exception to that. Many have sons serving in the third battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, once known as the Lancashire Fusiliers, the courage of which is still remembered in Bury every April at the annual Gallipoli service. Many others have sons serving in other branches of the armed forces. I salute their courage and that of the relatives and friends who wait anxiously at home for news.
My constituency will also have some anxious hearts within its considerable Jewish community. Many in that community have family or friends living in Israel, many in or near Tel Aviv, where those awful missiles came down. They know that, of all the countries in the world not involved in that conflict, Israel is the only one whose citizens daily face a threat to their lives, as they sit in their sealed rooms waiting, irony of ironies, for a gas attack. I pay tribute to the Government and people of Israel. They have been much maligned and criticised in the House, but their restraint, reserve and containment have proved that they can play a valuable part in world affairs.
All my constituents, whether serving in the Gulf, whether having sons or daughters who are in danger there or in Israel, whether sitting, as most of us do, watching the events unfold on television will, I am sure, hope and pray that our victory will come swiftly and surely. Without doubt, all our fates depend on that.
6.36 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: I was one of the small group of Members from both Houses who had the privilege, at the end of November, of visiting British forces in the Gulf. All who took part in the visit were extremely impressed by the morale and professionalism of the forces we saw. If I may be forgiven a brief domestic reference, I pay tribute to the skill of the staff of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich, whom I met in Bahrain before their departure to Saudi Arabia. When I met them, they were busy training but were seriously short of patients. I hope that they stay that way throughout this conflict.
Those of us with any connection with the armed forces are never surprised by their professionalism, but, like other hon. Members, I feel that we should make special mention of the crews of the Tornados and the Jaguars, and particularly those who have been flying a few feet above the ground in pitch darkness, experiencing for the first time real anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missiles. As other hon. Members have said, the people who do that display a special sort of courage, at which the rest of us can only wonder.
I take the view that there was no alternative to the use of force to secure the implementation of the United Nations resolution. We are entitled to some quiet satisfaction about a number of developments. First, the coalition has stood up to the test. Despite the speculation and the cynical attempts to break it up, it is there, and some would argue that it is a little firmer than it was this time last week. There was some doubt about the French.
66
There were uncertainties in Paris and there has been some wobbling, but the French are now firmly on board and that is most satisfactory for the alliance.
Also, we should be pleased about the degree of public support for this military action. I recognise that a minority of sincere people think that it is totally wrong. They express their point of view, and long may they do so, but the majority of people in this country believe that what is being done, unpleasant though it is, is necessary. That there is so obviously a determination to limit the number of civilian casualties goes some way to explain the fact that there is such a substantial degree of public support for this military action.
There must be a great deal of relief that the high-technology weapon systems have on the whole worked extremely well. There is always some doubt whether a sophisticated system which works in trials and in exercises will work when it is put to the acid test of a genuine battle. When we have seen the operation of electronic warfare systems suppressing Iraqi radars, as well as extraordinary pictures of smart weapons finding their way into buildings through air vents, when we have heard descriptions of cruise missiles flying along streets in Baghdad and turning corners to find their targets, we must feel a considerable sense of satisfaction that high technology has worked—not only because of the military advantages, but because that sophisticated technology has limited the number of civilian casualties.
We should also say a word of thanks about the patience of allied commanders. Clearly they are determined not to commit ground troops until the threats facing them have been substantially reduced. That must be the right strategy. Finally, we should express some satisfaction that the political leaders have not got themselves involved in the day-to-day operations of the war. They have laid down the objectives and very clear ground rules. From there on, it is a matter for the military commanders, and that is a subject of satisfaction.
I am a little less happy about media coverage. There seems to be some strain between the British media and the Ministry of Defence. I understand that military needs have to come first; this conflict has not been put on for the benefit of the media. But there is clearly a limited amount of hard news being provided. As a result, I suggest that far too much media attention is being concentrated on what may be dramatic television pictures of Scud attacks which are totally ineffective in military terms. We are devoting time and attention to them when, apparently, we are ignoring the steady and continuous allied air offensive which will have a very important effect on the conduct of this war. I hope that there will be some improvement in the relations between the Ministry of Defence and our media.
I wish now to deal with the basic issue of middle east security in the future. We all would agree that, unless the Arab-Israeli dispute is resolved, there is considerable risk that these problems will simply recur and recur. It would be futile to go through the present agony and then to walk away and ignore the source of the instability in the region, the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I can say, as others have declared their position, that I have been a supporter of the Palestinian cause since the late 1960s, when it was not as fashionable to be a supporter of Palestinians as it is today. I have no doubt that, over the years, the Palestinians have suffered grave injustices, but the suggestion that the entire Arab nation has been somehow united behind the Palestinians is absolute and

67
total nonsense. The Palestinians have been used by other Arab nations for national self-interest, picked up and dropped when it has suited Arab nations. Saddam Hussein's cynical exploitation of the Palestinian cause is only the most recent example of that trend. Indeed, Arab Governments have not hesitated to use military force against the Palestinians when it has served their national interest. One thinks of Jordan and Syria as obvious examples.
Against that background, we should not be surprised about the Palestinians' frustration. We should not be surprised that the Palestinians will turn to anyone who seems to be able to offer them a way forward when the rest of the world can be portrayed as having forgotten the fact that the Palestinians exist, that they have a cause and that they have rights.
I argue that the Israeli policies over the years have aggravated their own internal problems. The insensitivity of their policing of the occupied territories has built up massive resentment. Their apparent belief that military might solves all problems has won them few friends in the region. But, most of all, the continued establishment of Jewish settlements on Arab lands on the West Bank has added to the despair, frustration and rage of the Palestinians. That is a matter we must recognise.
But I have to accept, too, that Israel has a right to exist. We have to face the fact that there is this need to meet Palestinian aspirations for a homeland—as justified an aspiration as that of any other people on the face of the earth—but those aspirations have to be matched by Israeli rights to security within their own borders. That will be an extremely difficult problem to resolve, as other hon. Members have said.
I understand the case for a peace conference, but that is only a mechanism. It is not a magic solution to the problem. We shall not see a resolution of the situation without, in my view, dramatic concessions by Israel. It is not easy to see those concessions happening. If we are to see them happen, it will require substantial and credible guarantees being given to Israel by the super powers.
One of the problems about the recent events is that they have substantially undermined the position of moderates in Israel—those who do not take the extremist Zionist position, those who are willing to negotiate with the Palestinians. The apparent involvement of Palestinians in the original invasion of Kuwait, the fact that some elements in the Palestine Liberation Organisation have lined up beside Iraq—none of that will make it easier for moderate Israeli opinion to move towards the Palestinians. It will need clear and credible guarantees to Israel if it is to move in that direction. The one glimmer of hope, after the success of the coalition, is that we may now find it just that little bit easier to give those guarantees in a way in which they might be believed.
As I said, I visited the Gulf in November and was impressed by the morale of our service men and service women. More than that, I was impressed by their understanding of the issues at stake. They knew why they were there. They were not looking forward to war, but they believed that what they were doing was both right and necessary. I suggest that such a belief in the justice of the cause goes a long way to explain the dedication and the
68
courage that our service men and service women are now displaying. They deserve our full and wholehearted support.
6.47 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said—particularly his point about the importance of the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the press, of which I hope my colleagues will take particular note.
I have not spoken in any of the debates in this crisis, but I have attended them virtually totally throughout. I have been proud to have been a servant of this House since I first joined it in 1955, but never more so since last September. The manner in which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have conducted themselves and have risen to this crisis, not least in their sensitive treatment of this House and public opinion at home and abroad, is beyond all praise. But also, as a House of Commons man, I have been profoundly impressed by the contribution of the Opposition Front Bench—not least by that of the Leader of the Opposition and also of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party.
I have been impressed by the burning sincerity of those hon. Members who oppose what the Government are doing and who oppose the majority feeling in this House and outside. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that she had been derided for her attitude, but I can assure her that nobody in this House or in our democracy who stands up for what they believe in will ever be or should ever be derided.
I include very much in that my hon. Friend, as I call him deliberately, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), who is one of the finest and most honourable Members of this House. He takes an opposite view from that of the Government, and indeed an opposite view from that which I take. I have never accepted the view that is held by one or two people on this side, that the Conservative party has the prerogative of patriotism, because I know that is nonsense.
In and around Cambridge, there are many anxious service families, both British and American. There is no anti-Americanism in East Anglia. We shall never forget the young men who came to our cause during the second world war. So many of them are buried or commemorated in the American war cemetery in Cambridge. Recently, thanks to a special Act of Congress, a cemetery was reopened especially for a young American who was killed in the Gulf. That was much appreciated by his British widow and British parents-in-law, who are my constituents.
Service families are proud of their men and of their confidence in their equipment and their commanders. They are, of course, anxious for their men. As a member of a service family that has been through wars, I know how they feel. Until they were abolished, I dreaded the arrival of a telegram. For a service family in the second world war, a telegram was invariably bad news. Waiting for news at any time in such circumstances is a grim business, and one which I remember only too well.
I remember also what it was like to be bombed and, on one occasion, machine-gunned. These experiences gave me a great hatred of war. They did not make me a pacifist, but

69
they were one of the factors that led me to work for the United Nations for several years. That was a cause in which I believed and in which I continue to believe.
My father was a professional soldier. He took his platoon into the first winter of the first world war and was severely wounded. Curiously enough, after he had recovered he won his fame, glory, promotion and medals in exactly the area in which the Gulf war is taking place. He was an opponent of the Munich betrayal of 1938. That is my first political memory, at the age of five years.
My father was a fine and brave soldier, who lost many of his friends and contemporaries. He had, however, an intense hatred of war, knowing it to be foul, bloody and terrible. Having spent his childhood in Germany, he was in no way anti-German. In fact, he spoke the language fluently and loved German culture and music. He recognised, however, that sooner or later Hitler, an avaricious tyrant, had to be stopped. My father believed, I am sure rightly, in 1938 that Hitler should be stopped sooner rather than later.
I accept entirely that there are no exact historical analogies, but I am bound to say that, over the past five and a half months, I have reflected very much on my experience and on my father's advice and views. He as a soldier, and my brothers as soldiers, were aware of the price that would have to be paid if war occurred. Looking back over the past five and a half months, I cannot think what more our Government, the American Government, the European Community, our allies, our Arab friends and the United Nations could have done to prevent the Gulf war. That is extremely important for our service families. I believe that there was nothing more to be done beyond surrender that could have been done in the past five and a half months. I think that the majority of our people, including our service men, know that.
The House knows of my association with Israel, a country of which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) has spoken movingly. I do not always agree with the present Israeli Government. Indeed, I have come often to regard them as an irritating but candid friend, which we all dislike having. I am bound to say, however, that over the past few days I have never been more proud of my Israeli friends. With my many Israeli contacts—they are not only political or ministerial—I have done whatever has been possible to urge restraint, while recognising, as do the Government and other Governments, what I would feel if rockets fell upon my constituency. That is something about which hon. Members should think carefully. It is all very well for us sitting safely in this place. Let us think what it would be like and of the political pressures that would be placed upon us if that which has happened in Israel were happening to us.
The Israeli Government and people have shown an example of statesmanship, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, as well as one of political and physical courage. For that I salute them, honour them and thank them. I am sure that, in the long run, given the response of the other Arab members of the coalition, Israel will have gained a new stature and respect, not least in the middle east. So perhaps good will come out of evil.
I say sincerely that I am proud once again to be British. We are a peace-loving people, perhaps on occasion excessively so. We are also a people of courage and of principle. A great principle is at stake, and the British people well know that. They know that our cause is a just
70
one. Those who wish us ill or consider that we are of little account have not read our history and do not understand our admittedly complicated national character.
I believe that our history and character was admirably summarised in 1940 by Dorothy L. Sayers in a deeply moving poem entitled "The English War". It ended as follows:
"Please God, give us an English peace,
But if another tyrant comes
Then we shall fight again."
I believe that that says it all, and that is all that I wish to say.
6.58 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: During the lunchtime BBC news, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said that anyone w ho voted against the motion was not fit to be a Member of this place. I shall explain why I shall be voting against the motion, along with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those of us who vote in that way will not do so because we are against British troops. We are not in favour of any injury or ill coming to any of the women or men who serve in the Army or in the other services in the Gulf. We are not against British troops, but we are against the Government's policy of sending our troops to the Gulf and committing them to a war in which, tragically, many hundreds, if not thousands, of them will lay down their lives.
Conversely, we do not support the Iraqi regime—something which Conservatives Members may try to imply. In May 1989, 90 Opposition Members tabled a motion urging the Government not to give any money to British Aerospace, GEC, Racal and other firms that wanted to be present at an arms fair in Baghdad and to sell arms to Saddam Hussein. Not one Tory Member signed the motion. So a few Opposition Members have tried to undercut support from Britain and other countries to the despotic regime of Iraq, and we tried to do so for quite a few years.
Perhaps the Republican Guards division is feared because its officers were trained at Sandhurst. Iraqi pilots were trained in Britain. Companies in Coventry have supplied equipment over the past couple of years which has gone to help the war effort of Iraq. When it came to dealing with the Kurds within the boundaries of Iraq, at Halabja, and in the marshes north of Basra, during 1988, terrible chemical weapons were used. The Secretary of State for Health, as he now is, told the House in October 1988 that the Government disapproved of that. Nine days later, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced an extra £440 million worth of credits to British companies to build up trade with Iraq. When hands are supposedly clean or otherwise in that sort of business, it is those on the Government side of the House who should examine their consciences when considering whom they have supported.
One thing has worried me during the past few days. Like many other people, I have stayed up till the early hours to see what has been happening. I have seen press conferences in which American generals and the American media have treated the events of the last five days as though they were a cross between an American football match and a video arcade—the Scuds versus the Patriots. One almost feels that the next thing to come on will be a

71
"bomb of the day" competition, so often does one see replays of videos showing bombs going through front doors or down air shafts. It is unreal—
Mr. Jacques Arnold: It is pathetic.
Mr. Nellist: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) says that it is pathetic. What discussion has there been on the effects of those bombs so that decisions taken here tonight or decisions taken in the country might be based on reality? Let me tell the House where they may be found. They may be found buried in page 14 of the Sunday Times of yesterday, which quotes Pentagon experts as having said that, within the first 36 hours, about 20,000 tonnes of high explosive were dropped on Baghdad and other towns and that it is estimated that between 100,000 and 250,000 people will lose their lives or be severely injured, suffering internal bleeding as a result of concussive forces. When have television programmes presented that sort of discussion? It is usually only after 2 o'clock in the morning that Bruce Kent or Air Commodore Alistair Mackie appear.
Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nellist: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have only 10 minutes. I cannot give way.
This is unreal. The war in the middle east is not clean and clinical. The reality is that it is a horrible experience for many—and not just for civilians. Iraq's large army consists mainly of conscripts. If they do not serve they are hanged. I draw little distinction between Iraq's armed forces and its civilians when deciding whether our compassion is justified. Perhaps the Sunday Times article to which I referred may be false, but it is hard to believe that Murdoch would purposely do something to help the Iraqi regime. But if it is true it should have been on the front page so that everybody could have seen and discussed it.
If it were not so sick, it would be ironic to think that people whose relatives have been tortured, murdered, and imprisoned by that regime could be "liberated" in 36 hours by the use of more than 20,000 tonnes of high explosive, causing death and disfigurement.
Soon the land battle will begin, and I believe that casualties of that order will occur on the side of the allies. We are told that it will be the biggest land battle since 1943. The Government are prepared for it. They are requisitioning 7,500 national health service beds to supplement the 11,000 military beds. If that is a real reflection of the expected level of casualties—the Secretary of State for Defence and others have never answered my direct questions on this matter—it means that for every two soldiers in the Gulf one is expected to suffer some sort of injury: 18,500 beds and 36,000 personnel.
Why are we not reopening some of the 10,000 national health service beds that have been closed in the past four or five years? Why, instead, are we having an auction, a competition between civilian patients and possible military casualties? Already in some parts of the country people's back and hip operations have been postponed indefinitely so that beds may be made available for military casualties.
We have been told that this debate is about supporting the troops. The best way to support the British troops
72
would be to vote against the motion and to bring them home as soon as possible to avoid loss of life and disfigurement.
This is supposed to be a war for democracy—a war arising from annexation and colonisation of another country. Why then did not the Government demand or take action when Turkey went into Cyprus, Israel went into Lebanon, Syria went into Lebanon, China went into Tibet and the Soviet Union went into the Baltic states? Why did not they take action about Indonesia's killing of one third of the entire population of East Timor—200,000 people out of 700,000—over the past 15 years?
What is the answer? The answer came from a former American Secretary for Defence, Lawrence Korb, when he said that it was all about the great powers looking after their interests. He said, "If Kuwait grew carrots, we would not give a damn." It is about oil; it is not about genuine democratic rights.
The Government talk about having the legitimate Government of Kuwait restored. Last week, the New York Times quoted someone as having said that the Emir, once back in his palace, would still be a dictator. Who had that insight? It was Richard Nixon. He should know all about dictators—he propped up many of them in Latin America and in other parts of the world. Are thousands of young men and women to die for an Emir who abolished his own Parliament four years ago and who never allowed women to have the vote? Indeed, only 8 per cent. of men in Kuwait who can trace their ancestry to the period before 1920 had the vote.
Is it democracy that is being defended in Saudi Arabia, a country where people have their hands cut off for shoplifting, where political parties and elections are forbidden? How many mothers in this country want their sons to die on the sands of Saudi Arabia, a country that does not even allow women to drive cars? Outside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel—indeed, even within those boundaries the Arabs do not have many rights—not one of those countries has democracy as we understand it.
Every one of them bans trade unions and political parties. They execute—Interruption.] It is absolutely true, as is borne out by publications like The Economist and Amnesty International reports, from which the Government like to quote. What happens in the Emirates, in Yemen, in Jordan and in Syria, where, under our "friend", 20,000 Muslims were murdered eight years ago in the city of Horns and where the bombers of Lockerbie remain today? That is the country with which we have just restored diplomatic links. Those countries are not democracies; they are not regimes for which our young men and women should die.
I am conscious of the time limit, but there are two more points that I want to make. Why should not the cost of this war be a matter for discussion? By last Wednesday, this country had spent £900 million on it. Every day, America spends $500 million on bombs and on Tomahawk cruise missiles. Last week, the United States congressional budget office—not a left-wing organisation—admitted that, at the end of the war, the cost to America could be $86 billion. That is more than the gross annual income of over four fifths of the countries of the world. It is twice the annual income of New Zealand or Portugal, and three times the annual income of Ireland. It is six times the aid that was given to sub-Saharan Africa last year. With that

73
sort of money, we could remove all famine and disease in the world. But, of course, that is not important in these schemes.
When the war was launched, one of the tabloid newspapers carried a headline about a 17-year-old boy—a boy not old enough to vote or to be a Member of this House—making his will before being sent to the Gulf by the Government. Let us not allow the young men and women of this country to die for oil or for America's strategic interests. Bring back the troops.
7.8 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: My greatest sympathy goes to the people of Kuwait, who have suffered at the tyrannical hands of Saddam Hussein—to those who have lost their lives or been tortured, and to the women who have been raped. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) should reflect on that.
I listened with the keenest interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). I have great sympathy with what he said. He has experienced war, as I did at the time of Suez. I detest war every bit as much as does the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. I also detest the failure of politicians and of intelligence to resolve differences and thus avoid war.
However, when one reaches the point at which there is no turning back, and when one knows that right and justice are on one's side, one must support the troops in the forefront of battle. They have my fullest support. Indeed, I should be with them if I were to be called. I am a reservist; if I were called up I would go and join them, and should be glad to do so.
Many tributes have been paid to our service men. I add my tribute to them for their skill, their courage and their daring. That goes also for the forces of the United States. The way in which the forces have worked together has been quite remarkable, as has been their conduct in this war. Nor do I want to forget the Saudi Arabian forces and the others that are taking part. I believe that they match our own people in efficiency and calibre.
I have always regarded that efficiency as based upon back-up. I pay tribute to the men and women—the civil servants—of the Ministry of Defence, because it is they and others involved in various organisations, in research and in the dockyards and elsewhere, who have made it possible for our troops to fight.
I have always taken the view that this would not be a short war which would be over in weeks, if not days. I believe that it will be a long war, but I hope that it will last in terms of months rather than years. Undoubtedly, if the war continues for a number of months—I fear that it shall—we must, as the Prime Minister has already said today, brace ourselves for the losses that will occur. In common with all hon. Members, I am so thankful that the number of casualties have been so few. Again, that is a tribute to the way in which the weapons have been targeted and the skill with which the service men have directed those weapons. Each and every casualty is, to all of us, a son. The families who must sustain themselves with a great deal of courage at this time deserve and get our fullest support.
The level of support in this country—I understand that research has shown that it is about 80 per cent. of the population—is in no small measure due to the leadership, honesty, integrity and sincerity with which the Prime
74
Minister has expressed his views in our debates and on television. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have also shown a wonderful sense of clarity, sincerity and honesty when answering questions from the press and presenting the facts to the people.
If there is a longish war, I have no doubt that reservists will be called up—some already have been. There is a feeling in the country, however, that not all reservists are quite so keen to serve. Obviously, they have commitments that make it difficult for them to leave and we recognise that. I do not doubt for one moment, however, that reservists will respond with pride and will render the services for which they have been trained.
I would not want there to be any inclination in the country to suggest that our reservists are not willing and able to be called up should that need arise. I hope that companies and organisations will keep places open for their employees who are called up and will also make up the shortfall, if there is any, between the service pay that they will receive and their present pay. I hope that that message is taken on board by the affected companies.
There are two purposes behind the debate. First, it will reassure our service men in the Gulf—if that were necessary. I am not at all convinced that the speech or the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East would give any reassurance to our service men. We have had two debates on the Gulf and if one loses the argument, as has happened to those who want our forces brought home, one has a duty to support our service men out in the Gulf. One cannot ignore the fact that they rely on full-hearted support for the decisions taken. I hope that there will be no vote tonight. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was excellent and he said what a lot of us feel, particularly about the motion that has been tabled.
Secondly, the debate should also reaffirm the cohesion of the alliance of nations taking part in the war. Reference has already been made in the debate to the Scud attacks on Israel and we know that those attacks were purely and simply an attempt to provoke Israel into hostilities. If that had happened, Israel would have done exactly what the Iraqi President wanted. I am full of admiration for the maturity of statesmanship of the Israeli Government in withholding retaliation. Their position is greatly respected and we understand how difficult it must be for them, given the provocation they have suffered.
Turkey has a border with Iraq and I admire Turkey for her resolve. I ask my Front-Bench colleagues to do all they can to sustain Turkey's defences. The Turkish economy has been gravely affected by the costs with which it is now involved—I do not believe that those costs are disputed. I hope that we shall do all that we can to play our part in securing economic help to Turkey, which is already labouring under huge economic problems due to inflation. That country has guts and has shown it in the way in which it has resolved to stand firm against Iraq should it invade.
The debate has taken a constructive turn in that it has considered what will happen after the war, which is right. I would not dispute anything that has been said about how we are to achieve a new order in the middle east. However, it will be up to the Arab countries to reassess their relationships and to work to achieve a lasting peace. I certainly agree with those who argue that the war is a consequence of too many arms in the possession of one

75
country. We have learnt that lesson before, but we are now learning it again to our cost. We must put our minds to that problem when peace has been proclaimed.
At the end of the day, this action is entirely right, because it gives strength to the United Nations. This is one occasion when war is being conducted in response to UN directions and resolutions. By giving strength to those resolutions, we can look forward to a greater and stronger UN role in the future. If nothing else, that is what we need to achieve when settling the problems in the middle east.
7.16 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is extremely sad that economic sanctions were not allowed to operate for longer—not only because that would have saved human lives, but because it was an opportunity for the UN to prove that there were circumstances when, if the world community so willed, sanctions could be made to work.
The inevitability of war against Saddam Hussein has, however, always been at the back of my mind. We are dealing with a vile dictator who cares nothing about the hardship of his people and who has already proved that he was ready to turn chemical warfare against his people in Kurdistan. I lived in Liverpool during the second world war, and I learned then that weakness was not the way to deal with a dictator, that one had to stand up to him. For that reason, I shall support the Opposition amendment tonight, because we must show our armed forces that we support their valour, as it is that which will contribute to the defeat of the vile dictator in Iraq.
It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), although I did not agree with everything he said, particularly about the former Prime Minister. I remember living night after night after night for 14 months, without cease, in an air raid shelter at the bottom of my garden in Liverpool, the second most bombed city outside London. I remember that my parents and other people used to ask whether it could have been prevented. It could have been prevented if people had stood up to Hitler much earlier than in 1939.
Incidentally, when we went to war it was not in defence of a democracy because at that time, Poland was close to being a military dictatorship. When, in 1940, we went to the aid of Greece and fought the Italians there, it was to defend not a democracy but an independent Greece under the rule of the Metaxas dictatorship.
As my hon. Friends have rightly said, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Arab subcontinent are not democracies. I admit that things have gone sour in eastern Europe, but if Mr. Gorbachev can successfully bring democracy to those countries, one of our war aims must be to bring democracy to the countries of the middle east.
The war aims should look forward to a middle east peace conference. Although I certainly would deny Saddam Hussein linkage of this conflict with the Palestinian problem, the problems of the middle east must undoubtedly be addressed by any conference at the end of the war. Not only the problem of Palestine but the problems of the Kurds and other minorities of the region and the lack of democracy in so many countries are at the root of many difficulties.
76
It is essential that we win the war and carry out the United Nations resolution, which calls for Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait by all necessary means, and for the restoration of international peace and security in the area. Resolution 678 also calls for international peace and security in the area. So long as Saddam Hussein rules in Iraq, peace cannot be maintained. The defeat of the Iraqi forces also means the demise of Saddam Hussein.
Some of us on this side of the House have fought for a long time to draw attention to the Iraqi dictatorship. On several occasions I have stood with many of my colleagues on platforms at fringe meetings at the Labour party conference under the auspices of CARDRI—the Campaign against Repression and for Democratic Representation in Iraq—speaking about the horrors of the dictatorships of Iraq and Iran. Our repesentations have fallen largely on deaf ears. Tories have not been interested, but we cannot maintain peace in the middle east or elsewhere through market forces.
If anything is more important than the control of the sale of arms, I have yet to hear it. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition drew particular attention to the supply of arms and equipment to Iraq and other countries. It is right that there should be some discussion and decisions in the United Nations on the whole question of arms to rotten, repugnant dictators, such as the one in Indonesia. It is right to draw attention to this now, because in future a dictatorship elsewhere may cause us trouble. We need a UN resolution that all arms sales should be under UN control. There should be no arms sales without UN sanction. That is the most important issue that needs to be addressed by a conference at the end of the war.
Although arms have not been sold by the British Government, perhaps even by British firms, to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, unfortunately the Government have certainly connived at training military personnel who might be launched against our forces now. In answer to a question, I was informed by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces:
"A total of 430 places on MOD training courses were allocated to Iraqi students between 1981 and the cessation of training, following Mr. Bazoft's execution, in March 1990." —[Official Report, 16 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 501.]
As late as March 1990, less than a year ago, we were training military personnel who are no doubt in the desert waiting for our troops to attack. They will use the skills which they learned here in this country against our forces, or "our lads" in the desert, as The Sun likes to call them.
Not only that, but in answer to a question to the Department of Education and Science, the Under-Secretary of State gave me information about the number of Iraqis at universities, polytechnics and other institutions of higher education. Between 1981 and 1989, there was an average of 952 Iraqis studying at our higher education establishments. Perhaps they were innocently studying sociology, social anthropology or philosophy, but I bet that, when I get an answer from the Minister about the breakdown of subjects, we shall find that they were studying chemical engineering or even nuclear engineering. It is an absolute disgrace that our trade in training people for service in dictatorial, military organisations should continue.
I hope that we shall learn the lesson from this war. I hope sincerely that we shall come to the end of the war rapidly, defeat Saddam Hussein, sweep him from power

77
and learn that, in future, we must ensure that there are no more sales of arms and there is no more training for countries under such vile leadership.
7.26 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: On behalf of the overwhelming majority of my constituents in Uxbridge, some of whom have sons and daughters serving in the armed forces and, doubtless, in the Gulf, I support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
If anyone had told me 12 months ago that we would be fighting a major war with Iraq, I would have been incredulous. I had hoped and begun to believe that, after the encouraging events in eastern Europe last year, British forces would never again be deployed in a major conflict. I was looking forward, as I believe every hon. Member was, to a period of peace and co-operation with the people of eastern Europe and to moving forward into a new era when we would spend less on defence and more on things we need at home, such as education and the health service. Suddenly, in a matter of months, all those hopes were dashed and we found ourselves at war with Saddam Hussein and his military machine in Iraq.
My constituents recognise, as I do, that, unwelcome and desperately unhappy though the conflict is, there is unfortunately no alternative to armed force to liberate Kuwait and to prevent further aggression by a dictator who has made it clear to every hon. Member that his intentions would not have stopped at Kuwait, but would have gone much further if he had not been stopped.
The town of Uxbridge and my constituents have a special concern in addition to those that every hon. Member shares about the loss of human life in this conflict. The Royal Air Force is an integral part of our community. RAF Uxbridge is at the centre of my constituency and RAF Northolt and RAF West Drayton, in which my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) share an interest, are on the constituency boundaries.
My thoughts today, and those of many of my constituents, are with the courage and skill of our airmen and women who are engaged in sorties against military targets, and with those who provide back-up to make their operations possible. Some of those people are not mentioned much in the media: I mean the men and women who keep the aircraft flying, transport vital supplies and provide administrative support. All that is vitally important to the war effort.
I pay tribute to our aircrew, to their professional approach to their task and to the skill that enables them to bomb their targets so precisely as to destroy the Iraqi military machine, and to do so with virtually no civilian loss of life. This morning I heard John Simpson, the BBC's admirable correspondent, tell the British people on television that he thought it probable that fewer than 100 civilians had been injured in Baghdad, with virtually no deaths. What a contrast that is with the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian populations of combatant countries in the second world war, when I—like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and others—spent my boyhood in the shelter, hearing enemy bombs rain down on home and country.
I endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and his admirable handling of the whole dispute.
78
We British—and, indeed, our allies—have no quarrel with the civilian population of Iraq; our quarrel is with one man and a few of his henchmen, for the totally unacceptable occupation of Kuwait. It is in that light that I express my concern for the RAF aircrew who are now prisoners of war in Iraq.
I am deeply concerned by reports that Iraq is to use prisoners of war as human shields by locating them at military targets in Iraq, in clear contravention of articles 3 and 13 of the Geneva convention. Today I obtained a copy of the latest version from the Library, and I commend it to any hon. Member who has not read it—as I had not until today. It is extremely revealing, and sets out very clearly the obligations that rest on Iraq. If the reports now appearing in the media are correct, Saddam Hussein is guilty of a serious war crime in contravention of the convention.
Hon. Members will remember that, in his broadcast on 20 January, Saddam Hussein said that Iraq would observe the Geneva convention in its treatment of prisoners of war. If Iraq is now seeking to attach its own conditions before observing the convention, it must be a matter of grave concern. That is entirely unacceptable to our country: using British prisoners of war as a human shield, or parading them on television, is a clear breach of the convention. Article 3 of the third Geneva convention requires that prisoners of war should be protected against insults and public curiosity; in all circumstances, they are entitled to respect for their persons and their honour.
Article 122 requires that Iraq should notify the central tracing agency of the International Red Cross within the shortest period of the names of all prisoners of war, whether or not their capture has been acknowledged. I hope that, when he winds up the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to tell the House the extent to which the central tracing agency has informed the British Government of the names of our prisoners of war in Iraq. I hope that he will also be able to tell us what assistance is being given as a result of representations made to the International Red Cross, and what action Iraq is taking to aid the wounded and sick in accordance with article 3(2).
As I have said, I am proud—as, I know, are many other hon. Members on both sides of the House—of the skill and courage of RAF aircrew, and of the skill and courage of all our allies in the seven countries to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred at the beginning of the debate. Like all my constituents and all hon. Members, I devoutly hope that Saddam Hussein will recognise the inevitable and withdraw from Kuwait and that a lasting peace can be achieved in the middle east. I am confident that, if Saddam does that, a lasting peace can be achieved; but, if he does not, our country will see the conflict through to the end, despite the difficult times and the bad news that we may have to face. We shall do so because of the overwhelming support of the British people and because of the courage and excellence of all our armed forces. I am very proud of them.
7.35 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was right to draw attention to the skill and potential sacrifice of our service men and women—as have many Conservative Members—but I hope that that praise will also take account of the

79
facts mentioned by my hon. Friends. Some of those facts are not very pleasant. Let me, for once, be very outspoken in the House about Members' interests, and say that I hope that all Conservative Members who have any relationship with arms sales firms, whether or not they have been involved in Iraq, will think twice about the compatibility of that role with their duties as politicians.
The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) was right to say that peace, and the prevention of war, were the profession of politicians. All the bravery of our service men and women can only provide an opportunity for politicians around the world, whatever label they bear, to make the peace. A just war requires a just peace, and preparations for a just peace.
Conservative Members have spoken about the last war. Fifty years ago the second world war was just beginning, but for the home front, as it was then called, the watchwords were "post-war reconstruction at home and international rehabilitation abroad". In June 1941, nearly 50 years ago, the Minister responsible for post-war reconstruction, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, appointed the then Sir William Beveridge and his committee; in August 1941, President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill met dramatically in mid-Atlantic and signed the Atlantic charter, which was the international basis for what later became the charter of the United Nations.
I believe that at this time we should take similar action. We should think about a "new deal" to amend the injustice and lack of security in—on this occasion—the whole of the middle east and consider how the United Nations can shape itself to meet the challenges that must surely come in whatever one has been calling a new era.
At home, for many people, there was not that much security before the war. Conservative Members have talked of the need for security for those in Israel, among others, but security is double-edged: as President Gorbachev has said, one state cannot obtain security by trying to undermine that of another state. We all understand that. The middle east needs the new security—the "new deal"—that this country obtained through the last war.
I suggest that the Government now put aside three separate teams. Although we may have different views about whether a war should take place and whether we should be fighting it, I think that the whole House should agree with such a suggestion. This country has a long history of relations with the area. A large number of Arabists, both active and retired, have served or are serving in the diplomatic service. The United Kingdom had a mandate from the League of Nations to administer Mesopotamia. We ought to put together a team of people with multidisciplinary skills and with knowledge of the area to consider the terms of the post-war settlement. That will not depend on the conference; it will depend on the conversations, analyses and suggestions that are made before any conference takes place.
The United Kingdom can take advantage of opportunities that are not open to the senior partners in the enterprise, the United States of America. The United States of America faces domestic, political and democratic difficulties that are causing problems. We want all the
80
United nations resolutions to be spelt out. That has been done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others.
At the end of the last war, a British middle east office was established. It included both a political division and a development division. The development division was concerned with rehabilitation and supplying the needs of people in want. The Gulf war will lead to tremendous physical destruction. Much reconstruction must come after it. Later, in Cairo, the development division became the first development division of the Overseas Development Administration. It was, alas, destroyed in 1980 by this Government. The middle east development division was dismantled, despite the fact that it was the only body that had comprehensive knowledge of arid and semi-arid areas.
The middle east development division ought to be re-established. A think tank should be established in Whitehall, consisting of those both outside and inside the ODA.
Another multidisciplinary team should be set out to deal with the physical needs of rehabilitation. After the last war, the United Nations established the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We need something similar to that, or a re-formed United Nations agency, to deal with want and distress in the middle east, of which there will be a great deal.
The future United Nations surely ought to be a different organisation from the mark I version that we have had so far. I regret the fact that Conservative Members of Parliament and their leaders have occasionally unduly criticised the United Nations. I remember what Lord Home of the Hirsel and the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said about it. Of course the United Nations was imperfect. Its agencies did not do all that they ought to have done when and how we should have liked. I have always kept the United Nations charter in my letter rack. If people say to me, "Why do you have it there, Nigel?" I reply, "Because it represents the standing orders of world peace."
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No.
Mr. Spearing: It does. We have nothing else. I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) will agree with me that the United Nations was established to prevent war but, if war broke out, the United Nations' objective was to ensure that it was conducted justly. That is why this motion is before us. All we have is the charter on which to build. I hope that Conservative Members will look again at the history of their lack of support for the United Nations during the last few years.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spearing: As the rule is that speeches must last no longer than 10 minutes, I regret that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. He will be able to make his own speech later, and we may also be able to correspond about the matter he wishes to raise.
The Government must give a moral lead by creating a team of people with experience of the United Nations agencies. It should include many distinguished civil servants, both active and retired, and politicians with

81
knowledge of the United Nations agencies. We must also remind our partners across the Atlantic that its record in respect of the United Nations is not impeccable.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This is a United Nations war.
Mr. Spearing: Yes. The people of the United States are great-hearted and generous. Once they recognise the plight of people in the middle east, I am sure that that great nation, which shares many of our democratic ideals, will say that it ought to have placed greater emphasis on the role of the United Nations in peace—indeed, as much emphasis as the United States now places on it in war.
The United Kingdom and the United States of America did great things together in the last war. Their inspiration came from different quarters. I am sure that hon. Members and, I hope, the Government will provide similar inspiration now. We must remind our United States friends of the challenges that face them. We must make a peace that is worthy of this House and the United Kingdom.
7.45 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: Before I comment on the conflict, I wish to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). He referred to the lack of hospital facilities in this country. It has already been made perfectly clear that additional money will be made available to the regional hospital authorities if extra wards have to be opened to accommodate casualties from the middle east. So those who are waiting for hospital treatment should not have to wait any longer. I should have respected what was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East about casualties, had he made a similarly forceful and emotional speech during the past five months about the atrocities, casualties, deaths and deportations in Kuwait. His lopsided view of the conflict says it all.
No one who has watched or listened to the news reports about the Gulf conflict during the past few days can have anything but admiration for the aircrew who have flown continuous missions into Iraq and Kuwait, or be anything but stunned by the accuracy of the weapons and the technology they have had to back them up. In every sense, this is a high-speed conflict. I was fortunate enough to fly in a Tornado as recently as last May. It is an incredibly high-speed aircraft. Everything happens so fast. The aircrew and personnel on the ground have to react very speedily to any threat. Moreover, the results of an operation can be seen very quickly on our television screens.
There is little doubt that the quick and effective harnessing of modern technology to the Gulf war had a great part to play in the element of surprise last Wednesday evening when Iraq was attacked. That surprise led to Iraq's air force being badly damaged in the first few hours of the conflict. Since then, it has not been an effective force and I believe that it will be even less effective in the future.
Royal Air Force Tornados have played a critical role in achieving that objective. Their task, successfully accomplished, was to attack some of the most heavily defended targets in Iraq—notably, major airfields. Tornados were deployed mainly because they are fitted with the allies' most effective weapon, which incapacitates runways. Their
82
success in achieving their objective was also because Tornados are able to fly at such high speed close to the ground, both day and night and in almost any weather.
That explains the number of Tornado losses. Although that number is very low, it is none the less greater than the number of other allied aircraft that have been lost. It is worth putting on record the fact that, but for the low-level training that crews receive in peacetime, they would have been unable to attack their targets with such success and with such effect during the past few days. I welcome the comments made last Thursday by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who now understands the necessity of low-flying training in the United Kingdom. I trust that we can count on his support to maintain that low-flying training in the future.
The devastating accuracy of the weapons being used by the allies is undoubtedly resulting in fewer civilian casualties than would have occurred in such a conflict in the past. I hope that Opposition Members who have commented on civilian casualties will note the huge amount of attention that is being paid by allied commanders to minimising civilian casualties when targets are selected. That compares favourably with the attitude of the Iraqis in the use of Scud missiles against cities and civilian populations in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Apart from the accuracy of allied weapons, another important feature of the conflict has been the value of reconnaissance in assessing the effectiveness of attacks and in finding the targets for further missions. The view of the Royal Air Force has always been that that role should be a specialist one and separate from the ground attack roles of many aircraft, with specially adapted aircraft being used to carry out dedicated attacks. Our American allies have not placed the same emphasis on that separateness of functions. That partly explains the video cameras in some American attack aircraft and the excellent media coverage that has resulted from them, but it equally explains why the specialist reconnaissance Tornado was successfully tasked to seek out the Scud missile sites.
That weapon, which has been important politically and which, with the highly effective Patriot missile, has given a good performance for television news crews in Riyadh and Saudi Arabia, is of marginal significance in military terms and cannot affect the outcome of the conflict. What can affect its outcome is the extent to which allied air forces can destroy Saddam's ground forces before our troops are called on to take part and retake Kuwait. I am convinced that we are only beginning to see the effectiveness of high-tech weapons against ground equipment, and because of that I am equally convinced that the air campaign should continue for some time.
I should like to mention the men and women who are supporting the air campaign. Many of my constituents help to build the Tornado and many others from Lancashire are employed by British Aerospace to keep the Saudi air force in a first-class state of servicability. In that context, I was fortunate enough to visit Saudi Arabia under the auspices of British Aerospace as recently as last September. It is clear that many civilians from this country are doing an excellent job in Saudi Arabia supporting both the Saudi air force and the Royal Air Force.
I am particularly conscious of the attitude of the media to dependants of service men in the Gulf because both my brothers are serving there. I direct my remarks particularly at those parts of the media which, in their legitimate desire to sell newspapers or to get an interview first for their

83
television channel, overstep the line between what is acceptable and decent and what causes great personal anguish to the combatants and their families. There is clearly a need to provide the media with as much information as possible without compromising our military planning. In that respect, the Ministry of Defence and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence are doing a very satisfactory job. Equally, it is the responsibility of the media to use that information sensibly.
Many hon. Members have dwelt on what sort of peace should follow the conflict. I have not done so because I believe that all our attention should be on expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. If we are successful in that, Saddam Hussein's days, and those of the bandit state that he has created, are numbered and I look forward to an Iraqi regime that is more acceptable to the world community.
7.54 pm
Mr. William Ross: At Prime Minister's Question Time last week, I drew to his attention the fact that the need to know should be paramount in any statement made to the House. He gave me what I thought at the time was a satisfactory answer. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will no doubt remember some of the stories that he and I were told when we visited the Falklands two years ago. I have been haunted by some of the things that we were told on that occasion.
This is a high-tech war—some people have described it as an arcade game, rather too accurately. I say to the House and the news media that in such a war even the tiniest pieces of information can be of use to the enemy, who will use it to kill our soldiers, sailors and airmen on the ground in Saudi Arabia. We, especially Ministers and military spokesmen, should be careful about what we make public.
I have no doubt that, as soon as we try to conceal things that should be concealed, we shall face howls of fury from the media, but I would sooner have them howling than see one unnecessary death among our service men in the Gulf or anywhere else. In any case, it can all be told when the war is over. No doubt it will then look even more different than the news does an hour after we first see it on the television. I am sure that every hon. Member who has watched the blow-by-blow accounts has been horrified by how often words have had to be eaten within a hour or two, not least when Scud missiles were being launched.
Our self-interest in this war is not perhaps as great as it might have been in 1939, or even in the Falklands. We have an interest in ensuring that there is a rule of law in international affairs and that small nations enjoy their right to exist. We did not want this war, but we came up against a calculating individual who had set out to become a major force in that area by gaining control of a vital world commodity—oil—not by democratic will but simply by the use of brute force.
When I hear people discussing ways in which we could have avoided war, I wonder whether they understand the mind of the thug whom we are up against, because this is a naked demonstration of pure thuggery on a large scale by a man who, as far as I am aware, has practised it throughout his life. He is not an individual whom any hon.
84
Member would want as a close friend, but for that matter many other leaders of that part of the world would fall into the same category.
The reality is that most middle east countries are not in the slightest democratic. There are differing degrees of sheer awfulness, right up to bare acceptability. The sooner we realise and accept that, the better for all of us. We are not choosing between two goods, but are choosing the least of the differing evils. We hope that eventually things will improve in that part of the world. I do not expect any quick improvement, any more than I expect it in other parts of the world.
People in the news media and outside the House have lamented the possible consequences of attacking Iraq. They say that Saddam Hussein is so determined to get his own way that he will use any means that come to hand: that he will burn oilfields, use violence against people by torturing them—he has been dong that for years—and will resort to nuclear weapons, if he has them, and biological weapons. Some people say that, because Saddam Hussein is capable of such awfulness, perhaps we should deal gently with him and try to talk to him. We were told in this debate that some of his people who refused to serve were hanged. Those are not reasons for leaving this individual alone. They are good reasons for removing him from any position of authority as quickly as possible before his evil spreads.
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about the Israelis' self-interest in not responding to the Scud attacks. Anyone who believes that that was not self-interest should look at the matter again. The Israelis would have been mad to carry out any attack. Self-interest is also important to the Syrians, who see the prospect of a dangerous person having his power removed. I take a jaundiced view of some of the praise that has been heaped on folk who have an enlightened self-interest for following a course of action which they have apparently been persuaded to follow. It has been in their self-interest to follow that course; any other would do them much more damage.
Many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate and, although we are no longer governed by the 10-minute rule, I shall try to restrict myself to it. Saddam Hussein has called for terrorist action in support of his actions. I hope that that has been taken on board in this country. Northern Ireland Members are aware of what terrorists can do. We have no doubt that Saddam Hussein has tried to call in the bills that are owed to him by the Irish Republican Army through the Palestine Liberation Organisation and other organisations.
There has not been much terrorist activity by those organisations, any more than there has been much reaction from the Iraqi air force. We are not sure whether the efforts of the security forces in the western world have prevented such attacks, just as we are not sure whether the efforts of the air forces attacking Iraq have prevented the Iraqi air force from getting into action. We should all be alert. These people are not stupid. They are clever, devious and dangerous and, if they get a chance to butcher some people in pursuit of their aims, they will certainly do it. That applies no less to the Province which I have the honour to represent than to anywhere else in the world.
I fully support the Government's motion, which says all that needs to be said. I have some difficulty with the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends. There are some rumours that

85
a deal has been done and that there will not be a vote if the Front-Bench spokesmen can avoid it. I understand that, because they want to present a united front.
The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition
"commends the instructions to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible".
A few words are missing. The motion should read, "wherever possible, without placing our service men's lives at unnecessary risk". That may be the sense of the motion, but it is not what it says.
The motion refers to returning
"with renewed vigour to resolving the wider problems in the Middle East."
Hon. Members should remember what I said about the thug. This individual will seize on even the slightest crack to claim that he has secured linkage with the Palestinian issue. It is in the interests of the world, especially of the middle east, that people should know that Saddam Hussein is being opposed for his wickedness alone and that the issue should not be tied to another serious, enduring problem which we all hope will be resolved, for the good of the world in the long term.
8.4 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: One of the pleasing, major features of the war into which we have entered is the lack of jingoism shown by the majority of hon. Members and of the world community. Everyone accepts the necessity to deal with Saddam Hussein and all his works in Iraq.
The most important factor about the war is that it is the United Nations war. It is not a war between Iraq and the United States and Britain. For the first time since 1948, a unified United Nations—the family of nations—is standing up against an international bully and saying, "You cannot take over a sovereign state and be allowed to get away with it". We must take that sovereign state back and re-establish it. [Interruption.] I hear what Opposition Members say and I respect their right to say that they do not support the war. Democracy would fail if they were not allowed to express that view. However, I would say to them, especially to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), that it does not make any difference, under the principles that we wish to uphold, whether the sovereign state being taken over is a democracy.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) rightly pointed out, during the last war we went to the assistance of Poland and Greece, which were not democracies. We are in the same position now. We have gone to the assistance of Kuwait, which is not a democracy. That is not the principle; the principle for which we are fighting is the right of sovereign states to run their political life without interference from their neighbour and without aggression.
We must look carefully at the man at the helm. As a student of history, like many other hon. Members, I see many parallels between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. If we had not appeased Hitler in the 1930s, we might not have been involved in such a widespread world war between 1939 and 1945. The world has learned from that. Members of the United Nations have been drawn together and the organisation has been given strength because members have recognised that we cannot appease dictators and that we must deal with them.
86
We need only consider the man with whom we are dealing. He used chemical weapons on his own people in Kurdistan. For eight years, he invaded a neighbouring country, Iran, and thousands of his citizens were killed in the battles between the two countries. This man has no respect for human life or for human rights. Some abuses of human rights in Iraq over the past few years have been appalling: torture and the lack of what we in the House take for granted—freedom of speech and freedom of movement. Basic freedoms which we champion have been trodden all over by this man.
Saddam Hussein is doing exactly the same thing in this war. One of the saddest parts of the war is his use of service men from the allied air force as shields against the bombing. That is a clear breach of the Geneva convention, of the basic rules of human rights, of all the decent things for which we in the House stand. We cannot allow this to happen. At the end of the conflict, Saddam Hussein must be brought to account.
I believe that, regrettably, sanctions were not going to work. The scientific evidence shows that Saddam Hussein was far too close to having nuclear weapons which he could have used. Imagine a man who is not bothered about world opinion and who is prepared to fight for eight years, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives, having the capacity to use nuclear weapons. Having to deal with Saddam Hussein 18 months from now, following the failure of sanctions, would be an entirely different matter. It was right to attempt to do so, and to prevent him from going further, following the 15 January deadline.
The big issue for the House and for the whole world is how far we should go. Should we stop if and when Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait? Should we turn round and say, "This man is a war criminal; we must deal with him"? Should we take the war all the way to Baghdad and destroy Saddam Hussein in his capital city? Or should we turn to the people of Iraq and say, "You have put this man at the helm; you must now remove him"? Should we leave it to the Iraqi people? At the moment, those issues are being blurred in the House and in the alliance. But we will have to take a decision. We cannot merely live in the hope that Saddam Hussein will somehow be destroyed.
We must also consider the involvement of Israel. I agree with those of my hon. Friends who have said that Israel has shown remarkable restraint and courage in refusing to respond to Iraq's attacks. Saddam Hussein wants to break up the international alliance. He wants to involve Israel and move us towards universal war. The Israelis have shown respect for world peace and great discretion in seeking to prevent that. We must have great respect for that attitude and we must help Israel in every way that we can. That does not mean that, at the end of the conflict, we should ignore Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but at this stage we should separate the two issues. There can be no linkage between the Palestinians' problems and the occupation of Kuwait. The two are entirely separate. This war is about the freeing of Kuwait and about ensuring that Kuwait remains an independent sovereign state.
The major issue today is what happens at the end of the conflict. The peace is a vital factor. The end of the first world war brought the treaty of Versailles. Anyone who has studied the period will know that the causes of the second world war were firmly rooted in the treaty of Versailles. Hitler's writings in the 1920s and 1930s show

87
how he thrived on the dissatisfaction caused by the treaty and how that eventually led to the rise of the Nazis and to the second world war. There are lessons to be learnt.
If we go so far as to remove Saddam Hussein from the leadership of Iraq, we must ensure that we establish democracy in that part of the middle east. Perhaps that will be the beginning of the process in the surrounding states that Opposition Members seek. Perhaps the example of eastern Europe may be followed in the middle east and more democratic states will develop.
I fully support the motion. Nothing worth striving for has ever been achieved without cost. What we are striving for in this just war is lasting world peace. That is worth fighting for. It will necessarily entail the loss of life, but it is to be hoped that we shall end up with a United Nations newly empowered, with new strength and new respect, and so with peace in the world for generations to come.
8.13 pm
Mr. Calum MacDonald: Now that our forces are committed, there can be no question of a pause or of a ceasefire until we receive a clear, credible, irrevocable message from the Iraqi Government that they are ready to withdraw from Kuwait. It is hard to imagine that that message will come now and we must therefore be willing to pursue the war until the terms of the United Nations resolutions are fulfilled.
Despite all the technological wizardry that we have seen in recent days, we should have no illusions: the burden of the task ahead will fall upon the all-to-human shoulders of ordinary troops. It is to be hoped that the Iraqi Government will recognise the futility of their cause, but if they do not, we must expect the fighting to be bitter.
Is the cause for which this war is being fought right? Without doubt, it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) pointed out that Kuwait was not a democratic or particularly likeable or savoury regime. The Polish regime in 1939 was not a democratic or particularly likeable regime; it was an authoritarian and anti-semitic Government. That was not the point then, and the nature of the Kuwaiti regime is not the point now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East was right to stress the cost of the war that the allies expect to have to fight. Is the expected cost commensurate with the potential gain? So far as we can reasonably foresee, the cost will indeed be commensurate, because the political gain could well be—indeed, it has to be—a general settlement that will secure peace, stability and the opportunity for progress for all states and all peoples of the middle east. The ultimate gain will be an unprecedented victory for the rule of international law as enforced by the United Nations.
It is because of the importance of establishing the rule of international law that the Foreign Secretary has been absolutely right to stress that it cannot be one of our aims to change the Government of Iraq. That is why the Opposition were right to oppose previous United States actions in Panama and Grenada. We did so not because we supported the dictatorships in those countries or because we doubted that a change of regime in those countries would constitute an improvement but because once dislike of, or distaste for, the regime of another country becomes
88
an acceptable pretext for attacking that country, there can be no such thing as the rule of international law. Any state can use that pretext to justify an attack upon any other state. Indeed, Iraq has tried to use it in this instance. I hope, therefore, that, in future, the Foreign Secretary will be more ready than his predecessors to remind American Governments of the basic rule of international law and of the fact that that law, if it is to be law, can have no exceptions.
I have said that I believe that the war is being fought for a just purpose. I have said that we must see it through. But was war inevitable? Personally, I do not believe that, had Iraq continued to be unwilling to withdraw, sanctions alone would have worked. Iraqi tank divisions could have been made immobile by the lack of oil and spare parts, but they would still have been sitting in Kuwait. Certainly, a more prolonged period of sanctions could have weakened the Iraqi military further and made things easier for our troops, but sanctions alone could never have restored the sovereignty of Kuwait. I return to my question: was war, then, inevitable? I am not sure that it was, and that is a truly dreadful thought.
There has been a great failure in the tone and substance of American diplomacy as regards Iraq. Without doubt, there is now greater urgency to search for a general middle east settlement than there was before the crisis began. We saw evidence of that urgency in the speeches from both Front Benches. It should have been possible for diplomats to portray that urgency, before 15 January, in a way that might have allowed the Iraqi Government a face-saving back door out of Kuwait. That should at least have been attempted. But, time and again, the Americans insisted that they were not in the business of allowing Saddam Hussein to save face. I believe that that was an error, and I fear that it shows a continuing immaturity in American diplomacy. It is certainly right to go to war, if necessary, to protect small states from aggressive and vicious neighbours, but it is abysmally foolish to end up at war simply because one is not willing to allow one's opponent to save some face.
That chapter is now closed, however, and it will be for the historians to pass judgment on the failures of western diplomacy, both before and since the invasion of Kuwait. Our job now is to turn our attention to the diplomatic task after the war is over. I see that task as twofold. First, for the west, there has to be a sustained and unyielding effort to bring about a genuine middle east settlement. American sloth and subservience to Israel have contributed greatly to the present tragedy. It must not be allowed to lead to another. Of course we congratulate the Israelis on their restraint in the face of recent missile attacks. However, a settlement that allows the Palestinians self-determination is as much in Israeli interests as in the interests of the international community.
Secondly, there is a special lesson to be learned by the countries of western Europe. My views here might be a little unfashionable at the moment. I believe that there must be a renewed effort to integrate political co-operation into the framework of the European Community.
Community foreign policy must become subject to majority decision making within the Community. In recent weeks, some have drawn the opposite conclusion. They claim that the scenes of division and disarray within the Community in the run-up to war prove that we can never achieve the aim of majority decision making in that context. On the contrary, that experience is a reason for

89
saying why we must act in that way. Unless we have an institutional framework for ensuring a unified response, we are doomed to repeat these European displays of disunity and disarray.
The French were right in the substance of their solo diplomacy in the last few days before war. However, they were quite wrong to believe that they could carry it off by themselves. If Community foreign policy continues o be a policy of competing amid jealous individual states, American Governments will continue to dominate and dictate the agenda to us. Europeans have too much to offer in terms of policy and too much to lose in terms of self-respect to allow such scenes to be repeated.
The allied forces are acting under the authority of the United Nations, and they are not simply fighting for little Kuwait: they are fighting for a new international order. That at least is the promise made by the west, and that is a promise that we must strain every sinew to fulfil after this tragic war is over.
8.21 pm
Mr. Michael Irvine: Over the past decade, Saddam Hussein's regime has been one of the prime causes of the chronic instability affecting the middle east. If, through lack of resolve on our part and that of our allies, Saddam Hussein had been allowed to get away with his seizure of Kuwait, that instability would have been made worse; a solution to middle east problems would have been made more remote; the arms race in the area would have intensified, and the potential for conflagration would have become even greater.
Saddam Hussein's taste for aggression and reckless militarism is appreciated only too well by Iraq's neighbours. It is significant that even Syria, for so long the arch-enemy of the west, is now lined up with us as a military ally in opposition to Saddam. That shows above anything else just how deep runs the fear and distrust of Saddam Hussein in many Arab countries. Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait and Saddam Hussein's defeat, particularly if it is accompanied by his overthrow, could be a powerful force for stability in the middle east.
At the moment, the war must seem of precious little benefit to the people of Iraq. However, there could be benefits for them, as well as for their neighbours, if the war —directly or indirectly—leads to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. They could obviously reap considerable advantage from that.
Presumably the Kurds would welcome Saddam's removal after the terrible sufferings that he has inflicted on them. We should remember that the Kurds account for no less than a quarter of Iraq's population. I believe that the hatred and resentment of Saddam in Iraq extends beyond the Kurds.
A regime as repressive, corrupt, nepotic and as idiosyncratic as Saddam Hussein's is likely to be hated and loathed by many of those who have the misfortune to live under it. I can see the destruction of Saddam's military machine ridding neighbouring countries of a threat and the Iraqis of a tyrant and also providing, if properly exploited, a better prospect than has existed for a long time of an overall peace settlement in the middle east.
A great deal will depend on three factors. The first is the extent to which we respect Arab sensitivities and the extent to which we and our allies are successful in keeping civilian casualties to a minimum and avoid damage to Muslim
90
holy places. It is immensely reassuring that great efforts are obviously being made by our pilots and the other allied airmen to ensure that that is the case. Having said that, we should recognise that precision bombing of the kind necessary to achieve those aims enormously increases the risks that those airmen must face.
The second factor on which the successful peace settlement will depend is the speed with whch Americans, British and other western ground forces are withdrawn after the conflict. Obviously we will need to retain a presence in the area, but that should be a discreet presence, in the background, consisting of support by air and sea. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged the importance of that aspect and said that he believed that it would be unwise for us to retain ground forces in the region once the conflict is over.
The third crucial, and perhaps most important, element is that there must be a determined, thorough effort in the immediate aftermath of war to solve the Palestinian problem. It was right to avoid linkage of the Palestinian problem in the context of the invasion of Kuwait. That invasion was clearly wrong and it needed to be put right promptly. The Palestinian problem is a very different and much more complex issue which should be addressed with more time and care.
A thorough effort of the kind that I have in mind would involve putting pressure on Israel to come to terms. In saying that, I do not take an unfriendly attitude towards Israel. A solution to the Palestinian problem involving some significant concessions by Israel is in the long-term interests of Israel itself. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that any middle eastern settlement must at its heart involve a secure Jewish state.
The impact of the war will self-evidently be greatest in the middle east. However, it will also have a powerful effect on American relations with the European Community and with Japan. At the moment, American minds are concentrated on military objectives and the task of winning the war. However, when the war is over and the Americans count the cost and consider the impact on their finances, there is a risk that some resentment will arise in the United States at the lack of support—financial, military and moral—from Japan and all too many countries in European Community.
That could be very dangerous indeed. It could worsen still further the prospects of successful trade negotiations, and it could also imperil the necessary continuing defence co-operation between America and the other countries of the west both inside and outside Europe. If we need any reminders of just how important that continuing defence co-operation is, we need only consider recent events in Estonia and Latvia.
In that context, Britain will have a special role to play. It is recognised in America, and especially by the American Government, just how considerable is our contribution to the war in the Gulf. Numerically, our contribution may be significantly less than that of the United States, but it is significantly greater than that of any other European Community country. Its quality is unsurpassed.
That fact means that we should have particular influence with the United States when it comes to dealing with trade negotiations and defence issues in and outside Europe. There lies ahead for us an important role in that

91
context, acting as an invaluable bridge between the United States and the European Community in the aftermath of the Gulf war.
8.30 pm
Mr. Bruce George: This is a remarkable debate from several perspectives. The most important is the incredible degree of unity, if not of consensus, that exists in the Chamber and, far more important, outside. There will never be consensus on many issues in the House. Those who dissent are not pacifists, neutralists, fifth columnists, agents of international communism, or agents of Saddam. In any democracy, it is healthy for there to be scepticism among the Opposition towards the war aims of a Government. That is the virtue of our system.
I was in the United States 10 days ago. One of the many things that struck me was the absence of high enthusiasm on the part of congressmen and others for a war that we now know was absolutely inevitable. Some people believe that the United States is filled with warmongers who are hell-bent on establishing American domination throughout the world and who, given half a chance, will send forces anywhere at any time. Anyone who knows the United States and takes an interest in defence matters will be aware of the enormous impact that the humiliations of the Vietnam war still has on every aspect of society. That is why the Americans have moved with some reluctance to the major role of contributing to the forces against Saddam Hussein. They did so not with high enthusiasm but with moral rightness. There was and is an almost total absence of what we on this side of the Atlantic have historically called jingoism. That characteristic can be seen in this House, too. There is a sober reflection and analysis of the task to be undertaken.
That is very different from what happened during the first world war. I recall reading Kenneth Morgan's biography of Keir Hardie and the enormous anger and sadness that he felt when war was declared. He found that his party totally disagreed with him. He, Ramsay MacDonald and a handful of people were opposed to the war. He was mortified when Members of the House of Commons burst into English patriotic songs, led by a Labour Member of Parliament. He was even more mortified when he went home to his constituency. A meeting in Aberdare was disrupted by the singing of Welsh patriotic songs. He was barely able to get out of the meeting without physical violence.
We do not have the intense fervour of those days in 1914 or of some other wars. There is a resignation that war is inevitable—a resignation that no amount of negotiations with Iraq would have succeeded. The overwhelming majority of the population accepted the inevitable conclusion of this conflagration—a war that we did not seek but a war that must be successfully prosecuted. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members appreciate that others who disagree with their views do not disrespect them—they respect them. I hope that that respect will be reciprocated and that hon. Members will not regard us as bloodthirsty imperialists who are intent on re-establishing imperialist hegemony over a part of the world which, for far too long, has been subjected to external influences.
There is not much point in going over all the arguments
92
about why British, American, Muslim and United Nations forces are engaged in the Gulf. I would have much preferred it if sanctions could have worked. I should have liked it if sanctions could have been applied for longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to William Webster of the CIA who said that sanctions were working. That report was based on Les Aspin's three White Papers that were submitted to Congress and the public two weeks ago.
However, my hon. Friend cited only part of the testimony. The analysis is generally that sanctions were working but that they would take much longer to be effective. Most important, there was no bridge between sanctions working and decision-making on the part of Saddam Hussein that would be consequent upon sanctions working. His military would get the majority of the declining source of food. They would have ample opportunity to dig in if sanctions were applied longer. They would be able clandestinely to rearm and to replace worn-out or defective equipment.
The fatal weakness of sanctions was that it would take 18 months or two years for them to be effective, and then there would be no guarantee that the suffering of the Iraqi people would have been translated into the demise of that repugnant regime. It is important to bear that point in mind.
The euphoria of the first day or so of the war has been dissipated. Not only will the war be longer rather than shorter, but there will be many setbacks. No doubt ships will be sunk and many lives will be lost. We must appreciate that, if our goals are to be achieved, we cannot throw in the towel simply upon the receipt of news of setbacks. Another important development has been that in the past few days we have seen the coalition holding together.
According to information so far available, a further factor of great importance has been the relative limitation on loss of life on both sides, which must be welcomed. That is partly due to the fact that we are deliberately not targeting the civilian population. It must be hoped that that policy will continue. Another important factor in the past few days has been the incredible success of precision-guided munitions. They are good, very good, but not all that good. One thing that is absolutely apparent, but which was not apparent a day or two ago, is that the overwhelming superiority of the allied air forces in zapping every airfield in sight and chasing Scud missiles has been only partially successful. It is now obvious that airfields —probably many airfields—are still operational. The large majority of the Iraqi air force is probably still intact. Therefore, it is rather utopian to think that, by themselves, smart munitions will win the war. That will not happen.
Another matter of some concern to me, which is based on my knowledge of and interest in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is that ammunition is not in such supply as to enable us to fight a war in perpetuity. I just hope that the ammunition storage sites are properly activated in NATO and that we will be able to prosecute the war to its conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be, with adequate supplies of ammunition and adequate storage. I desperately hope that any misgivings that one might have about limitations of stocks in this regard prove to be unfounded.
I wish to raise a point about the Scud missile and its derivatives. I have great sympathy for the Palestinians, but there is no reason why that should exclude sympathy for

93
the Israelis and the right of Israel to exist as a nation. However, I must confess that I was rather alarmed and surprised about the debate in Israel which emerged at the time of the bombardment of Tel Aviv and some other cities by Scud missiles. Although there was no loss of life, there was a distinct likelihood, because of public opinion and for historical reasons, of which I am fully aware, that the action might precipitate the Israeli Cabinet into military action.
I am thankful that those fears have been allayed, but I wonder for how long. I am sure that my voice and even the voices of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will not have an enormous impact on the decision-makers in Israel, but I can only hope that combined pressure will ensure that Israel does not retaliate in a limited form or in a form which it is very capable of exercising. To those who argue that the Arab nations will say that Israel can respond, but only in a proportionate manner and the alliance will hold together, I say that we must reject that theory. I would much prefer that the Israelis did not respond in any way.
I believe that it is important for the Ministry of Defence to sharpen up its act in terms of public information. The Select Committee on Defence conducted an inquiry after the Falklands war, when it was pointed out how dreadful the public information network was in the Ministry of Defence. It is better than it was then. I am not arguing the case to bring back Ian McDonald because all is forgiven, but I am emphasising that it is very important for the Ministry of Defence to sharpen its act in its presentation of information. Much more must be done on that front and I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence realises it.
Mr. Dalyell: Does not my hon. Friend think it odd that the Ministry of Defence has chosen the chairman of a private organisation, Shandwick, Mr. Peter Gummer,—I make no particular complaint that he happens to be the brother of a Cabinet Minister—to present the case? Does he agree that that needs some explanation?
Mr. George: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I was thinking more in terms of the actual presentation within the Ministry of Defence and the realisation by everyone concerned that the United States has presented its case infinitely better. There are lessons to be learnt.
Success in war is the result of many factors. It is the result of good quality equipment in sufficient quantity; of political and military leadership; of political goals and military strategy. Success is the result of the dedication of personnel, of political support and of luck. I very much hope that all those factors exist and that success will be guaranteed. However, I warn the House that there are some who feel that success is inevitable just because of numbers, legitimacy of cause and the fact that we are largely a first world nation taking on a second or third world nation which has aspirations to being a first world nation. But success is not necessarily guaranteed and things could go wrong. I hope that public opinion is sufficiently mature to appreciate that there may be setbacks and failure to achieve objectives in a short time. But such is the legitimacy of our cause and the desire to create a better world minus Saddam Hussein that I hope that any setbacks will be absorbed so that we can go on to
94
eventual victory and the creation of a more equitable and better world, not just in the middle east but throughout the globe.
8.46 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The fact that I agree with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has said indicates the degree of unanimity across the Floor of the House. It also makes the task of finding something new to say rather difficult. Therefore, I will be as brief as possible. Many points have been covered during the debate. As one who had the privilege in October last year of meeting some of the Royal Air Force crews deployed in Saudi Arabia, I was able to witness that tension which they felt and the calm, steely resolve that has been displayed for all of us to see on the television in recent days.
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the aircrews of the Royal Air Force for their sheer guts and professionalism in the way they have performed their task. When I woke up on Thursday morning, it was to the sombre realisation that an awesome war had been embarked upon. However, I felt a sense of pride that squadrons of the Royal Air Force were participating in some of the most difficult tasks in the battle to liberate Kuwait. I do not believe that pride to be in any way misplaced. It was a perfectly honourable and noble response to the actions of those crews flying alongside the equally brave American, Saudi and other air forces. As my own late father served with 31 Squadron RAF in the last war, I felt some personal pride that 31 Squadron was among the first in action last week.
I do not think we should be under any illusion that this has been an easy ride for the Royal Air Force. It certainly has not. As we know, there have been casualties, but the fact that the number of casualties has been so low as a proportion of the number of sorties undertaken must not lead us to believe that these aircrews have not met any opposition. They have met opposition, and they have been more than equal to that task. They have acquitted themselves with considerable courage and effectiveness.
Much of this has its origins in the training they have undertaken. I suppose that all of us have at one time or another received complaints from constituents about low flying and the intrusion that this has caused. I hope that all those who have written to us with such complaints will now reflect that their tolerance of the Royal Air Force in its low-flying exercises over all parts of the United Kingdom has played no small part not only in the successful military operations that have been undertaken but in ensuring that our crews, as they undertake such operations, have a much better chance of coming through alive than they would if they had not been allowed to engage in low-flying sorties. Yet now the Germans have imposed restrictions on crews serving in Germany.
Every life lost is a family's tragedy and one should not minimise that in any respect. However, one must acknowledge that the training itself undertaken by these pilots over many years has not been without hazard. Between 1987 and 1989 no fewer than 40 Royal Air Force lives were lost as a result of accidents.
I also pay tribute to the manufacturers of the equipment. I do not think that anyone has mentioned them. We all have constituents who work in the defence industries and they also have acquitted themselves well. I

95
also pay tribute to civilians who are serving with British Aerospace and other British and foreign companies in Saudi Arabia who are playing their part in this heroic enterprise. We all hope that the air strikes will bring the Iraqis to their senses. If they fail to do so, the land forces will be committed and many of my constituents serving with the Staffordshire Regiment will be involved. We all hope, not only for their sake but for the sake of the people of Iraq, that these air strikes will be successful in inflicting maximum military damage on Iraq in order to bring its leader and its people to their senses.
We have all been stunned by the sophistication of the equipment deployed, and riveted by the capabilities of the Patriot anti-missile system. The fact that a reporter can talk about a Tomahawk missile threading its way, at eye level, down a street shows the advances that we have made. However, there is a lesson for my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench in this. It is that we have to recognise that, without some of this sophisticated equipment, we might have been seeing different pictures, and the reports that my right hon. Friends have brought to the House would have been different.
I hope that we will learn the lesson that "Options for Change" must be reviewed in the light of this conflict. We owe it to our forces never to send them into battle with second-rate equipment. I hope that we shall continue the process of modernisation and updating, particularly as we do not know what is happening in eastern Europe. There are two new systems—the multi-launch rocket system, which is not yet in use, and the air-launched anti-radar missile, which is undergoing a baptism of fire.
Journalists have also shown great bravery. Although it is invidious to single out individuals, I feel that John Simpson of the BBC has distinguished himself in his presentation of cool and dispassionate reports. An enormous burden of resposibility rests on the shoulders of journalists, and I hope that they acknowledge that. Ministers and commanders in the battle are operating in a goldfish bowl. It is important that journalists recognise that they are, first and foremost, British and that they must use great discretion.
For example, one of my constituents complained that the Israelis were being hounded to say where the Scud missiles had fallen and that Israeli Ministers were being hounded about why they were not going to retaliate. That should not be the job of British journalists. They should not harry people engaged in this exercise. It may be necessary for my right hon. Friends and military commanders to give out disinformation. They may need to employ that tactic so as to save lives, when they are conducting this war in a goldfish bowl.
As has been said, we all have constituents with families involved in this business. I hope that journalists on both national and local papers will make it their business to ensure, before they go knocking on the doors of the families whose sons, husbands and daughters have been involved in action, that the visiting officers of the Ministry of Defence have been there first. I also hope that they will respect the privacy of these families.
I have a technical point for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. There is some concern about reinforcements. Young men who are queuing up in my constituency to enlist in the armed forces, particularly
96
the Army, are being turned away because there is a cap on recruiting. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us that there will be sufficient reserves, should it be necessary to call on them.
This will not be a swift business, and there could be setbacks. We owe it to our armed forces to remain united in a common resolve to remove this evil tyrant from the world. It is only right that the chemical and nuclear capabilities of Iraq should be taken out, and we should not flinch from removing the principal villain, Saddam Hussein. As a nation, we have every right to be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, who deserve unstinting support. In turn, they have good reason to be proud of their country's political leaders, on both sides of the House. They have served our forces well. I congratulate my right hon. Friends and the leaders of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. I hope that we shall be able to continue the enterprise in the spirit in which it started.
8.54 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I think that all of us would have preferred to be able to vote in a way that expressed our support for our troops and our concern for our civilians who are in Saudi Arabia, including some of my constituents who work with British Aerospace, and who cannot come back. However, the procedures of the House do not allow us to vote in that way, so we are particularly keen on making it clear that our concern for these people drives us to continue our protest that this war is not necessary, and was not inevitable. It is questionable whether it is even properly authorised by the United Nations. We should feel more confident about the United Nations aspect had we not seen for ourselves that the Secretary-General was not consulted in any way, shape or form about the timing of the action.
In December, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) gave us some wise words of warning. He said:
"What concerns many of us here and in the United States is that President Bush, by his words and deeds, is making it more difficult to use the necessary means that will restore peace and stability to the middle east. He is threatening to commit us all to a course that will destroy the possibility of peace and stability for at least a generation."—[Official Report, 11 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 858.]
That was as true as what my right hon. Friend said last week, which was that the British and American Governments have shown
"a quite stupefying lack of proportion."—[Official Report, 15 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 770.]
Many people are protesting about the situation that we are in, and are not willing to be drawn into saying that this is out of our hands. Some 106 Members of the European Parliament said a week ago that they wanted "no part" in the proposed war, and they solemnly denounced it
"before the peoples of the world."
They showed that the conditions laid down by the United Nations simply have not been abided by or complied with. They said:
"a collision between one million-plus armed men using the most fiendish modern military equipment, will restore neither peace nor security."
The objective of the United Nations is supposed to be to restore peace and security. How will the launching of this conflict do that?
People have said that sanctions would have been too difficult, as if war somehow is an easier option. Every one of the reasons given to show the difficulty of pursuing the

97
sanctions option applies even more to war. To say that Saddam Hussein is very powerful is equal to saying that it will be very difficult to defeat him in war. It has not been established that, however despotic a ruler, he could pursue his aims with a bankrupted economy.
The Catholic Primate of all Ireland yesterday said that it is impossible, because of the destructive power of modern weaponry, to talk in terms of a just war. The Primate said:
"a great opportunity to defeat Iraq through international sanctions had been missed … The saddest thing is that in modern war there are no victors; everyone is a loser."
If it would be difficult to conduct a protracted campaign of sanctions, how much more difficult will it be to conduct a protracted war? An American military doctor, reported in The Independent today, said that he thinks people do not appreciate the scale of the problem. He said;
"You're going to have a million men fighting each other here—think about that, a million, that's thousands of dead, tens of thousands of wounded. There will be Iraqi wounded coming in with British and American wounded and unidentified bodies. I've read about what happened in the Second World War. Many corpses, you just never find out whose they are. They all become unknown warriors."
We are here today solemnly discussing this matter as politicians. We are facing a Government who have not shown by a single word that they recognise the crime that was committed by the developed countries in arming Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein would not have been able to invade Kuwait or anywhere else had he not been armed by the developed nations. There has not been a word from the Government to show that they have understood that lesson. There has not been a word of apology to our forces for the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, there were means of making arms sold until recently by this country to Iraq.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary reminded the parliamentary Labour party this morning that, until March last year, Iraqi troops were being trained in this country. There has not been a word of apology or explanation from the Government about that, nor any assurance that such matters will not recur. It is Saddam Hussein this time. Which other dictator will it be next time, and which other forces from our country and our constituencies will face him?
I have no confidence that these lessons have been learnt. That is why I do not accept that the Opposition amendment is sufficiently strong or specific. It is not enough to say that the
"international community must return with renewed vigour to resolving the wider problems in the middle east".
What does "return with renewed vigour" mean? There has been no vigour shown. It cannot be returned to and there is nothing specific in the amendment, which is precisely why the Government can accept it. It is precisely that which undermines its value.
I would dearly have liked the Opposition to table an amendment which would have allowed us all to rally, to look for a future negotiated settlement—a peace settlement for the whole of the middle east. There is no sign of that at all. Therefore, very regretfully, I feel that I can show my concern for those Britons who are likely to be trapped in tanks and fried in the new trench warfare only by going into the Lobby against what is happening.
9.3 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: What is quite clear, after the hostilities have now been going for several days, is that this is a war that no one wanted, except for Saddam Hussein. This war would never have taken place if Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait on 2 August. It would never have taken place if, at any time between 2 August and 16 January, Saddam Hussein had withdrawn from Kuwait.
We in the Labour party argued that it should not even have taken place on 16 January. We argued that more time should have been given for sanctions and diplomacy to work. But it has to be said that, in the end, Iraq rejected diplomacy. The last-minute French initiative was turned down out of hand on the very last available day. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, declared that he was not interested in any further diplomatic efforts.
Now that the war is on, we in the Labour party give our full support to British troops as they go into action. The whole country will have been impressed with the feelings expressed by the members of our armed forces. They do not voice any "Boys' Own Paper" or Biggles relish for the fight. They are patriotic, but not jingoistic. They admit their fear but express their determination.
We mourn those who have lost their lives, and our heartfelt sympathy goes to their families. So far, casualties among our service men are not as many as must have been feared. So far, according to both Iraqi and allied sources, casualties among Iraqis are far fewer than might have been expected at the beginning, taking into account the ferocity and intensity of the conflict. However, every individual casualty on both sides is one too many, and that includes Israeli civilians. So far, by sheer chance and nothing else, none of them has been killed, but they have been targets for unprovoked terroristic missile attacks on civilian populated centres.
The most dominant reason why we want the war to be over as soon as possible is that we want the killing to be over as soon as possible. These deaths are the most unacceptable price paid by the people of the world, including the people of Iraq, for the aggression of Saddam Hussein.
If there is to be any justification for the payment of that price, we must be clear about three things. First, we must be clear about precisely why the war is being fought. Secondly, we must be clear about what we must do when the war is over.
For us in the Labour party, the reasons for fighting this unwanted war are clear and simple. For us, the war is not about oil. I would not condone the sacrifice of one human life in exchange for a billion barrels of oil. Oil may have been Saddam Hussein's objective in consuming Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, but it is not our objective.
Nor for us is the war about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. We know that Saddam Hussein is a thug who has murdered men with his own hand and brought misery to millions of his own Iraqi people, to the Kurds and now to the Kuwaitis. If he were to be deposed by his fellow Iraqis, I would rejoice. Getting rid of him personally, however, is not the objective of the war.
For us in the Labour party, the only aim of the war is the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 660 to 678, all of which require the removal of Iraq unconditionally from all of Kuwait. When that

99
specific United Nations objective has been achieved, the war can and should end. Until that objective has been achieved, to end the war would make the war itself, and the loss of life, completely pointless. Just as we must be entirely clear about why the war is being fought, so we must be equally clear about the circumstances in which it can be ended.
Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the war—no one else is responsible, only he—and that he is responsible also for continuing the tragedy? It is clear that once his forces leave Kuwait the war can be brought to an end.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall come to that in a moment. I agree fully with my hon. Friend.
There are some, including some hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, who advocate that the war should end immediately, at least in a ceasefire, to enable us to explore the possibilites of a diplomatic solution. Indeed, King Hussein of Jordan has already put forward a detailed plan for such a diplomatic solution. I have the utmost respect for King Hussein. I understand the geographical and political predicament in which he finds himself and his country, and I sympathise with him.
But there is no diplomatic settlement on the agenda today that was not on the agenda last Tuesday, when Tariq Aziz made it clear that Iraq was not interested in any diplomatic solution that had been proposed so far or in any diplomatic solution that might be proposed. Indeed, this very evening we learn that Saddam Hussein has rejected a peace plan put forward by President Gorbachev, who proposed that there should be a ceasefire followed by an Iraqi withdrawal. Saddam Hussein has rejected that as well.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has said, Saddam Hussein could bring the war to an end very speedily in one of the two ways in which it is possible to bring it to an end: he could announce without any delay that he accepts the United Nations resolutions requiring him to withdraw unconditionally from all of Kuwait, and he could then withdraw under the supervision of the armed forces now operating in Saudi Arabia. I believe that at that point, if it should come, the Security Council ought to have a role in supervising compliance with its own resolutions, in enforcing the withdrawal, and in policing it after it has taken place.
The war need not go on after withdrawal has started to take place to the satisfaction of the Security Council. Such withdrawal would prevent the loss of any more lives, including Iraqi lives.
Mr. Hind: May I postulate a position that we may yet have to face? If the allies drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait—let us bear in mind his lack of reasonableness in response to every diplomatic and humanitarian approach that has been made—and if he continues to fight even when we have control of Kuwait, what will be our position? Shall we seek to remove him by driving the land forces to Baghdad, or shall we remain in Kuwait and fight him off from there?
Mr. Kaufman: If we have to fight to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, it will have to be a matter of defeating him conclusively. There would be no other way: otherwise, he would continue to fight.
It has to be said that, if Saddam Hussein does not withdraw, it will be possible to bring this war to a close only with the military defeat of Iraq. That is what I have just said to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
Ms. Short: Is it not a fact that there is one other option? Suppose there were an Iraqi coup and Saddam Hussein were overthrown. If the new Government were to indicate that they wanted a ceasefire for the purposes of withdrawal, would we not have to look at the situation all over again?
Mr. Kaufman: Of course we would. If a new regime came to power in Baghdad, and if it were seen to be in control of the country, it would in those circumstances be complying with United Nations resolutions. On that basis, provided that withdrawal were properly carried out and supervised, there would be no further need for war to continue. Certainly that would be a way of operating.
I repeat, however, that, if the military defeat of Iraq is the only way in which Iraq can be removed from Kuwait, that will be the way in which Iraq is removed. That removal, indispensable though that is, will not be enough, because this crisis has demonstrated, if it ever needed to be demonstrated, that other wars could break out in the middle east unless the United Nations seizes this moment in which its authority has been manifest to exert that authority to bring about an overall and comprehensive middle east settlement. That is why we put on the Order Paper the amendment that will be decided at 10 o'clock.
I supported the United Nations insistence that a peaceful withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait could not be linked to a middle east settlement, or even to self-determination for the Palestinians. I agree that Saddam Hussein should neither be seen to be rewarded nor even claim to have been rewarded for his aggression against Kuwait with a conference on the future of the middle east.
That question of linkage, however, ended with the first air raids on Baghdad. Just as the United Nations will get its way on insisting that Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait must be unconditional so, once the war is successfully concluded, the United Nations must pursue its other resolutions relating to a middle east settlement.
The Security Council made its position clear a month ago when it unanimously passed resolution 681. That resolution refers to an accompanying statement of the president of the Security Council concerning, as the president put it,
"the method and approach for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict."
The statement from the president referred to the reaffirmed determination of the council members
"to support an active negotiations process in which all relevant parties should participate leading to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict through negotiations which should be based on resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) of the Security Council and which should take into account the right to security of all states in the region, including Israel, and the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people."

101
The president of the Security Council went on to draw attention to the agreement of the members of the Security Council that those objectives should be sought through what he called
"an international conference, at an appropriate time, properly structured."
There are reports that President Bush has assured the Israeli Prime Minister that, in recompense to the Israelis for their self-restraint in not making a military response to the wanton and unprovoked attacks on their civilian population, the United States will not agree to the convening of such a conference. I am glad that, in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), the Prime Minister made it clear that those reports are not accurate—he repudiated them.
What has been inflicted on Israel since Friday morning makes the convening of an international conference more essential than ever and in the interests, above all, of Israel herself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) were right to point that out.
Israel is the strongest military power in the middle east and, proportionately to her size, is probably the strongest military power in the world. Up until Lebanon, she had never lost a war—she has never lost a war in which her existence has been threatened. She would almost certainly win a war against her strongest neighbour, Syria, and she would be equally likely to win a war against Iraq. Israel may remain invincible, but she is not invulnerable. Such a victory would be bought at a terrible price. In this new era of missile warfare even Israel's control of the skies would not spare her civilian casualties far beyond anything that she has suffered in wars so far—indeed, probably far more than all the casualties of all the wars she has fought put together. Israel is particularly sensitive about casualties.
What is more, such a victory would not bring her security. However strong her defences, some missiles could get through. Indeed, it is recognition of this bleak fact that has compelled the Israeli Government to abandon a previously inflexible principle and accept on her soil the help of foreign military personnel, accompanying the Patriot missile launchers which have been sent from the United States. The present Government of Israel have taken the view that if forced to make a choice, they would choose security without peace over peace without security. However, the Scud missile attacks on Israeli population centres have proved that such a choice is no longer available, if it ever was. The fact is that Israel cannot have security without peace.
Mr. Max Madden: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Israeli Government to supply gas masks and other protective equipment to Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories who are the subject of permanent curfew and face great dangers? Will he do what he can to persuade the Israeli Government to ensure that gas masks and other protective gear are issued immediately and that the curfew is lifted to enable Palestinian Arabs to try to obtain food and go about their other daily activities?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly urge the Israeli Government to do that, but I must also tell my hon. Friend that Palestinians would not need gas masks if Saddam Hussein was not threatening gas warfare against Israel and other people, and if he did not have missiles which could be launched against the population and which are so
102
indiscriminate that they are liable to kill Israeli Arabs or Palestinians as much as Israeli Jews. The solution is For Saddam Hussein not to send the missiles.
Proof of this entire situation and of Israeli vulnerability was vividly illustrated when old friends of mine, living in a village at the foot of Mount Carmel, looked out of their window in the early hours of Friday morning and saw a Scud missile going by. A few moments later, they could feel their window panes tremble as the missile exploded six miles away.
That experience and the experience of other Israelis now show that only peace can bring security to Israel. Certainly territory cannot bring that security. The Scud attacks took place even while Israel continued to occupy the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Israel would be more secure without those territories in a middle east where all the countries of the region recognised their common vulnerability and common interest in a peace settlement.
The Syrians, whose poverty-stricken economy is burdened with a huge defence bill, are realising that. The Palestinians need no persuading. Nor, I am sure, do the stricken Lebanese. Recently, Mr. Shamir has said that, once the Iraq-Kuwait crisis is over, he would be willing to talk peace, even to the Iraqis. He has offered talks to President Assad of Syria and even said that he would talk to Palestinians. He must be persuaded to accept that such talks should be conducted not bilaterally and piecemeal, but at a conference organised under the auspices of the Security Council, which would have as its basic agenda resolutions 242 and 338.
Those resolutions have been accepted as a basis for a settlement by Israel, the PLO and the League of Arab States, which made an historic declaration in accepting de facto the existence of the state of Israel at its Casablanca summit in May 1989. Six months ago in Damascus, the vice-president of Syria told me that Syria would wish to negotiate with Israel on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338.
Resolution 338 simply calls on the parties concerned to implement resolution 242 in all its parts. Resolution 242
"Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for the acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force ….

Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment. of demilitarized zones".

That agenda has waited to be discussed for nearly 24 years, and should wait no longer; but it cannot be the complete agenda. The complete agenda must include self-determination for the Palestinians, as called for in resolution 681. Although I would not have chosen the precise words that he used, I agree with Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, who said in a letter published in today's edition of The Guardian:

103
"Had the Palestinian Question, which stands on its own merit, been addressed before August 2 1990, no justification could have been found for the attack on Israel."
The agenda must include ridding the middle east of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and action to prevent any further nations in the region from acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological warfare capability. It must include measures to limit and control arms sales in the region—arms sales that have been an almost criminal self-indulgence by too many avaricious countries jockeying for power.
It is the Soviet Union that has made possible the Iraqi missile attacks of Israel and Saudi Arabia; it is the French who will have supplied the weapons if there are Exocet attacks on naval vessels of the coalition. And, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) pointed out, it was the British Ministry of Defence that, throughout the 1980s, provided military training for Iraqis. Not only would Iraq not be able to wage war if outside Governments had not supplied her with weapons; if she had not been sold those weapons, she would not have been able to invade Kuwait in the first place.
It is not enough for us to be grateful to our service men, although we certainly are. It is not enough for us to feel concern and sympathy for civilian populations that are under attack—and we certainly do feel such sympathy for the Saudis in Jeddah and Dhahran, and for the Israelis, so brutally exposed to attack and so apprehensive that Jews may once again be the victims of killers using gas, as so many were not so long ago. I hope that the House will understand when I say how deeply it grieves me to see, on television and in the newspapers, pictures of Jews as victims once again.
Our sympathy also goes out to the Iraqi civilians who have been the victims of Saddam Hussein for longer than any other people in the middle east. However, gratitude to our service men and sympathy for Saddam Hussein's victims will be empty if we are complacent enough and indolent enough to leave the middle east, after this war, as riven with hostility and strife as it was before 2 August 1990.
This war is a tragedy. This crisis is an opportunity. We must honour the tragedy and grasp the opportunity. The United Nations must use its newly established authority to lay the basis of a permanent peace in the middle east.
9.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): First, may I apologise to a number of right hon. and hon. Friends whose contributions I missed. I hope that they will forgive me. They will understand that although I wished to respond fully to the debate, due to the military situation I have other heavy commitments at the moment. Nevertheless, I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that I have been kept very well posted about the speeches that I did not hear.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) wants BBC World Service broadcasting to be increased. When the crisis began in August, the BBC increased its broadcasts in Arabic from nine to ten and a half hours a day. Since hostilities began,
104
that has increased to 14 hours a day. I know that the BBC will take account of my right hon. Friend's comments and will consider extending its broadcasts, if it can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) referred to the background to the hostilities in the Gulf—the proposals in "Options for Change" and the annoucement that I made on 25 July, about a week before the invasion of Kuwait. We are continuing to study the proposals, in consultation with our NATO allies. We intend to proceed with rationalisation and other support changes in areas that do not affect our efforts in the Gulf. We shall make further announcements about our proposals in due course. I must emphasise, however, the obvious condition that I have just mentioned.
This is the fifth day of the counter-attack for the liberation of Kuwait. It is the fifth day of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) rightly said is an unwanted conflict. He referred to the fact that the Government and the House could not have done more in an effort to end this dispute by peaceful means and that the only other course left open to us was surrender to the aggression against Kuwait.
The feeling that we should go that extra mile, and that extra mile again, to try to achieve a peaceful solution to the dispute was the broad wish of the House; it felt that there should be the widest possible agreement among United Nations members to achieve a peaceful outcome. I respect those who hold a contrary view, but they will be the first to recognise, as I believe the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) recognised in his point of order at the beginning of the debate, that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—reflected by the agreement between the leaders of the two main parties—agree that the course on which we embarked with great reluctance, because none of us wanted conflict, was the only one left to us in the interests of a safer world.
The hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) all reflected that approach. Just as there is agreement in the House, it is agreed in the United Kingdom and throughout the world that such gross aggresssion cannot rest unchallenged and that such a challenge to order in the world and the United Nations cannot go uncorrected.
I should like to report to the House on events to date. I repeat that this is the fifth day of this unfortunate conflict; so much has happened in recent hours and days that it is difficult to recall how recently it started. It has been marked by the start of the air campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) mentioned the vital need to reduce Iraq's military capability so that the liberation of Kuwait can be achieved with the minimum of casualties among our forces. He also mentioned the need to prosecute the campaign against Iraq's military capability while ensuring the minimum number of civilian casualties.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. King: I shall carry out the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Gentleman, if he can contain himself, and shall answer his question. Instructions were given to ensure the minimum civilian casualties and to avoid damage, wherever possible, to religious and cultural sites. The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked what damage had been done to nuclear

105
insulations, power stations, research facilities or cooling stations. He may know that General Schwarzkopf made it clear yesterday that the attack had been on nuclear research and development facilities. He believed that those reactors had been thoroughly damaged and would not be effective for several years. The House will understand that given the activities of Saddam Hussein in recent times, given some greater awareness of the preparations that he had made and given some of the weapons that he had been developing, it must have been sensible, in the interests of regional security, to try to halt his progress to acquiring nuclear weapons.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. King: Perhaps I may proceed. The hon. Gentleman was promised a reply; he has now been given it.
Mr. Dalyell rose]—
Mr. King: During the five days, we have seen—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State is not giving way.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. King: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would resume his seat. I have done him the courtesy of ensuring that he received a reply to his question. It gives us no incentive to seek to respond to his questions if he is going to continue to intervene in that way. I ask him to show greater courtesy.
The overall level of sorties that have been flown—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. King: I am not giving way. I must respond to several hon. Members. The hon. Member has taken up a fair time in this debate and in others.
Some 8,000 sorties were made during these five days. As the House knows, they were conducted with cruise missiles, precision-guided bombs and bombs against military installations and involved airfield cratering. Against the background of several questions about the effectiveness—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. King: No. Against the background of questions which were asked previously about the effectiveness of command and control arrangements, the House will have noticed the remarkable efficiency and co-ordination of the allied air campaign in which those sorties were flown, involving—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out—no fewer than seven countries. The United Kingdom contributed to some 350 sorties. The House is now familiar with the use of the JP233, the air-launched anti-radar missile and bombs, the Jaguars, Tornadoes, F3s and fighters, as well as the GRls for the low-level attacks and now the GR1A reconnaissance aircraft for attacks in the west, the south and south-east of Iraq and in Kuwait.
106
I was not surprised to note my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), with their close interest in the RAF, taking understandable pride in the remarkable achievements of that service.
I must report to the House that since we last met and debated these issues, three Tornados have been lost in action and a further one was lost shortly after take-off. This has raised questions about the role of the GR1 in terms of its airfield denial capability, low-flying night attacks and the challenge that they pose. I do not think that it is any secret to those who follow these matters that the Tornado GR1 has a unique capability. We provided it for this campaign at the special request of the allies, because of that unique capability and the vital need in the early stages of the campaign to ensure that the rest of the air campaign could be carried forward with the minimum chance of interdiction or of threat from an Iraqi air force. That campaign has been carried out with the greatest courage.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) referred to the low-flying activity and training in this country that have made possible that capability which has been shown to such good effect now. We recognise the extraordinary courage shown by the aircrews in the recent campaign.
I do not know whether the House realises that last night an assessment was made for me showing what happened when a sortie of GR I s attacked one particularly significant airfield in Iraq. The assessment was that those aircraft had to face no fewer than 25 tonnes of ammunition from conventional anti-aircraft guns, through which they successfully passed without any loss. That is a measure of the courage and determination of those aircrews. They are a vital component in ensuring that the rest of the air campaign can go forward with the minimum of casualties. That courage, which was also shown by the pilots of Jaguar aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft, backed up by the tankers, has attracted the admiration of us all.
We must remember that part of the desert shield which is in place is well represented by the Navy in the northern Gulf. HMS Gloucester and HMS Cardiff are in the front of the picket line, helping to protect the United States carriers providing the strike aircraft and the United States battleships with their Tomahawk cruise missiles which are proving so effective and accurate. The first armoured division is now preparing to move forward and is completing its final training. All those factors, backed by round-the-clock work by the ground crews, make up the team effort required to ensure that we make the most effective contribution.
Let me join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the quality of support from industry. I do not know whether hon. Members realise how many representatives of the companies supplying equipment to our forces are out there in the Gulf at the moment. They are in the front line, within the range of Scud missiles, helping to keep the engines of our Challenger tanks going and our aircraft in the air. A very considerable number of civilians—from the constituencies of almost every hon. Member—are working, and staying at their work, despite the threats they face.
I wish to discharge my duty to the House by giving the clearest possible assessment of the progress of the campaign to date. That is especially difficult because, almost since the campaign started, we have been severely

107
hampered by the weather. It is most important to have an accurate image and an accurate way of identifying how many of our objectives have been achieved. I have to tell the House that, at the moment, that is extremely difficult. The whole House has seen the pictures of spectacular achievements in terms of accuracy. We have reason to believe that, contrary to some of the claims that have been made, civilian casualties have been kept remarkably low in relation to the scale of the attacks that have been made.
Mr. Nellist: On that point—
Mr. King: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has had a chance to make his speech and I wish to respond as clearly as I can to the contributions that have been made.
For all the remarkable achievements of the initial days of the air campaign, the House, the country and the world are starting to get a clearer picture of the scale of the war machine that has been created in Iraq and of the size of the task that still lies ahead of us. It is true that we believe that we have now achieved air superiority, but there is a clear distinction between air superiority when ones opponent's air force does not choose to fly and air supremacy in which we can be sure of our control of the skies. It is worth recognising that, although we have had considerable successes, our only certainty at the moment is that, of the 800 or so aircraft that Iraq possesses, some 20 have so far been destroyed. That clearly underlines the scale of the task that lies ahead.
Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. King: I am very short of time.
Should a further reminder be needed, let me say that the Scud missile clearly represents a challenge to us all. I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the deliberate attempt to provoke Israel, and the strength of Israel's response. We are making every effort to identify and destroy Scud missles. It is difficult to be sure of the figures. I have been criticised for not giving accurate figures so far, but nobody is quite sure exactly how many Scud missiles and missile launchers the Iraqis have. We believe that they have some 30 fixed missile launchers and more than 20 mobile launchers. General Schwarzkopf believed that we could have destroyed as many as 16 so far, but only today we identified between eight and 10 further mobile launchers, of which we believe three were destroyed. As the House knows, I have had reports of another Scud launching tonight—at 7.19 pm—although we believe that the missile landed in the sea off Al Jubayl without causing any casualties.
The events of the past two days reveal a deliberate attempt to provoke Israel into retaliation to undermine the cohesion of the alliance. We must be very impressed by the strength of the Israeli response. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and others drew particular attention to that and to the fact that the Israelis have been willing not to retaliate immediately and to recognise the allies' efforts to deal with the Scud missiles.
That provocation through the use of Scud missiles is probably only the first in a series of attempts by Saddam Hussein in one way or another to split the alliance or to otherwise provoke responses that will make the cohesion
108
of the alliance more difficult to maintain. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to the threat of terrorism and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set that threat in context. We are taking serious precautions about that.
Another sign of the nastiness of the regime that we face is to be seen in the announcements that have been made in the past 24 hours. Only yesterday, Saddam Hussein reassured his troops that, if they were captured in conflict, they would be treated under the terms of the Geneva convention. A man who can stand up and give his people that assurance and then treat our prisoners of war as he does is beyond contempt.
I do not know whether I was the only person, when looking at the pictures, to get the strong impression that those people were reading a prompter. There cannot be many people who believe that that was the free expression of free men able to express their own thoughts.
We have made the strongest representations again today to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the representatives of which have been here today seeking access to Iraqis who have been detained to ensure that they are receiving proper treatment. Of course, they were granted access and of course we gave them every opportunity, to which they are entitled, to visit Iraqis to see whether they are receiving proper treatment. We absolutely insist that as we make those facilities available in this country, so similar facilities must be available to representatives of the International Red Cross in Baghdad.
We have seen gross breaches of the Geneva convention. Breach No. 1 was putting prisoners on display. Coercion to say things that they might not otherwise have said freely was breach No. 2. Perhaps the most obscene breach was the use of those prisoners as human shields and their being placed at possible targets.
I am absolutely convinced that the sight of our prisoners being treated in that way does not undermine public morale. That sight reinforces the morale of people in this country that they will not give in to someone who treats our service men like that.
We are anxious to consider the future provisions for any service men and women who may be injured or killed during the current conflict. We provide for them and their families through the armed forces pension scheme and through war widows pensions. However, I know that many people, businesses and organisations may wish to show their appreciation for the men and women in our armed services who are risking their lives in this vital task.
I am therefore today setting up a Gulf Trust to which donations can be given. The Trust will be operated by the united services trustee and it will channel donations to the three service benevolent funds which, working within charity law, will distribute moneys to those in need. I have decided to adopt that approach so that there can be a single point for donations which will enable the great experience of the service benevolent funds to be used.
My overriding aim is to provide the most helpful support on a long-term basis for any people who are wounded and the families of any who may be killed. I know that many people may wish to contribute, depending on circumstances, through the trust. I am grateful to have the opportunity to make that announcement tonight.
One of the biggest challenges that we face in giving the necessary support to our troops in the Gulf is the problem of the unique circumstances that we all knew that we

109
would face—the first war by television. It poses very real challenges in ensuring that we have effective communications and that we keep people in this country as well informed as we can.
The hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George) drew attention to some of the problems that we are having in the Ministry of Defence. We have made mistakes. We will try to learn from them. The hon. Gentlemen understand that it is uniquely difficult, when we have CNN actually showing pictures of the missiles coming in and of the Patriot anti-missile missiles going out, when it is another six hours before anybody can work out whether we are seeing a successful interception, the explosion of a missile, or the successful defeat of a missile. Some of the communications challenges are very serious. I take seriously the criticisms that were made, and we shall do our best to improve.
I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) for what he said about the work of the people of the Ministry of Defence. It is very easy to write up the present conflict in terms of the brave boys in the front line and a lot of dundering bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence—[Interruption.] Ministers can take the flak—they have to take the flak. I want to pay my tribute to the teamwork that is going on round the clock, right through the whole organisation at present to make sure that it is not done just by magic. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, 3,000 tonnes of supplies a day are arriving. It is not just by magic that the troops in the front line are actually able to say that they believe that, compared with the other forces there, they have the best equipment and the best organisation for the job. I should like to pay my tribute to them.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil said at the end of his speech that this is perhaps the easiest part. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) echoed that thought. We undoubtedly recognise the challenge that we face. After the first few hours of the air campaign, the first excitement and recognition of the power, sophistication and amazing skill of some of the new weaponry fooled a number of people into thinking that this would be a short and easy expedition. I think that there is now a more sober recognition in the House of the scale of the challenge to our forces and of our responsibility.
I give fair warning to the House that there may be difficult times ahead. There may be times when our fortitude will be tested. Yet I remind the House why we are here. We must show the same fortitude as was shown tonight by those pilots and those aircrew who had been out yet again—another night on another mission. All returned safely, I am happy to say. They can expect the courage that they are showing of us as well.
It is a time, as Secretary of State for Defence, to have to decide on deployments and to have to determine which units, which men and women will be sent out to the Gulf, an area of danger, and an area of great uncertainty where there is a serious threat of new weaponry and danger. I could not do that if 1 did not believe that the cause was just. I could not do it if I did not profoundly believe that it was right. That is why I commend our motion and the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put, That the main Question, as amended, be agreed to:—
The House divided: Ayes 563, Noes 34

Division No. 40

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

Burns, Simon

Adley, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Aitken, Jonathan

Butler, Chris

Alexander, Richard

Butterfill, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Caborn, Richard

Allason, Rupert

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Alton, David

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Amess, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Amos, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Anderson, Donald

Carrington, Matthew

Arbuthnot, James

Carttiss, Michael

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cartwright, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Cash, William

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Ashby, David

Chapman, Sydney

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Chope, Christopher

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Churchill, Mr

Ashton, Joe

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Aspinwall, Jack

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Atkins, Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Atkinson, David

Clark, Rt Hon Sir W. (Croydon

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

S)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Baldry, Tony

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clelland, David

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Barron, Kevin

Colvin, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Conway, Derek

Battle, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Beckett, Margaret

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Beggs, Roy

Cope, Rt Hon John

Beith, A. J.

Corbett, Robin

Bell, Stuart

Cormack, Patrick

Bellingham, Henry

Couchman, James

Bellotti, David

Cousins, Jim

Bendall, Vivian

Cox, Tom

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Cran, James

Benton, Joseph

Critchley, Julian

Benyon, W.

Crowther, Stan

Bermingham, Gerald

Cummings, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cunningham, Dr John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Blair, Tony

Curry, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Darling, Alistair

Blunkett, David

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Boateng, Paul

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

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boswell, Tim

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Devlin, Tim

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dewar, Donald

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dicks, Terry

Bowis, John

Dixon, Don

Boyes, Roland

Dobson, Frank

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Doran, Frank

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dorrell, Stephen

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dover, Den

Brazier, Julian

Dunn, Bob

Bright, Graham

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Durant, Sir Anthony

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

Dykes, Hugh

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Eadie, Alexander

Browne, John (Winchester)

Eastham, Ken

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Eggar, Tim

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Emery, Sir Peter

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Buck, Sir Antony

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Buckley, George J.

Evennett, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

111

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Henderson, Doug

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Fallon, Michael

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Fatchett, Derek

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Favell, Tony

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Fearn, Ronald

Hill, James

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Hind, Kenneth

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Holt, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Home Robertson, John

Flynn, Paul

Hordern, Sir Peter

Fookes, Dame Janet

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

Forman, Nigel

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Forth, Eric

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Foster, Derek

Howells, Geraint

Foulkes, George

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Franks, Cecil

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Freeman, Roger

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

French, Douglas

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Fry, Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Galbraith, Sam

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Gale, Roger

Illsley, Eric

Gardiner, Sir George

Ingram, Adam

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Irvine, Michael

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Irving, Sir Charles

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Jack, Michael

George, Bruce

Jackson, Robert

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Janman, Tim

Gill, Christopher

Janner, Greville

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Jessel, Toby

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Johnston, Sir Russell

Golding, Mrs Llin

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Goodlad, Alastair

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Gorst, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Gould, Bryan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Graham, Thomas

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Kennedy, Charles

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Key, Robert

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Kilfedder, James

Gregory, Conal

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Kirkwood, Archy

Grist, Ian

Knapman, Roger

Grocott, Bruce

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Ground, Patrick

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Grylls, Michael

Knowles, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Knox, David

Hague, William

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Latham, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Lawrence, Ivan

Hampson, Dr Keith

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Hanley, Jeremy

Leadbitter, Ted

Hannam, John

Lee, John (Pendle)

Hardy, Peter

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

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

Leighton, Ron

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Harman, Ms Harriet

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Harris, David

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Haselhurst, Alan

Lewis, Terry

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Lilley, Peter

Hawkins, Christopher

Livsey, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Haynes, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Hayward, Robert

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Lord, Michael

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

112

McAvoy, Thomas

Oppenheim, Phillip

McCartney, Ian

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Macdonald, Calum A.

Page, Richard

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Paice, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Patchett, Terry

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Patnick, Irvine

Maclean, David

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

McLeish, Henry

Patten, Rt Hon John

Maclennan, Robert

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

McLoughlin, Patrick

Pawsey, James

McMaster, Gordon

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Pendry, Tom

McNamara, Kevin

Pike, Peter L.

McWilliam, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Madel, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Major, Rt Hon John

Portillo, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Mans, Keith

Powell, William (Corby)

Maples, John

Prescott, John

Marek, Dr John

Price, Sir David

Marland, Paul

Quin, Ms Joyce

Marlow, Tony

Radice, Giles

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Raffan, Keith

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Randall, Stuart

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Rathbone, Tim

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Redwood, John

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Martlew, Eric

Reid, Dr John

Mates, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Maude, Hon Francis

Rhodes James, Robert

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Richardson, Jo

Maxton, John

Riddick, Graham

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Meacher, Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Meale, Alan

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Robertson, George

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Robinson, Geoffrey

Michael, Alun

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Rogers, Allan

Miller, Sir Hal

Rooker, Jeff

Mills, Iain

Rooney, Terence

Miscampbell, Norman

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Mitchell, Sir David

Rost, Peter

Moate, Roger

Rowe, Andrew

Monro, Sir Hector

Rowlands, Ted

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Ryder, Richard

Moore, Rt Hon John

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Morgan, Rhodri

Salmond, Alex

Morley, Elliot

Sayeed, Jonathan

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Sedgemore, Brian

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Moss, Malcolm

Sheerman, Barry

Mowlam, Marjorie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Shelton, Sir William

Mudd, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Murphy, Paul

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Nelson, Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Short, Clare

Nicholls, Patrick

Sillars, Jim

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sims, Roger

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Norris, Steve

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

O'Brien, William

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

O'Hara, Edward

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

O'Neill, Martin

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

113

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Snape, Peter

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Vaz, Keith

Soley, Clive

Viggers, Peter

Spearing, Nigel

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Speed, Keith

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Speller, Tony

Walden, George

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Squire, Robin

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wallace, James

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Waller, Gary

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Walley, Joan

Steen, Anthony

Walters, Sir Dennis

Steinberg, Gerry

Ward, John

Stem, Michael

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Stevens, Lewis

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wareing, Robert N.

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Warren, Kenneth

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Stott, Roger

Watts, John

Straw, Jack

Wells, Bowen

Sumberg, David

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Summerson, Hugo

Wheeler, Sir John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wiggin, Jerry

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

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wilshire, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wilson, Brian

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Winnick, David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wolfson, Mark

Thorne, Neil

Wood, Timothy

Thornton, Malcolm

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Thurnham, Peter

Worthington, Tony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Yeo, Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tracey, Richard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tredinnick, David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Trimble, David

Trippier, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trotter, Neville

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Turner, Dennis

Mr. Tom Sackville.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Livingstone, Ken

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Loyden, Eddie

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McAllion, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McFall, John

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

McKelvey, William

Clay, Bob

Madden, Max

Cohen, Harry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mullin, Chris

Dalyell, Tam

Nellist, Dave

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

Parry, Robert

Fyfe, Maria

Primarolo, Dawn

Galloway, George

Skinner, Dennis

Gordon, Mildred

Strang, Gavin

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hinchliffe, David

Wray, Jimmy

Hood, Jimmy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Noes:

Lambie, David

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Lamond, James

Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House expresses its full support for British forces in the Gulf and their contribution to the implementation of United Nations resolutions by the multinational force, as authorised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 678; commends the instructions to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible; and expresses its determination that, once the aggression in Kuwait is reversed, the United Nations and the international community must return with renewed vigour to resolving the wider problems in the Middle East.

Departmental Select Committees
10.20 pm
Sir Marcus Fox: On behalf of the Committee of Selection, I beg to move,
That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. John Browne, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Porter and Mr. David Shaw be members of the Social Security Committee.
Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take the motion relating to the Health Committee:
That Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. James Couchman, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Alice Mahon, Sir David Price, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.
As the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is beyond the scope of the two motions, I have not selected it.[Interruption.]
Will those hon. Members who are not remaining for this debate please leave quietly?
Sir Marcus Fox: I am well aware that the tactics being indulged in by the Liberal Democrats, or the Scottish Liberal Democrats—I hardly dare call this an amendment —are intended to prevent these very important Committees from being set up. I wish that those hon. Members had chosen something more appropriate on which to take a stand of this kind. Following the decision to split the huge Department of Health and Social Security into two Departments, it was natural that there should be two Select Committees. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said during the Christmas Adjournment debate:
"A new Committee is to be set up and as a member of that Committee I must express my deep sense of frustration that the new Select Committee has been prevented from functioning by the blocking actions of some Scottish Liberals whose names are on the Order Paper. I understand that they feel strongly about the lack of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and that that has been an ongoing quarrel between them and the Government … I object strongly when that quarrel leads to the frustration of two other Select Committees, both of which are charged to oversee the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society."—[Official Report, 19 December 1990; Vol. 183, c. 332.]
I am sure that my hon. Friend was right.
Mr. James Wallace: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection for giving way to a fellow member of the Committee. He is underlining the frustration of prospective members of the Health Committee at being delayed for just two months. How does he think Scottish Members feel at having been held up for all of this Parliament?
Sir Marcus Fox: As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee of Selection, I thought that he might have become more impassioned during the various meetings of that Committee. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are now in the fourth year of this Parliament. It is somewhat surprising to me that, having failed to set up the Committee in the past two years, at this late hour we should now be faced with such tactics.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Marcus Fox: Yes, I am a very reasonable guy.
Mr. Salmond: Does the Chairman of the Committee of Selection concede that if he and his Committee had done their job properly, we would not be here tonight?
Sir Marcus Fox: If the hon. Gentleman will bide his time I intend to cover briefly the history of why it was impossible to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could curtail that particular discussion by pointing out that there is not one single Conservative Member representing Scotland sitting on the Benches tonight and that the failure of those Conservative Members to take up their posts on the Scottish Select Committee is the problem we face.
Sir Marcus Fox: I am the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I am not in the Whips Office and I have no control over the attendance of hon. Members. I should have thought that the absence of Conservative Members from Scotland was proof that none of them was willing to serve on that Select Committee [Interruption.] I see that the most distinguished of my Scottish colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is now present. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has found a volunteer and we shall have some success in establishing the Select Committee in the future.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why not ask him?
Sir Marcus Fox: It is my intention to listen carefully to the debate. If a glint of new hope emerges that the Scottish Select Committee can be set up, I shall take careful note.
Mr. Ian McCartney: I intervene as an English Member of Parliament, despite the accent, and as a former member of the previous Select Committee on Social Services. I have a great deal of sympathy with Scottish Opposition Members. I know of the negotiations that have taken place to divide the former Select Committee into the Select Committee on Social Security and the Select Committee on Health. If half of that energy had been put into establishing the Scottish Select Committee, we would be here acknowledging that that Select Committee should be set up. This is not just a Scottish issue but a House of Commons issue. The failure to set up the Scottish Select Committee is frustrating the will of the House, and that failure is based upon party political advantage as perceived by Conservative Members.
Sir Marcus Fox: Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to be able to set up all 14 Select Committees. It is a failure on the part of my Committee that we were unable to set up the Scottish Select Committee. However, Opposition Members should read carefully the three debates that we have had on this matter. They will then realise that that failure is not due to lack of effort on our part. I am Chairman of the Committee of Selection, which consists of Members from all parts of the House. None of them has failed to support me during our previous debates. Obviously hon. Members' memories are failing them.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if and when a Select Committee on Health is established, should that be the will of the House, it will be free to discuss Scottish issues?
Sir Marcus Fox: I note that there is a big if, and I should rather finish my speech before—
Sir David Price: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The former Select Committee on Social Services never felt the least inhibited from going anywhere within the United Kingdom. We went to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and I have no doubt that the two new Committees will do precisely the same.
Sir Marcus Fox: Indeed, and if the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) looks carefully at the work of the various Select Committees, he will see that many of them have looked at Scottish matters. The fact that there has been no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has not stopped matters affecting Scotland being discussed by Select Committees. The record shows that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish.") Hon. Members will not have a chance to speak, if they carry on intervening.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman says that Scottish affairs have not missed out as a result of the failure of the House to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. How can he say that, when we have not had the facility to scrutinise and call into question Government policy on health, social security, fishing, steel and a whole variety of matters that directly affect the daily lives of the people of Scotland? Surely he must accept that the House has failed to supply us with that particular opportunity.
Sir Marcus Fox: Scottish Members have not been backward in pushing forward subjects that they want discussed in various Select Committees. It is within my recollection that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is looking into Ravenscraig and such issues. Naturally, I understand that had there been a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, Scottish Members would have had another forum to look into these matters. The Scottish Grand Committee still exists and other Committees look at matters which affect Scotland.
After the 1987 election it took six months to set up the 13 departmental Committees. It was not the first time that there had been delays. There are delays after every general election.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not four years.
Sir Marcus Fox: We had the first debate on 2 December 1987 and two subsequent debates. Delay followed delay. During the long, protracted discussions between the usual channels, there was much toing and froing. If only agreement had been reached earlier, the Committee could have been set up. Initially, there were objections to the Government having a majority on the Committee. It took a while before the size of the Committee was reduced from 13 to nine to allow the Government to have the majority. When Tory names were suggested, Opposition Members felt that no English Members should be allowed to make up numbers which, again, caused delays. When that principle was accepted, it was too late in the day.
Mr. Donald Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is misdirecting himself. From the beginning we made it clear that we would not stand on any narrow interpretation of the rules. We made it clear in writing at the request of the then Leader of the House, who is now the Secretary of State for Energy, that we would accept any Member from any part of the United Kingdom. The

117
only qualification was that such a Member should have a genuine interest in the affairs of Scotland and wish to see proper scrutiny of Government business. We also made it clear from the beginning that we would agree to reducing the size of the Committee from the largest to the smallest, if necessary. We have done everything we can. The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong in suggesting that at any time the possibility of setting up the Committee was held out to me. I have knocked at doors repeatedly and I shall continue to knock until we receive an affirmative answer.
Sir Marcus Fox: The hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault. He has many subjects to cover. I am the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and this matter occupies much of my time. If he refers to the Official Report of Tuesday 22 December 1988, he will see a speech from the previous Leader of the House in which he describes fully the discussions which took place. It is surprising that all this should have gone on so long, if what the hon. Gentleman says is the case. If there had been unanimity, we could have set up the Committee quickly.
Mr. Dewar: This is, to me, a matter of some importance. The Government's position has consistently been not that they offered a suggested package of reforms that was not acceptable to the Opposition, but that they could not staff the Committee: they could not persuade Scottish Conservative Members to serve, and could not get anyone from furth of Scotland to serve. That has been the position under three Leaders of the House, and I understand that it is still the position. It is entirely inaccurate, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts, to say that at some point we were offered a deal which we refused. The only ground that I can think of for such a claim is that at one point, when no Conservative Members were coming forward, we were not in a position to put up members from the Opposition, because we elect them democratically. There was a delay of one week then, when there were no Conservative volunteers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the debate is about the composition of the Select Committee on Social Security and Health.
Sir Marcus Fox: I stand by what was recorded in Hansard on 20 December 1988. At least the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has admitted that there was a bit of a delay. At one stage, there were five Conservative nominations. It is clear that we are not going to agree about what went on at the beginning of all this, but it is a fact that on 9 December—
Mr. David Lambie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing—as well as the composition of other Select Committees—the future of the Scottish Select Committee. Why is no Scottish Minister present?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about the composition of the Select Committees on Social Security and Health; it has nothing to do with Scotland.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Sir Giles Shaw.
Sir Giles Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it or is it not the case that the
118
amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has not been selected? If it has not been selected, surely there is no room in order for discussion of the Scottish issue.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issues of health and social security are of vital importance to Scotland. Surely, given the different administrative system there, it is within the rights of Scottish Members to raise with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) how those issues will be dealt with.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it is not in order.
Mr. Wallace rose—
Mr. Jimmy Hood rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: One at a time, please.
It is not in order to discuss in detail the hypothetical issue of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I now call Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may not be aware that, before you took the Chair, the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) set out to explain the history of the establishment of the Scottish Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, who was in the Chair, did not once bring him to order. Clearly that is the issue that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to address; as the hon. Member for Shipley has been allowed to advance his case, surely other hon. Members should be allowed to do the same.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind, but this must not be a debate about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; it must be a debate about the matters on the Order Paper.[Interruption.] Order. Will hon. Members listen for a moment? An obligation is placed on me to ensure that the debate is kept within the confines of the motion on the Order Paper. Now let us get on.
Sir Marcus Fox: Although we all knew the reason behind the two Committees' not being set up, I thought that I should in all fairness try to explain. I may have been misunderstood, in which case I merely wish to say that we reported to the House some two years ago that we could not set up the Committee in a way that would obtain the acceptance of the House. [Interruption.] Interventions have taken me much further down that road than I wanted to go. There is no reason why the two Select Committees should not be set up. The sooner they are, the better it will be for the House and the country.
10.39 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection for introducing a matter of great importance to Opposition Members generally and to Scottish Members in all parts of the House in particular. From personal contacts and correspondence with potential members of these two huge departmental Select Committees, I know that by using this procedural device we have held up their work. That was never our intention. Our intention alwayss was to obtain a short debate on the consequences of not having a departmental Select Committee to consider

119
Scottish affairs. Our amendment is technically out of order, but we have achieved something, since we are now holding a brief debate on the subject.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are not holding a debate on that subject. We are holding a debate, I hope, on the motions on the Order Paper.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am responding to the way in which the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) introduced the two motions. I hope to deal with them in detail. I do not intend to dwell on an area of controversy, at the risk of being ruled out of order.
We never intended to thwart in any way the entirely logical and commendable step of splitting the Select Committee into two component parts—health and social security—and we never intended unduly to delay the work of those Committees. However, under Standing Order 6(2), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has a duty to pay regard to the qualifications of those members who serve on the two new departmental Committees. He also has a duty under the same Standing Order to take into account the composition of the House.
Will the hon. Gentleman and the Committee of Selection now take account of the fact that no departmental Committee is considering Scottish matters? That has consequences for the qualifications of the members of new departmental Committees such as the ones that will be set up as a result of the motions. It has consequences, too, for the composition of existing Select Committees.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. We all appreciate the need for a Select Committee to consider Scottish affairs. However, either intentionally or inadvertently, he has held up the important work of both Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman says that he has already made his point. Will he therefore vote for the motion?
Mr. Kirkwood: We set out with the aim of getting this important matter considered by the House. Technically we have failed, but we have succeeded to the extent that at least the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is having to account to the House for his actions. I did not intend to delay the setting up of the two new Select Committees for more than a few weeks. The hon. Member for Shipley grabbed hold of me by the scruff of the neck and made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was worried about reports that may not wholeheartedly approve of what the Government are doing. That remains to be seen. The Chairman is bound to take account of the fact that a major departmental Select Committee has not been set up. The absence of a Scottish Select Committee is in direct contravention of Standing Orders.
Mr. David Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in a previous debate on the composition of Select Committees the then Leader of the House suggested that Select Committees could take cognisance of the Scottish dimension? As the only Scottish member of the Transport Select Committee, and as its Chairman, I am aware that that suggestion does not work and that it is neither desirable nor practical. What is sometimes important in Scotland is not of the least interest
120
to other Select Committee members. Liberal Democrats have done the House a service by drawing attention to the matter in their amendment.
Significantly, there is no Scottish Member on the Social Security Select Committee. How will Scottish social security problems be considered? The only Scottish Member of the proposed Health Select Committee is my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have read previous debates in which the former Leader of the House made precisely that point. In addition, I have carefully read the excellent reports that the Social Services Select Committee has produced. I refer to the fifth report, "The Government's Plans for the Future of the NHS", and the eighth report, "Resourcing the National Health Service", in which only passing reference is made to the Scottish health service, which has a completely different structure and confronts different problems in treating diseases and illness.
Mr. Wallace: Will my hon. Friend confirm, having read the reports of the Social Services Select Committee, that although it took evidence from the Department of Health and Social Security and, latterly, the Department of Health on three occasions, there is no indication that it ever took oral evidence from the Scottish Office? Although Leaders of the House said that Select Committees were able to consider the Scottish dimension, they clearly failed to do so.
Mr. Kirkwood: That is true. There is a more fundamental flaw in the membership of the proposed Select Committee on Health. The Department of Health has responsibility for England and Wales but no responsibility north of the border, where the health service is governed by Scottish Office Ministers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), whose interest in and record on the health service is without equal. I have every confidence in his ability as Chairman of the proposed Select Committee on Health, but that Committee will never be able to consider the health service in Scotland, except in exceptional circumstances, which is entirely unfair.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he cannot get away with his latter statement, which was inaccurate. The Select Committee on Social Services visited Scotland many times and has full authority to take evidence from whatever Minister it wishes to summon before it, including Scottish Ministers if necessary. We visited Scotland as part of our inquiries into the resourcing and structure of the health service. I congratulate Scotland on some of the excellent health care facilities that it provides. In some ways, other parts of the United Kingdom can learn from it.
Mr. Kirkwood: Perhaps I am getting carried away with my own rhetoric. I was not aware that the Social Services Select Committee had visited Scotland during an inquiry into health matters.
Mr. Winterton: It has.
Mr. Kirkwood: I stand corrected.
Sir David Price: Three of our inquiries were greatly helped by visiting Scotland: the first was on acquired immune deficiency syndrome; the second was on mental health—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman talks about regional differences. We were impressed with the way in which Edinburgh was handling matters. We were impressed with the way in which Fife was handling mental health and care in the community. On primary health care, we were impressed by the fact that in Scotland, unlike England, the general practitioner service is not separated from the hospital service. We benefited from those three inquiries. My understanding is that Select Committees are meant to operate on a United Kingdom basis, not a national basis.
Mr. Kirkwood: From memory, those were comparative studies. As a member of an all-party committee considering AIDS and as a Member who represents a constituency not far from Edinburgh, 1 am aware of that fact. I also acknowledge the importance of mental health provision. I again challenge the hon. Member for Eastleigh to say when he took evidence in Scotland from Scottish Office Ministers on these two major issues. As the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene, the point is made.
Sir David Price: Two of our advisers on the Committee were Scottish.
Mr. Wallace: That is because all the best doctors are Scottish.
Mr. Kirkwood: As my hon. Friend says, all the best doctors are Scottish—it is impossible to avoid them.
The two new departmental Select Committees will produce reports, but the absence of a Scottish Select Committee will continue. If the Committee of Selection hopes that the next election will provide extra Conservative Members from north of the border to be prospective Committee members, it has a surprise coming to it. The Government are not using their best endeavours to address the problem. The Committee of Selection should consider the long term, having regard to the fact that it can add Members to and discharge them from departmental Select Committees.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) will confirm that the Government have never put English names forward, as he is able to do. There has never been adequate consideration of the suggestion that Scots-born English Members with an interest in health or social services north of the border should serve on a Scottish Select Committee. Although that would be very much second best, it would be acceptable. That would be a high price to pay to get a Committee going, but it has never even been attempted. That sad omission is symptomatic of the way in which the Government treat the democratic process north of the border. They show scant regard and comtempt for it.
The new departmental Select Committees will have difficulty operating north of the border. The geography and ambient temperatures in Scotland mean that severe weather payments have greater significance to the population of Scotland than they do to the English population. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and others have introduced ten-minute Bills to do something about that. Many of my constituents suffer from rural deprivation, poverty and transport problems.
122
That all has a different Scottish legislative framework, with which the Social Security Committee will find it difficult to cope.
The new departmental Select Committee will have great difficulty with the legislative basis for the enforcement procedures that are now being used for poindings and warrant sales in connection with the community charge —a very important social services issue—because it will have no real experience and no chance of communicating with those who are coping with the problems and dealing with them satisfactorily—
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is it not extraordinary that for four years the Government have persisted in not setting up a Committee that might have helped them get out of the holes that they have dug for themselves? Is it conceivable that, had we had a Committee that could have looked into social security matters, specifically in Scotland, the Government could have introduced a tax relief in the Budget and forgotten about the implications for Scotland?
Mr. Kirkwood: My hon. Friend makes the point forcefully.
The Chairman of the Committee of Selection cannot let matters rest as they are. He has a duty, both in terms of the Standing Orders and in terms of everything that he has heard this evening, to look at the matter again and to see whether there are ways of making progress.
Let me make a suggestion. It is very much a second best, but at least it has the benefit of being technically in order in terms of the debate. If the hon. Gentleman cannot persuade the Government to establish a Committee that covers Scottish affairs properly, he should go out of his way to ensure that 13 extra Scots Members are added to the departmental Select Committees covering other matters. The hon. Gentleman himself made the point that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had considered the steel industry. But that was only because of the valiant efforts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and others. My hon. and learned Friend happened to be a member of the Committee and took the opportunity afforded to him. It took a long time and a lot of arm-twisting to get the Select Committee to undertake that crucial inquiry, which would have been undertaken as a matter of course by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
The Chairman of the Committee of Selection says that the other departmental Select Committees can cover Scots affairs. Even if that is true, it remains the case that Scots Members are under-represented in the present composition of the Committees. It seems that we may not get a proper full-blown Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to consider the wide and unique range of public responsibilities that are undertaken by the Scottish Office in Edinburgh. That being so, the hon. Gentleman at least has a duty to look again at the composition of existing Select Committees at every stage. In future when hon. Members are being considered for, or discharged from, membership—
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has been suggesting that Scottish Members are not contributing to the Select Committees of the House.
Mr. Kirkwood: No.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what I am saying. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we should take on board the principle that Scottish Members should be members of the United Kingdom Select Committees. Does the hon. Gentleman realise just how many Scottish Labour Members—given the circumstances of the Labour party —represent English and Welsh interests not only on the Front Bench but in the Select Committees? They do so quite properly; I am not arguing about that. The point that I am making is that it is nonsense to suggest that Scotland is not represented on the Committees.
Mr. Kirkwood: Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be more prepared to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he were willing to serve on the Scottish Select Committee, which patently he is not.
The point that I am trying to argue may be above the hon. Gentleman's head; if we are consistently to be denied a Scottish Select Committee—perhaps into the next Parliament—because the Government claim that there are difficulties and are not using their best offices to produce
124
such a Committee, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has a duty and a moral responsibility to examine carefully the balance of Scots Members on the existing departmental Select Committees. If he is not prepared to do that, he has a duty to ensure that the Government do the proper thing and come forward with English members. I was surprised recently to discover that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs now does not have an in-built Government majority. It is operating in a way that we were told could never happen in Scotland. If it is good enough for the Welsh, why is it not good enough for the Scots in terms of the Committee's composition?
The Government and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection have not properly addressed a whole series of issues. The purpose of this debate and of our amendment, which may have been incompetent and technical, is to flush out those issues. We shall return to the matter again. We are too responsible to hold up the work of these two important departmental Select Committees for very much longer, but we will return to the issue in other ways until we get what we need—a proper Select Committee to deal with Scottish affairs.
11 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): It may be helpful if I intervene briefly to support the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). As the House knows, the Standing Order amendments to establish separate Select Committees related to the Department of Health and to the Department of Social Security with effect from the start of this Session were agreed by the House on 19 October. The motions to set up those Select Committees were agreed by the House on that occasion without debate.
The motions in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley are the next stage in the sequence of events required to bring those Committees into operation. The motion that was passed on 19 October, which was accepted by the House without debate and without objection, created the framework, and the motions tonight, if passed, provide the members to carry out that important work.
I want now to refer to the justification for the motion before the House. The creation of the two Select Committees is a logical and desirable consequence of the division in the summer of 1988 of the former Department of Health and Social Security into two separate Departments. I want to emphasise the importance of the two Committees. The Department of Health and the Department of Social Security account for 50 per cent. of public expenditure. Select Committees are set up to examine, among other things, the application of public expenditure. It is a very important role of the House to scrutinise public expenditure.
Mr. John McAllion: What about Scotland?
Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to that.
We are tallking about 50 per cent. off public expenditure. As a member of the Government, I believe that it is important that a Department's work is subject to the oversight and accountability of Parliament that underlies the Select Committee system. That is the key and only issue before the House tonight.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am delighted that these motions have finally appeared before the House. Ever since the departmental split took place, the Liaison Committee has argued that the Select Committee concerned should also be divided, not least for the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave in his opening remarks.
None the less, there has been a very long delay—from when the Department was split until the present date—and as a result, scrutiny has not been as effective as it might have been. Will my right hon. Friend state categorically that, in future, if there is any change in departmental structure, there will be a corresponding change in the Select Committee system, allowing the Committees to complete their existing inquiries, so that there will not be the kind of delay that we have experienced on this occasion?
Mr. MacGregor: I obviously cannot bind all future Governments and Leaders of the House, but my right hon. Friend has made a good point from a position of great responsibility in relation to Select Committees. He also
126
makes a good point about the delay that has occurred, not only from his point of view, but from that of the Procedure Committee.
The amendment to Standing Orders to establish the two new Committees was approved a week before publication of the Procedure Committee's report on the working of the Select Committee system. It is important to note that the Committee endorsed the idea, as my right hon. Friend has, of having two Committees to reflect the departmental structures. That is the germane point that we are debating tonight. It is an important point in relation to those two Departments, which account for such a large part of public expenditure.
Sir Peter Emery: Surely one is interested in the whole proceedings of the House. However, may I remind hon. Members what the Procedure Committee recommended? It stated that there should be no break in continuity of the Select Committee system as a result of the decision. Accordingly, we recommended that the necessary motion should be framed in such a way that the nomination of the two Committees immediately follows the abolition of the Social Services Committee. We recommended that that should be done in time for the two Committees to be in place and functioning at the start of the Session. Whatever may be said about a Scottish Grand Committee and a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, two wrongs will not make a right.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. MacGregor: It is right that I should respond to ray hon. Friend in his capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to which I have just referred. My hon. Friend has raised that point before, and I have told him that I agree with him. I am sure that it was raised in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). I said then that, if the formation of the two Committees continued to be frustrated in such a way, I would provide time for a debate at the earliest opportunity.
That is what I have done. That is why we are here tonight. I am fulfilling the commitment that I gave then. I am responding to the Chairman of the Liaison Commit tee and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I should have thought that the whole House would expect to have Select Committees to examine two such major aspects of public expenditure. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will also support that view; it will be interesting if they do not support the formation of two such important Committees.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House quite rightly referred to accountability for public expenditure. Does he therefore accept that health and social security .are two major aspects of expenditure within Scotland, and that we too should have the right to scrutinise that aspect of the functions of the Scottish Office?
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned drawing up Standing Orders to ensure that Select Committees on health and social services are established, but how can he reconcile that with Standing Order No. 130, which committed the House to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. MacGregor: Let me deal with some of those points. They enable me almost to say all that I wanted to say, as I promised to make a brief intervention. First, as the hon. Lady knows, social security is a United Kingdom matter. In fact, the Select Committee on Social Security will examine the position in Scotland as well. We are seeing, in effect, the deprivation of these matters being considered by a Select Committee in relation to Scotland as well as elsewhere.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. MacGregor: May I finish my reply to the hon. Lady?
Secondly, we are debating the two other matters, not a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
Mr. William McKelvey: We should be.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) says that we should be. The motion is about the setting up of the two Select Committees. It is misguided—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. MacGregor: May I finish my sentence? It is misguided and irrelevant to attack the setting up of these two Committees on the basis of the difficulties of setting up another Select Committee.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is exactly on the point of the composition of the Committee and the specific motion that the debate is moving into a matter of specific concern. It is ironic that the Health Committee, which deals exclusively with England and Wales, has one Scottish Member, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). The Social Security Committee, which deals with the United Kingdom, has no Scottish Member. If there is so much concern about Scottish issues, how could the Committee of Selection put forward names that included not one Scottish hon. Member? That means that the motion is wholly unsatisfactory.
Mr. MacGregor: That is hardly a matter for me. I think it would be regarded as rather strange if the Leader of the House were to dominate the way in which the membership of Select Committees was decided. However, it is a matter for me to ensure that we move ahead with the formation of these two committees. It seems to me that the approach of hon. Members who are objecting to this is that, if one issue which is full of difficulties cannot be resolved, then another issue—namely, the two Committees that we are trying to set up tonight—which is wholly unconnected and involves no difficulties, cannot be resolved either. I think that is misguided, irrlevant and rather petty-minded. It is neither liberal or democratic. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have been raising this matter, but I do not think it is either a liberal or democratic way to approach it.
I do not want to be drawn into the issues about the Scottish Select Committee tonight, because it is irrelevant to the debate, and the amendment has not been chosen. Therefore, it is out of order.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not give way now, because I think it is time that we came to a conclusion on this matter. It really does not make sense, nor is it in the interests of this House to prevent the setting up of two select committees covering so much of public expenditure because of difficulties with another committee.
I would point out to the House that other departmental Select Committees that have been set up can take and have taken evidence from Scottish Departments on Scottish matters as part of inquiries relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole. In 1989, the Scottish Office provided evidence in 11 different Select Committee inquiries, and in 1988 it provided evidence in 13 out of 23 Select Committee inquiries. If the amendment were allowed to be voted on and were carried, the House would be effectively deprived of the opportunity to have Select Committees on this major area of public expenditure—not least, in Scotland itself. These two Committees should be formed as soon as possible, so that they can begin their work in these very important areas.
I note that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he would not continue his opposition for much longer. I hope that he will not carry it beyond tonight, and that the House will vote in favour of setting up the membership of these Committees.
11.13 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I begin with what has been agreed. At least the history of this matter is agreed. The old Department of Health and Social Security was divided in 1988. On 19 October 1990, the House approved without a Division a motion that, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 130 should be amended in order to establish separate Select Committees for the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Today we are considering the motions from the Committee of Selection to establish the membership of the two Committees. At least that much is agreed. All this has been agreed without any major differences of opinion across the Floor of the House.
At the outset, I point out that the Opposition have no objection in principle to the Committees being established. We support the proposals. I hesitate to intrude in Scottish affairs, not least because my hon. Friends from north of the border are well capable of looking after themselves.
As we are discussing the matter, and debating with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection the establishment of Select Committees, the House has a rare opportunity to look at the way in which that Committee, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) as its Chairman, discharge their duties.
The House has a duty to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That is not an option or something that the House can take or leave. That duty remains unfulfilled and the Leader of the House, like his predecessor, and the Chairman are in clear and continued breach of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in failing to complete the procedures for the establishment of such a Committee.
Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts the motions. Will he make it clear that he also accepts the principle underlying them, which is that, if a departmental structure changes, the Select Committee

129
should change correspondingly? This is an all-party matter and it is important that, on such points of principle, we have agreement across the Floor of the House.
Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry to have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said that we accepted the principle and we support the proposals.
Mr. William Ross: As the Labour party has accepted the principle that there should be Select Committees, will the hon. Gentleman recall that, although expenditure in Scotland has not been properly scrutinised for four years, expenditure in Northern Ireland has not been properly scrutinised for just short of 19 years? Is not that a scandal?
Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the House has a duty to establish a Select Committee to consider that subject, in which he has a natural interest, that is an important point.
We are well past the midpoint of this Parliament, and the situation remains unsatisfactory. There is no precedent, under any Government of any party, for the Committee of Selection and the Leader of the House failing to establish a Select Committee in such circumstances. The matter has been pressed again and again by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), other Scottish colleagues and hon. Members in other political parties.
I was rather amused to hear the Chairman of the Procedure Committee make a plea for no break in continuity in the scrutiny of the Departments of Health and of Social Security. It is a bit of a joke for him to say that, when he has been silent about the three-year break in continuity in the scrutiny of public expenditure in Scotland. The Leader of the House has said, and I agree, that the principal object of the establishment of Select Committees is to scrutinise public expenditure, but what about Scotland? What about the £10 billion annual expenditure by the Scottish Office? Why is that not being scrutinised?
Sir Peter Emery: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He said that the Procedure Committee recommended that two Committees should be established when the Select Committee on Health and Social Services was done away with, but has made no recommendation about Scotland. As he knows, that is untrue. Paragraphs 270 and 271 of that report stress the need for there to be reconsideration of the appointment of a Scottish Grand Committee. Let us get the balance right.
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is getting confused between Grand Committees and Select Committees, and about what I said. I did not accuse the Committee of not making that recommendation. I drew attention to its stressing of the importance of continuity in the work of Select Committees. If that is a valid argument in respect of the Departments of Health and of Social Security, it is an equally valid argument in respect of Scottish affairs.
It is very difficult to find the culprit when discussing all this and seeking advice with the Clerks. Reading the Standing Orders of the House, it seems that one is passed around in a circle between the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the Leader of the House, the Government Chief Whip and, to a much lesser extent, the Chairman of
130
the Procedure Committee. They all have one thing in common: they are all members of the governing Tory party. What we have here, and continue to see, is the continual passing of the buck from the Front Bench to the Back Benches to the Government Whips Office—and round and round it goes.
The reality is that this Government, for political reasons and for no other purpose, are failing in their duty to the House. If the hon. Member for Shipley really thought a lot about his own position and his duty to the House, he would resign. I do not say this in any personal sense. I have a certain fondness for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, in personal terms, but he and his Committee have failed totally to carry out their duties under the Standing Orders of the House. That is what they are appointed to do and have failed lamentably to do for almost four years.
I said that I hesitated to get involved in these affairs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) fondly refers to Geordies as Scots with their brains bashed out. My response was that in some cases it would not be a very long job.
Sir Marcus Fox: As the hon. Member suggests I might resign—and quotes Standing Order 130 as his justification —could I refer him to column 339 of Hansard of 20 December 1988, in which the previous Leader of the House gives the exact ruling as to why there is no compulsion on my Committee to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? There are ways in which that Standing Order can be dealt with, and the explanation is to be found there.
Dr. Cunningham: That illustrates my point. The hon. Gentleman says it is not the responsibility of his Committee; the Leader of the House says it is not his responsibility. What is the purpose of the House having a Standing Order which no one will accept the responsibility for implementing? That is the reality. Although we have no opposition to the proposals that are before the House from the Committee of Selection, we take the gravest exception to the failure of the Government, the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and the governing party to match up to their duty under the Standing Orders of the House.
11.23 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: We should be clear as to the terms we use in this debate. I get slightly concerned when the Chairman of the Committee of Procedure appears to be unable to differentiate between the Scottish Grand Committee, which exists, and the Scottish Select Committee, which has a totally different role. I understand that it is very easy to make slips of the tongue, and so long as it is a slip I shall accept it. But it is clear that what we are discussing is Select Committees on departmental issues. Such committees have the responsibility not just of examining public expenditure, not just of interrogating, investigating or questioning Ministers, but of overseeing many subsidiary agencies, and indeed they are entitled to discuss any issues on the subject matter before them.
What is before us, strictly, is the naming of Members to serve on the two Select Committees. We are entitled to question the priority of the motions before us, especially since a great deal of heat has been generated about this

131
subject. When an hon. Member complained about the delay in setting up these two Committees, the Leader of the House became extremely agitated. I have not seen him so acerbic in his role as Leader of the House since he reached that office. I have never seen him so excited. But he was excited over what? It was over the fact that since October last year we have been waiting for the establishment of these two Committees.
What does the right hon. Gentleman think Opposition Members feel about the Scottish Select Committee? Three years have passed, and nothing has been done. The Leader of the House has said, "It is difficult; it is hard to know what to do." Different methods have been adopted and all sorts of excuses have been trotted out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the matter has been referred to the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Selection Committee, the Government Chief Whip and back again to the Leader of the House. We know, of course, that these individuals and Committees are faced with tremendous responsibilities.
Paragraph 271 of the report of the Procedure Committee puts the matter in a nutshell. It states:
"Moreover, the absence of a Scottish Affairs Committee leaves a major Government Department unscrutinised and thus constitutes a deficiency (some would consider a serious deficiency) in the departmentally-related Committee system."
In the face of that, it is no use anyone on either side of the House arguing that the affairs of the Scottish Office or Scottish departmentally related divisions can be adequately covered by other Committees. If that were not so, the Procedure Committee would not have made its tremendously strong recommendation. Nor would it have gone on to ascribe blame. It makes it clear that an insufficient number of Conservative Members who represent Scottish constituencies are willing to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It agrees with the Chairman of the Liaison Committee that the cause of the problem is political and so must be its solution. It adds:
"The House is entitled to look to the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution, which may require compromise on all sides."
We have sought in many ways to achieve a compromise. I understand those who say, "Let us get on with what already exists. Let us get on with major issues of health and social security." There are health issues in Scotland which have been dealt with in a way that beggars the imagination. For example, it has not been possible to examine Grampian health board's decision to hand over the running of a hospital for geriatric patients—it was built by the board and paid for by the Scottish Office—to a private medical company. Whether that was the right decision—I happen to think it was not—it has been taken. It has been mirrored by decisions of the other boards, and such decisions need to be examined.
Trust status is being considered for some major hospitals in the national health service. Arguments in favour of that status are being advanced in a way that has led to a fog of confusion. Decisions on whether to apply for trust status are being made on inadequate information about finance. The chairman of the unit medical committee of the Foresterhill site he said that, if it is decided to remain within a direct management unit service, an essential £11·7 million will not be made available. If it is decided to opt for trust status, however, a magic formula
132
will be implemented and the money will become available. It seems that it will be possible to borrow the money. It must be important that those who make the decisions know precisely what is involved.
If the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigated these matters, decisions would be made on the basis of what is best for the patient. It is that which we are being denied. It is no good the Leader of the House and Conservative Back-Bench Members becoming agitated when decisions on the health service in England and Wales, and partially in Scotland, are being delayed. I accept that some issues may have to be looked into, but must we meekly accept the situation?
I have only one quarrel with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who opened for the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman says that he has no desire to thwart the setting up of these Committees. I do not want to do that either. However, if there is no other way to make Government Members aware of the serious deficiencies that we have tolerated for the past three and a half years, we shall thwart them to the very last moment.
11.31 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I shall be very brief. Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I must appeal to the House not to make three errors instead of one. There cannot be any hon. Member who does not accept that there is a need for a Select Committee to look after the affairs of the Department of Health.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is a director of a company called Care Services Group. If my recollection is faulty, I shall certainly apologise, but I understand that that company has taken over the contract to provide geriatric services in Aberdeen. Is that so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's membership will be recorded in the Register of Interests. Hon. Members might take this issue up during the debate, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Sir Peter Emery: There cannot be any hon. Member who does not believe that there ought to be a Select Committee to deal with health matters, and one to deal with matters relating to social security. However, we should be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if, because there is not a Scottish Grand Committee—[Interruption.] It would be odd if, because there is not a Scottish Social Services Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "A Scottish Select Committee."] It would be odd if, because there is not a Scottish Select Committee, we should decide not to appoint Select Committees to deal with health matters and matters relating to social security. The Procedure Committee tried hard to ensure that this error would not occur. To that end, it recommended dovetailing in order that work might continue without interruption.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has made it absolutely clear that nobody could accuse the Procedure Committee of not taking extremely seriously the question of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. We have made it quite clear that this is a gap in the system of Department-related Select Committees. I should like to refer to the recommendations that the Procedure

133
Committee made. We stated quite clearly that, in respect of this matter, the power of initiation must lie with the Government. Hon. Members are entitled to look to the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution.
Some of the problems that existed when we were taking evidence for our report have been overcome or simply no longer exist. I think that I should be going a very long way towards having the wishes of the House fulfilled if I could persuade the Leader of the House to say yet again that he will look into the matter and discuss it with the parties to see whether a solution might be found.
The arguments against the appointment of the two Committees are based upon a desire to have a Scottish Grand Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Select Committee."]—yes, I am sorry but that desire is not part of today's debate.
If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could assure the House that he will reconsider the matter, that would go a long way towards getting something done.
11.34 pm
Mr. David Lambie: I speak as the last Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—the way things are going, I shall make the "Guinness Book of Records" as just that.
I am glad to see the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) present tonight. They are previous members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and I trained them to speak up for Scotland.
I have a great respect for the Leader of the House, because he comes from the small mining village of Shotts. On this occasion, I am afraid that he is not speaking up for that village: he is speaking for the Tory Government, who have power only in England, not in Scotland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that he belongs to the small village of Shotts in Lanarkshire. He should speak up for Scotland and set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
All Select Committees monitor the work of Ministers and Departments. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs monitored the work of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. As Chairman of that Committee, I can confirm that we worked closely with the previous Secretary—
Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend worked hand in hand with him.
Mr. Lambie: I am afraid that I must agree with my hon. Friend. The Committee worked hand in hand with the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I saw that right hon. Gentleman earlier behind the Chair, but when he saw what was happening, he beat a hasty retreat.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs worked well, because it not only monitored the work of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office, but gave the Secretary of State the ammunition and evidence he needed to produce before Cabinet Sub-Committees.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All this is a long way from the motion before the House.
Mr. Lambie: I am trying to show the importance of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Surely that is relevant to the debate.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I was the Chairman of that Select Committee before my hon. Friend. Does he agree that every recommendation it made was accepted by the Government?
Mr. Lambie: I agree. I followed in the tradition of my hon. Friend. I was there to co-operate. Although we had a majority of Labour Members of Parliament representing and a Conservative Secretary of State. We had to co-operate with him to get the best possible deal for Scotland, and we did just that. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ayr for working with us, sometimes against his friends in the Conservative party who served on that Select Committee. We worked on the basis that what was good for Scotland was good for the Select Committee.
This is where what I am saying becomes relevant, because we are talking about an existing Select Committee being divided into two Select Committees. When we discussed the future of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs I suggested to the Government, as I suggest to the Leader of the House tonight, that, with 13 Members, it was too big. During a public sitting, every Member of Parliament wanted to speak because the press were present.[Interruption.] A Minister who came before the Select Committee got off easily, because—
Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend protected him.
Mr. Lambie: I might have protected the Secretary of State for Scotland because, like me, he was speaking for the future of Scotland and Scottish interests. Sometimes, Tory Secretaries of State for Scotland are the best supporters of Labour party policy that we can get in the House.[Laughter.]
I used to point out to the Select Committee that, if all 13 Members wanted to question and argue with a Minister who was to appear before us, and that Minister had ability, as the right hon. Member for Ayr had, it was like coming to a holiday camp. It was no problem and there was no investigation. Whenever we had difficulty forming a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I recommended, against the advice of my Front Bench, that instead of 13 Members, the Select Committee should be composed of five—three Conservative and two Labour Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question before the House concerns the composition and appointment of Members to two Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from that.
Mr. Lambie: I am drawing on my experience to show the two new Select Committees that are about to be set up that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was too big. I am suggesting that they too may be too big. With five Members, as I recommended, we could have had discussions, and the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) could have joined the Committee and spoken up for Scotland.
I again suggest to the Leader of the House that, if we cannot form a Committee of 13, we should form a Committee of five. I am willing, again, to act as its Chairman.
11.43 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate being called, especially in the light of the previous contribution. I remind the House that there are parties other than the Conservative and Labour parties. It may be that they could work out a cosy club.
I speak in favour of the motions before the House. The Committees have been far too long in being set up. I represent part of the kingdom which has a different health service and I realise that we have our difficulties. In a few weeks' time, a health order will come before the House which will not be properly scrutinised. There is no way presently in which a Select Committee in Northern Ireland can do the work of this House.
I have every sympathy with my Scottish colleagues. That will come as no surprise: Scotland is the land of the Scoti—the Irish, and I speak as an Ulster Scot. I feel, however, that a little local difficulty has got out of proportion. Two large Committees covering two responsible areas of government should have been in operation two months ago; moreover, four years have gone by with no Scottish Select Committee. I trust that the complaints about that will reach you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you represent the interests of Back Benchers, and that the Leader of the House—who is concerned with the conduct of the House's business—will bear in mind the fact that a large Government Department has not been scrutinised for 19 years. The time is long past when Departments were scrutinised by Select Committees.
I have no intention of delaying the House. I simply support the motions and plead with the House, as a democratic forum, to abide by its conscience and give the people of Northern Ireland their proper rights.
11.45 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Earlier, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Amery), Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, said that the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs constituted a noticeable gap. It is not only a noticeable gap, but an unacceptable and very undemocratic one. We have experienced nearly four years of camouflage, obfuscation and different arguments from the Government about why they cannot set up the Scottish Select Committee, which is essential if we are to scrutinise what happens in our nation.
The purpose of the motions is to establish two Select Committees. I strongly support the presence of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on the Select Committee for Health—not least because of his inestimable work on behalf of the disabled, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom—but I am sure that he will agree that more Scottish Members should serve on the Committee. Moreover, no Scottish Member has been appointed to the Select Committee on Social Security.
Conservative Members have made it plain that they consider the arrangements appropriate; Opposition Members greet that view in a spirit of argumentative disagreement. You may have been surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the vehemence of the Opposition's arguments. They reflect our strong sense of indignity, following the denial of Scotland's right to take her proper part in the scrutiny of legislation.
It has been pointed out that Select Committees will take evidence from Scottish Office Ministers. The Government
136
recognise that we can offer a certain expertise in health and social security matters, and also that our administrative set-up is very different. Let me tell them that we find it extremely insulting when people pose as one-day experts on the problems that we face in Scotland. Geographical differences exist in regard to health: in the highlands and islands, for instance, the distances involved in ensuring that our constituents have access to good health facilities mean extra expenditure.
Many English Members of Parliament say that too much money is spent on Scotland's health service. They ought instead to work for an improvement in the facilities offered by the national health service to all people in the United Kingdom. Moreover, they take no account of the fact that Scottish universities make an important contribution to the NHS by training doctors who practise not only in Scottish hospitals but in hospitals throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout the world. That, however, is treated as purely Scottish expenditure.
No account is taken of Scotland's contribution to health service research. Reference was made earlier to the work that has been done in Scotland to help AIDS sufferers. I think in particular of the work done by Professor Jarrett at Glasgow university. Unfortunately, Edinburgh has become the AIDS capital of Europe. We need to do more research into AIDS, but the money for it has not been provided. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the privatisation of the national health service, not least within the area of the Grampian health board.
No real attention has been paid to the need for extra heating payments to be made during severe weather conditions to people in the north and north-east of Scotland. Our climate and weather should lead to higher automatic payments being made. Scotland also suffers from higher levels of unemployment than England. That deserves scrutiny, too. The failure to appoint Scottish Members to serve on the social security Select Committee is very aggravating to the people of Scotland. I hope, therefore, that the House will reconsider that point.
It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 January J], to put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, relating to Health.
The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 33.

Division No. 41]

[11.51 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cope, Rt Hon John

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Couchman, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Cran, James

Beggs, Roy

Cunningham, Dr John

Benton, Joseph

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

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bright, Graham

Day, Stephen

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

Devlin, Tim

Browne, John (Winchester)

Dixon, Don

Burt, Alistair

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James.

Butler, Chris

Dover, Den

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Emery, Sir Peter

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Carrington, Matthew

Evennett, David

Carttiss, Michael

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Fallon, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Favell, Tony

Conway, Derek

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Flynn, Paul

137

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Nicholls, Patrick

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forth, Eric

Norris, Steve

Foster, Derek

O'Hara, Edward

Fox, Sir Marcus

Oppenheim, Phillip

Franks, Cecil

Page, Richard

Freeman, Roger

Paice, James

Golding, Mrs Llin

Patnick, Irvine

Goodlad, Alastair

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Gorst, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hague, William

Price, Sir David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Raffan, Keith

Hanley, Jeremy

Rathbone, Tim

Hannam, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Harris, David

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Hawkins, Christopher

Ryder, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Sackville, Hon Tom

Haynes, Frank

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hay ward, Robert

Shaw, David (Dover)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hind, Kenneth

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Sims, Roger

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hunter, Andrew

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Irvine, Michael

Stern, Michael

Jack, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Janman, Tim

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Summerson, Hugo

Kirkhope, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knapman, Roger

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

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Knowles, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Lawrence, Ivan

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Thurnham, Peter

Lilley, Peter

Trimble, David

Lord, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Loyden, Eddie

Twinn, Dr Ian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

McAvoy, Thomas

Walden, George

McCartney, Ian

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Maclean, David

Wareing, Robert N.

McLoughlin, Patrick

Watts, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wells, Bowen

Mans, Keith

Wheeler, Sir John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Widdecombe, Ann

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wilkinson, John

Maude, Hon Francis

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Winterton, Nicholas

Michael, Alun

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Miller, Sir Hal

Wood, Timothy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Yeo, Tim

Monro, Sir Hector

Younger, Rt Hon George

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Moss, Malcolm

Tellers for the Ayes:

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Mr. Tim Boswell.

Neubert, Sir Michael

138

NOES

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

McAllion, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McKelvey, William

Beith, A. J.

McMaster, Gordon

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Meale, Alan

Cryer, Bob

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dalyell, Tam

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Salmond, Alex

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Skinner, Dennis

Fyfe, Maria

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Wallace, James

Graham, Thomas

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Howells, Geraint

Wilson, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Noes:

Johnston, Sir Russell

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Kennedy, Charles

Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

Lambie, David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. John Browne, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Porter and Mr. David Shaw be members of the Social Security Committee.
Resolved,
That Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. James Couchman, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. David Hinchcliffe, Alice Mahon, Sir David Price, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ARMED FORCES BILL
Motion made, and Question put,
That Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes be discharged from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and that Mr. Julian Critchley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]
Hon. Members: Object.
12.2 am
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this evening, I drew attention on a point of order to the fact that I believed that the Care Services Group had a contract for private work in the health service in the Grampian region and that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) had a business interest in that company. I have checked the record and I find that I am totally wrong. The company is not the Care Services Group but Community Health Care, with which the hon. Gentleman has no connection. I therefore unreservedly withdraw my earlier remarks. I hope that no one infers any disrespect for the hon. Gentleman's interests from what I said earlier.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for his graciousness.

Child Dependency Additions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
12.3 am
Mr. Paul Flynn: This is an extraordinary story of how 192,000 families are about to be cheated by the Government, and about families who have been cheated over the past 10 years. The cheating is as sure as if their pockets had been picked or their purses rifled. The theft is official, subtle and almost invisible, because it is hidden under a tangle of complex regulations. Fortunately, there is still time for the Government to repent or for revolt by their Lordships to stop this happening. If the measure goes through, many of the most deserving people in the land—more than 100,000 of them on invalidity benefit, 18,000 of them pensioners and 60,000 of them widows—will lose substantially.
All those people are now receiving child benefit, but they will not receive the £1 a week embarrassment bonus which was heralded by a great blare of trumpets and trombones in the 1990 autumn statement. That famous occasion will be well remembered in the House. In the death throes of her premiership, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) agreed to bestow £1 a week on first-born children as an act of atonement for her sabotage of child benefit in the past. It was a vain attempt, perhaps, to prolong her doomed premiership.
The matter is unavoidably complex. Support for families receiving basic maintenance benefits such as widows' and mothers' allowances, invalidity benefit and retirement pensions takes two forms. They receive child benefit in the same way as any other family. However, it has always been recognised that child benefit is not sufficient for all the needs of the child, so a child dependency increase is paid in addition. What matters is the combined value of child benefit and child dependency increase, described in a recent parliamentary answer as the overall level of support payable for the child.
Child benefit is now £7·25 per child, and child dependency increase is £9·65—a total overall level of support of £16·90. A written parliamentary answer on 17 June 1980 revealed the rather extraordinary news that the overall level of support in November 1979, at April 1990 prices, was £23·05. It has fallen steadily to its present level of £16·90. Expressed as a percentage of average gross weekly earnings, the figure is even more startling: it has fallen from 9·7 to 5·7 per cent.—in other words, by almost 50 per cent. The reason for that unjust drain on the value of the benefit is a change in the method of calculating the annual child dependency increase which took place in 1980. Apparently very few people were aware of it.
The simple, rational, defensible method used by all parties up to 1979 to calculate child dependency increase was as follows. The first step was to calculate the increase in the overall level of support needed to restore its value, taking into account the increase in prices—or, under the last Labour Government, the increase in earnings—since the previous uprating. The second step was to deduct from that overall increase the uprating, if any, of child benefit. The third step was to uprate the child dependency increase by the difference. In that way, whether the value of child benefit was maintained, increased or reduced, the overall level of support for the children of widows, long-term sick and pensioners was fully protected.
140
Clearly, the second stage in the calculation—deducting any increase in child benefit—made sense only if the starting point of the calculation was the overall level of support, including child benefit itself. Since 1980, however, that has no longer been the case. The method now used was explained in a written answer on 17 January: the first step is to calculate what the child dependency increase would be if the general uprating percentage were applied and the second is to deduct any cash increase in child benefit.
The absurdity of that method can be shown by a simple hypothetical example. Suppose that child benefit and child dependency increase were both £10 per child, making a total of £20, and that, in the year in question, prices had risen by 10 per cent. Suppose that the Government decided to do the right thing and uprate child benefit and child dependency increase in line with prices, giving a new rate of £11 for each—a total of £22 per child. Under the present fraudulent formula, the £1 increase in child benefit would be deducted from the child dependency increase, leaving it at £10, and the new overall level of support would be £21 instead of £22. That is an increase not of 10 per cent., but of 5 per cent. and that is why the erosion of the benefit has continued since 1980. To produce a 10 per cent. overall uprating, the child dependency increase would have to be increased by 20 per cent. to a full £12 so that there would still be £11 left after deducting the £1 increase in child benefit.
One wonders what kind of Machiavellian brain could have produced that formula. The best that can be said about it is that it does not appear to be illegal. However, if anyone other than the Government were to try to pull such a confidence trick, I am sure that that person would be up on a charge of fraud.
Child dependency increases are included in the list of benefits that the Secretary of State is required by section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 to uprate annually. However, the minimum requirement applies only to child dependency increases and not to child benefit or to the overall level of support. The Secretary of State for Social Security can comply with the law simply by uprating the child dependency increase in line with prices even if the child benefit is frozen, as it has been over the past three years, and the overall level of support is cut. To make matters worse, in any year in which child benefit is uprated, section 17 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 allows the Secretary of State to deduct whatever amount he thinks appropriate to take account of the uprating of child benefit.
That provision was included in law originally as it was intended by a Labour Government in 1975 to be used only when child benefit was increased by more than the normal uprating—that was a possibility in those days. However, successive Conservative Secretaries of State since 1980 have perversely used the provision as a pretext for deducting every increase in child benefit from the child dependency increase. Although that is within the law, it is plainly indefensible in principle.
Before November 1980, and including the first Tory Government uprating in 1979, neither Labour nor Conservative Secretaries of State abused their power in that way, although the law as it stood then would have allowed them to do so. It is therefore not necessary to change the law in order to revert to the simple, fair and rational principle followed by all Governments before 1980. All that is necessary is for the Secretary of State to

141
stand up to the Treasury, where I am sure the present policy originates. In my experience, Social Security Ministers are reasonable, well-meaning people trying to break out from the straitjacket of meanness imposed on them by Treasury Ministers.
From the bad of the past, we come to the worse of the present. The April 1991 uprating is different in two ways. First, for one-child families—and only for those families —the £1 increase in child benefit is slightly more than is needed to compensate for the 10·9 per cent. rise in prices over the past year. Eighty pence would have been enough to restore the value of child benefit for the first child. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the other 20p should be knocked off the child dependency increase uprating—although, after what has happened since 1980, allowing the long-term sick and the widows to keep their 20p would not seem to be over-generous. To deduct the £1 from the child dependency increase is iniquitous.
The second difference in the 1991 uprating is that the £1 cannot be deducted from the child dependency increase without a change in the law. The reason for that is that there is only one child dependency increase rate for all children, and the uprating order cannot introduce a lower rate for the first child only. I understand that the Government intend to get round that difficulty by the dubious device of amending the overlapping benefits regulations. That device might well be unlawful. It is certainly wrong in principle and it must be challenged.
The case for allowing widowed mothers, pensioners and the long-term sick to get the full benefit of the child benefit uprating is even stronger this year than in previous years. One special group who are clearly on our minds at the moment are war widows. To the surprise of many hon. Members, we heard that a special fund is to be set up—the Gulf Trust. One would have thought that, if the Government had shown a better regard for war widows over the years—they certainly have not done so for that category, although they have taken certain benign decisions elsewhere—perhaps there would not be a need for such a Gulf Trust. Tragically, that group will soon increase.
In April, a war widow will get £14·65 a week for her second and subsequent children, but only £13·65 for her first child because the extra £1 will be deducted. The treatment for war widows seems to be worse than that handed out to national insurance widows, because the children's allowance is not even uprated fully in line with prices. For instance, in April 1990 it was raised from £12·60 to £13·40. That is a 6·5 per cent. increase, although prices rose by 7·6 per cent. There was a similar shortfall in each of the previous two years, and there will be another shortfall this year. Even when child benefit is frozen, the war widows children's allowance is not fully uprated. I genuinely do not know the reason for that, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why war widows are treated so shabbily compared with other widows.
If we compare the combined value of the children's allowance and child benefit in November 1979 and April 1990, we will note that it was £14, the equivalent of £29·05 at April 1990 prices, and in April 1990 it was £20·65, a real loss in value of £8·40 per child. That is for war widows. Why? In the past 10 years, the Government have cut by almost half the true value of the essential child support payments to parents who are widowed, elderly or seriously ill. On top of that, the Government now plan to rob
142
192,000 families of the value of the £1 increase for the first-born this year. They are cuts, and they are furtive, unjust and miserly.
12.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on securing this opportunity to debate child dependency additions and the way in which they are increased. I congratulate him also on the care with which he prepared and presented his case to the House.
I hope to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about whether we were cheating or being fraudulent. I deny both charges. I hope also to explain some of the consistency that underlies our policy in this matter. I noted carefully what the hon. Gentleman said and his criticism of our policies, but our approach to the issue has its origins as far back as Beveridge's 1946 plan for social security. In framing his proposals, Beveridge established certain principles of how financial provision was to be made for those with responsibility for the care of children. Those principles, which I shall describe in a moment, have underpinned policies in this matter for all Governments since the introduction of the post-war social security system.
Beveridge's plan included a general scheme of children's allowances which gave direct provision for the maintenance of dependent children through the payment of the allowances to those responsible for such children's care. However, the new family allowances had a drawback —they were not paid for the first child, only for the second and subsequent children. Initially, Beveridge saw that as a way of observing the principle of shared responsibility between the community and the individual for the support of children while an individual was working. However, it was recognised that the scheme presented a real problem for someone who was not in work but who was still responsible for the care of children. In devising the new scheme set up in 1948, it was decided to provide an allowance for the first child by making an addition—hence the subject of the debate—to the benefit payable during such an interruption from work as a result of unemployment or disability.
As the House will see, the principle of child additions was established when there was no universal payment from the state towards the care of all children. That principle was put into effect in 1948, when family allowances were joined by increases in benefit for children made under the newly established national insurance scheme. In 1951, the principle was established that the setting of the level of child dependency increases had to take into account the level at which family allowance was being paid. This also confirmed the extension of the principle of linkage between the two forms of payments.
The rates of increases of benefit continued to be set at different levels dependent on whether the child was the first or a subsequent child in the family. However, the higher rate of family allowance for the third and any subsequent child which came into effect in 1956 was reflected in the rates of child dependency increases and three different rates of increases payable with widow's benefit were introduced in 1964.
The interrelationship between family allowances and child dependency increases was thus founded on the general principle that a lower rate of child dependency

143
increase was appropriate where a higher rate of family allowance was payable for a particular child. Implementation of this principle was continued in 1967, when the then Labour Government introduced a third rate of family allowance for the fourth and any subsequent child, which resulted in a corresponding reduction by the same amount in the payable rate of child dependency increases for those children. This process was continued from 1968 onwards, when child dependency increases took into account the full amount of family allowance.
This position was reinforced in 1975 when the Child Benefit Act made provision for any increase in benefits for children to be adjusted to reflect any increase in child benefit. In the interests of consistency and accuracy I can do no better than quote the words of Baroness Castle, who was Secretary of State when the Child Benefit Bill received its Second Reading. In opening the debate, she explained that the relevant clause in the Bill
"continues the long-standing practice whereby dependency benefits paid, for instance, with sickness, unemployment and invalidity benefit are set at a rate which takes account of family allowance, so that together the payments provide a uniform level of income for each child."—[Official Report, 13 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 339.]
This establishes beyond doubt that the Government have followed the broad principles of the history and approach as outlined and confirmed in legislation by Baroness Castle.
When child benefit of £1 was introduced for the first child in April 1977, the dependency increase for that child was reduced by the same amount. The interrelationship that I have just established was further underlined in April 1978, when the rates of child benefit of £1 for the first child and £1·50 for subsequent children were increased and equalised at £2·30 for each child. The effect on child dependency increases was a corresponding reduction of £1·30 in the amount payable for the first child and a reduction of 80p in the increase payable for other children. The result was equalisation of dependency increase rates for each child. When the rate of child benefit was increased by £1 in April 1979, the rates of child dependency increases were reduced by the same amount.
In the course of reviewing the rates of benefits now, the Secretary of State is required to look at the rate of child dependency increases and also guardian's allowance, and child's special allowance which are benefits payable in respect of children and at the same rate as child dependency increases. He is also required to consider the rate of child benefit, and if he decides that an increase in child benefit is appropriate, he is empowered to make a corresponding reduction in child dependency increases and child-related benefits. I emphasise that this formula is the same as that used by the Labour Government in 1977.
To apply this measure means calculating what the child dependency increase would be if the general uprating percentage were applied and then deducting from that amount any cash increase in child benefit. The Secretary of State is thereby enabled, when setting these rates, to reflect by the operation of the formula the combined effect of the uprating increase and any reduction that he considers appropriate.
The use of the formula has protected beneficiaries who have had the full percentage rise in their child dependency increase in the years that have seen no increase in child
144
benefit. Equally, this formula achieves the common intention shared for all those responsible for the social security system since 1948, that increases of benefit paid to those supporting dependent children had to take account of payments made for these children either by family allowances or, now, child benefit. The formula makes it possible to adjust the constituent parts of overall child support.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the history of this benefit. It is true that a different formula was used before 1977 and for the reviews of rates of benefit that took place in the Novembers of 1978 and 1979. This variation involved applying the percentage increase to the sum of the child dependency increase and child benefit and then deducting the new rate of child benefit from the total. This level of expenditure could not be sustained in the light of the economic situation that the Government inherited in 1979, and consequently we had to revert to the less generous formula of 1977.
The continued development of the social security system to help other disadvantaged groups was also in our minds. We have given assistance to such groups as disabled people, lone parents and war widows. Consequently this has constrained our ability to amend policy in this sector. In the context of competing demands on public expenditure, we decided in 1979 to uprate child dependency increases from 1980 by the lower amount allowed by the legislation and therefore adopted the formula first used in 1977, thus maintaining a consistent approach. Decisions in this area continue inevitably to be affected by financial limitations, and our view remains that increases of child-related benefits based on the 1977 formula secure the most effective use of finite resources.
The operation of the formula has been simple up to now. As the legislation now provides, as the hon. Gentleman said, for a single rate for benefits applicable to children, it has been a simple matter to increase this rate by the general uprating percentage and then to take off the actual amount of any increase in child benefit.
However, the fact that the main legislation is framed in terms of a single rate of child dependency increase raises a problem in observing the principle embodied in the uprating formula. The new proposal to pay a £1 per week increase in child benefit for the only, elder or eldest child in a family from April this year has the effect of creating two different rates of child benefit. Application of the uprating formula taking account of child benefit to determine the new rates of increases and benefits for children would necessitate the creation of two different rates for these benefits.
But I should mention that we are not proposing to break entirely new ground by making this provision—this answers a point made by the hon. Gentleman. Within the overlapping benefits regulations in this area of benefits for children are powers that enable us to cater for this contingency. The regulations provide for an overlapping benefit reduction in the amount of benefit payable for a child where the increase in child benefit for a single parent is also in payment. Adjustment in these circumstances is designed to prevent simultaneous payment of benefits meeting the same income maintenance needs of, in this instance, the same child.
As I have explained, the overlapping benefits adjustment that we are proposing to introduce is designed to secure exactly the same result as would have been achieved by the operation of the child dependency increase

145
uprating formula. We consider that the proposal will secure a fair level of support for each child and will achieve its aim of recognising the natural interdependence between payments available in respect of children. This aim is based on the long-established view about the way in which the social security scheme should help with the support of children, a view with which we see no reason to differ.
I remind the House that, for those in receipt of the child dependency increases who have more than one child—the hon. Member was selective in the use of his facts on this —the full value of the uprating will be applied to the child dependency increases applicable to the second and subsequent children, bringing the amount payable in their case to £17·95 per child.
The hon. Member also chastised us on the question of war widows. I point out that, in the interests of consistency all Governments, following the same pattern, have treated war widows in the child increases they get in precisely the same way. The rates that war widows receive are at a much increased and preferential level compared with those who also receive these increases. So that principle remains, but the levels are more generous. It is also worth pointing out that, for those on widow's pension, the social security benefit may not be the sole source of income. We have to have regard to the whole question of family income. The amount of widow's benefit payable is the same regardless of earnings, and I have noted with interest that 55 per cent. of all widows under the age of 60 are presently in employment. Equally, the group may also receive assistance through other social security benefits such as housing benefit or community charge benefit.
On the subject of war widows, I should add that the uprating order for this is being looked at. The hon. Member mentioned a number of detailed points which will take some close analysis. I do not want to avoid the Department responding, and I undertake to write to the hon. Member on those specific issues.
146
The hon. Member mentioned that those on invalidity benefits are the largest group receiving child dependency increases. I add that they, too, can have their incomes supplemented. To give the House an example, from April the average rate of invalidity benefit for a couple with two children will be £110·90. They will also receive £15·50 by way of child benefit. The beneficiary's spouse will be able to earn up to £41·40 net of work-related expenses before the rate of benefit is affected. In this example it would bring the family's total net income up to £167·80.
I should add that any occupational pension which the beneficiary may receive does not affect the payability of invalidity benefit. I hope I have shown that there is a wider view on this issue. Rightly, the hon. Member took a narrow point on a technical issue, but I have sought to widen it and I hope that he will accept the spirit in which that information is offered.
Having explained the principle and practice of the Government's policies towards child dependency increases, I must conclude by putting the debate in the context of the Government's overall approach to helping families with children. Here I believe we can take some pride from reflecting on the fact that this expenditure has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms since the last year of Labour Government and stands at £10 billion. In addition, this has helped us to finance new benefits such as family credit and income support, which has enabled us more accurately to target help to low-income families who also have children.
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for supporting me in this my first Adjournment debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Access to Dwellings
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General how many kinds of orders or warrants give courts, the police, bailiffs or solicitors access to private dwellings without permission of the resident.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no orders or warrants which grant the courts access to private dwellings without the permission of the resident other than through a bailiff. There are four situations in which bailiffs have such powers. First, a bailiff may force re-entry to premises from which he has been forcibly ejected when levying distress. Secondly a bailiff may force an entry to premises to which goods have been removed in order to avoid distress. Thirdly, a bailiff may force entry to premises in order to give possession to the plaintiff. Fourthly, a bailiff may force entry in order to execute a warrant of restitution.

  A solicitor may gain access to a private dwelling without permission only when attending a defendant's premises with a plaintiff in order to execute an Anton Piller order.

  Initial examination has identified some 21 categories of offence in relation to which the police have specific statutory powers of entry to private dwellings without permission of the resident. These are listed alphabetically in the table.

  Categories of offence in relation to which the police have powers of entry to private dwellings without consent

  By warrant or court order

  Animals

  Children

  Copyright

  Criminal Damage

  Drugs

  Entertainments

  Explosives

  Forgery and Fraud

  Gaming

  Immigration

  Incitement to Racial Hatred

  Liquor Licensing

  Mental Health

  National Security and Terrorism

  Obscenity and Indecency

  Offensive Weapons

  Poaching

  Scrap Metal

  Sexual Offences

  Stolen Goods

  Without warrant or court order

  Road Traffic

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to ensure that there is no misuse of Anton Piller orders.

  The Attorney-General
  Since the Court of Appeal laid down the preconditions for the granting of such orders in 2
  Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes (1976), case law has prescribed numerous safeguards in the granting and execution of Anton Piller orders.

  An additional safeguard recommended by the civil justice review is that the power to grant Anton Piller orders should, subject to certain exceptions, be reserved to High Court judges. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is presently considering the terms in which tills should be included in regulations, a draft of which is presently being consulted upon.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General how many Anton Piller orders have been issued in each year since they came into existence.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government do not maintain statistics on the number of Anton Piller orders issued by the courts.

  Women Judges
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to equalise the number of women circuit judges, recorders and assistant recorders; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has repeatedly made clear his wish to appoint more women to judicial office. Steps have been taken to make this widely known, and thus to encourage more suitably qualified women to put themselves forward for consideration. The composition of the bench at any one time is, however, dependent on the composition of the legal profession in the age groups with the necessary experience to be suitable. At the moment, there are relatively few women in the legal profession in the appropriate age groups with the right experience. It is expected that the number will increase significantly over the next 10 years, and that this will result in more women judges, recorders and assistant recorders.

ENERGY

  Oil Well Fires
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what percentage of the crude oil is converted into soot when an oil well burns out of control;

  (2) when crude oil burns out of control in an oil well fire, what proportion of the oil is converted into soot; and how effective the atomic carbon so released is at absorbing sunlight.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the note produced by the Meteorological Office on the possible environmental impacts of burning oil wells in Kuwait, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The worst case scenario considered in the Meteorological Office's note is based on the assumption that 6 per cent. of the oil would be converted to black smoke. The note, however, records that the amount of smoke could be significantly less. The effectiveness of a smoke plume in absorbing sunlight depends on the details of combustion and dispersal.

  North Sea Standby Vessels
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the future safety regime he plans for North sea standby vessels.
  3
  Mr. Moynihan
  In his report on the Piper Alpha disaster, Lord Cullen made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the quality of standby vessels, including a need for new regulations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear to the House in his statement of 12 November, the Government accept all of Lord Cullen's recommendations, and work is in progress to implement them as quickly as possible.

  Oil Production
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the normal level of oil production offshore for (i) Kuwait, (ii) Saudi Arabia and (iii) in total for all the oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The normal approximate output levels of offshore oil production are:

  (i) Kuwait: 0·024 million barrels/day.

  (ii) Saudi Arabia (incl. neutral zone): 2 million barrels/day.

  (iii) Total Persian Gulf states: 4 million barrels/day.

  The data are largely from the "Arab Oil and Gas Directory 1990".

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the benefit that could be achieved for energy consumers through closer collaboration between electricity suppliers and other utilities, particularly the water companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for the companies concerned, within the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions.

  Tidal Barrages
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what help he will give to promote the construction of tidal barrages in the Severn and the Mersey estuaties.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As part of our on-going research programme on renewable energy technologies, my Department is making funds available to assist feasibility studies for tidal energy barrages on the Severn and Mersey estuaries. As I announced on 30 August 1990, £456,000 is to be contributed to new environmental studies by the

  Male establishments

  Female establishments

  Young offender institutions

  Granted

  Failed to return on time

  Granted

  Failed to return on time

  Granted

  Failed to return on time

  1987

  6,095

  330

  226

  20

  1,458

  56

  1988

  10,472

  712

  435

  28

  1,559

  69

  1989

  14,611

  1,092

  411

  14

  2,611

  129

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on home leave and temporary release for prisoners in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures collected centrally do not distinguish between expenditure on home leave and other forms of temporary release. The table details payments made to prisoners on all forms of temporary release 4
  Severn Tidal Power Group. Also, up to £1–5 million is being made available for a third phase of feasibility studies by the Mersey Barrage Company.

  In regard to the Mersey barrage, a ministerial committee has been established under my chairmanship with the following terms of reference and departmental membership:

  To consider the proposed Mersey barrage and, in particular, to address key issues such as:

  the value of the project

  the role of non-energy costs and benefits

  the evaluation of the effects of barrage construction and operation on regional development and other legitimate interests.

  To explore ways in which the various government departments which might be involved in or affected by such a project can best co-operate in order to ensure that all the necessary information is brought to bear in the most effective way during such consideration.

  Departmental Membership:

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Employment

  Energy

  Environment

  Social Security

  Trade and Industry

  Transport

  Treasury

  Welsh Office

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (f) female prisoners were granted home leave each year from 1986 to 1989; and how many of these failed to return on time.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information for 1986 is not available. The information available for 1987–89 should be regarded as approximate, since it is collected on the basis of overall numbers at individual establishments. Establishments holding more than one type of offender—that is, male, female and young offenders—do not provide returns that distinguish between them.

  The figures relate to the number of leaves taken. Many prisoners are entitled to more than one leave a year, so the number of individuals will therefore be lower.

  The available information is as follows:

  including home leave. The principal costs of the scheme derive from payments for travel and subsistence for the inmates concerned.

  £

  1987–88

  286,928

  1988–89

  423,303

  1989–90

  548,293

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people convicted of drug misuse in the area governed by the Seaham and Peterlee magistrates courts by year since 1985.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of persons convicted by the Peterlee and Seaham—now the Easington, and Houghton-le-Spring division of Sunderland metropolitan district—magistrates' courts in each year since 1985 for offences relating to drug misuse is given in the table.

  Number of persons

  1985

  7

  1986

  5

  1987

  3

  1988

  5

  1989

  9

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, (Mr. Sheerman) on 19 December 1990,Official Report, columns 203–4, whether he will (a) list all the items of data to be held on the new police national computer that will be linked to those data that relate to driver licensing (b) list all the items of data to be held on the new police national computer that will be linked to those data that relate to driver records, (c) indicate whether there will be any free text fields or warning signals associated with any driver licensing or driver records. (d) indicate the anticipated number of driver licensing and driver records held, (e) indicate the estimated number of access to these records as compared with routine vehicle checks and (f) describe the circumstances when it is anticipated that these new records will be used by police;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield on 19 December 1990, Official Report, columns 203–4, whether he received advice from, or had meetings with, the Data Protection Registrar before deciding on the nature of the closer links between the new police national computer and the DVLA in Swansea.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The proposal to provide information relating to driver records and licensing on PNC2 is still at the planning stage. The items of data that would be held have yet to be determined. To meet the needs identified in the road traffic law review, the following information would need to be kept:

  Name and address

  Date of birth

  Driver number

  Licence issue number

  Type of licence

  Categories of vehicles covered and expiry dates

  Whether duplicate licence has been issued

  Any current disqualification

  Total number of penalty points

  It is proposed to keep the information as a separate PNC file and not to include free text fields or warning signals. I understand that there are some 46 million driver licence records. It is not possible to estimate with any accuracy the number of inquiries which may be made of the file, but it is reasonable to assume that it could be between 50 to 100 per cent. of vehicle accesses. About 21 million vehicle inquiries are currently made each year.
  6
  The application will enable a police officer to establish immediately whether a person has a valid licence to drive and the appropriateness of the fixed penalty procedures when an offence has been committed.

  I recognise the need to keep the Data Protection Registrar informed of our proposals for PNC2. A meeting was held last July with his staff to discuss PNC2 developments and we shall consult further as our plans for new applications proceed.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by his civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  A range of security measures have been developed to protect computers and the data that they process, according to the assessed risk to each system. These include physical, personnel and electronic controls as well as guidance to staff on secure handling procedures. It is not Government policy to disclose details of these measures, since to do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the measures. The measures are kept under review.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role, and its activities to date, of the broadcasting unit in his Department in relation to the crisis in the Gulf.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The broadcasting department of the Home Office has no specific role in relation to the crisis in the Gulf.

  Taylor Report
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards implementation of the proposals of the Taylor report.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 14 January at column 375.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current strength of the traffic co-ordination and support branch of the Metropolitan police (TO14), and the current number of traffic wardens in London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 December 1990 the strength of TO14 branch of the Metropolitan police was 120 police officers, 36 civil staff and 31 vehicle removal officers; and the strength of the traffic warden service was 1,416.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are expected to be accommodated at Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh when it opens in April 1991; and what is the planned maximum number of inmates.
  7
  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is expected that Belmarsh prison will hold about 180 prisoners when it opens in April 1991 and will gradually take more prisoners until it reaches its operating capacity of 841 in September.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the posts of Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh have so far been filled in(a) unified prison grades and (b) for civilian workers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of unified prison grades in posts on 15 January 1991 was 75 and the number of civilian staff was 97 full time and one part time.

  Postal and Proxy Votes
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make the application form to vote by post or proxy due to physical incapacity No. RPF 7B available in Braille;

  (2) if he will list the languages in which his Department's form RPF 7B for application to vote by post or proxy in respect of physical incapacity is available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Form RPF 7B is available in English and Welsh language versions. There are no plans to make it available in Braille.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he expects the provision of education in the remand wing of Feltham young offenders institution to be restored in the near future; and if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold).

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Education classes in the remand wing at Feltham young offenders institution are currently being prevented by a dispute between management and the local branch of the Prison Officers Association over staffing levels. A meeting will take place next month at which I hope the dispute will be resolved.

  I visited Feltham on 8 January as part of a programme of visits I am undertaking to prison service establishments.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to place a copy of the Home Office's report on the private security industry in the Library; and if he will outline the Government's response to this.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are considering a range of options for improving the regulation of the private security industry. When consideration of this issue has been completed, we will decide what circulation to give to the working group's report.

  Charities
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making with the Government's review of charity law, following the reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government's proposals for the reform of charity law are set out in the White Paper 8
  "Charities: A framework for the Future" which was presented to Parliament on 16 May 1989. The Government hope to introduce legislation to give effect to these proposals within the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Immigration Rules
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make changes in the immigration rules.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reviewed the immigration arrangements currently in force in relation to Iraqi nationals in the light of the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf. He has concluded that it is now necessary to suspend the normal immigration facilities for Iraqis wishing to come to the United Kingdom or to extend their stay, and to extend the requirement on Iraqis remaining here to register with the police. The following changes took effect on Saturday, 19 January.

  A "Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules" was laid before Parliament on 18 January and this will provide for applications by Iraqi nationals for visas, for leave to enter, whether or not a visa has previously been issued, or for extensions of stay to be refused. Discretion exists to grant applications outside the immigration rules, but this will be exercised only sparingly in compassionate circumstances where we are satisfied that no threat to national security is involved.

  The concession under which Iraqi nationals are permitted to pass through the United Kingdom as airside transit passengers without a visa is being withdrawn.

  My right hon. Friend has made an order requiring all Iraqi nationals who are in the United Kingdom on limited leave to register with the police if they are not already subject to such a requirement.

  These measures will not affect Iraqi nationals who possess British citizenship or who are nationals of European Community member states exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom.

THE ARTS

  Museum Collections, Derbyshire
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to intervene in the proposed sale of items from the collections of Derbyshire county council museums and galleries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no statutory powers in relation to museums and galleries run by local authorities.

  The use of any proceeds from the disposal of items from the collection of a museum for purposes other than the purchase of additional items, is contrary to the codes of practice of the Museums Association. I understand that the Museums Association has warned Derbyshire county council that its membership of the association will be reconsidered if the proposed sale goes ahead. The county has also been warned that its eligibility for awards through the Museums and Galleries Commission would be at risk in this event. I hope very much that Derbyshire county council will take notice of the strong protests aroused by its proposed action and rescind its intention to sell these items.

  Works of Art (Exports)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art during the half year ended 31 December 1990, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was eventually exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; whether he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit; and whether a press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries covering the information given in his reply, including that relating to the outcome in individual cases.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted my recommendation, following consideration by the reviewing committee on the export of works of art, to defer making for a specified period a decision on an export licence application in respect of the items listed. Details of the items on which decisions were deferred were given in press notices issued at the time the Secretary of State decided to accept the recommendation, and a further press notice will now be issued.

  Description of Item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A pair of George II armchairs by William and John Linnell

  200,700

  Purchased by the Victoria and Albert

  The Badminton Cabinet

  8,697,000

  Decision deferred until 17 March 1991

  Drawing by Bomberg "Family bereavement"

  54,000

  Application withdrawn by applicant

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Condition/Wishes expressed

  "Farm Cart with Horse in Harness" by Constable

  Ipswich borough council

  Wish to go to Ipswich museum

  Kirckman Harpsichord

  Manchester city council, for use and display at Heaton Hall

  Wish to go to the Fitzwilliam museum

  "Richmond pres Londres" by Corot

  Orleans House, Richmond

  Wish to go to a London gallery

  Items awaiting allocation

  Date of acceptance

  Collection of works by and relating to John Piper

  31 October 1990

  "Girl at a window, Little Rachel" by W.R. Sickert

  15 November 1990

  It has not been considered worthwhile, in this instance, to issue a press notice since the only material contained in this answer which has not been the subject of previous press notices is the detailing of wishes expressed with each offer.

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make it his policy to ensure that Welsh National Opera is funded securely for the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I have no direct involvement in decisions relating to levels of public subsidy for individual arts organisations. The Welsh National Opera is funded jointly
  10

  Description of Item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  Painting by Ribera "Martyrdom of Saint Bartholomew"

  2,787,500

  Export licence granted

  Two Bronze trumpet fibulas

  1,560

  Purchased by Leeds city council

  Red enamel brooch

  815

  Purchased by the British museum

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half year ended 31 December 1990 of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed in the matter of allocation by testators or executors; whether he will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax; and whether a press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries in the event of any information being given in his reply which has not previously been announced.

  Mr. Renton
  The information that the hon. Gentleman requests is as follows:

  by the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Welsh Arts Council. I understand that the funding bodies and WNO are currently working together constructively to find a mutually acceptable solution to the company's present financial difficulties. I very much hope that there will be a successful outcome.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendances)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1990 reported by national museums and galleries in England for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1989.

  Mr. Renton
  The estimated number of visitors during 1990 to the 11 national museums and galleries for which I am responsible are as follows:
  11

  Estimated Attendance in 1990

  Percentage Change from 1989

  British Museum

  5,079,472

  +8·4

  Imperial War Museum

  1,257,277

  +4·4

  National Gallery

  3,682,233

  +9·3

  National Maritime Museum

  595,353

  +40·5

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1,292,590

  -4·2

  National Portrait Gallery

  602,069

  -3·7

  Natural History Museum

  1,459,100

  -5·8

  Science Museum

  2,683,349

  +2·9

  Tate Gallery

  2,210,254

  +13·9

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1,356,944

  -1·6

  Wallace Collection

  135,866

  +5·3

  Total

  20,354,507

  +5·7

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in the 1991–92 financial year of introducing a reduced rate tax band of(a) 20 per cent. and (b) 15 per cent. on the first £2,000 of taxable income; and what would be the effect on the net income of (i) a single person, (ii) a couple where the wife is not working and (iii) a couple where the wife is working and paying tax.

  Mr. Maude
  The direct revenue cost of a reduced rate of 20 per cent. on the first £2,000 of taxable income in 1991–92 would be about £2·4 billion in a full year. A reduced rate of 15 per cent. of the same band of taxable income would cost about £4·8 billion in a full year. These estimates are based on a projection of the 1988–89 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. The increases in income after tax of the different types of family would be as follows:

  Increase in income after tax1

  £ per week

  (a) Reduced rate of 20 per cent. On first £ 2,000 of taxable income

  (b) Reduced rate of 15 per cent. on first £2,000 of taxable income

  Family type

  (i) Single person

  1·92

  3·85

  (ii) Married couple with wife not working

  1·92

  3·85

  (iii) Married couple with wife working and paying tax

  3·85

  7·69

  1 Illustrative calculations assume taxpayers have enough income to use the whole of the reduced rate band; in line (ii) the wife's income is assumed to be less than the personal allowance.

  Fraud
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money Her Majesty's Government estimate has been lost in the latest year for which comparable figures are available as a result of fraudulent tax claims and fraudulent social security claims; and how many persons have been successfully prosecuted, respectively, in Scotland.

  Mr. Maude
  Reliable estimates are not available of the cost of fraudulent tax or social security claims.
  12
  In the year 1989–90 in Scotland the number of persons successfully prosecuted by the Inland Revenue in respect of false accounts or returns, and false claims to personal allowances, deductions for expenses or repayments, was three.

  In the year 1989–90 in Scotland the number of persons successfully prosecuted by the Department of Social Security for social security fraud was 906.

  Incomes
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the income per capita in Northern Ireland as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in the latest available year;

  (2) what was the income per capita in Wales as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in the latest available year;

  (3) what was the income per capita in Scotland as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in the latest available year;

  (4) what was the income per capita in each of the regions of England as a percentage of the United Kingdom level in the latest available year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest estimates of personal and household income for the regions of the United Kingdom are provisional estimates for 1988. They were published in "Regional Accounts 1988 Part 2" in the April 1990 issue of Economic Trends—page 115 onwards. The data are also held in computer readable form in the Library of the House. Estimates consistent with the 1990 national accounts and the recently issued regional GDP figures will be published in the April 1991 issue of Economic Trends.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom is attributable to London and the south-east.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest estimates of regional gross domestic product were published in "Regional Accounts 1989 Part 1" in the November 1990 issue of Economic Trends (page 98 onwards). This includes provisional estimates for 1989 which suggest that 36.6 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom, excluding the continental shelf, is attributable to London and the south-east. Regional GDP is estimated at factor cost and at current prices using the income approach.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for 1979 and 1987 showing, on an equivalent income basis, the proportion of each of the following household types in each quintile of(a) original and (b) post-tax income, as defined in the annual articles in Economic Trends on the effects of taxes and benefits, (i) one adult with children, (ii) two adults with children, (iii) non-retired without children and (iv) retired.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because there is now only one
  13
  method of ranking used to produce the annual article in Economic Trends, and this uses equivalised disposable

  Percentages of household types within each quintile group of equivalised disposable income, 1979 and 1987

  Quintile groups of equivalised disposable income

  Household type

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All households

  1979

  1 adult with children

  6

  3

  2

  2

  1

  3

  2 adults with children

  16

  32

  43

  33

  18

  28

  Non-retired without children

  11

  23

  33

  51

  73

  38

  Retired

  65

  33

  10

  4

  4

  23

  3 or more adults with children

  2

  8

  12

  10

  5

  8

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1987

  1 adult with children

  9

  6

  2

  1

  4

  2 adults with children

  19

  21

  33

  29

  20

  24

  Non-retired without children

  19

  22

  38

  52

  70

  40

  Retired

  48

  46

  18

  11

  8

  26

  3 or more adults with children

  5

  5

  8

  7

  3

  5

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Source: Central Statistical Office based on Family Expenditure Survey.

  House Purchase (VAT)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to ensure there is no discrimination as far as value-added tax is concerned between those people buying a purpose-built holiday home and those purchasing from current housing stock a dwelling for use as a second home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is, and should he, a distinction drawn for VAT purposes between second homes which are capable of being occupied throughout the year and which may be treated as principal private residences—and purpose-built holiday homes which the buyers cannot occupy lawfully throughout the year or as their principal private residences. There is no reason why the latter should not be taxed under a broad based consumption tax such as VAT when other forms of holiday accommodation are taxed. Failure to do so would conflict with European Community law.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total income from privatisation sales since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Net privatisation proceeds up to 1989–90 amount to some £281/2 billion.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since May 1979 he, or his predecessor, has met(a) the President of Iraq, (b) the Foreign Minister of Iraq and (c) the Defence Minister of Iraq; and what matters were discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  My predecessor met the then Foreign Minister of Iraq, Dr. Sa'dun Hammadi, on 914
  income. The figures for 1987 are the first to use this new methodology, and the data for 1979 have been reworked on to the new basis. The figures are given in the table.

  March 1981. She also met Mr. Tariq Aziz in May 1985 when he came as a member of an Arab League delegation and again on 4 December 1985. A number of regional issues were discussed.

  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have visited Japan since 1983.

  The Prime Minister
  The following Ministers have visited Japan since 1983:

  1983

  18 to 23 January

  Mr. Jenkin, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 5 to 12 March

  Mr. Blaker, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  1984

  26 to 27 May

  Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  26 September to 6 October

  Mr. Morrison, Minister of State, Department of Employment

  1 to 13 October

  Mr. Edwards, Secretary of State for Wales 6 to 9 October

  Mr. Luce, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  28 October to 2 November

  Mr. Butcher, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  1985

  15 to 19 April

  Mr. Tebbit, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  2 to 9 June

  Mr. Pattie, Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  2 to 14 June

  Mr. Brooke, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science.

  10 to 14 September

  Mr. Hunt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy.

  1 to 5 October

  Mr. Ridley, Secretary of State for Transport.

  25 October to 2 November

  Mr. Younger, Secretary of State for Scotland.

  15
  1986

  11 to 19 March

  Mr. Edwards, Secretary of State for Wales.

  1 to 5 April

  Mr. Howard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  4 to 6 May (Tokyo Economic Summit)

  Mrs. Thatcher, Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Mr. Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  24 to 30 May

  Mr. Trippier, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment.

  22 July

  Mr. Raison, Minister for Overseas Development.

  17 to 20 September

  Mr. Spicer, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Transport.

  23 to 25 September

  Mr. Morrison, Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  13 to 16 October

  Lord Trefgarne, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  24 to 28 November

  Mr. Channon, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  10 to 12 January

  Mr. Clarke, Paymaster-General, Department of Employment.

  16 to 19 January

  Mrs. Rumbold, Minister of State, Department of Education and Science.

  16 to 19 January

  Mr. Needham, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office.

  5 to 8 April

  Mr. Howard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  20 to 24 April

  Mr. Shaw, Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  17 to 21 October

  Mr. Rifkind, Secretary of State for Scotland

  15 to 20 November

  Mr. Walker, Secretary of State for Wales

  9 to 13 January

  Mr. Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  10 to 17 March

  Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. 5 to 8 July

  Mr. Patten, Minister for Overseas Development.

  27 August to 2 September

  Mr. Bottomley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport.

  12 to 16 September

  Mr. MacGregor, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  30 September to 1 October

  Mr. Morrison, Minister of State, Department of Energy.

  1 to 8 October

  Mr. Roberts, Minister of State, Welsh Office.

  15 to 18 October

  Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  23 to 26 October

  Mr. King, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  12 to 19 November

  Mr. Lang, Minister of State, Scottish Office.

  14 to 19 January

  16

  Mr. Maude, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  23 to 25 February

  Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  2 to 6 April

  Mr. Moore, Secretary of State for Social Security.

  18 to 24 May

  Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  13 to 21 June

  Mr. Lee, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment.

  10 to 14 September

  Mr. Rifkind, Secretary of State for Scotland.

  19 to 21 September

  Mrs. Thatcher, Prime Minister.

  24 September to 4 October

  Mr. Jackson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science.

  27 to 30 September

  Mr. Walker, Secretary of State for Wales.

  5 to 7 October

  Mr. Howard, Minister of State, Department of the Environment.

  15 to 18 November

  Lord Trefgarne, Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  26 November to 2 December

  Lord Sanderson, Minister of State, Scottish Office.

  4 to 8 December

  Mr. Needham, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office.

  1990

  10 to 15 May

  Mr. Ridley, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. 24 to 29 June

  Mr. Eggar, Minister of State, Department of Employment. 15 to 18 July

  Mrs. Chalker, Minister for Overseas Development.

  9 to 11 September

  Mr. Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  11 to 14 September

  Mr. Howard, Secretary of State for Employment.

  15 to 19 September

  Mr. Patten, Secretary of State for the Environment.

  28 September to 4 October

  Mr. Mellor, Minister for the Arts.

  2 to 7 November

  Mr. Lang, Minister of State, Scottish Office.

  13 to 22 November

  Mr. Hunt, Secretary of State for Wales.

  25 November to 1 December

  Mr. Needham, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office.

  9 to 12 December

  Lord Caithness, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  1991

  17 to 19 January

  Mr. Liffey, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will review all official papers on the Kincora boys' home;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Kincora boys' home affair;

  (3) if he will institute a new inquiry into events surrounding the Kincora boys' home.
  17
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received since taking office to the present date, concerning the Kincora boys' home.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to obtain for the library of No. 10 Downing street a copy of the BBC2 "Public Eye" programme entitled "Kincora—An MI5 Connection" transmitted in June last year; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Security and Intelligence Services
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to review the activities of the security and intelligence services.

  The Prime Minister
  I intend to follow the practice of my predecessors by not commenting on these matters.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services; and what issues were discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  The arrangements for the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services were set out by my predecessor in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on 2 November 1987 at column 512. It is not the practice to give details about how he discharges his responsibilities.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the allegations made by Mr. Colin Wallace about events involving the security services and forces in Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. John McCarthy
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received since his appointment calling on the Government to press for the release of John McCarthy; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We continue to receive a great many representations on behalf of John McCarthy. The plight of our citizens held hostage in Lebanon is high among our concerns and our efforts to secure their release remain unremitting. Hostage releases last year showed that Iran can exert decisive influence. The Iranians have undertaken publicly to use their humanitarian influence to achieve them to live up to this assurance. We are also urging Syria to continue its strenuous efforts to secure the release of western, including British, hostages in Lebanon.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Further Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage of the further education budget delegated to colleges by each local education authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not held centrally.

  School Pupils
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to his Department on the number of pupils in each local education authority who receive education in schools maintained, or formerly maintained, by another local education authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  Every year each local education authority submits to the Department a return listing pupils who belong to its area but who are attending local authority-maintained or grant-maintained schools outside that area on the third Thursday in January. The pupil numbers as at January 1990 for each LEA are listed in the table.

  The number of pupils belonging to local education authorities attending schools maintained or formerly maintained by other local education authorities

  Number

  City of London

  116

  Camden

  3,475

  Greenwich

  2,364

  Hackney

  5,207

  Hammersmith

  2,470

  Islington

  4,221

  Kensington

  2,377

  Lambeth

  8,045

  Lewisham

  4,197

  Southwark

  3,954

  Tower Hamlet

  2,930

  Wandsworth

  3,887

  Westminster

  2,751

  Barking

  949

  Barnet

  2,315

  Bexley

  1,586

  Brent

  6,102

  Bromley

  1,579

  Croydon

  2,847

  Ealing

  3,197

  Enfield

  2,024

  Haringey

  3,509

  Harrow

  2,258

  Havering

  978

  Hillingdon

  1,308

  Hounslow

  2,300

  Kingston

  1,279

  Merton

  1,926

  Newham

  1,078

  Redbridge

  1,952

  Richmond

  1,112

  Sutton

  1,861

  Waltham Forest

  1,517

  Birmingham

  3,630

  Coventry

  314

  Dudley

  1,130

  Sandwell

  1,331

  Solihull

  785

  Walsall

  773

  Wolverhampton

  1,193

  Knowsley

  2,680

  Liverpool

  1,329

  St. Helens

  1,391

  19

  Number

  Sefton

  466

  Wirral

  270

  Bolton

  918

  Bury

  1,540

  Manchester

  3,046

  Oldham

  752

  Rochdale

  1,217

  Salford

  1,053

  Stockport

  881

  Tameside

  884

  Trafford

  1,505

  Wigan

  1,378

  Barnsley

  614

  Doncaster

  410

  Rotherham

  255

  Sheffield

  734

  Bradford

  2,324

  Calderdale

  543

  Kirklees

  689

  Leeds

  916

  Wakefield

  299

  Gateshead

  609

  Newcastle

  1,020

  North Tyne

  790

  South Tyne

  226

  Sunderland

  429

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  Avon

  676

  Bedfordshire

  936

  Berkshire

  2,228

  Buckinghamshire

  4,612

  Cambridge

  1,220

  Cheshire

  1,235

  Cleveland

  134

  Cornwall

  351

  Cumbria

  132

  Derbyshire

  1,536

  Devon

  713

  Dorset

  328

  Durham

  827

  East Sussex

  1,244

  Essex

  3,538

  Gloucestershire

  500

  Hampshire

  2,597

  Hereford and Worcs

  2,151

  Hertfordshire

  1,272

  Humberside

  554

  Isle of Wight

  18

  Kent

  1,074

  Lancashire

  2,638

  Leicester

  667

  Lincolnshire

  1,889

  Norfolk

  1,023

  North Yorks

  1,291

  Northants

  384

  Northumberland

  455

  Nottinghamshire

  1,069

  Oxfordshire

  551

  Shropshire

  561

  Somerset

  1,044

  Staffordshire

  2,095

  Suffolk

  588

  Surrey

  4,395

  Warwickshire

  1,264

  West Sussex

  1,184

  Wiltshire

  1,278

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have(a) become committed to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status, (b) voted yes and (i) had the proposal approved, (ii) had the proposal rejected and (iii) await determination of the proposal and (c) voted no; how many in each category
  20
  were the subject of (1) closure or (2) reorganisation proposals; and whether, for schools in categories (b) (ii) and (c), the proposals have been approved or rejected.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 179 schools have been or are committed to holding a ballot on GM status. There have been 98 votes in favour, 33 votes against and 51 results are still awaited. Four schools have embarked on the process twice and one application lapsed.

  Of the schools that voted in favour of applying for GM status, 58 applications have been approved and the Secretary of State is minded to approve a further two. Twelve have been rejected and 16 have yet to be decided. Applications from a further 10 schools are awaited.

  The number of schools in each category which have been the subject of closure or reorganisation proposals were:

  Number subject to closure/reorganization proposals

  GM proposals:

  approved

  58

  18

  minded to approve

  2

  1

  rejected

  12

  11

  not yet decided

  16

  4

  still to be published

  10

  3

  Voted no

  33

  19

  Lapsed applications

  1

  1

  Ballot result pending

  51

  5

  Total number of embarkations

  183

  62

  Eight of the 11 reorganisation proposals involving schools with rejected GM applications were eventually approved. Eleven of the 19 reorganisation proposals involving schools who voted not to apply for GM status were approved.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Eggar
  The time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in this Department. Estimates are however made where there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold—currently £250. However, following an interdepartmental exercise in 1972 an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all Departments of answering an oral question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for the grades concerned, together with a share of the cost of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff costs such as computer usage. This assessed figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £99.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.
  21
  Mr. Eggar
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the projected amount to be repaid by a student taking out the maximum available loan(a) studying in London and (b) studying outside London to the Student Loans Company by a graduate who was living away from the parental home, does not defer repayments, and was on a (i) three-year and (ii) four-year course commencing October 1990;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of monthly repayments over the standard five-year repayment period to be repaid by a student taking out the maximum available loan (a) studying in London and (b) studying outside London to the Student Loans Company by a graduate who was living away from the parental home, does not defer repayments, and was on a (i) three-year and (ii) four-year course commencing October 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Borrowers repay in real terms the amount that they borrowed. The loan outstanding at the start of repayment depends on the maximum loan available in successive academic years; on the rates of indexation applicable during the period of the loan, and on when in each academic year the borrower draws down the loan. These factors also affect the size of the monthly repayments, as does the length of the standard repayment period.

  The table shows, to the nearest pound, the expected loan outstanding at the start of repayment and the monthly cash instalments due in each case. The figures take account of the GDP deflator assumptions given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. They assume that the borrowers draw down the loan at the start of each academic year and that repayments will take place over five years, starting in April 1994 where the course has lasted three years and in April 1995 where it had lasted four years. The Government will review annually the length of the standard repayment period, in order to ensure that repayments are manageable.

  Loan outstanding at start of repayment £

  Monthly instalment£

  (a) Borrower who had studied in London and lived away from home:

  (i) On a three-year course

  1,967

  36

  (ii) On a four-year course

  3,010

  35

  (a) Borrower who had studied outside London and lived away from home:

  (i) On a three-year course

  1,741

  32

  (ii) On a four-year course

  2,638

  48

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a detailed breakdown of how his Department arrived at the student loans repayment figures given in table 3 of the leaflet "Loans for Students: A brief guide 1990–91" published in August 1990.
  22
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The figures in table 3 are purely illustrative. They provide for borrowers to repay in real terms the amount that they borrow.

  The table shows the expected monthly cash instalments due from a student who starts a course in the academic year 1990–91 and borrows the maximum loan facility each year at the "elsewhere" rate of loan. It assumes that the value of full year student support from grant and loan will increase by 6 per cent. in the academic year 1991–92, by 3·5 per cent. in the academic year 1992–93 and by 3 per cent. thereafter.

  The loan outstanding at the start of repayment is the sum of the maximum loan facilities for the relevant years plus an amount resulting from the indexation of the amount outstanding each year. The indexation rates a re assumed to be 9·8 per cent. for the year beginning 1 September 1990, 4·75 per cent. for the year beginning 1 September 1991, 3·5 per cent. for the year beginning 1 September 1992 and 3 per cent. from 1 September 1993 onwards.

  Regulation 7(2) of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 determines the number of monthly instalments. Regulation 7(1) determines the date when repayments start, which depends on the length of the borrower's course. Regulation 7(3) determines the amount of the monthly instalments.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the cost to the Exchequer of the error made by the Student Loans Company in its calculations in its leaflet "Student Loans: Are You in the Picture?" ref. PO5 143/90.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am informed by the Student Loans Company that the cost of producing a second edition of its brochure was £120,907, which was met from within the company's approved budget.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the amounts by which the loan facilities will be uprated for the academic year 1991–92 for students in(a) London and (b) outside London.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to announce shortly the maximum loan facilities for the academic year 1991–92.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the amounts each individual college will receive in access funds under the Education (Further and Higher Education Institutions Access Funds) Regulations 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Access fund grants have been paid to more than 400 institutions in England and Wales under the regulations. I am arranging for the figures requested to be placed in the Library. In addition, access fund grants have been paid to universities, polytechnics and colleges by the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council under sections 131(4) and 132(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Full-time Education and Training
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the latest available year how many 16 to 18-year-olds in England participated in full-time education and training.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, including overseas students, at annual census dates between November 1989 and January 1990, participating in full-time education or YTS in England was 1,040,000.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that where comprehensive schools decide to become grant maintained they will not be favoured by local authority funding in preference to primary schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  Recurrent grant for the direct costs of grant-maintained schools is calculated mainly by reference to the levels of provision that individual LEAs set for their own schools. The additional funds that grant-maintained schools receive in lieu of services previously provided centrally by their former LEA are not intended to be biased towards either primary or secondary schools.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in the south-west are balloting parents on the question of grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are at present four schools in the south-west holding ballots on whether to apply for grant-maintained status. Seven GM schools are already operating in the region. A further four schools have either published proposals or are committed to doing so.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the latest available year what percentage of all schoolchildren taking GCSE in England sat the examination in mathematics; and of those who sat the examination in mathematics what percentage obtained grades C and above.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the academic year 1988–89, 91·6 per cent. of 16-year-old pupils attempting GCSE sat an examination in mathematics, and of these 39·9 per cent. gained grades C and above.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the latest available year, what percentage of all pupils taking the A-level examination in England took the examination in mathematics.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the academic year 1988–89, 37·2 per cent. of school leavers who had attempted at least one A-level had attempted mathematics.

  King Edward VI College, Totnes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the ballot of parents of King Edward VI college, Totnes on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  The parental ballot is due to close on Friday 25 January. We would expect the Electoral Reform Society to publish the result on the following Monday.

  International Baccalaureate
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of people who received higher education and training and gained qualifications in universities outside this country during the period 1987–90 and the proportion of them who had gained the international baccalaureate in this country before commencing their course.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will provide details of the availability of access to the international baccalaureate within the education system.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for school and college authorities to decide whether to offer the international baccalaureate.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students have been entered for the international baccalaureate; and what proportion of those entered have been successful in passing the examination during each year from 1987–90

  Mr. Eggar
  Information published by the International Baccalaureate Organisation shows that, in all countries taken together, there were 9,685, 11,286 and 12,217 candidates registered for the international baccalaureate as at May 1987, 1988 and 1989 respectively. Some 74 per cent. of candidates examined for the diploma achieved the qualification.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools provide the opportunity for sixth formers to take the international baccalaureate.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information provided by the International Baccalaureate Organisation indicates that 13 maintained and independent schools currently offer this examination.

  Bedfordshire Schools
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at secondary schools in Bedfordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79 at constant prices.

  Mr. Fallon
  Bedfordshire spent £535 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,635 per secondary pupil in 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available. At 1988–89 prices, those figures are £1,175 and £1,635 respectively.

  Merit Awards
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the largest merit award given to an individual member of staff of the Science and Engineering Research Council during 1989–90.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  During the financial year 1989–90, the largest merit award paid to an individual member of staff of the Science and Engineering Research Council was £700.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial support will be available for nursery provision in a primary school with grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.
  25
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whose responsibility it will be to fund nursery classes attached to primary schools which opt for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Funding for nursery provision that forms an integral part of a grant-maintained primary school would be provided, as with other aspects of funding at that school, by the Secretary of State under the relevant Education (Grant-maintained schools) (Finance) Regulations. The financial support available would be related to LEA support for pupils of that age group.

  City Technology College, Lincoln
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has had any discussions with(a) possible sponsors and (b) Lincolnshire local education authority about the development of a city technology college in Lincoln; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is aware that Lincolnshire LEA and a group of local industrialists are considering making proposals to him for the establishment of a school with many of the characteristics of a city technology college. The City Technology Colleges Trust has held discussions with those involved and an architect from the Department has visited the possible site of the school.

  World Student Games
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has given any consideration to the relationship between a successful outcome of the world student games in Sheffield and the prospects for the United Kingdom of hosting similar international sporting events in the future.

  Mr. Atkins
  I hope that the world student games, like the other major international events to be held in the United Kingdom, will proceed successfully. However, the prospects for hosting major events in the United Kingdom depend primarily upon the strengths of each individual case.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards the support from public funds of the world student games and similar international sporting events held in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The policy for major international sports events in this country is to provide appropriate promotional and diplomatic support, if requested, but not direct funding. Funds specifically for sport are channelled through the Sports Council which has made available £3 million for the world student games.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out his Department's policy towards an individual local education authority using its own resources towards funding a city technology college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is delighted that a number of local education authorities are 26
  considering involving themselves in initiatives to make the benefits of the city technology colleges more widely available. This is further evidence of the success of the city technology colleges programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computer Software
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy towards competition in computer software from functionally similar but non-infringing programmes.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government wish to encourage competition in the market in computer programs and the move to open systems. At the same time, we wish to encourage innovation and investment in research and development in this field and this requires a proper level of intellectual property protection. The market in the United Kingdom is both innovative and competitive and is evidence that our law provides a balance, giving strong protection without stifling competition. This balance is also to be seen in the directive on the legal protection of computer programs.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received from British and European computer users over the purpose of his Department's late amendment to the EC draft directive on the subject of software copyright;

  (2) what representations he has received from computer manufacturers regarding the EC draft directive on software copyright; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received from British and European computer users over his Department's position regarding the draft EC directive on the legal protection of computer programs;

  (4) what technical advice and consultation his Department has drawn on, particularly with regard to open systems and the views of computer users, prior to determining their position on the draft EC directive on software copyright;

  (5) what representations he has received from the United States concerning software copyright protection.

  Mr. Leigh
  Throughout the period leading up to the agreement on a common position on the draft directive on the legal protection of computer programs, my Department received numerous representations from hardware manufacturers, software producers, users and others. These were principally from the United Kingdom, but also from other Community countries and the United States, and covered legal, technical and economic aspects of the issue. Representations were also made by the United States Government. In addition to a large number of individual meetings with interest groups and organisations, my Department held regular consultation and information meetings to which all the various interests involved were invited.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on the extension of patent protection to software.

  Mr. Leigh
  Under the present law, the primary protection for computer software is copyright. The Patents Act 1977 excludes computer programs per se from
  27
  patenting, but an invention concerning an apparatus or method in which a novel and non-obvious computer program is applied in the achievement of a new technical result is patentable. I have no plans to change the law, which accords with the European patent convention.

  Software Copyright
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how his Department categorises computer programmes with respect to copyright.

  Mr. Leigh
  Computer programs are specified as a category of literary work by section 3 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (I) what procedures his Department intends to put in place to monitor and report on the effect of the EC draft directive on software copyright once it has been enacted;

  (2) what levels of increased annual costs his Department assesses as acceptable, as a result of the draft EC directive on software copyright, in the sectors of (a) central Government, (b) local government, (c) retail, (d) banking and insurance, (e) manufacturing and (f) services;

  (3) whether his Department has made any analysis of the potential costs to all public and private sector computer users of the draft EC directive on software copyright.

  Mr. Leigh
  A common position was agreed at the Internal Market Council in December on the draft directive on the legal protection of computer programs. We consider that the text as agreed will not result in substantial changes to existing United Kingdom copyright law and so will not impose any new costs on computer users or any need to introduce formal procedures to monitor the effects of any such changes.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the EC draft directive on software copyright would permit users to engage in the analysis of programs as necessary in order to maintain them.

  Mr. Leigh
  The directive would allow users to engage in the analysis of programs and permit maintenance, although not upgrading, of computer programs, subject to certain conditions. The lawful acquirer of a program may do what is necessary for the use of the program, including error correction. He may also decompile the program to the extent necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created program with other programs.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent he has assessed the European Community draft directive on software copyright specifies that interfaces and access protocols, as distinct from their implementation in specific programs, are not themselves properly monopolised under contract.

  Mr. Leigh
  The text of the directive on which a common position was agreed in December specifies that"ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this directive".
  28
  The principle that copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of ideas, is inherent in our law and so this statement, which was included for avoidance of doubt, will not require implementation when the directive is finally adopted.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure the European Community Draft directive on software copyright gives adequate protection to United Kingdom companies which develop and market IBM-compatible PCs.

  Mr. Leigh
  The directive will require member states to give a proper level of copyright protection to computer programs produced by United Kingdom companies. Those engaged in producing IBM compatible PCs will receive protection for their software on exactly the same basis as any other United Kingdom software producer. Moreover, article 6 of the directive will ensure that interoperability between computer programs can always be achieved, so that compatibility and the move to open systems is not obstructed.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the protection offered under the draft EC directive on software copyright to the computer suppliers proprietary architectures and on his assessment of the consequences in respect of impeding the development of open standards.

  Mr. Leigh
  The directive will require member states to give copyright protection to computer programs as literary works. This is already the case in the United Kingdom. When the directive is implemented, the protection afforded will not change to any significant degree and so there is no reason to fear that the move to open systems will be impeded.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Leigh
  The time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in the Department of Trade and Industry. Estimates are however made when there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold—currently £250. However following an interdepartmental exercise in 1972, in which the DTI participated, an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all Departments of answering an oral question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for the grades concerned, together with a share of the cost of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff cost as computer usage. This assessed figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £99.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.

  Mr. Leigh
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question
  29
  is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Israeli Investment
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has of the level of Israeli investment in Britain and of British investment in Israel.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The net book value of United Kingdom direct investment—in branches and subsidiary and associated companies—in Israel as at end 1987, the latest available information, was £24 million. Information on the net book value of direct investment by Israel in the United Kingdom is not available. Information on the level of United Kingdom portfolio investment in Israel or on Israeli portfolio investment in the United Kingdom is also not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crawfordsburn Hospital
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the district valuer placed a valuation on the land and buildings at Crawfordsburn hospital; what was this value; to whom it was communicated; and when.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The district valuer was asked by the DHSS on 5 November 1990 to provide a valuation of the premises and also advise on a disposal strategy, should the premises be declared surplus. The district valuer replied on 15 November 1990 to the DHSS advising that, if declared surplus, the premises should be marketed widely throughout the United Kingdom. I am advised that it could be prejudicial to any future sale if the DV's valuation, which may become an effective reserve price, were made known at this time.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department received any requests for information on Mr. Colin Wallace from the Defence Select Committee.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Acute Beds
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acute beds were available on a daily basis in hospitals in each of the health and social services board areas in 1979; and how many were available in 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Health and social services board

  Average available acute beds

  1979

  1989–90

  Eastern

  4,199

  3,288

  Northern

  1,159

  999

  Southern

  1,023

  859

  Western

  928

  703

  30
  Over the period the number of patients treated rose from 189,678 in 1979 to 218,313 in 1989–90.

  Government Appointees
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all government-appointed nominees to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland since its formation, giving the year of appointment and the length of service in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Name

  Mrs. M. Donaghy

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Mr. R. E. Gaw

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Mrs. N. Douglass

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Mr. V. McGahie

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Miss C. Macmahon

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Mrs. 0. Marshall

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Mrs. M. P. E. O'Hara

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Mrs. B. M. H. Shiel

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987

  Mr. J. H. Allen

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mr. B. St. J. Collins

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mrs. A. L. Dickson

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mr. P. McCoy

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mr. E. O'Brien

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mr. J. L. Courtney-Thompson

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mrs. P. Walker

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mrs. J. Whiteside

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1990

  Mrs. B. Hanna1

  1 January 1985

  Mr. R. J. Hanna1

  1 January 1985

  Mrs. G. H. J. Beveridge1

  1 January 1988

  Mr. W. D. Clements1

  1 January 1988

  Mrs. I. A. Colvin1

  1 January 1988

  Mr. M. F. L. Joyce1

  1 January 1988

  Mrs. L. M. Leonard1

  1 January 1988

  Lady McCollum1

  1 January 1988

  Mrs. J. C. Hopkirk

  1 January 1988 to 31 December 1990

  Mr. P. Dolan

  1 January 1988 to February 19902

  Mr. J. A. Gallagher1

  27 July 1990

  Mr. G. A. Mills1

  1 January 1991

  Mrs. B. McErlane1

  1 January 1991

  Mr. N. J. McLaughlin1

  1 January 1991

  Miss M. J. McGrane1

  1 January 1991

  Mr. D. J. McGuinness1

  1 January 1991

  Mrs. J. McVitty1

  1 January 1991

  Mrs. N. P. O'Loan1

  1 January 1991

  Mrs. J. M. Trewsdale1

  1 January 1991

  1 Still serving.

  2 Resigned.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all Government appointed nominees to the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland since its formation, giving the year of appointment and the length of service in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 January 1991:] All members of the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland are appointed by Government. The following is a list of all those who are or have been members of the Drainage Council as constituted under the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973.
  31

  Name

  Year of Appointment

  Length of Service (Years)

  Mr. F. Hamilton

  1974

  3

  Mr. J. Hadden

  1974

  7

  Mr. J. Bamford

  1974

  7

  Mr. T. J. McCaughey

  1974

  3

  Mr. J. Stewart

  1974

  3

  Mr. H. McKeag

  1974

  11

  Mr. W. McCombe

  1974

  3

  Mr. J. Murphy

  1974

  3

  Mr. D. Magee

  1974

  3

  Lieutenant Colonel J. Sleator

  1974

  3

  Mr. P. F. McGovern

  1974

  15

  Mr. R. A. Brown

  1974

  3

  Mr. S. O. Hicks

  1974

  7

  Professor P. J. Newbould

  1974

  11

  Mr. J. Scott

  1974

  3

  Mr. W. P. Richardson

  1974

  7

  Mr. A. E. McKelvie

  1974

  3

  Mr. J. McMahon

  1974

  3

  Mr. S. Rogers

  1977

  4

  Mr. R. J. White

  1977

  4

  Mr. A. McDonnell

  1977

  4

  Mr. W. Brown

  1977

  4

  Mr. P. J. McMahon

  1977

  4

  Mr. J. Higgins

  1977

  4

  Mr. T. A. Daly

  1977

  4

  Mr. D. Robinson

  1977

  Expires 1993

  Mr. G. L. Auret

  1977

  4

  Mr. E. Whiteside

  1977

  4

  Mr. E. Mayne

  1977

  4

  Mr. R. Allen

  1981

  8

  Mr. M. S. Bailey

  1981

  4

  Mr. J. Gaston

  1981

  8

  Mr. S. Gault

  1981

  8

  Mr. W. H. King

  1981

  4

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mr. A. P. McConaghy

  1981

  8

  Mr. A. C. McFarland

  1981

  4

  Mr. C. Noble

  1981

  4

  Mr. J. Savage

  1981

  8

  Dr. S. Cochrane

  1981

  Expires 1993

  Mr. J. Brennan

  1981

  4

  Mr. S. D. Rahilly

  1981

  4

  Mr. C. C. Fox

  1981

  4

  Mr. J. S. D. Gilmore

  1986

  3

  Mr. J. S. Hamilton

  1986

  3

  Mr. D. C. G. Irwin

  1986

  Expires 1993

  Mr. L. McQuaid

  1986

  Expires 1993

  Mr. W. F. O'Connell

  1986

  3

  Mr. R. E. Parker

  1986

  Expires 1993

  Mr. S. Rusk

  1986

  Expires 1993

  Dr. J. Parsons

  1986

  Expires 1993

  Mr. C. E. Ronaldson

  1986

  Expires 1993

  Mr. I. C. Henderson

  1986

  1

  Mr. N. E. Morrison

  1987

  Expires 1993

  Mrs. M. Clarke

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mr. M. Curran

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mr. E. Hetherington

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mrs. A. Kelly

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mr. S. McCartney

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mr. J. McNickle

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mr. H. Nicholl

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Mr. M. McCaldin

  1990

  Expires 1993

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy towards reopening an inquiry into the Kincora boys' home.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This matter has been investigated first by the RUC, then by Sir George Terry and finally by his honour Judge Hughes. I can see no benefit in holding a further inquiry.
  32
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the inquiries concerning events at the Kincora boys' home.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: This matter has been investigated first by the RUC, then by Sir George Terry and finally by his honour Judge Hughes.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the individual identified as James in a television programme referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of 11 June 1990,Official Report, column. 29 was interviewed about any role of the security and intelligence services concerning inquiries into the Kincora boys' home; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend, the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) gave to the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 11 June 1990, Official Report, column 29.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the Kincora boys' home from January 1990 to current date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: I have received 16 letters related to this subject during the period.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether he will re-examine all papers on the Kincora boys' home to ascertain the role of the security and intelligence services in decisions relating to an inquiry into Kincora in 1976;

  (2) if he will place copies of all correspondence received from January 1990 to the present date concerning the Kincora boys' home, and his replies, in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: No.

TRANSPORT

  Maritime Security
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make directions under the provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 requiring the maritime industries to take security measures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend today made directions which will require the industry to take specified measures to improve its counter-terrorist protective security precautions. These directions will be served on the industry as soon as can be arranged. Copies of the directions have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Roads, Cheshire
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the level of the transport supplementary grant allocated to the Cheshire county council for 1991–92; and what was the comparable figure in cash and percentage terms for each of the preceding three years;
  33
  (2) what provision was made in the announcement of the transport supplementary grant for 1991–92 for the Cheshire county council to commence work on the Wheelock bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  The net level of transport supplementary grant allocated to Cheshire county council and the percentage change on the preceding years are:

  Transport supplementary grant£ million

  Per cent. change from previous year

  1988–89

  1·364

  -28·4

  1989–90

  2·766

  103·5

  1990–91

  4·154

  49·6

  1991–92

  5·501

  32·4

  No provision has been made for the Wheelock bypass in Cheshire county council's transport supplementary grant for 1991–92. The main works for this scheme are scheduled to start in 1993–94 and it will therefore be considered for support in that and subsequent years.

  North Sea Standby Vessels
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the use of former fishing vessels as standby vessels in the North sea.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Most fishing vessels have good sea-keeping qualities and when properly converted have had no difficulty meeting the requirements of the Department's code for the assessment of the suitability of standby vessels attending offshore installations. Some fishing vessels properly maintained and converted may meet the new requirements for standby vessels which are to be drawn up in the light of Lord Cullen's report into the Piper Alpha tragedy.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about North sea standby vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since 1988, a number of representations have been received. Nearly all of them centre principally on improvements to the Department's code for the assessment of standby vessels and when the new standards will be implemented.

  Railway Maintenance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responsibilities are laid by him on Her Majesty's inspectors of railways to lay down or monitor their, or other bodies, standards of general maintenance of track, rolling stock or other operational equipment other than those recommended consequential on specific activities related to accidents.

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty's railway inspectorate sets non-statutory standards for fixed works and rolling stock, but does not lay down standards for maintenance work, which are matters for railway operators in accordance with their responsibilities for safe operation. The inspectorate has powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to require operators to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, that the safety of passengers and staff is not compromised.

  Rail Subsidy
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the total amount of subsidy paid in the last financial year to Network SouthEast;

  (2) what was the total amount of subsidy paid in the last financial year to British Rail in respect of its operations in Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subsidy is paid by the Government to the British Railways Board in the form of the public service obligation grant under EC regulation 1191/69 and section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, which compensates BR for maintaining loss-making passenger services, and level crossing grant under EC regulation 1192/69. The BR board received £498·6 million of PSO grant and £19·7 million of level crossings grant in the last financial year, 1989–90. Both grants are paid as totals to the board and the Government do not specifically allocate them between sectors or geographical areas, but some £95 million of the PSO grant related to Network SouthEast and the rest to the provincial sector.

  London Transport
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount of subsidy given in the last financial year to London Transport distinguishing between bus operations and underground services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government do not pay grant separately in respect of bus and underground services. London Transport receives a block grant covering the totality of its external financial requirement. In 1989–90, grant to London Transport totalled £287 million.

  InterCity Services
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail representations he has received about the improvement of Liverpool-London InterCity services by the use of a South Liverpool station as a stopping place for InterCity trains and the financial implications arising therefrom.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received no representations on this matter.

  BR Stations (Improvements)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about financial assistance to improve the condition of the cuttings and make environmental improvements between Liverpool Lime Street and Edge Hill stations.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. These are operational matters for British Rail. However, I understand that preliminary discussions have taken place between BR and Merseyside development corporation and the Merseyside task force to create a partnership to carry out an environmental improvement scheme at Edge Hill station.

  Coopers and Lybrand Report
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the Coopers and Lybrand report on non-channel tunnel traffic on railways.
  35
  Mr. Freeman
  Coopers, Lybrand Deloitte are not undertaking any such work for my Department. It is for British Rail to decide whether to publish any reports that the firm produces for it.

  Channel Tunnel link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report on the alternative routes for the rail link to the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail expects to have in the spring the results of the further studies into possible routes for the rail link to the channel tunnel.

  No decisions have yet been taken by BR or the Department on the timing or form of publication of the results.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will establish a nationwide scheme of assistance for retirement pensioners to free travel on road and rail transport at off-peak hours;

  (2) whether he will establish a nationwide scheme of assistance for retirement pensioners to travel at concessionary rates of 75 per cent. or 66 per cent. on road and rail transport in off-peak hours.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements. Local authorities already have powers to provide free or cheap travel for pensioners on local public transport, and do so in some 90 per cent. of areas. Both British Rail and the long-distance coach operators also have their own travel concessions arrangements for the elderly.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many cases signals from taxi radios or mobile telephones have been implicated in road accidents through interference with car computers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has no evidence of any road accidents that have resulted from electromagnetic interference—from whatever source—to electrical or electronic equipment fitted to vehicles.

  There are already strict rules controlling the use of radio transmission and reception equipment on vehicles. There is a general European Community directive due to enter into force on 1 January 1992 that covers electromagnetic compatibility of all electrical and electronic equipment, both mobile and static.

  We nevertheless need to ensure that, with the development of sophisticated electronic systems for vehicles, the satisfactory and safe operation of those systems will be maintained.

  Draft proposals are now being formulated by the European vehicle industry for a Community directive intended specifically to cover electromagnetic compatibility of vehicles. This will set standards to control the emission of interference from vehicles and ensure their immunity to emissions from external sources. We support these proposals.

  M40
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the total outturn cost of the M40 Waterstock to Umberslade, including the A43 Wendlebury-North Oxford and the widening of the M40 in the Chilterns(a) for preparation, design and supervision, (b) construction and contract costs and (c) land and compensation costs.

  Mr. Chope
  Outturn figures are not yet available. Total expenditure to date on the M40 Waterstock to Umberslade section, the Peartree Hill to Wendlebury section of A43 (now A34) and the widening of the M40 under each of the headings requested are:

  (a) £41·11 million.

  (b) £434·70 million.

  (c) £11·38 million.

  Interchange, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what would be the additional cost of improving the proposed interchange between the A49 and A5/M54 extension bypass currently under construction in Shrewsbury.

  Mr. Chope
  No estimate is available.

  Second Severn Bridge
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the desirability of constructing the approach road to the second Severn bridge on the English side to three-lane capacity.

  Mr. Chope
  Northavon district council, the Automobile Association and Thornbury town council are among those who consider that the link from the second Severn crossing to the M4 in England should be built as a dual three-lane motorway, rather than as the proposed dual two-lane motorway.

  The two proposed approach roads in England will together provide four lanes in each direction while the new bridge itself will have three lanes in each direction. All the proposed capacity is additional to that provided by the existing bridge and M4 motorway.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety Act
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional funds will be made available to local authorities for the financing of the enforcement of the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are making available an additional £30 million per year from 1991–92 onwards to cover the additional cost for local authorities enforcing the Food Safety Act and the EC directive on the official control of foodstuffs.

  Cattle Subsidies
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans(a) to change and (b) to abolish the £30 headage subsidy on the first 90 male cattle on any holding numbers.
  37
  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the duties and powers of the Eastern sea fisheries committee and its financial structure; and what changes he is planning.

  Mr. Curry
  The powers and duties of local fisheries committees are laid down in the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, as amended. These principally concern the management and regulation of sea fisheries and shellfish fisheries and undertaking the necessary related enforcement.

  The Eastern sea fisheries committee is one of 12 such committees in England and Wales and its district extends from Donna Nook in Lincolnshire to Dovercourt in Essex and seawards between these two points for three miles. Forty per cent. of its funding comes from Norfolk county council and 30 per cent. each from Lincolnshire and Suffolk county councils.

  We have no plans to change these arrangements. However, we are considering the results of consultation on a proposal from the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees for a general extension of the seaward limit of sea fisheries committee jurisdiction from three to six miles.

  Sole
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to press his counterparts in Europe to agree that the Dutch overfishing of 13,000 tonnes of sole in 1990 should be deducted from the 1991 quota allocated to the Netherlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Most member states, including the United Kingdom, fully or overfished their quotas before the Commission closed the North sea sole fishery on 21 December 1990. Latest provisional landings data indicate that the Netherlands has exceeded its quota by fewer than 200 tonnes, not 13,000 tonnes. The Commission has already set in train compensation proceedings because under the common fisheries policy a mechanism already exists whereby member states which overfish at the expense of others are required to provide appropriate compensation to those prejudiced.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that the United Kingdom fishing industry will be competing on equal terms with all other EC member states after 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Ever since we negotiated the common fisheries policy in 1983, when we secured 37·3 per cent. of the quotas for the seven main edible species and very restricted access for other member states vessels to our coastal waters, a package which was acknowledged as a good one by our industry, we have consistently defended the position of our industry. As recently as the last December Fisheries Council we again secured a good package of fishing opportunities including additional 38
  quantities through the Hague preference and also a greater flexibility to catch western mackerel east of the 4°W line. We will continue to work to secure good arrangements.

  Smoked Meat and Fish
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many businesses are involved in smoking and curing meat and fish products.

  Mr. Maclean
  The smoking and curing of meat and fish is mainly undertaken by businesses in two industries: activity heading 4122—bacon curing and meat products; and activity heading 4150—fish products. There are 822 local units recorded in the former of these industries and 354 in the latter, but only a small proportion of these units are known to undertake smoking or curing.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are employed in the smoked meat and fish industry; and what estimates have been made of the effect on employment of the implementation of the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations.

  Mr. Maclean
  The smoking and curing of meat and fish is mainly undertaken by businesses in two industries: activity heading 4122—bacon curing and meat products; and activity heading 4150—fish products. It is estimated that there are about 53,000 persons employed in the former of these industries and 17,000 in the latter. Only a very small proportion of these are known to be involved in smoking or curing. Temperature controls are necessary to ensure the safety of certain foods as they reach the consumer. Where the processing of the food or the method of packaging can be shown to prevent the growth of pathogenic micro-organisms at ambient temperatures chill controls are not required. Industry will itself want to consider how its products can meet these food safety demands.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimate of how much smoked meat and fish is delivered by post each year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available.

  Hill livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for 1991; when these amounts were initially paid out to farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 18 January,Official Report, column 616.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  ODA Staffing Levels
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has regarding ODA staffing levels over the next five years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have no plans to make any significant changes to ODA staffing levels. The annual figures in the current public expenditure survey period will be given in the Departmental report to be published next month.
  39
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ODA staff are women at or above grade 7; and what is the percentage of women as a total of such staff.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Thirty-five ODA staff at G7 or above are women. The number includes eight women who are on secondment to other aid organisations. This represents 10·94 per cent. of all ODA staff at those levels, including seconded staff.

  Africa (Famine)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of people in Africa currently threatened by famine.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Nations World Food Programme estimates that at least 20 million people are currently under threat.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom currently doing to help Bangladesh to prevent or to mitigate the effects of flooding.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following the serious flooding in Bangladesh in 1988 we hosted an international conference in London on 11 and 12 December 1989 which reviewed and endorsed a rolling five-year flood action plan prepared for the Bangladesh Government by the World bank.

  Britain agreed to undertake four of the 26 activities proposed in the plan, which are aimed at establishing ways to control and alleviate the effects of flooding. These are a major regional study on how to address the flooding problem in north-west Bangladesh; supporting studies to evaluate the effectiveness of previous flood control schemes and to assess ways of improving their operation and maintenance; and a study on fisheries, designed to ensure that the relationship between flood alleviation measures and fishery resources is properly understood. Consultants undertook feasibility work in Bangladesh in 1990 on the regional and fisheries studies and the main study teams for all four activities have now begun to arrive in Bangladesh.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will commission an independent survey on the effectiveness of the United Kingdom aid programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We regularly commission independent outside evaluators to work alongside our own evaluation department on studying the effectiveness of particular aspects of the aid programme. The results of around 50 studies completed over the last three years are available.

  The development assistance committee—DAC—of the OECD also reviews the aid programmes of its members on a regular basis. A review of the United Kingdom aid programme is currently under way and the conclusions of the DAC will be announced in April.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was United 40
  Kingdom per capita aid in each of the last five years to (a) Sudan, (b) Ethiopia, (c) Angola, (d) Mozambique and (e) Liberia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom gross bilateral aid (including emergency relief aid) per capita (£ actual) 1985–89 to Angola, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique and Sudan

  19851

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19892

  Angola

  0·02

  0·03

  0·03

  0·05

  0·14

  Ethiopia

  0·67

  0·22

  0·21

  0·40

  0·25

  Liberia

  0·50

  0·40

  0·39

  0·36

  0·26

  Mozambique

  0·62

  0·52

  1·63

  2·01

  1·50

  Sudan

  1·98

  1·15

  0·88

  1·09

  1·32

  1 Based on 1984 population figures.

  2 Based on 1988 population figures.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total of aid from the United Kingdom since 1987 to(a) each Latin American nation and (b) each (i) north, (ii) west, (iii) southern, (iv) central and (v) eastern African nation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following are the available figures:

  Total Gross Bilateral United Kingdom Aid 1987–1989

  Country

  £,000s

  AFRICA: North

  Algeria

  1,160

  Egypt

  37,471

  Morocco

  1,313

  Tunisia

  2,062

  AFRICA: Sub-Saharan

  Angola

  2,077

  Benin

  808

  Botswana

  27,924

  Burkina Faso

  752

  Burundi

  358

  Cameroon

  17,205

  Cape Verde Islands

  152

  C.A.R.

  85

  Chad

  658

  Comoros

  8

  Congo

  701

  Djibouti

  383

  Equatorial Guinea

  306

  Ethiopia

  39,523

  Gabon

  64

  Gambia

  18,491

  Ghana

  103,335

  Guinea

  1,564

  Guinea-Bissau

  122

  Ivory Coast

  20,496

  Kenya

  132,291

  Lesotho

  14,854

  Liberia

  2,383

  Madagascar

  1,310

  Malawi

  114,603

  Mali

  3,437

  Mauritania

  515

  Mauritius

  26,723

  Mozambique

  76,410

  Namibia

  4,545

  Niger

  675

  Nigeria

  77,768

  Rwanda

  799

  Sao Tome and Principe

  16

  Senegal

  5,637

  Seychelles

  4,580

  Sierra Leone

  9,115

  Somalia

  19,201

  South Africa

  10,637

  Sudan

  77,889

  Swaziland

  14,692

  Tanzania

  101,156

  41

  Country

  £,000s

  Togo

  679

  Uganda

  69,556

  Zaire

  4,437

  Zambia

  52,100

  Zimbabwe

  57,880

  AMERICA: Central

  Costa Rica

  10,151

  Cuba

  5

  Dominican Republic

  173

  E1 Salvador

  709

  Guatemala

  61

  Haiti

  10

  Honduras

  2,678

  Mexico

  3,055

  Nicaragua

  241

  Panama

  1,777

  AMERICA: South

  Bolivia

  8,848

  Brazil

  4,559

  Chile

  799

  Colombia

  4,554

  Ecuador

  5,209

  Paraguay

  1,105

  Peru

  3,461

  Surinam

  17

  Uruguay

  57

  Venezuela

  56

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing the level of United Kingdom bilateral aid since 1987 to the 20 poorest nations as measured by GDP: and what information he has as to the percentage this aid represents of the total aid received by that nation in each case.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information for 1987 and 1988 is as follows:

  United Kingdom bilateral ODA £'000

  Percentage of total ODA receipts (including multilateral aid)

  Cambodia

  100

  0·6

  Afghanistan

  1,932

  2·8

  Vietnam

  0

  0·0

  Mozambique

  51,478

  5·7

  Ethiopia

  27,413

  3·0

  Bhutan

  682

  1·4

  Guinea·Bissau

  81

  0·1

  Tanzania

  59,194

  5·3

  Chad

  431

  0·2

  Malawi

  49,541

  13·1

  Bangladesh

  75,656

  4·0

  Zaire

  3,709

  0·5

  Nepal

  20,817

  4·7

  Somalia

  13,906

  2·4

  Madagascar

  994

  0·3

  Laos

  162

  0·2

  Burma

  6,909

  1·4

  Gambia

  12,559

  5·8

  Mali

  2,281

  0·5

  Burundi

  206

  0·1

  Total

  328,051

  3·4

  Notes:

  (1) These figures are for net official development assistance (oda).

  (2) The figures in the left-hand column are for United Kingdom bilateral aid only, and thus do not include the United Kingdom share of multilateral aid to these countries, which is included in the total oda receipts figure which forms the basis of the right-hand column.
  42
  (3) The figures include official development assistance recorded in 1987 and 1988: figures for other donors for 1989 are not yet available in this form.

  Sources: British Aid Statistics: United Kingdom aid.

  OECD: Total oda receipts.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total level of aid, broken down by continent, formally requested of the United Kingdom over the past 12 months; and how much of this total was agreed to.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Formal requests for specified amounts of British aid are rarely received. We are in regular consultation with the main recipients of bilateral aid about the amounts of British aid that might be made available and the purposes for which it might be used.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries in Asia and the middle east were beneficiaries of funds from the aid and trade provision in the last year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1990, spending under the aid and trade provision took place in respect of projects in the following countries:

  Asia

  Burma

  China

  India

  Indonesia

  Malaysia

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Sri Lanka

  Thailand

  Middle East

  Jordan

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of the bilateral aid to Sri Lanka.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Total United Kingdom bilateral aid to Sri Lanka was £23·552million in 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, and comprised:

  £ million

  Capital aid

  6·391

  Technical co-operation

  8·222

  Aid and trade provision

  4·158

  Commonwealth development corporation

  3·114

  Debt relief

  1·589

  Disaster relief

  0·078

  Expenditure is expected to have been substantially less in 1990, due in part to the security situation

  Poland
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intended to make further significant aid available to Poland during 1991.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall continue to help Poland from the know-how fund for eastern Europe. I expect that the level of expenditure in 1991–92 will be similar to that in 1990–91—about £10 million.

  Physically and Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds are made available by the ODA specifically to assist the physically and mentally handicapped.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Funds specifically to assist physically and mentally handicapped people are made available from our geographical programmes, through our joint funding scheme—JFS—with British charities and through international aid agencies. Examples of our geographical activities are:—In India we have supported Indian Spastic Societies in Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta since 1979. We currently have under consideration a programme of further support to these societies, plus another in Madras at a cost of around £1·6 million.
  —In Fiji we are spending £40,000 on a project with the Disabled Peoples' Association.
  —In Malawi we are sponsoring 15 ophthalmic technicians from the region to be trained and equipped to return to their countries to work as peripatetic operators. The cost of this project is £73,000.

  In the financial year 1989–90 over £651,000 was provided under the JFS for projects specifically intended to benefit disabled people. International agencies supported by the ODA which undertake projects to promote the welfare of disabled people include the WHO, UNCHR and UNIDO.

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources have been made available by his Department to help combat illiteracy in developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am ready to give additional help, but the ODA must take account of the plans and priorities of developing country Governments.

  I hope that the world conference on education for all which was held in Thailand last year will encourage governments to give greater priority to combating illiteracy. We currently spend £3·7 million of capital and technical co-operation funds specifically on primary education and adult literacy. We are making £20 million available this year to the joint funding scheme for non-governmental organisation work which includes a number of literacy projects.

  Least-developed Countries
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid his Department is giving to help the least-developed countries develop more effective governmental, legal and commercial structures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Effective governmental, legal and commercial structures are essential to economic and social development in least developed countries, as elsewhere. We provide assistance under our aid programme in many least developed countries through technical cooperation and training. Our aid also provides financial support for economic reform programmes linked to strengthening of these structures.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all projects and programmes funded by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the last five years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The following is the list of the projects in which the Commonwealth Development Corporation made an investment during the years 1986 to 1990.

  Projects receiving CDC investment in 1986

  Country

  Project

  Belize

  Belize Hotel Ltd.

  Botswana

  Water Utilities Corporation

  Botswana

  Botswana Housing Corporation

  Botswana

  Botswana Telecom

  Botswana

  Botswana Development Corporation

  Cameroon

  Cameroon Development Corporation

  Cameroon

  Societe Hevea Cameroun (La)

  Cayman Islands

  Caribbean Utlities Co. Ltd.

  Costa Rica

  Inst Costa de AYA

  Costa Rica

  Inst Costa de Elect

  Costa Rica

  Inst Costa de AYA

  Fiji

  Fiji forest Industries Ltd.

  Ghana

  Twifo Oil Palm

  Honduras

  Division Municipal de Aguas

  Indonesia

  Nucleus Estate and Smallholders Project VI

  Indonesia

  Nucleus Estate and Smallholders Project VII

  Ivory Coast

  Societe pour le Development des Plantations Forestieres (Hardwood)

  Ivory Coast

  Rubber Outgrowers Project II—Cavally

  Ivory Coast

  Rubber Outgrowers Project II—Smallholder

  Ivory Coast

  Societe pour le Development des Plantations Forestieres I (Hardwood)

  Ivory Coast

  Palmindustrie

  Jamaica

  Coffee Industry Board

  Kenya

  Smallholder Coffee

  Kenya

  Kenya Power Co. Ltd.

  Kenya

  Oil Crop Development

  Malawi

  Mandala Ltd.

  Malawi

  Kawalazi Estates

  Malawi

  Blantyre Water Board

  Malawi

  Mandala Ltd.

  Malaysia

  Darabif Sdn Bhd

  Malaysia

  Aluminium Industries Sdn Bhd

  Mauritius

  Mauritius Housing Corporation

  Papua New Guinea

  Electricity Supply Commission

  Sri Lanka

  Pelwatte Sugar

  Sri Lanka

  Samanala Wena

  St. Lucia

  St. Lucia Model Farms

  Sudan

  Sudanese Fermentation Industry Ltd.

  Tanzania

  Tanganyika Wattle Co.

  Tanzania

  Kibo Match

  Thailand

  World Aquaculture

  Thailand

  Thailand Rubber Replanting Aid Fund

  Uganda

  Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd.

  Vanuatu

  Metensel Estates Ltd.

  Zambia

  Zambia Sugar Co. Ltd.

  Zambia

  Mpomgwe Development Co. Ltd.

  Zambia

  Zambia Oxygen Ltd.

  Zimbabwe

  Rusitu Valley Development Co. (Pvt) Ltd.

  Zimbabwe

  Low Cost Housing

  Projects receiving CDC investment for first time in 1987

  Country

  Project

  Barbados

  Caribbean Financial Services Corporation

  Botswana

  Botswana Power Corporation

  Cameroon

  Societe Hevea Cameroun (La)

  Cameroon

  Cameroon Development Corporation II

  Ecuador

  Palmoriente SA

  Indonesia

  Smallholder Rubber Development Project II

  Ivory Coast

  Societe Africaine de Plantations d'Heveas

  Jamaica

  Forest Industries Development Co. Ltd.

  Jamaica

  St. Mary Bananas Est. Ltd.

  Kenya

  Kulalu Ranching Co. Ltd.

  45

  Country

  Project

  Malawi

  Blantyre Netting Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  Malawi Government

  Malawi

  Kavuzi Tea Co.

  Malawi

  Investment and Development Bank of Malawi Ltd.

  Malaysia

  Palong Cocoa Sdn Bhd

  Malaysia

  Palong Cocoa Sdn Bhd

  Mauritius

  Mauritious Export Development & Investment Authority

  Mauritius

  Bonair Fashion Ltd.

  St. Lucia

  St. Lucia Electricity

  Swaziland

  Langa National Brickworks (Pty) Ltd.

  Swaziland

  Shiselweni Forestry Co. Ltd.

  Swaziland

  Natex Swaziland Ltd.

  Tanzania

  Tanzania Government

  Thailand

  Thailand Rubber Replanting Aid Fund

  Uganda

  Toro and Mityana Tea Co. Ltd.

  Vanuatu

  South Santo Cattle Co.

  Zambia

  Kafue Textiles of Zambia Ltd.

  Zimbabwe

  Zimbabwe Development Bank

  Projects receiving CDC investment for first time in 1988

  Country

  Project

  Belize

  Belize Electricity Board

  BVI

  BVI Electricity Corporation

  Ecuador

  Empresa Nacional de Energia Eletrica

  France

  Tropiclone SA

  Ghana

  Volta River Authority

  India

  Shipping Credit and Investment Company of India

  India

  Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India

  Indonesia

  PT Coklat Ransiki

  Ivory Coast

  Serebou Seed Project

  Jamaica

  Jamaica Telephone Co.

  Kenya

  Development Finance Co. of Kenya Ltd.

  Kenya

  Kulalu Ranching Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  Capital Developments Ltd.

  Malawi

  Investment and Development Bank of Malawi Ltd.

  Malawi

  Impala Farming Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  Sable Farming Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  Malawi Government

  Malaysia

  Desa Tea Sdn Bhd

  Mauritius

  Mauritius Export Development and Investment Authority

  Mauritius

  Woventex Ltd.

  Mauritius

  Development Bank of Mauritius

  Pakistan

  Mubarik Dairies Ltd.

  Papua New Guinea

  PNG Venture Fund (Pty) Ltd.

  Papua New Guinea

  Poliamba pty Ltd.

  Papua New Guinea

  New Guinea Plantation Ltd.

  Papua New Guinea

  Milne Bay Estates Pty Ltd.

  Solomon Islands

  Solomon Islands Plantations Ltd.

  Thailand

  Thai Factory Development Co. Ltd.

  Thailand

  Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand

  Uganda

  Development Finance Co. of Uganda Ltd.

  Vanuatu

  Tanna Coffee Development Co. Ltd.

  Vanuatu

  South Santo Cattle Co.

  Zimbabwe

  Cold Storage Commission

  Zimbabwe

  Southdown Holdings Ltd

  Projects receiving CDC investment for first time in 1989

  Country

  Project

  Bangladesh

  United Leasing Company Ltd.

  Bangladesh

  New Dhaka Refractories (Bangladesh) Ltd.

  Bangladesh

  Padma Textile Mills Ltd.

  Cameroon

  Socatral

  Costa Rica

  Cooperativa Agroindustrial de Productores de Palma Aceitera R. L.

  Cote D'Ivoire

  Rubber Outgrowers Project V

  Fiji

  Fiji Development Bank

  India

  Sakthi Soyas Ltd.

  India

  Credit Capital Venture Fund (India) Ltd.

  India

  Asian Coffee Ltd.

  46

  Country

  Project

  India

  Shipping Credit and Investment Company of India

  India

  Rane Power Steering Ltd.

  Indonesia

  PT Kewalram

  Jamaica

  Jablum (Jamaica) Ltd.

  Jamaica

  Caribbean Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

  Kenya

  African Management Services Ltd.

  Kenya

  Koma Rock Housing Project

  Malawi

  National Seed Co. of Malawi Ltd.

  Malawi

  Malawi Hotels Ltd.

  Malawi

  The Match Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  Sable Farming Co. Ltd.

  Mauritius

  Development Bank of Mauritius

  Mauritius

  Shape Fabrics Ltd.

  Mauritius

  Maunex (Mauritius) Ltd.

  Pakistan

  Hala Spinning Ltd.

  Papua New Guinea

  MacGregor Property Pty. Ltd.

  Philippines

  H & Q Philippine Ventures Inc.

  Sudan

  Sudan Rural Development Finance Co. Ltd.

  Swaziland

  Swaziland Meat Industries Ltd.

  Swaziland

  Inyoni Yami Swaziland Irrigation Scheme

  Swaziland

  Swaziland Industrial Development Co. Ltd.

  Tanzania

  East Usambara Tea Company Ltd.

  Tanzania

  Chrismill Farms Ltd.

  Thailand

  Mongkolwat Company Ltd.

  Uganda

  Uganda Electricity Board

  Vanuatu

  Metenesel Estates Ltd.

  Zambia

  National Hotels Development Corporation

  Zambia

  Masstock (Zambia) Ltd.

  Zimbabwe

  Zimbabwe Development Bank

  Projects receiving CDC investment for first time in 1990

  Country

  Project

  Bangladesh

  Karnaphuli Fertilizer Company

  Belize

  Big Falls Plantations Ltd.

  Belize

  Toledo Enterprise Ltd.

  Botswana

  Water Utilities Corporation

  Costa Rica

  Cooperation Agroindustial de Productores de Palma aceitera R.L.

  Cote d' Ivoire

  Project Serebou

  Ecuador

  Instituto Ecuatoriano de Telecommunicaciones

  Ecuador

  Pamoriente SA

  India

  Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd.

  India

  Apollo Tyres Ltd.

  India

  Modi Threads Ltd.

  Indonesia

  PT Tasik Raja Palm Oil Mill

  Jamaica

  Caribbean Housing Finance Corporation

  Jamaica

  Ciboney Villas Ltd.

  Jamaica

  Dr. Ian Sangster and Co. Ltd.

  Jamaica

  Trafalgar Development Bank Ltd.

  Kenya

  Galsheet (Kenya) Ltd.

  Kenya

  South Nyanza Sugar Co.

  Malawi

  Impala Farming Co. Ltd.

  Malaysia

  Wembley Rubber Products (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

  Pakistan

  Fauji Fertiliser Co. Ltd.

  Pakistan

  Pakistan Industrial Leasing Co.

  Papua New Guinea

  Papua New Guinea Electricity Commission

  Philippines

  Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

  PNG

  New Guinea Plantations Ltd.

  Solomon Islands

  Kolombangara Forest Products Ltd.

  Tanzania

  East Usambara Tea Co. Ltd.

  Thailand

  Mah Boonkrong Sirichai 25 Company

  Thailand

  Phansriviat Company Ltd.

  Uganda

  Development Finance Co. of Uganda Ltd.

  Vanuatu

  National Housing Corporation

  Zambia

  National Hotels Development Corporation

  Zimbabwe

  Zimbabwe Electricity Services

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Souvenir Kiosk
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total turnover from the House of Commons souvenir kiosk during November and December; and what estimated profit after deducting wages and administration charges the authorities will receive.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The total turnover of the Refreshment Department kiosk during November and December 1990 including VAT, was £109,786 and £213,318, respectively. Equivalent gross profits were £34,368 and £66,778, respectively. After the deduction of £5,261·53 for direct payroll costs during the two-month period, the net operating surplus for both months combined was £95,884·47.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the takings of the House of Commons kiosk(a) in the four weeks to Christmas and (b) over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The takings, or turnover, of the Refreshment Department souvenir kiosk during the four weeks to Christmas 1990 and for the previous 12 months to Christmas—including VAT—were £246,472 and £701,404, respectively.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve liaison between the House and Members of the European Parliament.

  Mr. MacGregor
  At its next meeting the Services Committee will be asked to consider measures designed to facilitate contacts between this House and Members of the

  Number of days

  Motion

  Session 1987–88

  Session 1988–89

  Session 1989–90

  Session 1990–911

  Total

  (a) Select Committee on Legal Affairs

  71

  —

  287

  —

  158

  (b) Procedure

  69

  122

  132

  23

  346

  (c) Sittings

  69

  123

  132

  23

  347

  (d) Facilities

  —

  115

  132

  23

  270

  1 Up to 31 December 1990.

  2 The figure given in the Official Report on 14 June 1990, column 298 was incorrect.

  Committee Rooms
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans there are for House of Commons Committee Rooms to be fitted with the audio loop.

  Mr. MacGregor
  With the exception of three rooms, where the installation of an electronic loop to enhance audibility for the hard of hearing was not considered practical, all other rooms on the Committee Corridor are equipped with that facility. So too is the Great Committee Room, Westminster Hall.

  Reception of proceedings by means of these loops requires the attendance of an operator and so is not available for those Select Committees, the proceedings of which are not recorded by sound or for television broadcast, nor for private meetings.
  48
  European Parliament. Proposals will also be presented for the introduction of free postage and telephone calls with EC institutions.

  Procedural Changes
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to announce any proposals for procedural changes for the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The House will be considering important changes to the European Standing Committees tomorrow.

  Notices of Motions
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many days between 1 July 1987 and 31 December 1990 the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has tabled notices of motions relating to each of(a) the Select Committee on Legal Affairs, (b) reform of House of Commons procedure, (c) sittings of the House and (d) Members' facilities; and what estimate he has made of the total cost to public funds and the volume of newsprint that have been involved in the printing of the motions.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The total cost to public funds of printing and publishing notices of motions relating to(a) a Select Committee on Legal Affairs, (b) the reform of the House of Commons procedure, (c) sittings of the House and (d) Members facilities, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in Sessions 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and in the current Session to 31 December 1990 is estimated as £68,000. The volume of paper consumed was about 345,000 sheets of A4 paper. The number of days on which the notices of motions were tabled in each Session are as follows:

  The system is compatible with most modern hearing aids and with portable receivers available on loan from the Serjeant's staff on duty in the Committee Corridor.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Economic Sanctions
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the nations against which the United Kingdom is currently operating economic sanctions, giving the reason in each case.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are implementing a variety of restrictive measures on our trade and other relations with a number of countries. These include:
  49

  (a) controls, operated for strategic reasons, through COCOM on the export of high technology equipment which could be used for military as well as civil purposes to a number of proscribed destinations, including the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and China. COCOM comprises the NATO countries, less Iceland, as well as Japan and Australia;

  (b) a variety of restrictive measures on our economic relations with South Africa, implemented within the EC and by agreement with the Commonwealth, as a signal of our disapproval of apartheid. For details of these measures I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 15 February 1990 and to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 19 February 1990. Since then, we have lifted the ban on new investments and the Commonwealth voluntary ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa (on 23 February 1990) and the European Council has lifted the ban on new investments Community-wide (on 15 December 1990);

  (c) restrictions not aimed at particular countries, such as those of the missile technology control regime, and those resulting from our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, and controls on the export of material used in production of chemical and biological weapons;

  (d) special restrictions applied to arms exports to certain countries, for example, in the middle east, reflecting our wish not to fuel or prolong conflicts in the region, and our determination to take a firm line on state-sponsored terrorism. The embargo on trade in arms with China, introduced by the European Community in June 1989 to mark their concern about the repression of the democracy movement, remains in place;

  (e) economic sanctions imposed on Iraq and occupied Kuwait, in accordance with our obligations under UNSCR 661, following Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait and subsequent refusal to withdraw.

FCA

  Military Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total level of British military aid to the 20 poorest nations, measured by GDP, since 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Excluding the cost of the garrison in Belize, the figures are as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  2·1

  1988–89

  1·8

  1989–90

  2·7

  1990–91

  2·6

  Katyn Massacre
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there will now be a statement to correct official information regarding the Polish Government in exile's claims concerning the responsibility for Katyn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have in the past issued no statement or official comment on the Polish Government in exile's claims about Katyn. As we have said before, the Soviet authorities' admission last April that the NKVD was responsible for the massacre was very welcome.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been afforded to AEA Fuel Services by British embassies to assist in the promotion of Dounreay.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  AEA Fuel Services has not sought our help in providing the services that it offers.

  Technology Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to brief exporters of militarily sensitive technologies of their responsibilities in such exports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. There are regular consultations among Whitehall departments on the enforcement of export controls. When necessary officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office participate in briefings organised by the DTI for business men.

  Khmer Rouge
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent the Khmer Rouge from returning to power in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A comprehensive political settlement that enables the Cambodian people to choose their own government free from the fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, civil war and invasion is the best way to bring durable peace to Cambodia and prevent the Khmer Rouge from returning to power. That is the purpose of the document drawn up in November 1990 by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the co-chairmen of the Paris conference on Cambodia and the United Nations Secretary General's representative. As one of the permanent five, the United Kingdom will continue to work for the acceptance and implementation of this document.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his reply of 12 November 1990,Official Report, columns 54–55, what information he has on the number of tanks the Khmer Rouge possess, and who supplied them; and what efforts he is taking as a member of the United Nations Security Council to restrain Khmer Rouge military aggression in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that the Khmer Rouge has acquired a number of tanks of Chinese origin.

  As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Britain is playing an active role in diplomatic efforts to resolve the Cambodian conflict. Acceptance by all Cambodian parties of the draft comprehensive settlement document agreed in Paris on 23 to 26 November by the permanent five, the co-chairmen of the Paris conference and the United Nations Secretary-General's representative would be the best way to bring the fighting to an end. The Five have repeatedly called on all parties to stop fighting and co-operate to the full in helping to implement the settlement document.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if, in his discussions with the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, while drafting the United Nations framework for Cambodia, he sought a commitment from them to end supplies of military aid to the Cambodian parties;

  (2) if he will now seek a commitment from the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to end supplies of military aid to the Cambodian parties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A commitment has already been given in the framework document a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House endorsed by the United Nations Security Council in resolution 668 of 20 September 1990.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he is making to ensure the cessation of arms supplies to the warring parties in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) of 14 January, at column 382.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role he envisages for the international control mechanism to monitor military action in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the United Nations peace plan, the international control mechanism proposed at the Paris conference on Cambodia in August 1989 is replaced by the military component of the United Nations transitional authority—UNTAC. Its functions are set out in the draft settlement document agreed by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the co-chairmen of the Paris conference on Cambodia and the United Nations Secretary-General's representative in Paris on 23 to 26 November 1990.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Government policy concerning the development of democratic self-government for Lithuania and other Baltic states within the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the right of the Baltic peoples to determine their own future, and welcome the progress made in the last two years towards this goal. We have strongly urged the Soviet authorities not to reverse that process. To do so would contravene the Soviet Union's commitment to strengthen democracy, under the charter for a new Europe signed in Paris on 21 November 1990. Only free negotiation based on democratic principles can provide a solution to the problems of the Baltic peoples.

  Lithuania
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Lithuanian Foreign Minister; and if he will make a statement.
  52
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I met the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Algirdas Saudargas at the Foreign Office on 15 January. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Saudargas on 16 January. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in reply to his question later that day, we shared Mr. Saudargas's anxiety about the continuing threat of repression in Lithuania and other republics.

  Albania
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will bring forward a programme of bilateral and European Community advice and aid to the Government and people of Albania following their elections.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall not take a decision on this before the election.

  Mr. Jonathan Moyle
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if his Department has been informed officially of the latest court decision in Chile of the circumstances of Mr. Jonathan Moyle's death;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding inquiries carried out by his Department into the circumstances in Jonathan Moyle, met his death in Chile;

  (3) if his Department has any details of the information Mr. Jonathan Moyle, found dead in Chile, had come across in relation to arms being exported from Chile to Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 17 January 1991]: The circumstances of Mr. Jonathan Moyle's tragic death are still under investigation by the Chilean autborities; no decision has yet been reached. Her Majesty's coroner for Exeter and East Devon has opened and adjourned an inquest. It is for these authorities to determine the cause of death.

  The British embassy in Santiago, has been, and remains in close and regular touch with the Chilean authorities and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in contact with Mr. Moyle's family. Neither the Foreign and Commonwealth Office nor the British embassy at Santiago has ever taken an official position on the cause of Mr. Moyle's death. I have looked into media reports that Mr. Moyle may have come across information about Chilean arms sales to Iraq, but I have no evidence to substantiate this.

DEFENCE

  Civilian Employees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many serving members of the Royal Air Force and civilians working ancillary to the Royal Air Force are employed in Wales; and if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Air Force in Wales;

  (2) how many serving members of the Army and civilians working ancillary to the Army are employed in Wales; and if he will make a statement on the future of the Army in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 4,646 established RAF posts and 2,643 civilians employed at
  53
  RAF units in Wales, while the Army presence comprises some 650 trained service personnel and 550 civilian employees. A strengthening of this presence in future would be consistent with wider Government policy on relocation; and certainly we shall take account of the natural advantages offered by Wales, especially for training, in our planning for any redeployments. We are, however, contemplating a significant reduction in the long-term size of our forces under "options for change", and the impact of this is bound to be felt to some degree in Wales as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake a public survey of the problems of toxic waste pollution in and around United States overseas bases as it affects United States bases in Britain, including bases closing or closed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are no plans to undertake such a survey.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information Her Majesty's Government has or intends to seek on the problems of toxic waste pollution in and around United States bases in Britain;

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will seek binding agreements with the United States Government to ensure the clean-up, at United States expense, of all United States bases in Britain and surrounding areas which have been affected by toxic waste pollution.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Such bases are bound by the same environmental legislation as military establishments occupied by our own armed forces. Any particular occurrence of pollution, either governed by such legislation or otherwise notifiable, are dealt with in the appropriate manner. There are in addition general agreements, on basing responsibilities already in existence.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government intends to examine the United States congressional report on the problems of toxic waste pollution in and around United States overseas bases, due to be published at the end of 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I understand that no such report exists.

  Body Bags
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has placed orders for body bags with firms in Halifax and the Calder Valley during the last six months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the provision of ammunition by the United Kingdom's European partners for the United Kingdom Gulf force, including who is financing such ammunition and the reasons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the build-up of the British contribution to the multinational force in the Gulf 54
  we sought additional ammunition of certain types from our European allies. Most of the ammunition required was provided either on loan—that is on a replacement or repayment basis—or for a nominal price, although some was procured at the market price.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Visual Handicap
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people receive mobility allowance whose main disabling condition is listed as blindness or disease of the eye;

  (2) how many people receive mobility allowance solely on the basis of visual impairment.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department intends to take regarding the Court of Appeal judgment in July 1990, Secretary of State v. Thomas, Cooze, Beard, Murphy and Morley v. Secretary of State, regarding discriminatory upper age limits for severe disability allowance and invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has appealed to the House of Lords against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department will save through the restriction of paying back-dated benefits arising from test cases, introduced by the Social Security Act 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Savings for the current financial year are estimated to be of the order of £2 million.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by his civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. These measures are kept under review. The Department of Social Security does not process classified information on its mainframe or lap-top computers.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for the Doncaster area, how many(a) pensioner households, (b) families with children and (c) other households who are tenants of (i) Doncaster local authority, (ii) housing associations and (iii) other landlords, are estimated to be receiving (1) maximum housing benefits with no deduction for non-dependants,

  55
  (2) maximum housing benefit but with deductions for non-dependants and (3) a lesser amount of housing benefit towards their rent payments currently and over the periods 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what proportions of the total numbers of tenants in each category they represent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Loans and Grants
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state(a) the amounts available and (b) the amounts taken up by each Department of Social Security office in Scotland for (i) crisis loans, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) community care grants in each year since the system was introduced, including the current year until the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is available in the Library.

  Supplementary Benefit and Income Support
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many people were provided for by supplementary benefit or income support in Scotland in each year since 1974 separately identifying the number of children.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table:

  Thousands

  Year

  Total claimants, partners and dependants

  Of which children (0–15 years)

  1974

  n/a

  n/a

  1975

  449

  115

  1976

  n/a

  n/a

  1977

  473

  120

  1978

  468

  120

  1979

  451

  109

  1980

  482

  119

  1981

  608

  154

  1982

  705

  183

  1983

  713

  177

  1984

  772

  195

  1986

  832

  212

  1987

  862

  216

  1988

  827

  226

  1989

  799

  223

  Source: Annual Statistical Inquiries.

  Notes:

  (a) Information for 1974 is not available in the form requested.

  (b) The Annual Statistical Inquiries for 1976 is incomplete. It does not contain details of unemployed cases.

  (c) There was no Annual Statistical Inquires in 1985; the one due in December that year was deferred until February 1986.

  Income Support Deductions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage of, income support claimants in Scotland(a) aged over 60 years and (b) aged under 60 years are repaying social fund budgeting loans or crisis loans by deductions from their benefit payments.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number and the percentage of income support claimants in Scotland(a)
  56
  aged over 60 and (b) aged under 60 repaying social fund budgeting loans or crisis loans from their benefit payments at the end of November 1990.

  Number of Recoveries November 1990

  Percentage of IS Recipients repaying via benefit

  (a) Aged over 60

  3,860

  2·6

  (b) Aged under 60

  82,803

  24·3

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support deductions are currently being made, in Scotland for(a) poll tax arrears, (b) social fund loan payments, (c) fuel payment arrears and (d) any other purposes; and what proportion of income support claimants are having such deductions made from benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information is shown in the tables. The number of income support customers having one or more deductions made from their benefit is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1

  Deductions from income support (Social fund loan repayments, community charge, accommodation and fuel charges)

  Purpose

  Number of deductions1

  Community charge arrears

  17,556

  Social fund loan repayments

  86,663

  Fuel

  59,1282

  Other purposes

  9,739

  1Number at 30 November 1990 derived from the Department's management information system which, with the exception of social fund loan repayments, is obtained from a quarterly count of deductions in action. Data on social fund loan repayments are collected monthly.

  2Some deductions for fuel charges cover current consumption costs only because the arrears have been cleared. It is not possible to identify only those cases with continuing arrears.

  Table 2

  Recovery of overpaid benefit, voluntary unemployment deductions

  Purpose

  Number of deductions

  Recovery of overpaid benefit

  10,288

  Voluntary unemployment deductions

  3,590

  Note

  The information is not collected routinely and derives from table 10 of the annual statistical inquiry in May 1989, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases each year, including the current year to the latest convenient date, since the social fund was introduced, the Social Fund Commissioner has referred appeals back to the local offices in Scotland; and in how many such cases the local office has then(a) approved and (b) refused payment.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:
  57

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  Cases referred back by social fund inspectors to Scottish social fund offices for redetermination

  213

  582

  713

  Cases in which no payment was made as a result of redetermination

  100

  361

  429

  1 April to December

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy for applications for attendance allowance to be dealt with directly by Department of Social Security staff at local and regional level instead of through his Department's offices in Blackpool.

  Mr. Scott
  Claimants currently send attendance allowance—AA—claim forms to nine regional centres where initial processing is done. Claims are passed to the attendance allowance unit in Blackpool for award and payment. After the introduction of disability living allowance, DLA and AA claim forms will be sent to regions boths for processing and award, but, for AA only, payments and notifications will be issued from the AA unit in Blackpool. DLA initial awards will be paid from the appropriate regional centre. These arrangements will be reviewed in the light of experience.

  All renewal claims and reviews for DLA and AA will be dealt with centrally at the AA and DLA units in Blackpool.

  Claimants will be able to obtain general information about DLA and AA from the benefits inquiry line or their local benefit offices. The new DLA computer system will enable the unit's staff to give prompt details about individual claims from telephone inquiries.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a response to his letter of 9 November 1990 referring to Mrs. R. Tunnicliffe.

  Mr. Jack
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 17 January.

  Community Care
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to follow up recommendation 25 of the fifth report 1989–90 of the Social Services Select Committee, "Community Care: Carers."

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's response to recommendation 25 of the fifth report of the Social Services Select Committee published in the Government's "Plans for the Future of Community Care"— CM 1343 at page 17.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will separately list for each of the last 10 years the sums of money paid by his Department to private and publicly owned residential homes for the elderly in support of their occupants.
  58
  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not pay money to private or publicly owned residential homes for the elderly in support of their occupants.

  The Department has paid the following amounts of income support or supplementary benefit to claimants in residential care homes.

  Year

  Annual expenditure (nearest £ million)

  1981

  23

  1982

  39

  1983

  104

  1984

  200

  1985

  259

  1986

  328

  1987

  438

  1988

  556

  1989

  658

  1990

  740

  Notes:

  1. The figures before 1985 include claimants in nursing homes.

  2. Figures are not sufficiently reliable for the totals to be subdivided into elderly residents and others.

  Information regarding amounts paid to people in publicly owned homes—part III—is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are now in receipt of income support, paid to them for the purpose of sustaining mortgage repayments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Income support claimants with mortgage interest included in assessment

  Year

  Total

  1989

  281,000

  Source: Annual statistical inquiry.

  Note: Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total sum paid by his Department in 1990, and each of the preceding five years, to assist claimants with mortgage repayments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates of figures are given in the table.

  Annual equivalent mortgage interest included in assessment of income support

  Year

  Total £ million

  1989

  355

  1988

  285

  1987

  335

  1986

  350

  1984

  220

  Source: Annual statistical inquiry.

  Note:No annual statistical inquiry was undertaken in 1985; data for 1983 are not available. Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the highest sum, known to his Department, paid per week to assist any individual claimant with mortgage repayments.
  59
  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not routinely collected. The 10 highest amounts added in the assessment of income support for mortgage interest identified by a 1 per cent. sample of cases are listed in the table in descending order:

  Weekly amount (£)

  176·17

  174·98

  162·26

  160·63

  159·18

  157·58

  157·06

  148·43

  143·31

  142·01

  Source: Annual Statistical Inquiry, May 1989.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions his Department has had with organisations representing disabled people and carers concerning the impact of the community charge on disabled people and their carers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We keep in close touch with representatives of disabled people and their carers about all social security issues. Additional help is focused on disabled people and their carers through the special premiums in the income-related benefit schemes, including community charge benefit.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the Christmas bonus to pensioners for Christmas 1991 to reflect the movement in the retail prices index since 1972.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the impact of the community charge on disabled people and their carers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since April 1990, the Department has received over 3,000 items of correspondence about the community charge benefit scheme: it is not possible to identify the number relating particularly to the impact of the community charge on disabled people and their carers.

  Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1991–92 of raising income support, community charge benefit and housing benefit personal allowances for people under 25 years to the level for those 25 years and over.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available, but I shall write to the hon. Member when it is.

  Residential and Nursing Home Care
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the limits paid for residential and nursing home care; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the uprating statement my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State made to the House on 24 October 1990 at columns 351–52.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the number of pensioners in the United Kingdom who have an income of up to(a) £5,000 annually, (b) £4,500, (c) £4,000 and (d) the number under this figure and the total percentage of pensioners whose income does not exceed £5,000 a year.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1990: In 1987, The latest year for which analyses are available, the number of pensioner family units where the total net income was below the specified levels is estimated to be:

  Single Pensioner

  Pensioner couples

  (a) below £5,000 per annum

  3·8 million

  0·8 million

  (b) below £4,500 per annum

  3·6 million

  0·5 million

  (c) below £4,000 per annum

  3·4 million

  0·2 million

  The total number of pensioner units in the United Kingdom is estimated to be:

  Million

  Single pensioners

  4·4

  Pensioner couples

  2·5

  Total

  6·9

  Note: The estimates are based on the net income of benefit units before housing costs. No account has been taken of the size of the family unit, nor of any income received by those living in separate benefit units in the same household.

  The total percentage of pensioner units whose income does not exceed £5,000 a year is around 67 per cent.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the number of adult people in the United Kingdom who have an annual income of up to(a) £5,000, (b) £4,500 and (c) £4,000.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1990]: In 1987, the latest year for which analyses are available, the number of family units where the total net income was below the specified levels is estimated to be:

  Single adults million

  Couples million

  (a) below £5,000 per annum

  10·9

  1·8

  (b) below £4,500 per annum

  10·0

  1·2

  (c) below £4,000 per annum

  8·7

  0·7

  Note: The estimates are based on the net income of benefit units before housing costs. No account has been taken of the size of the family unit, nor of any income received by those living in separate benefit units in the same household.

  Incomes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to make a substantial reply to the priority written questions of the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 6 December about pensioner and other adult incomes.

  Mr. Jack
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the tables in the OPCS reports which indicate that people who need special diets will be likely to qualify for the lower care component of the disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 20 December 1990]: The estimates of the eligible populations for the new components of the disability living allowance were derived from a detailed secondary analysis of the OPCS survey data; the eligible groups cannot be identified from the tables published in the OPCS reports. Our estimates do, however, suggest that around a quarter of those expected to qualify for the lower rate of the self-care component —some 60,000 people in all—need a special diet.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new money will be made available for the sheltered employment budget in the next year; and what was the number of(a) permits issued to employers, (b) inspections carried out by his Department under the quota scheme in each of the last five years, and (c) attempts to prosecute for failure to meet the quota, since 1960.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The 1990 public expenditure survey provides an additional £4·6 million for 1991–92 for the sheltered employment programme compared with the corresponding provision in last year's plans. With regard to the quota scheme:

  (a) my Department does not keep information in the form requested. However, the number of employers issued with permits during the 12-month period ending 1 June was:

  Employers

  1990

  18,036

  1989

  18,530

  1988

  18,594

  1987

  18,577

  1986

  18,840

  (b) The number of quota inspections carried out during the 12-month period ending in April was:

  Number

  1990

  1,903

  1989

  2,050

  1988

  2,273

  1987

  2,553

  1986

  2,360

  (c) There have been six prosecutions for failure to meet quota since 1960: three in 1975 and one each in 1964, 1973 and 1974.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of unemployed claimants are dealt with by a caseload approach.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of clients on employment training referred to training managers are not accepted and are referred back to training agents.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of current employment training trainees in training are on employer placements.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated that at 30 September 1990, the latest date for which information is available, about 25 per cent. of trainees were on practical training placements with employers.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken to improve the quality of provision of training agents on employment training; and whether any extra resources are being provided for this.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training agents which contract direct with my Department are required to meet the exacting arid stringent standards of the approved training organisation (ATO) criteria. I am satisfied that the resources provided are sufficient to meet these quality standards.

  Training agents who contract with a training arid enterprise council are required to meet the standards which the TEC sets out in its quality management strategy which are no less stringent than those of the approved training organisation criteria. The quality management strategy is an integral part of the training and enterprise council's corporate and business plans which are agreed with my Department and form the foundation of the contractual arrangements between the training and enterprise council and my Department. Training and enterprise council's also determine what resources are needed to maintain standards and provide value for money.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the percentage of training and enterprise council staff who were formerly civil servants.

  Mr. Jackson
  A total of 46 training and enterprise councils were operational at 14 January 1991. The number of staff who have resigned from the civil service to take up direct employment with their training and enterprise councils is four (0·2 per cent.). This compares with 2,455 (94 per cent.) seconded civil servants who are working for these training and enterprise councils.

  Unskilled Workers
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the industrial work force is unskilled.

  Mr. Jackson
  Estimates from the 1989 labour force survey indicate that 5.2 per cent. of all people in employment in Great Britain were in unskilled occupations.

  Mentally Ill People
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mentally ill people are(a) unemployed, (b) in part-time employment and (c) in full-time employment, by sector.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the form requested. A report of research commissioned by my Department's Employment Service and undertaken by Social and Community Planning Research contains some information on mentally ill people who are in employment or want work. A copy of the report, "Employment and Handicap", is in the Library.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement regarding his Department's policy on training and promotion of employment for the mentally ill.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department provides a service for all people with disabilities treating each as an individual and identifying the most appropriate action. People who are mentally ill can use the full range of Employment Department services available to anyone with a disability who is capable of employment. The consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", contains proposals and intentions to improve the effectiveness of these services.

  My Department seeks to encourage employers to adopt and implement good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities. Through means such as the "Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People" and our two videos, "It Can Be Done" and "It Worked Fine", which are promoted to employers by the Disablement Advisory Service, we offer employers advice and guidance on employing all people with disabilities, including those who are mentally ill. In October 1990 my right hon. and learned Friend launched a new symbol which can be used by employers to show publicly that they are committed to good practices and to encourage people with disabilities in seeking and keeping employment. In addition, my Department has, in conjunction with the National Association for Mental Health (MIND), prepared a leaflet for employers advising how people with mental illness can be successfully integrated into the work force.

  Civilian work force in employment3

  1979

  1989

  Civilian employment in the service sector

  Civilian employment in manufacturing industries

  Civilian employment in the service sector

  Civilian employment in manufacturing industries

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  United Kingdom

  58·7

  29·5

  68·4

  20·9

  France

  54·8

  26·1

  63·5

  121·6

  Federal Republic of Germany

  50·0

  34·5

  56·5

  232·2

  64
  Employment opportunities for people with severe mental health problems are provided under my Department's sheltered employment programme and the Employment Service's employment rehabilitation network already includes a number of agencies which specialise in mental health.

  In training, our objective is to encourage integrated provision where this is possible, but we also recognise that sometimes very particular expertise is necessary to make training a success.

  That is why my Department, with the help of specialist organisations, has produced a guide for training people with disabilities which includes specific advice on the needs of people with mental health problems and how to respond to them. We have also sponsored a number of projects aimed at creating or enhancing training and assessment facilities at the local level. The job of further developing this provision is now primarily the responsibility of training and enterprise councils.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of participants in the past 12 months left job clubs without a positive outcome.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Tourists
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the quality of welcome to incoming tourists at airports and seaports.

  Mr. Forth
  The British Tourist Authority is pursuing the recommendations made in a recent study by Countess Spencer of the reception facilities at ports of entry.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what percentage of employed workers were employed in the service sector in(a) 1979 and (b) 1989 in the United Kingdom, France and the Federal Republic of Germany;

  (2) what percentage of employed workers are employed in manufacturing industries in (a) 1979 and (b) 1989 in the United Kingdom, France and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is shown in the table.
  65

  1 Latest figures available are for 1988.

  2 Latest figures available are for 1986.

  3 Civilian work force in employment consists of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants on work related Government training schemes. Major divisions of economic activity are defined in the Standard Industrial Classification 1980 (for the United Kingdom) and in the International Standard Industrial Classification (for France and the Federal Republic of Germany).

  Source: OECD Labour Force Statistics 1968–1988 and OECD Quarterly Labour Force Statistics No. 4, 1990 except United Kingdom (ed.)

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employees in the service sector are married women in the(a) United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the table.

  Employees in employment1

  Per cent. of married women employed in the service sector in 19882

  United Kingdom

  38·3

  France

  31·7

  Federal Republic of Germany

  26·3

  Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey Results 1988

  1 Major divisions of economic activity are defined in the Standard Industrial Classification 1980 (for the United Kingdom) and in the International Standard Industrial Classification (for France and the Federal Republic of Germany).

  2 Latest comparable figures available are for 1988

WALES

  Water Quality
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has plans to improve the quality of Welsh water.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to meet the chairman of Welsh Water plc to discuss its targets for capital expenditure and compliance with statutory environmental limits.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department is regularly in touch with Welsh Water plc on a wide range of matters including its performance, and my right hon. Friend will certainly discuss these issues at any meeting with the company.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of local authorities in Wales to dicuss the community charge.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, together with representatives of individual authorities on 7 January, for a very useful discussion on the finance, structure and functions of Welsh local government.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present number of unemployed males and females and the numbers recorded in May 1979; and what are his plans to reduce the figures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In May 1979, on a seasonally adjusted basis, there were 49,800 male and 19,000 female 66
  unemployed claimants in Wales. In December 1990, these figures were 73,100 and 21,100 respectively. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) about the Government's plans to ameliorate the situation.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest number of people out of work(a) in the Merthyr and Rhymney constituency and (b) in Wales; and what action he proposes to create new job opportunities for those unemployed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In December 1990, there were 3,360 and 95,662 unemployed claimants in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency and Wales respectively. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) about the Government's plans to ameliorate the situation.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many men and women, full-time and part-time, were in employment in June 1979 at the latest date for which figures are available in(a) Wales and (b) Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available figures show that there are more people in employment in Wales than ever before with a record 1,239,000 civilian work force in employment. In June 1979, there were 618,000, 250,000 and 165,000 male, full-time female and part-time female employees respectively in employment in Wales. A breakdown of numbers of full-time and part-time males is not available. By September 1990, totals were 525,000, 279,000 and 206,000 respectively. County data are not available for the period requested.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss future levels of unemployment in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have regular discussions with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency about a range of matters concerning the development of the Welsh economy.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) percentage fall and (b) fall in actual numbers of eye tests carried out under the NHS in Wales in the year following the introduction of charges for such tests over the previous year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information is not available in the form requested. Statistics are available only in respect of sight tests for which no charge is made to the patient.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are to be taken to eradicate harmful emissions from the chimneys of hospital incinerators in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Hospital incinerators currently in operation in Wales will lose Crown immunity from 1 April 1991, and will be subject to local authority control under the arrangements to be introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Family Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy for the future of family farms in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I recognise the importance of family farms within the structure of agriculture in Wales and their significance in social terms. I will continue to seek to ensure that these farms, along with others, are able to compete effectively and on equal terms within the single European market.

  Brussels Office
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to establish a permanent Welsh office base in Brussels.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. The Welsh Office is already in close and sustained contact with the European Commission and with the office of the United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels, which represents the interest of all Government Departments. The present arrangements work well and are the most cost-effective means of representing Welsh interests in the Community.

  Economy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on prospects for the Welsh economy during 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The progress of the Welsh economy in 1991 will be affected by world and United Kingdom conditions, which may lead to a fall in output and a rise in unemployment during the early part of the year. But this will be accompanied by a sharp fall in inflation and the successes of recent years mean that Wales is far better placed to cope with temporary difficulties and resume the growth path later in the year.

  Local Government
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a review of the structure of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes, I am.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by civil servants outside his Department's offices.
  68
  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and would therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. These measures are kept under review.

  Historic Monuments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will update the figures in his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 9 February 1990,Official Report, columns 809–10, concerning CADW, providing the outturn for 1989–90 and the latest estimates for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is in the table:

  £'000

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 estimate

  1991–92 estimate1

  Historic buildings grants

  2,779

  3,138

  3,027

  Ancient monuments grants:

  Grants to owners

  169

  250

  275

  Grants to archaeological trusts

  633

  715

  730

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments (Wales)

  810

  830

  900

  Civic Trust for Wales

  25

  25

  25

  1 The provision for 1991–92 is subject to Treasury and Parliamentary approval.

  Polytechnic of Wales
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce any changes in the structure of the Polytechnic of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We expect to announce our decision on the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report concerning the future status of the Polytechnic of Wales in the near future.

  Community Charge Registers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the estimated cost for each change in poll tax registers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many changes there have been to poll tax registers in Wales as a result of population movement;

  (3) if he will list in order the number of districts and boroughs in which there have been changes in poll tax registers;

  (4) how much it costs to keep poll tax registers up to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The table shows the entries recorded by each authority in respect of the community charge register as at 1 December 1989 and as at 15 November 1990. These show the overall changes to the register rather than the number of changes there have been to community charge registers in Wales as a result of population movement.

  The estimated cost for each change and the costs of updating the community charge register are not held centrally.
  69

  Total entries on the community charge register1

  Local authority

  As at 1 December 1989

  As at 15 November 1990

  Alyn and Deeside

  56,482

  56,615

  Colwyn

  45,525

  44,516

  Delyn

  51,758

  51,845

  Glyndwr

  33,728

  33,472

  Rhuddlan

  45,200

  45,266

  Wrexham Maelor

  92,437

  90,111

  Carmarthen

  45,015

  44,097

  Ceredigion

  53,190

  55,941

  Dinefwr

  30,399

  30,644

  Llanelli

  58,552

  59,585

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  54,152

  54,111

  South Pembroke

  33,329

  33,420

  Blaenau Gwent

  60,113

  59,560

  Islwyn

  50,668

  51,348

  Monmouth

  60,217

  60,180

  Newport

  103,309

  103,609

  Torfaen

  69,720

  69,162

  Aberconwy

  42,778

  42,806

  Arfon

  45,529

  44,972

  Dwyfor

  24,319

  23,868

  Meirionnydd

  29,649

  29,168

  Ynys Mõn

  52,699

  53,965

  Cynon Valley

  50,690

  51,095

  Merthyr Tydfil

  45,111

  45,902

  Ogwr

  104,800

  104,226

  Rhondda

  61,460

  61,095

  Rhymney Valley

  78,780

  78,346

  Taff Ely

  73,805

  74,608

  Brecknock

  33,025

  32,515

  Montgomeryshire

  41,867

  42,282

  Radnor

  18,501

  18,974

  Cardiff

  223,133

  222,050

  Vale of Glamorgan

  84,975

  85,847

  Port Talbot

  40,384

  39,756

  Lliw Valley

  47,818

  48,286

  Neath

  51,248

  51,239

  Swansea

  142,003

  142,917

  TOTAL WALES

  2,236,368

  2,237,399

  1 Includes personal community chargepayers, students, persons subject to the collective community charge and standard community charge properties.

  National Museum of Wales
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1990 reported by the National Museum of Wales, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1989.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A total of 672,064 people visited the National Museum of Wales during 1990, an increase of 39 per cent. on the attendance reported for 1989.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Denzilk Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in the latest available year how many 16 to 18-year-olds in Wales participated in full-time education and training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There were 68,885 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education and training in the 1989–90 academic year.

  Mathematics
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in the latest available year what percentage of all school children taking GCSE in Wales sat the examination in mathematics; and what percentage of those sitting the examination in mathematics obtained grades of C and above.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the summer examinations of 1990, a total of 81 per cent. of Welsh Joint Education Committee GCSE candidates sat an examination in mathematics at centres in schools. Of these, 38·4 per cent. achieved grades A to C.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in the latest available year, what percentage of pupils taking the A-level examinations in Wales took the examination in mathematics.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the summer examinations of 1990, a total of 26·2 per cent. of candidates sitting Welsh Joint Education Committee A-level examinations at centres in schools sat an examination in mathematics.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all documents of advice or guidance, all consultative documents, all circulars and all other publications produced by his Department since 1 April 1990 in respect of(a) the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, (b) the implementation of other aspects of Government policy towards the national health service and (c) any other matters relating to the health service in Wales; and if he will also list any such documents produced jointly with other Departments and any such documents which have been produced by other Government Departments, but which have any application to Wales, during the same period.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comprehensive list of working papers and associated material pursuant to the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, which is updated quarterly and placed in the Vote Office and Libraries. The further information could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Welshpool Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Welshpool bypass to be(a) started and (b) completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Start of work on the Welshpool scheme has been delayed by statutory procedures. Information on the timing of this scheme will be included in the Welsh Office departmental report and the supplement to "Roads in Wales" to be published shortly.

  Newtown Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals for the construction of a Newtown bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have carried out a study of traffic in the Newtown area and the information obtained will be carefully considered to assess the need for a bypass.

  Countess of Chester Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of patients from north Wales who used the Countess of Chester hospital annually for(a) surgery and (b) physiotherapy.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A total of 5,834 episodes of in-patient and day case care were received by residents from Clwyd and Gwynedd in the Countess of Chester hospital in 1989–90. Information on whether or not these episodes involved surgery is not held centrally. Information on the number attending that hospital for physiotherapy is not available.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what body will be responsible for the purchase of health services for the people of Pembrokeshire if the Pembrokeshire district health authority is turned into a national health service trust.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This will be for consideration if Pembrokeshire health authority decides to submit an application to form a Pembrokeshire health service trust.

  Travel Concessions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he will establish a scheme in Wales of assistance for retirement pensioners to travel free on road and rail transport at off-peak hours;

  (2) whether he will establish a scheme in Wales of assistance for retirement pensioners to travel at concessionary rates of 75 per cent. or 66 per cent. on road and rail transport in off-peak hours.
  72
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements. Local authorities already have adequate powers to provide travel concessions in their areas and most local authorities in Wales operate concessionary fares schemes for travel on local public transport. Both British Rail and the main long-distance coach operators have their own travel concession arrangements.

  Leukaemia Patients
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make extra financial provision available to consultants at the bone marrow transplant unit at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, to fund the prescription of the drug Alpha Interferon to leukaemia patients.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  South Glamorgan health authority is already appropriately funded for the cost of drugs for the approved regional bone marrow transplant programme.

  Jobs
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had during the past two months with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency about the provision of new jobs for the safeguarding of existing jobs in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have regular discussions with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency about a range of matters concerning the development of the Welsh economy.

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures he has received for abortions as a percentage of all conceptions(a) in England and Wales, (b) for each Thames regional health authority and (c) for each London district health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available information, for 1988, is shown in the table. The figures show the proportion of conceptions terminated by abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act; those which led to an illegal or a spontaneous abortion are excluded. Figures for district health authorities are not available centrally.

  Percentage of conceptions terminated by abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act

  Area of usual residence of women

  Number

  England and Wales

  19·7

  Regional Health Authorities

  North West Thames

  25·8

  North East Thames

  27·5

  South East Thames

  24·4

  South West Thames

  23·0

  Health Expenditure
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide(a) the total gross allocation to England for health expenditure in the year 1991–92, (b) a breakdown of the revenue and capital allocation components of the total gross allocation and (c) a breakdown of the total gross allocation, and the revenue and capital allocation components of it, for each of the English regional health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not yet available in the form requested. The table sets out the main revenue and capital allocations to regional health authorities for 1991–92.

  £ millions

  Region

  Revenue allocation

  Capital allocation

  Total allocation

  Northern

  985·3

  76·5

  1,061·8

  Yorkshire

  1,121·0

  89·1

  1,210·1

  Trent

  1,406·5

  112·3

  1,518·8

  East Anglian

  595·7

  49·1

  644·9

  North West Thames

  1,097·2

  75·7

  1,172·9

  North East Thames

  1,295·5

  86·2

  1,381·7

  South East Thames

  1,221·2

  89·0

  1,310·2

  South West Thames

  946·8

  69·4

  1,016·2

  Wessex

  872·1

  73·9

  946·0

  Oxford

  675·4

  55·0

  730·4

  South Western

  1,000·0

  81·6

  1,081·6

  West Midlands

  1,566·8

  131·4

  1,698·2

  Mersey

  775·2

  60·0

  835·2

  North Western

  1,295·0

  104·1

  1,399·1

  All RHAs

  14,853·7

  1,153·5

  16,007·2

  Notes:

  1. Totals may not add due to rounding.

  2. The table shows allocations for resident populations and excludes allocations for special purposes, some which will be made later.

  3. An adjustment will be made to regions' capital allocation in respect of the NHS trust programme.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting period for women being screened for breast cancer and the average period of time for the results to be made known in(a) Sunderland, (b) Durham and (c) Hartlepool.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the health authorities concerned.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by his civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. These measures are kept under review.

  National Health Service Laundries
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will request the Audit Commission to carry out a study of the true costs of laundry services provided by national health service laundries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We will bear the suggestion in mind in discussions with the Audit Commission on its future programme.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  the time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in the Department of Health. Estimates are made where there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold (currently £250). Following an inter-departmental exercise in 1972, an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all Departments of answering an oral question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for the grades concerned, together with a share of the costs of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff costs. This figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £99.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for any variation in the designation or standards relating to Orcon levels of response for ambulance services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Response times have always been recommended rather than mandatory and will remain so. The management executive recently issued a guide to good practice in the ambulance service which included a re-classification of services which are now termed urban or rural dependent upon population density. New emergency response standards for urban services have been slightly relaxed in recognition of increased traffic density; standards for rural services have been slightly tightened because of improved road networks. Non-emergency transport standards are now for local discretion based on the requirements of clinicians and unit managers. The guide to good practice is available in the Library.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many environmental health officers are currently in post; what is his estimate of the cost; how many additional environmental health officers he estimates will be required to implement the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1991; and what is the estimated additional cost;

  (2) how environmental health officers were consulted before the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations were drafted; and what responses were received;

  (3) how the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations will be enforced; and what is his estimate of the cost to central and local government.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on numbers of environmental health officers in post is not collected centrally. It is for local authorities to consider how best to deploy their resources to enforce food safety requirements. In doing so they will take into account priority areas of concern. No funds have been made available centrally specifically for the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990. The Government have made available to local authorities £30 million for extra enforcement responsibilities placed on them under the Food Safety Act 1990 dealing with improvements in food safety generally.

  A draft of the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990 was issued for consultation in July 1989 to a wide range of organisations including local authorities. Many comments were received on various aspects of the regulations, including their enforcement. The regulations were made in July 1990.

  Guidelines on how the regulations affect industry and on how they will be enforced have also been widely consulted upon and will be issued in final form very shortly.

  Smoked Meat and Fish
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the definitive draft of the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations will be available; and when guidelines for the smoked meat and fish industry will be issued.
  76
  Mr. Dorrell
  The regulations were made on 16 July 1990 and laid before Parliament on 18 July 1990. They come into force in stages from 1 April 1991. Copies are available in the Library.

  A consultation exercise on guidelines describing the implications of the regulations for all sectors of industry and for enforcement officers has just been completed. Final guidelines will be issued very shortly.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of food poisoning have been traced to smoked salmon in the past three years; and in how many cases had the smoked salmon been delivered by post;

  (2) how far negotiations concerning the implementation of the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations have progressed with the smoked meat and fish industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many cases of food poisoning have been traced to smoked meat and fish delivered by post in the last five years;

  (4) how many cases of food poisoning have been traced to smoked meat and fish in the last three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Most cases of food poisoning are sporadic and it is not usually possible to identify a vehicle of infection for a specific case. Routine statistics on sporadic cases are therefore unhelpful in identifying particular foods as vehicles of infection—whether they have been in the post or not.

  The Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990 introduce temperature controls for foods which should be kept chilled because they may contain pathogenic micro-organisms which, if not controlled by chilling, can grow rapidly and become a threat to health.

  Research is taking place to see how the mail order trade, including smoked fish, can best adapt to the new regulations and we expect to be in a position to consider results with colleagues in MAFF, Scottish Office and the Welsh Office shortly.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimate of resident population in the United Kingdom (relating to mid 1989) is 57·2 millions.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the projections, by percentage, of the population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the years (i) 2000, (ii) 2010 and (iii) 2020 for those(a) aged 101 or over, (b) aged between 91 and 100 years, (c) aged between 81 and 90 years, (d) aged between 71 and 80 years and (e) aged between 61 and 70 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information based on the 1989-based projections of resident population produced by the Government Actuary's Department is as follows:

  Age last birthday

  Percentage of projected United Kingdom population in the year

  2000

  2010

  2020

  61 to 70

  9·0

  10·5

  10·8

  71 to 80

  7·0

  6·6

  7·9

  81 to 89

  2·8

  3·2

  3·2

  90 and over

  0·6

  0·7

  0·8

  77
  Population figures for the United Kingdom cannot be reliably projected by single years of age beyond the age of 90.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the total population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is(a) aged 101 years and over, (b) aged between 91 and 100 years, (c) aged between 81 and 90 years, (d) aged between 71 and 80 years and (e) aged between 61 and 70 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available, based upon mid 1989 estimates of resident population, is as follows:

  Age

  Percentage of total resident United Kingdom population

  61 to 70

  9·9

  71 to 80

  6·7

  81 to 89

  2·7

  90+

  0·4

  Population figures by single year of age cannot be estimated reliably above the age of 90.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the district health authorities in England which have expressed an interest in opting out to become a national health service trust on an all-authority basis and indicate which of these he is allowing to proceed into the process of public consultation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed that 123 hospitals and other units can proceed to work up applications to become trusts on 1 April 1992. These expressions of interest will only proceed to public consultation if a formal application for trust status is submitted. Of these expressions of interest, 12 provide all the services currently managed within their respective health authorities. They are;

  Darlington health services.

  North Tees acute and community services.

  North West Durham hospital and community services.

  Airedale Health Services.

  Harrogate Health Services.

  Northallerton Health Services.

  Scarborough Health Services.

  East Hertfordshire Acute, Priority and Community Services.

  Hastings Provider Services.

  Wycombe Health Services.

  Oldham Acute and Community Services.

  Rochdale Acute and Community Services.

  St. Paul's Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ophthalmic cases have been dealt with at St. Paul's eye hospital, Liverpool, over the past decade; from what radius they are drawn; what are the annual running costs of the hospital; and if he will make a statement on the future of the hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not hold this information centrally. The Liverpool health authority is at present consulting on the proposed closure of the hospital and the future provision of eye services in Liverpool. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Michael Emberton, the authority chairman, for details.

  Social Work
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health what steps he has taken to increase recruitment of social workers and to promote social work as a career; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The primary responsibility for ensuring an adequate, suitably trained work force rests with employers. There is no legislative basis for ministerial involvement in a recruitment campaign for social workers, where the major employers are local authorities. However, the Department has taken steps to assist interested parties to develop better work force analysis systems and, following a meeting with the Association of Directors of Social Services last year, the Department will be funding a one day seminar this spring to bring together all those with work force interests, to identify key issues and discuss future action.

  GPs (Home Visits)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what right an NHS patient has to seek a home visit by their general practitioner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Where, in a GP's clinical judgement, a patient's condition is such that a home visit is needed then the GP is required to make such a visit under the terms of service.

  Since 1 April 1990, a GP visiting his or her patient between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am may claim a fee of some £45. If such a visit is delegated by the GP to a deputy then £15 may be claimed.

  GPs, Barnsley
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the practices covered by the Barnsley family practitioner committee have met the general practitioners' new contract for(a) cervical cytology and (b) child immunisation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 30 September 1990, 100 per cent. of the GPs, and therefore all of the practices, covered by Barnsley family health services authority qualified for either a higher or lower target payment in respect of both cervical cytology and childhood immunisation. My congratulations to all concerned for this excellent achievement.

  Eyesight Tests
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the impact of charging for eyesight tests in Trent regional health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of national health service sight tests paid for in 1988–89 and 1989–90 by family health services authorities in Trent regional health authority was as follows:

  NHS sight tests

  1988–89: 1,166,700

  1989–90 (after entitlement was restricted to certain groups): 514,960

  After 1 April 1989, many patients in Trent, as elsewhere, will have had a private eye examination.

  Departmental statistics are not kept on private sight tests. An independent NOP survey commissioned by the

  79
  Department indicated that the national total number of sight tests (private and national health service) during the first quarter of 1990 was at the level that would have been expected if trends up to 1987 had been projected forwards.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many aged people were living in residential homes in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the number of residents aged 65 and over in local authority and registered homes for elderly and for younger physically handicapped people as at 31 March.

  Year

  England total

  1981

  160,965

  1982

  165,675

  1983

  172,208

  1984

  180,578

  1985

  193,487

  1986

  204,382

  1987

  209,801

  1988

  219,175

  1989

  232,527

  1990

  1232,025

  1 Provisional data.

SCOTLAND

  Smoked Fish
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the results of research into the processing of smoked fish and how the industry might comply with the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations affecting the sending of smoked salmon and trout through the post; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The results of research commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are expected shortly. Together with colleagues in MAFF and the Department of Health, we shall consider the results and any implications for the food hygiene regulations.

  Civil Penalties
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of civil penalties imposed during the last year for which figures are available by each assessor in Scotland in respect of non-return of land valuation schedules prior to the abolition of the domestic rating system.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Assessors have no powers to impose civil penalties in these situations. Any person failing to furnish a return to the assessor is liable to a penalty not exceeding £400, following prosecution at the instance of the procurator fiscal. Information on the number of such cases is not held centrally.

  Health Service
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what communication he has received from Greater Glasgow south-west local health council concerning the 80
  local health council scheme submitted to him by Greater Glasgow health board; what consideration he has given to the issues raised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The local health council wrote to me on 20 December asking me to ensure that Greater Glasgow health board was aware of the need for a strong local voice on the NHS. This point is well understood by the board, which has submitted a scheme for restructuring local health councils in their area. This is being considered.

  Data Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will describe the circumstances, and the charges involved, when the sale of names and addresses from publicly available community charge information is allowed; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Section 20(6) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 provides that a person shall be entitled to obtain a copy, or a copy certified by or on behalf of the community charges registration officer, of any entry in the register which he is entitled to inspect. A fee of £1 per register entry is prescribed for this purpose.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by his civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures.

  These measures are kept under review.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of whole-time equivalent physiotherapists under contract to each of the health board areas in Scotland shown as a rate per 100,000 head of population.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Physiotherapists in post by health board; whole time equivalent as at 30 September 1990 (provisional)

  Health board

  Whole time equivalent

  Rate per 100,000 population1

  Argyll and Clyde

  77·5

  18

  Ayrshire and Arran

  93·2

  25

  Borders

  27·3

  27

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23·6

  16

  Fife

  79·0

  23

  Forth Valley

  57·4

  21

  Grampian

  115·7

  23

  Greater Glasgow

  307·5

  33

  Highland

  51·6

  26

  Lanarkshire

  110·4

  20

  Lothian

  217·1

  29

  Orkney

  5·0

  26

  Shetland

  6·0

  27

  81

  Health board

  Whole time equivalent

  Rate per 100,000 population1

  Tayside

  92·0

  23

  Western Isles

  10·6

  35

  1 Based on estimated population figures at 30 June 1989.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the number of whole-time equivalent physiotherapy aides under contract to the Borders health board for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Physiotherapy aides in post in the Borders health board; whole-time equivalents as at 30 September

  Year

  Whole time equivalents

  1986

  3·6

  1987

  2·6

  1988

  2·9

  1989

  2·9

  1990

  13·0

  1 Provisional.

  Rural Health Boards
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance is planned to enable health boards in rural areas of Scotland to provide adequate levels of service in all medical areas covered by the professions allied to medicine.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A manpower steering group for the professions allied to medicine was established in June 1990 with the task of advising on the development of manpower planning at local level and at national level for the professions allied to medicine.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the number of whole-time equivalent professionally qualified physiotherapists under contract to the Borders health board for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Physiotherapists in post in the Borders health board; whole-time equivalents as at 30 September

  Year

  Whole time equivalents

  1986

  19·8

  1987

  20·8

  1988

  27·0

  1989

  24·9

  1990

  127·3

  1 Provisional.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in the latest available year, how many 16 to 18-year-olds participated in full-time education and training.
  82
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were 76,100 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education and 42,600 on the youth training scheme in Scotland in 1989.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to amend the statutory notes within the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 1539) to give effect to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which extended exemption from the community charge to those who are severely mentally impaired by reason of degenerative conditions.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  These notes are amended by the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Amendment Regulations 1991 which were made on 14 January and which will be laid before Parliament on 28 January. The notes have no bearing upon the operation of the changes to the arrangements for exempting the severely mentally impaired which came into force on 29 December 1989 with backdated effect, by virtue of the Personal Community Charge (Exemption for the Severely Mentally Impaired) (Scotland) Regulations 1989.

  Scotland Europa Ltd.
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public relations advisers and management consultants are retained by his office in relation to Scotland Europa Ltd.; what fees they are paid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  No public relations advisers or management consultants are retained by the Scottish Office in relation to Scotland Europa.

  Destiny
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to examine the question of safety arid implement any recommendations arising from the inquiry into the Destiny disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Sheriff's determination following a fatal accident inquiry into the drowning accident involving the Destiny on 16 December 1989 was issued on 14 November 1990. A report by the Department of Transport marine accident investigation branch has also been prepared and a summary of that report will be published shortly. The recommendations contained in both reports are being carefully considered by Government Departments with an interest in these matters, including the Scottish Office, although the question of safety at sea is principally a matter for the Department of Transport.

  Local Health Councils
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to respond to the revised scheme for the provision of local health councils within the Highland health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Schemes for local health councils have been submitted by 12 health boards, including Highland. These are currently being considered.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the amounts each individual college will receive in access funds under the Education (Further and Higher Education Institutions Access Funds) (Scotland) Regulations 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the table and relates to Session 1990–91. Colleges in the grant-aided and further education sectors are listed separately.

  £

  Central institutions/Colleges of education

  Craigie College of Education

  9,551

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  46,871

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  78,147

  Edinburgh College of Art

  50,229

  Glasgow Polytechnic

  107,359

  Glasgow School of Art

  42,421

  Jordanhill College of Education

  46,097

  Moray House College of Education

  43,419

  Napier Polytechnic

  201,953

  Northern College of Education

  35,063

  Paisley College of Technology

  107,770

  Queen Margaret College

  49,826

  Queens College, Glasgow

  37,014

  The Robert Gordon Institute of Technology

  135,745

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  21,897

  St. Andrews College of Education

  19,283

  Scottish Agricultural Colleges

  17,628

  Scottish College of Textiles

  23,291

  Further education colleges

  Borders

  Borders College of Further Education

  10,255

  Central

  Clackmannan College of Further Education

  15,803

  Falkirk College of Technology

  27,645

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway College of Technology

  15,669

  The Barony College

  2,148

  Fife

  Elmwood Agricultural and Technical College

  6,097

  Fife College of Technology

  41,304

  Glenrothes and Buckhaven Technical College

  12,294

  Lauder College

  7,593

  Grampian

  Aberdeen College of Commerce

  36,019

  Aberdeen Technical College

  10,841

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  15,715

  Clinterty Agricultural College

  3,457

  Highland

  Inverness College of Further and Higher Education

  28,097

  Moray College of Further Education

  28,754

  Thurso Technical College

  5,448

  Lothian

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  27,471

  Oatridge Agricultural College

  2,043

  Stevenson College

  32,237

  Telford College of Further Education

  43,516

  West Lothian College of Further Education

  12,336

  Orkney

  Stromness Nautical College

  471

  Shetland

  Shetland College of Further Education

  2,200

  Strathclyde

  Anniesland College

  11,200

  84

  £

  Ayr College

  28,059

  Barmulloch College

  8,957

  Bell College of Technology

  53,325

  Cambuslang College

  13,446

  Cardonald

  45,088

  Central College of Commerce

  25,575

  Clydebank College

  57,807

  Coatbridge College

  20,828

  Cumbernauld College

  15,471

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  39,696

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  22,498

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  14,742

  James Watt College

  25,973

  John Wheatley College

  13,305

  Kilmarnock College

  24,121

  Langside College

  42,781

  Motherwell College

  29,209

  Reid Kerr College

  32,445

  Springburn College

  9,481

  Stow College

  20,056

  Angus College of Further Education

  12,009

  Dundee College of Further Education

  76,009

  Perth College of Further Education

  23,808

  Western Isles

  Lews Castle College

  6,214

SCOTLAND

  Erythropoietin
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that prescriptions for erythropoietin are not affected by any health board overspend on their drug budgets.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: Health boards are responsible for ensuring that patients receive proper and sufficient treatment according to clinical judgment and hospital funding is formulated taking into account the cost of providing drugs. There are therefore no financial reasons why Erythropoietin cannot be prescribed.

  Foresterhill Hospital
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made towards the provision of an additional intensive therapy unit facility and additional operating theatre at the Foresterhill hospital's unit in Aberdeen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: Grampian health board is currently progressing a scheme to replace its existing theatres and intensive therapy facilities with a modern seven-theatre complex at Foresterhill.

  Sub-Standard Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to assist district council tenants and former district council tenants now owner-occupiers who are unable to buy, or sell, their homes because they have been classified by building societies as being sub-standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1991]: The Government make available resources

  85
  to local authorities to assist private owners of houses designated as defective under part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and sold by a public sector authority before a cut-off date specified in the designation. Assistance is available towards the repair, demolition and rebuilding, or repurchase by the local authority of the defective house in these cases.

  As regards other houses, council tenants who wish to purchase their houses should satisfy themselves in the first instance that the risks they are taking are acceptable, seeking professional advice if necessary. It is for building societies or other financial institutions advancing loans towards the purchase of properties to make decisions on whether to provide finance for any purchase and it would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in such decisions.

  The Government also make substantial resources available to local authorities for them to provide grants for the improvement and repair of private housing. The provisional allocations to local authorities for the non-housing revenue account block in 1991–92 announced on 20 December total over £105 million.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list all the hospitals in Scotland which provide full facilities for the screening of breast cancer and the total number of patients screened for each year since 1979;

  (2) what proportion of health service funds were spent on providing facilities for breast cancer screening for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  holding answer 18 January 1991]: Facilities for screening are not provided in hospitals but by a mix of seven static screening and assessment units and nine mobile screening units. The assessment units take the women who have been found to have a positive basic screen to the point of diagnosis. When a diagnosis demonstrates that treatment is required, the patient is referred to the hospital which has the most appropriate facilities for this treatment.

  The total number of patients screened since the establishment of the breast screening service is as follows:

  Number

  1987–88

  297

  1988–89

  3,953

  1989–90

  45,153

  The Government have provided both revenue and capital funds centrally to establish the breast cancer screening service, as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  0·5

  1988–89

  1·6

  1989–90

  4·7

  1990–91

  3·5

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authority expenditure(a) as a whole and (b) on housing is (i) paid for by central Government and (ii) paid for by local government.

  Mr. Key
  In 1990–91 central Government support far local authorities (including that from the non-domestic ratepayer and credit approvals) is estimated to be 80 per cent. and self financed expenditure (less debt interest payment) is estimated to be 20 per cent. of the local authority component of general Government expenditure (less debt interest payment) in England.

  The Government's planned resource provision for local authority capital spending on housing in England in 1991–92 is £1·9 billion. This represents about 64 per cent. of the capital expenditure which local authorities could finance from a combination of this provision and their own resources. Local authorities also receive subsidy to cover the shortfall assumed to arise in their housing revenue account if they adhere to the Government's rent and management and maintenance guidelines. Provision of £3·5 billion has been made for this purpose on 1991–92, which represents about 44 per cent. of local authorities housing revenue account expenditure. The balance is financed by income from rents.

  Refuse-derived Fuel
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how his Department defines(a) small, (b) medium and (c) large-scale users of refuse-derived fuel in terms of tonnes used per annum; and if he will outline the way in which derogation arrangements will affect each, over the coming years;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the derogation arrangements that will apply for those industries proposing to use recycled, refined, refuse-derived fuel;

  (3) if he will outline the derogation arrangements for refuse-derived fuel use over the next five years.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on derogation arrangements governing the use and development of refuse-derived fuels (RDF).

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department is preparing regulations to implement the EC directive on municipal waste incineration. The power to derogate for plant burning RDF will be included in these regulations, and the regulations will be subject to consultation.

  Under the Environmental Protection Act it is proposed that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be responsible for the integrated pollution control of plants burning refuse derived fuel (RDF). In line with a commitment during the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is now drafting guidance specific to the burning of RDF including questions of derogation and plant size. Guidance will be published well in advance of existing RDF burning plant coming under control. The industry will be fully consulted in the production of this guidance.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken concerning discharge of the responsibilities of the chief executive of the London Docklands Development Corporation; what remit has been given to any persons concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Staffing matters are for the corporation, which has appointed the chairman as acting chief executive. My Department has appointed LDDC's director of finance as accounting officer, until the appointment of the new chief executive.

  Wheelchair Access
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set up a capital fund to provide local authorities and other statutory agencies with resources with a view to enabling all major public buildings to be made accessible to people in wheelchairs by 1995;

  (2) if he will estimate the capital cost of providing unrestricted wheelchair access to all major public buildings such as libraries, schools and hospitals.

  (3) what detailed plans he has to assist local authorities to accelerate their existing programme of work to improve access to public buildings by people in wheelchairs;

  (4) what central Government finance is being made available to increase access to public buildings by people in wheelchairs.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have no plans to set up a capital fund of the kind the hon. Member has in mind. Regardless of financial resources, it is not always practicable, particularly in the case of listed historic buildings, to provide unrestricted wheelchair access to existing public buildings such as libraries, schools and hospitals. Where it is feasible to provide such access the cost will vary according to circumstances, and no realistic estimate of the overall capital cost can be made.

  Access for wheelchair users and other people with disabilities to all storeys of new shops and offices and the entrance storeys of other new non-domestic buildings is a requirement of the present building regulations. There is also a requirement not to adversely affect standards of access for disabled people when altering such buildings.

  My Department is currently consulting on proposals to increase the scope of the regulations to include the upper storeys of a broader range of new multi-storey buildings, some extensions to existing buildings and major reconstructions behind retained facades and to include facilities for the benefit of people with sight and hearing impairments. Thereafter as part of a phased approach, we shall be assessing ways of extending the scope of the regulations to require provision for people with disabilities when, with respect to non-domestic buildings, proposals are made for types of alteration or extension not previously included within the regulations.

  A variety of initiatives aimed at improving access for people with disabilities in existing public buildings has been launched by my own and other Government Departments since 1981; a list of them has been placed in the Library in response to the question recently put by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) (Official Report, 14 December 1990, column 517).
  88
  In 1989 the Government gave £150,000 to the Carnegie trusts ADAPT fund for the improvement of facilities for disabled people in arts venues. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by the Minister for the Arts to questions recently put by the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) (Official Report, 29 November 1990, column 462). My Department has no proposals to set up a similar fund for making other public buildings accessible to people in wheelchairs.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to assist local authorities to provide additional public toilets which are adapted for use by people in wheelchairs.

  Mr. Yeo
  Under a contract placed by my Department, British Market Research Bureau Limited is currently carrying out a research project on sanitary provision for people with special needs. I plan to make the report available to local authorities during the course of this year. A major feature of it will be detailed information on the needs of wheelchair users with regard to the planning, design and equipping of public toilets.

  Private Sector Leasing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision was made in the 1990–91 revenue support grant settlement for costs associated with private sector leasing; and if he will make a statement on his current proposals for 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  The standard spending assessments on which distribution of revenue support grant is based do not make a separately identifiable provision for private sector leasing. The overall local government finance settlements for 1990–91 and 1991–92 do however allow for the cost of providing short-term accommodation outside the housing revenue account.

  Advertising
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent by his Department in 1989–90 and 1990–91 on(a) advertising community charge rebates, (b) advertising the transitional relief scheme and (c) advertising the sale of water companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In 1989–90 my Department spent approximately £4 million on advertising the availability of community charge benefit and transitional relief, with advertisements targeted at those who needed to know. It is not possible to apportion this total between, respectively, benefit and relief. Departmental expenditure on advertising the availability of shares in the water companies was approximately £16·5 million, with the aim of encouraging wide share ownership among the general public.

  No money has been spent on similar advertising this year, but the Department has continued to produce and distribute free leaflets about the availability of community charge benefit and transitional relief. Leaflets are now in preparation to publicise the availability of the new community charge reduction scheme which I announced on 17 January.

  Local Authorities (Income)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each local authority for 1990–91 the income received from(a) poll tax, (b) national non-domestic rates and (c) Government grant.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am arranging for copies of the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total income to local authorities from(a) domestic rates and (b) non-domestic rates in each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1989–90, respectively.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:

  England

  Year

  Domestic1 £ million

  Non-domestic2 £ million

  1979–80

  2,504

  3,354

  1980–81

  3,251

  4,194

  1981–82

  4,034

  5,013

  1982–83

  4,548

  5,685

  1983–84

  4,382

  6,042

  1984–85

  4,707

  6,361

  1985–86

  5,094

  6,740

  1986–87

  5,912

  7,566

  1987–88

  6,539

  8,088

  1988–89

  7,689

  8,819

  31989–90

  8,498

  9,607

  1 Net of domestic rate relief grant and rate rebates.

  2 Net of rate rebates.

  3 Provisional.

  Single Homeless People
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the numbers of single homeless people in(a) Sunderland district, (b) Easington district and (c) Hartlepool district.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985. The information provided does not identify those who are single and my Department has no estimates.

  Local Government Manpower
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the manpower statistics for Shropshire county council and Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council for 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:—

  Staffing levels at June

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Shropshire County Council

  19791

  7,855

  6,341

  14,196

  1989

  7,381

  7,677

  15,058

  1990

  7,412

  8,371

  15,783

  Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council

  19791

  576

  104

  680

  90

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1989

  635

  89

  724

  1990

  631

  87

  718

  Source: Joint Staffing Watch for England

  1 Earliest available data.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by his civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. These measures are kept under review.

  Rents into Mortgages
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of his rents into mortgages scheme in Basildon; if he will indicate the discount given in relation to size of mortgage; and if he has made an assessment of the cost of implementing such a scheme across the United Kingdom at levels of take-up in 10 per cent. bands.

  Mr. Yeo
  The scheme is for tenants of the Commission for the New Towns at Basildon who would like to buy their home and who pay their full rent but cannot afford the right to buy. They can buy their home for a minimum initial payment of the amount they could borrow on a mortgage with repayments equivalent to their rent. This initial payment will attract discount in accordance with the right-to-buy rules; tenants paying half the right-to-buy price will get half their right-to-buy discount.

  The Commission will retain a charge over that part of the value of the property not covered by the tenant's payment and discount. The charge may be redeemed at any time, but must be redeemed if the property is sold or, normally, on the death of the purchaser. The amount needed to redeem the charge will be the appropriate proportion of the property's value at the time of redemption, normally less a discount of 20 per cent.

  No proposal for a national scheme has been announced.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current advice given by his Department to local planning authorities on the control of new built development in the vicinity of existing arid former landfill tips.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's advice to local planning authorities about planning control relating to landfill sites is set out in my Department's circular 17/89 "Landfill Sites: Development Control", issued in July 1989. This makes clear that authorities should exercise due caution 3n considering planning applications for development on or near such sites, and that in preparing and updating their
  91
  development plans they should take full account of the implications of the presence of landfill sites for other types of development in the vicinity.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the amount and (b) the proportion of net income after rebates, adjusted for family size, households paid in domestic rates in 1988–89 and pay in the community charge in 1990–91, broken down into (i) decile groups and (ii) bands of equivalent income.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not currently available. The analysis of domestic rates paid in 1988 should become avilable in the spring but the corresponding analysis of community charges paid by households over a full year will not be available until after the 1991 family expenditure survey has been processed.

  Sand and Gravel
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from county councils about the development of sand and gravel quarries in environmentally sensitive areas; and what has been his response to such representations.

  Mr. Yeo
  No specific representations about this have been recently received from county councils. The Government policy and advice on mineral extraction in environmentally important areas is given in minerals planning guidance note 6 "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales."

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current forecasts for sand and gravel production for each year to the end of the century; and what is the existing annual production.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department does not produce annual forecasts for the production of sand and gravel. A long term national forecast of the demand for aggregates (which includes sand and gravel) was published in March 1989 in minerals planning guidance note 6. It is our intention to publish a revised forecast shortly.

  Production of land-won sand and gravel in England and Wales in 1989 was 98·5 million tonnes.

  Warwickshire County Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the opportunities available to reduce the £2 million difference between Warwickshire police authority's plans for reduced spending in 1991–92 on the police service and the Department of the Environment's standard spending assessment for the police service in Warwickshire;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the opportunities available to reduce the £2·4 million difference between Warwickshire county council's plans for spending in 1991–92 on the fire and rescue service and his Department's standard spending assessment for the fire service in the county.

  Mr. Key
  Standard spending assessments are the Government's assessment of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure by each local authority taking account of its physical, demographic and social 92
  characteristics, consistent with a standard level of service, and the Government's view of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure for all local authorities. It is for each local authority to determine its own spending plans for particular services, bearing in mind its statutory responsibilities and the scope for greater efficiency.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to promote the development of mineral sidings in English counties to allow bulk haul of aggregates.

  Mr. Yeo
  The advice set out in minerals planning guidance note 6 is that rail transport can offer environmental advantages for long haul movements of aggregates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is able to make grants available under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 to facilitate the transfer of aggregates traffic from road to rail.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to promote the exploitation of sea-based aggregates.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government policy on the use of marine dredged sand and gravel is set out in minerals planning guidance note 6. This recognises that it has a very important role to play in maintaining supplies of aggregates and, as far as possible, its use should be encouraged.

  For some years the Department, with the Crown Estate Office, has funded an ongoing programme of research to assess the availability of offshore sand and gravel resources around the coast of England and Wales. This will continue for some time to come.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to authorities administering building regulations supporting the use of sea-based aggregate.

  Mr. Yeo
  There is nothing in the building regulations to discourage the use of sea dredged aggregates provided the guidance in the British Standard BS 882: 1983 (Specification for aggregates from natural sources for concrete) is followed.

  Technical guidance about the acceptability of sea dredged aggregates in concrete was issued by the Building Research Establishment in July 1987. My Department has no plans to issue further specific guidance on this to authorities responsible for the administration of building regulations.

  Mineral Sites
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to encourage local authorities to include in their calculations in relation to landbanks mineral sites not currently being worked when planning permission for working exists.

  Mr. Yeo
  The advice given in minerals planning guidance note 6 is that a sufficient stock of permitted reserves—a landbank—should be maintained for all aggregate minerals. This landbank should be sufficient to provide for at least 10 years extraction unless exceptional circumstances prevail. All mineral sites with planning
  93
  permission, regardless of whether they are in current production, should be taken into account in calculating this landbank.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals have been lodged to date against the uniform business rate in the Doncaster area.

  Mr. Key
  The Doncaster valuation officer had received by 31 December 1990, 4,490 proposals to alter the 1990 rating list.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional rate support grant Lambeth borough council received in 1985–86 by way of disregards in addition to those agreed before 1 April 1985; and how much of any additional grant related to the refusal by the council to set a rate in the first three months of the 1985–86 financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The categories of expenditure which were disregarded for the purpose of calculating grant abatement for 1985–86 are set out in annex VII to the "Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1985–86" (HC11) laid before the House on 19 December 1988. All these categories were determined after 1 April 1985. None is related to a delay in setting a rate. The aggregate of the amounts of disregards for Lambeth was £395,000. The effects on rate support grant cannot now be estimated without disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 14 January,Official Report, column 446, if he will give the reasons for the level of revenue support grant and other items of external finance for the London borough of Wandsworth per adult as against the inner London average.

  Mr. Key
  Under the settlement for 1991–92 announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 January, Wandsworth will receive £1,192 per adult in external support compared with an inner London average of £1,397. This is made up of £711 per head in revenue support grant compared with the average for inner London boroughs of £940 reflecting through the standard spending assessments Wandsworth's social, demographic and geographical characteristics; payments from the non-domestic rate pool at the national rate of £349 per adult; inner London education grant at £40 per adult—the average for inner London—to support education expenditure on responsibilities inherited from ILEA; and £91 per adult in area protection grant—to protect charge payers from undue burdens arising from the change in the system of local government finance—which is £23 above the inner London average.

  Rents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department defines an affordable rent for(a) local authority tenants, (b) private housing tenants and (c) housing association tenants.

  Mr. Yeo
  Housing benefit is available, generally up to the level of market rents, for those tenants who would otherwise have difficulty affording their rents. In addition,94
  subsidies to local authorities and housing associations enable rents to be kept far below market rent levels in most areas.

  Quarries
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to promote the development of major quarries similar to Glensanda in Scotland where mineral can be bulk-hauled either by sea or rail.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department is commissioning research which will shortly start to identify suitable locations for large scale coastal quarries and the potential contribution such quarries can make towards the demand for aggregates in the south-east of England in particular.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in my Department. Estimates are however made where there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold (currently £250). However, following an inter-departmental exercise in 1972 an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all departments of answering an oral question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for the grades concerned, together with a share of the cost of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff costs such as computer usage. This assessed figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £99.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Sir Clifford Chetwood
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the speech of Sir Clifford Chetwood, President of the Building Employers Confederation, on 4 December 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has a copy.

  Air Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has received any representations regarding (i) the adequacy of the proposed cost recovery provisions for authorisations for air pollution control and (ii) the adequacy of the preparations for implementation of part I of the Environmental Protection Act;
  95
  (2) what support and guidance will be given to local authorities and their officers for implementing the new controls over air pollution;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that local authority officers are fully conversant with the new system of air pollution controls prior to implementation;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1990, Official Report, column 404, if it remains his target to issue the process specific guidance for block 1 of the local air processes under part I of the Environmental Protection Act in January 1991 and the general guidance in March 1991;

  (5) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of progress on preparations for operating the new local authority controls for air pollution;

  (6) on what basis the level of fees for authorisations for local authority air processes and waste oil processes were determined.

  Mr. Trippier
  A liaison committee between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) and the local authority associations was established in November 1989 to facilitate the smooth implementation and running of the new air pollution control system. It continues to meet frequently and has overseen the production of guidance notes both on the new system generally and on the processes to come under local authority control.

  All the block 1 notes are now with the printers and should be published by early February. The general guidance notes remain on target for publication in March 1991. Once copy of each of the notes will be sent free of charge to each local authority and port health authority. Copies will also be on sale from HMSO.

  The Department of the Environment and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers (IEHO) have jointly held a number of training courses around the country for local authorities and next month will be holding a two-day accreditation course for future trainers. The local authority unit of HMIP in Birmingham is also available for ad hoc advice. I am satisfied with what I hear from the unit and the local authority association liaison committee that adequate provision has been made to enable local authorities to prepare for the new system.

  The level of fees was proposed after discussion with the local authority associations and industry on the basis of an assessment of the workload that would be incurred by local authorities in determining and enforcing authorisations. We are still considering the representations received and will in any case review the levels at the end of the first year of operation. Comments on the charging proposals were evenly split, with some local authorities claiming them to be inadequate (particularly in relation to enforcement costs) and some industrialists arguing that they were too high (particularly for waste oil burners). However, the National Society for Clean Air, the IEHO and the Association of District Councils supported them.

  Both industry and local authorities have commented on the preparations for implementation of the part I systems of air pollution and integrated pollution control; to ensure a timely and orderly implementation of the latter we proposed on 9 August 1990 a revised timetable in relation to existing processes.

  Hylands Park, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current status of negotiations on the planning application relating to Hylands park, Chelmsford.

  Mr. Yeo
  Negotiations on the revised proposals have not been completed.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of waste incinerated within the United Kingdom is imported; and what are the projected levels of such importation for the next decade.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department's statistics on imports of waste relate only to hazardous waste imported under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. Imported hazardous waste accounted for about 5 per cent. of hazardous waste incinerated in England in 1989–90. The provision of similar information for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. No estimate has been made of the levels of imports of hazardous waste for incineration for the next decade.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the expansion rate of waste incineration projects and of the likely levels of air pollution resulting from such projects over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department is aware of 11 current proposals for new waste incinerators in England, including those for burning sewage sludge. However, these are at various stages of preparation, and there is no certainty that they will all go ahead. All new waste incinerators will be required to meet the very stringent emission standards of EC directive 89/369. Incinerators over one tonne per hour capacity will in addition require to be authorised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the new integrated pollution control provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on proposals to build new incinerators for the purposes of burning toxic waste and as to how many of these devices are planned and where they are to be located.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Deparment is aware of proposals for five new incinerators for burning toxic waste in England, although these are all subject to planning permission. Their locations are:

  Trafford Park (Greater Manchester)

  Doncaster

  Seal Sands (Cleveland)

  Portrack (Cleveland)

  Howden (Newcastle)

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what actions have been taken to investigate links between pollution emissions and medical conditions in humans and livestock arising out of the activities of the company ReChem;

  (2) what research projects have been carried out (a) independently and (b) by his Department into the effects

  97
  on human health of substances emitted from waste disposal incinerators; and what was the cost of his Department's investigations.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1984 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed an expert group to carry out an independent review of morbidity in the Bonnybridge/Denny area, in which a ReChem incinerator plant was located, under the chairmanship of Professor J. Lenihan. The review group's report was published by the Scottish Home and Health Departments in February 1985.

  The Government are currently funding the independent small area health statistics unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to investigate possible links between pollution from industrial installations and ill-health in the local community. Specific types of installations being studied include municipal waste incinerators and waste oil and solvent incinerators. The results of the studies will be published in due course.

  The cost of individual studies is not separately identified but the total cost of the small area health statistics unit is currently £448,000 per year, of which the Department contributes one third.

  A number of other studies have been made into levels of pollutants found in the vicinity of waste disposal incinerators, but they have not attempted to link any pollution with health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has recently appointed an independent adviser to specify such a study in the area surrounding the ReChem incinerator at Pontypool.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions he plans to introduce in order to reduce the amount of imported toxic waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has taken the lead in the European Community and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in calling for all developed countries to become self-sufficient in disposing of their own waste. The United Kingdom is actively involved in negotiations for several international agreements which should help to reduce the amount of imported hazardous waste.

  The proposed amendment to the EC framework directive on waste (75/442/EEC) agreed by the Environment Council in June 1990 refers to the objective of self-sufficiency in waste disposal both for the Community as a whole and for member states individually.

  The proposed Council regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community would introduce new controls on imports of hazardous waste. The draft OECD decision-recommendation on the reduction of transfrontier movements of waste includes provision for member countries to reduce transfrontier movements to the lowest possible level. Apart from these prospective international agreements the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives the Secretary of State additional powers, should they be needed, to control imports of waste.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the United Kingdom's position in the league table of European countries which import toxic waste; and if he will make a statement.
  98
  Mr. Baldry
  There are at present no reliable comparable figures for imports of hazardous waste by European countries. However, figures are likely to be available in the future as a result of two prospective international agreements. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's draft decision-recommendation on the reduction of transfrontier movements of waste includes provision for member countries to co-operate in collecting and publishing data on waste imports and exports. The proposed European Council regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community also includes provision for the collection and publication of information on imports and exports of waste. Imports of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom are not large: in 1989–90 they amounted to about 35,000 tonnes, less than 2 per cent. of the hazardous waste we produce ourselves. The Government are pleased that the trend is downward. Imports in 1989–90 were less than half those two years earlier.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what quantity of waste, in the last year in which figures are available, was imported for direct landfill within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  The last year for which figures are available is 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 when 140 tonnes of hazardous waste were imported into England for direct landfill.

  The provision of similar information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what quantities per nation annually European toxic waste has been imported by the United Kingdom for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the importation of waste by country of origin into the United Kingdom is available only since the introduction of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations in October 1988.

  The information in respect of imports of waste from European Community states through English ports for the financial years (1 April to 31 March) 1988–89 and 1989–90 is shown in the following table.

  The provision of similar information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Country of origin

  Waste imported (tonnes)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Belgium

  3,961

  5,757

  Denmark

  185

  49

  Federal Republic of Germany

  0

  885

  France

  0

  16

  Greece

  0

  5

  Republic of Ireland

  261

  1,704

  Italy

  273

  1,851

  Luxembourg

  0

  17

  Netherlands

  5,224

  10,663

  Portugal

  0

  73

  Spain

  0

  241

  99
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific action he is taking to identify the nature of all waste in transit.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 control imports and exports. Under these regulations hazardous waste in transit must be accompanied by documents identifying the waste. The proposed European Council regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community is expected to replace the 1988 regulations. The proposal covers all waste, except non-hazardous waste for recycling. The proposal includes provision for all waste in transit to be accompanied by identifying documents. Movements of special waste within England, Scotland and Wales are controlled under the Special Waste Regulations 1980. These regulations require that appropriate documents identify waste in transit. Under the new duty of care in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 adequate written descriptions will have to be transferred with all consignments of controlled waste (except for household waste produced in a domestic property).

  Dioxin
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to remove dioxin from the United Kingdom environment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The risks posed by the trace quantities of dioxins in the environment do not warrant any specific action to remove them. Dioxins in the environment tend to be absorbed onto soil particles and are gradually changed into other substances by the action of natural chemical, physical and biological processes. The Government's policy is to take action to reduce the levels of dioxins entering the environment from industrial and other sources. This will in due course result in lower levels of dioxins occurring in the environment.

  Local Government
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received from the Boundary Commission to increase the number of parish, community or town councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Two Local Government Boundary Commission reports before my right hon. Friend for his decision recommend the creation of new parishes. The reports concern the borough of Pendle in Lancashire, and the district of Derbyshire Dales.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered amending the concurrent functions that operate between parish and district councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No: there is no evidence that the concurrent powers of district and parish councils create problems. While there are non-parish areas within district councils, districts must continue to have some powers in these fields.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to increase the number of parish and town councils in England; and if he will make a statement.
  100
  Mr. Key
  There have been no recent representations on this subject. Since Ministers have power to create new parishes only on the recommendation of the Local Government Boundary Commission, the question is in the first place for them, and for the district councils on whom the primary responsibility for reviewing the structure of parishes lies.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new parish, community or town councils have been created since 1974; and if he will give details of their location.

  Mr. Key
  The Department publishes an annual bulletin of changes in local government structure, including the creation of new parishes on the recommendation of the Local Government Boundary Commission and the creation of new parish councils by district councils. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations to introduce parish councils in the larger cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  There have been no recent representations on this subject. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England considered proposals to create new parishes throughout the city of Birmingham, but did not recommend that change.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to give statutory powers to parish councils to have access to information of any proposals for change of services or facilities involving parish councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No: though the role of parish councils is relevant to the current review of local government.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if parish councils are to receive any part of the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The proceeds from the uniform business rate go into the collection fund operated by the charging authority in each area. Each local authority makes a demand on the collection fund for its income. Parish councils therefore have the same access to business rate income as do county and district councils.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is given to parish councils on obtaining grants to carry out environmental improvements in their area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No general advice is issued, but the Department is happy to give what advice it can in specific cases when asked.

  Sefton Park Palm House
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why proposals submitted to his Merseyside task force for improvements to Liverpool's Sefton Park palm house, to be financed under the urban fund, have not been proceeded with; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Proposals to restore the palm house were submitted in Liverpool's 1989–90 programme and again in
  101
  the 1990–91 programme. Ministers at that time were not satisfied that cost estimates for this specialised renovation task were sufficiently robust and detailed costings were commissioned. Liverpool submitted a detailed appraisal in June 1990 and this was used as a basis for further consultation. I am not satisfied that in their present form the proposals offer value for money. If the city were to come forward with wider proposals for the park linked to adjoining initiatives by the Merseyside development corporation, I would be prepared to reconsider the issue.

  House Improvement Grant
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the implementation of the new house improvement grant system by Liverpool city council.

  Mr. Yeo
  The implementation of the house renovation grant system is a local authority responsibility and Liverpool city council has a duty to comply with the statutory requirements.

  Property Surveying
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to require all building surveyors to show proof of adequate liability prior to any property surveying work being undertaken for members of the public.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. member to the answer given to him on 4 December 1989 by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State at column 9.

  Garden Festival Site, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the original land reclamation costs, and the subsequent annual costs of maintenance and repair, of the international garden festival site, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The garden festival site was reclaimed as part of a wider land reclamation scheme in the Liverpool south docks area, the total cost of which was £10·6 million. The current annual maintenance cost of the festival park is £200,000.

  Local Authority Finance Settlement
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make the local authority finance settlement for 1991–92.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have today laid before the House the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1991–92, the Population Report (England) (No.2), the Special Grant Report (No. 2) and the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England).

  Postal Service, Lancashire
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that postal service names and areas and local government names arid areas in Lancashire are brought into alignment.

  Mr. Key
  It is for the Post Office to decide on what names and areas to use for the postal service.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the National Rivers Authority about the need for local planning authorities to consult the National Rivers Authority about the availability of water supplies before planning permissions are approved.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 20 December 1990]: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such representations. He listens closely to any comments or proposals which the National Rivers Authority may make to him.

  Housing Subsidy (Lambeth)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the reason for the continuation of the previous basis for housing subsidy when Lambeth borough council changed its accounting policy on sinking fund accumulation rates used for debt charges in the financial years 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department refused Lambeth borough council's request to increase from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. the sinking fund accumulated rate used in the calculation of housing subsidy entitlement because such a change would have resulted in an increase in the amount of subsidy paid to the council in the long term.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from hon. Members and their constituents on the matter of the environment in Antarctica.

  Mr. Baldry
  Most inquiries of hon. Members on this subject are addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who is responsible for policy on the Antarctic. A small number of letters recently addressed to Ministers in this Department have been passed to my right hon. Friend for his attention.

  Sea Bathing
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department expects to receive the report of the 1990 research into the health risks of sea bathing; and when this report will be made available to the House.

  Mr. Baldry
  We expect to receive the final report of the 1990 studies in early April and copies will be placed in the Library shortly thereafter.

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

North Atlantic Fisheries: Control
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest position regarding serious overfishing dangers in the North Atlantic and what safeguards have been agreed between the North Atlantic fisheries organisation and the European Community to secure a satisfactory level of fish stocks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, having considered the state of the stocks in the north-west Atlantic, the European Community has agreed reduced quotas for 1991 for all the major stocks in these waters based on the latest scientific advice. The majority of these quotas reflect total allowable catches agreed by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO). The Community is playing a strong and positive role in current discussions on improved control measures to help ensure that the quotas of all NAFO contracting parties are adhered to and thus stocks are conserved.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Is a joint scientific study now taking place between the Community and the Canadian Government? Furthermore, is surveillance being carried out in order to ensure that there is no overfishing?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend how much joint research is being carried out.
2
The Community takes seriously advice based on scientific research. The United Kingdom donates the use of a fishery protection vessel to look after the stocks.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, has the Minister received any representations from the fishermen in Whitby, Bridlington and Scarborough who consider that the new Common Market regulations are threatening their livelihood? What comfort has he been able to offer to them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an entirely different Question; but I recognise that the point is important. Representations have been heard. We must all remember that last year cod fishermen were allowed to fish for only nine days per month but they are now are allowed to fish for 22 days per month.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in view of the major and continuing reduction in Great Britain's total allowable catches under the common fisheries policy perhaps I may ask this. Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consider the introduction of a decommissioning scheme to allow fishermen over middle age and operating older vessels to give up fishing, subject to Community and government assistance towards the funding of such a scheme?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again, that is slightly outwith the Question on the Order Paper. We have always made plain the fact that the decommissioning scheme is not a good use of taxpayers' money. It would be expensive and would not help to reduce the overall capacity. Against that background is the fact that white fish prices have increased by 15 per cent. during the past 12 months.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend's attention been drawn to recent judicial decisions of the European Court which affect the right of Spanish-owned but British-registered vessels to fish, contrary to what would otherwise be British legislation? Can he offer any hope of a remedy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government have recently introduced new regulations affecting the so-called "quota hoppers"—the Spanish fishermen who have flagged their ships in the United Kingdom—which will do a great deal to ensure that that does not happen in the future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in reply to his noble friend, the Minister has been kind enough to give the views of the EC on this vexed question. Will he confirm that the European Community's view as conveyed by him is 100 per cent. endorsed by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when a European Community decision is made at the fisheries council it is endorsed by Her Majesty's Government.

St. David's Head: Radar Installation
2.42 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present state of the planning application in respect of the proposed radar installation at St. David's Head.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we have commissioned an independent environmental impact assessment for the proposed development at St. David's. This is still in preparation, and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will wish to consider it carefully when it is completed. Our aim would then be to submit a notice of proposed development to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park later this year.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply, but are he and the ministry fully aware of the extent of the criticism of and the opposition to the proposal on environmental grounds, on grounds of public health and also because the installation will be within very close proximity to St. David's Cathedral? Is he in a position to give a firm undertaking that if the planning application, when submitted, is turned down by the National Park planning authority, the department will not then invoke Crown immunity?
Earl of Arran: My Lords, because of the very fact that I believe that this is the fourth time that the Question has been asked in your Lordships' House since May of last year, I am indeed aware of the importance that your Lordships attach to this matter. Most of the worries mentioned by the noble Lord will be covered by the environmental impact assessment which we hope will be published shortly. When it reaches the local authority—in this case the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park—it will have 16 statutory weeks during which it can receive objections, if any, to this installation.
As regards Crown immunity, it is true that the Crown is not formally bound by planning legislation, but in common with other government departments it is always the practice to adhere strictly to planning processes in conformity with the appropriate
4
department, be it the Department of the Environment or in this case the Welsh Office. If the application is turned down it would be open for my department to refer the matter to those authorities.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the village of Trefgarne is but a few short miles from the proposed development? As regards the last part of my noble friend's answer, can he say whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Wales to call in this application, which I believe he is entitled to do?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is far too early to say precisely what will happen. As yet the environmental impact assessment has not been published, nor has it been sent, together with the notice of proposed development, to the relevant authority.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl give a precise answer to the last question asked by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies? Given that both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Ministry of Defence have powers to override the decision of Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, do we have an undertaking, which I believe would be merely to repeat an undertaking given by Mr. Alan Clark, that that will not happen under any circumstances?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have to judge the case on its merits. As I have already made clear, it is always open for the Ministry of Defence in particular circumstances to refer the matter to the appropriate Secretary of State. We shall have to judge whether to do that when the situation becomes clearer.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the fact that this matter is to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment will give a great deal of comfort to many people up and down the land, particularly in the Principality of Wales, and not least to many noble Lords in this House who supported such action only last week in a debate on the Planning and Compensation Bill?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while the Government are rightly showing respect and reverence for holy places in the Middle East, will they show equal sensitivity to the holiest place in Wales and one of the holiest in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition can have our assurance that that will be done. It will be respected, examined extremely carefully and objections can be made known at all times because we are aware of the sensitivity of the subject. However, I must make one matter clear. Our beholden duty at all times is to make sure of the defence of this country.

Abortion Rate among Teenagers
2.47 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to deal with the problem of teenage abortion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, there was a welcome reduction in 1989 in the number of abortions among teenage women, particularly among girls under 16. Effective family planning and sex education have a major role to play in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the Government's policies are aimed at making such provision widely available. We recognise that every abortion is a tragedy and a major decision for the woman and the doctor concerned.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I believe that she gave the figures only for 1989, which are an improvement. The abortion rate for the under-16s from 1980 to 1988 has increased by 28 per cent. That is very alarming. Does the noble Baroness agree that the closure of some family planning clinics has had a disastrous effect because young people, particularly the under-16s, will not always go to their GP for advice? The closure of family planning clinics means that advice on contraception will be available to fewer people. The tragedy of an eventual abortion could often be avoided by family planning advice. Can the Minister give us an assurance about the future provision of family planning clinics and government support?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, statistics are not always helpful but the noble Baroness's Question gives me an opportunity to put the record straight. Last week I quoted an increase in the abortion rate for England and Wales for women aged 15 to 44 as a percentage when it should have been per thousand. The figure is 1.19 per cent. in 1979 up to 1.54 per cent. in 1989, but with an encouraging drop in 1990. Those are overall figures.
I am rather puzzled by the statistic quoted by the noble Baroness. In 1989 there was a 4.6 per cent. fall in abortions for girls aged 16 to 19 years. That group represents 21 per cent. of abortions to resident women. The number of abortions to resident girls under the age of 16 has fallen each year since 1984. While we are by no means complacent about that, it is an encouraging sign.
Regarding the noble Baroness's second supplementary question on family planning, health authorities have been asked to consider provision of separate, less formal family planning arrangements than those for older age groups. The policy on sex education in schools is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and the school governing bodies. But there is no evidence of a lack of counsellors.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister provide the figures for conceptions as well as abortions? The fact that the number of conceptions has risen is also alarming.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not have the relative figures.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the underfunding of preventive and health education services generally is now becoming widespread in London? In some cases grants have been withdrawn altogether. A recent example is the London Borough of Lewisham where three Wel-Care workers who specialise in working with young people at risk and teenage single parents have had their grants terminated. The situation is extremely serious. Does the Minister agree that the social services in London, both statutory and voluntary, are facing an ever-growing and almost overwhelming volume of crisis work as a result?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, there is no evidence to show that there is a lack of counsellors. I also said that we aim to provide less formal family planning facilities to cater for teenage cases. Various projects are being independently evaluated and are about to be reported upon, which should be helpful. The Department of Education and Science is providing a large amount of funding generally for health education, including sex education in schools.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the Minister explain her answer? She said that there is no evidence of lack of resources. However, the right reverend Prelate has just told us that Lewisham had to get rid of three workers in this field. The two statements do not tie up. Does not the noble Baroness agree that it is an extremely short-sighted policy? If the Government wish to avoid abortions, surely the best way is to invest money in adequate advice and planning and not to get rid of those who work in that field.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for drawing attention to the examples he gave. However, overall there is no evidence of a shortage of counsellors.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that in the past decade the Brook clinics, which have a high reputation for counselling services on contraception for young people, have had to reduce the number of doctor sessions by 15 per cent.? Would the Minister issue directives to district health authorities which are stronger than simply asking them to improve services for young people, as referred to in an earlier answer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, last week in answer to a Question on a related topic I referred to the guidance and circulars that had been issued in relation to counselling and to the monitoring methods which are in place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as long as the young regard technology as a substitute for morality in the prevention of either conception or birth we shall continue to be faced with this tragic problem on a major scale? Does she also agree that there is an urgent need for all agencies,

7
including the Government's education department, to press for a return to traditional family values in this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend makes a helpful point. Counselling is not just for family planning clinics. It can come from parents, GPs, teachers and other members of the community.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that her noble friend makes a valid point. But it is worrying that there seems to be a conflict of evidence. Does the noble Baroness accept that across the country one in four of the family planning services in district health authorities have been cut? Does she also accept that in half of the district health authorities in London 50 per cent. of late abortions are for girls under 20? If there is already a shortage of family planning facilities—of which fact there is a great deal of evidence—does she not feel that the Government should ensure that there are no further cuts? Can they ensure that in future family planning services are kept up to scratch?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have had this argument before regarding the prescriptive rights of central government. As the noble Lord may remember, our view is that local health authorities are best able to decide on spending priorities. I do not have figures of late abortions for those under 20. However, there has been a decrease in late abortions for those under the age of 16.

Homeless at Christmas Campaign
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the arrangements made to cater for the homeless over Christmas and the New Year period in London and other major cities were successful.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes. The "Open Christmas" campaign run by CRISIS accommodated between 500 and 600 rough sleepers each night during Christmas week. Under the Government's rough sleepers initiative, over 500 hostel places and 700 places in longer term accommodation are being provided over the next few months.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, is the Minister aware that according to CRISIS—which was formerly Crisis at Christmas—the provisions made for the homeless at Christmas came entirely from the voluntary sector? An early announcement was made that £15 million would be set aside for that purpose; and I understand that was reiterated by Sir George Young on 18th December. He mentioned £12 million. Can the Minister say what has happened to the £12 million? Has it been distributed? Also, what has happened to the outstanding £3 million of those resources?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the department offered to fund CRISIS to enable the "Open Christmas" campaign to run for longer than a week. CRISIS were
8
not able to accept that as the lease on the building was strictly time-limited and their volunteers had to return to work. The Government have put massively increased resources aside for the problem amounting to £96 million over three years for the single homeless initiative, plus increased funding to voluntary organisations working with the homeless rising from £2 million this year to £4.5 million for 1991–92
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he said regarding CRISIS. As he said, that was formerly Crisis at Christmas, a charity which was started in 1967 specifically to look after the single homeless in London. However, is he aware that at least 1,800 people were looked after in London during the week of Christmas this year? They were provided with food and shelter. They also received dental help, a new suit of clothes, medical equipment, a haircut and many other things. They were able to talk to counsellors who were attempting to help them get on their feet in the outside world. Would the Minister also agree that over 4,000 people offered their services at Christmas to help these people?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as my noble friend points out, the enormous effort of volunteers is extremely important. A huge amount of work was done by all the volunteers over Christmas.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House on the current level of homelessness? Is he in a position to say when the hostels and long-term accommodation beds announced by the housing Minister will be made available?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are about 23,000 hostel places in London, and probably 50,000 throughout the country. The shortage of places is probably only 10 per cent. The total homeless figures for rough sleepers is probably around 5,000 for the country. The 700 places, particularly in the move-on accommodation, should free places in hostels which will allow many more people to get into them.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I must press the Minister for an answer to my question. Can he tell us what is the current level of homelessness? In addition, can he say when the permanent beds as well as the hostel beds will become available? I refer to those that were promised by the housing Minister.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the question concerning the current level of homelessness. The point raised by the noble Lord is rather far from the Question on the Order Paper. That is specifically about the arrangements for Christmas and whether they were successful.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, we have heard that the arrangements over the Christmas period went well, and we are very glad to hear it. Will the Minister say something about the fact that the Government have introduced a different attitude and style in the past couple of months since the changes in the Government? I believe it is Sir George Young who is responsible for doing a great deal more for the homeless. Can the Minister say in simple terms what he is doing?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have pointed out what the Government are doing so far. A £3 million scheme was announced today in another place by my honourable friend. The scheme is part of the Government's strategy to tackle specifically the problem of young people sleeping rough in London. It focuses particularly on young people coming to London from elsewhere. The scheme seeks to develop innovative ways of supporting them in their own communities.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say exactly what he means by rough sleepers, and what category of homeless people are covered by that description?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer to that question.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I cannot accept the thesis that questions about homelessness are wide of the Question which was how homelessness was dealt with over the very short period of Christmas. Does the Minister not agree that there would not have been the need for Crisis at Christmas had there not been a grave problem of homelessness? He gave some credit to the Government for new expenditure. Does the Minister not agree that if the Government reduce their expenditure and programme for housing in general, that will lead to homelessness which will inevitably lead to additional money having to be spent in order to deal with what is the scandal of homelessness? All those people who were helped by Crisis at Christmas are now back on the streets.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government have done a great deal. They have enabled the housing associations to almost double the amount of hostel places in London from 11,000 in 1981 to about 20,000 today. The single homeless initiative will provide additional move-on accommodation enabling large-scale resettlement to take place, thus freeing places into which people can move directly from the streets.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Stallard. Is the Minister aware that the number of households now registered as homeless is almost 130,000? The figure has more than doubled in the past decade. Is he aware that there is an inexorable rise in the number of people sleeping rough in London and the other major cities? Therefore, does the Minister not appreciate that unless the Government initiate further measures to deal with this situation urgently, he or one of his colleagues will be back this time next year defending the Government's position once again?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government agree that sleeping out on the streets is unacceptable. As I have pointed out, we have many measures with which we hope to deal with this problem.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
10
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended this day to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Privy Seal to be taken before the Third Reading of the Maintenance Enforcement Bill.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Gulf
3.4 pm
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington rose to move, That this House takes note of the situation in the Gulf.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
When the battle for the liberation of Kuwait began on Wednesday night, when the multinational force went into action, we all knew the great dangers our forces were going to face on our behalf and I do not believe there were many among those who knew anything of the size of Saddam Hussein's army and the weapons at his disposal who thought that it was all going to be over in a few days and it was going to be an easy and painless business.
We should not now underestimate for one moment the scale or the difficulty of the task which confronts our forces or the time it may take to complete. We are dealing with an enemy who, having invaded Kuwait, is now well dug in, has established extremely strong defensive positions manned by hundreds of thousands of men and is equipped with thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, together with substantial numbers of aircraft, helicopters and anti-aircraft defence.
We at home have watched in awe as the battle has developed and it is right that now the House should have the opportunity not just of hearing a report on the current situation—I doubt whether anything I say will add greatly to the information already in the hands of your Lordships because of the splendid coverage of events by the media—but of reaffirming our support for those who are upholding international law on our behalf and of expressing our views on recent events, including, no doubt, the blatant attempt by Iraq to widen the scope of the conflict by its missile attacks on Israel.
First, perhaps I may refer to the allied air operations which are the first phase of the campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Already seven nations from the coalition are involved: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Italy. Obviously, we do not know the result of every attack but we do know that damage has been on a number of important command and control facilities, airfield missile sites, nuclear, chemical and biological installations and other targets which enable Iraq to make war.
We must not expect the air campaign to end speedily. While it is clear that Iraqi air defences have been considerably weakened, they have not been eliminated. But, as more military targets are destroyed, the weight of the air campaign will shift increasingly to attacks on Iraqi ground forces in and around Kuwait. RAF Tornado and Jaguar ground attack aircraft, supported by Victor-VC10 tanker

11
aircraft, have played a key part in the battle. They have concentrated in particular on the particularly hazardous task of low-level attacks on airfields using the runway-cratering weapon.
Sadly, three RAF Tornados have been lost in action and their crews are missing. The House will be aware that Iraqi television apparently showed seven captured airmen yesterday among whom seem to be the crew of one of our Tornados. Such broadcasts are wholly objectionable in every respect. Today there has been reported threats to use the captured airmen as human shields. Such action would be inhuman, illegal and contrary to the Geneva Conventions. As regards the missing crewmen, I am sure that the whole House would wish to extend its expressions of sympathy to their wives and families.
As to those who have been taken prisoner, I can assure the House that we have reminded the Iraqis very forcefully indeed of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions. We shall hold them to that: and we have asked the Red Cross to seek access at the earliest opportunity to the two crewmen being held.
So far as our ground forces are concerned, they will move into action when the military commanders consider the moment is right and the British forces are ready to play their part in liberating Kuwait.
Now perhaps I may revert to the Scud attacks on Israel. They were without any possible justification, Israel not having laid a finger on Iraq. It is worth noting that although casualties were mercifully few and were not serious, these were indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population quite unlike the meticulous precision bombing carried out by our forces, which has been designed to minimise harm to the civilian population.
Since the first of the Scud attacks we have of course been in consultation with the Israeli Government along with the Americans. We can well understand the sense of outrage which must have been felt in Israel, and the Israelis would have been perfectly entitled to respond, exercising their right of self-defence. We welcome the restraint they have shown. As the House knows, it has been possible to send to Israel additional Patriot missiles to meet the threat within its own borders while allied operations have continued to eliminate the Scud sites.
In the days and weeks ahead there will undoubtedly be many calls for a pause in military operations to enable negotiations to take place. It will be said that negotiations should be given another chance and that compromise should be explored. We do not want the conflict to last a day longer than necessary. But a pause in the period up to 15th January was one thing. A pause now, when our forces are engaged, is another. Our prime consideration must be to protect them and avoid any unnecessary casualties. That we will do. We cannot agree to any suspension of hostilities which would allow Saddam Hussein to regroup and strengthen his position simply in the hope that this might lead to negotiations on the basis of some vague promise about his intentions. Hostilities cannot end —or pause—until we know that Iraqi forces are out of
12
Kuwait. There can be no other basis on which we can agree to explore any proposals for peace. Once again the matter is in Saddam Hussein's hands.
While we are engaged in this conflict, which may continue for some considerable time to come, we must be thinking of future security arrangements in the area which will prevent anything like this happening again. Clearly, it is for the Arab Governments themselves to give a lead in devising such arrangements and in providing the forces to sustain them. The Gulf states are far from reaching conclusions about this, but they need to give attention to the matter now so that when Saddam Hussein is defeated the necessary arrangements can be instituted rapidly and effectively. These will almost certainly involve a contribution from countries outside the area; and, if the Gulf states want it, we are ready to play our part.
We shall play our part too in vigorous efforts to solve the Arab/Israel problem, which the international community will need to renew once the war is over and Saddam Hussein is out of Kuwait. What Saddam Hussein has done in invading Kuwait and now in attacking Israel has made a solution not easier but harder to achieve. But once the war is over there will be a general recognition by all parties to the Arab/Israel dispute that the time has come for some new thinking. We shall do everything we can to promote this.
Nobody with any sense looks upon armed conflict with enthusiasm but there are few now who doubt the rightness of our cause. In the list of countries actively engaged in the operations against Iraq are two Arab countries, and many more are giving their support. One cannot say too often that this is no war waged by the West against the Arabs but action to uphold international law. I hope that today a very clear and unequivocal message of appreciation will go out from the House for the skill and courage of our armed forces and for what they are doing on our behalf. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation in the Gulf.—(Lord Waddington.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this debate, on the fifth day of the conflict in the Gulf, gives us the opportunity to try to assess developments there and to look a little to the future, although that is not easy. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has given us an up-to-date summary of events and we are grateful to him.
Much of the news that comes to us is encouraging. We pay the warmest tribute to the airmen of the allied forces and of the Royal Air Force, who have played an important part in the air offensive. There has been a danger, as the Prime Minister has warned, that we might become euphoric. The United States commander in chief, General Schwarzkopf, said last Friday:
"We are exactly where we expected to be at this stage, 36 hours into the campaign".
He was confident—and no doubt he had reason to be so—but people are now realising, as the noble Lord reminded us, that this war will be a longer haul than many thought would be the case, although the general

13
gave a hint that a ground war might be averted. His remark resulted in a good deal of discussion over the weekend. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply will give us the latest government view.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has described the potential strength of the Iraqi army. We have, even so, been deeply impressed in these early days by the skill and courage of our airmen and by the accuracy of the pinpoint bombing which has by all accounts substantially diminished the Iraqi casualties in Baghdad and elsewhere. The noble Lord mentioned the loss of three aircraft. Their crews have been very much in the thoughts of all of us. We are glad that some are alive in Baghdad; and as the noble Lord said, we expect them to be treated strictly according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Any breach of the rules would need to be dealt with when the war is over. That must be made plain now to the Iraqi Government.
The noble Lord referred to the position of Israel, following the Scud missile attacks on Tel Aviv and other towns. Saddam Hussein sought to involve Israel in this war with the so-called linkage argument which he advanced earlier on. This was another more cruel, more unscrupulous attempt to bring Israel into the conflict in the hope that that would fragment the United Nations coalition. We were not surprised that he took this action. A man who has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own people as well as countless moslems in Iran and Kuwait would not be concerned by the death of civilians in Israel. We would have understood it if Israel had retaliated. It is immensely to the credit of the Israeli Government that they have not done so thus far, although they have reserved their position for the future. It is also noteworthy that the coalition has stood firm and that Egypt and Syria have indicated that they would not leave it. The prompt action of the United States in sending the Patriot anti-missile batteries to Israel has also helped to stabilise the position there.
I should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, if, when he comes to reply, he can tell us whether we know the extent of the damage to the Iraqi airforce and missiles and, equally important, to Iraqi airfields. We have heard that some of these are bigger than Heathrow. One of the questions people are asking is: where are the Iraqi aeroplanes? There are reports that the Iraqi airforce flew north, that they are dispersed, which is probably the case, that they are kept in reserve somewhere underground but will make an appearance as soon as the ground war develops. We take all this as speculation, but the use of Turkish airfields by United States aircraft to attack strategic positions in northern Iraq has given the war a new dimension.
I do not press for precise answers, but these are matters which are being discussed in the press and on the media. One example was the heading of a well argued article by Major-General Julian Thomson which appeared in yesterday's Observer and which carried the heading, "Iraq gambles on 'do nothing' air
14
strategy". It was a most interesting theme, but I am sure that it will help noble Lords if the noble Earl, Lord Arran, can enlarge upon the matter in his reply.
As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, the main object of the war is to drive the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait so that it may once more be occupied by its people and by its legitimate government. I do not think that anyone in this House doubts that that will happen. It is essential in the interest of Kuwait and its people and in the interests of free countries and small countries throughout the world; it is in the interests of the maintenance of some form of rule of law in the world and, finally, of the survival of the United Nations. The hope of a better world for people of all religious beliefs depends upon that.
We must hope and pray that the ground offensive to recover Kuwait will be successful—speedily and decisively. When that repossession is complete, people will ask, "Is that the end of it?" That will depend on a number of factors, not least whether Saddam Hussein still occupies his presidential chair. I shall not pursue that argument further in this debate, but it is a matter that the Government, and others who are involved in this war, will have to consider very soon. We shall return to it in future debates in this House.
I have said that I believe a strong United Nations based securely on the principles of its charter is not only desirable but essential to every country in the world. The aims of this war are contained in the resolutions of the United Nations. Some argue that the purpose of the war is to safeguard the oil in the region and to enable the United States to control it, while some try to link it to Israel and the Palestinian problem. Of course oil is a significant factor and the Palestine problem is also of the utmost importance as we look to the future. But these have for the moment ceased to be the primary arguments. Young men and women are in the Gulf ready to sacrifice their lives for a higher ideal; that is, the creation of a more peaceful world under the United Nations.
In the past few months it has been possible to say that the international community, including the majority of the Arab nations, has joined to condemn the aggression of Iraq. But, at the same time, it has been sad to note the support which Saddam Hussein appears to enjoy in some Arab countries. He appears to draw substantial support in some areas and, unfortunately, the PLO are partly responsible for this.
This propaganda, which appears to be having some success—namely, that Saddam Hussein is the champion of Islam—must be dealt with. I assume that the Government agree that this can be carried out most effectively by the Arab members of the coalition. If Saddam Hussein is allowed to assume the mantle of a hero of Islam, then a future permanent settlement will be made far more difficult to achieve. I also assume that the one great objective after the war is ended is the conference to which the noble Lord referred and a determined effort to reach a settlement of Middle East problems.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the reasoned and balanced reaction of the British moslem community to

15
the crisis. As is natural, it has shown a sympathy for Kuwait and support for the Security Council. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in his moving speech in this House last Tuesday called for a balanced and tolerant approach to the religious implications of the war. I know that we all fully support him in that appeal.
The United Nations force comprises moslem troops and troops from Europe and America. They stand there shoulder to shoulder and their aim is to free a small moslem state from the clutches of a tyrant. This debate gives us the opportunity to show our complete support for them.
We, and our colleagues in another place, support the UN resolutions because we believe the cause to be a just one. In this debate we cannot look to the future in too great detail; there will be other debates when the war is ended and the United Nations, with our support, must assume the responsibility to tackle those problems which brought about the war. If that is not done, then lives will be lost in vain. Today our thoughts are with those who face the terrors of war and with their families. We hope and pray that it will be over very soon and that, as a result, the Middle East and the wider world will be better places in which to live.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his speech and for the information he gave. I doubt whether this debate will add greatly to the conduct of the war in the Gulf. However, I have no doubt that your Lordships' House will give the unequivocal support for which the noble Lord asked. The debate provides us with an opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of our armed forces in the Gulf and to the manner in which the Prime Minister has led the country. By his conduct over the past few days the Prime Minister has managed to convey the sombre reluctance with which we entered into the war together with the determination which we all share to bring it to a successful conclusion.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to the developments which have taken place since we last debated the Gulf crisis, especially the unprovoked and indiscriminate attacks on Israel which all of us must deplore. I am sure that we all admire the restraint which Israel has shown in the face of such provocation. I endorse everything the noble Lord said as regards the threat to prisoners of war which, as he declared, is in breach of every convention, legal and otherwise, and must be deplored. We join in condemnation of that threat. The reaction of the moslem community in this country, I would have thought, has been somewhat more mixed than that described by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I shall return to that matter later.
I wish to reiterate what I said during the last debate; namely, that it is impossible to isolate the crisis in the Gulf from the other events taking place in the world today. The history of the crisis has been one
16
of the consequences of concentrating our political vision on one issue to the exclusion of others. It was for that reason—or so it would seem—that Washington, and I believe this country, failed to appreciate the intentions of Iraq. We misinterpreted the signals which were sent because we were concentrating almost exclusively on East-West issues. That is a mistake which we must not make in reverse.
Although it is impossible to compare the Baltic states with Kuwait or to say that one situation is more important or significant than the other, it is the case that both raise the same issue of principle in the same form. That fact was well expressed in our debate on 15th January by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. I refer to the principle of the right of states to be protected from aggression and the importance of our seizing the opportunity which we have been given for establishing the authority of the United Nations, acting on the basis of unanimity on the part of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the position of those who criticise the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. It must be said once more in answer to those critics that the position of Kuwait, which has been attacked, occupied and looted, is different and special in that, in addition to those outrages, it has been abolished as a state. It is therefore distinct from Grenada or Panama whether or not one approves of what the United States did on those occasions. It is distinct from the position of Israel.
When the United States invaded Grenada and Panama—I am not necessarily defending the action, I am merely distinguishing it from the present situation —it intervened to change governments which had been installed and maintained by force. It did not intervene to abolish the states of Grenada and Panama altogether.
By the same token, it can be argued that when Israel occupied Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank, it was acting in self defence. The invasion of Kuwait is, in that sense, altogether different. The last occasion I can recall when a country wiped out a previously independent state by military force—abolished its existence—was in 1940 when the USSR invaded and absorbed within itself the three Baltic states. That makes clear the distinction we face: other positions are sometimes agglomerated with it. If that is accepted, or even if it is not, and if it is true, as Clausewitz said:
"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means",
then the outbreak of war does not mean the end of politics or diplomacy. Hence we must now consider what we do next—our next step. I greatly welcome the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the House and of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. They focused upon what we do after we have secured compliance with the United Nations resolutions. We should be turning our attention to our war aims. It is worth considering what those aims are not.
We are not there to secure British interests in the Middle East; we are not there to secure our oil supplies; we are not there to overthrow the

17
Government of Saddam; and we are not there to redraw the boundaries of Iraq. We are there to secure compliance with the United Nations resolutions, and, if having done so, we do not make a strenuous effort to secure a stable peace in that dangerous area, much blood and treasure will have been wasted with criminal negligence.
To achieve that settlement, we must have a peace conference. What has been known as linkage (the position of the Palestinians and the security of Israel) has to be taken into account and must be central to any such conference, which would also include such issues as the problem of Lebanon, the position of minorities in the region, such as the Kurds, and the implementation of United Nations Resolution 242 which relates to the occupied Arab lands.
It is encouraging that those matters are already being discussed in the United States. The most useful contribution the debate in your Lordships' House today may make is to open the discussion here and now of those important and crucial issues. It should be the aim of any such conference to leave the stability of the region, if it can possibly be so managed, in the hands of those living in the region. For that to be achieved it may well be necessary for others to guarantee Israel's security; for the Security Council to guarantee the terms of the settlement; for disarmament in the region and control of arms to the region to be set in place; and for United Nations peace keeping forces to be involved. The formulation of such war aims and the declaration by the Security Council that it would be calling a conference to achieve them would greatly strengthen the alliance and consolidate its members.
The inclusion of a Palestinian settlement on the agenda would make it more difficult for Saddam to play the Palestinian card and, I suspect, would help allay the fears of members of the moslem community in this country. In addition, it would provide the 15 nations involved in the war with the opportunity to work together not just for the liberation of Kuwait but for a common, constructive purpose: to bring a peaceful settlement to a region which, for all too many years, has represented a deadly threat to itself and to its members and to the rest of the world.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I have maintained a vow of silence on this subject in the House and outside since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait apart from a brief reference to it in the debate on the Address on 13th November. At a time when military operations were not taking place but when they could soon be, it seemed to me that I could only offer platitudes or indulge in speculation. Not being a politician, I am averse to platitudes. As a soldier, I dislike speculation. As I said in that debate, public speculation by retired senior officers about what might or should happen is seldom helpful. If it is wrong it is misleading; if it is right it may help the enemy. The same applies to speculation about what is happening.
I deplore the tendency to insist upon public comment, on an hourly basis, about military
18
operations. It is not helpful to those who have to conduct them or to those who have to give higher political instructions. I cannot believe that it is welcome to those who carry out the operations or to their anxious relations and friends far away either in this country or, as a large proportion are, in Germany.
I should not have welcomed being asked, immediately after an operation, what my feelings were and having them broadcast all over the world. Neither am I convinced that the general public wants that. I suspect that the principal motive behind it is competition in the media. I hope that as the days, weeks, or possibly months go by, the media will recover from their over-excitement and restrain themselves.
I felt inclined to speak today because I thought that my experience of military operations and my study of war might make some comment helpful. The operations which are taking place, and those which may develop, resemble those I experienced during the Second World War more closely than any in which our armed forces have been engaged since then. The Korean war was more like the First World War. Of course there are great differences, both in the sophistication of the equipment and the nature of the enemy; but there are similarities. I experienced successful and unsuccessful battles and phases of campaigns, many of them in the desert. I am aware of the stresses and strains of both.
First, I strongly endorse the warnings against excessive euphoria given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary which have been repeated in the House today by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It is a warning that the American leaders have also given. Both history and my own experience show that first reports of success can be disappointing. That applies more often than in any other instance to the effect of air operations. Cautious optimism is the best attitude to adopt, and in that the Government have set an excellent example. The tone adopted by that impressive trio—the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Defence Secretaries—has been, in my opinion, just right. It must have reinforced the confidence, engendered by their handling of events leading up to the outbreak of hostilities, which our forces in the Gulf have in their political direction.
The skill, resolution and patience which have already been demonstrated will be needed in the days, weeks and perhaps even months to come. The difficult phase of operations has not yet started. I am not suggesting that its task has been easy but such a degree of supremacy has been so rapidly established that the air force is not now seriously challenged. However, experience from the Spanish civil war onwards shows that air action by itself has almost never been decisive. It can harden rather than weaken the will to resist. It draws those who are subjected to it together. The fatalism characteristic of Islamic culture may reinforce that.
We are land animals and the final act of war,
"The dialectic of two opposing wills, using force to resolve their dispute"

19
as the distinguished French general Beaufre described it, has to be on land. The alliance in the Gulf does not have the superiority in land forces over the Iraqi army that it enjoys over the Iraqi air force. One of the main aims of our air forces is to reduce the capability of that army and to weaken its morale. Let us hope that they are successful. However, we must not forget that our air supremacy in Normandy in 1944 was as great as, if not greater than, that now established by the allied air forces over Iraq. It took very tough fighting by the land forces before the German army was forced to withdraw. I do not suggest that the Iraqi army is of the calibre that the German army was. The point I wish to make is that tough fighting may lie ahead; that it may take some time; and that we need to develop the calm resolution to see it through and not be unduly influenced by news about every day's, let alone every hour's, events.
That leads me to another warning. Events in war tend to develop their own momentum. If things do not go as hoped, both sides tend to move towards methods which they had not originally envisaged. That has happened countless times. In doing so they tend to forget why they originally went to war, which was probably to achieve a limited aim. This momentum of war tends to drag them not only to more extreme methods but to more extreme aims, until the balance of advantage and disadvantage in resorting to war becomes distorted. In the debate on the Address, I said:
"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". [Official Report, 13/11/90; col 252.]
So far, I am glad to say, they have been observed. In his article in The Times last Friday, the Foreign Secretary explained those aims with admirable clarity. However, voices are already heard—one was the Cassandra-like voice of Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien on the same page of The Times the following day—urging wider and more extensive aims which would not, I believe, be within the capability of the allied armed forces to achieve, either by military or political means.
However, if we are to keep, as I believe we should, to the limited military and political aim of regaining the territory of Kuwait and re-establishing its legitimate government, we must face the problems of how thereafter to maintain that position and ensure the security of the whole area, including its oil reserves. It will be both a political and a military problem. The situation we now face was caused by a lack of balance of power, although it was partly caused by the attempt to build up Iraq's power to balance that of Iran.
History shows that it is much more difficult to stop a war at the right moment than to start one. We must be careful to see that the momentum of war itself does not lead us to extend its scope beyond the point at which military action may prejudice the possibility of reaching an acceptable solution by political means. It will not be the ideal solution. That is never possible in international affairs. If we fail in that, we shall sacrifice
20
lives in vain. We owe it to the splendid young men and women of our armed forces in the Gulf who have shown exemplary patience, resolution and courage, and to their relatives and friends that we do not do that.
I feel a special affinity with them, as one of the two armoured brigades there is the one that I commanded from Normandy to the Baltic 46 years ago. Its commander is in my own regiment, the Royal Tank Regiment. As a colonel commandant 26 years ago, I interviewed him when he was a cadet at Sandhurst and a candidate for a commission in the regiment. Not unnaturally my thoughts are with our forces day and night.
I have one other point to make. In the debate last Tuesday several speakers suggested that the Ministry of Defence should drop the reorganisation proposals resulting from the Options for Change study, or at least postpone them. I certainly do not agree that they should drop them. The disappearance of the Soviet threat to Europe, however matters may develop within the Soviet Union, has radically altered our defence needs. The problems caused by the dispatch of what is only a very small part of the army and the other services to the Gulf and those which its maintenance there for any length of time will pose, particularly if it suffers a significant number of casualties, prove that the army's organisation is in need of a thorough overall. This is particularly true of the organisation of the infantry and of the cavalry element of the Royal Armoured Corps. The delicate problem of announcing changes which could affect units serving in the Gulf has to be balanced against the disadvantage of prolonging the period of anxious uncertainty throughout the army. No doubt also this applies to the other services.
It is not an easy decision. Some postponement of the consultation process, which will result in the proposed changes becoming known, would probably be wise. However, the period of uncertainty should not be allowed to last too long. The worst effect on morale would be leaks arising through the consultation process which could not be confirmed or denied. My own experience in these matters is that the sooner firm decisions are made and known, the better. The serving soldier soon adjusts to them. It is the old and bold retired ones of all ranks who cause all the fuss. The Ministry of Defence tends to pay too much attention to them, particularly if they happen to have political connections. I trust that the Secretary of State for Defence will find a satisfactory solution to the dilemma.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty because one of the points which I wished to make has already been much better made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. On the other point, I am afraid that I shall have the temerity nevertheless to argue a little against him.
I wish to reiterate two points. The first concerns the treatment of the war by the media. I admire and respect the courage and the high professional

21
standards being demonstrated by our correspondents in the Gulf: Kate Adie, John and Bob Simpson, lately in Baghdad, Sandy Gall and many others. I wish to pay the warmest tribute to their performance.
However, I wish that some of the armchair strategists at home who seem to regard the war as a cross between a private game of Monopoly and their chance to audition for the job of the Minister of Defence would emulate them and show some of their sense of thoughtful responsibility. In the last war there was the slogan, "Careless talk costs lives". Some of today's interviewers need to think of that when they press their line of questioning too far in the name of today's slogan, "The public has a right to know". The public today includes a watchful enemy looking at the same TV programmes.
My other point relates to the larger issues of defence. We are at war in the Gulf and that must be our first concern. However, other threats have not quite gone away. I share the concern expressed so trenchantly by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others in the previous debate about the Government's continued intention to implement the proposals set out in Options for Change. I welcomed the statement made on 16th January about the Goverment's policy in Lithuania and today's statement about Latvia. It is vital for the future of relations between Poland, Czechoslovakia and other newly freed countries that they should see us ready to stand firm in exerting all the appropriate pressures open to us to prevent any recurrence of the hateful events in Lithuania.
Andrei Sakharov in his lifetime repeatedly warned, first, that the system (that is, the party) had a high degree of internal stability. He said:
"The less free a system the greater ordinarily its ability to sustain itself".
Speaking of arms reductions he said:
"What is at issue is not moving the missiles beyond the Urals but destroying them. Rebasing is too reversible".
He would not have been surprised by the so-called new naval units.
I would therefore urge the Government to see and treat with Mr. Gorbachev as he is and not as what we want him to be. We should regard him as a convinced and battle-hardened communist—Andropov's protégé, who combines an unusually sophisticated perception of Western hopes with a vested interest in power in the USSR—and power exercised through, not against, the KGB and the army. He is a loyal member of the party, which lays down that:
"the dictatorship of the proletariat will in no circumstances allow anyone to enfeeble or destroy that dictatorship by the strategy of 'peaceful evolution', to commit the country bit by bit to the path of bourgeois liberalism or of a return to capitalism. The dictatorship of the proletariat must be violence against counter-revolutionaries or exploiters who refuse to be re-educated and must therefore ensure the consolidation of the people's democratic state's apparatus of repression".
That is exactly what Mr. Gorbachev finds himself doing.
Mr. Shevardnadze and Mr. Yakovlev, among others, have given us clear indications that they now
22
view him with somewhat different eyes. We should continue to believe that both Mr. Gorbachev and the present Soviet establishment would indeed prefer to retain the new relationship with the West both in the United Nations and in Europe—and very valuable it could be both to them and to us. But we shall retain their respect and our own power to influence events only if we retain a credible strength. Is it therefore reasonable of us to make drastic cuts when the peace-loving Russians have just given a massively increased military budget to the army—an army which must be learning very useful lessons from observing our performance in the Gulf? Let us remember that, as Andrei Gromyko is reported to have said,
"Mr. Gorbachev has a nice smile but teeth of steel".
3.53 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am in difficulty taking part in the debate. It so happens that I am due at a dinner tonight at which I am the guest of honour and so I may not be able to stay until the end. However, I thought it right to participate because of my involvement over many years with the Royal Air Force.
If I might disagree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, it is true that you cannot win a war without fighting on land but you certainly could have lost both the last war and the war before at sea had it not been for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Only a year ago I helped to unveil a memorial at St. Eval. I thought then that the situation of aircraft coming back or not coming back, with the airmen's wives wondering what had happened, would never happen again. Therefore it is obvious to me, as no doubt it will be to all your Lordships, that there is a great feeling of discomfort, of regret and of sympathy—indeed almost loving affection—for the courage of those young men. Their appearance in front of the television cameras, whether or not it was desirable, was very moving. It is natural for the public to want to know as much as they can, although I do not suggest that there should not be great restraint in what is said.
My other reason for joining in the debate is this. I have heard many people say there were alternatives to the course that our Government and the Americans have followed, and they have attributed motives such as concern with oil. There is concern over oil, but we ought to pay a tribute to the Americans for their commitment. Their country is far away from the centre of these terrible events and to suggest a lack of integrity, for want of a better word, is unjustified. The same applies to the decisions of Her Majesty's Government. There have been suggestions that there was another course open. Since I may not be here when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has another go in the House, I am bound to say that, unfortunately, I find it very difficult to see what way out there was for Saddam Hussein which did not abandon the purpose of the whole operation. The presence of the armed forces in Saudi Arabia was not initially to menace Iraq but to protect Saudi Arabia.

23
However, very soon it was obvious that the main objective must be—and perhaps the Government have not been frank enough in saying this—to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I believe there is no doubt that this must be the main purpose, and anything short of that would deny the justification for the men risking their lives in the Gulf war.
I do not know how long this will go on. I hope and pray, as I am sure we all do, that it will not be a very long war and that the number of lives lost will be small; but at the end at least there is an opportunity for a hopeful development. Those who foresee the consequences as wholly wrong and wholly incapable of being dealt with may come to see that this may be the great opportunity of bringing peace to the Middle East, of solving the problems of the West Bank and areas such as the Yemen. The United Nations will have been given, with a major agreement among Arab countries as well as others, the capacity to wage war and to enforce its decisions. In the end this may lead to a more peaceful Middle East than we have known.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I shall be brief because I spoke at some length in the debate last week. I believe that most of what I said is still relevant and I hope not unhelpful. I also hope that the introductory remarks of my noble and gallant friend and my erstwhile commander, Lord Carver, were not aimed directly at me, because in fact I agree with virtually everything he said, particularly about the very high media profile. I do not agree with him on the subject of Options for Change, but that is another matter which we can leave until later.
For the moment I should like just to add my congratulations to those which I am sure other noble Lords would wish to express to everyone concerned on the most impressive start to what was never ever going to be an easy campaign given the numerical and equipment strengths of the Iraqis and the self-centred fanaticism of Saddam Hussein, with his refusal to see reason.
War, as I have warned more than once in your Lordships' House, is never easy and reports about events in war are often, with the best will in the world, not quite what they seem at first—neither as good nor sometimes as bad as spokesmen, commentators and speculators would have us believe. Of course it is very early days yet. We are only five days into the conflict, although those of us who have been sitting in front of our television sets might imagine it to be almost a month. However, even allowing for a certain amount of media hype, tinged progressively with relief, euphoria, even disappointment and the inevitable fog of war, it is clear that, having achieved a most welcome measure of surprise the first phase of the operation, designed to gain air supremacy, to destroy Saddam Hussein's very centralised command of communications machinery and retaliatory capability and generally to restrict his freedom of action, while we meanwhile progressively turn our effort by air and on land into forcing his ground forces out of Kuwait, has made excellent progress and, in that well-worn
24
phrase, is going according to plan. As the highly regrettable and provocative attacks on Israel, followed by the desperate but as yet ineffective attacks on Saudi Arabia showed, there is still work to do on his missile launchers and probably also against his aircraft which escaped earlier attacks.
As one who had some misgivings earlier about a proper sense of realism and a possible underestimation of the tasks facing us, I wish to say that I have nothing but admiration for those who have masterminded and planned this intricate operation. Not of these generals could one use that hackneyed and snide taunt that they were fighting the next war with the weapons and tactics of the last. This war has been a triumph for modern technology which has enabled us—I hope this will continue to be the case—not only to hit vital targets and restrict, although sadly not eliminate, our own losses, but also to retain some of that all important moral high ground by reducing civilian casualties to the absolute minimum.
This war is also a triumph for the bravery, human spirit and intense professionalism of the Armed Forces in the alliance who have operated this new technology with such skill. We have special pride in this context in our own forces and particularly at the present time in our Tornado and Jaguar pilots of the Royal Air Force.
There is still much to do in Operation Desert Storm before the liberation of Kuwait can be assured. There will undoubtedly be setbacks to overcome. However, I think it is worth reminding ourselves from time to time that for every problem we have, Saddam Hussein must have many more still. If from this good start we keep our aim clearly in mind and our resolve firm, there is no reason why, through our certain and undoubted victory, accompanied by positive and sensitive diplomacy, we should not ultimately be able to bring about greater safety and stability in this potentially constantly volatile and dangerous area. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, that must be our paramount aim. If we achieve that, I hope it will be widely felt that any sacrifices which have had to be made will have been worth it.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, at the outset I wish to express my wholehearted praise for the most remarkable United Nations effort that has ever been mounted. If unity on this vast scale can be maintained and can be made to succeed it augurs well for settling some of the post-war problems both in the Middle East and elsewhere in this troubled world. One has to feel a surge of pride at the professionalism being displayed by our airmen. Our servicemen in the Army, Air Force and Navy have an internationally renowned military trademark of being professionals. That quality is now being amply displayed to the world.
Some concern has been expressed about the euphoria after the first air strike. Understandably, there was some euphoria. The aircrews have been training all their service lives for such a mission. When dispatched to the theatre of operations they had to suffer weeks of restraint. They were fully prepared and geared-up to go. Then the first foray took place

25
followed by a safe return and the release of all that pent up tension. The airmen felt the joy of success, especially when all returned safely to base. No doubt, sadly, there is now a more sober atmosphere caused by the colleagues who went missing during later air strikes. We must, therefore, constantly bear in mind and express our heartfelt sympathies to those who are losing their loved ones in this war.
Our three services are unparalleled in the world in training, quality and professionalism. I served in the Ministry of Defence on two occasions, for a period of over three years, and I am fully aware of the pressures that are applied on Ministers for defence cuts, equipment cuts and cuts in manpower and materials. The persons and pressure groups who attempted to curb the strength and quality of our defence forces should, at this time, question their consciences on the wisdom of such efforts. Even today in these dire circumstances there are appeasers who are giving satisfaction to the enemy. They must realise they are no friends of our forces on the battlefield. They must further realise that they will get no thanks from the relatives of our servicemen. Appeasement is an enemy aid and those who seek to appease should be aware of that fact.
Even the "peaceniks" should back the coalition—the United Nations Organisation—for if this effort fails one must ask what peacemaking force will be left in the world. I have been impressed by President Bush and our Prime Minister, John Major. I have been impressed with their sound, calm and responsible presentations. I have also been impressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition in another place who is gaining in stature throughout this crisis. General Schwarzkopf is, I believe, doing a sterling job militarily, as he is in his public explanations of war progress to the American public. Our own Foreign Secretary and defence Minister have taken great pains to explain much of the activities of our Armed Forces. Obviously a major effort is being made, and rightly so, to avoid the media misleading the British public and the publics of our allies as the war progresses. Maintaining coalition solidarity is of paramount importance throughout this conflict. It will also be necessary if we are jointly to tackle the post-war problems in this complex theatre of the world.
The media also has a responsibility as regards avoiding jingoism and slapdash, misleading headlines. Those headlines are sickening at times. Editors of the tabloids should take a grip on their headline writers. More responsible presentations would be appreciated and respected. The Guardian editorial last Friday stated, now that battle had been enjoined:
"The politicians and diplomats are in temporary retirement".
That is editorial nonsense. No mention is made of the continuing awesome responsibility of Ministers who, alongside the Chiefs of Staff, are constantly called into the bunkers of operational command. Every major flash of news from the war front may require a ministerial reaction. Decisions still have to be made especially on such matters as fresh dispatches of forces, possible further call-ups and on the Government's reply to the Iraqis should they use
26
chemical and biological weapons. Commentators have no authority for and carry no responsibility in decision-taking. Ministers, however, are answerable to Parliament and the nation. They have to take the rap. That is not the case with the jingoistic commentators.
As was expected, Israel has been attacked. That came as no surprise as it was an obvious ploy. So far it has failed in its mission to split the United Nations alliance. Israel has reacted with commendable restraint. If any nation had any reason to react angrily against Saddam Hussein, it is Israel. In this regard we must express appreciation for the American intervention in supplying the Israelis with the most modern anti-missile missile, the Patriot, which has the capability of taking out the Scud missile in mid-flight. Incidentally, the Patriot is one of the products of the Star Wars system. I wonder whether all those who campaigned against that system now recognise that it is saving many of the lives of our young men and women in the Gulf.
I sincerely hope that Israel can, if there are any more Scud attacks, successfully defend its people and maintain its neutral stance. The Israelis, above all in the Middle East, recognise the importance of their position; but if a gas or biological Scud warhead gets through we shall have to understand and respect their reaction.
It is therefore becoming evident that a long war is likely —months, not weeks. The first phase, although highly encouraging to the commanders in the war zone in their efforts to smash command control and communications, and to attack airfields and missile bases, has not been sufficiently successful to make a major transfer of air warfare resources to the softening up of the Iraqi land-based defence formations and, thereafter, the artillery and tank offensive to follow. I fear there is still a long way to go, and we must be prepared for casualties.
Outside the immediate battle zone we must expect an outbreak of international terrorism; perhaps more so if Israel is drawn into an attack on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has already called for a holy war—the Jihad—and signalled to let loose the kamikazes of radical moslems. I think we all ought to be aware that it may come to our own doorstep. Civil airlines, airports, military establishments, embassies, ambassadors, decision-makers, Ministers and military figures must now all be on general alert. I believe that the public should be made fully aware of those possibilities.
I agree with the Leader of the House. I hope that there is to be no hint of pause in the war. We have embarked upon a mission backed by all the super-powers of the world under the umbrella of the greatest alliance of nations ever assembled in the United Nations Organisation. Regaining Kuwait and dismantling Saddam Hussein's massive military machine is our goal. There will never he any peace in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein has been dethroned and defeated.
The United Nations has so decreed for the peace of the world and everyone who has had belief in UNO's

27
aims and objectives should now be standing firm in the support of all our services in this war. If the United Nations can hold together and can jointly succeed in this unprecedented United Nations venture the prospect of the United Nations Organisation being newly heralded as the prime worldwide peace organisation will give it the impetus, the strength and new respect to tackle the problems of the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. It could be a new beginning in tackling conflicts and disorders. I should like to see that happen. Therefore, I want to see a United Nations success in this war.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees, in spite of his strictures of certain newspapers—I may say, not wholly undeserved—that the newspapermen out there on the spot, the reporters and cameramen (I think particularly, say, of Mr. Simpson) have shown enormous courage and have been absolutely true to the traditions of their craft, and that these dangers must be faced in the interests of ensuring that the public know what is going on?
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Of course I respect very much indeed those young men, reporters, who have been in the bunkers and have been subject to some of the devastation that has been put on Kuwait and Iraq. I appreciate their efforts. What I am concerned about is presentation in the tabloids to the detriment of much of what we are trying to do.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I feel that war has once again shown its capacity for doing two things. In the first place, it must fill us all with sadness because the qualities we most admire of human courage and human ingenuity are inevitably being put to destructive purposes, so that the admiration that we all share is tinged by this sadness. The other impact of war is that it reveals realities which are relatively easy to overlook when things are merely pieces on a diplomatic chessboard.
Now that we have seen the full range, capacity, strength and organisation of the military empire that Saddam Hussein has created, the idea that a few more months of economic sanctions could bring him to his knees must seem much less plausible than it did when we last debated the matter in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord the Leader of the House was right to repeat it, but whatever we say about the mandate given to us by the United Nations, which is to free the territory of Kuwait and restore its government, the way in which that empire is now organised makes it virtually unthinkable that that task could be achieved and the rest of that empire remain intact to threaten its neighbours or the rest of the world. It is realism that must guide us in appreciating not only the military elements in this, upon which I have no capacity to enlarge, but also the political aspects.
Sometimes photographs are as good as anything for bringing reality before one. Better perhaps than words. I have been struck over the past few weeks by
28
two photographs that may seem at first blush to have nothing to do with each other. The first appeared just before Christmas. It was a picture of a Russian orthodox priest handing a western food parcel to an elderly Russian lady. It was very moving. The other photograph was I think three or four days ago, and it was of Soviet Jews descending the steps of the plane that had brought them to Israel, and being greeted not with a bouquet but with a gas mask.
In my view, those two events are connected when one thinks about it. The first illustrates the depths of despair into which their Government are reducing the population of the Soviet Union; and the second illustrates what has, alas, been a frequent occurrence hitherto, perhaps one might say an invariable occurrence in the history of Russia; that every attempt at reform, when it fails, tends to react unfavourably on the position of its Jewish minority.
Whether we take Alexander I or Alexander II, or Mr. Gorbachev—about whom I find myself in total agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—we can see the same events taking their course. Mr. Gorbachev is interesting because he seems to be combining in one career the reigns of both Alexander II and Alexander III—that is to say, both the protagonist of reform and the engineer of repression.
The impact of that upon our thinking, and therefore upon our capacity to treat the Gulf war in the context of a knowledge of the wider international framework in which it falls, is of great importance. I venture to disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. That makes one wish that people would not jump immediately to the view that we have here a golden opportunity for settling permanently all the problems of the Middle East. That is as improbable as it would have been if at the time of the peace of Augsburg, the peace of Westphalia or the Treaty of Utrecht someone had said, "We can put the question of Europe away, it is all tied up". I fear that it will be a long time before the problems of the Middle East are all tied up.
One echo that has been evoked by the second of those two photographs is the impact which the missile attacks upon Israel must have upon the population, as many noble Lords have said. To be the descendants of those who were saved from the holocaust to escape from persecution and then come to a country which is menaced by chemical and biological weapons, is an irony of history which is too ironic even for the greatest historian to have been able to bring it into a narrative.
Therefore, as noble Lords have said, not only are the Government of Israel to be praised for their restraint, but they are to be marvelled at. The pressures from their population are bound to be considerable. It is true, thank God!, that so far there have been very few casualties. However, a population which is subjected to virtual incarceration in their homes, with gas masks at the ready, cannot be expected not to ask their government what they propose to do about it. The only regret relates to the

29
fact that the setting up of the Patriot missiles and their manning by American troops, although understandable, did not occur earlier.
However, that calls our attention to the fact, which has been stated frequently and rightly, that the relations between Israel and its neighbours and the problem of the Palestinians and their right to self-determination—which I accept—will have to figure in the post-war scene. However, here again I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It is unwise to suggest that a conference to embrace those and other critical issues—he mentioned the Lebanon—could take place satisfactorily while the war is being waged. That seems to me to be utopian.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord suggests that I proposed that such a conference should take place while the war was in progress he misunderstood me.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I apologise. However, that is how I interpreted the noble Lord's words. He said something like, "We should be getting on with it". Obviously, he merely meant that as a promise for the future. Clearly it is not something that could be contemplated by the leaders of governments who have a war to wage and armed forces to look after.
We must regard that as a matter for the future. It is perfectly legitimate for those of us who have views as to what might then be done to concentrate on being prepared to voice those views when the occasion arises. However, I repeat that I do not believe that one could do much more than hope to solve some of the immediate problems in a way which would at least make the outbreak of further major hostilities unlikely for some time to come. Even that may prove extremely difficult.
As was said in our earlier debates by noble Lords with greater experience of the area, the Arab world itself is in ferment. The moslem world is in ferment. I return to the analogy of Europe at the time of the reformation and counter-reformation. To think that it can all be neatly slotted in to a solution that is the fruit of a few weeks or months of diplomacy is optimistic in the extreme and might lead to a sense of irritation or frustration if matters proved more difficult than was assumed.
We also have to be aware that the war is having a major impact on opinion in all sorts of communities in all sorts of places regarding the world and their role in it. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, expressed satisfaction with the position of the moslem community in this country. I fear that he had not got round to reading the report in The Times this morning of the meeting of representatives of Islamic organisations in Bradford who came out wholeheartedly in opposition to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in prosecuting a war against Saddam Hussein. As citizens of this country our moslem fellow citizens are entitled to their views, just as I and my fellow citizens who are Jews are entitled to our views. However, it is awkward, to say the least, if an important minority of our fellow citizens are unconvinced of the moral case for supporting the United Nations in this particular instance.
30
I should not wish to make too much of it, but that is an example of the way in which people are in a state in which their minds are to some extent malleable. Perhaps when some members of the media get over their enthusiasm for hourly scanning of the military horizon—and that does not relate only to this country but is equally true of our major allies and particularly of the United States—it is important to contemplate the extent to which the path to war, the conduct of war and the experience of war, can lead to a better appreciation of how the international arena operates.
We are too chary of suggesting that there is a British national interest in peace in the Middle East. Why should Britain not be concerned? Why should not the young men and women who are fighting be concerned with our own national interest as well as with the wider interests of the world community? Oil is important. Why should we try to push it into the background? That would be absurd. I shall not mention names in order not to cause pain to the friends of the party opposite, if they have any, but it is absurd to argue that the whole enterprise is a conspiracy to expand the profits of the oil business. We must admit that the world is a fairly dismal place. Greed and self-agrandisement are characteristics that are bound to figure in human beings to a mixed extent. Governments must steer a course which can best satisfy the material and spiritual needs of the peoples that they represent. In that respect, Her Majesty's Ministers, in the first five days of the war, have done us proud.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am humbled to take part in a debate with so many distinguished speakers. What I should like to have said has been mentioned already in a far better way.
The two previous debates have led me to believe that someone should pay tribute to the state of Israel. I have heard all too often in this House about how Israel is the cause of everything. Today we see how it is reacting to a terrible situation. Israel has suffered two missile volleys, neither of which was on a military target. If one looks through history, that reaction must be a record. The whole world has been telling Israel not to do anything and not to react. Advice has been prolific. Israel has not said or done anything to warrant the unprovoked attack by Saddam Hussein. The United States is concerned that if Israel responds to the attacks, Syria and Egypt will desert the coalition. The brave, intelligent and far-seeing people of Israel are holding back from what would be a very understandable reaction to unprovoked aggression.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to photographs. My heart was saddened when I saw the people of Israel getting out their gas masks. I looked around my home and wondered which would be the sealed room if we expected the horrors of chemical warfare. The Israeli people have often shown their bravery and far-sightedness. They have been attacked many times in this House. I hope that people who have taken that attitude in the past will see the statesmanlike and brave way in which the Israeli people are acting now.

31
There is no doubt where the sympathies and loyalties of the PLO lie. Yassir Arafat stated to Saddam Hussein:
"We will enter Jerusalem victorious and will raise our flag on its walls. You will enter with me, riding on a white stallion".
I should like to make it clear that my party has indicated very clearly that it supports Her Majesty's Government in this exercise. There are some rather strange animals in the other place—I think that everyone knows to whom I am referring—who describe anyone who speaks as I do as being in favour of war. I lived through the 1930s and saw the effect of appeasement. In the end there had to be a war, which, had it happened earlier, would have stopped some of the horrors to which the world was subjected. We are definitely not in favour of war.
I listened to the anti-war lobby shouting during "Any Questions". Why does one have to be aggressive in order to prove that one does not like war? It is rather like the old story that used to be told in the Labour Party. A man was told that he was going to have a house in Park Lane, that his wife was going to have a fur coat (that was before the time of the animal rights lobby) and that he was going to have a Rolls-Royce. He said that he did not want any of those things—and he was told that when the day of freedom came he would do exactly as he was told. It is just as nonsensical to state that we are anti-war, when people shout and hate and do not appear to like anyone. I reject that view. It is not part of any belief that I hold.
We now see the nature of Saddam Hussein if we did not see it before. We saw the depths of that individual when he paraded prisoners of war on television. Where will he be at the end of all this? He will be safely in his own bunker. The corrupt presidents of past years have always found a safe place to take their wives, with their 6,000 pairs of shoes and everything else. This man is ensuring that he will not suffer, no matter who else suffers.
Our declared aims remain the same as they were last week. We must remove Saddam Hussein. We must restore the government of Kuwait. We will be told that it is not a democratic government, but that is not the point. There is only one democratic government in the Middle East, which is that of Israel. However, we must restore Kuwait's government. We must restore peace and security in the area for the people. Wars are not fought against people but against leaders. We must uphold the authority of the United Nations, and that is what we intend to do.
4.36 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to echo some of the sentiments that have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I have heard young people say, "It is all right for you old ones. You are too old to go to war. You do not know anything about it". Those young people forget that we have all lived through the Second World War and subsequent wars.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, made an excellent speech in which he mentioned the Royal Tank Regiment. I have looked him up in Dodd. His
32
military service is mentioned but there is nothing about the Royal Tank Regiment. The mention of that regiment warms my heart. My father having been wounded twice in the First World War when he was with the South Lancs thought that it would be more pleasant to ride, and so he joined the Royal Tank Corps, as it was known in those days.
This is the third occasion on which we have discussed the Gulf. On the first two occasions we discussed the crisis and the distinct possibility of war, and today we are debating the war.
I should like to commence my speech by referring to the words of the Prime Minister which were repeated by the Leader of this House. I have since re-read the Statement and was struck by two aspects: first, it was short and succinct; secondly, careful reading shows that it was well written. There was no rhetoric, civil servants' gobbledegook or long, incomprehensible words or phrases. Instead, it was direct, honest and unemotional. Most importantly, it was unambiguous and easily understood by all. I congratulate the writer of the speech. I do not believe that the Prime Minister, with so much on his plate and so much responsibility, would have had sufficient time to write it. If I am wrong I apologise.
One of the most important points to be driven home by the Statement was that this country and its major ally, the United States of America, were not acting as sovereign powers. They were carrying out the legal mandate of the United Nations. However, during the Falklands conflict we launched a successful invasion to free British islands and their British inhabitants. We had a mutual defence agreement with Kuwait, and therefore could have launched a legitimate campaign to free it from the occupation of and domination by Iraq. However, it is better that we have done so with our allies, under the umbrella of the United Nations.
Undoubtedly, the inevitably successful conclusion will bolster the standing of the United Nations throughout the world. We hope it will deter other potential aggressors from attacking their neighbours, as did the successful recapturing of the Falkland Islands. We must accept that the Arab nations will consider that the allied attack in the Gulf is against all Arabs and all Moslems. I believe that, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the war, we should produce and widely circulate detailed statistics giving the following information: first, the total Arab population in Kuwait before the illegal invasion by a fellow Moslem state; secondly, the total Arab population left in Kuwait at the termination of hostilities; thirdly, the total number of Kuwaitis who were resident there but now living elsewhere. If your Lordships add together the second and third statistics and subtract the sum from the first you will be left with the number of men, women and children who have disappeared since their country was attacked. Undoubtedly, those men, women and children will have been murdered.
Similarly, one can list the ways in which Kuwait has been pillaged and raped of all its resources—money in banks and safe deposits, machinery in factories, with

33
hospitals dismantled and shipped out—to show what the war is really about. The fact remains that the war and atrocities were perpetrated by Arabs on Arabs and by Moslems on Moslems. I too was surprised to hear the comments about the Moslems in this country made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I read in today's newspaper that Britain's first Moslem parliament condemned the allies and commanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all non-Moslem forces. It also condemned United States and British aggression against Iraq. Noble Lords should note that it is our aggression against Iraq. Presumably the Moslems are British citizens resident and earning their living. They show up badly because they are not willing to support their adopted country and the brave men and women who are carrying out the responsibilities of this nation in order to help their fellow men.
I wish to return to the Prime Minister's Statement and raise two issues. The Statement contained no mention of compensation to British citizens who were resident in Kuwait. However, that was specifically adopted in UN Security Council Resolution No. 674, which reminded Iraq of its liability under international law for loss, damage or injury arising from its invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait. I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for providing me with that information.
My second comment refers to communication. At the beginning of the war we were in the ridiculous situation of receiving news on radio and television as it happened. One could hear the bombs exploding and the anti-aircraft fire. It was thrilling television, although the events took place at two or three o'clock in the morning. However, more than two hours later the Ministry of Defence in its statements was still pussy-footing around. I level no criticism at the Ministry of Defence but I do at its civil servants who are employed as its spokesmen.
My view, which has been expressed by many people, is that we are being flooded with so-called news broadcasts. They are not in fact new broadcasts. Last night we saw pictures which were shown two or three days ago. Ordinary people are now fed up. They want to hear what has happened during the past 24 hours; they do not want to hear the subject gone over again and again by tired journalists talking to self-satisfied, self-acknowledged experts. Some of the experts are quite pathetic. Indeed, they are so pathetic they could not have reported the events at Agincourt. Had they been present when the animals were entering the Ark they would have been unable to tell Noah how many animals had boarded.
I understand that the Ministry of Defence cannot issue a statement unless it is a known fact. It cannot issue statements that are rumours. Airline spokesmen face the same problem after a fatal air crash. I know that from personal experience. When I was based in London, an aircraft crashed in Spain. Throughout the evening I was dealing with pressing inquiries. Several people started to say, "Look, you have given me a list of nine people killed but we have a list of 20 or 30 people". I pointed out that I could give only hard facts. I said to them, "The point is this. A couple on
34
the passenger list are named as Mr. and Mrs. Smith and all too often they turn out to be Mr. Smith and Mrs. Brown. That can cause embarrassment all round, especially for Mr. Smith when he has to meet his wife again". I found that the solution was to give out the official list and then, on the strict understanding that it was unconfirmed, read out the list of names which I had received from journalists in Spain and elsewhere. That seemed to satisfy them.
I have spoken for rather longer than I intended. Therefore, I conclude by repeating a remark which I made last Thursday. I live in army country—in Aldershot. I see fewer and fewer troops in the area these days. The local military hospital—I have been an inmate there several times—is now the 33rd Field Hospital. Therefore, when I pray for our boys and girls, I personally know many of them.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, this is one of those fairly rare occasions on which both Houses are debating the same subject. Therefore, I thought I should make it my business to discover precisely what is happening in the other place because in this House we are merely expressing our own opinions. We shall not divide on the subject. We are examining what is happening in the Gulf and expressing an individual view. However, we are taking no collective opinion of the House on the matter.
What happens in the other place is quite different. I thought therefore that I should go and see what was taking place there. It was not quite as satisfactory, decisive and as generally expressive of all shades of opinion as I had hoped. For example, the Government Motion on the Order Paper, moved in characteristically moderate fashion by the Prime Minister, read as follows:
"That this House expresses its full support for British forces in the Gulf and their contribution to the implementation of United Nations resolutions by the multinational force, as authorised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 678".
The official Opposition, in the name of the leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, and some of his shadow Cabinet members, had tabled the following amendment:
"at end add 'commends the instructions to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible; and expresses its determination that, once the aggression in Kuwait is reversed, the United Nations and the international community must return with renewed vigour to resolve the wider problems in the Middle East'".
That resolution was so lacking in criticism and so supportive of the Government that the Government decided to accept it. Therefore, in the other place the two Front Benches—the Government and the Opposition—are joined together in a Motion which, as amended, expresses wide general support for the Government's policy with no effective criticism.
However, there is criticism. I have ventured to suggest its nature from time to time in this House; indeed I have done so up to the present war. That criticism is expressed in a further amendment also on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Bob Cryer and a number of his colleagues. The amendment states:

35
"Leave out from 'Gulf to end and add 'but deeply regrets that sanctions were not given sufficient time to operate; recognises that they are the preferred options and would have avoided this bloody and dangerous conflict; and calls for a halt to hostilities to provide for a peaceful settlement'".
That is a genuine piece of alternative policy. It states that war should never have taken place and that sanctions should have been persisted in. It also says that the war should speedily come to an end and discussions for a peaceful settlement should take place.
That view is held by a fairly small majority in the other place and, I suspect, by an even smaller majority in this House. However, according to one of the polls it is a view held by a small majority of people in this country.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has inadvertently referred to a majority when he means a minority. However, as he has given me an opportunity to intervene, I hope that he will recall that the subject of our debate is the situation in the Gulf and not the situation in another place.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, our debate is all about the Gulf. My purpose in drawing attention to what is happening elsewhere is to suggest to the House that what is taking place this afternoon is not a proper discussion about the Gulf but is an expression of unanimous opinion among the majority in both Houses to the exclusion of any expression of a small minority view. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
I believe that we are entitled to discuss the position for this reason. Let us suppose that the small minority is 20 per cent.—and one of the polls suggests something of that order. In terms of the electorate, that is about 8 million people. Are we entitled to suppress that opinion because it is unpopular with the majority?
I apologise to your Lordships for being absent while I went across to the other place to see what was happening. There, the Speaker said that he would take the government Motion as amended by the Official Opposition and would not take any other amendment. Therefore, as your Lordships can imagine, there was a protest from those who wished to move the critical amendment. They asked why they were not to be heard. The Speaker replied that their voices could be heard but that their amendment would not be called for a Division.
Therefore, the supporters of that amendment can either accept the government Motion with the amendment by the official Opposition or they can vote against the Government's policy as a whole which could easily be misunderstood. I suspect that in spite of that, a number of Members will vote against the combined Motion. My guess is that about 30 Members of another place will dissent.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I find it extraordinary that we should discuss the procedure of another place. Any criticism is very much contrary to the practice of this House. I do not know how much of our debate the noble Lord has heard but a wide range of views have
36
been expressed. Presumably he did not hear them. However, it really is unusual to spend time criticising the procedure of another place.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I expected that criticism and therefore took the precaution of looking up standing orders. I find that I am entirely in order.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Lord justify that statement? What is the quotation he examined from the Companion of this House?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I looked up the Companion, which quite properly precludes one from criticising individual Members of another place, excluding only government Ministers who can be criticised. It does not prevent discussions in this House of Motions or decisions taken in the other place, nor the reverse. It protects individual Members and not the House as a whole.
Lord Elton: My Lords, notwithstanding that, I believe it is contrary to the custom of this House to criticise the procedures of another place as being defective in a democratic sense.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord may think that; I happen to think he is wrong. No doubt we shall decide that at another time. As I do not intend to say any more about it perhaps I can conclude my remarks.
The purpose of giving examples was to inquire into the reasons for the dissent. British forces are engaged in a battle for which all sides, including the 30 dissenters, give their support. On the other hand, it is felt that certain matters should be criticised and heard in another place. As the noble Lord said, such criticism has been heard on an individual basis in this House. Perhaps there is something to be said for our procedure. Since we do not divide, individual Members can take their own view. What is happening in the other place is rather different.
Why have these events taken place? As I said, the view is taken by a number of noble Lords that the motion of the United Nations did not specifically authorise the attack. It referred to all necessary action. I take the view, which has been supported more authoritatively, that that did not necessarily include the use of force; it was not specifically stated. Even if one were wrong and an appeal to the international court did not succeed on that point, it is an important difference of substance which has a degree of reality behind it.
Another point I wish to raise concerns the inclusion in the debate of a request for a peaceful settlement to be part of the Motion. That was disapproved of by both sides. The view was taken that the inclusion of a request for a peaceful settlement, which is being put before the United Nations by the Kingdom of Jordan, cannot take place until the war is ended. In other words, there can be no attempt to bring the war to a close before its end in total victory.
I take a different view. Wars have a common characteristic; that is, they get worse. In the 1939 war we started our bombing procedures by bringing back any bombs which could not find their proper target in order to avoid civilian casualties. We are doing exactly

37
the same now as we did then. Some of my gallant colleagues in the Royal Air Force at that time lost their lives bringing bombs back rather than dropping them on anything other than the required target. However, by the end of the war, after five years, we were bombing wholesale. We committed Dresden, a crime equalled only by that of Hiroshima. We were deliberately bombing civilians. We had no doubt about what we were doing, and the Americans were deliberately bombing civilians in Nagasaki and in Hiroshima.
Wars get worse. There is no doubt that the longer a war lasts the worse it becomes. Consequently, there is a case for asking if we can in any way bring this war to an (NW before the whole place is brought to ruin. That will be the conclusion. We are already in danger of exploding nuclear installations. Shall we experience a new Chernobyl in the Middle East? If, with modern weapons, we cannot bring the war to a conclusion within the year, then in my view we shall see destruction on an unprecedented scale.
Gas warfare is also on the list of possibilities. We know something about that. In 1920 we were the first people to drop gas on most countries. We killed 9,000 Arabs by a combination of explosive gas-filled shells and aerial bombardment. The aerial bombardment of civilians was of such a severe character that a distinguished air force officer resigned and was put on the retired list; he could not agree with the continuation of that bombardment. Since then we have become used to it. We do not care whether or not we are killing people by the hundreds and thousands.
We now use euphemisms to disguise what we are doing. We say we shall "take something out". In fact we are killing men, women and children. We use the euphemisms of war. It is that refuge in euphemisms which makes possible the continuation of this ghastly business.
I had more to say but I believe I have said enough to indicate that there is a point of view other than the one that the war must be fought bitterly and to the end. I do not take that view. I believe the war should be brought to an end as soon as possible.
5.6 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, before I came to the House I received a note from the Kuwaiti ambassador asking me to say a few words. I have a certain connection with Kuwait. I shall not criticise all of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, save to say that I do not agree with everything that he said.
Sanctions have been mentioned. The Kuwaitis feel hurt that several distinguished people in both Houses of Parliament have been pro-sanctions. Around a month go one or two said that sanctions should be in place certainly for a year and perhaps more than a year. Those people—obviously intelligent people—must have forgotten about Kuwait. They must have forgotten about the appalling tortures, the ruthlessness, and the taking of thousands of hostages out of the country by Saddam.
I could produce many papers referring to tortures but the stories are too disgusting and horrible to
38
repeat and it would serve no purpose. However, I must reiterate that the Kuwaiti nation has been upset by the talk of sanctions. The Kuwaitis feel that many people in this country, especially those suggesting sanctions, do not realise what is happening in Kuwait. Only three days ago I heard that another 2,000 Kuwaitis were rounded up by Saddam's soldiers and carted off to nobody knows where. I will not go on about that aspect of the matter because I have probably said enough. My father knew the Middle East quite well. Saddam Hussein is supposed to be clever and he is probably fiendishly clever. How has he obtained these vast armaments and how has he paid for them? There is a certain amount of oil in Iraq, but it is surprising that he has had the wherewithal to pay for the weapons.
When the war is over there must be an organisation which will prevent small nations, or indeed any nation, building up vast armaments which may be nuclear or which can spread germs such as anthrax. Those weapons are capable of wiping out the populations of countries. This organisation should come through the United Nations but it will be a long time before the U.N. will be powerful enough to do that. I do not know how that body will have the power to create such an organisation.
A question arose concerning the crowds or mobs in the streets shouting "down with the war". That is all right. We have free speech. However, there are limits. A great many people in this country do not really understand that, in a way, we have been responsible. We have always exported large amounts of arms as have other countries, especially the French. We have to keep our industry employed. It is very difficult to overcome the selling of arms abroad and to decide to whom they should be sold. Thank goodness I have nothing to do with the arms business, and never would. However, the arms industry employs a great number of people in this country. I do not know how that industry can be replaced unless it is done through international agreement. One hopes that eventually that will be so.
I believe it was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who said that, through television and the media generally, too much attention has been paid to this conflict. It has been overdone. I can remember that during the Falklands war there were one or two occasions when some of the journalists or the announcers went extremely near to giving the game away regarding certain operations. I was in the army and for a short time I was also engaged at sea; but that is another matter. Sometimes in our broadcasts and on television we go too far.
For a long time the majority of Arabs have been our friends and we must keep it that way. Having said that, I have great sympathy with the Palestinians and the Jews because they are in a very difficult position. They are behaving extremely well despite being in a terrible position. Saddam Hussein is a great exception. From the small experience that I have of Arabs—I have dealt with sheikhs and people of that kind—they usually keep their word. However, it is obvious that

39
Saddam is quite incapable of doing that. He will eventually be brought to book and then presumably there will be a far better world.
I am sorry that I have wandered a bit. The Kuwaitis have had the most appalling time and I do not think that the majority of the public realise that. I do not think that anyone realised that during the three months or so when sanctions were being talked about the Kuwaitis were being tortured and starved.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney said that people who hold a minority view in this country are not being heard properly. That may sound somewhat like a paradox. I was on my way to a meeting in Pall Mall of the metropolitan area branch of the Royal British Legion, of which I have the honour to be the president, when I saw many hundreds of people holding banners, distributing leaflets and protesting against the war. Some folk took exception to those who were saying that the war should not have happened. They were removed by the police in order to allow the protesters to carry on uninhibited and unembarrassed. I thought that there was something remarkably British about that attitude.
This debate got off to an excellent start with a superb speech from the Leader of the House and an equally superb reply from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the Leader of the Opposition. I say to the noble Earl who is to reply that we appear to have excellent collaboration and co-operation between the armies, airforces and personnel in the desert under the American general, General Schwarzkopf. It seems to be superb. No doubt we have similar political co-operation at top level, but do we have the same degree of political liaison somewhat nearer the soldiers, sailors and airmen so that there can be no mix-up whatever? I hope the noble Earl will be able to say that that is being done or that the point is worthy of consideration.
I am somewhat intrigued by the fact that Japan wants to make a contribution on behalf of the allies. It may well be doing so financially, but because of the constitution imposed by the Americans at the end of the war, Japan cannot send troops to assist. I should have thought that the threat was so terrible and that the war could have such appalling consequences that Japan should have a special dispensation. If the Japanese wish to support the Americans and our Arab allies they should be allowed to do so. It is also worth noting that Japan more than any other nation would suffer alarmingly if there were a sudden cutback in the supply of oil.
I share the apprehensions of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, about the behaviour of some parts of the media. I immediately exclude those very brave men and women who are in the Gulf recording for us what is going on with regard to Operation Desert Storm. As the noble and gallant Lord said, while we honour and respect them, others are making
40
comments and are whipping up feelings which do no good for our allies and for our men and women in the services.
I was especially put out when, either yesterday or this morning, I saw an American television report of the shooting down of American and British airmen. The report gave their full names and addresses and showed them making those awful submissions as prisoners of Saddam. One felt pretty sick about it. I remember, as I am sure the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, remember, that those serving in certain branches of the Armed Forces had special instructions that if captured they would adopt a certain attitude. No one would blame them for it because it was known that it had been agreed beforehand. I am concerned that when the American airman was interviewed on television making those appalling sycophantic noises in support of Saddam, the television report then showed his brother in the United States saying that his brother was sending a message to the Americans. I do not suppose that that is true but if it is, what an utterly stupid thing for that American broadcasting corporation to do. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Arran, to consider that point. Many noble Lords will corroborate what I have said. I find it distasteful and it is threatening to our troops and airmen in the Gulf.
I should like to reiterate the point I made in a previous debate. The allies should consider dropping leaflets on Kuwait and Baghdad. During the last war such actions had quite a remarkable effect. I am pleased to be able to say —I do not suppose he has ever heard of me—that President Bush has made the same point. I hope that our Government will consider not so much what I have said but what the president has said.
I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that we have to keep up our morale and at the same time avoid euphoria. The united forces in the desert have an excellent record of working together. I believe that we in our parliament must do the same. It would appear that 80 per cent. of our people support the united forces and agree with what is being done. What was the alternative? The tighter the sanctions the more atrocities there would have been in Kuwait. It so happens that, because the United Nations forces are there, sanctions can now be implemented, and are being implemented, to hinder Saddam Hussein. I know the Middle East pretty well. I believe that if the forces were not there and sanctions had been implemented, the atrocities in Kuwait—the cutting out of the tongues of people who would not submit to Saddam Hussein, the raping, the pillaging and the thieving—would have increased enormously. That would have been the effect of waiting another six or seven months. I believe that we have done the right thing.
I am somewhat perplexed by the attitude of some moslems in our country. They do not appear to be concerned at the fate of their brother and sister moslems, men, women and children, who have suffered in Kuwait. I do not believe that the attitude of Saddam Hussein's troops in Kuwait in any way

41
squares up with the religious principles of Islam. Moslems in this country have every right to say what they believe but I have every right to tell them that they are absolutely misguided and are doing nothing to aid their fellow Arabs who are suffering under the heel of Saddam Hussein.
There is an urgent need for unity of all religions and of all peoples to end atrocities and ultimately to end war. There can be extremes of religions. After reading some of the newspapers today, the moslems in this country should realise that they are much safer in the United Kingdom than they would be in Kuwait. If they do not believe that, they can always go back. They could hop over to Kuwait now and then to find out what it is like. It is essential to maintain the view that this is a United Nations endeavour and that the world parliament has ordered this use of force. Those who question that principle let down our forces and aid Saddam Hussein.
I believe too that we should from time to time acknowledge what a remarkable job our forces are doing. We know that some of them probably do not like what they have to do. Under General Schwarzkopf it seems that they are inflicting penalties on the economy and the forces of Iraq. They carry out these actions while trying to ensure the minimum number of civilian casualties. We should say clearly that Iraq and the Iraqi people are not our enemies. We seek to create better understanding and hope for all the people of the Gulf.
In conclusion, I should like to say that we shall at all times honour those whose gallantry and courage achieve the victory that we desire, Israel desires and so many Arab states desire. When that is achieved, let us acknowledge that it was the United Nations forces in the Gulf which made it all possible.
5.28 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am pleased to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. He and I belong to an important organisation of which many noble Lords will probably not have heard. It is especially important in the context of the present problems. It is called the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. I have the honour to be one of the vice-presidents of the council.
I wish to introduce a new element into our discussions. I apologise to the House for not having spoken earlier but that is perhaps all to the good. I want to try to look at this terrible problem from the Arab point of view; something which no one has so far attempted to do, probably quite rightly. I say at the outset that, like anyone else, I find Saddam Hussein and his attitude totally repulsive. He is a thoroughly evil man. We all agree that he must be eliminated. However, I say, knowing that many noble Lords will disagree with me, that there was a great deal of truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, had to say. I also support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Are we not letting ourselves in for a situation which will escalate into a Third World War? Obviously we all want to prevent that. However, I have a horrible feeling that the war will escalate.
42
One of the major problems is the difficulty in assessing the support for Saddam Hussein. We see television broadcasts of all those wild, enthusiastic troops, and so on. At this point I should like to say a few words about Saddam's call to jihad, or holy war. None of us should under-estimate it. It is obligatory upon moslems, although it is not one of the Five Pillars of Islam. However, perhaps I may read two quotations from the Koran about jihad. The first reads:
"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities".
The second reads:
"One who attacketh you, attack him in like manner".
Saddam Hussein has done just that: he did not actually start the hostilities and he will certainly attack in like manner. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that Saddam did not initiate hostilities. Did he walk peacefully across the Kuwaiti border, or did he do so with armed force?
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I do not in any way condone Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait. It was utterly deplorable. However, the hostilities which have recently broken out were initiated by the West. I see that another noble Lord wishes to intervene.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, surely it cannot be said that Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait was peaceful; indeed, it was the beginning of the hostilities. That is why we are involved in the situation.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I accept that. It was thoroughly evil. Clearly we must do everything we can to evict him from Kuwait. However, as I said initially, I am trying to put forward the situation from Saddam Hussein's point of view. In his view it was the American and British attack which started the war. I agree with your Lordships that it was the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait which caused all the trouble.
My concern is that the situation is likely to escalate. I can foresee Saddam Hussein carrying out another attack on Israel. Moreover, I can see Israel retaliating, despite the wonderful restraint it has shown thus far and which I very much admire. I can also see Egypt and Syria joining in as well as, perhaps, Libya and the Yemen.
Saddam Hussein has been portrayed as another Saladin. Noble Lords who have studied history will know that he was a very fine and noble man. Of course, I would not say that about Saddam Hussein. I speak as one who has spent much of his life—some 35 years—in the Arab world. I have very many friends there, some of whom are Iraqis. More than anything else, I am disturbed by the thought that there will be massive land operations. Attacks on missile sites, and so on, which have been carried out thus far with remarkably low casualties, I am glad to say, are fine. However, when we come to the mass involvement of land troops I believe that we face the prospect of very

43
serious trouble. As I said, I feel that the situation will escalate. Can it be justifiable to attack 1 million Iraqis—the number put forward by Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks whether it would be justifiable to attack 1 million Iraqis. The Iraqi military attacked and occupied Kuwait. That is not legitimate action, either. What is the noble Viscount's response?
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Earl. However, I believe that your Lordships will probably agree that the prospect of mass slaughter of Iraqi soldiers is not one which we face with any feelings of pleasure. Indeed, it is an appalling prospect. We must remember that if the call to jihad, or holy war, continues—I have quoted from the Koran in that respect—and if Saddam Hussein raises the support for which he hopes, which I fear he may, we are in for a very long and very bloody war.
I am not a pacifist. I fought throughout the last war; indeed, I was a territorial. However, in my view this whole ghastly war might have been prevented if the Arabs had been persuaded to sit down and discuss the matter among themselves without any great power intervention. It might have been possible at one stage, but it is certainly not possible now. However, at some time when hostilities have ceased we must be prepared to let the Arab nations discuss the problem.
There are two very disturbing elements in the present situation. The first is the general hostility towards Arabs which one finds in this country. There is a lack of understanding and a widespread hostility towards Arabs. That is a sad fact but it is forever present. For example, most people in this country equate all members of the PLO with terrorism. They seem to forget that there are at least eight different branches of the PLO, only two or three of which are committed to terrorism.
The second element which is equally important—perhaps more so—is the growing hostility towards the West which one finds in the Arab world. I was especially interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about the moslems in Bradford. I have visited the city and interviewed many moslems. I understand their reactions. They feel strongly that we were not right to go into this war.
Following on from that point, I believe that Saddam Hussein is now committed to a prolonged war. He will undertake what one may perhaps call a "Samson" operation; in other words, he does not mind if he sends millions of troops into battle. Saddam Hussein said that he has 1 million soldiers, but I do not know whether that is true. Nevertheless, like Samson, he is quite prepared to have the whole temple collapse on top of him. Your Lordships may remember that it was said of Samson that those he killed at his death were greater in number than those he killed during his life.
How then shall we plan for the period after hostilities have ended? As I said before, we must persuade the Arabs to sit down together and discuss the situation among themselves. If it were possible to
44
do so at present it would be splendid, but I do not see any such likelihood. We must bear in mind the fact that war, especially war against the Arabs, creates nothing. Indeed, it destroys and leaves a vacuum. I am very much conscious of a famous saying which I learned as a child: solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellent—they make a desert and call it peace. Nevertheless, now that we have embarked upon this horrible campaign we must obviously do all that we can to pursue it; but in my view there are very dark, difficult and dangerous days ahead.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, during the previous debates on this topic in the House, I have argued consistently that the correct weapon for the United Nations to use to get Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi war machine out of Kuwait was the use of sanctions. It would not just be inconsistent, it would be dishonest, for me to say this afternoon that because others have decided otherwise I therefore believe that war is correct. I do not. That does not of course mean, as I said last Tuesday, that those who are opposed to the use of war for those means do not feel for our fellow men and women in the Gulf, and their families, and the Iraqis who are bearing the brunt of the devastation.
One of the reasons why I have argued consistently for sanctions, and the continuation of sanctions, is that the authority of the United Nations—I am aware that this is a minority view—has been damaged by its use of military force, especially when it had already adopted sanctions and they had not been exhausted.
Last July there was a disastrous interview with April Glaspie, the United States ambassador to Iraq, which gave Saddam the green light to go ahead, despite the intelligence reports that he was already massing his troops and armour on the Kuwait border. Since then, through the August invasion, and the United Nations Resolution 660, calling for the Iraqis' withdrawal and negotiations between the Iraqis and Kuwaitis, United States and United Kingdom forces in the Gulf were built up.
Let me remind your Lordships of what I said last week. It was stated clearly that the forces were for the defence of Saudi Arabia and would not be used against Kuwait or Iraq. It was believed at that time that with the imposition of sanctions and blockade it would take at least 12 months for sanctions to work as they were designed to work: not to starve the Iraqi people but to undermine Saddam Hussein's war machine. I ask the Minister to pass on to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who replied to last week's debate, the information that, although he challenged what I said about the 12-month period, all he need do is look at James Schlesinger's testimony. He was a former Director of the CIA and former Secretary of State for Defense. He testified that the American Administration considered that it would take 12 months for sanctions to bite as they were intended.
We then return to the date of 8th November last year, when President Bush announced a virtual doubling of American forces in the Gulf and

45
apparently threw aside sanctions. I ask the Minister whether President Bush had any consultations with this country, because this country, apparently uncritically, accepted that total change of strategy. I asked that question last week, and I have not received an answer. From 8th November it was clearly the policy of the American Administration to switch from the use of sanctions to the use of military force. In addition there was the fatal mistake of the laying down of a deadline which would appear to be an ultimatum. In the circumstances of Iraq and Middle East that was virtually a challenge to Saddam Hussein's virility. It had the unfortunate effect of strengthening his support in his own country.
Since then, throughout December and January, there has been a constant debate in the United States, this country and other countries about the efficacy of sanctions. There has been a mass of evidence from highly respected, distinguished and experienced men and women in the United States that sanctions were working and would work. I have quoted the evidence previously. I merely add the evidence of William Webster, the present Director of the CIA, who said that by April of this year Saddam Hussein's military machine would be damaged, and would be damaged progressively if sanctions were maintained.
I asked this question last week and again received no answer: where is the Government's evidence that sanctions were not being effective and would not be effective—I am not talking about starving the Iraqi people—in undermining Saddam Hussein's military machine until he was forced to withdraw from Kuwait or be overthrown? I also asked a further question, but I shall ask it in a different way. There is a United Nations sanctions committee. Has that committee been consulted? Has that committee given any evidence as to the efficiency and effectiveness of sanction If not, why not? That question has been asked in both Houses and has not yet received an answer from the Government.
Then, unfortunately, last week we came to war. I say "unfortunately"; last Tuesday I said that that was a tragedy for humanity. I have no doubt that it was caused principally by Saddam Hussein's intransigence. That intransigence could have been defeated by the continued and extended use of economic sanctions. However, that decision in favour of war was taken by President Bush in November, with the United Kingdom's apparent acceptance, or at least without objection; but it was Saddam Hussein who wanted war. In the last resort, a rational analysis of his actions shows that he wanted to go to war. Those who have any contact with the Arab world and the moslem world can understand that, because there is a messianic aspect in some, not all, moslems, who believe that they are the instruments of Allah's will. Throughout the desperate efforts made by many governments and the United States Secretary General—unfortunately apparently not diplomatically by the British Government—to find a diplomatic solution, it would appear that Saddam Hussein was determined upon war We gave it to him. The opening of the war
46
last week was not a victory for the United Nations, it was a defeat. If anything, it was a victory for the outlook that Saddam Hussein appears to have.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am sorry to argue with him again, but on his own showing he makes two points: sanctions would have bitten harder; Saddam Hussein wanted war for messianic purposes. Could he and the pro-sanctions people, if I may put it that way, have given a guarantee that at any moment Saddam Hussein, who wanted war so much, would not have started a war when we were not looking? Would that not simply mean that the war he wanted would be at a time of his choosing rather than that of the United Nations?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the answer to that is quite simple. I and those who think as I do on sanctions have never disputed or criticised the necessity for the presence of a military force. However, I do not believe that with the application of sanctions, plus the presence of the coalition military force, there would have been any chance of Saddam Hussein going to war. As soon as the coalition forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia, I should have said that it was impossible for Saddam Hussein to go to war. Nevertheless, if he had done so and we were vigilant in watching for it, he would have started the war. The United Nations would then have been practising self defence.
When it is argued that the military action will strengthen the United Nations, I am somewhat sceptical. After all, when the war started last week the Secretary General of the United Nations was not even informed. He learned of it first from watching the television. Now that the war has started, we must look ahead first to the consequences. I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spelled out the desperately dangerous consequences. I agree with him that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was much too optimistic in thinking that the problems could be solved in the near future.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I did not say that they would be solved, I said that there was an opportunity and opportunities can be taken or not taken.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I still agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he said that the opportunity would not be there during the war. That does not mean that we should not prepare for it and I shall refer briefly to it later on.
On the consequences, it has been asked continually of those of us who have supported sanctions, "Are you prepared to let the Kuwaitis go on suffering?" My answer has always been consistent and there has never been a reply to it: what is happening to the people of Kuwait now? What will be left of Kuwait and of the Kuwaitis under the terrible bombardment that they suffer now? Is that the way to save the Kuwaitis? I must repeat what was unfortunately said last week by one of the principal members of the royal family of Kuwait. He stated—I thought cynically—that he was prepared to see the razing of Kuwait if it brought back

47
independence and sovereignty to the country. That is not the concern for the people of Kuwait that we have heard about.
To reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, in the Middle East Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel are all at least tempted to fill the vacuum if Iraq is not just defeated but is eliminated or if power is eliminated there. This hardly looks like bringing peace and security to the region. Further afield, in other areas in which Islam is dominant, we have seen that the English cricket tour of Pakistan has been cancelled because of the danger of incidents against our own cricketers. A bomb exploded in the Philippines only yesterday. We are risking an Islamic jihad. We do not want it, we shall not have provoked it, but at least potentially it is there as a danger to the peace of the world. Yes, it has been said widely during this afternoon's debate that we must think about the peace conference and the peace settlement. It is too early to do it now but it is not too early to start making preparations.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in his opening speech refer specifically to a peace conference and a settlement. However, in that peace conference, which could perhaps restore the authority of the United Nations, a large number of issues must be faced. I shall mention only three. First, it seems to me essential that any such conference or settlement should provide the means of eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the Middle East. That is a difficult task, we have found it difficult elsewhere and it will be extremely difficult in the Middle East. Without the abolition of these methods of mass destruction, the problems which are left at the end of a war are liable to make conflict even greater in the future.
Then there is the question of Israel and the Palestinians and Resolution 242, which is now into its 24th year. The United Nations has done nothing about it. I say no more because it has been widely discussed here.
The third point I emphasise is essential to such a peace conference and settlement. So long as arms manufacturers are allowed to market their weapons of destruction throughout the world, but particularly in the third world, and so long as surplus arms from Europe, following the recent agreement, and from America are offered to the Arabs and the Israelis, we are storing up a desperately dangerous future for ourselves and those in the Middle East. This is being done today from Britain, the United States, France and Germany. I repeat the question which I asked last week and to which again I did not receive an answer: are the Saudis now receiving missiles and nuclear warheads from China? I asked that question last week on the basis of a report and it was not answered.
Finally, we must examine the means by which hostilities can be brought to an end. I asked the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal when he made the Statement on Thursday whether, if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were driven out of or retired from Kuwait, that would be the end of hostilities. He indicated that that
48
was so. It was repeated on the same day by the Prime Minister in another place, but the latter said, "I assume". That is a frightening word, does he not have the power to say, so far as Britain is concerned, that that will be the end of hostilities? The question of clear war aims will be of central importance in the future. We have heard today that the Indians, with, I believe, the Jordanians and the Yugoslavs are trying to put together a package for a peace settlement at the United Nations which would include withdrawal from Kuwait. I for one wish them well.
I ask the Government what is being done in the field of psychological warfare. I relate this to what I have just said about the ending of hostilities. The dictator Saddam Hussein must be hated by many people, particularly in the armed forces. In view of the circumstances of Iraq, is it not possible to be broadcasting to the military commanders offering them a peace, an end of hostilities and their safety, if they will stop the war and agree to withdraw from Kuwait? I simply throw this out as a suggestion and I hope that many other suggestions will be made in the next few days as to the means by which these hostilities may be brought to an end. Only by bringing them to an end can the United Nations fulfil the task for which it was constructed —that of securing peace, not war.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, sits down I wonder if I may put one question to him. In view of the courageous decision over the weekend by our NATO ally Turkey —a front-line state if ever there was one—to allow her airfields at Incirlik and Diyarbakir to be used by the alliance forces for operations against Saddam Hussein's armed forces, would he perhaps consider withdrawing the shocking allegations he made in your Lordships' House six days ago at col. 1115 to the effect that Turkey is a brutal dictatorship, fully as bad as Iraq? Turkey is a democracy —not a liberal democracy admittedly, because liberalism does not form part of the Turkish tradition any more than it forms part of the Islamic tradition. Nevertheless, Turkey is a multi-party democracy, with complete freedom of movement, and it does not drop poison gas on its own people. In no way can it be compared to Iraq and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will acknowledge that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am very sorry and I apologise to the House, but I have no recollection of saying anything about the constitution of Turkey or the political circumstances in Turkey. I did mention the political situation in Saudi Arabia but, unless I was mis-reported or misunderstood, I certainly did not include Turkey. The only thing I know I have said about Turkey this afternoon, and last Tuesday, is that Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel may very well be tempted to go into conflict over the corpse of Iraq if Iraq itself is knocked out, rather than if we simply insist and force the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord did not mean to smear Turkey in

49
the way he, I think inadvertently, did. If he looks at the bottom of col. 1115 he will see what I am talking about.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, it is less than a week since we debated the situation in the Gulf. We did so at the eleventh hour, with heavy and not very hopeful hearts. We all prayed for peace, as we do now, and since it can only be achieved by victory, then we pray for victory also.
Last week I put bayleaves in your Lordships' House, representing victory. There are more this week, just as flourishing. In Scotland the snows have melted and the Christmas roses are no longer frosted. They represent peace, and I count that as a good augury. We do not know how long it will be before we can achieve that peace, but it can only be a just peace with all our objectives achieved. We pray that it will be soon.
I was quite shocked this morning when I saw the provisional batting order showing me as having moved up into fifth place. However, I see that in the fair copy I am back in my usual slot at the end of the debate, when everything which I wanted to say has already been said by everybody else, and rather better. However, this will not deter me from repeating my three points, nor from being brief.
We are all extremely grateful to the Israelis for their amazing tolerance in not reacting after being twice attacked by Scud missiles. We have seen pictures of their bombed and destroyed houses. We are thankful that our prayers have been answered and no lives have been lost. That is a miracle, as is the Israeli forbearance in the face of such aggression. We must also be grateful that our Arab allies have seen the attack on the Israelis for what it is—an attempt to fragment our alliance—and they have stood firm.
Many of us have friends and relations out in the Gulf and we pray for them and for all our allies constantly. We honour their courage and strength and we praise their forbearance in sometimes returning with bombs if they have been unable to pinpoint an exact target.
I should like to share with your Lordships two little vignettes of friends in the Royal Air Force who are now serving in the Gulf which I think illustrate their courage and their patriotism. The first is of Group Captain Ian MacFadyean, when he was commanding the airbase at Leuchars, near us in Scotland, a couple of years ago. His wife and children arrived to dine with us but he was delayed. "Unavoidably held up", his wife said and she looked too calm to be really worried. So did he, when he arrived shortly afterwards. "What happened?" we asked, thinking perhaps that the car would not start or there had been some administrative hold-up. "One of my engines packed up when I was flying across the North Sea", he said casually. Much alarmed, we expressed our horror but he just smiled nonchalantly and remarked, "All part of life's rich tapestry".
The second vignette was last April when I was a member of an all-party parliamentary defence group
50
visit to the Falklands. They had a mess night and I went in to dinner on the arm of Group Captain Cliff Spinks, who is now also serving in the Gulf. It was a rare evening: all the men in mess kit, the women in evening dress, the table loaded with silver from the Duke of Wellington's Regiment and the Iron Duke himself, designed in silver, on his charger riding down the polished table. We had speeches and toasts, while the candlelight flickered on medals and silver and on the instruments of the band playing regimental marches. There was no one to hear the echoes: only the penguins, the seals and the albatrosses drifting over the southern ocean. The group captain turned to me and said, "This makes me very proud to be British". It did me too.
We have all been shocked by the news that the Geneva Convention may not be adhered to by Saddam Hussein in respect of his prisoners of war. Your Lordships are probably as familiar as I am with Charles Kingsley's Water Babies, although possibly Saddam Hussein is not. Two ladies featured in it: one was a lady of repellent aspect, Mrs. Be-done-by-as-you-did, and a charming lady, Mrs. Do-as-you-would-be-done-by. I am sure that when the war is successfully concluded Saddam Hussein and his supporters will like to be seen as Mrs. Do-as-you-would-be-done-by. I hope someone will make that point clear to them.
Our hearts are with our forces in the Gulf and with our allies. We pray for a just and speedy peace and that they may all be kept safe in God's hands under the shelter of his wings.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness is totally wrong in thinking that everything she said had been said by somebody else before. Nothing of what she said had been said by anybody else before, and I am among those who very much welcome the vivid glimpses of ordinary life and ordinary people which she knows so well how to clothe in poetry and bring into your Lordships' House.
Of course we all endorse and join in the message which the Leader of the House has sent from this House to the Armed Forces. I want to tell your Lordships that I have found this debate, although more sparsely attended and although the speeches have been shorter, which is no bad thing, more interesting than last week's. I believe that a new debate is now beginning. Some three or four speakers have already begun the debate this afternoon. The new debate attempts to penetrate the fog of peace which awaits us beyond the fog of war. In the meantime we have to win the war. But the word "win" has many meanings. What do we mean by winning?
Our war aims have been mentioned by several speakers. Mr. Hurd has been staunch and specific. He has dotted the "i"s and crossed the "t"s. Our war aims are neither more nor less than what is set out in the UN resolution. The question of who Iraq is governed by is not a question for this country, among others, to settle at arms. Therefore we are limited to removing Iraq from Kuwait.

51
However, as Mr. Hurd has also said, there will come a time when, let us hope, we have cleared the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait but they are just across the frontier. I ask noble Lords to imagine that we have joined up with our own forces which have been coming in from the west across Iraq. The Iraqi forces will probably be right on the border and they will be extremely menacing. How far, if at all, should we penetrate into Iraqi territory to the north? I am not qualified to say anything about the military question, but the political and diplomatic question seems to me to be a grave one. That question should be considered now. Who decides when to stop and who decides where to stop? That is one and the same question. We have read that the Egyptian, French and Syrian governments have said that they will not fight on the ground outside Kuwait. I wonder whether the Government can tell us—such things are better aired early rather than late—what the position is of the other countries who may have armed forces in Kuwait alongside the British and the Americans. What is the Saudi position on this? Will Bangladeshi forces enter Kuwait? If that is the case, will they go further? Will the Government give us more facts about what is already known on this point?
I am worried about a possible dislocation of the European Community and of the western alliance in general by this political factor. Another question concerns the reaction which has been given to the Iraqi attacks on Israel, and which should be given, by the allies fighting under the UN resolution. We have read in the press that Her Majesty's Government, in deciding their reaction, talked only to the US Government, the Israeli Government and "some Arab" governments about the attacks. Did the Government also talk to the French? Has it been possible to have talks on this matter in the Western European Union? There is a danger of our drifting apart from our European allies. I believe that our future remains with Europe. It would be too much if Saddam Hussein were allowed to wreak destruction upon our natural political alliance structures as well as upon everything else. We should not allow our political future to be knocked off its proper course by Saddam and our reaction to him.
In this connection we should obtain soon more facts about the Gulf Crisis Financial Co-ordination Group. In last week's debate I asked for information on that group, but got none. I have since learned in a reply to a Question for Written Answer that that group is serviced by the US Treasury: it is in American hands. It appears to be the group which is receiving contributions in respect of the war from Japan, Germany and other affluent non-combatants. The group then dishes out those contributions to good causes, whether it is for the conduct of the war, for the alleviation of suffering among refugees or for the people of Kuwait. However, we do not know exactly what the funds are used for and, above all, we do not know in what proportions they are allocated to various causes. I foresee a danger there if those funds
52
are administered in accordance with the preconceptions of any one nation in the alliance rather than in accordance with the wishes of the whole alliance. That would be a grave matter.
The position of Turkey raises a huge NATO spectre. Turkey is a NATO country and NATO exists to protect NATO countries against attack, wherever that may occur in the world. Turkey has not been attacked. However, one NATO country has attacked a non-NATO country from the soil of Turkey (which is another NATO country). If there is any attack on Turkey, it will be in retaliation for a Turkish-American attack on Iraq. It is vital that the reaction to such an attack, if it happens, should not be a NATO reaction. Let it be a Turkish reaction, an American one, a Turkish-American one or even a Turkish-German-American reaction, but let it not be a NATO reaction. The fact that those countries are NATO partners should not tempt us to assume that they are acting for NATO, because they will not be, and they cannot do so under the terms of the treaty.
Lord Elton: My Lords, symbolism is so important in the present circumstances. The noble Lord did not appear to me to suggest any means by which it could be signalled that the intervention is on behalf of the United Nations and not on behalf of either Turkey, America or indeed NATO.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I remind the House that the United Nations resolution does not authorise any attack upon any country at all, but only "necessary measures". Certain members of the United Nations have decided that necessary measures include war. I believe the whole House agrees with that, but whether or not war conducted from Turkey against Iraq would be within the terms of the original UN agreement should receive careful thought. That is a position which leads even further into the fog of war that will have to unfold before the fog of peace arrives. The point I wish to make is that I hope there will not be a NATO reaction in this matter.
I believe we are still a little adrift on the peace conference. The Foreign Secretary says that we must have a peace conference as soon as the war is over. However, he also says that everyone must attend it willingly. That constitutes prima facie an Israeli veto. I do not know what the word "willingly" means in this context. Obviously no one is going to truss up the Israeli ministers individually and take them to a conference under duress. But as successive governments of Israel have with varying degrees of rigour enforced that veto and have obtained at least the acquiescence of the United States in enforcing that veto for the past 24 years, I believe that the phrase is not very happily chosen. One must hope that those with influence in Israel will apply a great deal more pressure on Israel than they ever have before.
The United Nations itself must better clarify the fog of war before we reach the fog of peace. It is time for more Security Council resolutions. As far as I am aware, the United Nations sanctions committee still exists. Sanctions continue, as they always do in a time of war. It is time that that committee was wheeled forward again and asked to report on the effect of the

53
continuing sanctions on Iraq as far as the committee is able to judge that effect. It should also be asked to report on the effect of military operations on the economy of Iraq. Above all, it is time—this touches the British Government very closely—for those who are in the field of war in the Middle East to move in the United Nations that this war should become a United Nations war.
It is only necessary for a few words to be said. It is only necessary for General Schwarzkopf to don a blue armband. If that is done it will be much easier to obtain a United Nations settlement at the end of the war, because if one thing is clear it is that the out-of-area presence, which several noble Lords have called for after the war as part of a general security structure in the Middle East, should be led by the United States least of any country. The fact has to be faced that the United States is not loved in the Arab world. It is less loved than any other outside country. It is only with a blue ribbon round its arm that the United States, which has the money and strength to do it, will be accepted; and the time to get used to that blue ribbon is now.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords,—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is intervening before the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sits down, in which case I shall give way to him. If he is endeavouring to speak before the three winding-up speeches, I think in spite of his alphabetical precedence, I am on the list before him. I am however content that he should speak first if he prefers.
Lord Annan: You speak first.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the matter is decided. He who hesitates is lost. I was not intending to intervene in this debate. I did not think I would be able to add to it. However, I changed my mind some moments after the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, finished his speech. It seemed to me, on reflection, that merely to intervene with disagreement was not sufficient for the record.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. The noble Lord has just started. Is the noble Lord referring to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thought that that was what I had done. I have reached the age when I am quite often surprised to hear what I have said. I am obliged to the noble Lord, who will doubtless correct me at later stages as necessary.
This is a serious point. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, made a point that was seen by my noble friends on this side of the House at least to be unreasonable and perhaps was so seen by the rest of your Lordships. He supported it by a quotation from the Koran. He quoted a passage that gave one of the criteria for a jihad, or holy war. He went on to say that Saddam Hussein had fulfilled the criterion by not striking the first blow. A number of your Lordships
54
were hasty to tell him that in fact this was not so and that Saddam Hussein had struck not only the first but the first 10,000 blows against the Kuwaitis whose government in exile, I remind him, are part of the alliance.
What concerns me is not that he should not have been agreed with by your Lordships; it is his suggestion that what he said might appear good sense to moslem Arabs throughout the world. If we are to understand each other during a war—and is it not more important to do so then than at any other time? —it must be understood that that is not how it seems to us. It seems to us that Saddam Hussein struck the first blow, and many more. That is not just a Western or Christian view. It is the view of the United Nations, and it is the view of the moslem as well as the christian members of the alliance. This is important because it should be understood and put together with the Archbishop of Canterbury's wise and urgent advice that we should at all times avoid any semblance of this becoming a holy war. It is not; and as a Christian I endorse that.
One can go on to say that there is no reason why the war should not be conducted under the teaching of Christian theology, which is entirely towards restraint as regards the defeated, and remind ourselves that the peace, to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition rightly said we must swiftly address our attention, must be a solid and lasting one. If it is to be a solid and lasting one it must have a place in it for the vanquished. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people; it is with the administration, the government, that has been foisted on them by their present leaders. In the peace there must be a constructive and dignified role for the Iraqi people, who must be free to conduct their religion as they wish.
I would only add, since I see the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, looking with the accustomed expression of puzzlement as I speak, that I agree with him strongly that there is a great danger that we pay too much attention even to these tragically important events. I do not think it contributes greatly to the conduct of a war for every expression of the combatants to be recorded immediately they come out of the shock of battle. More particularly there are events going on in the world to which the British public ought to be paying close attention and which may well affect their future almost to as great an extent as what is going on now in the Gulf. I refer of course to events in the Baltic states. It is a pity, as the Foreign Secretary said this morning on the radio, that references to that now come as a sort of postscript to the news, and almost nothing else gets mentioned at all.
I shall not trespass on the battle between noble and gallant Lords as to the proper treatment of Options for Change—although I am tempted to do so—having only been a national service officer. However, being a person with recent political connections I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, would think that I carried more weight than I was due to carry, and I think he is right. The first two points I have made to

55
your Lordships are actually deadly serious. I hope they are taken into consideration by my noble friend the Minister and the Government.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will forgive me. I arrived back from Madrid this afternoon, came down to the House to hear the debate and I am afraid that my flesh and blood are too weak for me to remain in my place without saying a few words. The words are these. Some of the speeches I have listened to today have reminded me so much of the days between 1936 and 1939 when men of utterly good will who hated war found every excuse to try to make an interpretation of events that would enable them to feel that they had not been in favour of war in favour of standing up to Hitler.
It is said that it is ridiculous to make a comparison between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. I think the comparison is fair. Both men were perfectly willing to risk a world conflict and armed force. No other statesman in Europe was willing to risk that in the 1930s, only Hitler. Here in the Arab world we know the strong feelings that are held about the state of Palestine, but only one of the leaders of the Arab world was willing to risk everything.
I say that these are illusions, that those who wish to avoid coming out in favour of war nurse illusions. For example, one of the illusions is that sanctions would have brought Saddam Hussein to treat for peace and that he would have withdrawn. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said that sanctions would have undermined his war effort. If Saddam Hussein had been so foolish as to roar about with his tanks for six months in the desert and had fired off large quantities of ammunition not against us but just simply for sheer joie de vivre, then indeed his war effort would have been undermined. But of course his war effort is not going to be undermined by the application of sanctions alone. It is only when he actually expends his ammunition and suffers losses that perhaps sanctions have some effect.
The second thing I would say is this. We talk about how much we would wish that the United Nations had been able to act in self-defence. What on earth was the United Nations doing when it acted when Kuwait was invaded? The last point that I want to make is this: It is not so much the illusions about sanctions, about peaceful methods and about further negotiations that perturb me. It is that we must not forget that once battle is joined, just as in the Falklands, we have a duty to remember the state of our forces and their plight.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, tried week after week to bring home to the Government that the sinking of the "General Belgrano" was a disastrous error. He tried to show that it was indeed worse than that and had been designed to stop the Peruvian peace plan taking effect. When the "General Belgrano" was sunk,
56
attacks had already been made on our forces by Argentinian aircraft. We must remember that ultimately it is the security of our forces that matters.
How much longer were we going to wait while the Iraqis built up ever stronger defences in and around Kuwait? How much longer were we willing to see them do everything they could to make the cost of our attacks so expensive in manpower that in the end the will of the United Nations and of the troops in the desert would have been undermined? That is Saddam Hussein's whole strategy. He is prepared to lose tens of thousands of men; he believes that we are not. That is why it is so important to make the troops in the desert feel that the will of their countrymen is behind them and that their countrymen understand their situation.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may make two points to him. So far as concerns the sinking of the "Belgrano", for two-and-a-half years I was concerned that the replies that I received from members of the Government were economical with the truth. Eventually, bit by bit the truth came out and it was seen that they had been economical with the truth.
Regarding the point that the noble Lord made about sanctions, I am not in a position to know how sanctions were working. In favour of the stand that I and others have taken I have quoted people such as Robert McNamara, James Schlesinger, Senator Nunn and Colin Powell's two predecessors as chairman of the chiefs of staff. This afternoon I quoted the director of the CIA. On balance I believe that their view is likely to be more accurate than that of the noble Lord.
I have twice asked the Government to give us the evidence. There is the United Nations sanctions commission. Give us the evidence to show that sanctions were not working and would not work to undermine the war machine of Saddam Hussein.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, with great diffidence I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, despite his superior academic ability and historical knowledge. There will be many here, including myself, who, like the noble Lord, strongly opposed the policy of appeasement in the days of Hitler. But I also remember being told in 1956 by Conservative leaders that Nasser was another Hitler and therefore we must send troops to Suez to separate the combatants. They were wrong on every possible count. I urge that such historical analogies should be treated with the greatest caution—greater caution than was shown by the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
I should like to add my tribute to the many that have been paid to our forces in the Gulf. It is possible that the most daring, most skilful and most successful operations have been those carried out by our Tornado pilots, some of whom I met on a recent visit to the Gulf. Judging from their losses it may also be the most dangerous operation of all. The admiration and gratitude of all of us go to those young men.
There are other people to whom we also owe a special debt—the designers, manufacturers and

57
operators of the Patriot missile. It is an extraordinary success and of vast importance in the present crisis in the war. I add my gratitude to the broadcasters in the al-Rashid Hotel, not least Mr. John Simpson, who seems to be a most calm yet enterprising gentleman.
For me, the surprise in the debate was the sudden attack on me by my old friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He asked what alternative the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has to the policy of the Government. After all this time and all these debates it is most gratifying that there should still be a noble Lord hungry for information about my alternative policy.
The Foreign Office knows what it is. On 15th September I wrote to the then Minister responsible, Mr. Waldegrave, outlining what I believed to be an absolutely vital step to take at that stage. It was to mobilise the Security Council to take action on the Palestine problem, not only on its own merits and not only because violence and extremism were increasing in the West Bank and Gaza but to forestall the inevitable campaign that Saddam Hussein was bound to make on that issue to the disadvantage of the United Nations cause. I pointed out that that would strengthen the cohesion, strength and moral authority of the alliance and that it would undermine Saddam Hussein's strategy. It might even lead him to call it a day and to use the offer as a ladder to climb down, withdrawing from Kuwait.
The Foreign Office could not have been less interested. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, did me the honour of setting out the Government's answer in a letter towards the end of November. "Oh no", he said "you cannot do this because Saddam Hussein might claim credit for helping the Palestinians". Rubbish. The Government were grossly at fault. They did not understand the relevance of the Palestine problem to the Kuwait problem. They said that they were different problems, and they went on saying that. They said that there was no linkage and Kuwait had nothing to do with Palestine and we had to settle the matter of Kuwait first. I am sure that as the months go by that serious error of judgment by the Government will be more widely recognised.
Perhaps I may now venture to make a gentle and friendly criticism of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I thought that it was very wrong of him to argue that our aim should be the elimination of Saddam Hussein. It is not, heaven knows, that we do not all want him to go, nor that we do not all hope that as a result of driving him out of Kuwait, as a result of military defeat, he will go. It may be that he will be pushed out, alive or dead, by his own people. Frankly, that is what we all want. However, it is no part of the United Nations resolution to interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq to the extent of changing its regime and changing its leader. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was very wrong in that regard.
There has been much discussion during the debate of the post-war Middle East. I ask the Government why there is no committee of the allies planning how to handle the post-war problems of the Middle East. In World War II the allies established a post-war
58
problems committee. I believe that my noble friend Lord Gladwyn was secretary of that international committee which did a vastly important job in setting out the problems and as far as possible the solutions in the post-war world in 1945. Why have the Government not acted on that? Perhaps they should think it out and make a move.
In the meantime, the best guidance that we have is the article by the Foreign Secretary in The Times on Friday, to which reference has been made. The article puts forward a number of proposals that one should like to see brought to fruition: the proposal that the Gulf Co-ordinating Council, for example, should organise itself on a NATO-like basis and make itself into an effective defence alliance; the idea that all of the countries in the Middle East should form a Middle East equivalent of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe, handling disarmament, monitoring and confidence-building measures.
The Foreign Secretary also accurately stated the position in relation to the Palestine problem:
"Over the past decade Arabs have implicitly recognised Israel's right to exist. We have repeatedly stated that those steps by the PLO and the Arab League put the onus on Israel to respond and recognise the right of Palestinians to self-determination — The occupation is wrong and does not provide the basis for Israel's legitimate quest for security".
So far so good, but like all the statements that are made by the Government and like the letter sent to me by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that statement is silent on the point that matters. The point that matters is whether the British and American Governments in the interests of obtaining a settlement on the Palestinian problem are prepared to exercise pressure on Israel. That is what has been lacking and that is why there has been no settlement. If the British and American Governments continue as they have done before, there will be no settlement.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, set the matter out in a letter that I quoted in the last debate. He stated that any proposals for ending the Israeli occupation must be "freely accepted" by the Israeli Government. The same view is held by the United States, which has used its veto 20 times or more to obstruct Security Council proposals which were not acceptable to the Israeli Government. Proposals to end the Iraqi occupation are met with sanctions and war. Proposals to end the Israeli occupation have to be acceptable to the Shamir Government, which means that nothing is done. That has been the situation for more than 20 years.
After the war new pressures will arise on the United States to take a different line. However, other new pressures will arise—and perhaps an agreement with Israel conducted recently encouraging it to continue its previous policies. In my view, the balance of probability is that the Americans will continue to protect the Israeli occupation. The American and British Governments seem blind to the impact that those double standards have had on the moslem world, the extent to which they put wind into Saddam Hussein's sails and the extent to which they make a peaceful settlement in the Middle East impossible after the war.

59
Let us make the best assessment that we can of the outcome of the war—a quick and decisive victory. What will be the standing of the Americans and the British in the Middle East in those circumstances? We shall have earned and received the gratitude of the Saudi Arabian Government, of the Kuwaiti Government and of Israel, but elsewhere in the Middle East there will be bitter resentment, an acute sense of humiliation and a desire for revenge. That is the truth.
What will be the fate of the moderate Arab governments in those circumstances? I have no doubt that they will do the obvious and necessary things. They will try to democratise themselves. They will try to share the oil riches more equally in order to help the development of the poorer Arab countries. However, unless the United States and Britain have meanwhile mobilised the Security Council to end the Israeli occupation quickly and decisively, those Arab governments which supported the Americans and the British in the war will be destroyed by their own people. That view is hardly arguable. I know of no one with experience in the moslem world who would deny what I am saying. At that point there will be no Arab governments that are not hostile to the West.
At that point the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, violent and terrible as it will have been, will be seen only as a preliminary to a wider struggle between the moslem world on one side and the United States and Israel on the other. There could hardly be a more disastrous outcome to the war than that.
References have been made to the moslem community in this country. It may be that the conference that passed the unanimous resolution against the war was not representative of moslem feeling in this country. We must hope that that is the case. However, I cannot help reflecting that if the British moslems, who are very moderate by the standards of Middle East moslems, after being exposed to massive publicity in favour of the war, turn against it, what will be the attitude of moslems in the Middle East, exposed to massive publicity, often of a thoroughly irresponsible and inflammatory kind, against the war.
For those people, as the months go by, the invasion of Kuwait becomes remote. The Security Council resolutions seem to be academic. What is reality for those people is in their perception of yet another dreadful humiliation and defeat of the moslem world by the West, aided and abetted by Israel.
Those are the truths about what the post-war Middle East is likely to be. Unless the British and American Governments do what they should do on its own merits and mobilise the Security Council immediately in order to end the Israeli occupation, the whole situation will become totally unmanageable. As has been stated over and over again for the last 40 years, and as has been ignored over and over again by the American Government: until justice is done to the Palestinians, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the debate has been full of interesting material. I propose to confine my remarks to the Gulf rather than follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, into the Baltic States. However that does not mean to say that we do not feel extremely strongly about what is going on in the Baltic States. We believe that the Government should respond in a fierce manner to what is happening there.
In our view it is extremely important that Parliament should be offered an opportunity at regular intervals to discuss the war and how it is proceeding, and we are grateful to the Government for allowing us that opportunity today. It is also right that the matter should be discussed in both Houses. If I may say so, we represent a certain amount of accumulated wisdom and experience, but we do not represent constituents. They are represented in another place. It is important that one obtains both perspectives on the problem. It is not necessary to discuss the matter on the same day as another place. We could stagger the debates.
I should like to make it quite clear that my party supports British forces being in the Gulf and we support what the Government are doing. I was grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House for his outline of what is happening.
Noble Lords have reviewed three major areas. The first concerns what is happening militarily; the second what is happening politically, and the third what might happen in the future—in the words of one noble Lord, planning for the peace.
The consensus on the military front is; so far, so good. The operation seems to be going more or less according to the plan that was made by General Schwarzkopf. In the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the technology has worked. As one who was somewhat sceptical about the technology, I am extremely impressed by the way in which it has functioned. But the struggle may be harder and longer than many people thought during the first day or so. I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The noble and gallant Lord was right in saying that there could be no victory without a land assault. It would be extremely odd and fly in the face of all historical military experience if an air attack could secure the collapse of morale in the opposing infantry and armour needed to make Saddam Hussein sue for peace. Therefore, we must probably face the prospect of a ground war, which will be more difficult than the air war.
If we believe the Pentagon briefing given on 19th January, as we must, it is probable that only 50 Iraqi fighters out of approximately 600 have been destroyed. The rest are somewhere in Iraq. It is clear that the command and control systems have been largely taken out but still the aeroplanes appear to exist. Approximately half the Scud mobile launchers still exist; that is between 30 and 40 if the Pentagon briefing is correct. We believe that no Exocet missiles have been fired by the Iraqis as yet and, therefore, they

61
are waiting somewhere to be found. We know from Iraqi exiles that the morale of Iraqi troops is bad but it is far from collapse. Experience shows, as noble Lords have pointed out, that the more the troops on the ground are bombed the more their morale is encouraged by a spirit of resistance, and that may be happening. Militarily we say "so far so good", but I am sure that the Government will warn noble Lords that we are in for a long, hard struggle and there should be no doubt about that.
I turn to the political aspects. We deplore the Iraqi authorities' treatment of prisoners of war. It is disgusting that people are shown paraded on television and clearly made to say things that they would not normally say if they were in a perfect state of health. Many noble Lords have referred to the Geneva Convention. Can the noble Earl say whether the Geneva Convention applies whether or not war has been declared? Obviously the Geneva Convention applies if there is a de jure declaration of war, but there has not been such a declaration. Can the Minister say whether the convention applies when there is a de facto war, as exists at the moment?
I have given the noble Earl notice of the second political point that I wish to raise. A number of noble Lords have asked what exactly are our war aims. Clearly, we abide by the United Nations resolutions and believe that they should be put into effect, by force if need be. However much I, before force started, was in favour of maintaining sanctions now that it is taking place, we must go through with it. We must be clear about whether we shall stop when Kuwait is evacuated by the Iraqis, if that happens, or whether we shall go forward to take out Saddam Hussein and his government. That is an important point which a number of noble Lords have raised. I find it difficult to see how a proper settlement of the Middle East can be achieved while Saddam Hussein is president of Iraq and sitting on a military machine of any kind whatever. However, it is for the Government to tell your Lordships precisely what our aims are.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred at some length to public opinion in Arab countries. It is true that the Iraqis have made a certain amount of play with that. They say, "It is the governments of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait and Egypt who are supporting the coalition. It is not the Arab in the street". In view of some of the pictures coming out of Jordan, it may be that there is a point there which we must look at carefully. How can we be sure that Arab public opinion is not affronted by the sight of Western forces launching a major ground attack on an Arab country? We must consider that point most carefully.
Many noble Lords have referred to Israel and its part in the conflict. I associate myself with those noble Lords who have praised the Israeli Government and population for their forbearance under extreme difficulty and for their diplomacy and consideration of the aims of the coalition. We believe that they have notched themselves up a rank in terms of diplomatic and political sophistication. During the past few years Members on this side of the House have criticised Israel's operations in the West Bank. Now we have
62
nothing but praise for the way in which the Israeli Government have conducted themselves in the face of the dreadful, random Scud attacks from Iraq.
Equally, we must ensure that politically at home we do not suffer a backlash against a long war. We must ensure that British public opinion is on our side. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney pointed out that opinion polls suggest that 20 per cent. of the population does not approve of military activity by the coalition in the Gulf but 80 per cent. does. That is a formidable majority and it is vitally important that the Government do all that they can to ensure that it is maintained. If it begins to dribble away during the weeks or months, whichever it is to be, the problem will be serious. Part of the solution to maintaining that majority is that moslem opinion in the United Kingdom should be reassured that we are not trying to extend our old empire and the Americans are not trying to extend a new empire into Arab countries. That notion upsets moslem opinion in the United Kingdom.
Still on the political aspect, I turn to the question of publicity. I take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that we must be careful that there are no hour to hour reports from the battlefield about who is doing what, how and when, because such an operation is not good. We must also accept that in war there is a role for disinformation; there is no doubt that psychological warfare is a weapon in the armoury. Nevertheless, we must understand that in this modern television era people want to be informed and to see what is happening. I am afraid that, given people in organisations such as CNN Television, which is still broadcasting straight out of Baghdad, there is no way in which any government or United Nations organisation can impose the kind of censorship that will stop such news being released. It would probably be quite wrong to do so. Having said that, I believe that my noble friend Lord Mason was right when he said that some of the tabloid journalism and headlines have been too offensive to mention.
Lastly, on publicity, when the Government say something—and I hope that they will take this on board—they must always tell the truth. There have been two occasions on which there has been disinformation. The Americans announced that four helicopters came over and the Saudis immediately said that they had not; it was announced also that 50 tanks had come over and then that was denied. We are looking to the British Government to tell us the truth when they tell us the hard news. As one noble Lord said, people need to know about terrorism. We need to be kept informed about terrorist threats.
What about the future? My noble friend Lord Cledwyn touched upon the future and there was something of a debate between the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Beloff, as to how far we can go in considering the future. I tend to be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on that issue. I believe that we must wait and see. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, there will be plenty of opportunity for us to debate what will happen as regards peace. We

63
should start to think about that but I do not believe that we can discuss formulae at present because it is too soon.
That seems to me to be the substance of the matters which your Lordships have debated this afternoon. Therefore, what is the message which we on the Opposition Benches would like the House to convey to the Government? They are three simple points. First, when British forces go into battle, it is right that we should rally together around the government of the day. We do that willingly. They should take comfort from that and that should encourage them to bend to their duty. Secondly, whatever happens, for goodness sake let us do all we can to keep casualties on all sides to an absolute minimum. We have tried to do that but many innocent people in Iraq have been killed and members of the armed forces will be maimed, wounded and killed. They are all human beings. We have done our best. Let us continue to do that. Finally, to all those in our forces in the Gulf, men and women on the ground and in the air, our thoughts and best wishes are with them. As the House of Lords, all we can do is to say with all our hearts: God speed, God bless and come back safely.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to start this evening by saying how particularly gladdened and heartened I am by the almost universal accord in your Lordships' House on the way in which events have progressed and are progressing so far in the Gulf—particularly the magnificent display by our Armed Forces—and on the Government's handling of the situation.
These are very difficult times, for together with 27 other member countries of the United Nations we are joined together in bitter conflict. The liberation of Kuwait from Iraq's occupation is now under way. The air operations which have been taking place almost continuously since Wednesday night are the first phase of the military campaign to free the country and restore international peace and security as the United Nations has called for.
This is a truly international effort. Already in the early stages of the air campaign forces from seven countries in the coalition have been involved: Saudi Arabia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy and of course Kuwait. The initial stages of the campaign have gone well and to plan. RAF aircraft have played an important part in these operations, carrying out over 350 sorties so far. Tornado GR1 and Jaguar ground-attack aircraft, supported by Victor, VC-10 and Tristar tanker aircraft, have attacked targets in western, central and south-eastern Iraq, as well as in Kuwait.
The weapons they have used include 1000 1b bombs, the new JP 233 runway-cratering weapon, and ALARM anti-radar missiles, whose introduction into service was brought forward especially for operations in the Gulf. Tornado GR1a reconnaissance aircraft have also been brought into service early, and have already had remarkable success in tracking down Iraqi SCUD missiles, the priority target for the Allies at
64
present. RAF Tornado F3 aircraft are mounting round-the-clock air defence patrols, as they have been since August when they first arrived in Saudi Arabia. So far, in spite of some tentative contacts by Iraqi aircraft, no Iraqi pilot has felt confident enough to take on the RAF Tornados.
Sadly, however, we have now lost three Tornado GR1s in Iraq. The crews are missing, though we have asked the International Committee of the Red Cross as a matter of urgency to follow up reports from Baghdad that Flight Lieutenant Nichol and Flight Lieutenant Peters are being held as prisoners of war. If the suggestions are confirmed that Iraq is now renewing its "human shield" policy with these airmen, that would be a very grave breach of international law. The UK will honour all its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The Iraqis are signatories too and we expect them to do the same. I shall return later to that point. This cannot be allowed to deflect us from continuing the air campaign to neutralise or destroy Iraq's military capability. I am sure noble Lords will join me in expressing the highest admiration for the skills and courage being shown by our pilots when attacking such heavily defended sites.
The Tornado GR1s in particular are playing an important specialised role in the air campaign. They are concentrating on attacking Iraqi airfields, at very low level and at night. The weight of anti-aircraft fire they encounter is tremendous. In a raid last night, for example, it is estimated that 25 tonnes of anti-aircraft artillery ammunition were fired by the Iraqi defences, without success.
It is important to remember the support work that is necessary to maintain such a high level of sorties. The number of attacks that has been possible is a tribute to the round-the-clock work being carried out by the RAF ground crews and the other support and logistics personnel at our bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and elsewhere. It should not be forgotten that the Royal Navy is playing an important role in defending the American carriers in the Gulf, and maintaining a constant watch against the threat of mines. The 1st Armoured Division is complete and ready to do whatever it is called upon to do.
The military campaign has been carefully planned. There is no question of indiscriminate attacks, against innocent people, of the type we have seen Iraq carrying out against Israel and attempting to carry out against Saudi cities. Our aim is clear. The targets that are being attacked are sites which could pose a threat to allied forces and facilities which are supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Our forces have clear instructions to carry out operations in such a way that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum. The commanders have also been briefed on the locations of sites in Iraq of religious and historical importance, and these will also be taken account of in operations. Within these contraints, however, our commanders are free to pursue the military campaign until the United Nations aim of liberating Kuwait and restoring international peace and security in the area has been achieved.
The task faced is, however, a massive one, and will not be completed as quickly as some people have been

65
suggesting. Iraq is one of the most formidable military powers in the world, but it is no match for the coalition forces ranged against it.
I am aware that many noble Lords have made extremely important and salient points during the debate this afternoon. I intend to deal with the more important aspects in the next few minutes. The Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, my noble friend Lady Strange and many other noble Lords referred to the treatment of prisoners of war. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Foreign Office today summoned the Iraqi ambassador to discuss Iraq's obligation under international law. The meeting lasted 25 minutes and was conducted in a business-like atmosphere. My right honourable friend told the ambassador that he had just seen a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross, M. Francis Amar, and made it clear that Britain would abide by the Geneva Convention and facilitate ICRC activities in the United Kingdom. My honourable friend asked the ICRC to make representations in Baghdad to ensure Iraqi compliance with the Convention.
My right honourable friend made clear to the ambassador our concern for the proper treatment of all prisoners of war, particularly our own. He said that he understood that the ICRC had already raised the breach of Article 13 with the Iraqis. He also referred to press reports concerning the detention of prisoners of war at strategic sites. My right honourable friend made clear that such action by Iraq would be an outrageous breach of the Geneva Convention. The British Government would take the gravest view of any such breach. He also reminded the Iraqi ambassador of the personal liability of those individuals who broke the convention in that way.
The ambassador said that Iraq would abide by the convention and treat prisoners of war well if the allies avoided civilian targets. My honourable friend said that we expected unconditional observance of the requirements of the convention. My honourable friend also reminded the ambassador of the 1925 Geneva Protocol relating to chemical and biological weapons and said that we would take the severest view of any use of these weapons by the Iraqis, wherever used. He again reminded the ambassador of the personal liability of those who authorised their use and asked for assurances that Iraq would not use them. The ambassador undertook to transmit to Baghdad all the points made by my right honourable friend and to report further.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about the extent of air damage and the whereabouts of Iraqi aircraft. It is difficult to say what is the extent of damage to military airfields and other targets, but the indications are that extensive damage has been caused. However, it will take some time to neutralise the massive Iraqi military machine or destroy all its key elements—a point made clear by several noble Lords. Coalition forces have attacked a number of power installations in Iraq to disrupt Iraq's military command, control and communications. A loss of power will also affect other military capabilities such
66
as air defence radars, fighter control and logistic support. In regard to Iraqi aircraft, I am not willing to speculate and to be drawn into giving details of their whereabouts or our targeting policy. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, again raised the subject of linkage with the Palestine problem. It would be wrong to link this crisis with the Palestine problem. Of course we support direct dialogue between Israel and Palestine, with discussion by the permanent five of the UN as first steps. However, the international conference will be the most appropriate forum for negotiations between all parties concerned.
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, also referred to the danger of early euphoria. Victory is certainly not yet in sight. It is important that we should not speak in those terms at this early stage of events. As many noble Lords mentioned, it is also extremely unwise and dangerous to speculate. I want to make quite clear that the Ministry of Defence deals with facts as and when they are made known to us from our command structure in the Gulf. I note the point the noble Lord, Lord Williams was keen to make. We are not in the business of speculation, especially not in war time as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said.
My noble friend Lady Park said that too much discussion of our operations was taking place on television. We have agreed the ground rules governing the conduct of the media. They are designed to protect operational security, the safety of our forces and the media representatives. So far we regard those arrangements as working satisfactorily.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put forward the view that our objective may be to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I shall return to that topic later but wish to make clear that our objectives are to secure the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait and to deter further military aggression against Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. It is not our business to lay down who should govern Iraq. It is for the people of Iraq to decide their future, taking into account the disaster that Saddam Hussein has brought upon that country.
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, and my noble friend Lord Elton referred to the situation regarding Options for Change. We are continuing to develop the proposal announced last July by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence for change in the structure and deployment of our Armed Forces. We intend to proceed with the implementation of rationalisation proposals and other changes in support where they do not affect our operations in the Gulf. Further announcements about such measures will be made at the appropriate time.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, brought up the important subject relevant at this time—of the possibility of increased terrorist threat to the United Kingdom. I assure the House that the Government are not complacent in that regard and that a range of central government contingency plans have been developed to respond to possible terrorist

67
threats. They are under constant review, even more so in view of the outbreak of hostilities. Obviously it is not in the public interest to discuss specific plans.
My noble friend Lord Beloff spoke of the British Moslems. The Gulf war does not put the Western Forces against the Arab or moslem worlds. The allied coalition, including Arab allies, is acting with United Nations authority to reverse the aggression of one Arab moslem country against another. There is a range of opinion about the Gulf conflict among the oslem communities in Britain. As with the rest of society, they have a right to hold different views as a fundamental freedom enjoyed by all those who live in this country.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the problem of compensation arising from loss, damage or injury. There will be claims against Iraq from many countries when the situation is clearer. The British Government will consider how the claims of British nationals and companies should best be pursued. At present it is too early to decide precisely how that should be done. Also, the Foreign Office has asked British nationals and companies to supply us with information regarding loss, damage or injury they may have suffered as a result of Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Like many other noble Lords, I welcomed the full endorsement of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for government policy in the Gulf. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, spoke of the views of Saddam Hussein. However, I confess I failed to understand many of the noble Viscount's views.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, spoke of the criticism of the media. For Iraq to set up such stage-managed interviews was a flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention. Media coverage of such interviews must have added to the distress of the families of the men concerned. The media's coverage of Iraq's cynical exploitation can only have led to public revulsion over Iraq's actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, returned to his familiar subject of sanctions. I say again to the noble Lord that the test of the effectiveness of sanctions is whether Iraq leaves Kuwait and not whether the Iraqi economy is damaged. There is no sign that sanctions have in any way affected Saddam Hussein's resolve not to withdraw. As regards our particular operations, it is not, as your Lordships will know, our policy to comment on our intentions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I asked last week and again this afternoon about the Government's evidence that sanctions are not working. There is a United Nations committee dealing with sanctions. In the face of all the evidence which has been given in the United Nations in favour of sanctions, where is the Government's evidence that they are not working, and will not work, in order to undermine the military machine of Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have the feeling that however I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, he is not going to be content with my answer. Speaker after speaker from all sides of the House has
68
made it abundantly clear why sanctions have not worked and why they are unlikely to do so. I do not think I can make the matter any clearer than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, asked an important point about our war aims as regards the liberation of Kuwait or the downfall of Saddam Hussein. I must make it clear that the objective shared with the United Nations, the United States, our European friends and allies and most Arab states, is to secure unconditional Iraqi withdrawal, the restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty and independence and the restoration of its legitimate government.
Our aim has been to deter further military aggression against Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. It is not, I repeat, our business from outside to lay down who should govern Iraq and who should not. That is a matter for the people of Iraq with whom we have no quarrel. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, again raised the subject of linkage with the Palestine problem. Again I say to him that once the crisis has been satisfactorily resolved, it must be for the countries of the region to decide what security structures can best ensure long-term peace and stability. But we stand prepared to play our part in that process.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Geneva Convention applies in the present circumstances and that we shall apply it. I hope that I have covered the majority of the points raised in your Lordships' debate which has been extremely relevant and interesting from everybody's point of view. Our objective in the Gulf is well and truly defined. Our execution of that objective is now well under way. During this dangerous mission our daily thoughts will be with all our servicemen who at all times continue to show such valour and dedication to the task in hand in difficult and hostile circumstances.
Let us also be mindful of the superb and tireless efforts of all our support and supply units, both servicemen and women and civilian men and women, who continue to supply our front line troops with the nourishment and equipment needed daily to maintain their high morale and efficiency. Saddam Hussein should be in no doubt that he is facing defeat.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
We have now reached the final stage in our deliberations on the Bill before it is sent for consideration to another place. It is a modest Bill but that does not mean that it is inconsequential. No Bill which goes any way to ensuring that maintenance payments are made regularly can be without consequence. The Government are appreciative of all the thought and time which those of your Lordships who have taken part have given to the Bill. A number of useful technical amendments have been made and

69
in one respect—namely, with regard to ensuring that all interested parties have notice of the proceedings in order that they may make representations about the method of payment—the substance of the Bill has been improved. We have the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to thank for that suggestion and I should like to thank him also for the other constructive contributions which he made during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. His amendments, even when not accepted by the Government, were always thoughtful and helped considerably to clarify the Bill's purposes and effects.
If it is not invidious for me to do so, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who drew on his impressive legal knowledge in his contributions to the Bill. He improved our debates by his useful general observations on legislative drafting which, I am sure, have impressed the parliamentary draftsman as much as they have those of your Lordships who were able to listen to him. We are all aware that his contributions were always made out of a sincere desire to ensure that the interests of the citizen are well served by the legislation which we consider and pass into law.
As your Lordships are aware, the Government are committed to reinforcing parental responsibility and to improving the position of lone parents. This Bill is a small part of that larger initiative. Its objective is to improve the present maintenance system by ensuring regularity of maintenance payments to those who are dependent on them, especially lone parents who rely on maintenance payments, to ensure that they can support their children. The Bill also continues the process started by the Children Act 1989 of bringing the domestic workloads of the civil courts into alignment. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, a newly qualified young lawyer, given his first case to argue in court, received advice from his senior colleague, who said, "John, your first case is a divorce petition. It is an undefended divorce petition. Try not to lose it". This Bill was given to me to take through your Lordships' House on behalf of the Opposition as a sort of teething ring on which to learn how to do this kind of task. Unlike almost everywhere else these days, there are no induction courses or training schemes for new Peers. One learns the job by sitting next to Nellie; by doing it. I should like to record my thanks to all who have spoken at the various stages of the Bill and especially to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for their lucidity in presenting the Government's case and for their generosity in letting me down lightly.
The Bill is now a better one than it was when it began its progress. It now says more clearly what it wishes to say, but the question remains as to whether what it says is really worth saying. With the invaluable help of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we have purged it of many infelicities in its drafting but, as he reminded us at Committee stage, the Bill only nibbles at the edges of a much larger
70
problem and, above all, it is very unlikely to work. The only real guarantee that payment will be made on a regular basis by the debtor is to adjust an individual's tax code and to deduct money through this method. That would require an additional power to be given to the courts to instruct the Inland Revenue to collect maintenance through the tax system.
A second factor which militates against this Bill ever achieving its desired effect is its failure to recognise the adamantine link between maintenance enforcement and access agreements. As the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, pointed out, there are countless cases of mothers who deny, impede or poison access. It follows as night follows day that fathers who are denied proper access will retaliate by refusing to pay maintenance. It would surely be better if from the outset the whole question of maintenance enforcement had been seen in the context of legislation on family matters. At Committee stage I referred to the fragmentation of jurisdiction. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, commented on the proliferation of the courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, found both these terms,
"abundantly justified".
He ventured to point out that we had missed,
"a wonderful opportunity to consider a unified system of family courts in place of the present proliferation and fragmentation".—[Official Report, 13/12/90; col. 595.]
He was powerfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the chairman of the Family Courts Campaign. Against such a background and such a pressing need, the fine tuning which the Bill provides in the matter of bank accounts, standing orders, attachment of earnings and the like seems pitifully inadequate and, frankly, rather fiddling. It is the exact opposite of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is taking a teaspoon to empty a river.
The third serious shortcoming in the Bill as it now stands is its shortsightedness in considering how its provisions can be enforced. I have mentioned the problem of what to do when a debtor, having been given "opportunity" to open a bank account, does so, but neglects to put more than a pound or so into it. Far more important is the matter of levying distress on a debtor in arrears. I make no apology for returning for a moment to the matter of the control of private bailiffs, because it is an issue which causes considerable distress and it is in the public eye and on the public conscience at the present time.
I have mentioned the report of the National Consumer Council and the very deep concern voiced by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. But as recently as last weekend, 16th January, your Lordships may have heard the BBC Radio 4 programme "Face the Facts", which devoted its entire time to the suffering, the fear, the shame and the distress which this medieval system of debt collection brings in its train. That programme, produced by an experienced editor, Graham Ellis, was an objective, responsible and balanced piece of reporting. It was investigative journalism at its very best and the BBC can be proud of it. It made clear, beyond all thought of contradiction, that the private, uncertificated bailiff is a dangerously unreliable way of enforcing the orders of the court.

71
The Government have refused to make any mention in the Bill of bailiffs and have declined to control their activities in any way at any stage of the Bill's progress. They have done so on the grounds that a Home Office group is currently considering the whole matter. I can only hope that that group will bring forward, and speedily bring forward, a body of clear and firm recommendations which will curb, crib, cabin, confine and strictly control what private bailiffs may do in the prosecution of their peculiar calling.
The Labour Party is strongly in favour of proper controls on the activity of private bailiffs. It is concerned to see set up as soon as possible a proper system of family courts so that the concerns of the family are recognised as requiring special and sympathetic treatment, which they can seldom get amid the many and various activities of the normal magistrates' court. We are also very concerned with the prompt and effective enforcement of maintenance orders. In this imperfect world, which we shall improve by better legislation, we realise that the present Bill goes some little way towards improving the situation.
The Bill's heart is in the right place, even if its head is not screwed on very tight. It is a small gesture in the right direction, and on the principle that half a loaf is much better than no bread, I commend it to your Lordships and hope you will approve it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when the Treaty of Berlin was debated in the House of Commons, Lord Beaconsfield described the speech of the Leader of the Opposition there as a string of congratulatory regrets. A Third Reading of a Bill tends to approximate to that description. It is unfortunate that this evening we have to start with the regret—the great regret—that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is still absent and in hospital. However, that can be qualified, I understand, by an immediate matter of congratulations. His operation has been successful and he is on the road to recovery. It must also be qualified by another matter of congratulations. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has put us very deeply in his debt by stepping into the breach. The apparent ease with which he conducted the Report stage was in some way misleading because this is a fantastically difficult and highly complicated Bill, proceeding almost entirely by amendment of other measures. The noble Lord must have worked extremely hard to have put himself in command of it in a matter of days.
We are also very greatly in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. We rely very much on the principal Opposition speaker on a Bill of this kind to sound the depths and explore the reefs while we can frolic about in the shallows. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has done that admirably and did so again in his speech this evening. We offer him our congratulations on his handling of the Bill for the Opposition. To have a Bill like this conducted as it has been from both Front Benches is of almost
72
immeasurable benefit to those of us on the Back Benches and Cross Benches. We are deeply in the debt of all three leading speakers from the Front Benches.
When one comes to the substance of the Bill, again it is a mixture of congratulations and regrets. It is a matter of congratulations that the Bill does what it does. It helps with the collection of maintenance payments and orders for periodical payments of a domestic nature and with the enforcement of orders for maintenance and for periodical payment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has again emphasised other matters in which the Bill effects an improvement of the present situation. But when one turns to the form of the Bill, it must be almost wholly a matter for regret.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that we are tackling the Bill in the wrong order. The correct or logical order would be for us to discuss the place of the family in our society, what should be done to strengthen it, what should be done by way of the obligations of maintenance in favour of a deserted wife, and only finally the machinery for doing it. We have in fact tackled it in diametrically the wrong way although we had an opportunity in Committee to consider part of the obligations of marriage so far as they impinge on the duty of maintenance. But the matter is more serious than that. The Bill is virtually incomprehensible for those who will have to work it or will be affected by it. No thought seems to have been given to them at all.
The typical object of this Bill is a deserted wife, often with a child to support. She entered into marriage with high hopes and has found them frustrated; not only that, she is almost immediately plunged down to subsistence level. What do we give her? When she asks for bread, we do not even give her a stone, which she might at least throw at someone. We say to her, "The Bill offers you a choice: a maintenance order; a qualifying maintenance order; a relevant UK order; a relevant English maintenance order; a registered order; a qualifying periodical maintenance order; an order for periodical payments; and, a lump sum paid by instalments". That is simply not good enough.
In relation to the first two options—namely, a maintenance order and a qualifying maintenance order, which are referred to in Clause 2 where it amends Section 59 of the 1980 Act—the Law Society has a highly competent committee which sends out a briefing table. However, the members of that committee got it wrong. It was not until the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, explained how the clause worked that your Lordships were able to understand it. If those three experts at the Law Society got it wrong, what hope is there for the maintenance creditor, the maintenance debtor, the citizens' advice bureaux or, for that matter, the high street solicitor? I complain very strongly about that aspect of the matter.
One can also look at the size of the Bill. When it was introduced on Second Reading, your Lordships had an Explanatory Memorandum which was very clear. Indeed, it told your Lordships everything and ran to only two pages. However, the rest of the Bill—that is,

73
the enacting provisions—ran to 29 pages. As I said, most of them were quite incomprehensible to the persons affected by them.
I raised the question of the Long Title. I ventured to write to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, about it. I hope to be able to pursue the matter with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps he will consider it in the Statute Law Committee. However, that is a comparatively small matter compared to the type of Bill that we have. It is all too typical of the legislation which we see produced today. When one considers the persons affected by the Bill and the extraordinary complication of the legislation, it is an outrageous example.
Having said that, I do not wish to end on a curmudgeonly note. We are very grateful to the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. We count our blessings.
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to some of the remarks that have been made. I should like first to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his very kind words about me which, most assuredly, I did not deserve. He had some fun with certain complications in the Bill. I acknowledge the fact that the drafting of the Bill is complicated, but it is no more complicated than legislation in this area needs to be. There is a large body legislation devoted to maintenance. As the Bill deals not only with the making of maintenance orders but also with their variation and enforcement, it is important that reference is made to all the relevant statutes. For example, Schedule I takes us through the difficult area of registered orders, which is covered by
74
no less than five statutes. Further, the Bill provides for its powers to be exercised by three different courts; namely, the High Court, the county courts and the magistrates' courts. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that those are reasons why the legislation had to be complicated.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, repeated some criticisms which he had, and still has, about the Bill. It is a modest Bill and the Government make no pretence that it can solve all the problems to which the noble Lord referred. It addresses one specific area of difficulty; that is, the collection and enforcement of maintenance. Its provisions are intended to improve the problems which many experience in obtaining maintenance. The noble Lord concluded by commending the Bill to the House. I thank him for so doing. Accordingly, I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question which I have raised in correspondence. In view of the complication of the Bill and the number of statutes which are amended by it, will he take urgent steps to raise with the editor of Statutes in Force the desirability of reprinting with amendments as many of the amended measures as possible?
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps I may consider carefully the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord and write to him on the matter.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  BENEFIT RIGHTS FOR UNDER 25 YEAR-OLDS
  BENEFIT RIGHTS FOR UNDER 25 YEAR-OLDS
  PSVs; CHANGES TO DRIVER LICENSING SYSTEM
  PSVs; CHANGES TO DRIVER LICENSING SYSTEM
  MILK QUOTA TRANSFERS: NOTIFICATION
  MILK QUOTA TRANSFERS: NOTIFICATION
  WASTE RECYCLING CREDITS SCHEME
  WASTE RECYCLING CREDITS SCHEME