Sitting of 4 November 1991

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

  Musgrave Park Hospital (Bombing)
  2.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I regret to have to tell the House that a bomb planted by the Provisional IRA exploded in Musgrave Park hospital at 3.53 pm last Saturday, killing two soldiers and injuring 11 other people, among them a five-year-old girl and a baby of four months. The murdered soldiers were Warrant Officer Philip Cross of the Royal Army Medical Corps and Driver Craig Pantry of the Royal Corps of Transport. Two of those wounded have very grave injuries.
  I am also sorry to report that early on Sunday morning in a separate incident a young man was found dead in west Belfast in a car which had earlier been seen in suspicious circumstances and pursued by police; that incident is being investigated by a senior police officer and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints has been asked by the RUC to supervise the inquiry. I know that the House will join me in extending sympathy to the families of all those killed and injured.
  The bomb which the IRA left in the hospital is estimated to have contained 20 lb of Semtex. It was part way along a service tunnel between two hospital buildings: first, the Withers block, containing orthopaedic and childrens' wards; and secondly, wards and other medical facilities administered by the RAMC for the benefit of service men and their families, and some civilians. I must stress the fact that this building is not, as the IRA has callously and cynically claimed, an operational military base. Rather, like the rest of the Musgrave Park complex, it is purely and simply a hospital dedicated to healing and the relief of suffering. The nearest security force base is more than a quarter of a mile away and was manifestly not the target of the attack.
  In addition to the deaths and injuries, the blast from the explosion caused severe damage to both buildings. In particular, a newly refurbished children's ward in the Withers block was damaged, with debris falling on a father who was nursing his baby daughter. Other children in that ward were immobilised in traction. So far, 97 operations due to have been performed early this week have been cancelled, 80 out of the 200 national health service beds in the hospital have been rendered unusable and damage totalling at least £250,000 has been caused.
  I am sure that the whole House will join me in utter condemnation of this appalling attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But the cynical depravity of this outrage—placing a bomb that would inevitably cause massive damage to a national health service hospital and was intended to kill medical staff when it exploded and which,
  196
  only by great good fortune, did not cause many more deaths and injuries—must surely mark one of the lowest points in the IRA's inglorious history.
  I reject all attempts to justify this attack. Let there be no doubt that it has shown the IRA in its true colours. It was an attack on the whole community—on sick children and their parents, on old people whose much-needed operations will have to be delayed, on the medical staff who devotedly care for them, and on the security forces who will continue to defend the community and bring terrorists to justice. Such attacks will not deflect the Government or the security forces from doing their duty in seeing off those evil men who want to destroy all that is best in our community. The horrible nature of the attack only underlines the fact that those are the sort of people whom all democrats oppose.
  Just as the emergency services and the staff at Musgrave Park hospital reacted with superlative speed and dedication to allay the effects of this atrocity, so the security forces—to whom I pay the warmest of tributes—will continue with vigorous and impartial professionalism to defend the community and to bring suspected terrorists to justice.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I bitterly regret the circumstances that made it necessary.
  On behalf of the Opposition, and indeed the whole House, I wish to express our sympathy to the victims and their families of what can only be described as a crime against humanity. I should also like to extend our sympathy to the relatives and friends of all those who have been killed in recent incidents in Northern Ireland.
  We all know how difficult it is for members of the security forces and their families, and we should now be aware that they are at risk all the time. We owe them a great deal and can best repay them by finding a political solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has rightly pointed out the complete disregard for the Geneva convention on the part of the perpetrators of this appalling outrage. It is worth noting what that convention says. In the second protocol to the Geneva convention of 1977, article 7 specifies:
  "All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict, shall be respected and protected".
  Article 9 states:
  "Medical and religious personnel shall be respected and protected and shall be granted all available help for the performance of their duties".
  Clearly the IRA has cruelly and inhumanely violated those principles. The members of the IRA claim to be soldiers fighting a just war, but real soldiers are bound by the terms of the Geneva convention. The IRA has destroyed the credibility of its own claims. Members of the IRA are not soldiers, but assassins, carrying out a squalid murder campaign.
  I have to say to the IRA and its supporters that their actions only strengthen the determination of all democrats in Britain and Ireland to reject them. We are not prepared to listen to lectures on human rights from people who have such a callous attitude to human life. However, it is important that we do not descend to their level. We must

  197
  ensure that the security forces are the real defenders of human rights and freedom from fear and violence, and that they are clearly seen to be so.
  There can be no substitute for the courageous and difficult efforts of the security forces in upholding, impartially, the rule of law. There are no "quick fix" measures that will put a stop to the violence overnight. No doubt voices will be raised in support of such measures, but I must urge the Secretary of State not to be hustled into steps that can only aggravate the situation.
  Finally, I should like to ask the Secretary of State what progress has been made in an area where I believe it would be sensible to take action. Can he tell us the position on the police authority's request for 400 more officers? We would urge him to act rapidly on that request. Such a decision would be complementary to the steps already taken by the Chief Constable following the sectarian killings of the past few weeks. I believe that it is an item of additional expenditure that would win the approval of the whole House.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for the sympathy he expressed to the families of those killed and injured, but for his support for the courageous efforts of the security forces.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of the terms of the Geneva convention. However, I think I should add that, as the hon. Gentleman implied, there are no legitimate targets on such occasions as Saturday. The hon. Gentleman condemned the IRA as assassins and I am sure that the whole House would wish to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the RUC's bid for further manpower. That bid is at the final stage of its examination and I expect to be able to make an announcement soon.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, I join other hon. Members in expressing our sympathy to the families of those who have been killed and to all who were injured in the incident at the Musgrave Park hospital at the weekend. Indeed, we sympathise with all the families of people who are killed unnecessarily because of terrorism and violence.
  I find it not a little peculiar, however, that the Secretary of State chose to combine his statement on the deaths of the two young men whose duties involved the care of the sick in this hospital with a statement on the death of a car thief. The Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to mention that Roger Ellwood was killed by a stolen car driven by terrorists on 1 October this year. So I fear that some doubt may be placed in the minds of hon. Members about the cause of the shooting that resulted in the death of the young man that the right hon. Gentleman referred to.
  I am disappointed that we have still been given no sign that the means necessary to contain violence and to disrupt the command and control structure of the IRA are about to be implemented. The need for internment is staring us all in the face. People who suggest that to intern is to bring the community on to the streets cast doubt on the integrity of the vast majority in Northern Ireland. The majority in the community from which I come would welcome internment at this time, and I cannot believe that the
  198
  integrity of the Roman Catholic community is such that its members would choose this continued slaughter in our Province in preference to removing from the streets those who command and control the violence that besets us.
  It is up to the Secretary of State, if he keeps internment on the books as he has told us he will, to begin to educate people throughout this kingdom about the need to implement internment at a time that he judges correct—when he is advised by the Chief Constable and the GOC to do so. It is unhelpful if Ministers or others speaking on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf suggest that internment will not be used or that it is not a viable and justifiable means of dealing with those whose training and speciality is keeping themselves out of the courts and out of the hands of those on whom we depend to impose justice for the deaths that have occurred in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Brooke: In preparing my statement so as to include another recent event, I was following the behaviour of my predecessors, who have done the same on such occasions.
  I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the death of Roger Ellwood. It seems to me to have been one of the greatest tragedies in the Province in the 27 months I have been Secretary of State. I, too, express my sympathy to his family and to his fiancée and her family.
  The hon. Gentleman said that I had said that we would keep internment on the statute book. I would go further and say that we have kept it on the statute book already—there was an opportunity not to retain it during the passage of the emergency provisions Act, but we did retain it then.
  The introduction of internment would be a serious step involving difficulties of implementation whose consequences would be difficult to predict. I repeat what I have said before: internment has been retained on the statute book. I would consider using it only in particular circumstances; for obvious reasons I will not predict what they might be. The fact remains that internment is on the statute book and is available to the Government to use.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully share the concern felt about the dastardly acts in Ulster and the United Kingdom as a whole, but I ask hon. Members to keep their questions brief.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to express to the House on behalf of the people whom I represent and my party our deep feeling of revulsion at what has taken place and our deepest sympathy for those who have suffered. All right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, whatever their creed, politics or vision, will join with us as we express that heartfelt sympathy and deep revulsion.
  On the issue that the Secretary of State has just discussed with the defence spokesman of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), while holding that it should be a weapon in the armoury of any civilised Government to take out of circulation those who are seeking to destroy, murder and maim, will he give a full assurance to the House that he will undertake that act, if he has to do so, as a British Minister responsible to this House, and not in cliques with the Dublin Government who say that they would need to approve such a move?

  199
  The Secretary of State must say today that he is in charge of security in Northern Ireland and that he will not allow his hands to be tied by any reference to matters coming from the South. Is he not worried about the rising scale of explosions and the rising tide of murders that are taking place? Is it not time for him to reconsider his whole security policy? Although it may be all right for the spokesman for the Opposition to talk about taking no measures, surely from all parts of the Province there is a cry for a security policy now to carry out what his own colleagues said would have to be done: to extirpate the IRA?
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he expressed his sympathy and that of his party and his revulsion at the events that have occurred. I give him and the whole House a full assurance that in the event of the introduction of executive detention, it would be carried out by Her Majesty's Government in line with legislation passed by this House and retained by this Government on the statute book.
  Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the level of violence during the past two or three months. I also want to pay tribute to the security forces for their response to the security situation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 97 people have been charged with terrorist crimes during the past two months, including 11 for murder. Hon. Members should not doubt, either, the response of the security forces and the Government to that level of violence.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: In paying my respects and tribute to the bereaved of the two soldiers and the young man killed, I am tempted to say that I thought that I had seen it all. The young baby in the carry-cot described by the IRA as an accident of war, the young nun serving the community described by the IRA as being in the wrong place at the wrong time and a fireman trying to put out a blaze described by the IRA as helping the British war machine—we did not expect to reach the stage where the IRA would break every precept of human compassion and morality by bombing a hospital.
  I recognise and welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that there is no such thing as a legitimate target anywhere, because once that concept is accepted, we are in effect saying that murder is proper in certain circumstances. We should take this opportunity to restate that. I am not about to tell the Secretary of State what to do. I do not know of any known way of preventing evil men from planting a little piece of plastic explosive in a vast complex like the Musgrave Park hospital.
  What I know, and what I would like to tell those who, like me, are involved in the political process, is that we have a responsibility. There is something that we can do—we can give leadership, and we must play our part in trying to end this terrible spiral of despair and killing in the North of Ireland. Rather than give the Secretary of State expert opinions that I do not have, I suggest that all those involved in the political process here, in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland and everywhere have a bounden responsibility to start proper negotiations to end the nightmare that continued this weekend.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the manner in which his question was posed. I am not in the business of calibrating the relative evil of the atrocities carried out by the IRA, but I am conscious that the events
  200
  that we have just witnessed come in the train of the attack on the remembrance day ceremony in Enniskillen four years ago, when 13 civilians were killed, and of the proxy bomb a year ago, which killed a civilian who had been tied to the driver's seat of his vehicle. These are crimes against humanity, as has been said.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the political process. All who are constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland have a responsibility towards the political development process. We are quite clear, and we were clear when we conducted the talks this summer, that they were not peace talks because they would not bring an end to the violence, but were one of the pressures that can be mounted against the terrorists. If we can bring such talks into being, we shall be making our contribution.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I do not know what the answer is, but I know what the answer is not. I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me, the rest of the House and the country in issuing a warning, in the hope and expectation that those who describe themselves as loyalist paramilitaries will not, under any circumstances, physically react to this ghastly occurrence. If they do, or even think of so doing, they will get no support from the House or the country, and no sympathy, direct or indirect. I hope that they hear that loud and clear.
  Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that expression of view. I join him in saying that the enforcement of law and order in the Province of Northern Ireland lies with Her Majesty's Government, the Chief Constable and those who support him.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I join hon. Members in unreservedly condemning the act by the IRA. I also speak on behalf of the group New Consensus, of which I am chairman and which is both all-party and none. It fully condemns acts such as this, and acts committed by the Ulster Freedom Fighters, such as attacking Belfast taxi drivers. Does the Minister recognise that, as well as an escalation of violence, there is an escalation of the peace movement in Northern Ireland? Groups such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror, the Newry hostage support group, Enough is Enough, the Peace Train Movement and New Consensus in Northern Ireland are standing up against the people of violence so as to ensure that there is another approach and a different tactic.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sympathy that he has expressed, and I share his sense of encouragement, brought about by the action taken by individual members of the community and groups which are seeking to call an end to the terrible experiences that we have all had. Those of us who live and work in Northern Ireland would say that the feeling on the part of the community about bringing these matters to an end is not the result of any war-weary or defeatist feeling but because we want to bring them to an end and restore peace, and it is a very strong feeling.
  Rev. William McCrea: I join the House in expressing sympathy to the families who have been so griveously bereaved through this tragedy, a tragedy that has been the experience of so many of the British people in Ulster over the past 20 years. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Under-Secretary's statement that these "fascist beasts" should be consigned to hell? Having said

  201
  that, however, he asks the members of the Unionist community to sit in council chambers with the spokesmen of the "fascist beasts".
  In the statement by Her Majesty's Opposition, the Secretary of State heard a continuation of the velvet glove policy, which means, do little or nothing against the terrorist. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people of Northern Ireland demand equal rights with those on the mainland? They have a right to be protected, and after 20 years, a flawed and failed security policy must be radically changed.
  The IRA, and those who support them, having listened to the Secretary of State's statement, will he tell the House what part of his statement will have driven fear into the terrorist's heart?
  Mr. Brooke: I am conscious that one of the ways in which my colleagues in the Government, and even on occasions myself, identify with the Province is to relapse periodically into theological language. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is important that it is on the record in the context of Sinn Fein's reaction to the attack that occurred on Saturday that I understand that its president, Mr. Adams, when asked last night, specifically refused to condemn the bombing. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will draw significance from that.
  I have said before to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea), in the context of security, that the Government's policy must always be conducted within the rule of law, and that that is a critical factor in bringing terrorism to an end.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I join right hon. and hon. colleagues, obviously, in expressing sympathy for the families of the bereaved. I pray that those who have been injured will recover quickly.
  It is always popular in the House to condemn the IRA. I have more reason than most to do that, having been shot 10 times by the IRA. There must also be condemnation for those who fail to take on the IRA, and the finger must be pointed at the Secretary of State and those who sit behind him. The Government introduced Dublin rule through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They gave encouragement to the terrorists, and they are responding in kind.
  When the people in Northern Ireland were listening to these matters on the radio, they were wondering why a statement was to be made. Two Ulster Defence Regiment men were killed on the Killylea road in Armagh. Four UDR men in my constituency were killed in Downpatrick. They were from Newtownards. Three were killed recently, in June, in Glenanne. No statements were made to the House following those events, so why is there a specific statement today? We thought that there would be something in it, but instead there were just bland generalities. There is nothing to offer the people of Northern Ireland.
  We must be given confidence in the Government who rule us without our consent. We must be given confidence in the Army and the police. The Government must encourage the people of Northern Ireland to give their support for the security forces by giving the correct political leadership. The Secretary of State has given nothing today but bland generalities, and the situation will
  202
  continue as it is until there is a change of Government policy. Why did the Secretary of state make a statement today?
  Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman quotes a number of incidents in the Province that are within the memory of us all and on which statements were not made. I remind him that there has been criticism historically when statements have been made about incidents in Great Britain, when it was commented that similar statements had not been made in the context of Northern Ireland.
  If the right hon. Gentleman goes back to the incidents to which he was referring, he will find that they were not ones that could naturally and immediately be followed by a statement. When, on certain occasions, private notice questions were tabled because of the circumstances of a particular incident, you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, declined to accept them. I made my statement because, against the criticism that on occasions we have not made statements on incidents in Great Britain, I believed it important that there should be one.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: May I join in the expressions of sympathy to the bereaved and those who were injured in Saturday's incident? Will the Secretary of State call on the Roman Catholic Church—many of whose members have suffered at the hands of the IRA—to excommunicate those members of the IRA whose hands are dripping with the blood of innocent victims?
  Mr. Brooke: It is my understanding that Cardinal Daly has outrightly condemned the events of last Saturday. As I am not a member of his Church, it would be improper of me to make any theological observations.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the importance of the statement, but we have a heavy day ahead of us. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side.
  Mr. David Winnick: In deploring this latest IRA atrocity, and hoping that those responsible will be brought to justice—like all those, from both sides in Northern Ireland, who carry out squalid murders—may I ask whether the Secretary of State agrees that it is important that we do not play into the hands of the Provisional IRA by following policies which, although the IRA deny it, they want for propaganda purposes in the Republic of Ireland and the United States? I refer mainly to internment and other measures that cannot be justified. We should be careful not to play into the hands of murderers.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice. The considerations that he mentioned are, among others, taken into account when determining policy.
  Mr. Keith Speed: I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about utilising the British information services to maximum effect, especially in north America, in the hope of cutting off the supply of money, sympathy and support for the sort of depraved attack that occurred on Saturday, and to show IRA sympathisers in America precisely what is happening?
  Mr. Brooke: I am always content to discuss these matters with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  203
  However, I think that there would be fairly wide agreement that Government actions in north America during recent years have resulted in the proportion of funding coming from north America being greatly diminished.

  Musgrave Park Hospital (Bombing)
    BILLS PRESENTED
      FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)
      Mr. Secretary Lang, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Michael Forsyth and Mr. Francis Maude, presented a Bill to make new provision about further and higher education in Scotland; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]
      CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE
      Mr. Secretary Hunt, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. David Mellor, Sir Wyn Roberts and Mr. Nicholas Bennett, presented a Bill to provide for the construction by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation of a barrage across the mouth of Cardiff Bay with an outer harbour and of a tidal lagoon and for related works; to make provision for the acquisition and use of land for the works; to make provision about the operation and management of the barrage, the outer harbour, the water impounded by the barrage and the lagoon; to make provision for dealing with property damage resulting from any alteration of groundwater levels which may occur in consequence of the construction of the barrage; to enable other protective provisions to be made; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]
  Question again proposed.

  Debate on the Address

    Employment and Education
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Secretary of State for Employment, I must tell the House that because of the numbers of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in today's debate, I am placing a precautionary limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 pm. If those who are called before that time are relatively brief, it may not be necessary to impose the limit. However, under the Standing Orders I must make my announcement now.
    3.7 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): The policies set out in the Gracious Speech will expand opportunity, choice and quality in our nation's education and training. They will lay the foundations for the creation of yet more jobs, in addition to the 800,000 created since 1979 and the 2·6 million created since 1983. They will ensure that Britain is ready for the challenges of the 1990s.
    Those who report on our deliberations in this place have predicted that our exchanges over the next few months will be blighted by charge and counter-charge, by accusation and counter-accusation, and by statistics from both sides crossing each other in the night. I have now faced the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) across the Dispatch Box on nine occasions during the past 21 months. Neither of us could claim that those exchanges have been free of the features that I have just identified. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman might acknowledge that his universally pessimistic approach to these matters is at times all too reminiscent of Private Fraser in "Dad's Army", whose response to every situation is to cry out, "We're doomed—doomed, I tell you." I offer the hon. Gentleman an opportunity this afternoon to engage in more constructive debate.
    I begin by identifying those objectives which—I hope he agrees—the hon. Gentleman and his party share. I will describe the extent to which the considerable progress has been made by the Government towards achieving those objectives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to acknowledge that progress and those achievements. I will consider what more needs to be done—because undoubtedly more needs to be done and formidable challenges remain—and whether further progress towards the achievement of those objectives is more likely to come about if the policies of the Government continue to be pursued than if the policies that the hon. Gentleman's party advocates were introduced in their place.

    205
    We all want to see better education and training for our people. That is fundamental to the needs of our economy in the years ahead; fundamental to the prospects for unemployed people; and fundamental also to the creation of opportunities for our people not only to obtain work, to have and to hold down a job, but to obtain work and jobs which give them satisfaction, which are truly rewarding and which enable them to fulfil their potential to the greatest possible extent.
    We need to see more of our young people staying on at school, more of them going into further and higher education and more of them achieving qualifications. We need to improve the levels of skills and qualifications of all our people and to increase the quantity and quality of the training that is available to them.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State send a message to those Rolls-Royce apprentices who will soon complete their training at what once was one of Britain's best motor car factories, but who will be unable to obtain employment in that factory or in any Rolls-Royce subsidiary? What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that those apprentices should do with the training to which they committed a lot of their time?
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that those young people fully understand that no Government could ever offer them a guarantee of employment with any specific employer or at any particular workplace. However, I am equally sure that the qualifications and experience that those apprentices have gained will stand them in excellent stead in achieving employment when they come to look for jobs.
    We need above all—because it is the key to everything else—to increase the productivity and the competitiveness of our industries, because that alone will encourage more job creation. That alone will provide the resources that are essential if we are to build a steadily more prosperous society.
    Those objectives are scarcely controversial. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman accepts them—although it is true that he has surprised me more than once in the past by failing to agree with the most obvious proposition.
    Let us then examine the progress that the Government have made towards achieving those objectives.
    First, on education and training, more young people are graduating from higher education than ever before—the number is up by nearly one third since 1979. More of our young people have higher education qualifications than do young people in Germany or Italy. More of our school leavers have qualifications than ever before, as do more of our work force. For the first time, no fewer than two thirds of those who work have a qualification, and 39 per cent. have A-levels or higher qualifications—an increase of no less than one third since 1979.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Were not the training and enterprise councils, the employment training programme and the youth training programme all the brainchilds of the present Government? They did not exist under the previous Labour Administration?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely correct and it would be as well if the House bore that important fact in mind when considering some of the allegations that are
    206
    made—although I hope this afternoon for a more responsible tone in the remarks of the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
    Mr. John Fraser: In my borough, unemployment has risen by 69 per cent. over the past year, but, because of poll tax capping, virtually no one in Lambeth will receive a discretionary grant for vocational training. Often, a graduate has to complete a year at college or at law school after taking a degree. Such a period of further study could qualify for a discretionary grant, but, because of poll tax capping, almost no one in my borough will receive one. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be better to replace dicretionary grants for vocational training, which are a burden on local authorities, with mandatory grants paid for by central Government?
    Mr. Howard: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is citing Lambeth council as a model of efficiency and good practice. If that council harboured its resources sensibly and deployed them effectively, it would be able to spend them in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will no doubt point out in due course, Lambeth spends less than its standard spending assessment on education. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman direct his remarks to Lambeth council: a reordering of its spending priorities seems to be long overdue.
    We are laying the foundations for further progress. More of our young people are now receiving higher education than ever before—an increase from one in eight in 1979 to one in five today and nearly one in three by the end of the decade. More 16-year-olds are staying on at school than ever before—more than 50 per cent. of the age group, for the first time ever. Indeed, last year it is likely to have been as high as 60 per cent. and it will be higher still this year.
    As for training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) has just reminded us, the Government have introduced the first and only guarantee anywhere in Europe of a two-year training place for every 16 and 17-year-old who needs it. That has been made possible by an increase in the number of training places for young people from a grand total of 6,000 in 1979 to more than 260,000 today. Taken together, the progress that we have made in education and training has led to an increase of more than two thirds in the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds receiving full-time education or training since 1980. It is not just a question of quantity; the quality is improving, too. In our schools, the reforms introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors are bringing results.
    A recent academic study compared the training available to young people in this country and that available to young people in Germany—for so long held out as the model that all other countries should follow in this regard. It reached the conclusion that, in many important respects, our training was not merely the equal of that provided in Germany; it was actually its superior. My Department's spending on training and enterprise has increased two and a half times in real terms since 1979.
    The proportion of our gross domestic product devoted to taxpayer-funded training is higher here than it is in Germany, the United States or Japan.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Howard: I will always give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Haynes: I do not know which gramophone company the Secretary of State works for, Mr. Speaker, but we hear the same old gramophone record every time he comes to the Dispatch Box. When the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), occupied his post, the unemployment figures were going down. Ever since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has occupied it, they have gone up. Now they are rocketing. He is flipping useless and it is time that he was looking for another job.
    I am not talking about statistics. I am talking about the real world—about what is happening out there. The Secretary of State should join that lot out there who keep losing their jobs and the people who cannot get a job. He has been to my constituency recently, although he did not inform me of the fact. He was telling people how wonderful things would be in the future; I want to see that future. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told me about it yet. He should get stuck in, or get out.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. It is perfectly true that some of the things that I am saying today I have said before; that is because they are true. It does no harm to repeat the truth, or to establish a degree of consistency. Of course, that is not something that the hon. Gentleman is used to observing on the Opposition Benches. I quite understand why he is somewhat mystified by consistency, with which he is not entirely comfortable or familiar. It is, however, something that he will be given by Conservative Members and I am sure that he will want to make the most of it before—sadly—he retires from our midst at the next general election.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the good news, contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), that although in recent times my constituency has experienced economic difficulties, so successful has my right hon. and learned Friend's training and enterprise programme been that the Crawley and District Industries Association has told me that this is the first time during a downturn in the economy when training by companies has increased rather than decreased?
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is bragging about unemployment in his constituency being 3·4 per cent., but unemployment is between 9 and 11 per cent. now. The hon. Gentleman has got a nerve.
    Mr. Speaker: I have heard better points of order than that.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) makes an extremely important point. The experience that he reports in his constituency is mirrored throughout the country. It is one of the most significant and important respects in which the recession from which we are recovering is different from all previous recessions.
    We are using the additional resources to excellent effect. We are improving both the quality and the quantity of our training and we are improving and creating the skills that
    208
    our people will need in the 1990s. Our progress in these vital areas can be summarised as record resources, record commitment, record results. I hope that there will be some acknowledgement by the hon. Member for Sedgefield of the progress that we are making.
    Of course, the Government cannot do it all alone. Their success in these matters has been matched by record increases in the commitment of employers to training. There has been an 85 per cent. increase in the proportion of employees being trained over the last seven years alone. Over the last year alone, 92 per cent. of employers have increased or maintained the volume of off-the-job training that they provide. The latest Confederation of British Industry survey of manufacturing companies shows that more than six times as many companies expect to maintain or increase their investment in training over the next year than expect to reduce it. Today the Industrial Society published a survey of its members which shows even higher expectations of increased training over the next year.
    There is an overwhelming body of evidence that British employers are more aware of the importance of training for their future than has ever been the case in the past. The proportion of employers with a training budget has increased by more than a tenth in the last year alone. The proportion of employers with a training plan has increased even more rapidly. The key to our success in this area, the cornerstone of our achievements, is the establishment of a nationwide network, now complete, of training and enterprise councils, ensuring that training is delivered in a way that fully respects the needs and requirements of local areas and is fully tailored to local circumstances.
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield spends a good deal of time travelling up and down the country proclaiming his devotion to training and enterprise councils. I welcome that. Even though the hon. Gentleman occasionally speaks with forked tongue—and, as we shall see later, his views are not shared by his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)—I welcome the fact that he proclaims his support for the TECs. But when is he going to give an ounce of credit to the Government for having set up the TECs, for having put in place the instrument of the training revolution that is now taking place in this country, and for having taken the most imaginative step that we have ever seen in our training history? The hon. Gentleman has been noticeably reticent in this respect in the past. I invite him to be more forthcoming here and now.
    Mr. Tony Blair: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports the TECs so much, why has he started them off with a significant cut in funding?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is not, I hope, going to return to that. Today the shadow Chancellor told the nation that the Government are spending too much money and that this is a profligate Government. However, in the very first debate in the House after the shadow Chancellor's statement, up pops the hon. Gentleman and, in the first intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, says, "Spend more, spend more." It is about time that there was some consistency among Opposition Members.
    Mr. Blair: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets too carried away, does he accept that he started the TECs with a cut in funding? Has the funding been cut—yes or no?
    Mr. Howard: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the House on countless occasions that we have provided TECs with the resources that they need to do the job that I have asked them to do. We carefully considered—I explained how we did so—how best to help unemployed people back to work. Survey evidence showed that although training is an important and effective way of helping some unemployed people back to work, it is not the only way or always the best way. We adjusted our provision to take that into account. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will not tell the House that he gives the Government credit for having set up the TECs. Will the hon. Gentleman, just this once, give us an ounce of credit for that?
    Mr. Blair: I would understand it if the Minister were saying merely that he is reorganising the same amount of resources, but he has cut resources. Does he accept that there has been a cut in the TEC's budgets and that many are expressing concern about meeting his guarantees as a result? Will he accept that or not?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has been exceptionally churlish this afternoon. He has talked about TECs and has risen three times to intervene, but has declined to give the Government an ounce of credit for having established the TECs and for having taken that most imaginative step. One thing is clear from the hon. Gentleman's attitude: were there ever a Labour Government, there would be no review of programmes and there would be no assessment of the way in which help is given to ensure that it is cost effective or of how Government resources are deployed to ensure that the taxpayer gets the best value for money. According to the hon. Member for Sedgefield, once a programme is introduced it must carry on for ever, regardless of whether it is the most effective way of achieving those aims.
    The Government's job creation record is remarkably successful. There are now more than 800,000 more jobs in our economy than in 1979 and 2,600,000 more than in 1983. The key to job creation lies in productivity and competitiveness. In the 1980s, Britain achieved the fastest growth in productivity of any major industrialised country. We had been bottom of the league in the 1960s and 1970s, but our GDP, business investment and manufacturing productivity grew faster during the 1980s than in Germany, France or many other countries. That was the best relative performance by Britain in any decade since the second world war.
    The new competitiveness of British industry has been sharply shown by the increase in our share of world trade for two years running, halting and reversing decades of decline. The attractiveness of Britain today for new business and job creation has ensured that we have consistently secured more Japanese and American investment than any other member state of the European Community.
    One of the most important factors in the creation of jobs during the lifetime of the Government has been the sharp reduction that we have achieved in the number of strikes. Few people will dispute that that is largely a result of the legislation that we passed to reform industrial relations. That legislation was passed in the teeth of the unflinching opposition of the Labour party and of the hon. Member for Sedgefield in particular. He described the introduction of trade union ballots as
    210
    "a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement."
    The reduction in strikes has been overwhelmingly important in attracting foreign investment to this country on a scale for which there is no precedent. That observation is not just my unsupported assessment; an independent survey conducted by the Invest in Britain Bureau which was published in July showed that 96 per cent. of foreign firms believed that Britain's industrial relations improved significantly in the 1980s.
    Those are some of the achievements for which the Government can take substantial credit. I am prepared to wait until the hon. Member for Sedgefield makes his speech for some sign of acknowlegment of that progress.
    But what of the future? On training, we plan to take forward the dynamic of the TEC movement. The enthusiasm and excitement that TECs have generated are without parallel in our past. They will harness those qualities to ensure that we continue to make progress. Employers and, indeed, trade unions have committed themselves to the CBI's testing and challenging education and training targets. Those targets will sharply improve the qualifications of the British work force.
    Mr. Jack Straw: The Government did not adopt them.
    Mr. Howard: The Government supported them. I was on the platform with the general secretary of the TUC and the president of the CBI when the targets were announced.
    Building blocks of the training revolution are being put in place—this country's first national system of job-related qualifications—with new qualifications being produced,recognised and attained every month. Three hundred vocational qualifications are now accredited. By the end of next year, about 800 will have been accredited, covering 80 per cent. of the work force. That means that over the next 14 months new national vocational qualifications will be accredited and put in place at a rate of well over one a day. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sedgefield will tell us whether he approves of that development. Perhaps he will at least acknowledge the progress that is being made.
    Last month, I presented the first Investors in People awards. The companies that received them had achieved tough, testing and challenging targets of commitment to training. I presented 29 awards and was able to announce that a further 500 companies are committed to meeting this standard. I believe that that standard has an important part to play in enhancing employer recognition of the importance of training and career development for the whole of a company's work force. Investors in People is a standard designed by business, which will be met by business, because it is in the interests of business. That is why it will succeed.
    From next April, tax relief will be available for the first time for individual training expenses—encouraging a further increase in the commitment of individuals to train to improve their future career prospects. Career development loans—about whose future the hon. Member for Sedgefield registered such heartfelt concern a couple of weeks ago—are being taken up with increasing enthusiasm. Well over 20,000 people have already been encouraged to invest some £53 million in their own training with the benefit of those loans.
    Other new measures are foreshadowed in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century." Some of them were included in the Gracious Speech:

    211
    removal of the artificial divide, imposed by a Labour Government, between universities and polytechnics; independence for further education colleges; and more information for parents, leading to higher standards of education in our schools. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will have more to say about those matters later in the debate.
    Progress is also being made on the other matters referred to in the White Paper. I refer in particular to the expansion of training credits. Training for young people is being revolutionised by the phased introduction of training vouchers across the country. Already, one school leaver in 10 is offered a training voucher—a means to encourage a sharp improvement in the quality and quantity of training available to that age group while increasing the choice and opportunity open to young people. By the end of the next Parliament, every 16 and 17-year-old school leaver will be offered a training voucher—perhaps the biggest single leap forward of individual choice since the introduction of the right to buy.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the Secretary of State knows, training vouchers are being piloted in Devon and Cornwall and other areas. I have had many meetings with those involved. There is a problem with training vouchers, just as there is without them. Because of the economic climate, it does not look as though training places will be available. That is the guarantee for which people are looking and which the Government appear to be failing to deliver.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The guarantee is in place. We are committed to it and we shall continue to deliver it.
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield has been uncharacteristically coy about the Labour party's attitude to training credits. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of them, or is he not? Perhaps this afternoon he will tell us the Labour party's attitude to this imaginative development.
    I referred to the Government's record on job creation. Despite that record, it is, of course, the case that unemployment has risen in this recession, as it has in all other recessions. Of course, the problem is not unique to this country. In fact, unemployment is rising in every member state of the European Community except Spain—where it is already nearly double our level—and in every member country of the European Free Trade Association, and it is higher today than it was a year ago in every G7 country.
    The response of government to rising unemployment must have two elements. We must strive to create the economic framework in which record numbers of jobs will once again become available. I have already referred to the progress that we have made in increasing productivity and competitiveness. Competitiveness is the key to job creation and the key to competitiveness is the control of inflation. Clearly, we have made great progress in bringing inflation under control and we shall soon have a lower rate of inflation than Germany for the first time in a generation.
    Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)? The truth is that the youth training guarantee is not being delivered by Devon training and enterprise council. Those are the facts. Does
    212
    he not know what the facts are'? Is he telling me that every young person in Devon who does not have a job has a YT place? if he is, I am telling him that he is wrong.
    Mr. Howard: The guarantee will be met in Devon and Cornwall as in every other training and enterprise council, and every young person of the relevant age who leaves school and cannot get a job will be offered a training place. That is a commitment which the Government will deliver. That will be the case and I can give the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) that undertaking.
    When the hon. Member for Newham, North-East mentioned that important matter I was referring to the progress that we have made in bringing inflation under control. That is already improving our competitiveness and we shall see its effects on job creation before much longer. A reduction in the rate of inflation is the only route to reduction in unemployment. Of course, unemployment brings great difficulties in its train and no one regrets that more than I. That is why in recent months we have put in place the widest range of measures that we have ever had to help unemployed people get back to work. I have described them to the House on many previous occasions and, although he is no longer in the Chamber, I do not wish to incur the wrath of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) by repeating them.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am here.
    Mr. Howard: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I had not appreciated that he had moved in the Chamber. He has changed his position and perhaps there is still time for him to cross the Floor before he leaves the House at the end of this Parliament.
    Those measures provide practical positive help to unemployed people. This year, I have set the Employment Service the task of placing 1·3 million people in jobs—5,000 every working day—and it is achieving that target.
    What is the Opposition's attitude towards job creation? They support a whole range of policies, the inevitable result of which would be to make unemployment higher than would otherwise be the case.
    Every Labour Government since 1929 have increased unemployment. Putting Labour in charge of reducing unemployment would be like sending a fire fighter to tackle a blaze with his hoses full of petrol. Their unpicking of our trade union law reforms, which would deliberately make strikes easier, longer and more frequent, their support for every last dot and comma of the European Commission's social action programme, just one directive of which could add £5 billion to the costs of British employers——
    Mr. Blair: For the sake of clarification, could the Secretary of State say whether his position has changed on maternity leave and the pregnant women at work directive of the EC? A few weeks ago, he told us that that would ruin employment opportunities for women. We understand from the Sunday papers that he will not now dissent from it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Howard: The Commission's original proposal on maternity leave would have added £0·5 billion to the costs or either employers or taxpayers in this country. We have been negotiating steadily and patiently—and I hope successfully—to reduce that burden. The attitude that the United Kingdom Government will take to that directive

    213
    will depend upon its final form. We do not yet know what that will be, as the negotiations are continuing. I should like to know whether the Opposition welcome the reduction of that £0·5 billion burden on British employers or taxpayers or whether they regret it and I am happy to give way now to the hon. Member for Sedgefield if he will answer that question.
    Mr. Blair: We do not believe that the proposal would add significantly to costs. We believe that it would be good for work in Britain. As the Secretary of State was never coy about telling us that he opposed the directive, will he tell us—as there is a meeting on Wednesday, I assume that he has made up his mind about whether he will agree to that part of the social charter—whether he has changed his mind or whether the Prime Minister has changed it for him?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have the first idea of what happens at Social Affairs Councils. What happens is that negotiations take place. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman now what my attitude will be at the end of a meeting that is due to take place on Wednesday because the whole purpose of that meeting is for negotiations to take place.
    I am sure that the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's invention of a new doctrine—cost-free pay. He says that he does not accept that the new regulations, which will have the substantial effect of increasing pay, will lead to any costs. The Labour party approaches all economic matters on the basis of the new wonderful world of cost-free pay. That is the world inhabited by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend at least give the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) the benefit of consistency? He says the same thing about a range of measures, including the measures advocated by the Labour party, which would put many part-time women employees out of work.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the kind of consequence to which Labour Members are characteristically blind, as they are blind in their continued support for the national statutory minimum wage.
    Last month, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), perhaps aware—given her shadow portfolio—of the immense damage that the proposal would do to jobs for women, told Channel 4 news that if the minimum wage caused job losses, "We'll look at it". She may wish to look at it, but the shadow Chancellor has made it plain that he will not, telling readers of the Morning Star, the only newspaper to support the minimum wage, that he regards it as
    "an unwavering commitment not open to negotiation."
    I want to put to the hon. Member for Sedgefield some important and fundamental questions relating to his party's attitude to training and I hope that he will do the House the honour of answering them. While the hon. Gentleman has been travelling up and down the country assuring the training and enterprise councils of his support, the hon. Member for Fife, Central, his fellow Front-Bench spokesman on these matters, has been singing a somewhat different tune. He wrote an article in the magazine Training Tomorrow which he entitled,
    214
    unequivocally if rather presumptuously, "Labour's Approach to Tees". I have a copy of the magazine and the hon. Member for Sedgefield may like to read it. Perhaps the first thing that he will tell us is whether his hon. Friend cleared that article with him in advance. Do the views expressed in it represent his views and the views of the whole of his party, or the views of only one part of his Front-Bench team?
    Let us examine the views of the hon. Member for Fife, Central on the subject of TECs. The hon. Gentleman thinks that TECs are a symbol
    "of deep rooted mistakes of political philosophy".
    Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Blair: When the Secretary of State last raised the point in debate in the House, he was told unequivocally by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that he fully supported the TECs. I do not know what the Secretary of State is doing now to an article.
    Mr. Howard: I have never raised the point before. It is a rather recent article in this publication and was drawn to my attention only a week or so ago. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will do the House and the TECs the credit of taking these matters seriously.
    The hon. Member for Fife, Central says that TECs have been set up
    "at breakneck speed with scant regard to the complex and interrelated problems underpinning Britain's skills crisis."
    He says that there are
    "fundamental differences between the Labour party and the Government"
    on
    "the philosophy behind the TEC initiative."
    Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree?
    Mr. Blair indicated assent.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman agrees with that—I am grateful. Does he also agree, then, that the philosophy behind the TECs is, in the words of the hon. Member for Fife, Central,
    "deeply damaging to the long-term need of this country"?
    Those are important questions and I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will deal with them specifically. As he knows, we have given the TECs, at their request, increased flexibilities. The hon. Member for Fife, Central thinks that those flexibilities have produced
    "a distortion of both priorities and policies at local level."
    I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will say whether he agrees with that.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister has now been on his feet for about 40 minutes. During that time more than 100 people outside this place have lost their jobs. My constituents want to know what the Government will do about unemployment. The main employer in Creswell—the pit—has just shut and all the other villages are losing their pits, representing 600 or 700 jobs, yet the Minister just waffles on making jokes. The only thing that the Government know about jobs is how to hand them out to their friends, as in today's announcement that the spouses of three Tory Members will be given spiv jobs in the national health service. In the meantime, millions of people are out there without jobs. Why does not the Minister take his hook with the rest of them?
    Mr. Howard: Labour Front-Bench Members constantly tell us that training is vital in reducing unemployment and helping people to get jobs. That is why it is so important that we should know what the Labour party's policy towards training and unemployment really is.
    The hon. Member for Fife, Central says that TECs cannot be trusted to provide training for people with special needs and that such training should be provided directly by the Department, bypassing TECs entirely. Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree with that? Does he also endorse the view expressed by his hon. Friend that TECs should not have the status of private companies and should be subject to much tighter controls over their expenditure? Does he agree with his hon. Friend that TECs under Labour would
    "not necessarily be the most important part"
    of training policy?
    Those vital questions go to the heart of the future of training. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will now tell us in clear and unequivocal terms whether the views expressed in that article by the hon. Member for Fife, Central are views which he shares or views which he disowns.
    Our education and training policies will ensure that Britain in the 1990s will remain one of the most competitive countries in Europe and the world. During the years ahead, we shall continue to make considerable increases in the number of our young people who attain qualifications at 16, are in education or training at 17, and who enter higher education at 18. We shall expand individual choice and incentives with individual tax relief and with training vouchers. We shall build on the most dynamic training framework in Europe, centred on the training and enterprise councils.
    These policies will make our industries more competitive, our young people better qualified and our economy more dynamic than ever before. They sharply contrast with those of Labour, which will destroy jobs, burden industry and take us back to the failed approaches of the 1960s and 1970s. Our policies will secure victory for us at the next election and a stronger Britain in the years beyond it.
    3.48 pm
    Mr. Tony Blair: When the Secretary of State spoke today, not once did he accept responsibility for the 1 million more people made unemployed since he took office. Not once did he show understanding of the pain and anxiety of the men in their fifties who have been made redundant and who will never work again, of the women who want to return to work but cannot find it, or of the young people whose first taste of adult life will be the dole queue. Not once did he express concern for the thousands of small businesses that are struggling under the burden of high bank charges and interest rates and now going bankrupt in record numbers. Not once did he mention the growing skills deficit between Britain and its competitors or announce any new Government measures to tackle that. In other words, nowhere in his entire speech did the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept either that the Government bear responsibility for creating some of the problems or, more fundamentally, that they at least share responsibility for solving them.
    With 2·5 million people now unemployed—even on the Government's figures—with increases in the numbers out of work in every sector of industry and in every type of
    216
    occupation at the workplace, the Queen's speech should have had at its core measures to reduce unemployment. Instead, the text of that speech did not mention unemployment once. If the Government really believed that they had something to offer the country on unemployment or anything else, we would not have had a Queen's Speech but a general election campaign.
    The price for unemployment is paid in the families that lose their breadwinners and now live in poverty. It is paid by those whose homes are now repossessed in record numbers when the mortgage can no longer be afforded. The price is paid in the stress and mental anguish caused by ever greater numbers of people chasing ever fewer jobs. However, that cost is paid not only by those people, but by the whole nation, financially as well as morally.
    In terms of benefits paid and taxes lost, unemployment now costs the country some £20 billion a year—£1,000 for every taxpayer in Britain. Unemployment now affects every part of Britain, not just London and the south-east where unemployment has risen by 360,000 and where business failures are up by more than 60 per cent. In the south-west, there are now 89,000 more unemployed, and business failures are up 90 per cent. In the midlands, 125,000 more people have been put out of work. In the north, unemployment is up by 30,000 and business failures are up by 50 per cent. In Wales unemployment has increased by 37,000, and in Scotland it has increased by 30,000. Yet still we have had no response from the Government.
    Mr. Graham Riddick: Inward investment creates jobs. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to condemn the Trades Union Congress for describing Japanese inward investment as alien?
    Mr. Blair: As I said when I was asked that question before, we fully support inward investment in this country. What is more, the single biggest inward investment project from Japan is situated in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). It was brought there with the full participation of the local Labour councils.
    Mr. Ray Powell: It is surprising to find that there is opposition to inward investment in this country, particularly by the Japanese. However, my constituency benefited from the establishment of a Sony factory, and that happened under a Labour Government in 1974.
    Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right, and that practice has been replicated around the country. What is most worrying——
    Mr. Howard: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's protestations and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), why will the hon. Gentleman not respond directly to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and condemn the TUC?
    Mr. Blair: I have made it absolutely clear that we support inward investment, and I have told the House about the biggest inward investment project that was supported by Labour councils.
    What is most worrying is the sharp rise in youth unemployment. In the south-east, it has almost tripled, so that there are now 95,000 young people unemployed——
    Mr. Batiste rose——
    Mr. Tim Janman rose——
    Mr. Blair: I shall give way in a moment.
    In the south-west, youth unemployment has doubled, as it has in London. In the north, it has increased by 32 per cent., in Wales by 52 per cent. and in the midlands by 70 per cent. In Britain as a whole, almost 300,000 more young people have been made unemployed since this recession began—720,000 in the nation. That is what should have concerned Ministers when it came to the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Batiste rose——
    Mr. Janman rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not quite sure to whom the hon. Gentleman is giving way.
    Mr. Blair: There are so many of them, Mr. Speaker—it is nice of them to give me a choice. I give way first to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)
    Mr. Batiste: If the hon. Gentleman could be persuaded that a statutory minimum wage would significantly increase unemployment, would he withdraw his support from it and oppose the relevant aspects of the social charter?
    Mr. Blair: It will not—[Laughter.] As I shall inform the hon. Gentleman later, the Opposition do not believe that poverty pay is the answer to rising unemployment.
    Mr. Janman: Germany and France have much higher youth unemployment than we do. Most independent experts ascribe that to the existence of a minimum wage in those countries, so why does the hon. Gentleman wish to bring the thing to Britain?
    Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have been asked a question and then I am shouted at when I try to give answers. Youth unemployment in Germany is below ours, and a recent OECD study showed that the minimum wage did not have the impact that the hon. Gentleman describes.
    We would expect that, as unemployment rises in the regions, regional aid would be sustained; that, as more young people face unemployment, expenditure on youth training would be maintained; that, as the adult dole queues lengthen, so would the urgency of the Government's response increase. Instead, regional aid in Great Britain has been cut by £1 billion: Scotland has lost more than £200 million a year, Wales £180 million, the north-west £220 million and the north more than £200 million—despite high levels of unemployment. The Government are refusing even to back the idea of a northern development agency, an idea now supported by the CBI as well as by others in the region.
    Mr. Howard: I see that the shadow Chancellor is sitting just three places away from the hon. Gentleman. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House and the nation that his party will increase expenditure on regional aid? Is that one of his party's spending priorities? If it is not, why is he wasting the time of the House by prattling on about it?
    Mr. Blair: We would not have cut regional aid as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has and as the Government have every year in the past 12 years. Not only have they cut regional aid, but youth training has been cut, in the past four years, by £420 million in real terms. As unemployment has risen, there has not been a single
    218
    initiative, new policy or fresh idea, except employment action, which, after 18 months of recession had not until a few weeks ago created a single job and which is due to be wound down after the election. At its peak, the scheme will employ up to 30,000 people—50 in every constituency, some of which have unemployment totals of 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 to deal with. That is not the best of employment action: it is the worst of unemployment inaction.
    Not only have the Government given up on the prospect of anything new to help the unemployed but they are even undermining the little that is already in place. The Secretary of State said today that the guarantees to young people and the unemployed were being met in full, and that there was no difficulty. He said that in answer to me, to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment.
    Mr. Howard: I did not say that there was no difficulty. We must be realistic about this. Of course in a recession it is more difficult to secure employer placements for youth training than it would be in a different economic context. What I said—I repeat it—was that the Government are committed to this guarantee, and that the guarantee will be met by the Devon and Cornwall training and enterprise council mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and by every other training and enterprise council in the country.
    Mr. Blair: I am not sure whether that was an admission or not. In the House about 10 days ago, when challenged by me and by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
    "On the subject of training guarantees, we are delivering and are committed to those guarantees."
    He went on to say:
    "Those guarantees are being delivered."—[Official Report, 22 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 1782–84.]
    We have the answers from the TECs to the letter sent out by the Employment Select Committee on whether those guarantees are being met. There are 70 of them; they were in the Library for seven or eight days before the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his categorical statement that the Government were delivering on the guarantees to young people and the unemployed. I should like to know whether he knew about those letters before he gave us the undertaking.
    Mr. Howard indicated assent.
    Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State did know. For the sake of the House, let me compare what he said with reality. He told us that the Government were committed to and were delivering the training guarantees. I shall read out a small sample of those letters. Milton Keynes and North Bucks TEC stated:
    "The short response to the question of meeting the YT guarantee is NO."
    Northamptonshire TEC stated:
    "It became clear to us in the early summer that we would not be fulfilling our YT guarantee."
    Calderdale TEC stated:
    "I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the serious problems in meeting the YT guarantee."
    CENTEC stated:
    "I know that we are not alone in our concern about our ability to meet the ET and YT guarantees, given current levels of funding."
    Central England TEC stated:
    "In budgetary terms we, in common with all TECs, maintain that, if we are forced to continue with the present

    219
    system, funding must be commensurate with the Government's guarantee. This has not been the case so far … with several results. a. Government credibility has been severely tarnished."
    South Thames TEC stated:
    "I would argue that YT in London is underfunded. I do not believe we are fulfilling the YT guarantee."
    Lincolnshire TEC stated:
    "We have had to reduce provision to 900 places."
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Blair: Just a moment. Let me read out what the chief executive of Staffordshire TEC wrote. These are all replies that the Secretary of State has accepted he had in his possession before making that statement. The chief executive said:
    "Since my assumption of the appointment of Chief Executive of Staffordshire TEC in May an inordinate amount of time has been spent discussing with TEED"—
    that is the training part of the Department of
    Employment—
    "ways to resolve a range of problems relating to our meeting of aim and guarantee obligations in both the ET and YT programmes."
    Manchester TEC stated:
    "2,000 people in the guarantee group are waiting a place."
    How does the Secretary of State square those facts with his statement?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to intervene. The answer is quite simply that those letters are out of date. The facts of the matter, if the hon. Gentleman is interested in the facts, are that officials in my Department have been examining with every TEC in the country the position in relation to the youth training guarantee, what that TEC needs to deliver the guarantee and whether it needs extra resources to deliver the guarantee. We have reached agreement with 78 of the 82 TECs that they have what they need to deliver the youth training guarantee. The hon. Gentleman has had his fun reading out those letters, but they are out of date. The youth training guarantee will be delivered.
    Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said weeks ago that the guarantee was being delivered. Before any resolution of this problem, let me tell him that the letter, for example, from Milton Keynes TEC is dated 11 October—a few days before he raised the matter—and another is dated 17 October.
    The National Association of Information Technology Centres in a letter dated 22 October—the day that the Secretary of State spoke—states:
    "Although we have suffered steady funding reductions before the introduction of the TECs, under the new policies ITECs as a whole have suffered two successive years of swingeing cuts. The majority of ITEC closures have taken place over these last 18 months. 20 have closed as real TECs."
    How can the Secretary of State tell us that this problem has been resolved when TECs are saying that they are having to close their centres as a result of these funding cuts?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to mislead the House. He knows perfectly well that the last letter that he read out is not from a TEC. It is not from a body that has responsibility for delivering the youth training guarantee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not taking the view that there must never ever be any adjustment affecting any single training provider. The TECs have responsibility for deciding which training provider can provide training most efficiently and
    220
    cost-effectively. The TECs have the resources they need to deliver the youth training guarantee. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse the matter by referring to a document that does not even come from a TEC.
    Mr. Blair: It is not me who is trying to mislead the House. I accept that the ITECs are not TECs. I have said what they are. However, they are funded directly through the TECs and they were saying, on the day that the Secretary of State denied that there was any problem, that these guarantees were not being met. The Secretary of State has said for weeks, not merely today, that the guarantees have been met. He did not say three weeks ago that there were major problems but he hoped to be able to resolve them. He said that they were resolved then, but they were not.
    Furthermore, the figures reveal that between March and June this year, 45,000 people dropped off Government training programmes. The only explanation for that, as we forecast at the time, is Government cuts in funding. For months, we warned that, as a result of the cuts, unemployed young people would suffer. We were right, and that has happened. The Secretary of State has nothing of substance to say on the chief concern of the present and nothing new on the major issue of the future.
    We were told today that all is well in training, that nothing more needs to be done and that we are on course. Let us examine that claim.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blair: No, I have to get on.
    It is true that many employers are taking training more seriously, and I welcome that. It is also true that the numbers receiving training have increased from where they were and that many of the TECs are embarking on valuable initiatives. My criticism arises not when the Secretary of State says that more employers are training but when he refuses to acknowledge the gulf that remains between where we are and where we need to be in order to compete successfully—in other words, the difference between the absolute level of training in Britain and the still enormous gap between training in Britain and that in our main competitors.
    The Secretary of State based his argument primarily on the training statistics recently published by the Training Agency. It is true that, since 1984, there has been an increase in the number of those receiving training. The Secretary of State called it an 85 per cent. increase. The figures are a rise from 9 to 15 per cent. of the work force. I understand how that can be described as an 85 per cent. rise, but such a description is slightly misleading. Only one quarter of the 16 to 19-year-olds and one fifth of the 20 to 24-year-olds are receiving training.
    The number of young people in education and training, even comparing our 1989 position with that of our competitors in 1986 is less in Britain than in any other OECD country except Spain. The numbers on YT have been falling. Half of all 16 to 19-year-olds are neither in full-time education nor on YTS. They are unemployed, in employment with training or in employment without it, but our previous estimate that over 100,000 young people leave school every year and go into work without training is probably an underestimate. There may well be more.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is it not the case that, in a large number of our competitor countries, the statistics show that many young people entering education drop out of it again very swiftly? The number of young people who complete the education courses to which they submit themselves is much lower than it is here. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman's statistics to mislead us.
    Mr. Blair: I do not think that that is right. At virtually every stage we are behind our main competitors.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am all in favour of the use of international comparisons to exhort us to do better, but they must not be taken to a ludicrous extent. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, of our 16-year-olds, 60 per cent. stay on in full-time education and training and about 30 per cent. stay on in part-time education and training? The figures that the hon. Gentleman has just used do not compare like with like, and are so highly selective that they are ludicrous. Not only is the position much better than it was before the Government took over, but it is not true that we lag as far behind our European competitors as he claims.
    Mr. Blair: I am informed that the figures that were pulished by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department in July show that we lag behind our main competitors. Fewer than half those on employment training obtain a job after completing the course. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that more firms are spending on training, but what is the position in manufacturing industry? The figures were published by the Department last week. It is true that, in this recession, some categories of firms still plan to spend more, but there has been dramatic shrinkage over the past couple of years. Among large firms that employ more than 5,000, there is now a negative balance of over 20 per cent. of those who want to spend more rather than less.
    Even worse, as again the Department's survey shows, we suffer vast skill shortages even at a time of recession and rising unemployment. With skill shortages of up to 40 per cent. in some of our manufacturing and technology sectors, there are no grounds for the complacency that the Secretary of State exhibited today. If he reads the most authoritative study of comparisons of vocational training, which was published only last week, he will find that there are poor comparisons with Japan and Germany and even with some aspects of the training system in Hong Kong. He will find that the gap between vocational qualifications for young people in Germany and in England has been widening over the past few years.
    Mr. Howard: Where is that from?
    Mr. Blair: I refer to Professor Rose's study. I shall read exactly what it states in that connection, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us whether he agrees or disagrees with it. The passage reads:
    "If all that one were to concentrate upon were trends within Britain, it would be possible to regard present achievements as encouraging for the number of unqualified persons is falling rapidly. Whereas 63 per cent. of older British workers have neither an academic nor a vocational qualification, only 35 per cent. of younger Britains are without either qualification. But comparison shows a very different picture. The vocational qualifications gap between younger Germans and younger Britains is actually greater than in the older generation."
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Did the hon. Gentleman read the recent study which was published by the Anglo-German Foundation, in which people from both countries tried to compare the preparedness of young people in Britain and in Germany for work and found that the British cohort was better prepared for employment and better trained for it than its German equivalent?
    Mr. Blair: I refrained from correcting the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking. I have, however, the study to which he referred. I shall read a passage to show what a biased account he has given. It states:
    "Good YTS training is probably as good as that on offer in a comparable scheme in Germany. Bad YTS training, because of its lack of regulation and paucity of education content, is probably much worse. Such behaviour gives a clear signal that in Britain training is not accorded anything resembling the status that it enjoys in Germany."
    Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having the study. It is a large tome and he has flagged only one passage, which he has quoted, which is a criticism of only one part of YTS. It is the conclusion of the study to which I drew his attention. It deals with overall policy and the overall education and training of our young people. He will know that the conclusion is the one to which I referred.
    Mr. Blair: I am sure that we shall be able to enter into interesting correspondence. It is rather odd to suggest that such—[Interruption] With all due respect, I think that I should get on.
    Faced with the twin evils of the waste of those who are unemployed and the poor education of those who are in employment, surely the Secretary of State for Employment should act and announce not employment action but a proper work creation programme in which people will be paid on a rate-for-the-job basis. Secondly, he should ensure that all young people who leave school are employed with a training contract that guarantees high-quality training for them. The scandal of hundreds of thousands of young people leaving school and going into work without any training would be unthinkable abroad and it should be stopped here.
    Thirdly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should adopt our proposal for a minimum training investment contribution to be made by all companies. He should drop the absurd notion, which is still the declared policy of the Government, that the system of national qualifications should be self-financing without Government support. Fourthly, he should provide the funding necessary to meet in full the Government's guarantees to young people and the unemployed. He should accept our proposal for a programme targeted on the unskilled——
    Mr. Howard: Which of the spending commitments that the hon. Gentleman has just identified are among the priorities identified by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor?
    Mr. Blair: That is all set out in our Budget submissions, and I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that every time we have a debate. Every one of those suggestions, could be implemented, but none has been. If the Government were serious about meeting the long-term challenges facing this country, rather than being engaged in short-term tricks to get them through the election, in the

    223
    autumn statement they would rule out tax cuts until the problems with health, education, training and transport had been properly resolved.
    What did we hear today? We heard nothing new and nothing positive. We heard an attack on the social charter, which all other EC countries have agreed upon. If the Government continue with their narrow, blinkered and isolationist attacks on the European Community out of fear of their own right wing, so that we are excluded from effective participation in Europe, the only losers in the long term will be Britain and the British people.
    Of course, we also heard the usual attack on the minimum wage. So successful has the Secretary of State been on that subject, that six months after he began his campaign, the most recent opinion poll evidence shows that even 70 per cent. of Tory voters are now in favour of a minimum wage. The problem with the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he is immensely persistent, but not always persuasive, and I can tell him why. It is not just because the British people have a basic sense of fairness, it is because of the contrast between the Government's failure to defend those on miserable rates of pay and their failure to act on privatised boardrooms awarding themselves exorbitant increases.
    Let us compare and contrast the Government's behaviour. What did they do when British Telecom announced a £64,000 rise for Mr. lain Valiance? They did nothing. What did they do when National Power announced a £150,000 rise for Mr. John Baker? They did nothing. What did they do when Scottish Hydro-Electric announced a rise of almost £100,000 for its chairman? They did nothing. What did they do about the £25,000 rise for the chairman of Thames Water, the £12,000 rise for the chairman of Welsh Water, the £30,000 rise for the chairman of Wessex Water or the £20,000 for the chairman of Anglia Water? They did nothing. However, when it comes to the hairdresser on £1·50 an hour, the cleaner on £2 an hour or the porter on £2·50 an hour, the Government will fight to the finish against a decent living wage.
    During the current by-election campaign for the Langbaurgh constituency, we noted an advertisement in Guisborough jobcentre for a security guard at £2 an hour—"must supply own dog". That is what Conservative Members are defending when they attack our proposals. After the general election, those Tory Members who have lost their seats could apply to be that security guard, or even to do a job share with the dog.
    Is it not strange that those at the top, the highest paid, require share options, five-year contracts, golden handcuffs, golden handshakes and golden goodbyes—all the stimuli of greater prosperity—while the broad mass of people require only the spur of poverty? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the choice between the parties could not be clearer. It is between the low-wage, low-tech, low-skill economy favoured by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the high-wage, high-tech, high-skill economy favoured by the Opposition. It is between a labour market that changes through deregulation and fear under the Conservative party, and a labour market that adapts through education and confidence under the Labour party.
    In the Prime Minister's speech to the Tory party conference, in trying to set out his vision of Britain he dealt with the freedom and choice of people at work. What did he say? Did he promise freedom from unemployment,
    224
    from poor training, from arbitrary management, from exploitation or from low pay? He did not. He said that freedom was
    "freedom from the destructive dictatorship of union militancy."
    Twelve years after the Government said that they had solved all those problems, and 12 years after which unions in Britain have fewer freedoms than practically anywhere else in the western world, the Government still blame anyone and everyone for Britain's problems—but now there is no one to blame but themselves.
    If the Government had confidence in their vision, we would not be in the third day of a debate on a Queen's Speech from a Government who have nothing left to do, but in the third day of a general election campaign to change the government of this country.
    The Government attack the minimum wage because they have no answer to unemployment. They attack trade unions because they have no policies to beat the skills gap. They attack the social charter because they have nothing positive to offer the Europe of the 1990s.
    After this debate, with each day that passes, the Government resemble more closely the Opposition that they will become. They should make good use of the next few months to learn the art of opposition, because after the next general election, they will need it.
    4.20 pm
    Mr. Keith Speed: I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will forgive me if I do not follow the line that he pursued, except that I note from his penultimate remarks that a future Labour Government would reintroduce the concept of prices and incomes control legislation. Many people will find that particularly interesting. Such a policy did not work before, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it would not work in future.
    I warmly welcome the provisions in the Gracious Speech, which shows that the Government's programme is by no means running out of steam. There is still much to do, and the Government are doing it. The citizens charter is a fine new concept. I welcome the provision of rights and remedies for customers of various utilities, both private and public. However, rights should be matched by responsibilities and duties. The Government have specific duties, and they ought not to shirk them.
    I make no apology for referring in today's employment and education debate to a topic that, although it does not fall directly into either of those categories, has considerable implications for employment and the quality of life.
    I hope that the transport proposals in the Gracious Speech, and those about which we will hear in a couple of days, in my right hon. Friend's autumn statement, will address what I and others consider to be a wrong policy and priority, in terms of parts of our infrastructure investment programme. I refer particularly to public transport and specifically to rail investment.
    I declare an interest as a parliamentary consultant to the InterCity division of British Rail, but that has no relevance to the remarks that I shall make, and I have not discussed them with anyone at British Rail.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) knows, the Dartford bridge project was completed on time and to budget. It is a key part of the M25 orbital system around London, and has considerably increased its capacity at a major pinch point. The Dartford tunnel was

    225
    partly financed by low-interest European loans, and Eurotunnel is certainly running to schedule, if not to budget—although many of its budget increases are the result of the public sectors, in their various forms in both England and France, hindering that project.
    I give those examples—there are many others—to show that private money, or a combination of private and public money, can be and is being used effectively in important infrastructure projects, so that they can be completed in a timely way and we may all benefit from them.
    When it comes to rail investment, we are in a different situation. The Government and Treasury policy is that finance must be provided in one of a number of different ways, including by direct grant from the Treasury—and every spending Department knows how difficult it is to obtain such grants—by tightly controlled Treasury external financing limits, by revenues from customers—that means extremely high fares and charges for goods and freight—or, finally, by capital help through the sale of surplus property assets.
    In a recession, revenue does not flow in so freely, or to such a large extent, for passengers or goods. We find that the screw has been tightened by the Treasury—the external financial limits are certainly being restricted; we also find that the value of property is depressed, even if that property can be sold, so the money will not be available from that source, either. None the less, new wagons, track, infrastructure and locomotives are needed. In fact, if the best value for money is to be obtained we need reasonably uninterrupted production lines, rather than stop-go ordering of railway equipment.
    When the country emerges from recession—as it is doing now—the screws may be loosened from rail investment, but the expense will then be greater, and the railways will have to compete with many other concerns as industrial expansion gets under way.
    What is the solution? If a project meets the tight financial criteria of both British Rail and the Treasury—basically, a 9 per cent. rate of return in real terms—I think that the railway authorities should be able to borrow commercially from the United Kingdom, from Europe or, indeed, from anywhere else in the world that will lend them money. Alternatively, they should be able to enter into leasing arrangements for specific items of equipment: I am thinking especially of rolling stock—trucks and locomotives. Airlines and shipping, car and lorry companies have been doing that for many years.
    The security for leasing arrangements can be provided either by the equipment itself, or—as with financial borrowing—by the various capital properties invested in railway and other transport undertakings. This could apply, for instance, to projects involving freight stock for the channel tunnel and the current transformation in rail freight arrangements. The economic implications are considerable. The largest United Kingdom freight wagon manufacturer, Powell Duffryn, which has plants in various parts of the United Kingdom, has just announced a major redundancy programme at its factories in Cardiff and Heywood, Iancashire, because of the lack of, and delay in, orders for its advanced high-technology wagons.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to British Rail Engineering Ltd., which has had precisely the same problem? BREL now suspects that political
    226
    blocks are being placed in its way within British Rail management. It is perfectly capable of producing new rolling stock, but it is not being given the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Speed: I was going to mention BREL in connection with the manufacture of passenger wagons. There may be something in what the hon. Lady says; however, I do not wish to become involved in the inner politics of British Rail. My point is that, if items of equipment that are needed and can pay their way—such items would certainly be of considerable use to both passenger and goods companies—could be provided now, employment prospects would be much improved in BREL, Powell Duffryn and the rest of the rail industry.
    The Networker train is very relevant to the comments made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is needed to replace 35-year-old stock; it can pay its way financially, producing a positive rate of return; successive Transport Ministers have made commitments to the Networker 471 in Kent; and there is no doubt that it could substantially improve the finances of Network SouthEast, and the quality of life for my constituents and many others throughout the region.
    The Heathrow rail link project has been going backwards and forwards for a long time. In the meantime, in competitive international terms Heathrow is falling behind Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt, where huge investment is being made in airport infrastructure. Another example is British Rail's major upgrading of the west coast main line. A parochial point is that Ashford international station, which is vital to the future of the channel tunnel when it opens, is located in my constituency. Financially, it more than pays its way, yet it is caught up in this awful catch-22 when it comes to investment in the railways.
    I stress that I am not asking for, and that I do not believe in, subsidies for these and many other schemes that are economically viable. If, however, the private sector where to be involved in the financing of such projects, there would be benefits to the operator and the supplier, whether it be British Rail Engineering Ltd., Powell Duffryn, or Westinghouse. Customers would be able to enjoy the benefits of such investment very quickly, instead of having to wait for a very long time. For example, the Networker is expected to be operational by 1995 at the earliest, but it may not be operational for some considerable time after that. By then, the rolling stock on the relevant lines will be over 40 years old. I am afraid that life does not being at 40 for Network SouthEast's rolling stock.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: My hon. Friend refers to the Networker rolling stock. It is not necessary to differentiate between the supply of rolling stock coming on stream later this year for the north Kent loop line and the rolling stock needed elsewhere? We should congratulate both the Government and British Rail on the supply of new rolling stock on the north Kent and Dartford loop lines, which will make a great deal of difference to the users of those lines.
    Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend is right, but that is the Networker 465, not the Networker 471. The Networker 471 travels longer distances down the Kent coastline. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the people of north Kent. However, if there had been a proper investment

    227
    regime along the lines that I have postulated, there could have been a smooth flow from the Networker 465 to the Networker 471. British Rail told me some time ago, as did the Minister, that we could have had these vehicles in position and providing a much better quality of journey for passengers in 1993. Now it is to be 1995, or beyond. No one in British Rail or the Department of Transport can tell me when it will be operational. People may even be laid off production lines and then laid on again when production starts for the new Networker 471. That would be total nonsense, and extremely expensive.
    I hope that we can make this fundamental change. It has both employment and infrastructure connotations. A more efficient passenger and freight transport system will be better for Britain's economic future. It would bring us more into line with what our European Community partners are doing. This form of rail project financing has been adopted by them for many years. Such a change would not bring about an apocalyptic crisis of economic confidence. The Treasury would not like it, but since 1945 the Treasury's track record on transport projects makes me believe that, if it is against a project, that project merits serious consideration.
    The Gracious Speech referred to measures that would be taken to prepare for the privatisation of British Rail. In his party conference speech at Blackpool, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport referred to the initiatives that could be taken between now and the election to prepare for the privatisation of British Rail. This would be an excellent way of doing both. It would ensure that investment projects were coming forward, that employment was being generated and that a better quality of service was being provided for British Rail customers. Apart from making economic sense, it would be politically popular.
    I hope that those who sit on the Treasury Bench will grasp this nettle and ensure that, at long last, there is an investment regime for our transport industries that is up to date and that can compete with what is happening in the rest of the Community.
    4.34 pm
    Mr. Michael Foot: I happily concur with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) about the general conduct of the Treasury. It seemed that his remarks commanded the assent of the whole House. I hope that his message will be properly conveyed to those concerned.
    I should like to join in the debate on employment, but so little is left of the Minister after he has been torn apart by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—I have witnessed a few such occasions—that it is almost an act of sadism for anybody else to join in. My hon. Friend, with his customary fairness, included the Secretary of State for Education and Science in his attacks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman retired severely hurt after two interventions, so I do not suppose he will try to intervene again today. He showed considerable courage by intervening a second time after he had been flattened only a few minutes previously.
    I hope that the House will permit me to make a few comments on the subject that was discussed last Friday. If I had been present, I would have sought to raise the subject of Yugoslavia. The events on the Yugoslav coastline, which I know fairly well, are deeply tragic for the people
    228
    who live there and for all the peoples of the area. However, the British Government and other Governments that are concerned have not yet done anything like enough to try to deal with the problem. I hope that they hear the representations that are being made by myself and others.
    When events began some months ago, it was clear that the real aggressors were the Serbian authorities in the Army and the Government, who had almost 98 per cent. of the military strength on their side. I am not saying that there was no provocation from the Croatians, but when the assaults were launched, everybody in the area knew that the overwhelming military force was in the hands of the Serbian authorities. The world therefore should have warned them of the consequences of unleashing those mammoth attacks. There are no Serbian enclaves along that coastline and there are no Serbians hiding or seeking protection in Dubrovnik or Cavtat, which was almost destroyed the other day.
    We are witnessing an act of barbarism on a horrific scale—the worst since the second world war. Not only are innocent people being killed by an overwhelming military force being let loose against them, but the Serbs are seeking to grab territories and areas by acts of aggression. If they hang on to those areas, it will reflect disgracefully on the whole world.
    In the light of those terrible developments, the Government and some European Governments have sought to intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) put the case for such intervention more forcefully than the Government have.
    When we reach the deadline next Tuesday or Wednesday, I hope that the full authority of the British Government will be thrown behind those who have resisted the aggression, and that they will not reward the aggressors. If that were to happen, the consequences not merely for Yugoslavia but the world at large would be serious. I have many friends from different parts of Yugoslavia—Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. What is happening there is a tragedy of the first order: I do not believe that the House or the country has yet seen its true nature. Action must be taken. I am sure that Lord Carrington is aware of most of the facts that I have recited and that he is seeking to ensure that the members of the European Community rally together. I just wanted to spend a few minutes underlining my views.
    Conservative party spokesmen have fiercely denounced international employment arrangements, but they hold a short-sighted view. I suppose that I am one of the few Members of Parliament who remembers one of the ways in which decent Governments in the 1930s wanted to secure new approaches to deal with unemployment and to provide better conditions in the workplace. International action was needed, and that was largely why the International Labour Organisation was set up.
    One aspect that inhibited intelligent action to deal with unemployment and workers' problems was the lack of international machinery. It was thought that a Government who wanted to deal separately with a problem would have no chance of succeeding, because their actions would be sabotaged by other countries that were not willing to join in.
    I should have thought that any Government who seriously wanted to improve working conditions or to deal with the worldwide unemployment problem would welcome international action. Instead, whenever the Secretary of State for Employment opens his mouth, he

    229
    tries to sabotage any plan—great or small—to deal with the problem. I am proud of the fact that, when I was Secretary of State for Employment, I introduced legislation to provide maternity leave—I was probably the first Minister in this country's history to do so. One of the first mean-minded actions of the Conservative Government in 1979 and 1980 was to diminish the effect of the maternity leave provisions that we had introduced, even those that were not far reaching. Our measures were just the beginning of reasonable, intelligent, humane legislation.
    The Government object to extending maternity leave legislation. I do not know which countries have a worse or better record than Britain, but in the main this country lags behind most other western European countries in introducing such legislation.
    Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. We shall see. He is not always right in these matters.
    If we are not lagging behind, why do we not lead the way, as we started to do under the Labour Government? Some countries are now well ahead of us. We should try to catch up. If the Government are so mean-minded as to think that we do not need modern legislation to provide proper maternity leave, that is a shameful state of affairs, particularly as they said recently that they were in favour of doing something for women. However, I saw no reference in the Prime Minister's statement the other day to this latest mean-minded approach.
    Many of us—not only in the Labour party but throughout Europe—believe that shorter working hours may help to deal with long-term unemployment. Good employers in this country are eager to have shorter hours. Indeed, most of the best employers have always been ready to discuss such measures and many have discovered that, if there is decent control over working hours, they will get a much better response from their workers.
    I believe that the Government are even contemplating doing away with the restrictions on miners' working hours. We shall tear the Government apart on that plan, just as on everything else. I do not know whether they dare go ahead. Miners led the way in calling for a shorter working week. The limit on miners' hours was one of the great triumphs of legislation secured by the trade union movement. As engineers and others know, similar rules and similarly intelligent provisions apply to other trades.
    Are the Government seriously saying that it is a good idea not to have such an agreement on working hours? If it is a good idea to have some agreements, most of the arguments that the Secretary of State for Employment constantly uses about the minimum wage are blown out of the water. His first lot of figures were torn to tatters by Mr. Peter Kellner in an article in The Independent Many hon. Members will have read that article and I am sure that I have advertised it well for those who did not. I plead with hon. Members to read the article and the reply by the Secretary of State, which virtually confirms Mr. Kellner's case. The Secretary of State seems to think that the purpose of the debate is to extract apologies. He would
    230
    have to apologise non-stop if he had to tell the House the truth about the minimum wage, rather than distorting the argument as he goes around the country.
    Unemployment is a worldwide problem. One way to deal with part of the problem is to have policies in Europe and further afield, including regional policies. The Secretary of State taunted the Opposition, asking whether we had any plans for the money that was to be allocated to restore regional policies. I believe that such policies should be promoted over the proper period. I come from an area where unemployment problems were grossly intensified by the Government's removing almost every regional advantage that it ever had.
    The Secretary of State does not seem to understand some of the main policies which were built up by the Labour Government after 1945—regional policies that made comparative advantages possible for the most heavily hit areas in Scotland, Wales and the north-east. The Labour Government introduced effective regional policies which played a major part in ensuring the full employment that generally existed in the country between 1945 and 1970. Without such policies, maintaining full employment would have been inconceivable. Those policies were generally sustained until the first of the great recessions for which the Conservative Government have been responsible.
    The Government started to remove regional policies that had worked effectively. They distributed some of the money in income tax reductions, but, whatever they did with it, they took huge sums from areas which had received funds before. Each time they did so in Wales, we put the case to the relevant Secretary of State for Employment. Each of them said, "You'll find our new regional policy will be just as good as the one you had. We know what we're doing. Don't worry too much." What happened? The bitter, harsh experience is that 12 per cent. unemployment has been translated to 14 or 15 per cent. and male unemployment is again back to more than 20 per cent.
    Not only are we afflicted by the general atmosphere of the Government's economic policy, but we are being hit even more by the way in which the Government are withdrawing any sensible regional policies.
    When the Secretary of State charges our Front-Bench spokesmen, asking what amount of money we will devote to regional policy, I hope that he will get an answer from a Government in power who understand that it is essential for the well-being of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales, the north-east and the rest, that a full-scale regional policy be properly restored.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will never again jeer about that as he has done today. If he thinks that this is prejudice, he need only read the front page of the Western Mail today. It used to be called the "Conservative Party Advertiser" but it is not quite like that now—the party does not have much to advertise. In an article headlined "Factories lying idle" it states:
    "More than 1,000 factories are now lying idle across Wales as massive amounts of industrial space fall vacant every week, it has been revealed.
    In go-ahead Gwent"—
    that is my county, which is go-ahead, as we seek every advantage in trying to assist our people and to provide jobs—
    "alone there are more than 400 units waiting for occupation, and top of the list in the county which has attracted more businesses than most is an 80,000 sq ft. building in Tredegar."

    231
    Tredegar is in my constituency, but there are 400 units vacant throughout Gwent.
    I am not sure whether the Secretary of State voted against the programme that we wisely introduced—the Welsh Development Agency—but I think that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is sitting beside him, must have voted against it. He remembers everything in his past so well. Indeed, I had a debate with him in Oxford the other day when he thought that he had invented the national health service. We had to put him right about such simple historical facts and I hope that, he will have the chance to correct that.
    That Government have not invented any good regional policies. All that they have done is demolish the good policies that we introduced. I hope that, when we get that new Labour Government, a regional policy will be one of the major measures introduced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who will be Chancellor of the Exchequer, knows about these matters very well, because he has spoken about them. I am sure that one of the ways in which we can tackle deep-seated mass unemployment is through an intelligent regional policy.
    Mr. Janman: I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but throughout modern economic history, when any Government have sought to misdirect national resources in a manner that goes completely against the grain of the marketplace, has not the result of such a regional policy been exactly the opposite to what the right hon. Gentleman has sought to achieve? There is no better example than the fact that every Labour Government since the war have increased unemployment.
    Mr. Foot: I am glad to be able to enlighten the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), especially when he talks in terms of what has happened to the numbers of unemployed during Labour Governments. There has never been a Labour Government who have had to face unemployment on this scale. Never in the history of recorded figures have a Labour Government tolerated unemployment on this scale, whether in the United Kingdom as a whole or in Wales, Scotland or anywhere else. So I hope that that lie will never be preached again.
    The hon. Member for Thurrock asked whether I did not know that if one took economic resources from one area and instilled them into others that was merely a way of upsetting the ordinary economic mechanism and that it did not result in any advances. The last time that I heard that argument so brazenly presented was by Mr. Neville Chamberlain's spokesman before the war. That is what they said in the 1930s. They said that one could not solve unemployment on such a scale and that if one invested £1 million in one area, having taken it away from profitable Birmingham or wherever, it would leave us worse off in the end. It is partly because of that false economics that the Conservatives have never had a regional policy. That policy does not work and if one applies it in that way one can only deepen slumps—just as the Government are doing now.
    Every time the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to reaffirm that laissez-faire doctrine, about 100,000 people are added to the unemployment figures.
    We can deal with mass unemployment on this scale only if we have a Government who are determined to do so, and
    232
    we can deal with it better if, internationally, Governments are determined to do so. I hope a new Labour Government will not only apply those policies but will lead the rest of Europe instead of squabbling behind them or relinquishing the whole of the case. We have the chance to do that.
    The idea that one cannot do anything about unemployment is the real gospel of despair. This country is not prepared to accept the gospel of despair in mass unemployment, which is returning on such a scale today.
    4.56 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am always interested to listen to the long-extending memory of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). His memory goes back further than I could possibly hope to remember.
    I was interested in his reiteration of the value of regional policies, because the criteria on which such a policy would be administered is of interest to one who comes from a county which is probably being hit by a more rapidly rising rate of unemployment than almost anywhere else. One must ask whether, in those circumstances, if a regional policy of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind were in place Kent would be a prime recipient of assistance.
    Such questions have become much harder to answer as a consequence of the Government's astonishing success in closing the north-south divide, which was thought to be wholly irremediable when they came to office. The Government have seen an increase in prosperity throughout the United Kingdom and a sharing of both good times and bad.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of male unemployment in Glasgow is 20 per cent.? What is it in his constituency?
    Mr. Rowe: The rate of unemployment in Glasgow has been very high for a long time, and I accept that that is unfortunate. However, the truth of the matter is that the Scottish economy is in a better state now than it has been for many years and is continuing to thrive. I realise that it is constantly in the interests of the Opposition to belittle the Government's successes, but that is certainly one. Two things were said when the Government took office. It was said, first, that the country was ungovernable, and secondly, that there was an unbridgeable north-south gap. Neither of those points is true after the years in which we have been in office.
    I especially welcome the sentence in the Queen's Speech which points to the privatisation of British Rail. This is not the occasion for a detailed analysis for the evaluation of the alternative proposals for a high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel. As some hon. Members may know, I have some interest in that subject, and I hope that I shall be able to have an Adjournment debate in which to discuss the process by which we arrived at the present stage of the project. The confusion, the inappropriate pressure by British Rail, the flawed methodology of the evaluation and other defects in the system merit a debate, but that is not appropriate in the context of the Queen's Speech.
    It is essential to draw to the Government's attention the extraordinary misery of some of my constituents who are still in complete confusion about where the route is to go. The changes in alignment which will be necessary to meet

    233
    the new criteria leave those constituents wholly confused and able neither to buy nor sell their properties, or to do anything that they should be able to do.
    It is appropriate to this debate to raise two general points. The first is the need for a serious rail freight strategy. It is incomprehensible to me that I should have gone on Thursday last to a seminar at which the chairman of British Rail, a man for whom I have considerable admiration, was able to tell us that British Rail had great difficulty in competing in the freight market because all that rail freight was really equipped to do was to carry aggregates, heavy metals and traditional Victorian freight cargoes. He must be almost alone in that belief.
    It certainly is not a belief shared by the freight manager of SNCF who is busy setting up and running a freight operation for carrying highly sensitive cargoes, such as chilled foods, at great speed around France. It is not a view shared by the managing director of Charter Rail, a company in which British Rail has a 20 per cent. holding. He told me that he has an operation that would be able to deliver chilled foods to the centre of town at 3 am in time for them to be on the supermarket shelves if only British Rail did not think that it would be more satisfactory to carry gravel. That will not be a tenable position for much longer in any circumstances.
    Switzerland and Austria have insisted on having a major investment project because they believe that their ecology is too sensitive to be battered constantly by heavy lorries. Does any hon. Member seriously believe that Switzerland and Austria will be the only two countries in Europe to take that view about their environment in the next few years?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that the difference is in investment? No one doubts for a moment that British Rail is perfectly capable of running high-quality services. However, at present the freight division is turning in a considerable loss. It is the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports who do not want British Rail to invest.
    Mr. Rowe: I have considerable doubt about British Rail's capacity to run a profitable freight strategy, because it has no interest in doing so. The chairman of British Rail has just said that it is not the kind of operation in which he wants to be. As he said last Thursday, he is willing to have the operation taken off his hands. I believe that it will be taken off his hands by private entrepreneurs such as Robin Macleod of Thamesport, who is already interested in running his own freight services because he cannot get the service that he wants from British Rail.
    If my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport were here, I would say to him that one does not have to be a Daniel to interpret the writing on the wall. The writing is that the heavy lorry will no longer be the darling of all Secretaries of State for Transport. The day of the heavy lorry as the principal mover of long-distance freight is under threat because people think that it is environmentally unsound. It will gradually find itself taxed to a point at which the railways will become wholly competitive—and high time too.
    We should get British Rail out of the lead position on the channel tunnel link. It is extraordinary that British Rail should once more be given the lead role in developing
    234
    a link in which it has no confidence and which it fought against with unmitigated ferocity. I am not being hostile to British Rail in particular, but I believe that British Rail is in the wrong place to take such a role.
    British Rail is bound to look at the issue with its interests in mind. We need someone to look at the issue with the interests of the country as a whole in mind. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport believes that, too. If we could find a private consortium to take the lead role and to run with it, we should do so. I find it extraordinary that Ove Arup, whose project is to be worked up, is somehow relegated to being a company with which British Rail sometimes has conversations. That is an extraordinary position.
    I turn now to the main topics of today's debate. We have achieved a remarkable turnaround in training and in education. There has been an extraordinary change from a system under which we had time-linked apprenticeships which meant that no matter how clever one was or how well one did, one had to take the whole time, to a system under which people will be assessed on what they can do and not on how long it has taken them.
    The coming decade will see a considerable acceleration of the involved society. Like all developed industrialised countries, we have somehow managed to fragment our society far more than is good for it. The number of broken homes, the number of single parents and the number of people living on their own has grown disproportionately large. It is time to start changing that, and we are beginning to do so.
    I draw the House's attention to, for example, the charitable activities of the Lord Mayor of London. This year, he has chosen to support tutoring in schools. The project involves students from colleges, universities and polytechnics chosing to spend some of their time working in schools that welcome them with pupils who are either in need of special educational help or who are well ahead of the rest of the class. What is so striking about that is that not only do the children who are helped do better in their exams, as one might expect, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the students who help them also do better in theirs. That is a consequence of an increase in their self-esteem and their understanding of how to teach and relate to other young people. I should like a tremendous acceleration of that programme.
    The days are over when the professionals believed that, if only they had enough resources, if only there were enough of them and if only they were sufficiently well trained, they could solve all society's problems. It is beginning to be understood that such volunteers can extend the professional's reach and be of real assistance to them. In that respect, I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the enormous reservoir of people who are leaving full-time paid employment with another 30 years of active life ahead of them? What a tremendous resource that is. We have only started to scratch the surface of what such people could do to help, if they so chose.
    For example, one has only to think of the number of young, isolated mothers with a child or children. They are often terrified of their babies and unclear about how to bring them up, thinking that every time the baby cries it is their fault and feeling that they have no one to whom to relate. If they could be assisted and befriended by someone who has brought up her own child—someone who would read to and play with the child—in most cases that work

    235
    would be welcomed and better done purely by volunteers. However, in many parts of the country volunteers receive expenses and some receive slightly more than their expenses, which helps them if they have a limited income—[Interruption.]I dimly perceive a muttering that suggests that there is a protagonist of the old belief that everything should be left to the professionals. That is fair enough, but I think that that belief is outmoded.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rowe: I am delighted to give way to someone who is at last standing up.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: As a mother and grandmother, I should prefer any support to be given to young mothers who do not know how to bring up children to be professional, qualified and paid. I am afraid that that marks me out from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Rowe: It not only marks the hon. Lady out as someone who has a tremendous belief in professionals but, uncharacteristically, as someone who is unrealistic, because there is no possibility of the numbers that we are talking about being reached by the medicine which she prescribes.
    We must pay tribute to the Government for the development of the national vocational qualification. It is an innovative and valuable method of validating the experience of large numbers of people. I am slightly anxious that the original reason for its introduction—to validate experience in ways that could then be assessed, compared and used as building blocks for further advancement in a professional career—seems to have taken second place to the creation of NVQs as an alternative qualification ab initio.
    In the health service, which seems to have a strange reluctance to embrace NVQs with the enthusiasm that they deserve, the value of NVQs is that someone who has been caring for an elderly relation for many years and who has learnt all kinds of practical skills, such as bathing and feeding, could have those skills validated when the relative dies and could be accepted on the first rung of the professional development ladder. I hope that that will not be lost.
    The Government's actions in the polytechnic and university sectors are long overdue and very valuable. Having been a teacher at university for a while, I well understand the anxiety of some university staff that amalgamating the polytechnic and university sectors could result in a dilution of quality. But most people in the universities understand that the polytechnics have won for themselves a place in the education system that makes such anxieties out of place. Provided that quality assurance for courses is kept in place—it is vital that is—we shall be safe. Many university courses seem to be extremely poor and I hope that they will be subject to a more effective peer audit than the external examiner sometimes achieves.
    In a debate that spans employment and education, it is valuable to say that, if we are to have more people entering engineering, science and mathematics as opposed to the arts, we must move on both sides of the equation. We are doing our best to make recruitment to those courses as attractive as possible, but the disparity between the amount of work required of students on arts courses in many colleges and universities, compared with that required of students on engineering or technical courses, is
    236
    so huge that any student who is ambivalent about which side of the divide to fall is bound to choose the arts course, which leaves students endless time to enjoy themselves in other ways. That needs to be looked at seriously.
    With only 4 per cent. of the population entering retirement with any form of pre-retirement education, the difficulties of adjusting to that long period without a framework of work or a regular income have been greatly underestimated. Retirement is one of the peak moments for divorce and many people need assistance with what to do with their money, how to handle the extra time and how to cope with changing family relationships. I suggest that, on the day of their retirement, as part of a retirement package, retired people should receive a voucher entitling them to go to a recognised one or two-day course—however much we could afford—on pre-retirement or retirement education. Thus they could learn about the opportunities as well as the challenges ahead of them.
    5.18 pm
    Mr. Ron Leighton: Britain is an open market—we are open to western Europe, the United States, Japan and many other countries—which means that we must have world-class industry, technology, investment and an educated population trained to world-class standards. Without that, we can neither compete nor survive. We shall lose not only our markets overseas but also our domestic markets to foreign imports. Our factories and industries will close and we shall have long-term mass unemployment.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has written a letter to the Department of Employment in which he states that there is no connection between training and unemployment. How wrong can one be? How cynical can one get? In public, the Government pay lip service to training, but in private they do not believe that one should waste money on it.
    The Government have been in power for 12 years but they have still not got it right. They have not tackled the problem adequately. We are still falling behind our competitors, and the skills gap between ourselves and overseas countries is still widening.
    Over those 12 years, the Government have chopped and changed their policy. We have had the youth opportunities programme, the training and opportunities programme, the youth training scheme, the job training scheme and the community programme. All those programmes were lauded on their introduction and subject to much hype, but many of them have since been scrapped. In the past 12 years, the Manpower Services Commission has been replaced by the Training Agency, and now we have the training and enterprise councils.
    Now, when we ask questions about training, the Government hide behind the TECs. We cannot get any answers from the Government, because they say that everything has been handed over to the TECs. They are now responsible for running the Government's programmes for the unemployed and, perhaps more importantly, for stimulating enterprise, regenerating local economies and increasing the skills levels of the employed work force. They are supposed to bring about the so-called training revolution. That is the raison d'etre of the TEC movement—it does not exist solely to run programmes for the unemployed.

    237
    Although the Government have given the TECs the responsibility, they have not given them the tools to do the job. In fact they have taken those tools away and, as a result, the TECs are being strangled in their first year of operation. A year ago, the launch of the TECs was accompanied by swingeing cuts in their budgets. What a way to launch them. The Secretary of State is well aware that the reduced the expenditure on employment training by £365 million.
    The employment training programme was always underfunded, it was a penny-pinching scheme. The Government did replace one third of that cut. We do not hear much about that programme nowadays, but the previous Secretary of State never stopped hyping its benefits. We used to read all the advertisements about
    "training the workers without jobs for the jobs without workers",
    but we do not hear much about that now.
    We were told that the ET programme was the greatest retraining scheme ever attempted, but it was underfunded and the training offered was of poor quality. Now, we are told that it had a 70 per cent. drop-out rate and that, of those who completed their training, fewer than 50 per cent. got a job. However, instead of increasing the funding to improve the quality of training, the Government propose to reduce such funding even further.
    The Government claim that all those aged between 18 and 25 who have been unemployed for six months are guaranteed a training place on ET. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has pointed out that the Select Committee on Employment has already received about 60 letters from local TECs about the problems with those guarantees. It is absurd and preposterous for the Secretary of State to claim that those letters are out of date. Those letters are only a few days old. Many of the TECs have written to say that they are unable to implement the guarantee that the Government have given.
    When it comes to youth training, the Government also hide behind the TECs. They pretend that every young person without a job is guaranteed a youth training place, but that is not true. There are hundreds and hundreds of young people across the country to whom that guarantee is not being delivered. In my borough, 615 people are without such a place. Hundreds of young people are now left in limbo and thrown on the scrap heap at 16 and 17. They are told that there is no chance of a job, but now there is not even the chance of a place on YT.
    It is not long ago that we used to hear about the demographic time bomb. We were told that employers would be fighting one another to get young people. Perhaps that is why the Government made large cuts in the amount of money available per place on the youth training scheme. Perhaps that is why they expected the employers to pay more. Many employers do not want to know, because they are now suffering from the Conservative-induced recession. Many have gone out of business and the rest are struggling to survive. They have made many redundant, and they are not taking on young people. It is therefore becoming impossible for the TECs and trainers to find employer placements for young people.
    The employers who are supposed to pay more towards training are making no contribution at all. Many trainers are now trying to provide project places, which are often
    238
    more expensive, with no contribution from employers. The sums do not add up. As a result, the quality of training is suffering because such project programmes are cheaper and inferior in comparison with employer placements. It is all to do with getting more Burns on seats and lectures. It has nothing to do with quality training. Young people are also unable to attain NVQs because of insufficient employer placements.
    I have paid the Secretary of State a great compliment by listening to what he says. He stands up regularly in the House and says that the Government are committed to the guarantee of training, but what do those weasel words mean? What the right hon. and learned Gentleman says sounds good, and one imagines that that guarantee will be delivered, but not so. The Government say that all the responsibility rests with the TECs, but they do not give them the necessary resources.
    The Select Committee on Employment has received letters from those responsible for the TEC in Dorset to say that it is not delivering the employment training guarantee. The same is true of YT and ET guarantees, judging from letters received from the TECs in greater Nottingham, the heart of England, Lincolnshire, Manchester, Milton Keynes, north-east Wales, north Nottinghamshire, south-east Cheshire, Teesside, west London, and central London. In east London, where I come from, they are unable to deliver the guarantee. What sort of commitment is that?
    The Secretary of State may stand up and say that the Government are committed to the guarantee but someone else must deliver. However, those responsible have had to admit that they are not delivering the goods.
    Before this debate, I got in touch with the careers service office in my borough and asked about the latest figures on employment placements. The latest figures available cover September and October. In September, in Newham, 615 people had no YT place. In Redbridge, the fiture was 537, in Tower Hamlets, 724 and in Barking 443. In the October count, there were 820 young people awaiting a placement in Havering and 577 in Waltham Forest. What sort of guarantee is that? Those young people do not have a YT place because the local TEC does not have the placements and it does not have the resources to find them.
    I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that he has given extra resources to the east London TEC for 1,000 more places, but that is not nearly enough. However, the east London TEC has had to tell the careers service that it does not have the resources to find those placements. It has said that it is up to the careers service to find those placements.
    The Secretary of State is allegedly committed to guaranteeing placements—whatever that means—but he has put the responsibility on the TECs. In my borough, that means that, when the careers service produces the bodies, the same TEC says that it cannot do anything about it, because it does not have the resources to find the placements. It has turned to the careers service and said that it is up to it to canvass for those placements. It has undertaken to canvass for 1,000 places.
    In the vain struggle by the TECs to deliver the guarantees, all their time is being monopolised—so are all their efforts and all their money. They have had to raid all their other budgets in an attempt to implement the guarantees to the unemployed. They have had to abandon their business plans and their other key projects. They

    239
    have had to restrict themselves to reacting in the short term, to wrestling with the Government's programmes for the unemployed. They have been failing in the attempt. But this was not the job for which they were set up. The Training Agency could have done it. The job could have been left to that agency if these Government unemployment projects were all that were at stake.
    Business people from the private sector were called in to perform the other tasks—meeting the needs of the local economy, developing enterprise and regenerating the local economy. That was the raison d'etre of the TECs—but it has all had to be abandoned, with a consequent loss of morale and growth of cynicism in the TEC movement.
    Over the past year, unemployment has risen by more than 750,000, but the money for the TECs has not increased commensurately, so they are trying to cope with demand-led programmes on cash-limited budgets. That cannnot be done.
    The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) set up the TECs; this Secretary of State is strangling them.
    I believe that we are about to have a public expenditure statement. Last year, the Secretary of State acquiesced while the Treasury stamped all over him. There were major cuts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman let his Department down; he let the TECs down and he let the work force down. What about this year? There has been a phenomenal increase in unemployment, an increase that continues with the loss of 5,000 manufacturing jobs every week.
    The TECs are virtually overwhelmed by the recession. If there is not to be a major collapse of morale—I hope that the Secretary of State takes what I am saying seriously, because I intend to keep in close contact with the TECs—the right hon. and learned Gentleman must obtain a very substantial increase in the funding for his Department and for the TECs. I do not expect him to tell me now whether he has got such an increase, but unless he obtains one, morale will collapse.
    There could be no better use of public money in a recession than counter-cyclical expenditure on training. We should spend the money on training instead of wasting £20 billion on dole queues. We should take £1 billion of that money and use it to put people back at work, so that we do not have to pay them unemployment benefit and they can begin paying taxes. That is what the Secretary of State for Employment must do. Unless he does, the TECs will be overwhelmed by this recession and he will do great damage to them and to the country.
    5.33 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. I should like to concentrate on education today.
    I welcome the Gracious Speech, particularly the part about the introduction of the parents charter. I also welcome the part referring to making more information about schools generally available.
    Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, so education is too important to be left to the educationists. I firmly believe that most parents know best what is right for their children. We need to provide them
    240
    with a vehicle that they can use to improve school standards, and the charter provides the engine for parental ambitions.
    One of the main thrusts of Government policy has been to involve parents in the education of their children. Grant-maintained schools are an example of greater parental involvement. The requirement for better school records is another. The charter brings together a number of differing strands and helps to weave a policy formalising parental involvement.
    Since knowledge is power, according to Chairman Mao, the charter puts power firmly into the hands of parents by giving them, perhaps for the first time, real knowledge about their children's educational progress and about the schools that their children attend.
    I welcome the new inspection arrangements——
    Mr. Dunn: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend and I am not at all surprised that he, as a former Education Minister, joins me in welcoming the new arrangements. They will ensure that schools are inspected a great deal more frequently. Regular school inspections lift standards and show teachers where things are going wrong. Because the inspections will be frequent, they will ensure that standards do not slip too far.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that another great advantage will be that reports will no longer be written in jargon, so that parents will be able to understand what is going on?
    Mr. Pawsey: I endorse my hon. Friend's wise words.
    A new organisation headed by the chief inspector of schools will be set up. The new inspectorate will be wholly independent of Government and will be able to discharge its new role without, as Opposition Members would say, interference from Ministers. The independent inspection teams will be chosen by governors from a list approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate. There will therefore be no soft options for schools, no comfortable inspections by a friend of the headmaster or even by a friend of the school—[Interruption.]Inspectors will be approved and will be required to undertake a rigorous and thorough inspection—[Interruption.]Perhaps the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) finds the issue of school inspections a laughing matter. Most of the nation's parents think it a matter of the utmost seriousness and will support the Government's proposals.
    The principal difference under the new system will be the frequency of inspections. I have no doubt that the new arrangements will bring with them great benefits as compared with the present system, under which full inspections occur infrequently, if at all. We know that some schools have never had a full inspection. Local education authorities can organise their own inspections, which are much less rigorous than full HMI inspections—a point emphasised by the fact that they are usually undertaken by staff known as advisers, not inspectors.
    Mr. Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the new HMI would be completely independent of Government. How is that complete independence to be assured, and who is to appoint the new inspectors?
    Mr. Pawsey: The new inspectorate will be far less dependent on the Secretary of State than it was before. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to ask inspectors to undertake inspections of specific schools, but the fact remains that they will enjoy far more independence. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman has reflected on the new arrangements, he will join us in welcoming them, because they will help to improve the quality and standards of the state education in which most of the nation's children are educated.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is giving an extremely eloquent and accurate description of the parents charter policy. As he will know, the Bill foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech will ensure that Her Majesty's chief inspector will have his own statutory powers and duties laid down by this House. At the moment he exercises powers and duties on behalf of the Secretary of State. That is the legalism behind the policies that my hon. Friend has accurately described. Her Majesty's chief inspector will be given greater independence than that position has ever held in its 150 years.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that detailed explanation.
    Mr. Haynes: I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman supports giving more teeth to inspectors, he will also support giving a number of extra teeth to the Parliamentary Commissioner. But that is not my argument. My argument is that Ministers and Secretaries of State are ducking their responsibilities, and giving responsibility to somebody else. They have done it on social security——
    Mr. Pawsey: No.
    Mr. Haynes: Oh, yes. In social security they set up an agency. When a constituent writes to a Minister, the Minister passes the case back to the agency, so the constituent never has access to the Minister. Ministers are ducking their responsibilities, and the sooner the general election comes, the better.
    Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman and I serve on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, where we frequently are in agreement, but I must tell him frankly that across the Floor of the House today we are in complete disagreement. The new measures will not in any way reduce the responsibility of Ministers to this House. Indeed, they will do much to improve the quality of state education.[Interruption.]If I am allowed an opportunity to develop my speech, I shall explain why the measures will do so much to improve the quality of state education.
    To return to LEA advisers. They are called advisers, not inspectors, because that more accurately reflects their role. In an LEA that recruits its advisers from its own teacher force, there is a distinct possibility and a decided risk of friends doing the business of inspection. That is why the hon. Member for Durham, North-West is wrong to regard the new inspection arrangements as in any way inferior to what has gone before. They will be a substantial improvement.
    Inspectors will be trained, and HMI will monitor the standards of that training. HMI will keep a register of those able to lead the trained inspection teams and will set the standards of inspection. Those on the register will be
    242
    inspected as they carry out their work and will be removed from the register if they fail to meet the rigorous standards demanded by HMI. The Secretary of State will still have powers to request HMI to undertake the inspection of specific schools.
    Inspectors will also be called upon to advise the Secretary of State about the quality of the education service generally. They will draw their main evidence from their inspection of 6,000 schools every year. What an improvement that figure represents on the current position.
    Inspectors will also be drawn from outside the world of mainstream education, so they will have a wider perspective than otherwise. I am certain that that will result in a positive input from those with business and industrial experience. That will help to answer the criticism that British education is too divorced from the realities of earning one's living. A broader-based inspection service has positive advantages and will help reconcile and bridge the gap between what goes on in school and in industry.
    Mr. Janman: In the real world.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who rightly describes it as the real world.
    Earlier I said that every year 6,000 schools would be examined. That will require a full-scale inspection of every school by HMI at least every four years. That will provide a good, up-to-date report on each school. The inspectorate will also have the opportunity of discussing matters with parents; of meeting parents and hearing their views. That brings me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). She said that in the past reports on schools were regarded as almost confidential.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As incomprehensible.
    Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge the words of my hon. Friend. Certainly the reports were seen as the prerogative of only those who needed to know. So often that was the education machine and so often it excluded parents. A light will be focussed on an area that is usually shrouded in darkness. I hope that those who want less secrecy will support this initiative.
    The new system will result in more information becoming available on what goes on in the nation's schools. That will be invaluable in helping to formulate action that can be taken to improve the nation's schools. It will replace guesswork with facts. It will identify shortcomings to the benefit of our children.
    Under the terms of the parents charter, parents will receive as of right five key documents. The first will be an annual written report of their child's progress. The second will be a performance table providing detailed information on all schools within a specific area. It will not matter whether those schools are controlled by the LEA or whether they are grant maintained. Thirdly, parents will be provided with a precis of the last inspection report produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Fourthly, parents will receive an action plan from the governing body saying how it is intended to improve any shortcomings identified by Her Majesty's inspectorate at the last inspection. Fifthly, parents will get an annual report from the school's governors. The document will provide valuable information about examination results and rates of truancy, all of which are of critical importance

    243
    to any school and the children attending it. The parents charter is a genuinely imaginative step forward designed to improve the quality and standard of state education.
    Mr. Worthington: I am struck by the thinking behind the hon. Gentleman's approach to the need to make local education authorities answerable. Would he want to transfer the same rigorous approach to the training and enterprise councils to see whether the Secretary of State's undertaking that the guarantees are being met is true? Alternatively, will the TECs continue to be shrouded in commercial confidentiality?
    Mr. Pawsey: I am not sure whether I should interpret that as general support for the proposals that I have been advancing, but by implication it seems that the hon. Gentleman supports the proposals. I am concentrating my remarks on education. It may well be that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will respond to that specific point. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, albeit somewhat guarded, for what is going on in education.
    Even Opposition Members have discovered parental involvement. Indeed, they have introduced proposals for a contract between parents and schools, whereby schools would be obliged to provide information, for example, on academic performance. There is a turn-up for the books. Labour Members are promoting for the first time the principle of excellence.
    Mr. Dunn: Can my hon. Friend believe it?
    Mr. Pawsey: No, I cannot.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is feigning surprise at what we said. I should like to know where he has been in the three years since we first made these proposals.
    Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman is serious in what he says, and if he wants to see an improvement in academic performance, why does he persist in plans to scrap the remaining grammar schools, which are centres of excellence? As usual, the hon. Gentleman speaks with forked tongue.
    Mr. Dunn: Surely the answer to my hon. Friend is, by their fruits shall ye know them. Both he and I have served on the Committees examining the various Education Bills which have gone through the House since 1979. Why is it that, on every crucial measure of reform, radical though each has been, both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have voted against us? Surely their record is more significant than their change of heart over the past weekend or the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who we know is under orders from Mr. Mandelson to present policies better.
    Mr. Pawsey: I put a slightly different interpretation on what has happened. I suspect that there is nothing like the prospect of a general election to sharpen the mind—even that of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
    It is a pity that the contract that the hon. Gentleman has outlined is not legally binding. He does not say what effective redress a parent would have if a school failed a child. I suspect that the problem for Labour Members is that they have difficulty in reconciling their obligations to the great teacher unions, which still pay the Labour party's bills, with the need of average parents, who want better
    244
    education for their children, and want to be more involved in the running of their children's schools. That is the dilemma facing Labour Members.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should address our policies rather than those that he has invented. Our parents charter, like the document that we published recently, called "Raising the Standard", addresses in detail the powers of redress that parents would have if they thought that a school was failing their children.
    Mr. Pawsey: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Some of the parents in my constituency knew that the Lancashire education authority was failing their children, because cruelty was being perpetrated against them. The authority declined to take the matter to the police, so a parent did so and three teachers or teacher assistants have been convicted in the courts. That was Lancashire failing to do its duty by the parents and the children.
    Mr. Pawsey: I suspect that yet another problem faces Labour Members—how to persuade parents that they believe in the principle of choice in schools. After all, they still believe that the only good state education is local authority education, that the only good form of secondary school is the neighbourhood comprehensive.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong indicated assent.
    Mr. Pawsey: They have resolutely opposed the emergence of grant-maintained schools, even though those schools enjoy the support of a majority of parents, as expressed through a secret ballot. What reliance can be placed on their conversion to the principle of parental power and choice when they still deny the right of parents to establish a grant-maintained school?
    The Labour party remains the party of the bureaucrat and of the trade unions. Labour Members will defend the vested interest of the LEAs and of the teacher unions before those of parents or pupils. It is worth remembering that, if elected, the Labour party will abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and the assisted places scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members make my case for me. The Labour party has become the abolitionist party, and there is not much choice in what it advocates if all it will do is abolish the centres of excellence that we have set up.
    Labour Members opposed the emergence of grant-maintained schools and see them as a threat to local authority empires. I sometimes wonder whether they understand that, for choice to have any significance, there has to be a choice between different systems and different schools. If the LEA has a monopoly, the only choice that a parent has is take it or leave it. That is one of the reasons why the grant-maintained school is genuinely important in the struggle to maintain standards. Those schools will come under the same scrutiny from the HMI as schools run by the LEA.
    I look forward to the proposals advanced in the Queen's Speech being brought before the House in a Bill. I hope that the House will support a genuine effort to improve the quality and standard of state education, where the overwhelming majority of the nation's children are educated.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I was hoping that we might not have to implement Mr. Speaker's proposal to invoke the 10-minute rule from 7 to 9 o'clock but if speeches continue to be as long as they have been, we may have no alternative but to do so.
    5.56 pm
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I came here expecting debate about the Government's detailed proposals and of the Labour party's alternative proposals. I was not altogether surprised that there was more heat than light in the two opening speeches, which were directed more towards the general election campaign than the discussion of details. Sadly, I suspect that this is what we can expect for the next six months.
    However, I was surprised by the way that the following speeches, with the exception of that from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), ignored the details of the Government's proposals. His was an interesting speech, and although wrong, it at least addressed the Government's controversial proposals, about which I hope that we shall hear in more detail in the winding-up speeches.
    I hope that education as an issue, and training, which should be included with education in one Department, will be debated. More specifically, I hope that all the parties committed to it will make a reality of the rhetoric about putting education at the centre of what they want to achieve. There is no question but that, if we are to resolve the recurrent problems of the country, of which this latest recession is one of the deepest and worst examples, we must get education and training right from the start.
    The Government's legislative programme has missed an opportunity. The Government have taken a delight in changing the detail of education policy, but more than that, they have missed the wider issues that face us. In a programme that looks to the past rather than to the future and is substantially irrelevant to the main issues, the policy that I most welcome is that on the abolition of the binary divide. I do so not simply because that is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and a reform that will be welcomed on both sides of the House but because it is a mark of the wider changes on which we need to embark.
    The Government propose to abolish the artificial division between an academic elite and the rest. The division is artificial because it pays no real attention to the quality of what happens in polytechnics as compared with universities, but it has existed for as long as the different titles have been with us. The division is artificial also because it has reflected, to an extent, the different attitudes that exist between technical and academic and vocational routes in education. It is not true that polytechnics have provided a purely vocational route. Similarly it is not true that universities have provided a purely academic route. In the distinctions between the two, however, there is a reflection of the different historical past and the paths that they have trodden to reach the position that they now occupy.
    There is also a reflection of the division in attitudes towards different qualifications and the different routes of learning. That is something that still marks too much the attitudes that exist outside education, and especially in the political debate. I welcome the proposed reform more as a marker for the wider reforms that are needed than as an enormous breakthrough in itself.
    246
    We must remember the financial changes that are hitting higher education, which will bring about a revolution in what is delivered at that level and the means by which it is delivered. It is a revolution that is virtually unplanned and undebated, and it has not been outlined in detail by the Government. They have set up a mechanism but they have not explained in any real detail where they believe it will take us. That is why the higher education institutions are worried about the Government's reforms. They are concerned that there is a risk to the quality of what is delivered. They are worried that there is a risk to the research base across all higher education institutions. Above all, there is concern that these risks have been taken without proper analysis and debate.
    In the other reforms with which we have been presented, we see a reflection of Tory rhetoric and gut feeling about what the party believes "used to be" and not a real look to the future. The so-called parents charter has been brought about with little consultation, other than possibly with the Centre for Policy Studies.
    There are plans to publish truancy figures and examination results in crude league tables, which even the Government do not use for comparisons between schools. It is proposed to privatise the schools inspectorate. That is one of the most ill-considered and impractical proposals that the House has had to debate in the education arena. It will confuse information rather than extend it; it will risk undermining standards rather than improving them. How can an inspection be independent and rigorous if the institution that is to be inspected is able to choose its own team of inspectors? The truth is as it has always been; he who pays the piper plays the tune.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest because his party, unlike the Labour party, has supported many of the reforms that we, the Government, have introduced, this year. On other proposals, it has reserved its position. I was startled when I heard him talk about "privatising" Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools. That is a silly term that I thought was being used only by one or two Labour Members. As, at the moment, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools remains a public office, as we shall strengthen powers by means of the Bill that we propose and as there will be responsibility for monitoring the quality of all the registered inspectors carrying out inspections of schools, what definition of "privatising" is the hon. Gentleman using in respect of the inspectorate that he thinks justifies his strange assertion?
    Mr. Taylor: If the Secretary of State checks the record—I am open to correction if I am wrong—he will find that I said that he was privatising the inspectorate, not HMI. The fact is that inspections that take place in schools are to be privatised. There is no question about that, for that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, by any definition that he or anyone else is likely to use. He is to do so in the name of competition.
    If there is to be competition between companies and choice for schools in determining who carries out the inspections, on what basis can that competition and choice exist if decisions are not based on the company that will carry out the cheapest inspection while being most likely to guarantee a good report? In what else does a school's interest lie?

    247
    The scheme has therefore received virtually no backing in the education world. That is not because it is felt that standards would improve. Educationists want improved standards and they feel that the Government's scheme risks undermining standards. They have no other reason to object to it.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. I think that we should debate the issue now rather than later, because I shall not be able to do it justice when I reply because of the limited time that will be available to me.
    Surely governors will want to choose inspectors whose reports will carry clout with parents, who will have credibility and who will provide a straightforward account of a school's performance that is known to come from a good quality inspectorate. In any event, governors will be able to choose only from those inspectors who have themselves been monitored by HMI, a public agency. HMI will declare each inspector a suitably trained and qualified person for the purpose of carrying out an inspection.
    Mr. Taylor: It is interesting that the Secretary of State says that governors will choose inspectors who will carry the greatest clout. It must be said that the Secretary of State has considerable clout in making appointments in his own sector. Bearing in mind those he selects, he seems to appoint those who will deliver the "best" report and provide the greatest support for his policies. He does not choose those who will carry the greatest clout in analysing what his party has achieved.
    A party of the right cannot seriously believe that human nature is such that those who are responsible for the delivery of education and the maintenance of a school—their jobs will depend on being popular with parents will choose companies that will carry out rigorous inspection before those who will produce a good report for the school. that is not realistic and that is not what will happen. I have no doubt that we shall debate these matters in further detail when we examine the Bill.
    I am concerned that the changes that are taking place will have an especially bad impact on children with special needs. Currently there are specialist members of HMI who are able to offer advice to schools on the delivery of help to children with special needs. Under the Government's proposals, those individuals will lose their jobs or they will be restricted to monitoring the privatised inspection services. That means that their specialist expertise will be lost to schools.
    The Government propose that the results of individual schools should be published, but we do not know how they plan to take account of the special needs that some children have within some schools. Are the raw tables of schools' examination results to reflect the intakes of those schools, including children with special needs? I am not talking only about children who have been statemented. I am talking particularly about the 20 per cent. who are not the subject of statements and who have special needs. If there is no means of compensating schools for children with special needs, there will be a direct incentive for schools not to accept these children.
    I make no apology for taking up these matters, because they are surely fundamental to the very principle that is being introduced.
    I have been asking in correspondence—I have not yet had a satisfactory answer—what will happen to those in
    248
    sixth form colleges who have had the protection of a statement and who will not have it when they go into the new opted-out sector of further education. It is clear in my constituency and in many others that many children—young people with special needs—do not want to take up specialist courses for people with special needs. They want to embark on mainstream courses. They will not be able to take up places if they are not resourced to do so and if, similarly, the college is not resourced to do so. If the proposed changes are to take place, children with special needs must be protected. That goes across party boundaries, although, as I have said, I disagree too with the broader changes that are proposed. Nothing that the Government have said will achieve that protection.
    The parents and teachers to whom I speak do not seek raw data in league tables. Indeed, Cornwall could not make far-reaching practical use of such league tables because alternative schools are not generally available to parents. All that will happen is that the morale of schools will be lowered because they will be beaten by the press that use the raw data in crude ways. The schools will have no response from the Secretary of State on how they are to improve, to obtain the necessary resources and training and so on.
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the lack of alternative schools in country areas. However, that should not penalise the urban areas, where there is manifestly more choice. The point of the changes that we intend to implement is that although parents may not have alternative schools available to them, they can at least put pressure on a school for failing to deliver. Surely that is the lesson that must be learned.
    Mr. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there are two fundamental problems with it. First, it assumes that parents are not aware of the quality of their local schools. My experience shows that they are all too well aware of the quality, be that good or bad. Secondly, it assumes that the raw data of exam results will give some indication of the quality of a school. However, it is absolutely clear that, depending on the intake into a school, it could be a good school with relatively poor exam results or a bad school with relatively good exam results. What counts is where the child comes from and how well a school meets his or her potential, not the level that a particular child reaches compared to another child elsewhere.
    We are arguing for a specific series of vital key reforms. We want provision for three and four-year-olds, which the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) promised when she was Secretary of State but failed to deliver as Prime Minister. We would guarantee a relevant vocational and academic examination system that would abolish the divisions for 16 to 19-year-olds, and which would guarantee the equivalent of two days a week education provision for all those who enter work at 16. We would also guarantee provision for adults. All sides of the House now accept that the education system has failed our young people in the past. Therefore, we must not forget the delivery of adult education to those already in work, especially in view of the current changes in society and technology.
    What have the Government offered? They are going in the opposite direction to the private sector. The best employers, such as Ford and Rover, are developing

    249
    programmes to deliver adult education opportunities to their work forces, irrespective of vocational relevance, yet the Government want to divide the adult education system and place priority on courses that they believe have vocational relevance. Not only are the Government prepared to compromise our record on adult education provision—which is one of the best in Europe—but they are doing so at a time when the private sector is moving in the opposite direction.
    However, we cannot allow the Labour party to get away with those points, because it falls flat on its face as soon as we ask a simple question. It rightly claims that Britain will not get its economy right until the education and training system is right, but when asked where the money for that will come from, it says that it will be available only when the economy comes right. That achieves nothing. The Labour party has made it clear that on training and education it offers nothing because it dare not utter the political "F-word"—the possibility of increased taxation.
    The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives can argue rationally, but the Labour party will not increase taxation to find the extra money needed. Therefore, it cannot possibly do what is necessary. The Liberal Democrats are clear that if, to get it right, that means an increase in taxation, so be it. The Labour party is incapable of delivering on its promises. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) talks at length about how the Labour party will transform education for the better, but until the shadow Chancellor commits the money, the hon. Gentleman is promising everything but guaranteeing nothing. The leader of the Labour party has said during the Langbaurgh by-election campaign that £2·6 billion is needed to improve educational provision, but the shadow Chancellor refuses to commit a penny to that. The only financial commitment from the Labour party is a transfer of resources within the education budget, not any addition to it.
    The debate has missed valuable opportunities to outline the wider changes that are needed. It has missed the opportunity to put to Ministers the real weaknesses in their proposals. Once again, the Labour party has missed the opportunity to show the courage of its principles—its education team understands this, but is not allowed to do anything about it—and to put up front the financial wherewithal to tackle the problems. The Liberal Democrats are facing up to the political downside of being prepared to increase taxation, and we are proud to do so. We believe that parents and grandparents, as they go into crumbling schools and as they see students who cannot afford to go to college, will agree with the principled stand that we are taking.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I had hoped to have had the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the first day of this debate, when it is acknowledged to be a free-for-all and any subject can follow another. Thereafter, it is slightly intimidating when subjects are set down for each day's debate, and we feel a little restricted in moving beyond the sphere of the Ministers on the Front Bench. However, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and for
    250
    Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) have strayed into the area of transport, and as the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) got as far as Yugoslavia, I feel that I, too, can stray a little from the main theme of the debate without attracting too much criticism.
    I shall pay particular attention to that part of the Gracious Speech in which the Government say that they will promote enterprise and training, attach the highest priority to improving public services, improve quality and choice in education, and improve the effectiveness of the NHS. I derive the greatest satisfaction from the fact that the Government, through the Gracious Speech, are saying that the highest priority will be given to the improvement of public services. Indeed, that statement might be described almost as "outing". The Government have put large sums of money into the public services for many years, but have not proclaimed it as a great virtue. Now, it appears that they are to take great pride in the fact that we are spending more on public services, and it is right to acknowledge that.
    Health and education are probably the most basic of the public services that deserve the highest priority. Certainly, they are the services that will receive the most attention between now and the general election, and during the election campaign itself.
    It is clearly stated in the Gracious Speech that the highest priority will be attached to health. That is on the Government's agenda for the final Session of this Parliament—not privatisation. While my right hon. and hon. Friends will be talking about priorities for health, no doubt we will hear again and again from Labour about privatisation, privatisation, and nothing but privatisation.
    The word "privatisation" is redefined by Labour as it suits it, as is the case with so much else in the Labour party. The Government are no longer accused of actual privatisation but of creeping privatisation. How does Labour define that? On 13 October, the Leader of the Opposition described it in three different ways—which is typical of him. One was
    "the grim reality of paying or waiting."
    Presumably he meant an individual's inability to have a national health service operation on demand. I wonder when that has ever been possible during the lifetime of the NHS. Does Labour pledge that, if it is elected to government, no one will wait any length of time for an operation?
    The Government's patients charter suggests that a waiting period of two years is a realistic target, beyond which no individual should have to wait. It is realistic when one considers the number of new operations developed as a consequence of medical research. A few weeks ago, a lady interviewed on television complained about her wait for a hip replacement operation. One naturally sympathised with her discomfort and pain. She asked, "What is the NHS coming to, that I should have to wait in pain, discomfort and distress for my operation?" The riposte must be that what it is coming to is that it is now technically possible to perform that operation, and naturally a huge demand for it has developed. The same situation arises time and time again, as new medical techniques are developed and demand for them rises. One must be realistic in one's promises to patients in respect of their admission to hospital for non-life threatening operations.
    There are many vulnerable people—such as the lady whom I mentioned—who are waiting for treatment, and

    251
    whose fears and emotions can be exploited. I suspect that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will skulk around the back alleys of the national health service scavenging for distress stories with which to regale us between now and the general election.
    Every Government have an uphill task in persuading the public that their stewardship of the NHS is adequate. When Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Robinson has a daughter who has to wait 12 months for an operation, it is no use telling her that 10, 20, or 25 years ago the situation was similar or much worse, because Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Robinson will still consider that the NHS is unsatisfactory today, and will naturally blame the Government.
    If Labour has a policy to eliminate that kind of wait, it should make it explicit, say how much it will cost, and explain how it will be paid for. I suspect that, instead of doing so, Labour will simply play on the emotions of those people who are kept waiting for operations. I hope that the debate in the coming months will concentrate on the difference between a Government who are implementing a plan to manage the health service better and an Opposition who hiss and spit but fight shy of explaining how they will deliver a better performance.
    Returning to the theme of today's debate, I am delighted that the Gracious Speech commits the Government to giving the highest priority to education. If in the health service that means not just spending more money, it is even more true of education. It is a question of what we expect to happen in our schools, encouraging study, and creating a demand for training.
    Two speeches made at the weekend have further opened up the debate about the form that primary school education should take. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), drew attention to the prominence that topic work now has in many primary schools. He may have a point. Discovery is important in the education process, but it can be taken too far—almost to the exclusion of the acquisition of basic facts and skills.
    Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry visited Japan and no doubt will have learnt certain lessons from that country. Japan enjoys a high standard of education because it places special emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge. I do not suggest that the Japanese example should be transplanted to our education system, but it offers certain advantages. We should work towards a better balance between the acquisition of facts and their relation to topic work.
    Expression is also important, but not at the total expense of attention to detail. It is important that emphasis is placed on that aspect in the teaching of English. When I was taught French at school, I regret that too much attention was paid to detail, so that, although I was able to read works of French literature such as "Madame de Staël" tolerably well, I still have a total inability to communicate effectively in the French language. Therefore, I do not believe that my French language education was to the greatest effect.
    In the teaching of English, it is important that attention should be paid to grammar and spelling. When a parent-teacher association circulated a newsletter in my constituency recently, I was surprised to discover that a contribution by a child that appeared on its front page contained two palpable spelling errors. It may have been a great thing for the child to have contributed the article,
    252
    but if it was meant as an advertisement for the school, it should have been corrected—lest it set a standard that would be followed.
    The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, David Hart, has questioned whether setting and streaming should be reintroduced into our primary schools. That matter also demands attention, even though it has resource implications.
    As to the role of parents in our education system, we must welcome the trend to present them with more data about school performance. League tables may not be wholly sophisticated, but they serve as a counterbalance to the generalities that are sometimes brandished before parents. It is possible to produce league tables that have proper footnotes to highlight important differences that need to be read into any interpretation of them. That will help parents to ask more of the right questions, rather than have them feed on rumour. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said that parents know whether a school is good or bad—but they often draw their conclusions on the basis of the worst possible information, which has reached them by word of mouth and has no factual basis. Parents should be empowered to ask the right questions and make the right choices.
    I am glad that the staying-on rate in our schools is improving, but that may create its own debate about whether greater variety needs to be offered in the A-level curriculum. It is a controversial subject. I do not believe that one needs to concede a dilution of A-level standards in offering alternatives in order to attract more pupils to stay on at school beyond the age of 16. One of our objectives should be to inculcate more desire for training in addition to what has been learned at school. I believe that training should become universal and that the training and enterprise councils are an important step towards that. I do not denigrate the TECs, as did the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton); I think that this is the start of an important new adventure and that the TECs can deliver, flexibly and sensibly, the universal training that we need.
    I am delighted that the Government have nailed their colours to the mast in regard to improving public services. In my view, both health and education have achieved significant boosts under the Government's stewardship over the past 12 years, and I look forward to further substantial progress during the coming Session.
    6.30 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the record of the past 12 years of Conservative government comes to be written, one interesting comment that will be made is that many of the major changes that have been introduced were not the result of research, consultation and a clear view of how services—particularly in the public sector—needed to be improved and funded. In many cases, they were the result of the straightforward prejudices of people who did not themselves use public services.
    The saddest aspect of this debate on the Gracious Speech is the fact that many of those prejudices are now being trotted out in the guise of a discussion of the education system. Today, even more prejudices have been aired in the guise of a discussion of the future of training. In my constituency, such remarks strike a sad and hollow note; more young people there have been unable to obtain

    253
    proper training than has been the case at any time in the past 50 or 60 years. More young people leaving school cannot find jobs, enter the traditional apprenticeships so lightly dismissed today by Conservative Members, or move on to any form of further education than could do so even 20 years ago.
    Far from seeing any improvement in public services, many young men and women in my constituency are going straight from school into the dole queue. At the beginning of a period when they should be starting to gain some understanding of the world of work, they are unable to use the abilities that they possess and unable to train so that they can take up a proper job or launch a future career.
    It is interesting to note that, after 12 years of Conservative government, Rolls-Royce—a firm which, to many, represents quality in British manufacturing—is behaving more and more like a Victorian management, incapable of understanding that the quality of its product is due largely to the ability and training of the men and women who produce it. In the past 12 months, Rolls-Royce has lost some 600 people from its job list, which represents, in monetary terms, a gain of some £30 million overall. The firm is quite able to see not only that the work force has been prepared to talk to management about new working practices, but that it has accepted new agreements, short-term working and changes that have been brought in following very little consultation. The work force has been prepared to establish how best it can protect the company's viability.
    What has happened is extremely instructive, and I believe that it represents the real state of manufacturing industry under the present Government. Rolls-Royce now intends to impose many more changes. It wanted a single-union agreement, and the unions said that they were prepared to provide that; they added, however, that they would ask for differentiation between those who were craft workers and those who were not. Rolls-Royce said that that was not to be negotiated. It then announced the introduction of a new system for the appointing of shop stewards: they would be elected on a constituency basis, but those who were elected might well be non-union, and might not represent, in proportion, their own groups of workers. They could be removed if evidence of any sort was produced that the company considered relevant.
    That is not consultation; nor is it imaginative management. It is the imposition of work conditions that will not improve either the quality of the product or the stability of the work force. The Government's attitude to industrial relations is largely answerable for the present position.
    When Rolls-Royce faced real problems in one of its firms, it moved a good deal of work to Crewe—where it was welcome, and where a stable and committed work force was in place. Over the years, Rolls-Royce has begun to believe that, because that work force has been pliable and helpful, it can now impose whatever work conditions it chooses. It also believes that, if need be, it can further reduce the work force—that it can have so-called discussion with shop stewards and then announce redundancies on a Monday morning, immediately before the convening of a meeting—and somehow represent that as the future of manufacturing industry in Great Britain.
    254
    That is outrageous and unacceptable and it will be reflected in the quality of the product. Anyone who seeks to out-source large amounts of engineering work in a product like a Rolls-Royce motor car will have to answer to the customer when that is seen not to be in the best interests of British products, or in those of the industry as a whole.
    It would be different if it were possible, in Crewe and Nantwich, to point to an imaginative training programme. It would be different if we could expect our youngsters—although the existing apprenticeships have been ended—to be given high-tech training, and to benefit from the work that the local authority is doing to attract new industries. If that were so, we could accept, with sanguine happiness, the fact that traditional work patterns are being replaced—replaced by something better.
    What is really happening, however, is that traditional training is going. Women in the rag trade and men in manufacturing industry benefited from such training; many of the women who made Rolls-Royce upholstery were trained by means of proper industrial schemes. Their children, who would normally have followed them in the trade, will not have that opportunity. Many will not be able to find training places and will experience what is already being experienced in some instances—over a year without a place.
    All that is utterly destructive. It destroys the human spirit and of the skills of young people. It is beginning to undermine their belief in, and understanding of, their own abilities and future. Worse, it is a condemnation of a Conservative Government who for too long have coasted on a reputation: the reputation of being those who improved and rejigged, privatised and brought about a much higher standard of production and a much higher level of investment.
    Let me tell the House what privatisation means in my constituency. It means the sale of assets for which no one but the taxpayer paid, to any firm, anywhere, that will buy them under any conditions. In the case of British Rail Engineering Ltd., it means the sale of many jobs. To Rolls-Royce it means, immediately, the same problems as ever for young people—the abandoning of apprenticeships, and men and women walking out of the door until the work force does not know how many jobs will finally be left. It means that, whichever firm is privatised, assets accumulated by means of taxpayers' money—sometimes over many years—will immediately be sold off.
    Moreover, it means that, without fail, the administrators, at the time that they make many people unemployed, immediately improve their own conditions. They also say to the work force, "You may not ask for reasonable increases. You may not even negotiate with the assistance of the trade unions," even though they are supposed to represent the interests of the work force. That is what privatisation means.
    If British Rail is privatised after the next election, God help us. Privatisation will not improve conditions for the customers; it will not improve investment in new rolling stock; it will not lead to better freight services. However, what can be absolutely guaranteed is that privatisation will improve the rate of pay of a certain privileged group at the top of the industry.
    This Government, after having been in office for 12 years, present a Gracious Speech that represents a total lack of imagination and commitment. Above all, the cynicism that the Government display in the Queen's

    255
    Speech is outrageous. We are destroying our industrial manufacturing base, cheating the people of this country and offering them no alternative. My only consolation is that the sooner we get rid of the Government the more hope we have of offering a genuine future to young unemployed people in my constituency.
    6.41 pm
    Sir Giles Shaw: According to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) there is a perfect case for suggesting that the British taxpayer would prefer billions of pounds to be written off each year as a result of losses by discredited nationalised undertakings and that the British taxpayer would dislike those loads to be taken off his or her back. I cannot believe that. Frankly, I do not believe that the hon. Lady believes it, either.
    Attention has already been drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) to this statement in the Queen's Speech:
    "My Government attach the highest priority to improving public services."
    That provides some answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. It is a priority of this Government and I am delighted that the Queen's Speech makes it clear for all to see. The public services are important for the massive contribution that they make. Our highest priority—it is right to put the superlative adjective before the word "priority"—is to improve our public services. I suspect that all of us who are here today would say that education is the most important public service.
    I intend to refer to a few matters that cause me concern and my remarks may go slightly wider than education.
    There are three key ingredients for improving public services. First, we must establish higher and better standards. Secondly, we must create a sense of professionalism among those on whom we rely to run the public services. Thirdly, we must ensure that there is a commitment by the citizen, whether parent or patient, to take his or her share of the responsibility for the process. If services to the public are to be improved, the public, as recipients of those services, must play a large part in determining the progress towards improvement.
    It is relatively easy to talk about education standards and identify them and to devise methods by means of which those standards can be measured and the targets that will lead to higher attainment. I have a relatively open mind on whether that is the be-all and end-all of the operation. I doubt whether it is. Nevertheless, it is crucial to ensure that the quality of education can be measured so that improvements can be made. How one improves the flexibility and sensitivity of the means by which the quality of education is measured, as well as the acceptability of those methods, has to be related to the importance of establishing a mechanism by which standards can rise and be measured.
    During the recess, I visited what I believe is the best primary school in the area. The head teacher—a fine lady who had been in her post for a long time—was in distress about the seven-plus attainment tests that had recently been applied. Her problem, and that of her staff in that dedicated school in Pudsey, was how to measure progress without numbers on a board that moved up from 10 to 15 to 20. As she put it, if boys and girls come to her school who are minus five or minus 10 below zero and they are brought up to minus three or minus eight below zero, that
    256
    is attainment; it represents measurable progress and is something that must be encouraged. I hate to think that schools which experience great difficulties in their catchment areas will be compared with what is achieved in the plusher parts of my constituency. There must therefore be a means by which one can measure standards that are both attainable and acceptable.
    As for standards as a whole, we owe it to the education establishment to recognise that standards must be broadly based. It is not a question of the establishment having a quiet look at education and doing things the way that ii would like. The education establishment must be accountable and must be seen to be accountable by parents. In turn, the education establishment would argue with us that there are other influences on the standard of education over which they have no control.
    I suggest that the broadcasting media have a role in determining whether certain standards of behaviour, Ianguage and "entertainment" are wholly beneficial, or whether it is their duty simply to pander purely to the lowest common denominator—entertainment. If it is possible to sell a bar of KitKat in 30 seconds, which I did for about 18 years in a previous job, I reckon that it is possible to suggest that to rush around in motor cars is something to be emulated. That philosophy has played its part in creating our problems.
    Standards must be seen to be reciprocated in other parts of the public domain. I cannot accept Lord Rees-Mogg's suggestion that bad language has reached the point where the F-word has been debased by common usage and is no longer a word that should not be used.
    I believe that the teaching profession must be encouraged. Teachers must not be regarded simply as people who carry out their duties between 8 am and 5 pm. Their lack of reputation directly reflects their lack of morale, which is due to the belief that they are no longer treated as professionals. We encountered that problem when we reformed the national health service. In the beginning doctors felt that they were not being treated as true professionals. That problem was overcome.
    The teaching profession faces many pressures, due to the number of changes that it has experienced. It has overcome and surmounted the difficulties and problems that have come its way. The profession should be treated with greater sincerity than it has been in recent years. I am sure that it welcomes the independent review procedure that the Secretary of State for Education has introduced. I am also sure that it welcomes the additional investment in education.
    Professionals cannot regard themselves as professionals if there is inadequate investment in them. They need investment in buildings, equipment and technology. They will enable the professionals of the 1990s to exercise their full potential as teachers. That is quite apart from what goes in the classroom. I very much hope that, in the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to translate the words "highest priority" into a determination to back the education profession with an investment programme that will make it stand out and feel confident of its future.
    More or less, it has been taken as read that parents will combine to assist with education reforms and will carry through the duties that the new legislation imposes on them. I very much hope that that will prove to be true, but we may be loading rather too much on less experienced

    257
    backs. We must ensure that governors receive as much assistance as possible in carrying out their duties which, compared with former years, are now considerable.
    Parents take much pride from the progress that their communities make and are prepared to do their bit to ensure that their child's school, which I suspect they regard as the most important influence in their community, is better under their tutelage. They must be given time and some training to enable them to act as school governors.
    When we consider attainments in class, the question of truancy arises and with it the question of juvenile crime. I am glad that truancy will now be reflected in published figures, but my hon. Friend the Minister must recognise that truancy soon leads to juvenile crime and from that perhaps to drugs. The rise in juvenile crime is so immense that we must act quickly to try to contain it. Like most other Conservative Members, I was astonished that legislation on auto crime and so-called joyriding, which should be called death riding, had been omitted from the Gracious Speech. I am not clear how it will eventually reach the statute book, but perhaps my hon. Friend will ensure that we are given a satisfactory response.
    There is no doubt that in my constituency, as in others, it is common for juveniles to be engaged in criminal activity on Friday, Saturday and some other nights. The so-called joyriding, or death riding, is absurd. Defendants have appeared before the courts for 20 or more cases of taking cars. In a well-known case, an individual pinched a car and for about 58 minutes led three police cars and a helicopter of the pressed West Yorkshire police on a chase, before, having gone through south Leeds, returning to Pudsey police station and throwing the keys at the coppers.
    That was an extraordinary abuse not only of police time but of the law. Such individuals could not care less about the scale of the problem, yet someone is a parent to that child. If we are to get to the bottom of juvenile behaviour, raise standards in schools and involve parents in the process, we must ensure that parents fulfil their responsibilities in looking after their own children. The youngest child recently arrested in Pudsey was an eight-year-old at 2 am. Where were the parents who should have been looking after the child at that time of night? It is ludicrous that that should be happening in the 1990s. Either some parents do not bother or they are doing other things, but we cannot attribute that to problems associated with unemployment or social conditions. There are people who have close, deep and devoted connections to children, whatever their circumstances, and there are some who apparently do not care.
    If we are to achieve high standards in schools and make parents take responsibility for governing schools, we must ensure that parental responsibility lasts and is deeply embedded in helping children to become citizens and to abide by the law as well as attaining the standards that they richly deserve under the education system.
    Several hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. At the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker announced a precautionary 10-minute limit on speeches. Given the
    258
    progress that we are making, he has decided that it will not be necessary to impose the limit. None the less, many hon. Members still wish to speak, so we need short speeches.
    6.55 pm
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that warning.
    It is slightly bizarre that this debate should open with employment and close with education, because there is next to nothing in the Queen's Speech about employment, important though that is, and hon. Members would have liked to test many aspects of education against an opening ministerial speech.
    Hon. Members agree with some of the points that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) made. He stressed the need for a new deal for education, and although many hon. Members may doubt whether that new deal will be forthcoming under the legislation before us, some of the points that he made were important.
    Many hon. Members agreed with the hon. Member for Pudsey about whether schools will be properly assessed by a points ranking system. We should be seeking a measure of "education added value" whereby the measure of a school's achievement is what it can do against the circumstances in which it is working rather than some absolute approach of a ranking points system. That is very important.
    The hon. Member for Pudsey made a further important point about the need for education resources. I am glad to hear such comments from Conservative Members, and to note that the message has got home. Without more resources for education, teachers will not be able to do the work that is necessary. More resources are needed for our dilapidated school buildings, which are a disgrace. No wonder children have been brought up in an atmosphere in which it is difficult to respect property. More resources are needed for textbooks and for teachers' salaries. Teachers should not have to take a second job to pay their mortgage or to sustain their families.
    Many university students are experiencing enormous difficulties, such as the lack of beds in halls of residence, particularly in their first year. If they cannot get a place in a hostel, they can find themselves in most inappropriate circumstances for starting a university career. Some students find it difficult to live on their grants, particularly when they are unable to get jobs in the summer. That is true of students from poor backgrounds, whose parents are unemployed and can offer no resources. I have seen such difficult cases at the University college of north Wales in Bangor.
    We in Wales feel that there should be democratic control over the Further Education Funding Council, which was mentioned in the context of this year's legislative programme. We are glad that we will have our own council, but how will it be answerable, and how can we be sure that it responds to what people in Wales want? As the House knows, special educational needs are a subject close to my heart. I am a little worried about some developments. I am afraid that, under the structure which the Government are considering, some schools may see students with education problems as a liability and may believe that the cost of taking them through to further education level is not warranted. That would be a tragedy.
    There must be an assurance that places will not be denied to disabled students because of the concept that it

    259
    is uneconomic to take them on. There must be an adequate choice of places to study. People should not say that students with disabilities must go to one particular place which deals with such students. Young people with disabilities seeking further education should be as integrated as younger children.
    We must ensure that there is adequate financial support for people beyond the age of 19. Some people with educational problems may need to attend beyond that age to achieve their maximum potential. People who suffer a disability at a later stage in life, because of an accident or disease, and who want education or retraining opportunities, should have support.
    Unemployment problems persist in Wales, as they do in Scotland, Merseyside and other parts of northern England. Unemployment in Wales is often lower in August than at other times of the year, but this year unemployment was 12·8 per cent. in Aberdare, 12·6 per cent. in Merthyr—where I lived before I became a Member—12·5 per cent. in Holyhead, 11·4 per cent. in Llanelli and 11·4 per cent. in Blaenau Gwent.
    Those unemployment levels are unacceptable. No Government can pretend that their policies are working when unemployment is so high. I am glad that unemployment is 3·2 per cent. in Penrith, 2·8 per cent. in Settle and 3·6 per cent. in Winchester, but I wish that there were opportunities in our area to have such rates.
    Unemployment in some parts of Wales will mushroom to a worrying level. The royal naval armaments depot at Trecwn, in north Pembrokeshire, is about to close; jobs associated with the Stena-Sealink services at Fishguard are threatened; and the Royal Air Force base at Brawdy is in jeopardy. In Pembrokeshire, unemployment is 10·4 per cent. in Haverfordwest and 11·4 per cent. in south Pembrokeshire. The Department of Employment Gazette said that narrow base unemployment at Fishguard was 17·2 per cent. Those are the unemployment percentages before the closures take place, when hundreds of jobs will be lost. Unemployment in the area will be phenomenal. If there is a defence dividend because of the cuts in expenditure on armaments—which I would welcome—areas that may suffer from the defence base closures should have a high call on any resources that are released because of the cuts.
    I wish to reinforce a point made by the right. hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about the lack of regional policy. Unemployment black spots such as those I have mentioned need a much better, fine-tuned policy to overcome their problems. I wish that the Government would find a new way of dealing with additionality in order to ensure that any resources that are available from Brussels and Strasbourg go to those black spots to create employment.
    The present training initiatives and schemes are not working as they should. Unemployment is high in my constituency, particularly seasonal unemployment when the tourist season is over. The training schemes depend on the availability of jobs in the private sector. Employers must be able to take on young people and, at the end of the training period, to retain them. It is sad that that does not usually happen in our area.
    Permanent jobs are not available and, even if jobs for 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed, by the time those young people are looking for permanent jobs, there is no work. If young people see their predecessors' training
    260
    leading to the dole queue, that is not a good advertisement for training schemes. One must look for a much more positive way of dealing with the problem.
    Obviously, the council tax will be an improvement on the poll tax—but that is no great achievement. My party and I believe that the only fair system is one of local income tax, and I regret the fact that the Government are not moving towards such an approach. The danger in the Government's scheme is that the value of a property will be the basis on which people are asked to pay local rates. In areas such as mine, the value of a house is determined not by the local economy but by people moving in from other regions to buy up houses.
    In the Dwyfor half of my constituency, more than 20 per cent. of the housing stock consists of second homes, and house prices are significantly higher than in Cardiff, although wages are significantly lower. if that is the basis on which property is valued for the purposes of local taxation, people in my area will be asked to pay taxes that their incomes cannot justify. That will not be acceptable. A local income tax system would have overcome that difficulty. The Government must find a way to ensure that the valuation system does not lead to anomalies.
    In my area, the idea of rates levied on second homes at perhaps only 50 per cent. of the normal level is greeted with horror and incredulity. There is a shortage of housing stock for people looking for first homes, and a system that is seen to encourage people to have second homes cannot be justified, socially or economically. If there were a different tax rate for second homes, we in our part of Wales would prefer a higher rather than lower level, in order to release second homes to meet local needs.
    There are two major omissions from the Gracious Speech, the first of which involves local government structures in Wales. Reference is made to legislation for England, which will presumably pave the way for a royal commission. The Government's proposals for local government change have not picked up the main thread running through debate in Wales. All parties in Wales, apart from the Conservative party, believe that there should be an all-Wales elected body, taking over responsibility for quangos and some of the work of the Welsh Office, and having democratic oversight of some of the functions which belonged to local government and which have since been centralised—for example, education. The Committee of Welsh District Councils and the Assembly of Welsh Counties have forcefully pressed that point.
    I regret the fact that the Government did not see fit in the Gracious Speech to make provision for a permanent, elected, all-Wales body. At the very least, they could have provided for an elected forum, perhaps similar to the conventions that existed in Scotland, whereby people in Wales can determine the form of local government and the form of democratic oversight of government structures that they want, and report to central Government, so that legislation is enacted in accordance with their wishes. That is preferable to having a form of local government imposed on us by a Secretary of State who does not even represent a Welsh constituency.
    In most of the Welsh-speaking parts of Wales, there is amazement at the fact that there was no provision in the Gracious Speech for a Welsh language Bill. In 1986, I presented a ten-minute Bill with the support of members of all parties. Since that time, there has been consultation—for five years. On the first round of consultation, 2,000

    261
    pieces of evidence were in support of the Bill and only 40 against, so the Government decided to set up a Welsh Language Board to look into the matter. When the board recommended a new Welsh Language Act, it was sent away to consult again. When it came back unanimously recommending and having drafted a new Welsh Language Bill, the Government started to think about it. That thinking has continued throughout this year.
    In July, we were told by the chairman of the board, Mr. loan Elfed Jones, that he had every confidence that there would be legislation by the spring. If that was the case, it should have been included in the Queen's Speech, and as it is not, clearly the Government are once again avoiding that issue.
    After five years of virtual unanimity in Wales on the need for such legislation, we get nothing. Is it any surprise to any hon. Member that the patience of young people in Wales gets as short as it does? Treating the issue in the way that the Government have done is letting down the democratic process. I urge the Secretary of State for Wales to think again and to find time during this legislative year for such a Bill. Otherwise, members of the Welsh Language Board must seriously consider their position: it is untenable unless the Secretary of State listens to their recommendations.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Like the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who introduced the subject of Yugoslavia into the debate, I wish to introduce a subject which is not the general matter for debate.
    Before I do so, I wish to follow directly on from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I can well understand his grave concern about employment in Wales coming as I do from Northern Ireland. In some of our constituencies, unemployment is between 40 and 50 per cent., and it is of real concern in Northern Ireland. I would have hoped to see a bit more in the paragraph on Northern Ireland in the Gracious Speech than the same old cant that we have seen in previous Queen's Speeches, which has produced that degree of unemployment there.
    Education is one area where I am in favour of the Government's proposals, as it makes good sound common sense for parents to have some assessment of the worth of various schools in the area available to them. I do not agree with the view that parents generally know how good or bad a school is. By and large, the education system has changed so much since they were at school that they find it difficult to make such an assessment on their own. If they can make an assessment, it is of their own education experience against the school that their children go to rather than one that compares that school with others in the area.
    The proposal has real merit only if there is flexibility for parents—parental choice—if parents are able to move children to a school with a better batting average. I suspect that that may not be so easy as the Government may imagine.
    However, that is an academic argument, because unfortunately the measure does not yet apply to Northern Ireland and if it is to do so, we do not know in what shape
    262
    it will be presented to the people of Northern Ireland because of our unique education system in which the Roman Catholics have their own school system.
    As regards the subject of Northern Ireland in relation to the Gracious Speech, I took upon myself the task of looking with a divining rod and magnifying glass to see if there had been any marked change in Government policy. Some people in Northern Ireland have been telling us in past weeks that the Government have had something of a Damascus road experience: that they have recognised the folly of their ways and that the Province could hope for some change in the way that Government treat Northern Ireland.
    Naturally, the people of Northern Ireland will have been inspecting closely to discover the Government's attitude towards the Province in terms of their programme for this parliamentary term. I found that the reference to Northern Ireland was almost among the last words in the Gracious Speech—a paragraph just before praying to Almighty God to bless our "counsels". When I compared it with the paragraph the previous year, I could not detect any new or advantageous shift of policy which might encourage the Unionist community of that war-torn part of the kingdom. I could not detect a grain of virgin thought in Government policy. I could not locate even the most meagre or microscopic change in the Government's thinking.
    The significant part of that paragraph of the Gracious Speech states:
    "My Government will resolutely seek to defeat terrorism".
    Last year's Gracious Speeech said:
    "My Government will be resolute in their efforts to defeat terrorism".
    Yet during that time there has been the highest degree of terrorism since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985.
    As regards the constitutional issue, let us consider the attitude towards the Irish Republic. This Gracious Speech says that the Government
    "will maintain positive relations with the Republic of Ireland."
    Last year they said that they would
    "maintain positive relations with the Republic of Ireland."
    In 1985, the year that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, they said that they would
    "maintain good relations with the Republic of Ireland."
    This year's Gracious Speech says that the Government will "strengthen the economy". Last year's Gracious Speech said that they would "strengthen the economy".
    Mr. Dunn: They are consistent.
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman may think that the repetition of those phrases shows some consistency but I rather suspect that it shows merely common or garden lack of thought—indeed, bankruptcy of thought—about the situation in Northern Ireland on the part of the Government.
    The jargon in the Gracious Speech has not changed in the past year. The same sort of statements were being made when I entered the House in 1979. Meanwhile, unemployment has increased, the terrorists' role has increased and the Republic of Ireland has a greater role in the internal affairs of that part of the United Kingdom.
    The hopes and expectations of some of our friends in Northern Ireland have therefore been dashed. There is no manifestation of a desire on the part of the Government to do away with the Anglo-Irish Agreement or to right the

    263
    wrongs that they have done, and there is no hint of any adjustment in the Government's attitude towards Ulster, or the slightest signal of any move to strengthen the Union.
    In truth, I had not expected that, but anyone who did would have been brought abruptly down to ground, if not by the Government's rancid programme, by the out-working of that programme. In terms of the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, we have seen the Irish Republic Minister strutting around Ulster like a Minister-in-waiting, as if he owned the Province. We have seen it in the out-working of security policy, in the present upsurge in IRA terrorism.
    However, the message of which I want to unburden myself today is very serious. If I seem to falter before I give my analysis to the House it is because of a fear that I may be in some way misunderstood. I am not so worried, although I recognise that there will be those who will seek—because of the inability to answer the issue concerned—to say that I am attempting to involve myself in scaremongering or, worse still, electioneering.
    The reality is that there is a serious new situation in terms of security in Northern Ireland. We have all become accustomed to the Provisional IRA activity which accounts for the greater part of the violence that takes place in Northern Ireland. Over the past 20 years, given that the Provisional IRA's tactics will change from time to time, the rate of attrition in which it has become involved has remained much the same. It is much the same this year. The scope of what it calls legitimate targets may change, but by and large it includes the whole of the Protestant and Unionist community.
    The new factor is loyalist so-called terrorism. Although it has always been there to some extent, it is clear that it has considerably expanded and increased during this year. For a long time I have recognised a degree of disenchantment, almost despair and hopelessness, within the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The community has seen every constitutional change since the 1960s as disadvantaging it. It has seen a campaign of terrorism which has taken away the lives of thousands of people, young, old, male, female, Protestant and Roman Catholic throughout the community. It has seen about 30,000 people maimed and mutilated and it sees nothing in the Government's activities which is likely to stop that terrorist campaign.
    What has gone to the kernel of the issue is that the Provisional IRA has been rewarded for its activities. When a Minister says, after the events of last Saturday, that the Government will not give in one millimetre to terrorism, it is hard for people in Northern Ireland to swallow when they see that Governments have given in miles to terrorism. The Government shape their policies around what they believe the reaction of the terrorists may be. Even if one wants to put the matter in the best context, the Government make concessions to those who have the same pursuits as the terrorists in the hope that, by giving life to the constitutional politicians, they will in some way damage the IRA and the terrorists. By and large, the IRA has been seen by the Unionist community as having gained concessions through its violence.
    When the Government take the advice of the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party to lance the Unionist boil, they should not be surprised if something very ugly seeps out. What we see now in the Protestant community is the kind of alienation as a result of which the
    264
    Government signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They believed that there was alienation in the Roman Catholic community with which they needed to deal. By signing the agreement and, in their view, doing away with the alienation of the Catholic community, the Government have in effect brought about the alienation of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland.
    That community sees that it can win elections, but that they do not change anything. It seems that its politicians can win arguments, but that this does not change anything because, at the end of the day, it is terrorism that causes the Government to make changes in their policies. That is a sad reality, and it is the lesson that the Government have taught the people of Northern Ireland. In the Protestant community, that is the lesson that is being learned by those who would engage in this form of terrorism.
    Let me make it abundantly clear, so that there can be no doubt about it, that I condemn terrorism whether it comes from the IRA or from any loyalist organisation. The pedigree of the terrorist does not make the act right. If the terrorist is a Protestant, the crime is as much murder as if the terrorist were a Roman Catholic. If the victim is a Protestant, it is the same as if the victim were a Roman Catholic. I make no distinction in terms of terrorism. It is evil and wicked, and it must be put down.
    However, I must tell the Government that the rise in terrorism on the Unionist side of the fence is clearly seen by the security forces as being far better organised than ever before. There is real concern in the security forces that they cannot put their finger on the people who are involved in this campaign. As the Member of Parliament for Belfast, East over the past 20 years, I could have named easily the leading players in each of the loyalist paramilitary organisations. Indeed, the Secretary of State and any Minister involved in Northern Ireland would have been able to list names. But I guarantee that there are few people in Northern Ireland, except those at a high level within those paramilitary organisations, who now know who those people are. The whole structure of the organisation has changed.
    There is almost a cockiness within the organisations about their ability not to be penetrated by the security forces. Everything that I have heard from people who are close to those organisations—I especially asked councillors in my constituency to give me a feedback on what they understood to be the situation from those who are close to those organisations—suggests that there is a confidence in those organisations to the extent that they say that they will take the battle to the Provos and that they will take the battle to the Irish Republic. One would not have seen that before from the Protestant paramilitary organisations. In past years, they were almost something of a joke in the community because they were never able to carry out operations successfully. They always botched them and they were rather amateurish organisations. That does not appear to be the case at present and there is grave concern in the security forces as a result of the new and disturbing trend.
    What I have said about the alienation of the Unionist community is not a political statement that requires a response from the Government in terms of defending their policy. I simply state it as the perception of the Unionist community. It is a real and growing perception within that community, and unless the Government deal with it, and

    265
    unless there are wise and healing counsels from the Government, we are, I suspect, in for what could be one of the bloodiest winters that our Province has ever seen.
    I recognise that some may think that what I have said is dangerous talk. I had to weigh that in the balance before I spoke at all. I have to tell the Government that, unless they act, the situation will be much worse. Few powers repose in Unionist Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland, but the one trust that is left with them is the power to speak on behalf of those whom they represent and to alert those who have the ability to act to do so. I ask the Government—indeed, I plead with them—to act at this time. If the Government are playing straight with the people of Northern Ireland, they will not fail to act. If the Government have the least vision, they will act. If there is no vision, the people will perish.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am aware that the balance of the debate is drawn towards education, but having sat here since 3 pm, I am determined to concentrate on employment.
    When the Secretary of State for Employment opened the debate, he compared my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to Private Fraser of the television series "Dad's Army", who ran around shouting, "Doom, doom." The more I watch the Secretary of State, the more he puts me in mind of a character from the same television series called Corporal Jones, who ran around shouting, "Don't panic, don't panic." As the unemployment figures get higher and higher, the Secretary of State for unemployment seems to shout, "Don't panic, don't panic." The final analogy from the television series is to compare the Secretary of State to the youngest member of Captain Mainwaring's troop. Captain Mainwaring always ended up admonishing the young recruit by calling him a "stupid, stupid boy". Perhaps that cap fits the Secretary of State for Employment.
    I shall concentrate on unemployment in Strathclyde. In recent months, evidence suggests that Strathclyde has been seriously affected by the recession that has been apparent in the rest of Britain. Notified vacancies have fallen by 5 per cent. in the past year and are at their lowest level since 1984. Unemployment has risen by 11·4 per cent. in the past year, but is still below the increase that has been experienced in Britain as a whole. Total unemployment is estimated to have declined by 1·4 per cent. in the past year after increases over the 1978–88 and 1988–89 periods.
    In manufacturing, employment is estimated to have declined by 4·8 per cent. in the past year, compared with a fall of 4·1 per cent. in Britain. Thus manufacturing unemployment represents a continual erosion in Strathclyde's base. The clothing and textile sector in Strathclyde has experienced significant job losses in past months. A firm called Meritina has closed its operations in Castlemilk, which is an unemployment black spot. The regional and district councils are co-operating with the Government and the Castlemilk initiative to try to raise standards for Castlemilk people. However, without employment as the final part of the jigsaw puzzle, there is a danger that all those measures will come to naught.
    British Steel has announced plans to close its Dalzell plate mill and build a new plate mill facility at Teesside.
    266
    That will result in the loss of 600 jobs. In response to growing concern about the impact of the rundown of steel on the Lanarkshire economy, the Secretary of State for Scotland established a Lanarkshire working group, of which Strathclyde regional council is a member. The working group is carrying out valuable work, but requires between £200 million and £300 million to fund development in Lanarkshire. Included within that sum is a bid by the regional council for £15 million to £20 million to enable it to finance various infrastructure projects. To date, however, only the Lanarkshire Development Agency has received additional funding totalling £15 million, which must be spent this financial year. It is all right to identify a need, but it must be followed up by making major resources available.
    In March 1991, total employment in Strathclyde was estimated to be 778,000—a decrease over the year of 11,000, or 1·4 per cent, which is the second straight year-on-year employment decline for Strathclyde. In August 1991, 7,646 vacancies were notified in Strathclyde—a decrease of 2,617 over August 1990, which represents a continual decline in the employment base. Such figures are always complicated because of the Government's fiddles. It has been estimated that if the unregistered unemployed—those on special measures—were taken into account, unemployment in July 1991 was about 194,700 or 17·7 per cent.
    In August 1991, Strathclyde had the second highest total unemployment rate in Scotland and in July 1991, it had the seventh highest total unemployment rate in Britain as a whole. A series of figures show that the decline in Strathclyde is accelerating. One of the guides is the ratio between unemployed people and vacancies, which shows the state of the local labour market. In August 1991, the ratio was 17:1, which means that there were 17 unemployed people for each vacancy notified to Strathclyde jobcentres and career offices.
    The television advertisements which show unemployed people saying, "I am going to get a job; I will get a job; I will get a job on Monday," are a disgrace and an insult to unemployed people. They are much resented, because thousands of people in Strathclyde cannot do that.
    Many figures for male unemployment are bandied about. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. In Strathclyde, unemployed people claiming benefit represented 15·3 per cent. of the region's male work force, compared with male unemployment rates of 12 per cent. in Scotland and 11 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole. In August 1991, the unemployment rate for women stood at 6·8 per cent., with 31,743 women unemployed and claiming benefit. In Scotland as a whole, female unemployment stood at 5·7 per cent. and in Britain as a whole it was 4·9 per cent. If we include those involved in the Government's employment training initiatives, the figure comes to 19,200. The figures for Strathclyde show that 49,000 people were unemployed but were ineligible for benefit or had given up looking for jobs. That puts the figure up to 68,200 more than the official one. Again, the figures have been fiddled to hide the true position from the public.
    Britain has been affected in that way since 1979. That is what happens when manufacturing and investment collapse. British manufacturing and investment have plummeted and are now below their 1979 level. If investment does not take place, the capacity of the

    267
    economy is reduced, which means that, when an economic recovery takes place, imports will rise fast and inflation will be pushed up.
    Between 1979 and 1981—the first two years of this Conservative Administration—manufacturing investment collapsed to 30 per cent. It took until 1988 to recover to its 1979 level. As a proportion of GDP, it has fallen from 3·4 per cent. to 2·5 per cent. No hopeful signs are reaching us, because manufacturing and investment have fallen by 20 per cent. in the past 12 months and are now below their 1979 level. The consequence is that capacity is slashed, the balance of payments becomes vulnerable and inflationary pressures re-emerge. But the Conservatives still pursue their policies—they learn nothing and forget nothing. They talk about cleaning each other's windows, washing each other's cars and polishing each other's shoes. We cannot survive if we make nothing. This nation has always been a manufacturing nation and that is how we have survived.
    Interest rates should be kept at sustainably low levels. That has particular relevance to the biggest private employer in my constituency—the Hoover factory in Cambuslang. The sale of such consumer goods depends on how people feel economically—whether they have money in their pockets. Not only do high interest rates cause unemployment but they make hire purchase more expensive. Again, those factors badly affect my constituency.
    In 1990, the manufacturing deficit was £10·9 billion, whereas in 1979, there was a surplus of £2·7 billion. Some Conservative Members need reminding that there was a surplus every year between 1974 and 1979. That needs to be said increasingly so that the record is put straight.
    As for the Conservative party's record on industrial research and development, that alone is a precondition to a firm's ability to innovate and to capture and retain new markets. Britain is lagging behind because the Government have consistently failed to support innovation in industry, which our major industrial competitors take for granted. Time and again, the CBI—not exactly a friend of the Labour party, even these days—criticises the Government for their unhelpful attitude to industry.
    One particular criticism levelled at us by the Conservative Government relates to our proposals for a minimum wage. All the kerfuffle, the shouting and the fuss from them amounts to one thing—they are trying to cover up their record. The Tory tactic is to attack the minimum wage proposal to divert attention from the massive rise in unemployment caused by their policies—more than 500,000 people have been made unemployed in the past year alone.
    Even if the introduction of a minimum wage caused unemployment to rise—and that is disputed—it has been estimated that that increase would be as little as 4,000 after three years. Compare that with the record of the Conservative Government, who have presided over 500,000 people being made unemployed in this past year alone. They have the cheek to criticise a minor proposal that would raise people from poverty, which is the height of hyprocrisy.
    Unemployment, along with the national health service, are the most desperate issues in my constituency. We await the next election eagerly because it will give us the chance to avenge ourselves on the people who have caused so much misery. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will do very well to hang on to his
    268
    seat because his constituents will soon sort him out for supporting the policies that have caused their unemployment.
    7.40 pm
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: It is particularly fitting that we should have the debates on education and employment on the same day, because education is a continuing process throughout life upon which employment is heavily dependent. What is more, any forecast about the way in which industry will develop within the United Kingdom and the European Community in the remainder of this century suggests that national prosperity will depend to an increasing extent on the successful skilling up of the national work force to meet the new demands that will be made by industry, technology, the professions and academia.
    Anyone who studies academic standards in our schools over the past 20 years must recognise that there have been considerable improvements. International comparisons are of relatively little value because they tend to highlight the different priorities and practices of different countries. We are better than other countries in some things and they are better than us in others.
    Mr. Worthington: Like what?
    Mr. Batiste: That sedentary intervention illustrates how the Opposition always look for the things that damage Britain most. Not unnaturally, we always look at the things in which we do rather well.
    We must not undermine our centres of excellence when we try to improve the system as a whole. I believe that we have paid a heavy price for some of the flawed theories that were adopted by the educational establishment of the 1960s. Those theories have led to great under-achievement among our population.
    The first of those flawed theories was the myth of parity of esteem between schools. The idea that every school produced a similar standard of education and that parents regarded every school in their area as equal was nonsense. It was also dangerous. If one could not identify the differences in the quality of education between schools, there was no incentive to put things right. If parents did not have reasonably objective information from which to make a judgment between schools, they made that judgment on whatever inaccurate information was available to them. That myth has caused us great harm.
    The second flawed theory was the commitment to the objective of mixed-ability teaching. I accept that in some schools such teaching may be necessary—in village schools with a small number of pupils, it is inevitable. Those teachers engaged in mixed teaching tell me that it can work, to a degree, if one puts a great deal of effort into it. However, for the same effort, much better education could be provided if schools were to stream effectively on abilities where possible.
    The third flawed theory was the idea that to encourage the competitive spirit among children and to get them used to competitive pressures was in some way undesirable.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Atkins): Especially in sport.
    Mr. Batiste: I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest in sport and that is the best example of why that

    269
    crass theory fell down. However, just because its crassness was so obvious in sport does not mean that the theory has not caused equal damage throughout all subjects.
    I strongly suspect that many able people drop out of university early in their careers because, as much as anything else, they have never been brought up to face competitive pressure in life. They find it difficult to make that adjustment. But once we leave the world of education, we must face such competitive pressures in almost every walk of life. Surely our educational system should encourage and train people to face up to them.
    In the past 10 years, the Government have taken great steps to correct those flaws. We have introduced parental choice, the local management of schools, grant-maintained schools—there will be a flood of applications to become such schools after we have won the next election—the GCSE, the national curriculum and testing. All those changes are beginning to remove the bases of the flawed theories so that we can address the reality of education and put right existing problems.
    The Queen's Speech maintains the momentum. We plan to enlarge the inspection of schools to a scale hitherto unknown. That is essential. Some Opposition Members have criticised the fact that the inspectors will not be Government officials, but I look upon such criticism with amazement. If the Opposition had a shred of justification for their attack it would mean that they would nationalise all chartered accountants. Surely the same logic should apply—no one could provide a fair and independent audit of a limited company unless he was a Government official. That is nonsense and it is just as much nonsense when one applies it to education.
    Mr. Straw: What about the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?
    Mr. Batiste: There we have it once again—the moment we have such discussions the Opposition start sniping at independent professions. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) should note that chartered accountants display considerable commitment and dedication when it comes to providing a high standard of independent auditing. If the Opposition believe that nationalising the audit system and putting in paid civil servants to audit the industrial world would improve it, standards of integrity and the quality of accounting, that is laughable and beyond belief.
    Mr. Straw: I can only cite to the hon. Gentleman the experience of local authorities when it comes to dealing with district auditors and auditors from the private sector. Most authorities would say that they get an easier ride from private sector auditors, for one good reason: private sector auditors depend on being retained by their local authority for their continuing profits.
    Mr. John Bowis: There is no proof of that.
    Mr. Batiste: Methinks the hon. Member for Blackburn protests too much. Some local authorities may have a vested interest in trying to undermine independent auditors for the very reason that was obvious from the hon. Gentleman's intervention—because profit is involved. The new-look Labour party always slips back into its old ways. Profit is a dirty word whether in relation to
    270
    industry or education. Whenever one probes beneath the surface of the Opposition one witnesses the same reflex reaction.
    When the inspection of schools takes place on a wider scale it will provide the data upon which action can be taken to improve the quality of schools.
    Another important piece of proposed legislation will allow further education colleges to float free from local authorities. That local authorities merely provide a straitjacket for such colleges was evident from the dramatic improvement in the quality and performance of polytechnics once they were freed from local authorities a few years ago. I strongly welcome the proposal to free further education colleges.
    I also welcome the opportunity to remove the binary line as that will allow polytechnics to apply for university status. It will be particularly welcome in the context of European grants, because the term "polytechnic" as we use it is not well understood in Europe. I believe that, as a result, our polytechnics lose when it comes to the allocation of grant and when applying for research funding.
    I make two suggestions for inclusion in the legislation on higher education. The first relates to the outrageous scandal of the delay by some local education authorities in paying students' grants. I am told that in Leeds, for instance, four to five weeks after the beginning of term, up to one third of students at universities and polytechnics have still not received their grant cheque. One can imagine the anxiety of a young person, possibly away from home for the first time and being called upon to pay the fees for a hall of residence and to buy books, who expects as of right to have received a cheque on the first day of term, but who finds that more than a month later it is still not there. If LEAs are not capable of living up to their statutory responsibilities, why not cut out the middle man altogether and let the money flow directly from the Government to the institutions? I can see no purpose in continuing this system.
    The second issue that we will have to scrutinise in Committee will be how research and development funding is to be distributed after the binary line is removed. It is important that current overall levels of Government spend on R and D—which are consistent with best practice around the world—be maintained, even if the Ministry of Defence R and D spend is reduced. We must ensure that overall Government spending is maintained at the same levels, with defence spending moving over to the civil sector.
    At the same time, we must encourage the links built up over the past 10 years between industry and higher education institutions. If this country falls down in any area, it is in the comparison between what is spent by private industry here on R and D and what is spent in countries such as Germany and Japan. So the questions that will have to be answered are how the R and D spend will be allocated and how companies will be encouraged to spend more on R and D once the binary line is gone.
    Great progress has also been made on employment over the past 10 years: trade union reform, the creation of TECs, youth training, employment training and training credits were all innovative and imaginative steps forward. I am only sorry that the step-by-step approach to trade union reform did not continue in this Queen's Speech, because I thought that the Green Paper on further trade union reform was excellent. The right of people to join the

    271
    trade union of their choice, the restrictive practices of the Bridlington agreement notwithstanding, should be quickly implemented.
    Compared with this array of novel, imaginative and successful measures, the Labour party's intentions with respect to employment present an entirely different picture. It is committed to a return to secondary picketing. How that will help industrial relations I do not know. The Opposition are committed to a statutory minimum wage which will wipe out about 1·5 million jobs. Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) where the evidence was for saying that no jobs will be lost as a result of the statutory minimum wage. His only response continues to be a flat denial of a fact which virtually every independent observer confirms. That is cold comfort for my constituents whose jobs would be at risk.
    Shadow spending Ministers are promising £35 billion spending at the same time as shadow Treasury Ministers deny it. But the threat of that overspend will create inflationary pressures and put pressure on sterling. Within the exchange rate mechanism, those pressures would force up interest rates and put further pressure on employment.
    The areas of spending that are not popular with the Labour party will come under increasing pressure, too. The Challenger tank is made in Leeds. A world-beating piece of defence equipment, it has won the competition to supply the British Army and it has a good chance of selling well overseas. With Labour in office, pressures to spend on health and education would build up and a Labour Government might ask whether they really needed any tanks. That would jeopardise the contracts that had been placed. The employees who work in the defence industry must feel a cold chill down their spines when they realise that the shadow defence spokesman is not even in the shadow Cabinet, so what weight can he exert on behalf of their interests or those of our defence? There will be a carve-up.
    The contrast between our actions and the Labour party's promises is clear. The Queen's Speech is an excellent programme of legislation for the coming year, and I believe that our Green Paper on trade union reform will provide a necessary and successful ingredient of a winning manifesto at the next election.
    7.54 pm
    Mr. Jack Thompson: I had intended to concentrate on education, but I agreed with all but a couple of paragraphs in the speech of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), whose presentation was exceptionally good, so I shall concentrate more on unemployment, especially in the north.
    Tonight's interesting debate has covered a wide range of subjects including Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland. Tomorrow, however, thousands of people in this country will be unable to learn about our discussions here, because many of them will be unable to afford a newspaper or a television licence. I refer to those who do not have jobs and whose priorities are to feed and clothe their children and keep a roof over their heads. Not all of them are succeeding in doing even that, but it remains their priority.
    Problems of unemployment in the south-east have been mentioned, but concentrating on that area is to some extent illusory, although I sympathise with people who have lost their jobs in London and the south-east in recent times. In my part of the world, in the north, we have lived
    272
    with unemployment generation after generation. We have suffered from it for 150 years, with three notable exceptions. Unemployment fell considerably during the first and second world wars, when most of the guys from my part of the world were in the trenches on the Somme and in the desert of El Alamein. Unemployment was fairly low just after the second world war, too, when there was a major programme of reconstruction and the mines were working flat out to produce coal for the power stations. They continued to do so until the mid-1970s.
    In the 1970s, a number of mines closed in my constituency. There were 20 there in the 1960s: there are none left now. Most of them closed because they were exhausted, but both Labour and Tory Governments in the 1960s and 1970s applied regional policies that were fairly successful. We had industrial development certificates which advised industries of areas of the country where they could expand and of others where they could not.
    Then came development area status and the various grants that went with it. That had a significant effect on my whole county. Many mines were replaced by new industries, many of them pharmaceutical industries of which no one in my area had any previous experience. An aluminium smelter was also built—until then, our only experience of aluminium had been with the pots and pans on the cooker. The smelter started operating and men were retrained to work in the industry. At the peak of its operations about 1,100 people were employed in it, supporting another 5,000 jobs outside the plant.
    That was deliberate policy, and it worked extremely well. At that time, Glaxo and Searle came to my constituency, and Boots and Merke Sharp and Dome went to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). They are all pharaceutical companies. They are still there, well settled and doing a good job. The employees, who are predominantly ex-miners, have settled in well.
    Since about 1975, no new industries have come to the county, only one or two small businesses. On Tyneside, which neighbours my constituency, the rapid decline in the shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries has affected employment prospects. That, too, has affected my area.
    Since 1979, Government policies have been of no help whatever in my area. For example, development area status is given to the city of Newcastle and runs up the Tyne valley to the west—I can understand why Newcastle has that status—to the towns of Ponteland and Darras Hall, which is predominantly executive housing attached to an agricultural village. Its reason for having development area status is nil. The problems of the county run, not east-west, but north-south. That is recognised in the county structure plan, but not by the Government.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that there is no link between unemployment and training. In 1965, the National Coal Board employed 500 apprentices in the two counties of Northumberland and Durham. Exactly 20 years later, in 1985, the figure was 50—one tenth of the number trained 20 years previously. As I understand it, now there is none. That reflects the changes that took place when a major industry disappeared from the county. There was no employer to create training opportunities for young people.
    The NCB had an extremely good training programme, of which I was a product in my earlier life as an engineer. That has all gone, but the facilities remain. There is still an engineering workshop in my constituency which could

    273
    take 60 or 70 young people and train them in engineering skills. British Coal cannot fund that. Funding should come from Government sources, but I am afraid that the training and enterprise council arrangements do not cover such a proposition.
    We need proper regional policies in an area such as mine. The Labour party has advocated that. I have been involved in discussions on how that should evolve in the northern region. We should devolve powers and responsibilities to properly established regional assemblies, which would begin to overcome some problems in the north. There should be greater emphasis on retaining jobs and introducing new ones.
    I am not against inward investment. Earlier, it was said that the TUC was against it. In my area, there is a factory that used to be owned by Glaxo and used to produce primary penicillin. Glaxo decided to dispose of the factory and sold it to a Taiwanese company, Synpac. In the past two or three months, it took over the factory and now produces primary penicillin—exactly what Glaxo produced. Somehow Synpac can find the market which Glaxo could not.
    Another factory in my area produced power packs for television sets. It had various owners, including Gresham Lion and Dowty. Then there was a management takeover, but I cannot remember the name as it lasted such a short time. It, too, has been taken over by a Taiwanese company, Lite On. It is producing power packs for television sets. It has found the market which, again, British companies could not. I congratulate the Taiwanese on their marketing skills, which somehow we do not have.
    I am not critical of foreign companies that come to this country, except in one or two cautious respects. British Alcan has a smelter in my constituency. Less than two weeks ago, it announced a further reduction of 300 jobs. It has already reduced its manpower little by little, but this time it is in one fell swoop. There are compulsory redundancies and people have to go. When I discussed the matter with the management, they claimed that there was a slump in the international market for aluminium and that stockpiles were increasing. I understand that, because it has been happening elsewhere.
    The management also said that there were two major problems:first, the construction industry, which used tremendous amounts of aluminium, had been badly affected; secondly—this relates to some of our foreign policies—the Russians were dumping aluminium on the metal market to the tune of about 75,000 tonnes, which is equavalent to the output of four major smelters. Obviously, that affects the smelter in my constituency. The decision to get rid of 300 jobs was made not in London or Newcastle, but in Montreal. External influences determine what happens in my constituency.
    Recently, Blyth power station, which is owned by National Power, decided to cut 250 jobs. It removed completely two generating sets. I suppose that that contributed to the increase in senior executive salaries. Both Alcan and the power station depend on coal for fuel, so what they do has a knock-on effect on the one colliery left in Northumberland. Now 100 jobs are to go there. In the past two months, more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in my constituency—they are all male jobs—and that is pushing the unemployment figure close to 20 per cent.
    274
    How do we overcome these problems? There is a way. Look at some of the policies that were applied in the 1960s and 1970s, adjust them for the 1990s and reintroduce them. I am sure that, come the general election, when we get a Labour Government, that is exactly what we shall do.
    8.7 pm
    Mr. Bob Dunn: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on the Loyal Address tonight. I want to direct one small remark to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who is not in his seat. He called for an all-Wales elected body—I presume that, by the same token, he would also want an all-Scotland elected body—which would have powers devolved from Westminster. If there were such a body, the over-representation of Scotland and Wales in this House could not be sustained. It will not escape the notice of Opposition Members that only twice since 1945 has the kingdom of England failed to have a Conservative majority. Therefore, the quid pro quo of devolution, if some future Parliament should so decide, must be a more equitable distribution of numbers and seats.
    I also want to address some remarks to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). It has always been an ambition of mine to take part in a debate to which he has contributed. He is respected and held with affection on all sides of the House because he is a man of great principle at a time when we are deafened from within the parliamentary Labour party by the sound of principles crashing to the floor like so much glass. He has remained true to his principles. It has cost him—he has always been on the losing side—but he has kept true to them. The Conservative party pays tribute to the singular contribution that he made in 1983 to the successful re-election of the Conservative Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman is big on style. He has a cultivated manner. He always ends a sentence on an upward inflection and bounces and rises like a disconcerted Harlem Globetrotter. However, the substance is nil. It is a bit like eating a Chinese meal—good at the time, but soon leaving one with an empty feeling. We note his progress, his contribution and the completely unprincipled stand of the party of which he is a senior member.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not see that a minimum wage would increase unemployment. That is his view. Ours is that a minimum wage would create unemployment. Interestingly, over the weekend, the Labour party candidate in the Langbaurgh by-election conceded in the Sunday Times that a minimum wage would increase unemployment. Who is right? Is it the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent or the Labour party candidate in the by-election? The latter at least has one advantage over many Labour Members in that he has worked in private industry, and he will do so again from Friday 8 November. I should like an answer on that point from the hon. Member for Blackburn.
    I welcome the Queen's Speech; hon. Members may remember that, in 1982, I seconded the Loyal Address. The debate on the Gracious Speech not only enables the Government to enlarge upon their intentions for the parliamentary year that lies ahead but gives the Opposition an opportunity to lay out their stall of policies so that they can be seen, perhaps for the first time, in

    275
    public. The Conservative party knows that, if one wants to get hold of the policies of Labour, one does not ask their spokesmen. Mr. Mandelson has tied them up, dragged them along, put them in a cupboard and sanitised them. One gets the Labour party's policies from its minders who, like a heavenly chorus, come into play every now and again, especially for the media and the soundbites.
    The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has been criticised, despised and sat upon by Labour Members. His one compelling virtue is his honesty. No one can deny that, for all his wealth and connections, for all his aristocratic Pedigree, the right hon. Gentleman always tells the truth. In an interview with Mr. Anthony Bevins in The Independent on 30 September, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "If we've changed our mind to win, we could change our mind when we've won. What's wrong with that? We could not talk about nuclear disarmament because we might not win. But we've won, so we change back again."
    That position strikes a chord in the heart of every Labour Member. The shedding of principles like leaves in autumn is in pursuit of power. We know that, in the end, they will revert. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, once
    "we've won, so we change back again."
    The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who I hope will wind up the debate for the Opposition, made a speech over the weekend which was reported in an article in The Independent on Sunday yesterday, headed: "Labour 'fast track' for gifted children". It says:
    "Mr. Straw said … 'We have to get away from the over-rigid application of age rules which may serve to trap a child in an educational environment which cannot adequately serve his or her needs'."
    Mr. Janman: That sounds like a grammar school.
    Mr. Dunn: Exactly so.
    Later in the article by Ngaio Crequer, the hon. Member for Blackburn was reported to say:
    "gifted children would not be helped by a return to selection, which had stamped many pupils of great ability as failures. The Labour Party would make education authorities abolish selection at 11."
    There we have it—the Labour party wants to help but will help by abolition.
    Significantly, the article also said that the hon. Member for Blackburn had said:
    "master classes would be encouraged, to extend the brightest pupils; schools with strength in music, ballet and performing arts would be encouraged to develop specialist centres; teachers would be better trained to spot gifted children."
    I could have said that—I probably did when I was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science. The point is that, within the comprehensive system where children are taught en bloc, where differentiation is not liked by the education establishment, the hon. Gentleman wants "master classes", although he has said also that
    "gifted children would not be helped by a return to selection".
    However, he is prepared to divide children between the bright and not-so-bright. This has more to do with a general election than with a genuine change in conviction.
    Interestingly, that statement has come from an hon. Gentleman who wishes to help the more able child by abolishing grammar schools, the CTCs and the assisted places scheme which the Government brought into operation.
    Mr. Janman: And grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Dunn: As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Gentleman wishes to abolish grant-maintained schools.
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that the Labour party wanted neighbourhood comprehensive schools, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, "Hear, hear." She has now been packed off so that she cannot say anything more. I know that, if she were to speak at the Dispatch Box, we would have an honest statement of the Labour party's intentions.
    Last December, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) visited Gravesham, my neighbouring constituency, and said that selective schooling would end under a Labour Government. North-west Kent, which has grammar schools, high schools, 11-to-18 comprehensive schools and a CTC would find all those choices swept out by a Labour Government, although the Labour party has said that it is committed to helping the bright child. What utter nonsense to make that statement. Mandelson should be sacked for forcing the hon. Member for Blackburn, who is fundamentally a nice guy, to utter these contortions of the truth.
    I especially welcome the following part of the Queen's Speech:
    "Action will be taken to improve quality and choice in education … and to make information available about the performance of individual schools."
    That is important to me. It is also important that we have a radical reform of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools. I am probably the only hon. Member present who has worked with HMI. If every school were to be inspected by HMI on a cyclical basis, the cycle would be 20 years. That is totally inadequate for measuring the impetus of education reforms.
    Furthermore, in the 1960s, the HMI was captured by the educational left and it has never let go. There is a self-perpetuating oligarchy which is a creature of its own making. That is why, a short while ago, I introduced a private Member's Bill dealing with this problem, which was voted against by the hon. Member for Blackburn and his colleagues. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of outside business men, people from commerce and perhaps even from some of the Churches, although not the Church of England, into the inspectorate. That will enable us to get a positive measurement of what education is about, what the product that has been created is like and what the world of work wants. The reforms of the way that schools are inspected are sensible.
    I hope that, ultimately, the Government will abolish, once and for all, the Department of Education and Science and give all the responsibilities to the Department of Employment in the form of a department of training and education. This is my last political objective. Once it has been achieved, I can smile again.
    I know that we have won the education ground, as it were, and have held it for the past decade. The Labour party is running behind us all the time. It is tied to the chariot wheels of radical education reform, and the important thing for Labour Members is not to get their feet squashed. The Labour party must come clean about what it wants for education. A simple but significant fact is that the Labour party and truth are becoming strangers. My constituents enjoy a choice, variety and range of schools that is second to none, and they know that support for what would become a Labour Government would be support for ending that choice. I ask my right hon. and

    277
    hon. Friends to fight and fight again against the policy changes that have been adopted by the hon. Member for Blackburn.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. Tony Worthington: We cannot choose who we follow in the Chamber.
    I shall talk mainly about the proposal in the Gracious Speech to introduce a Bill dealing with higher and further education in Scotland. The proposal provides my only chance to talk about the issue during the debate.
    My hon. Friends and I welcome some parts of the proposed measure, such as the transfer of control of the universities of Scotland. It is a pity, however, that the transfer will take place as a matter of expediency and not on a principled basis. It will happen only because there was a decision to unify the control of polytechnics and universities within England and Wales, when it was realised that that would involve taking over control of the central institutions in Scotland and transferring it to Bristol. As that would have been unacceptable within Scotland, responsibilities for the Scottish universities had to be transferred to Scotland. It is better however, to do the right thing for the wrong reason than not to do the right thing. We hope that the proposed Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will be fairly formed and will be able to do a job that will unify the Scottish education system for the first time.
    Having been told that the binary divide will be abolished, many of us have tried to think about what abolition will mean. The two key issues in the White Paper are differences in teaching practices and ratios in polytechnics and universities, and differences in research funding. When the Labour party submitted its proposals to abolish the divide—it has been doing so for some time—I hoped that we would be moving towards a common system of funding that would allow the colleges or polytechnics, which have been at a relative disadvantage in terms of funding, to move closer to the levels of funding that have been enjoyed by the universities. It was thought that abolishing the divide would mean that the status and resources of the college system would have to be strengthened if there was not to be a two-tier system in higher education.
    We are concerned that there will be a two-tier system and that, in abolishing the binary divide, we shall be creating another divide. It is a pity that the proposals for Scotland amount to a thorough botch when it comes to abolition. For some months, colleges in Scotland were left in complete uncertainty about their future position. They did not know whether they were to be universities. Robert Gordon's college in Aberdeen, Paisley college and Dundee college, for example, had never been classified as polytechnics although they shared almost all their characteristics. That was for various reasons, many of them to do with the Scottish Office.
    The White Paper was produced without thought for the colleges to which I have referred. Accordingly, they spent the summer in a difficult situation. They have to recruit students and be able to tell them at the end of the day whether they willl obtain a university degree or a polytechnic degree. I know that, last week, about 10 students who had enrolled at Robert Gordon's college left
    278
    and went to a university because they could not be satisfied about the degree that they would be awarded, which means that the college has lost about £150,000. That happened because the White Paper was half-baked or half-finished. No English college was uncertain about its future status.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: But for the White Paper, the colleges in England and Scotland that are funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council would have had no prospect of university status. The White Paper touched on whether degree-awarding powers should be given to colleges that are currently not designated as polytechnics under the PCFC. We have recently issued a consultative document on how we shall handle applications from these colleges. There are English colleges in that position. Bolton institute comes to mind immediately. The Government have made it clear how they will handle these matters, and the colleges have the same attractive prospects as face the polytechnics and colleges under the PCFC, so long as they can satisfy everybody of the quality of their awards. I have no doubt that Robert Napier college, for example, is confident that it will.
    Mr. Worthington: Robert Napier seems to be an amalgam of two colleges—Napier and Robert Gordon's.
    Mr. Clarke: I meant the two, Robert Gordon and Napier. It is no good the hon. Gentleman resorting to pedantry when faced with the answer to his question.
    Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for going into such detailed and wise consideration of these matters. It will come as something of a shock to a college in Aberdeen and another in Edinburgh to learn that tonight they have been amalgamated and now have university status. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the wisdom of his intervention.
    There is real concern about the binary divide and what it means. We are told that we shall abolish it, and there are considerable fears not about a division between polytechnics and universities but about one between institutions that call themselves universities. What is in a name? What does it mean to call something a university? My definition—I think it is the definition of the majority—is that a university in this country is a place where research and teaching are inextricably mixed and part of the same institution.
    If the Government have their way, it seems that many institutions that will be overwhelmingly teaching-oriented will call themselves universities. There is already a considerable concentration of university funding—that may be inevitable, but we need to debate where universities are going in future—and some figures suggest that about 70 per cent. of research funding from research councils and charities, for example, is going to 15 universities in this country. It appears that about 54 per cent. of science funding is going to 11 universities. There may be good reasons for that. For example, if we are to compete on a European or American scale, it may be necessary to have a concentration of funding.
    Against that background, we should be not abolishing the binary divide but creating a framework in which all universities and colleges would be equal. We would be

    279
    seeking to create or ratify a super-league of universities that would be on one plane, while the remainder would be fundamentally teaching institutions.
    What is disturbing about the Government's White Paper—and therefore their higher education policy—is that all those issues are not tackled. We need seriously to tackle the issue of whether sufficient money is going into basic research. We know that about one third of universities' income from the Universities Funding Council goes into basic research. However, it is a falling percentage, and there is a policy to transfer money to research councils. Britain's funding of research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product, lags behind that of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States. Therefore, we must ask whether this is the right time to be cutting the amount of research money going to higher education institutions.
    The 1991 Cabinet Office annual review of Government funding for research and development shows that expenditure on civil research and development is at its lowest level, as a percentage of total Government expenditure, since 1984, and that the Government's funding for basic research lags behind that of Italy, France, Germany, Japan and Sweden. I hope that, in the discussions on the proposals for higher education, the Government will tell us what they think should be the level of funding for research in our universities. I fear that there will be further cuts in the money devoted to basic research and that there will be a further concentration of resources among particular universities. Until now, students at universities have had the benefit of a mix of teaching and research, but I fear that that will be denied to students attending the 90 universities of the future.
    The funding of the higher education sector does not relate solely to research but extends to the basic facilities in our universities and colleges. There have been a number of disputes at Scottish institutions during the past few weeks because students feel that the facilities are not adequate. At Glasgow polytechnic, students have legitimately protested about the canteen facilities, which were built when the institution had 1,700 students, and which are not adequate to deal with the current 7,000 students. There have been protests about libraries. In Aberdeen, students are sleeping in tents because of a lack of accommodation. They no longer receive housing benefit, but they have to compete with oil workers for accommodation.
    Any Government can stuff colleges full of students; it takes a wise Government to ensure that standards are not damaged and that students are educated in decent conditions. The Government's sudden conversion in 1984 to an expansion of higher education was welcome, but not if it means an underfunding of our universities and colleges. If the quality that has been built up is destroyed, it will take a long time to put that right.
    The further education document is an appalling document that whittles away the role of local government. It is a foolish document because it does not attempt to put the case, to analyse or to rationalise. Mercifully, the Government have been driven back in one or two areas. They have withdrawn their proposals for the careers service. They wanted it to be taken over by employers, who naturally have their own interests at heart.
    There is a fundamental philosophical divide between the Opposition and the Government on the further
    280
    education proposals for both sides of the border. The Government quite literally refer to the customers of the colleges as the employers. If the word "customers" has to be used, it must surely mean the students. To say that further education colleges are about local employers is to diminish the role, status and vision of further education, so I hope that the Government will back away from that.
    It is foolish even to think of transferring the control of further education colleges to Edinburgh. In many regions, links have been built between secondary education, community education and further education. It now appears that, in future, there will be the absurdity of schools having to charge colleges for the use of school facilities, and colleges having to charge schools for the use of college facilities. Colleges will have to have the support of architects, accountants and lawyers, independent of that which can be provided by the local education system.
    There has been a foolish divide between vocational and non-vocational education, and that has led to the Government getting into a tangle in Scotland. In the first flush of the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that local authorities might be allowed to continue to provide some social recreational educational provision in their areas. After an uprising on both sides of the border, The Government had to back down and agree that more could be provided.
    The Government are in a tangle because the Secretary of State for Scotland is causing a number of problems, and not just those relating to the highland regiments. He has now agreed that he might have to fund vocational training through education authorities if local employers leave gaps in the proposed management of the service. he also conceded that local government would still be allowed to provide vocational training, even after further education authorities had been taken out of their control. The right hon. Gentleman said that because his constituents wrote to him. School board members at the Douglas-Ewart school feared that the proposed new arrangements for business people to take over the running of their nearest further education colleges, 25 miles away in Stranraer, would leave them without the courses currently on offer.
    We see complete muddle in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill presented today, with its proposals for an inadequate further education sector dominated by "local" business men, many of whom will not be local to Scotland. They will provide an inadequate service that will not reflect or respect the further education needs of many people in Scotland. It will have to be supplemented by local education authorities, which, under the Bill, will be given powers to provide vocational education.
    The Secretary of State says that that does not represent a change in the Government's original policy, but it does. Previously, it was proposed that only social and recreational education would be provided by local authorities at further education level. The Government realised where their half-baked proposals were leading, and backtracked.
    We will back the transfer of the control of universities in Scotland, but we will want to ensure that the binary divide will genuinely be dispensed with and that further divides are not introduced. In addition, we promise outright opposition to the proposal to take colleges of further education out of local authority control.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. John Bowis: Sometimes it takes a change of administration to improve education——
    Ms. Armstrong: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady says, "Hear, hear"—and just such a change occurred in inner London. With the departure of the not much lamented Inner London education authority, my borough of Wandsworth was able to improve standards. Under ILEA, Wandsworth's education costs were twice the national average, but produced half the national average results. It inherited a situation in which 40 per cent. of parents sought secondary education for their children in other than local schools.
    The borough had 12,000 empty school places costing £8 million a year. Nineteen per cent. of pupils were leaving school at 16 with no GCSEs, and only 17 per cent. with five A to C grade GCSEs, against a national average of 8 per cent. Fifteen per cent. of secondary school pupils practised truancy.
    Now that Wandsworth's teaching posts are being filled, the borough's secondary school enrolment has increased by 7 per cent., truancy has fallen to 10 per cent., and 20·5 per cent. of pupils leave with A to C grade GCSEs. The number staying on for sixth form education has increased by 10 per cent. to 42 per cent., and a further 20 per cent. of pupils go on to further education.
    Those improvements have been achieved during a very short time under Conservative management of inner London education. They run alongside innovative moves to introduce two city technology colleges, two grant-maintained schools, a new Church of England school, and free nursery education for every child for whom it is wanted.
    Labour offers little to the people of inner London—only the destruction of everything that is good in education. It would destroy the grammar schools that remain, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme for the less well-off in society, and even A-levels. I ask the Opposition to think again. Of course we want to bridge the gap between vocational and academic qualification, but A-levels lead to degree courses that are shorter, and that finish sooner, than their equivalents in other European countries. The system produces a much lower university drop-out rate of about one in six, compared with France or Germany, whose six or seven-year degree courses produce a 50 per cent. drop-out rate.
    I welcome the pledges on higher education in the Gracious Speech and the bringing together of academic and vocational qualifications. I look forward to the establishment of the ordinary and advanced diplomas, provided that they are accompanied by flexibility in higher education in terms of admissions policy. I welcome also the expansion of training credits.
    I must declare an interest as an adviser to the Association for College Management and the Association for Colleges for Further and Higher Education, in welcoming, with other right hon. and hon. Members, in the Further and Higher Education Bill, the ending of the binary divide, and the conferring of university status on polytechnics—which have proved their value in offering efficiency, quality, and student throughput at cheaper cost than universities.
    282
    Over the past few years, polytechnics have benefited from their independence and now lack only the status that would help them to attract funding and students from overseas in particular.
    The views of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who spoke and fled, are wholly opposed by the colleges themselves. The hon. Gentleman speaks only for certain Labour town hall bosses who want to keep control of further education. The colleges' representative bodies are much in favour of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal to give them independence.
    Any right hon. or hon. Member who has served on an education committee, as I have, will know what nonsense it was for local education authorities to take decisions on the priorities between capital equipment projects. The problem was also that colleges of further education had no ward councillors, whereas primary and secondary schools did. The funding that the Department sent down the line to further education rarely, if ever, reached the colleges. That can now be put right, which is why the colleges are so pleased with my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal.
    I hope that the transfer of assets will be made through the Education Assets Board, which could resolve any disputes that might arise between colleges and LEAs. I hope also that planning blight can be avoided as LEAs, understandably, seek to protect their own budgets and colleges strive to plan for their futures. I hope that we will soon see the establishment of a shadow public funding council, to advise colleges on their plans.
    I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend clarified the situation in respect of adult education, and hope that he will examine the role of adult education colleges in the provision of further education. AE colleges provide adult returners with the second opportunity that they need, but such students often cannot be full-time. I hope therefore that funding will be provided in terms of full-time equivalents, and not only for full-time FE students. If not, the only opportunity to provide adult education will be the crumbs from the rich man's table, by way of franchises from FE colleges.
    I welcome also the change of criteria. Adult education provides access to the second chance that so many people need. One of my local adult education colleges ran a cake decoration class for 16 students. One might not consider such a course particularly vocational, but four of those students returned to take English as a second language, four to take BTEC courses, and four to participate in a business start-up scheme course. Only four of the 16 students used it as a leisure course, which shows the access to further education that adult education can provide.
    I join forces with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) in respect of students with special needs. Their interests should be examined and the cost of provision should not exclude such students from the opportunities that exist for others.
    I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will start to examine the funding system, in terms of support for students in further education. At present, only higher national diploma courses qualify for mandatory grants. Some BTEC courses qualify for discretionary grants while others do not, but, even if the courses qualify, local education authority policy often excludes them.
    The fact that an applicant may have failed to complete a course in the past when he or she had a grant does not

    283
    necessarily mean that that failure was for academic reasons. It could have been for all sorts of personal reasons. Perhaps the original course was the wrong one; perhaps a second course is needed for the applicant t o take up the existing job opportunities. In any event, such people should be given a second chance. The worst problem of all, especially in London, is that experienced by students whose parents have moved across LEA boundaries and are excluded by residence qualifications that they cannot meet.
    I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to consider all those problems as he takes his excellent Bill through the House. There is a stark contrast between the educational opportunity provided in the Gracious Speech and the lack of opportunity, and ending of choice, proposed by the Opposition parties. I support my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues and hope that the Bill will soon be on the statute book.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Gracious Speech contains 504 words, and about three positive ideas. I have yet to find anything in it that will help St. Helens. I note that the Government intend to continue to prepare for the privatisation of British Rail and British Coal. When I first became a Member of Parliament, we had two pits and shared in a third; now we have nothing left. The sites are being taken away.
    Similarly, when I first became Member of Parliament for St. Helens, South, we had between 10,000 and 12,000 employees in the glass industry. In the past two months, we have lost nearly 1,000 jobs, which has reduced the number to 5,000 or 6,000. Industry is dying away. Who is being trained to replace those employees? Where is retraining being carried out?
    St. Helens has seen a marvellous example of privatisation. It is a pity that the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Employment are not present; they might have been able to explain. Eighteen months ago, the skill centres were privatised. The Government gave TICC £2 million, telling the employees to take this brand-new opportunity and assuring them that, as civil servants, they would be protected. Eighteen months later, TICC is bankrupt. What has happened to the 27 people who work in my skill centre? They are down the road, at 50-plus. Will they receive any compensation? No: they will receive the standard redundancy pay. If they had indeed gone down the road as civil servants, they would have received £40,000 or £50,000. Where is the morality of all that?
    No one but the Government wants to privatise British Rail—not even its chairman. Of course, he knows something about British Rail. He is not stuck in the dogma of party politics, as Conservative Members are. He is not stuck in the "rat race" belief that, if a concern is sold off, it will do well.
    The Government are saying, "Let us have a go at British Coal. At present there are about 40 pits." According to the Rothschild reports, there are 14, and 14 pits cannot supply our needs. The Government have closed all the good pits. Sutton Manor had 14 miles of seams, but the Government got rid of it, putting 400 or 500 people on the dole. Some of those people will never work again in St. Helens, because there are no jobs. The unemployment rate is rising, no new industry is coming in
    284
    and there are no grants. The Government would not even back the European Coal and Steel Community's campaign so that we could get our fair share.
    That is a disgrace in European terms. The Government are the pariah of Europe, but they cannot see it, because they are stuck in dogma and stupid beliefs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] With great respect, those Conservative Members are stuck in the same stupid beliefs.[Interruption.] The children will play, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but their tenure on the Government Benches is very short. It is time that some of them grew up and entered the real world—for instance, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who began his speech with four minutes of diatribe against my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). Why? I notice that his recreations are American politics and canvassing. I hope that we shall not be introducing into our political system the black propaganda campaigns that we see in America. That would be a disgrace. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is happening in Langbaurgh."] Indeed, it is happening in a constituency not too many miles north of here.
    Why can we not have some honesty in politics? Why not simply say that we have a moral duty to the employees at the skill centres. The Treasury says no, although I think that one or two Ministers would like to say yes. Why not give some help to St. Helens council by providing a rescue package? We need a skill centre and we need the education and training that come with it.
    In St. Helens the other day, the central heating system in Bleak House school was so good that it collapsed on a child. We have not received enough money to provide the educational and property maintenance that we have needed for the past 10 to 15 years. We shall always be the poor relation. It is surprising what is received by those in Sefton, West Lancashire or other areas that happen to have Conservative Members of Parliament. It is different in Labour areas, however. We have the lowest proportion of beds for geriatrics—about five per 1,000, when it should be 10 per 1,000, as it is in Sefton and other such areas. That is not fair. Why are none of those evils rectified in the Gracious Speech?
    Let us take the glass industry. Because the Government no longer provide grants for insulation and regeneration, the glass and insulation industries begin to go downhill. Once factories and skills are gone, the continentals come in to replace them when the grants start to come back, because our local industry has already gone. Why should we not invest? Where does the Gracious Speech tell me that the Government will invest? Where does it mention a single measure that will help St Helens?
    As a practising lawyer, I am more than a little concerned about the proposals relating to refugees. When can we have an undertaking to help genuine asylum seekers? Like everyone else, I accept that economic migrants should not have the right to political asylum, or leave to remain for an indefinite time. However, no adequate proposals have been made to protect the real refugees.
    I encountered a case—not professionally; I was approached as a Member of Parliament—of a man who was sent back to Zaire, possibly to imprisonment and possibly, as happens in some cases, to death. If we do not provide proper representation for them, on whose conscience does it lie? It lies not on the conscience of those who it on these Benches; it lies on the conscience of those who sit on the Conservative Benches. My only hope is that

    285
    the general election will take place long before this legislation passes into law. If, however, it is passed into law before the election, I am sure that we shall repeal it, simply because it transgresses international human rights. That has been done often enough during the past few years by this Conservative Government. The number of times that they have had to appear before the European Court of Human Rights is a disgrace. The Government have nothing to be proud of.
    What, again, does the Gracious Speech contain for the vast majority of people? What does it contain for the millions of people who are out of work, for the millions on hospital waiting lists, for the poor and the elderly and for England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales? Nothing but trite doctrinaire rubbish. The Government's time is up. Go.
    8.59 pm
    Mr. Tim Janman: I intend to concentrate on the two subjects of today's debate, education and employment. I shall deal mainly with the latter subject, but I intend to spend just a few minutes on education.
    Tremendous proposals are made in the Queen's Speech, in particular the proposal to provide information to parents. Without proper and relevant performance data about how a school is performing, it is not possible for parents to make an informed and therefore correct choice about a school. I welcome also the introduction of annual written reports, which I hope will contain grading for each child. Parents wish to see not just how their child is doing but how he or she is doing when related to a grading benchmark. I hope that the Minister will confirm that a child's performance will be measured by grading.
    Probably the most important of our education reforms concerns grant-maintained status. It is essential that we should do all that we can to take as many schools as possible out of local education authority control and place them under the control of governors and parents.
    My right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to know that Torrells comprehensive school in Grays in my constituency is conducting a ballot. I hope that, at the end of that procedure, there will be a majority in favour of grant-maintained status. If that is the case, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will approve the application. He will be even more interested to know that, through the grapevine, I have heard that one Labour county councillor in my constituency supports the application and that another Labour county councillor, who publicly opposes it, privately supports it because she has a child at Torrells comprehensive school.
    The Minister will be pleased to know that unemployment in my constituency fell by 41 last month. Unemployment is still only just half of what it was seven years ago. It is important that we should evolve out of this recession and out of rising unemployment and that we should not create a false boom by lowering interest rates too quickly or by Government over-borrowing. Although the current rise in unemployment, now slowing down, which we are witnessing is frustrating and to some extent avoidable, the Labour party's criticism of the Government's record is both hypocritical and deceitful.
    There are four main reasons why Labour's criticism is hypocritical and deceitful. First, the policies of every Labour Government under which this country has
    286
    suffered since 1929 have led to higher unemployment when they left office than when they took office. However, this is the party that goes on about unemployment as though it had a good record on unemployment. It has an appalling unemployment record, just as it has had since the war an appalling national health service waiting list record.
    Secondly, the Labour party tried to blame my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) for the recession. In the autumn of 1987 and during the early part of 1988, some of us, it is true, questioned the lowering of interest rate levels, but the Labour party did not criticise the lowering of interest rates to under 8 per cent. It asked for interest rates to be lowered even further.
    Thirdly, the Labour party's support for the social action programme of the social charter and for a minimum wage represents a political double-barrelled shotgun aimed at the working population, particularly those in lower-paid jobs. For millions of people, a Labour Government would replace low wages with no wages.
    The fourth reason why the Labour party's hypocrisy and deceit on unemployment is incredible is that the Labour party—I shall not talk about its Common Market Safeguards Committee, of which eight members of the Shadow Cabinet are still members—and the Opposition Front Bench are just as committed as the Government to membership of the exchange rate mechanism. As their only specific spending pledges are on child benefit and pensions, I do not see how a Labour Administration would make one iota of difference to unemployment.
    No doubt Labour's answer would be training, but the Government are already pumping billions of pounds of taxpayers' money into training, in addition to the £20 billion that is spent annually by the private sector. Labour's training levy—the introduction of yet another socialist tax on industry—would either reduce profit margins and therefore investment or, if it expanded the money supply, would lead to an increase in prices. Those are the four clear reasons why, whatever the rhetoric and sincerity, a Labour Government would make no difference to the economy in the next 12 or 18 months.
    Nowhere in the world has a minimum wage not caused higher unemployment. In France, which has a minimum wage, unemployment is about to peak at more than 3 million. Extremely high youth unemployment in Germany is being blamed on its minimum wage. When a minimum wage was introduced in the United States, it caused only large increases in black unemployment.
    Many people have summed up the effect of a minimum wage. On 5 June, Gavin Laird of the Amalgamated Engineering Union rightly said on "Channel 4 News":
    "It has never worked in the past; there is no logic for it; it does not work in any other country and it certainly will not work in Great Britain."
    I could not have put it better myself. Eric Hammond of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union said in The Daily Telegraph:
    "It is so fundamentally wrong that it will increasingly threaten Labour's prospects of a national victory."
    The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in "The Minimum Wage: Its Potential and Dangers", which was published in 1984, said:
    "The employment consequences will be little short of disastrous."
    No wonder the Labour candidate in the Langbaurgh by-election has admitted that a statutory national minimum wage would increase unemployment.

    287
    Neutral commentators may disagree about exactly how much a statutory minimum wage would increase unemployment, but they all agree that it would increase it by between 64,000 and 500,000. They agree that it would have a negative impact on growth in the economy of between 0·5 per cent. and 2·5 per cent. and that it would add between I per cent. and 3·1 per cent. to the retail prices index. That is only if stage one of the Labour party's proposals are implemented; it does not take into account the effect of stage two.
    The social action programme is another example of the Labour party's naive employment policies. It is further evidence that its policies are merely the result of what its paymasters, the trade unions, say. That is why it will try to con the public that it will not repeal most of the trade union reforms that we have made in the past 12 years. In a quantitative sense, in terms of the number of laws that have been passed in the past 12 years, that is correct, but if the totality of the laws represent a house, it will ensure that the laws that it changes will result in the foundations being decimated, with the result that it will fall down. What is the point of maintaining a proper legal framework for trade unions if law-breaking unions cannot be properly punished by the courts? What is the point of a legal framework if companies cannot get a court injunction to stop illegal strike action?
    The crucial question on secondary picketing is the definition of the wording in Labour's policy document:
    "where there is a direct interest between two groups of workers of an occupational or professional nature".
    That means power and coal workers bringing the country to its knees once again. It means COHSE and NUPE members stopping the sick being admitted to hospital, and it means rail, tube and bus workers striking on the same day and bringing our capital city to a grinding halt That is what the wording of Labour's policy document really means, and that is what will come about if we are mad enough to elect a Labour Government again.
    Conversely, Conservative Members wish to protect the public further from trade union activities. I welcome the proposal in the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s" to extend to the general public the same legal right to request an injunction from a court of law to stop illegal industrial action affecting a public service or an essential utility as is available to companies in law. If such court injunctions are ignored, sequestration of trade union assets will follow—but not, of course, if the Labour party is elected.
    We can contrast the Government's approach with Labour's approach, which goes in the opposite direction, once again leading industry and the public as lambs to the militant trade unionist slaughter.
    9.10 pm
    Mr. Jack Straw: This has been a wide-ranging debate. We heard an eloquent and powerful contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about the situation in Croatia. We also heard an interesting contribution by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who strongly criticised the Government for what he described as their extraordinary "confusion" over the channel tunnel route and their lack of strategy for rail freight. It was a quaint speech, telling us of the Government's "astonishing success" in bringing the north and south of the United Kingdom together. The way in which the Government
    288
    have brought the north and south together was well spelt out by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
    Essentially, especially during the past four years, the misery and unemployment which the Government inflicted on Scotland and the north and west of this kingdom have been inflicted on the south as well. That is one more reason why, across the south, there has been a greater swing to Labour than in any other region and why, I must point out to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who seeks to speak for my native county, we look forward to a smashing victory in his constituency at the next election.
    I regret the fact that I was not in the Chamber for the speech of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), but my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), who was here, told me that he made a heavily veiled criticism of Government policy for its lack of recognition of progress as a key measure of the effectiveness of schools, and expressed concern about the morale of teachers who, he said, were not sufficiently recognised by society.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke for himself, which cannot be said for the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is not in his place, the Back-Bench chairman of the Conservative party education committee. I listened to his speech and thought that I had heard it before. Suddenly I realised that I had not heard it before but read it before—word for word in the article that the Secretary of State for Education and Science wrote last Friday in The Times Educational Supplement He was almost, but not quite, word perfect. There must have been some error in the Conservative Central Office word processor as it churned out yet another brief for the hon. Gentleman to repeat.
    The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) let the cat out of the bag about the Government's true intentions towards Her Majesty's inspectorate. The Secretary of State has been trying to say that he is a friend of the inspectorate, despite his proposal to cut it to a third of its current size, and he has created pandemonium. If he is a friend, he has not communicated that fact to any member of the inspectorate.
    The hon. Member for Dartford—who, as ever, was frank—did not speak any honeyed words about the inspectorate but said that it had been captured by the left in the 1960s and remained captured, and that it was a self-perpetuating oligarchy. I am sorry that the Secretary of State was not in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman ended by saying that his last ambition in politics was to abolish the Department in which he served for eight years.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Including me.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) says that he will be among those abolished, but he has already abolished himself—there has never been such a secret and silent Minister for Sport.
    Mr. Atkins: Answer the question.
    Mr. Straw: All he has to do is talk to the Whips, and we will have a debate on sport any time he likes.
    The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) raised an important matter—the quality of education in Dartford and the part of Kent that he serves. He often raises that

    289
    subject, and we understand his desperation about what will happen to his seat at the next election. We have seen the bloodcurdling letters that he has sent to electors about what may happen if Labour is returned.
    The reason that we have a different policy—we want good comprehensives in Kent—is because we are concerned about the standard of education there. I shall quote Mr. David Brown, Kent secretary of the National Association of Governors and Managers:
    "Kent youngsters are being short-changed with an education fit for peasants".
    He went on:
    "when comparing Kent with 13 southern counties it had the lowest number of school leavers with five GCSEs grade A to C … the second highest number of pupils leaving with no qualifications, … the 12th lowest number staying on at 16."
    The Secretary of State for Employment opened the debate and has given my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and myself his apologies for the fact that he is now absent. Of course we accept his apologies with every grace. He has gone to Kincardine and Deeside to put the Government's side on the amalgamation of the highland regiments. We very much hope that on his way there he works out which side of the Government he is on with regard to that amalgamation.
    The Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in an interesting double act at the Dispatch Box, sought to challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield about Britain's position in the league tables of numbers staying on between 16 and 19. League tables of international comparison are one measure by which the Government's education record can be judged. There are others, such as the number of children who have received a nursery education, where we are very near or at the bottom. There are measures of expenditure, which has dropped from 5·5 per cent of gross domestic product to 4·8 per cent. in the past 12 years and also the whole issue of the quality of the education service provided.
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
    The Secretary of State for Employment sought to protest when my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield suggested to him that we were near the bottom of the league tables, saying that we should not take too much account of them.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: He did not say that at all.
    Mr. Straw: He did. He said that they were not terribly reliable. Whichever way one considers the league tables, Britain is at or near the bottom for the proportion of pupils staying on. Figures provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that, except for Portugal, we would be bottom of the league in Europe. Those are figures for the number of 14 to 18-year-olds staying on for training or full-time education.
    Education participation rates——
    Mr. Clarke: I shall give the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) time to read the newspaper cutting that he was trying to wave at us to make his great point. The figure for 14-year-olds in full-time education is 100 per cent.—that is difficult to beat in any country in the world. I think that he will find that the number of 15-year-olds is the same.
    290
    According to latest figures, 93 per cent. of 16-year-olds are in education or training. I do not know what he is waving about, but he ought to read it before he does so.
    Mr. Straw: The figures that I am quoting come from the Government. The number of 14 to 16-year-olds is indeed 100 per cent., but in the case of 14 to 18-year-olds the position is even worse than that emerging from those figures. It makes matters worse that the Secretary of State for Education and Science cannot even understand that.
    Let us take the number of 16 to 18-year-olds. The source is "Education Statistics" for 1990 from the Secretary of State's own Department. If he wants the figures, he can have them. Britain is second from bottom of the league according to the figures for 16 to 18-year-olds published by the Secretary of State's own Department. Let us consider the education participation rates——
    Mr. Clarke: For what?
    Mr. Straw: For 16 to 18-year-olds in education and training. The source is the education statistics for the United Kingdom for 1990. The Secretary of State should apply himself to his own evidence. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development education statistics show that for 18-year-olds staying on in education, Britain is fourteenth out of fifteen. Let us take table D1.1 in the "Training Statistics 1991", which the Secretary of State denied existed earlier in the debate. They show again that Britain is second from the bottom, with only Spain below it.
    The Secretary of State sought earlier today to suggest that this comparative survey "Youth and work: transition to employment in England and Germany" somehow backed up the Government's record. It does nothing of the kind. Indeed, the author of the work was so outraged by the Government's claims about what was said in the work that he wrote to the Evening Standard on 1 October and said:
    "We found much to criticise about the British arrangement for training young people. Far too many of them lost all contact with the education system after the age of 16 and far larger numbers in England than in Germany were in dead-end jobs without any training at all."
    Mr. Dunn: I want to go back to a comment made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), which led the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to go into a spate of incontinent muttering. The Leader of the Opposition apparently said in the campaign for the Langbaurgh by-election that £2·6 billion extra would be spent on education by a future Labour Government. Could we have the truth of it? Was the Leader of the Opposition right and, if so, does the hon. Member for Blackburn agree? Or was the Leader of the Opposition wrong and does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
    Mr. Straw: It would help the hon. Gentleman—because it is unusual for him—to check his facts or to read his Conservative Central Office brief before he speaks, or at least to memorise it. The Leader of the Opposition simply pointed out in an article that he wrote just before the party conference that the proportion of gross domestic product—national income—devoted to education since 1979 had dropped, and that if it had remained the same, the difference would be the figure to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Our commitment is very different from the Government's. Our commitment is that there

    291
    should be a steady increase in the share of national income devoted to education and training over the lifetime of a Government.
    There are four main elements to the Government's proposals in the Queen's Speech: on higher education, on further education, on adult education and on the so-called parents charter. On higher education, we will support the transfer to a single funding council because that was our policy. We argued for it and voted in favour of it in 1987 and in 1988. The Government refused to accept our arguments then and we are delighted that they accept our arguments now.
    We will not support the Government's proposals in relation to the maintenance of quality in higher education because we think that it is wrong for the people who determine quality in higher education to be the same as those who determine funding——
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Why?
    Mr. Straw: Because there is every possibility that if the fund payers determine quality, they will tend to overlook areas in which quality is going down as a result of financial pressures——
    Mr. Clarke: Why?
    Mr. Straw: I cannot understand the Secretary of State is looking perplexed. The reason is the enormous pressures that the Government, through the funding councils, are imposing on higher education to take in ever more numbers without at the same time being concerned about quality. If the Government are confident that quality will not be affected by the financial pressures that they are imposing on higher education to cut the inward resource year after year, the answer is to ensure that the inspectorate for higher education is wholly independent of the funding system and solely concerned with the issue of quality.
    Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, I must say that I am puzzled and that I could not follow the argument as first expressed. For the sake of argument—and I do not concede this—I recognise that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is asserting that there are downward pressures on university funding. I think that he refers to our attempts to get cost-effective expansion. If those pressures exist, as the hon. Gentleman asserts, they are spread evenly across the system and do not affect one institution more than another. The argument for separating judgments of quality from the funding have been put to him by some people in higher education who are afraid that quality judgments might have a practical effect on the universities. Making quality separate would merely make quality control ineffective and of no practical consequence. The hon. Gentleman always gives in to lobbies and should not have given in to that one.
    Mr. Straw: That is an absurd argument. It fails to take account of the practice of the Council for National Academic Awards and the Poiytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. One of the reasons why the polytechnics have done so well in the past 21 years is that a clear decision was taken by Governments of both parties to separate funding and quality control. That was accepted even by the Secretary of State's predecessor but one, who introduced the Education Reform Act 1988. Had a system of funding and quality control been merged, I doubt
    292
    whether the polytechnics could have achieved such high quality and cost-effectiveness. I want to ensure that, in pursuing cost-effectiveness, there is independent arbitration on quality.
    Besides the higher education proposals, many of the Government's proposals are damaging. The Government have done nothing to reassure the public that their proposals for adult education will not be highly damaging if the Bill goes through. Their proposals for further education will transfer elected local authority control over further education to control by seven or eight appointed regional boards. Elected people will no longer have an influence on local further education; instead, the position will be similar to that set up by the Secretary of State for Health, where appointed quangos are in control. That too is unacceptable to us.
    By far the most damaging proposition which the Secretary of State has advanced in his 12 months in office is likely seriously and adversely to affect the standard and quality of education in our schools. That is his plan to dismember Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and to privatise the local inspectorate of schools so that inspectors are picked and paid by their own schools. That proposition was suddenly launched from nowhere on 30 July 1991 at a curious press conference which the Secretary of State gave in the Adelphi hotel, Liverpool outside a meeting of the Professional Association of Teachers. It has been condemned from all sides; there is virtually no advocate for it outside Government and there are precious few inside.
    The chronology of the proposal tells its own story. In February, the then senior chief inspector, Eric Bolton, decided to resign. On 4 March, the Secretary of State told me in a parliamentary answer that he was setting in train a new procedure for the appointment of a successor to Eric Bolton. He said that the post would be advertised, which was duly done at some cost to the public purse. Then, on 8 May, the Secretary of State suddenly announced out of the blue that the advertising of that post was to be put on ice. He said that instead there would be a thorough internal review of the inspectorate, which would report by July. In answer to further questions from me, he said that no formal evidence would be sought but that there would be wide informal consultation.
    The Government say that they believe in open government. They have published such reviews of the machinery of government in the past—in 1983, they published the Rayner scrutiny of the HMI—but the Secretary of State has refused to publish the latest internal review. Indeed, it has been kept so secret that no summary or abstract of the review is to be made available—[Interruption.]If the Secretary of State wants to say that he will publish the review so that the House can measure the current proposals against his madcap scheme for dismembering the inspectorate, he should say so now. It is my belief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's refusal to publish the review—this is from the man who believes in open government—stems from the fact that bears no relationship to the scheme that he is now putting forward. If that is not true, let us have the review.
    The only evidence of the proposition's authorship that we can find is a pamphlet written by the chief inspector of Wandsworth, Mr. John Burchall, for the Conservative Centre of Policy Studies. That action is in clear breach of the Local Government Act 1986 and the Widdicombe rules. If that had been done by a chief inspector of a

    293
    Labour local authority for a Labour think tank, Conservative Members would have been the first on their feet to complain about Mr. Burchall. The scheme with which the Secretary of State has been landed is almost word for word the proposition set out in the pamphlet in 13 rather badly argued pages.
    It is proposed that HMI should be reduced from 500 inspectors to 175. Allowing for those to be transferred to the higher and further education funding councils, that is equivalent to a cut of almost 50 per cent. The Secretary of State says that HMI will achieve greater independence. However, the independence that HMI has had up to now has been deeply embarrassing to the Government. Each year it has produced a report setting out the state of the education service, and each year Ministers have treated that report as though it were a piece of stinking fish.
    In the past 11 years, the publicity budget for the Department of Education and Science has gone up 28 times. In the past two and half years it has risen four times in real terms to pay for the publication of more and more glossy pamphlets such as the parents charter—party political propaganda produced at the taxpayers' expense. None of that money has been used on the HMI reports—not a penny piece.
    The annual report published by HMI has always been a loose-leaf, photocopied document, shoved out at a time designed least to embarrass Ministers. Is it the Secretary of State's intention that the current senior chief inspector should publish his annual report in February, as has been done in the past, or is it his intention, as Secretaries of State managed to do in 1983 and again in 1987, to delay publication of that report until after the general election?
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have not given much thought to that question, for the simple reason that I do not follow the elaborate paranoid theory advanced by the hon. Gentleman who believes that I am so worried about those annual reports. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that my proposals increase the independence of Her Majesty's chief inspector. They leave him free to publish his own report. I believe that he should be more independent of the Department and of the Government of the day. I assume the present senior chief inspector will produce his annual report next year. I do not fear that report. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and his friends have misused those reports in the past, but cutting down the scope for reports from the inspectorate has nothing to do with my proposals.
    Mr. Straw: I shall table a parliamentary question about that and I look forward to confirmation of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said.
    When the inspectorate is reduced to 175, it will be virtually impossible for it to produce a report with anything like the quality of those produced in the past.
    Mr. Clarke: I hesitate to intervene again, as the hon. Gentleman is getting near to the time left for my contribution. However, in future, the inspectorate will have the results of 6,000 inspections each year from which to draw the basis of its report—and that is in addition to the inspecting that the inspectorate will carry out. One hundred and seventy-five people is the best estimate that the senior chief inspector and I could produce between us of the numbers required to carry out the functions of the
    294
    new independent HMI. There will be more information on which to draw and the reports will still be available. What the hon. Gentleman is spelling out about the proposals is an elaborate, but nonsensical, theory.
    Mr. Straw: To try to suggest that the senior chief inspector agreed to 175 is preposterous. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that figure was forced upon him by Ministers collectively. From documents that I have been sent by the senior chief inspector it is clear that the total number of inspectors will be used as follows: 11 will conduct high-profile surveys and focus inspections, six will inspect schools at risk and another 26 will undertake inspections to supplement database evidence.
    Privatisation used to be a badge of honour worn with pride by these Ministers. Now Ministers utter the word only in order to deny that it has happened. But the truth is that HMI is to be privatised by the back door because the half of HMI who will not be employed by it will have to go and set up as private consultants. The local inspectorate is to be privatised. As the documents make clear, many of these so-called inspectors will not be educationally qualified but will be drawn, in the senior chief inspector's words, from the top of the Clapham omnibus.
    What is so damaging to the maintenance of educational standards is the perverse belief of the Secretary of State that to secure competition between the providers of education, there must be competition between the regulators. That is as absurd as if there were to be competition locally between environmental health officers or, nationally, if British Telecom and Mercury were to pick and pay for their own regulators. The Secretary of State's proposal runs contrary even to the better parts of Thatcherite philosophy, which sought to separate regulator from provider. The Secretary of State is making the provider the regulator—it is the provider who pays the regulator. The regulators will be picked and paid for by the providers. It will become impossible to secure any sensible maintenance of a consistent standard of education.
    There is another bad aspect of the proposals. The Secretary of State emphasises regular inspections. That is fine—so do we. But a regular inspection every four or five years cannot by itself be sufficient protection for the parents or the children; nor can it provide enough information by which to judge the effectiveness of a school.
    Mr. Roger King: That is why we are going to publish exam results.
    Mr. Straw: Publishing exam results is fine—[Interruption.] We have been saying that for three years, but as the Secretary of State managed to point out in his contorted evidence to the teachers' pay review body, exam results alone provide only an elementary indication of the effectiveness of a school. A continuous flow of information about the effectiveness of schools is also needed, and it can come only from a corps of local inspectors, properly supervised by a national inspectorate. If inspection is handed over to companies such as Coopers and Lybrand—to consultants—there will be no corps of people at local level to produce the necessary data.
    This Government have the worst record of any Government on nursery education. They are bottom of the league for 16 to 19-year-old education and training. They have produced a £3 billion backlog of repairs and renewals

    295
    needed for our crumbling schools. They have left the teaching profession demoralised and undervalued. They have left students from low income homes in serious poverty. They lack commitment to the service, and they do not use it. They have applied double standards by funding favourably a few pupils in CTCs and grant-maintained schools while denying most schools the funds that they need.
    The proposals in this Gracious Speech are either irrelevant or positively damaging to the raising of school standards. They exhibit no commitment, no leadership and no ambition on the part of the Government to and for our children. We need a Government who will do better for our children and our young people, a Government with policies dedicated to making this country the best educated and trained nation in Europe. This country needs and will get a Labour Government.
    9.38 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Unusually in a debate of this kind, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has sat down leaving me with only 22 minutes in which to reply. I make no complaint about that. I would have been quite happy if he had gone on for longer. He exposed the paucity of his case as he went on and every now and again he made a tantalising admission that he—rather surprisingly—agreed with certain aspects of the policy embodied in our forthcoming legislation.
    Like the hon. Gentleman, I must acknowledge that in such a wide-ranging debate I will not have time to deal with many of the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) touched on aspects of British Rail to which I was tempted to respond. It is, however, many years since I was at the Department of Transport, so I shall concentrate on education this evening.
    I am surprised not only that 20 minutes is left to me, but that education has been tabled at this stage in the debate on the Loyal Address. Hon. Members will realise that the conduct of the debate on the Gracious Speech is in the hands of the Opposition, and rightly so. They determine the subjects for each day and the deployment of speakers. The Gracious Speech contains three Bills on education; two English and one Scottish. They are drastic pieces of legislation which should rightly occupy a large part of the time of the House. One is on the parents charter, one on further and higher education in England and one on further and higher education in Scotland. These three large Bills probably rival the Bill that introduces the council tax and the asylum Bill as the heaviest pieces of legislation in this year's Queen's Speech.
    This debate was tabled for a Monday night when, for the replies, Labour Front-Bench Members greatly outnumber those on the Back Benches, which is not surprising as it is a one-line Whip night. I take that as a compliment. The proposals in the three Bills presented by my right hon. Friends and myself have captured the public imagination and caught the Labour party without a policy. What is more, they have caught the Labour party without a spokesman able to put its objections clearly when he is called upon to address them. I would not normally have said that that was a reflection on the
    296
    respective debating abilities of the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Blackburn. It would be invidious for me to make the choice.
    I should like to reply to more of what was said by the hon. Member for Sedgefield when he opened the debate. I have not heard the "white heat of the technological revolution" speech made so well for many years. I understand that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) made it fairly well at this year's party conference. On the other hand, going back to my days in employment debates, it was curious that the hon. Gentleman skated over his party's policy on the minimum wage, enhanced benefits for maternity leave and so on. I trust that at some stage I will have the opportunity to tax him on the curious proposal that legislation which increases the wage bill of companies does not necessarily increase the costs of those companies and therefore can be regarded as having nil effect on their competitiveness. I had not heard that theory advanced with such bravura before.
    Mr. Blair: The House will hear it again.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says that we will no doubt hear it again.
    The hon. Gentleman got on to my area by making comparisons on education and training between this country and other countries. Some statistics were trotted out again both by him and, later, the hon. Member for Blackburn, seeking to show that we are miles behind other European countries in the league tables. The hon. Member for Blackburn, in a frenzied passion, was throwing pieces of paper into the air, saying that we were bottom of this league table and bottom of that league table, apparently without having read any of them. The cutting that he tossed across to us is part of an article from The Times Educational Supplement. The text reveals:
    "the survey format does not allow for the fact that some respondents, both in the UK and elsewhere, are in part-time, rather than full-time, education."
    I find that league table for 14 to 18-year-olds as unintelligible as the hon. Gentleman did. The text states:
    "An EC spokesman admitted there were 'conceptual problems' in compiling the statistics, but it was the nearest they could get to being comparable."
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield and I agree that the Anglo-German study is a useful basis for comparisons. When I quoted the study back at him, he resorted to some rather irrelevant quotation about the youth training scheme, in an attempt to fend off my criticisms. As I have the text in front of me, let me just remind him of the conclusions of the comparison between the preparedness of British young people and German young people for employment on the strength of the education and training systems in the two countries. Page 235 states:
    "In our surveys the British samples reported the greater number of vocational learning experiences. In both cohorts, higher proportions of the British respondents reported experience of information technology, learning new skills, being challenged or tested, using their initiative and working co-operatively in groups."
    I shall quote further from page 239, to give us an overall picture of the report. It says:
    "Nevertheless, the overall picture of greater breadth of experience and skill in the British system, and the more positive appraisals by the British young people of what they were learning, is sustained."

    297
    I quote that not to be complacent and not to say that, in this competitive world, we should not be striving, as the Bills outlined in the Gracious Speech help us to strive, for higher standards.
    The argument used by many commentators on our system—that the grass is overwhelmingly greener on the other side of the hill in every respect in Europe—is exaggerated. Every year, participation by our 16-year-olds increases by 4 per cent. We shall catch up and, I hope, forge ahead of the best. However, we should not assume that a great deal has not been achieved quite spectacularly in the past few years.
    I admired the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), one of the more distinguished orators in the House, against whom I debated only a week or two ago in the Oxford Union. I could not help thinking, when he criticised us for not participating in European Community efforts on education, that here was the last and most remarkable convert come to the communautaire viewpoint on these matters. I have listened to many of his speeches and I have never heard him advocate that before. The Labour party must be desperate to get into power if even such venerable leaders as the right hon. Gentleman have to make these obeisances in the direction of Brussels.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is catching up. He should understand that I was in favour of a social charter in Europe before there was any such thing as the European Community. I hope that, when he is reporting our debate in Oxford, he will tell the House who won the vote. It would be satisfactory to have such a vote in the country.
    Mr. Clarke: I concede the vote in the Oxford Union. The right hon. Gentleman still has the ability to mislead the young that he has shown in his distinguished past. I can well believe that he has always been in favour of a social charter in Europe, but he has never before asked us to be in Europe enjoying its disadvantages.
    I return to the subject of educational policy and the Bills that must consume most of our attention. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kennilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for their overall appraisal of our policy.
    I shall concentrate on the point made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. One major Bill that will come before us is that putting into effect the parents charter. Until the hon. Gentleman turned to the future of the HMI, he was hard pressed to find anything that he wanted to oppose in the parents charter. His main concern appeared to be that he did not want too many parents to be able to read it because they would find it attractive.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kennilworth correctly said, the parents charter is based on two policies designed to help all the other steps that we shall be taking to raise standards of education. The first is a much better range of objective factual information about the performance of schools for the parents and local public in the communities that the schools serve. The so-called league tables will publish not just examination results but truancy rates, staying-on rates, the destination of pupils and other information. Knowledge of how schools perform will help to improve the choice of parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, in an
    298
    intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), not only will it help parents to choose in those parts of the country where choice is practicable because transport is readily available, but, even in rural areas where choice is difficult, it will, for the first time, give parents better means to influence schools because they will be able to see, set out objectively, the performance of those schools.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Newspapers will use the raw detail that will be supplied by the league tables, especially on examination results. What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to protect schools which have many students with special needs, especially students who are not statemented but who are seen to have special needs? The right hon. and learned Gentleman nodded when I asked him the same question earlier, but he has not said how he will ensure fairness between schools and therefore, no discrimination against students with special needs.
    Mr. Clarke: Any intelligent parent, intelligent governor or intelligent newspaper person will bear it in mind that various factors influence results. That is what will happen when we get what the hon. Gentleman describes as the raw data. It will be a complete change to report these facts instead of keeping them secret. There is no reason why information such as the number of statemented children and attainment levels in national curriculum tests should not be made freely available by our schools. The information will be accompanied by statements on the purpose of a school and its particular aims.
    The arrangements remain the same for special needs. If I do not get the chance later in my response to answer the comments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on students with special needs in further education, I say now that I attach great importance to those students. There will be a duty on the Further Education Funding Council specifically to ensure that further education is provided for those with special educational needs beyond the age of 16.
    We can debate statementing when we examine the Bill. There is a genuine difference of opinion between the experts on whether statementing, as it is now applied in sixth-form schools but not in further education colleges, is a desirable tool. There is no desire on our part to play down the importance of providing for those with special educational needs throughout their school career and thereafter.
    I return to the setting out of league tables. It is no good saying that they will comprise raw data. They will be data that parents have never been allowed to see before. In my part of the country—the county which I represent in part is not the only one in this position—Labour-controlled local authorities are still adamantly refusing to release the data to the general public. They are advising schools not to make them available. The commitment of the Labour party is set out in "The Parents' Partnership", which in my opinion is a pretty pale imitation of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Blair: We got our policy out before the Government's.
    Mr. Clarke: Yes. When the Labour party knew that the parents charter was coming, the hon. Gentleman did not half rush out its paper, and he did not draft it very well.

    299
    The information in the Labour party's document all comes under the new education standards commission that will take over responsibility for Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and co-ordinate the work a local inspectors. The following is then offered to the public:
    "Through reports, studies and inspections the Commission will assess educational standards of schools and of local education authorities as a whole and publish detailed information on how to judge a school's performance."
    Does
    "detailed information on how to judge a school's performance"
    mean that the system will be the same as our parents charter, or does it, as it sounds, means that there will be an extra layer of bureaucracy, taking into its embrace Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and producing not what has been described as raw data, but information that colours it all'?
    Anyone who is appraising a school will take account of the socio-economic backgrounds of different schools, for example. Much stress is placed on that. There will be serious dangers, however, if the information that is set out in performance tables is clouded by footnotes and qualifications, which sometimes are advocated because they are designed to prove that whatever the differences between examination performances there is no such thing as a good school or a bad school. It is thought that that will be the result if enough factors are taken into account.
    I fully accept that it requires a good school to achieve good examination results, especially in an inner-city area rather than in a well-favoured suburb. A danger arises, however, from the constant emphasis that left-wing commentators put on socio-economic data. It is not right to assume that those in inner-city areas cannot be expected to achieve good examination results. The league studies show that there are positive dangers in assuming that in poor areas there will be poor results, and regarding that as an excuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, there were systems which ensured that that did not happen.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn and I passed through education on a route that was remarkably similar to that followed by many hon. Members. We both went to state primary schools; we both passed the 11-plus; we both had local government scholarships—the hon. Gentleman went to a direct grant school while I went to what was then an independent school. The hon. Gentleman came not from an especially poor background, but not from an especially advantaged one either. He was not told that socioeconomic circumstances meant that he could expect to get bad examination results. His talents were demonstrated through a system that gave him opportunities and brought out the best in him. Too many people in the Labour party kick away the ladder by which they rose through the education system and seek to defend poor perfonnance where there is no economic advantage.
    Inspection is very important, as it is the second string of raising the quality of education in our schools. The hon. Gentleman has changed his wording—at last, he did not accuse us of privatising HMI. It is a pity that debate on public services is reduced to such a silly level. He now accepts that we are not privatising HMI. The Bill will give HMI a new, independent, statutory role, with its own powers and duties separate from those of the Secretary of State. It will continue to inspect, and an important part of its role will be to advise, to produce reports, and so on. It will also monitor the new system of inspection which, for
    300
    the first time, will produce more than 6,000 reports a year. More importantly, those reports will be produced for the benefit of the parents who read them.
    Mr. Straw: Tonight I said nothing different from what I said before. Will the Secretary of State now admit that he intends to privatise part of the local schools inspectorate'? It will in part become local, privately owned and controlled consultants. In other words, it will be a privatised inspectorate.
    Mr. Clarke: Local authorities can continue to inspect in their areas. Alongside them will be the new inspectors, from private organisations—[Interruption.] I repeat that we are not privatising HMI. There will still be local government inspectors—we are not privatising them. However, there will be new inspectors, who will provide an alternative——
    Mr. Straw rose——
    Mr. Clarke: No, I am not giving way.
    Mr. Straw rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One hon. Member at a time, please.
    Mr. Straw: The new privatised inspectors will be instead of public service inspectors.
    Mr. Clarke: We cannot privatise people who were not there before. Currently, 6,000 inspections are not carried out every year. The number of reports that will be produced for parents will be not diminished, but greatly increased.
    With respect to the hon. Member for Blackburn, the hon. Member for Truro made slightly more careful progress through the arguments. However, I wanted to ask both hon. Gentlemen what would be the alternative. We are introducing a new system that will generate 6,000 straightforward reports a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, they will be intelligible to those who read them. Parents, almost universally, never read Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on their schools. Indeed, it is unusual for parents even to see such reports. Some 3,000 to 5,000 inspectors will be required to produce those reports. Is the Labour party proposing that Her Majesty's inspectorate should suddenly take on 3,000 to 5,000 inspectors in one great national monolithic inspecting organisation? Perhaps that is the proposal—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Blackburn is not sure whether that is or is not his proposal.
    I suspect that the Labour party, because of the pressures on it, will be driven to suggesting that all inspectors should be local council inspectors, inspecting the councils' schools. The Labour party is always huffing and puffing about privatisation and independence, but it believes that every school in the country should be run by local councils and inspected by those councils. Who should inspect the schools for councils but ex-teachers, because they are deemed to be the only people properly qualified? Apparently, anyone who is not a teacher or who does not work for the council should not be allowed to undertake an inspection. That is not standards or objectivity, but giving in to the usual pressures from the National Union of Teachers and NALGO, to which Labour Members always give in.

    301
    I do not have time to debate now the Further and Higher Education Bill. Other than wanting local authority control of further education, Labour has no policy on that matter either.
    Our Bills are all of a part with those objectives praised by my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst)—the drive to get better standards back into our education system, to increase yet further the participation of our young people, and to match the quality of education and training provided by our competitors abroad.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  BCCI
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: This is only the second time that the House has been given an opportunity to debate the momentous consequences of the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The past three months have seen almost daily developments, and a 15-minute speech and 15-minute reply cannot do justice to the huge amount of information that must be shared and analysed.
  Over the past few months, I and members of the campaign team visited depositors and BCCI staff members all over the world. We visited Abu Dhabi and Dubai, where we met members of the royal family and other officials; Hong Kong; Gibraltar; and other towns and cities in Britain.
  We met people who remain stunned and bewildered, like victims after some great natural disaster. It is impossible to comfort them. We heard stories of such sadness and desolation that it was difficult not to be moved to tears. Those are the innocent victims, who knew nothing of the serious fraud. They put their faith and money in a bank that was being monitored and restructured under the close supervision of the Bank of England.
  During the campaign, we met the Governor of the Bank of England, three times; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, twice; the Foreign Secretary; and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, twice. We had numerous meetings with the provisional liquidator, Christopher Morris; the majority shareholders' solicitors, Simmonds and Simmonds; and the restructuring advisers, Schroder Wagg. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats were by far the most supportive. People were unfailingly courteous and showed great sympathy—but throughout, all eyes were firmly on Abu Dhabi.
  I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of members of the campaign committee. Associations were formed and meetings held to get people organised and to keep them informed. Only last night, at a meeting chaired by Ahmed Shazad at Brent town hall, depositors and staff reaffirmed their commitment to the campaign. Bankers and international business persons are not supposed to be natural campaigners, but they have proved themselves a match for this moment.
  The expectations and hopes of those people and of many others, which were given life by the excellent judgment of the Vice-Chancellor of the High Court on 30 July, were cruelly dashed by the decision of the major City shareholders that the bank could not be reconstructed. That decision, announced on 3 October, was a bitter disappointment. We were told later that the fraud was so enormous—a total of $10 million—that reconstruction was impossible, and that any money the majority shareholders could put in would soon disappear into a large hole. We were told that one cannot reconstruct something that is not there.
  From being the bank that refused to die, BCCI became the bank that ceased to exist. It was merely a shell with glittering branches at the best addresses in London.
  Has the Minister any information as to what has become of that $10 million? Nobody seems to know. I am

  303
  informed that the bank's liquidation will probably occur on 2 December, and I have a number of specific questions, of which I have given the Economic Secretary notice.
  Will he outline for the record what steps the Government took to support the reconstruction process, and what approaches were made prior to 3 October to the majority shareholders, to see what could be done to help?
  Has the Minister met, or received a report from, his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning his visit to Abu Dhabi? Members of the campaign called for that visit, which we saw as a vital step on the road to an acceptable settlement.
  Did the Minister ask the majority shareholder whether he was prepared to assist in finding a solution to the problem? I am certain that the BCCI issue was raised; what issue in the whole saga did the discussion centre on, and who exactly did the Minister meet?
  Does the Minister not agree that the package to members of staff was shamefully low? Will he support their reasonable request for a reasonable redundancy package that will take into consideration their length of service and undoubted loyalty to the bank?
  Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the Governor has now retracted his blanket criticism of members of staff on the ground that they were involved in a criminal culture? Has he seen the BBC's "Money Programme" of 27 October? He will know that the programme disclosed that, on 26 April, the Bank of England issued a section 39 notice which required the production of named documents. The case came to court and was decided on 10 May. In his affidavit to the court, Roger Barnes, the head of banking supervision, demanded that the 6,000 files—the so-called Naqvi files, which were held by Allen and Overy, the solicitor of the Sheik of Abu Dhabi—be handed over to the Bank of England.
  Mr. Barnes said that BCCI appeared to have made false and fraudulent statements to the governors of the Federal Reserve Bank in America. He said:
  "if true … these matters are of concern to the Bank as supervisors of the defendant and raise questions as to the continued fulfillment of the minimum criteria for authorisation under the banking act".
  Before that time, Federal Reserve investigators were in London, and they went to Abu Dhabi between 16 and 22 March this year. In view of that information, has the Minister called for a report from the Bank of England?
  This afternoon, I spoke to Mrs. Barbara Mills, the head of the Serious Fraud Office. She confirmed that the SFO had received documentation concerning the BCCI fraud only on 4 July; yet on 10 May the head of banking supervision was referring to false and fraudulent statements. Does the Minister not agree that the SFO ought to have been involved at that early stage? Does he not also agree that, as the matter was not raised before the Select Committee, it would be helpful if the Governor gave evidence to the Committee again?
  The Bingham inquiry, of course, needs to consider that and other points. Last week, I received a letter from Lord Justice Bingham in which he said that he was prepared to visit Abu Dhabi, provided that he was able to see individuals who would help his inquiry, and as long as it was within his terms of reference. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will assist in any way possible to arrange any meetings that are necessary for Lord Justice Bingham?
  304
  Lord Justice Bingham went on to tell me that he could not predict when his report would be published, but that he would report as soon as "humanly possible". Will the Minister join me in urging that the report be prepared as quickly as possible?
  Will the Minister tell the House when he expects the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to give evidence to the inquiry? The Bingham inquiry is important, because it is the only way in which we shall be able to get to the truth of these important matters.
  Does the Minister agree that there is a very strong case for temporarily relieving the Governor of the Bank of England of his duties, so that he can give even greater assistance to both the Bingham inquiry and the Treasury Select Committee? It must be extraordinarily difficult for the Governor to deal with the aftermath of BCCI as well as with his other important duties. A secondment, with the Government's blessing, may be the answer.
  Let me make it clear that I am not calling for the removal or resignation of the Governor. In my view, however, it may well speed up the entire process if he makes himself available in the way that I have suggested. Will the Minister consider my suggestion?
  Does the Minister stand by his statement, which was confirmed by the Chancellor, that, should the Bingham inquiry show that the Bank of England was negligent, he will consider the question of compensation?
  There are only 28 days left before the crucial hearing on 2 December. This has been a catastrophe for so many people. I believe that the worst is yet to come. Does the Minister have any estimates of the likely impact of the closure of BCCI on the British economy? We know how many staff jobs have been lost, but does the Minister have any idea what the knock-on effect will be? It has been put to me that, after 2 December, billions of pounds could be lost in exports and lost orders, and that business closures will result in job losses, which will be an even greater burden on the employment benefit and social security system.
  Both official and private bodies that import goods from the United Kingdom have lost substantial sums. Does the Minister seriously believe that what is perceived as a default by British regulators will have no impact on British exports? As of today, only 9,000 of the 40,000 depositors have made claims under the interim scheme. There are two trusts still in existence.
  There is, in my view, a strong case for applying what remains in those trusts for the benefit of staff and others who will suffer hardship, notwithstanding the deposit protection scheme. Will the Minister consider an amendment to the law that would activate the deposit protection fund on provisional rather than full liquidation?
  The depositors protection association has raised with me a number of concerns about the operation of the scheme. First, the scheme is mean, compared with the scheme in the United States. The compensation limit was fixed at 75 per cent. of £10,000 in 1979. It was raised to 75 per cent. of £20,000 in 1987, and that limit remains the same. Secondly, only sterling deposits were covered. More than half the United Kingdom deposits, by value, were by non-sterling depositors, for whom there is no protection.
  Are the Government prepared to commit themselves to improvements to the scheme? In the United States, the

  305
  cover is for up to $100,000 in any currency. Is British protection to be second-class? What signal does that give to our overseas clients about the British banking system?
  This House ought to be concerned about the reputation of the United Kingdom as a banking centre. We must also be concerned about this country's reputation in the Gulf. The Minister of State is quoted as saying that there is no lack of confidence in Britain as a result of what has happened but, as we found on our visit, officials are very polite in public but voice many concerns and criticisms in private.
  The chairman of the depositors protection association has had discussions with many substantial depositors who have lost money and who are now actively reconsidering where they should place their deposits in future and whether or not other European Community states may provide more beneficial protection than the United Kingdom. That could have a serious impact on the funds available to United Kingdom lending institutions.
  Will the Minister spare a thought for the depositors in Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the Isle of Man? There was a conditional purchaser in Hong Kong. I should like to praise the efforts of Mr. David Doo and others who campaigned for that. However, Gibraltar and the Isle of Man are not protected, and they need protection.
  Finally, what steps are being taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment to help the local authorities which relied on the authorised investment list and lost millions of pounds? Will they be given permission to take steps to prevent their losses from burdening the poll taxpayers in their area? From the Western Isles in Scotland, through Bury, down to Southwark in London, local authorities and directors of finance acted in good faith. They should not be left to face the consequences, unaided by the Government.
  I was heartened this afternoon to hear from the provisional liquidator, Christopher Morris, that negotiations are still going on in Abu Dhabi to see whether anything above realistic assets could be raised by the majority shareholders to provide a better deal than the deal on offer by means of the deposit protection scheme. I welcome those negotiations. They need the Government's support. Will the Minister give his full support tonight to the negotiations?
  I urge the Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to convene an emergency meeting between representatives of the majority shareholders, the Bank of England, the provisional liquidators, the depositors and former members of staff to see what can be done to help both the depositors and the former members of staff. Only the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the political clout to do so. The Government cannot sit by and watch the lives of so many people being destroyed. I implore the Minister not to abandon those who have suffered and who will suffer if the Government do nothing. To fail to act now will only compound the tragedy.
  10.15 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) eloquently stated the problems that this bank fraud has caused its employees, depositors and customers. He asked what has happened to the $10 billion. That is the crux of
  306
  the matter: it has been stolen. The bank has been defrauded of that sum. The section 41 report, which is broadly in the public domain, shows how those frauds were perpetrated, and I hope that, as the Serious Fraud Office investigation continues and as prosecutions in this and other countries are initiated, other details will be revealed.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to say what steps the Government took to support reconstruction. We made it clear that the Bank of England would consider any proposal for reconstruction. As he knows, no such proposal was made. Shareholders took the advice of a leading London merchant bank but decided that they were not in a position or were not prepared to put a proposal to the bank. It would not have been proper for the Bank to promote a reconstruction, because it would have had to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and decide whether its proposals should be allowed a banking licence.
  Nor would it have been appropriate for the Government to play a positive role in such a reconstruction. Again, if the Government were the applicant or were behind the application, the bank would have been placed in a difficult position. In addition, that was not necessary, because shareholders and their advisers knew what had to be done to put a proposal for reconstruction to the bank, and there was nothing that the Government could have added to that.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East asked what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussed on his visit to Abu Dhabi. He did not specifically discuss BCCI, although he raised the subject while he was there. He returned only last week, and I understand that he has said that he will write to the hon. Member and presumably let him know what was discussed. It became clear that relations between the United Kingdom and the Emirates are still close and cordial and that the BCCI affair, although sad, will not be allowed to affect our relations adversely.
  Reconstruction was not raised while my hon. and learned Friend was in Abu Dhabi, but he mentioned the plight of BCCI depositors and staff in the United Kingdom, and he made it plain that, although he recognised that the majority shareholder had suffered greatly, many in the United Kingdom were also suffering. He arranged for letters from the BCCI depositors protection association and the BCCI campaign committee to be handed to the Abu Dhabi authorities.
  The Abu Dhabi Government are as keen as we are for the depositors to get back as much money as possible and for employees to be given fair severance terms. The authorities made it clear to my hon. and learned Friend that they had set up a committee to handle those issues.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East asked about redundancy terms for staff. I do not think that anybody would pretend that the terms are generous, but they meet the statutory obligations. Anything more generous is a matter for the shareholder. I understand that the insolvency and redundancy payments that are made before the winding-up order is passed will not be subject to any deduction or set-off for loans that are owed by employees to the bank.
  There is a dispute about whether redundancy payments made after the winding-up order has been made are subject to set-off, and the Department of Employment is taking legal advice to establish a joint position with the liquidators. At the moment, they disagree about that, and

  307
  for the time being, any insolvency or redundancy payments are not subject to set-off for loans owed to the bank.
  The other matter which might interest employees involves mortgages. There was some concern that mortgages would be called in January when the preferential terms period expired, but I understand that that is not the liquidators' intention. On 2 January. when the period of the extension of the favourable terms expires, they will write to the people who have borrowed from them and say that they are free to continue those mortgages, but on commercial terms, not preferential terms.
  It is not the liquidators' intention to call the mortgages. That is good news for the borrowers, because it should mean that they will not be asked to repay their loans at short notice. Those who at that time are still unemployed will probably qualify under the social security rules For the interest on those mortgages to be paid out of social security funds. For the first 16 weeks, one gets only half the interest and, after that, all of it. Many people will have gone through the 16 weeks by that time.
  The hon. Gentleman again referred to the criticism of the staff. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have made clear, that criticism applies only to the senior management of the bank. On 4 October, I issued a press release in which I said:
  "I hope the staff will find work again soon. In July, the Chancellor commented in the House that it would be monstrously unfair if honest, hardworking employees of BCCI were tainted by the actions of their superiors. I hope that prospective employers will not hold the fact that they worked for BCCI against them."
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made that point strongly in the summer, and I am happy to reiterate it. We believe that the criminality in this bank was confined to very senior management. It is not suggested that those at branch level were involved, or that everyone was tainted by those actions.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the investigation into the ownership of First American bank shares and Credit and Commerce American Holdings, the BCCI subsidiary that was thought to have acquired those shares, and to the BBC 2 item on the "Money Programme". There was a little misunderstanding on this point. The American authorities were looking into the ownership of the bank to see whether BCCI had breached American law in acquiring it. They asked the Bank of England to help them to acquire some documents that might assist in those investigations, and those were the documents that were the subject of the section 39 notices issued by the Bank of England. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in effect there were three sets of documents, because some are protected by an injunction.
  The reference in the official affidavit of the Bank of England to "false and fraudulent statements" said that, if what was alleged were true, it would be clear that BCCI officials would have had to make false and fraudulent statements to the American authorities. It was not saying, "We now have hard evidence that false and fraudulent statements were made." In any event, this related only to what was in effect a breach of American regulations, not British regulations. It is not the same fraud that was the subject of the removal of the $10 billion from the bank; it was a fraud in the United States, involving lying to the authorities there, and was not the same as the fraud that resulted in the bank collapsing.
  308
  I wish to illustrate that point. It was clear that, on their own, the papers that the Bank of England acquired and handed over to the federal authorities would not provide the Bank of England with evidence relevant to the authorisation criteria—the fit and proper people running the bank. The Federal Reserve, however, set that new evidence alongside the information that it had already gathered to try to establish what had happened and whether United States law had been breached.
  Plainly, it was more sensible for the Federal Reserve rather than the Bank of England to be left to pursue the investigation. After all, it was an investigation into a possible breach of American law. The Bank was therefore content to await the Federal Reserve's conclusions and those of the Price Waterhouse investigation, which was already in train. As it happened, the Federal Reserve did not come to its conclusions on the acquisition of First American bank shares until 29 July, by which time the Bank of England had already closed BCCI.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I thought that the Serious Fraud Office should have been involved at that stage. I do not think that it should have been. This was an American legal issue—a question whether American law had been broken. There was no suggestion in this context that British law had been broken. However, the Serious Fraud Office was told, within a few days of the receipt of the section 41 report from Price Waterhouse, of the evidence of that fraud.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East also asked me whether it would be helpful if the Governor gave evidence to the Select Committee on that issue. That is a matter for the Select Committee. I am sure that, if it were to call upon the Governor and ask him to deal with that question, he would attend and answer any questions asked of him.
  The hon. Member asked me a series of questions about the Bingham inquiry. We shall assist in any way we can with facilitating the judge's trip to Abu Dhabi, and we have helped—we have passed on his letter to the Abu Dhabi Government through our embassy there, and the embassy will assist him in any way possible.
  I have no idea when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will give evidence to the inquiry. The answer to that question is, when they are called. The Prime Minister has made it clear that all Ministers will be available to give evidence to the inquiry, if the judge so requires. Therefore both or either of them will give evidence if called to do so, but they have not yet been called.
  Mr. Vaz: Are they going to submit written evidence before the judge considers whether they should be called?
  Mr. Maples: The inquiry has already had an enormous number of documents both from the Treasury and from the Bank of England. Neither the Chancellor nor the Prime Minister has been asked for a written statement, but if they are asked, I am sure that they will provide it, as the Prime Minister has said that Ministers, including himself, will co-operate in every possible way with the inquiry.
  I do not think that the Governor is having any difficulty in performing his normal duties as well as assisting the Bingham inquiry.
  The hon. Member mentioned compensation. There has been some misunderstanding, because when we last met. we corrected a statement which he had made to the press about that. At the end of his statement, he said that all he

  309
  got from me was "tea and sympathy", so perhaps he will agree that he did not get the offer of compensation as he is suggesting.
  What I said then was that we have to await the Bingham inquiry and its report. What we would do if that report says this or that is a hypothetical and academic question. It may say a lot of things about bank regulation. It would be entirely pointless for me to attempt to deal with the sort of hypothetical questions that might arise. I cannot anticipate the report or its conclusions, and, as I have told the hon. Gentleman and the House before, I have no reason to believe that the inquiry will find any fault with the Bank of England's conduct.
  Mr. Vaz: I accept that, and I accept that that was what the Economic Secretary said. However, we sometimes have to deal with hypothetical situations. Is he ruling out compensation now and for ever, or is he saying that he will read the report and, even though he thinks that it will clear the Bank of England, if there is a semblance of a recommendation or a conclusion that the Bank of England was negligent, he will consider compensation then?
  Mr. Maples: I do not think that it is reasonable to ask me to go any further than I went. I am not prepared to deal with hypothetical questions about what the report might or might not say. In a few months, we shall discover what it says, and then it will be perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to ask me to respond to any criticisms that the report makes of the Government or of the Bank of England.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East asked whether I had any estimates of the likely impact upon the British economy. Clearly this affects a particular section of the business community, and it is a serious matter for them. There will undoubtedly be some lost exports and lost business as a result, but the hon. Gentleman probably overestimated that.
  As we have only three minutes left, the hon. Gentleman asked me to deal with his questions fairly quickly. He asked me whether we would consider amending the law to activate the deposit protection fund on provisional rather than full liquidation. Yes, we will consider that, but we would only be prepared to consider changing it in respect of an application by the regulator. We could not be put in a position where the deposit protection fund could be activated on a frivolous or vexatious application by somebody other than the regulator, but we shall certainly consider the matter.
  310
  Are we prepared to commit the Government to improvements in the deposit protection scheme? As I said before, the answer to that question is no. There are no immediate plans to do so, but, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the European Community is negotiating a directive on this issue which will establish minimum standards of compensation across the Community, and it is now generally accepted that those should be kept at modest levels. Nevertheless, that may involve some changes to the British scheme, but the present draft would not do so.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East is wrong to draw too much comfort from the United States scheme. The moral hazard created in the United States and the problems for savings and loans institutions there were an almost direct result of the very generous compensation schemes available, which remove any risk to the depositors.
  As far as local authorities are concerned, the Secretary of State for Scotland has given permission for Western Isles council to borrow for the time being to continue to provide services. The Department of the Environment is still considering what action would be appropriate, if any, in respect of the English authorities, which lost much less, and even less than that on a proportional basis. They should not have anything like the same difficulty in dealing with it.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about depositors who have lost money in branches in Gibraltar, Hong Kong and the Isle of Man. While one obviously feels incredibly sorry for such people, it is not the responsibility of the British Government. It was not a British bank, and the branches where those people lost money were not in the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, I do not think that there is any moral or legal responsibilty on the British Government or the Bank of England to do anything about it.
  This sad and sorry saga has been at a great cost and loss to many people, and we are extremely sorry about that, especially as it has affected one group of people in our society. I hope that I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions, and I am sure that we shall return to the subject again.
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the estimated cost to local authorities of preparing for the council tax and the Government's plan for supporting this expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  We commissioned CSL management consultants to look into the likely costs of preparing for the council tax and they have advised that authorities in England will have to spend an estimated £156 million between now and 1 April 1993—mainly in 1992–93. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library. The Government have decided in 1992–93 to pay 75 per cent. grant, worth £86 million, in support of estimated revenue costs of £114·6 million and to issue supplementary credit approvals in support of capital expenditure of up to £41·2 million.

HEALTH

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is being considered for agency status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is now a candidate to become an agency under the Government's "next steps" policy during 1992–93.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnamese Migrants
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Hurd
  On 29 October, the British, Hong Kong and Vietnamese Governments signed a statement of understanding for the orderly repatriation from Hong Kong of Vietnamese illegal immigrants—that is, those who, having left Vietnam clandestinely, have been determined under the screening procedures monitored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees not to be refugees.

  The internationally agreed comprehensive plan of action provision that all those who are not refugees should
  12
  return home will now be implemented in stages. Vietnamese who, having left Vietnam clandestinely, arrive in Hong Kong from 29 October, will be screened on arrival in accordance with the agreed UNHCR procedures and the provisions of the CPA and Hong Kong law. For those screened out, there will be a full appeals procedure conducted by an independent review board. The screening procedures will be monitored by the UNHCR who will have full access to the migrants throughout the process and will help asylum seekers to prepare appeals. Those migrants who are screened out and whose appeals fail or who decide not to appeal will be offered voluntary repatriation with a resettlement allowance. Only those who refuse this option will be returned under the new arrangement.

  Now that the Government of Vietnam have accepted the principle of return of those who are not refugees to Vietnam under the CPA, we will be discussing with them the extension of the scheme to migrants who arrived in Hong Kong before 29 October.

  The Vietnamese Government have guaranteed that no illegal immigrant who returns to Vietnam will face persecution. They will continue to facilitate the monitoring of all those who return, by the UNHCR and others, to ensure that these guarantees are fully respected. In the last two and a half years more than 11,000 Vietnamese migrants have returned voluntarily to Vietnam without a single substantiated case of persecution. We hope that in due course Members of Parliamant will be able to visit Hong Kong and Vietnam to see how the return arrangements are working.

  Aung San Suu Kyi
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy in Burma and other detained leaders of the democratic movement in Burma.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is difficult to verify the number of political detainees in Burma held since the suppression of the democracy movement in 1988. Local estimates suggest the number may be around 2,000, including many hundreds of party workers from Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party. This total also includes at least 55 out of 485 Members of Parliament elected in the 1990 democratic elections, the results of which have been ignored. Of the leaders apart from Aung San Suu Kyi, the former NLD chairman U Tin U was sentenced to three years' hard labour in December 1989; U Kyi Maung, the former acting chairman, was initially given a three-year sentence in November 1990, subsequently extended a further 10 years; and U Nu, the former Prime Minister, remains under house arrest imposed in December 1989. We have repeatedly called in public statements for the release of all political detainees in Burma.

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

"Polar Circle"
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the commissioning of the ship "Polar Circle" for service in the Antarctic will be completed, and whether a decision has yet been reached on its name.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, it is expected that "Polar Circle" will be commissioned into the Royal Navy later this month at Portsmouth. If "Polar Circle" herself were to be accepted into the Royal Navy on a permanent basis, we would then consider the name she would carry throughout her service life. For the period of her present charter, however, she will be known as HMS "Polar Circle". I should like to state clearly and unequivocally that the Government are committed both now and for the foreseea ble future to carry out the tasks formerly undertaken by HMS "Endurance".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the statement he made at the end of his Answer will be accepted with great enthusiasm in many quarters, not least, I imagine, by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has done so much to press Her Majesty's Government to take precisely this step? Is he also Aware that all thinking people undoubtedly accept that the Government are now doing the right thing? I should like to congratulate him and his colleagues on the decision.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his generosity and for his comments on the matter.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation of the efforts of the noble Earl and indeed the leaders in the House of Lords, including the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House. The decision generally bears the imprint of the enthusiasm of the House of Lords. Moreover, it is due to my colleagues such as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others that there has been such a satisfactory outcome. Will the Minister reiterate the continued interest of HMG, which is apparent, in the success of the Antarctic Treaty?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords. On a more personal note I should like to add that I have always passed on with accuracy and alacrity the strength of feeling of your Lordships' House, and indeed the arguments which have been put forward, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the Minister on what he said today, and indeed the Government. Further, from this Dispatch Box I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who has been indefatigable in pursuit of this interest, and to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has played a leading role in ensuring that the Government adopt what we consider to be the right decision.
Can the noble Earl clarify something he said in his original Answer before he made his statement? As I understand it, he said that "Polar Circle" is still, so to speak, on probation. Is the date for deciding whether the probation period is to be ended to be January or at the end of the season? Further, what are the consequences of either date?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can confirm that the charter contract provides an option, which can be taken up by the Government at any time before 24th January, to purchase the ship or retain her on a long-term charter. Therefore, we intend to make a decision within that timescale.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as one who has taken an interest in the matter, I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed by other noble Lords on the decision, especially to the noble Earl. Perhaps I may use a metaphor which seems to be politically topical and congratulate him on the way in which he has handled some very difficult bowling on a very difficult wicket. I believe that the House will be especially grateful to him for the way he has handled the whole issue.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Certainly the bowling at times has not been easy.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, as one who has actually been to the Antarctic, and once in HMS "Endurance", I too should like to add my congratulations to the Government on this far-reaching and far sighted decision. Also, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Arran on his valiant display of endurance during all these debates. However, since the debates over the past few months have been almost identical word for word to those which took place in 1981 and 1982, can he give the House an assurance that we shall not have to go through it all again in the year 2001 when some of us may be a little hard of hearing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if I am here in the year 2001 I would hope to be able to give the same kind of assurance. But of course there is no guarantee that I shall be here at that time.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether there will be an opportunity for those noble Lords who are interested in the sea and in seafaring to see the new ship? Last week I had the opportunity to go on board. The bridge is so electronic that it looks like something out of a spaceship. However, the ship is marvellous and poor old HMS "Endurance" sitting

21
alongside looks rather sad. Assuming that a decision is taken in this direction, is HMS "Endurance" still a possible permanent name for the ship?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords; the possibility of HMS "Endurance" as a future name still remains. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the possibility of a party going down to visit "Polar Circle" before she leaves. It is my intention to take a party from your Lordships' House, plus Members of another place, to visit the ship perhaps a few days before she sails.

Social Security Administration Bill [H.L.]
2.43 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the administration of social security and related matters with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to social security and contributions and benefits with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for repeals, consequential amendments, transitional and transitory matters and savings in connections with the consolidation of enactments in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration Act 1991 (including provisions to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission). I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about further and higher education. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers):My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Charities Act 1960 and make other provision with respect to charities; to regulate fund-raising activities carried on in connection with charities and other institutions; to make fresh provision with respect to public charitable collections; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Prisons (Freedom of Religion) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the office of prison chaplain; and to promote religious equality and freedom of worship in prisons; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on 31st October last by the Earl of Selborne—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
2.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the past year has been a momentous one in foreign affairs. In the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and the Community, the Middle East, Africa and the UN the balance of forces has shifted. New opportunities have opened before us. Britain has played a full part in shaping positive development—through the United Nations,

23
through our chairmanship this year of the Group of Seven, through the Commonwealth and, not least, through the European Community.
Nowhere are the opportunities and challenges facing us likely to have a more direct impact on us than in the Community; the very Community out of which a Labour Government would have taken us if they had won the 1983 election. We want to see greater European unity; but we have strong views as to the form it should take.
The two critical inter-governmental conferences are due to reach their conclusion next month at Maastricht. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor are working hard to get an agreement; but it must not be an agreement for the sake of a good press conference. Its content must be substantial and enduring.
On economic and monetary union, following considerable British input the signs are that Finance Ministers are close to a good agreement, but we still have a lot to do before an agreement can be signed. So, let me sound this note of caution: we are not there yet. The essential concerns of the British Parliament will be protected. The conditions for strong economic and monetary union will be respected. Economic convergence will be the prime consideration.
On political union, the story is more mixed. We discussed that subject recently on 21st October during the debate on the European Committee's report on political union. I then set out the Government's priorities clearly, so let me summarise our concerns: we wish to reach an agreement. If we do not it will not be for our want of trying. However, that does not mean accepting everything others want without question or jeopardising the gains we have achieved during the past 12 years.
We realise that European countries must work closer together, but Britain's position stems not from yesterday's federal dream but from tomorrow's realities.
Britain is arguing for a future Community which is open, liberal market-oriented and outward-looking. We are not interested in a fortress or protectionist Europe. That is why we particularly welcome the fact that two weeks ago we in the Community obtained political agreement to the European economic area with seven EFTA nations; so 19 countries accounting for more that 40 per cent. of the world's total trade are now working as one. The agreement means that Europe will have the biggest free trade zone in the world.
We must not neglect central and eastern Europe. The opportunities opening up there are extraordinary. Courageous strides are being taken towards democracy and market economies. We must ensure that the European Community sustains and encourages these developments rather than shutting them out. This means consolidating new links with the east by concluding quickly association agreements with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. In the longer term full membership should be an option for all European countries when they are ready economically and politically.
24
One of the missed opportunities of last year that must not be missed this year is the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round. Nothing will do more to ensure a healthy global trading environment than success. Nothing will more effectively resurrect the spectres of the depression of the 1930s than failure.
Already there are threats of a trade bloc in America and if we fail there will be one in Asia. North America and the Community are the world's biggest trading blocs. We must work together. Growing world trade means growing world prosperity: a successful Uruguay Round offers that big prize. The Community must agree to lower agricultural trade barriers. That is what we are working for within the Community. For its part the United States must accept an ambitious services agreement. There is also the question of textiles. All sides must be ready to move on individual areas in the interests of securing an overall agreement.
The events of the past year have also opened up new opportunities for the United Nations. It has begun to function as its founding fathers intended. We have seen an unparalleled degree of co-operation among the permanent members of the Security Council. We must do our utmost to maintain it. The UN is a central part of the emerging international system. Iraq's aggression would not have been reversed without the firm line taken by the Security Council and backed by the vast majority of member states. The United Nations is playing a vital role in many regional disputes—El Salvador, Western Sahara and Angola. In Cambodia, after brokering an agreement to end 50 years of civil war, it stands ready to launch the biggest mission it has ever undertaken to ensure peace and prepare for free and fair elections.
The UN has learned from its experiences with Iraq. That Iraq is now out of Kuwait was in no small measure due to Britain's role. At this point I wish to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. We eagerly await his maiden speech. Now that Iraq is out of Kuwait, for the first time the UN is insisting—and rightly so—that a member state forgo weapons of mass destruction and pay compensation to its victims. The UN is resolved to maintain sanctions until Iraq has complied fully and unconditionally with successive Security Council resolutions. If Iraq does not, she must face the consequences. Iraq will not be re-admitted to the community of nations until she shows herself willing to observe international law.
We all share the responsibility to prevent the re-emergence of a danger like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, both arms suppliers and recipient countries. Everyone accepts that many states depend on arms imports to assure a reasonable level of security and the inherent right of self-defence which is recognised in the UN charter. But the Gulf conflict showed how peace can be undermined when a country acquires an arsenal way beyond the needs of self-defence. We must make sure that that does not happen again. Britain has proposed a universal register of arms transfers under UN auspices.
Another lesson growing out of experience over the past year in the Middle East is the need to handle

25
emergencies better. Tragedy has also touched Bangladesh and Africa. We need to reinforce UN relief in coping with emergencies. Co-ordination, early response and effective delivery are critical. We are proposing a new and more effective structure for handling emergencies and disasters. At the apex we see one high level official. Preparation is the key to success and would be the work, the responsibility, of one person.
There have also been major developments and new opportunities in areas of direct responsibility for Britain. In Hong Kong we have been working to ensure the continued political and economic development of the territory in the run-up to a peaceful transition of sovereignty in 1997. This means closer co-operation with China while safeguarding Hong Kong's autonomy and Britain's ultimate administrative responsibility. We reached agreement on a new airport, which will ensure that Hong Kong will be able to maintain its position as a major regional, financial and trading centre. Britain's commitment to Hong Kong's future was underlined by the visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Peking to sign the agreement in September. The Chinese Government re-affirmed their adherence to the joint declaration and agreed to speed up the work of the joint liaison group, essential for a smooth transition in 1997.
The Hong Kong Bill of Rights became law in June, giving effect in Hong Kong courts to the international covenant on civil and political rights. In September, 18 seats in the legislative council were, for the first time, directly elected: an important step forward in the development of democracy in Hong Kong.
For much of the year Hong Kong has been trying to cope with a renewed surge in the number of migrants arriving from Vietnam. We have now, I am pleased to say, reached agreement with the Vietnamese Government for the return of those who are not refugees. But this is not a problem confined to Hong Kong. Large-scale movement of people is an increasingly worrying global problem. We can only ensure that genuine refugees are protected if non-refugees are repatriated.
While on areas of interest and concern to Britain, perhaps I may turn to one Commonwealth country and, at a slight tangent, congratulate Australia on its magnificent performance on Saturday.
Around the world parties who have fought for decades, who have refused to talk for decades are beginning to see a better way, a more co-operative way. As this spirit becomes stronger so there is greater scope for strengthening the international order.
Prospects for tackling the thorny problems of South Africa are better. The statutory pillars of apartheid have fallen. The main parties are committed to devising a non-racial and democratic constitution. The peace accord signed in September should open the way to further multi-party agreement. We shall continue to encourage all sides to agree on a new constitution acceptable to the majority of South Africans. We hope full constitutional talks will start before the end of the year.
26
The biggest and one of the longest-running challenges is the Arab/Israel problem. We strongly support the peace conference which opened last week in Madrid. Mr. Baker's tenacity has achieved its first reward. Despite the inevitable difficulties in the opening stages, the peace process remains on course. We shall do all we can to ensure that the parties remain engaged; there are great opportunities for peace which must be seized.
In the old Soviet Union, power has shifted decisively to the republics. The central planning system has simply fallen to pieces. Output is falling, prices are soaring, queues are growing. These trends have far-reaching implications for western Europe. We cannot predict how events in the Soviet Union will unfold. But we and our partners and allies can make a concerted effort to bring home to the republican leaderships that it is in their interests to behave in an orderly manner. In particular, would-be independent republics can expect little joy from the West if they play fast and loose with nuclear weapons; if they do not deal sensibly with the Soviet Union's foreign debt; and if they do not respect CSCE principles on human rights. We hope that this message is getting through.
In Yugoslavia, Britain has played an influential role in urging the Community to take on the thankless task of peace broker. We are providing monitors to help assist the peace process and with the help of my noble friend Lord Carrington, to whom much credit is due, we have provided the warring parties with a framework within which they can negotiate, once they recognise that only negotiation offers a lasting solution. The Serbs and Croats must choose peace; we cannot force them. Our role in Yugoslavia is not perhaps as spectacular as some people want, but our policy is eminently sensible.
The events of the past year have created a new opportunity to press for the adoption of certain basic standards of government world-wide. Britain has taken the lead in advocating the principles of good government. These are: accountability through a pluralist democracy; a free press; the rule of law, guaranteed by an independent judiciary; and a market economy. Those principles are now widely accepted. Economic interdependence is a well established fact. There are many institutions in the world to make it work smoothly. It is recognised almost everywhere that free markets are the only sure way to economic prosperity. The idea of a command economy has been rejected around the world.
However, none of those principles is any good unless there is good management at home. One way or another self-help is going to involve some form of accountable government. There is no wish to impose particular models, but recent history shows us that stifling individual rights leads both to discontent and economic failure.
Individual rights are not a luxury which only a developed world can afford. They are the bedrock of any successful society. If political development lags behind, so in the end will economic development. Essential steps along the road to political development are clear: accountable government, pluralism, human rights and the rule of law. We see this trend around the

27
world. In eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America many governments have already taken those first decisive—we hope irreversible—steps.
The past year has seen extraordinary changes in the world. It has demonstrated beyond dispute that Socialist ideals do not work and that certain basic standards of accountability, liberal economics and respect for human rights are necessary to ensure effective government. It has also taught us once again that international relations will depend on mutual trust and confidence, on openness and on the peaceful settlement of disputes. It has thrown up new challenges and opportunities. Britain is unique as it is the only country to be a member of the UN, G7, the EC and the Commonwealth. As such we are well placed to respond constructively and to lead others to do so. We shall not fail to do so. In the past 12 years Britain's voice has again become more influential in foreign affairs. Your Lordships should be in no doubt that this. Government will continue to work for a secure and prosperous international environment and to protect Britain's interests within it.
3.2 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his opening speech, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has given us a summary of government policy on the main issues facing the world at this time. We are grateful to him. Even in the 12 months since we debated foreign affairs in the debate on the Address last November, we have seen significant changes, and the noble Earl was quite right to describe the past 12 months as a momentous year.
Last year we were discussing the invasion of Kuwait and all its implications. We believed, with the United Nations, that the Gulf War was a necessary operation and it was, militarily, a successful one. On the credit side I believe it strengthened the United Nations and the rule of international law; on the debit side the thoroughly bad man who caused all the trouble is still in power, and while he is there no one can safely turn his back on Iraq. He is a time bomb which should be defused. I agree with the noble Earl's remarks on the need to control the sale of arms.
The profound changes in the Soviet Union and the way they develop will affect the future of this country and western Europe generally. These and other events mentioned by the noble Earl will create problems for us and our friends and allies, and our reaction to them and the way we deal with them lie at the heart of this debate. Furthermore, it is only as members of the four major organisations that we can make our influence felt and that we can be effective. We must work through the European Community, through the Atlantic alliance, through the United Nations, and in a more informal way through the Commonwealth. The failure or collapse of any one of these bodies would be a disaster.
Our objective should be to sustain those four organisations and to ensure that our membership of them and contribution to them are significant and that we do not become a marginalised, offshore island in world affairs.
28
The noble Earl referred to the Maastricht Summit. As we look to that important event, we are conscious of current uncertainties as between the Government and some of our partners. We debated the subject of political union on 21st October and I will not cover that ground in detail again; but it would be helpful to have the Government's present view of the likely success of this important summit. As things are, does the Minister think the Prime Minister will sign the treaty? France and Germany are strongly pressing the case for a Community as a diplomatic and military power. The question of majority voting for some decisions in joint foreign policy makes it possible that Britain could be isolated in the last stage of the negotiations over the EC's political union treaty. We hope that can be avoided.
But Germany could also find itself isolated. That is to be avoided. Germany wants to pool sovereignty and wants a close knit political union. We know the reasons for that. The new Germany does not want to be tarred with the old brush. Who can blame them for that? The Government must therefore work hard to find a way out of this impasse. Noble Lords will be only too well aware that these are all critical issues.
It has always been predicted that a treaty will be signed by all 12 members in Maastricht. Is this still a practical possibility? The answer surely is that if the divisions on the points I have mentioned remain unresolved—there are others as well—then it is unlikely that the Prime Minister will lift up his pen to sign the treaty. Is that really not the position as things stand at this moment? Up until now neither Mr. John Major nor Mr. Douglas Hurd have given any hint that they might be ready to make meaningful concessions on any of the central points at issue. Indeed Mr. Hurd in his speech in Blackpool dismissed talk of one of the issues—that is, majority voting—as "wasted breath". The House will know that we take the view that our links with NATO must be retained. To break them at this point in history would be unthinkable.
What is lacking at this moment is any clear understanding of the Government's policies for Maastricht. The noble Earl dealt with this matter in his speech but his explanations did not satisfy me. We know the areas of disagreement. These include at present: extending majority voting, immigration, a common foreign policy, the powers of the European Parliament and the argument for a common currency and a central bank. On the latter point, the draft declaration includes what is called a "let out clause" for Britain. It is said that the treaty will proceed even if this country does not sign it. Britain can "opt out". That is a popular term these days. We concede that these are all acutely difficult matters to resolve, and we appreciate that they are not made easier by the divisions which exist in the ranks of the Conservative Party. I also recognise that they would be difficult if we were in office. But the party opposite is at the moment in power and the division in its ranks is acute. I do not think "acute" is too strong a word to use. Our anxiety is to know how the Government propose to tackle the problems posed by the proposals that I have listed.
Parliament and the British people have the right to know how the Government propose to proceed in six

29
weeks' time when the Prime Minister is in Maastricht. I have an uneasy feeling that it has been a mistake to build up Maastricht as being the final summit at which all the decisions on economic, monetary and political union will be settled for the foreseeable future.
I do not see how they can possibly be settled in six weeks' time. If however overall agreement is not practical, would it not be better to classify those areas on which accord can be achieved and to reserve those areas which obviously call for further discussion and negotiation? Effective political union is the chief of those areas, and I doubt whether anyone in this House believes that the complexities on the road to achieving it can be resolved in so short a time. I see that as the realistic scenario in the shorter term.
I want to see a progressively united Community and I do not want to sound pessimistic. I hope therefore that the Prime Minister will go to Maastricht determined to find as many practical solutions as possible in the public interest both here and abroad.
Turning to eastern Europe, we know that if the European Community fails to respond to the appeals of those countries, including the Soviet Union, we shall be failing in the biggest peacetime challenge of modern history. The failure of the coup in Moscow, for which we must be thankful, has had complex consequences which are still unravelling. The treaty of 18th October established a loose federation of independent sovereign republics within an economic community.
It is clear that the main and immediate objective of both Presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin is to prevent the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. It is a critical and highly charged scene with ethnic strife, political polarisation, violent border disputes and potential civil war, as in Georgia, for example. It is the time for a massive, constructive response to save Europe from potential catastrophe.
We have so far supported the Government's attitude to events in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. We fully agreed with the Prime Minister's condemnation of the August coup, and we are at one is supporting President Yeltsin's daunting task of building a democratic system in Russia.
Notwithstanding recent events, we also have great respect for President Gorbachev. History will not forget that he and he alone was the catalyst which released the spirit of freedom and democracy in the East. We want the August revolution to succeed; the thought of another coup by the dregs of the old system appals us. Peace in Europe depends on the creation of stability and a free society in Russia and the republics and in the old Warsaw Pact states. The G7 meeting was helpful but, sadly, inadequate. Helping Russia and eastern European countries demands and deserves as much attention, as much detailed study, as much dedication, as are being given to the Maastricht summit. If Maastricht were to collapse—which we would not wish to see—we would survive and could try again. If the Soviet Union collapses we may not survive. Let us come face to face with that reality.
The noble Earl dealt with the Madrid conference. I know that we all hope and pray that some constructive
30
result may be achieved, although we also harbour doubts. Like the noble Earl, I believe that we should pay the warmest tribute to Mr. James Baker, the US Secretary of State, for his great efforts to convene a conference, and for his refusal to take no for an answer. He has travelled to the Middle East on eight occasions in recent months, and the physical and mental strain must have been considerable. It was an achievement to get Arabs and Israelis to sit down together—the first time the nations of the area have come together since 1917.
We must commend the Arab leaders who conceded to most of the objections raised by Mr. Yitzhak Shamir. For example, they dropped their insistence that Israel must make a prior promise of land for peace. But Israel is there too and we do not forget the Israelis' anxieties and their long and bitter memories. If Israel can gain formal recognition and direct relations with the Arabs through this conference, it will have achieved what it has sought for 40 years. It is good to know that Arabs and Israelis are sitting down and talking to each other for the first time for many years. At this moment, perhaps it is prudent to say no more save that we hope profoundly that there will be a constructive outcome.
I turn briefly to the tragic events in Yugoslavia, which were also mentioned by the noble Earl. We support the efforts made by the European Community to bring hostilities there to an end. In particular, we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, upon his efforts as chairman of The Hague peace talks. The noble Lord has an immensely difficult, almost impossible, task; but we have every confidence that he will work hard for a settlement.
I hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Arran, replies he will be able to tell us what further steps, if any, the Government have in mind to bring that futile and pointless civil conflict to an end. I am thinking especially of possible action through the UN Security Council and of the imposition of sanctions upon the federal authorities until they comply fully with the ceasefire agreement.
I do not remember a time when so many agreements to cease fire were made and then broken in a matter of hours. As always, it is the innocent—the children, the women, and so on—who are suffering and dying. We and our allies must be as determined to bring this tragedy to an end as we were to tackle the Gulf problem.
There are other matters I should have liked to have dealt with such as developments in Southern Africa and the terrible starvation in other parts of that continent, but time will not allow. However, I know that my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and other noble Lords will touch on them in the debate.
We had a full day's debate on defence less than three weeks ago. Therefore, I shall not go into great detail on the subject save to ask the noble Earl a few questions which I am sure he will deal with when he comes to reply.
The Government's policy document Options for Change has given rise to argument and doubt as to whether the proposed reduced level of our forces will he adequate to meet our obligations and our

31
commitments in future. Can the noble Earl confirm that our NATO allies were fully informed of those proposals, and can he tell us what their reactions to them were?
Secondly, we are concerned about the disarray within the Government over the Scottish regiments. This debate gives the noble Earl, Lord Arran—a Scotsman himself—the opportunity to explain the Government's present position and to make a definitive statement about the future of those old regiments. Are the decisions of 3rd July on the amalgamation of regiments final or are they not?
Thirdly, can the noble Earl tell us what provision is being made for the 66,000 service personnel who will become redundant? There are problems of retraining and of rehousing and so on which will become acute very quickly unless adequate plans are made. Can he say whether such plans are now under consideration?
Before I conclude, I feel it my duty to refer to one criminal act which has sickened and disgusted decent people across the world; namely, the imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader, by the illegal regime in that unhappy country. Our thoughts are with her, her husband, Professor Michael Aris, and her children, and I think I can say that we were all delighted and moved when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope that we shall do all that is possible to secure the establishment of the duly elected government and the release and return of this courageous lady to her office as Prime Minister of Burma. A UN human rights mission arrived in Burma a few days ago. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl can tell the House what progress it has made.
I mentioned at the start that we are going through a period of great change. Are we fortunate to be living in such a period? Are these changes for the better or for worse'? I believe that we are fortunate. I believe that the changes in Russia and eastern Europe, and in our own affairs if we manage them well, are all for the better. Let us make sure that we, with our allies, do not miss the opportunity to build a new, free and democratic Europe. That should be the main objective of all of us.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am happy to associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about the fate of the elected Prime Minister of Burma. I should like to express my hopes and those of all my colleagues that Her Majesty's Government will do what they can to change her position for the better.
I shall not attempt to cover in the course of my remarks the innumerable changes that have taken place in the world since we last debated foreign affairs in this House, including events in Cambodia, the USSR, the Middle East, Hong Kong and Iraq. There is only one matter in connection with Iraq which I propose to raise and which the noble Earl has been warned that I would raise; namely, the fate of a British prisoner, Ian Richter, who has been imprisoned there for five years. He was accused of bribing the mayor of Baghdad, who had been executed. It was specified at the time of the ceasefire that he would be released, but
32
he has not. I should like to know from Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to get him released and what his position is today.
I should like also to join others in congratulating the American Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, on an extraordinary and remarkable diplomatic achievement which can only excite our admiration and which deserves our most wholehearted thanks.
The most common single characteristic which almost everywhere in the world today shares and reflects is instability. That instability is nowhere more marked or more apparent than in central and eastern Europe. Having returned late last week from a visit to Yugoslavia, I am all too familiar with the extremely dangerous consequences which that instability can bring about. Having gone there at the invitation of the Croat Government with two parliamentary colleagues, one from the Conservative Party and one from the Labour Party, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I spend a little time conveying the impressions gained on a very short visit to that unhappy country. The situation that confronts us there is, not surprisingly, extremely fluid; it changed in the four days we were there and has changed since we left. It is a country where the loss of life is difficult to quantify but where the damage to property, particularly property in the shape of people's houses, has been devastating; where 400,000 people—the large majority Croat—have fled or been driven from their houses; and where the Serbs now occupy about 20 per cent. of what was Croatia. The economic damage is equally devastating—the loss in tourism alone amounts to about $3,500 billion—and that is in a country which is not blessed with overwhelming wealth. I suspect that the state of the economy of Croatia is more serious than has been admitted. If that is so, the economy of Serbia must be in an even worse condition.
There is not much doubt where the chief responsibility lies, although that is not to say that the Croat Government have always been prudent. Serbia, and its idea of a greater Serbia, must carry the chief responsibility, as has been made clear in the declaration from The Hague. That declaration also makes it clear—this is something which, regrettably or unregrettably, we must face—that Yugoslavia as a federal state no longer exists. To pretend that it does is simply to delude ourselves. We must also face the probability that it will break up into six independent or self-proclaimed independent republics, thereby increasing the Balkanisation of the Balkans and carrying with it the grave danger that the process will have consequences outside what was Yugoslavia. One republic, Macedonia, always excites interest in both Bulgaria and Greece. In addition, the area has a large Moslem population, which must excite interest in Albania, to mention but two possible knock-on effects.
If, therefore, the first priority is somehow or other to secure a ceasefire—here I should like to pay tribute to the 12-nation monitoring group which I visited; it is clearly doing a most noble job in almost impossible circumstances and alone in that country appears to maintain some kind of impartiality and ability to look

33
at both sides of the question—it is also important, if that Balkanisation to which I referred is not to gallop away with the whole situation, that a looser arrangement or association of those six republics should be arranged to prevent the knock-on effects to which I referred.
The prospect of a ceasefire depends largely on the Serbian response to last week's ultimatum from The Hague. The offensive reported in the press today in eastern Croatia can be interpreted either, optimistically, as an attempt to gain as much advantage before negotiations start or, alternatively, as a sign of total and utter intransigence. The next few days will reveal which of the two, if either, it will be.
During our visit we saw all those members of the Croat Government whom we hoped to see, together with leading members of the Church, including the archbishop. They treated us with the utmost generosity in terms of time. They were frank in their replies, but sometimes their replies were slightly worrying, or so it seemed to me. One must report that, despite the disparity in numbers, the Serbs have done far less well than they should. They have a huge superiority in numbers—it is estimated that there are 100,000 quasi-regular troops and 30,000 Chetniks—against 50,000 rather irregular Croats. They have taken 20 per cent. of the country, but they have not as yet won any kind of outright victory.
On the other hand, in talking about the future, one found among the Croats very few suggestions of any possible way forward. Their ideas were based on the simple return to the old frontiers. It must be said that redrawing the frontiers of Yugoslavia is a singularly fruitless exercise as the ethnic mix produces such a mosaic that you could never draw the frontiers to fit the settlement areas of the various populations.
The conflict is all too reminiscent of what we have seen in Northern Ireland. It is a child of history; the old fault line between Rome and Byzantium, between the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. That kind of historical conflict is extremely difficult to reconcile between peoples who, as in Northern Ireland, relish and live on history. That having been said, the importance that these people attach to the European Community can hardly be exaggerated. They seriously expect—I say that advisedly because very few of them deny it—the European Community to impose a settlement on Yugoslavia by force of arms. They are extremely reluctant to accept it when they are told that that is extremely unlikely and that in fact there is no such possibility.
One consequence of that conviction is that it relieves them of the responsibility for thinking themselves of any way forward. That needs to be said, because the solution, although assisted by those outside, must come from within Yugoslavia and must be accepted from within. Even if we were prepared to impose a settlement from outside by force of arms, our experience elsewhere indicates that force of arms is not
34
a good way to make other people reach agreement and that once in such a situation it is extremely difficult to get out.
Therefore, it is a pity that the British Embassy in Belgrade has no one in Zagreb. The World Service operates in Zagreb and the press is in Zagreb, but there is no one there from the embassy to tell the Croat Government what we think or to learn what they think. In fact it is only five and a half hours from Belgrade via Hungary, a somewhat arduous journey but not impossible. I should have thought that it would be a good thing to have someone in Zagreb at this critical time.
There is no doubt that the Yugoslav problem is a European problem. There is no doubt—the Foreign Secretary indicated it in another place on Friday and it is implicit in what he said—that this is not the kind of problem in which we can expect the Americans to intervene. It is a very important problem because there are potentially quite a lot of other Yugoslavias lying around the Balkans, like so much tinder. It is therefore of great importance that it should be dealt with as effectively as possible.
No one would deny that, as in the case of the Gulf, the response of the European Community to the Yugoslav crisis was both fragmentary and slow. The fact that it was slow meant that when the decisions were ultimately reached, as they have been under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, they were more difficult to implement. Various other ideas were taken up and suggested and there was no decisive intervention or decision from the body which was meant to be dealing with the situation. The slow and fragmentary response of the Community in this matter of foreign affairs, which is so important to it, indicates that we should look closely at European political co-operation. We must see whether it can be improved, whether we can make the machinery better and whether we can develop a more effective common European foreign policy to which the Foreign Secretary has given some assent. That means examining the machinery for dealing with disputes within Europe and differences of opinion within the Community. We must decide how they should be resolved and provide European political co-operation, when it becomes a common foreign policy, with a proper staff to develop that policy.
It used to be argued that differences within the Community made it impossible to have such a common foreign policy. But exactly the opposite is true. Because there are differences there must be machinery to resolve them. In a totally friction-free and harmonious society there would be no need to have parliaments, elections or votes. However, because there are differences we must have all this political paraphernalia. Similarly, within Europe, in devising a foreign policy we must have machinery to resolve our differences. Therefore, we must think in those terms and in my view that means accepting the idea of majority voting in foreign affairs issues.
That matter was referred to in the debate in another place last Friday by the Foreign Secretary. In a particularly opaque paragraph (Hansard at col. 124) which, if the House will trust me, I shall summarise, he

35
said that he thought that votes would weaken co-operation because rather than think of co-operation:
"People would think in terms of a vote."
I am bound to say that this seems to me at this moment to be a rather odd argument for a Conservative politician to deploy. Think of votes! Good Lord, perish the thought in this year before the general election!
But when I think of the posture adopted by Her Majesty's Government before the Maastricht talks, I believe understand what the Foreign Secretary may have had in mind. That is all I shall say about Maastricht because my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth will talk about that subject much more authoritatively. However, it seems to me that the posture that Her Majesty's Government adopted before Maastricht is governed far less by the interests of this country than by votes within the Conservative Party, and by that I mean the Conservative parliamentary party.
The Prime Minister said and I agree with him that he wants this country to be at the heart of Europe. How dos he propose to achieve that? It seems that he has adopted Liddell Hart's strategy of the indirect approach in its most extreme and oblique form. His first step toward reaching the heart of Europe is to ensure that this country opts out of a single currency. He signals his commitment to belong to the mainstream—if I may change the metaphor—by swimming toward the bank on the side. That is proclaimed by the Conservative press as a great diplomatic triumph. I find it very difficult to follow. In fact it is a simple and direct consequence of an attempt to appease the remnants of the Bruges Group, most of whom will not be fighting in the next election. The opt-out clause is no diplomatic triumph; it is directed at that group within the Conservative Party. I believe that that is an abnegation of leadership and in contradiction to British interests.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am grateful for your indulgence. It was for me a happy coincidence that on the day of my introduction last month your Lordships debated defence. I was able to sit in the Chamber, listen to and see maiden speakers of eloquence. I was able to sense the depth of wisdom and the breadth of knowledge which are the hallmarks of this place. After such a short apprenticeship in listening mode, I deem it a very great honour to be allowed to speak on this particular day on the occasion of the debate on the Address. I feel immense humility and no little trepidation as I embark on my maiden solo. Perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his kind remarks.
For the first 30 years and more of my service career there was little doubt about the principal danger to the security of this country and little doubt that we must rely on the collective defence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. For all that period NATO was our priority one commitment. Indeed, as the years passed, it was, financially speaking, the only real priority. Virtually all other commitments had to be
36
met from the forces and equipments that we could afford and justify for NATO. Double hatting and earmarking were the themes for covering the rest of our commitments.
In the past decade the Falklands operation and more recently the Gulf conflict stretched us greatly, as I saw for myself from the closest of quarters in the Ministry of Defence. Of course war will always be a testing and trying experience. But the intense television and other media coverage of the Gulf conflict brought us something else. It brought to the attention of all of us the great professionalism of our all-volunteer regular and reserve forces. I share the universally held admiration for the way in which so many young men and women performed under great danger and difficulty so far from home. It would be invidious to single out any by name but I believe that your Lordships may share my special awareness of the particular courage of those whose duties exposed them to extreme hazards.
I am thinking of those in minesweepers who at grave personal risk sought out and destroyed a variety of deadly mines which could cause immense damage to large warships and inhibit their key operations. I am thinking of those in the special forces from all three services who operated sometimes in small teams under particularly arduous conditions far behind enemy lines. I am thinking of the air crews who had to get airborne and perhaps rendezvous at night and in darkness, silently, with an airborne tanker, to top up their fuel before flying deep into enemy territory. Each man in his cockpit knew that he would be under constant enemy fire as he approached his targets; yet he pressed on with his mission.
I was able to visit the Gulf immediately after the end of hostilities and to talk with a large number of those who had fought in this way at sea, on land and in the air, including all the special forces. It will remain an inspiring memory for me. I count it a very great privilege to have been associated with the activity of such brave people who display that very special kind of individual courage: to outface danger and conquer fear on their own and often alone. I welcome the opportunity to speak of them in this place.
From these recent operations many lessons are drawn. One which has always struck me is that both Operation Corporate and the Gulf conflict called for offensive operations at very great range from these shores against a numerically stronger foe. Your Lordships will recognise that such offensive operations may call for a much greater intensity of effort than those of a purely defensive kind. NATO prepared us to defend against aggression; to hold and recover territory we knew well, and to do so from well found defensive positions and operational bases. Even our lines of communication, though not without vulnerability, were comparatively short.
Contrast that with the complexity and effort involved in equipping, moving and sustaining a tri-service offensive—not defensive—operation many thousands of miles from home over long and exposed lines of communication. As always, fighting forces need food and water. But today, unlike their forbears, they need enormous tonnages of fuel and ammunition

37
too if they are to fight a modern battle of movement, surprise and firepower. Your Lordships will not need me to elaborate on that point. You are, I know, well attuned to it. Logistic support is as vital as front line numbers to success in such endeavours.
Looking to the future, in what roles are our armed forces most likely to be put into play? It may be as peacekeepers or in aid of those who suffer from natural and other disasters. It may be as part of a wider group or commonwealth of nations prepared to respond to United Nations leadership in those fields. Would that the world might become such a peaceable place, my Lords. I for one would not plan on it alone. If our forces have then, with others, to deal with unacceptable behaviour, it will most likely be at some distance from these shores and the territories of our NATO allies in North America and Western Europe, though if missiles of long range and advanced technology grow more available, we cannot rule out the threat from afar that they might pose to the United Kingdom itself.
However, with a clear-cut threat, such as the one we have faced out so successfully, now hopefully behind us, we and NATO, too, if it is to survive, must devise new ways to measure our force structures and requirements. These will need to be based and justified more on having a range of capabilities than on direct correlation with perceived threats. Such an approach needs much study and discussion if we are to get it right.
Those thoughts, among others, made me feel in my time directing the earlier stages of the Options for Change work that we should look for flexible and adaptable forces with reach and seize what was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to correct imbalances where they existed between the front line and its essential logistic support and sustainability. For deterrence and a conventional European battle, probably limited in time and space, not quite the same degree of logistics and sustainability were needed as are required for offensive operations at long range, though many of my noble and gallant predecessors as Chiefs of the Defence Staff over the years have worried and reported about the extent to which our sustainability had been eroded.
I therefore accepted, as most do, that our front line forces would be smaller but that they should be better in the sense that, if called on to carry out offensive operations far from home, we would have the right range and mix of capabilities without, as in Granby, having to pass the hat around our not always willing friends and allies to make good shortfalls.
Perhaps I may finish by making one comment on the concept of a more robust and expanded Western European Union defence force which France and Germany at present seem to be advocating. I speak from a military standpoint. It is for others to weigh the political value and imperatives for such a development. My point is indeed a straightforward one. In NATO, and in the Gulf, the scale of the United States military contribution gave it the authority and the leadership which all members of the treaty and the coalition accepted. In WEU, I ask myself, who will
38
lead? Consensus among equals is fair enough in peacetime. In war it could be a dubious basis from which to direct operations. Those who fight for us must have the fullest confidence in the chain of command above them. As we found in the Gulf conflict, when offensive operations are called for the most careful setting out of agreed political aims is the essential and most important prerequisite to preparing an achievable and unambiguous directive to our field commanders and the forces under their direct command. It is too late and perhaps disastrous to attempt to determine what precise objectives one is fighting to achieve if one's forces have already been committed or caught up in war. I hope that such considerations will be given proper weight if any serious development of this new European security vision is to be attempted.
Your Lordships' courtesy and indulgence in hearing me today is a very great honour. I thank you most sincerely.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, it is indeed a great honour to be the first to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on his most excellent maiden speech. After a lifetime with the services he brings all his experience to this House and we value that very highly. We admire all that he did in the Gulf war as Chief of the Defence Staff, and we admire equally the eloquent tribute that he paid to our servicemen in that conflict, in particular those who were at greatest risk. The noble Lord joins a long line of highly distinguished predecessors whose words are always listened to with great care and attention and it is perfectly obvious that the words of the noble and gallant Lord will be listened to with equal care and attention. The House looks forward to that.
There are many issues on the world agenda and therefore one must be very selective on an occasion such as this. I wish to confine my remarks to the present political situation in Europe and to the international scene as a whole. The particular event that has riveted our attention in recent months has been the collapse of the Soviet Empire with all its immense implications. I imagine that it was the last such empire that the world will ever see. The collapse brings to an end the division of Europe forced on the Allies by Stalin; a division that was a violence to the culture and history of the Continent. It was bound to end some time and thank goodness that it has ended now. But the wounds and the scars will take a long time to heal and some could become worse before becoming better.
The end was in stark contrast to the end of the British Empire when full responsibility for their own affairs was transferred to hundreds of millions of people with remarkably little rancour or bloodshed and with all the help and support that we could give. In contrast to that the Communist Empire simply collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency and its lack of any sound philosophical, political or moral foundation.
What is its legacy? It is one colossal disaster area. The economies of the countries concerned are in a

39
grievous state of deprivation or bankruptcy. All the technical, political and social changes with which we have grown up have passed them by. They suffer from a complete lack of any institutional infrastructure on which to build pluralist democracies and market economies. It is difficult for people in the West to grasp the sheer disorder that such a situation consists of.
Naturally we take our democracy, institutions and standard of living for granted. However, those countries are starting from scratch. The end of the Communist Empire brought about the liberation of 10 countries and the creation of about 15 independent republics. Each and every one suffers from the same lack of democratic structure or experience. Potentially that situation is very dangerous and in my view calls for a quite exceptional response from the West. Whether the Soviet republics will be able to form themselves into some kind of partnership so that they can help each other remains to be seen, but I believe that their ethnic problems will make that extremely difficult.
The task of helping all these countries to pull themselves up and provide an improving standard of living for their people is so huge that its attainment cannot be taken for granted. Not enough investment and technology is available in the whole world to provide what is needed, except over a long period of time. Thy, disappointment and misery which people will continue to experience could prove to be explosive.
Therefore, the question that we must ask is: how are we to keep alive the hopes and expectations of these peoples? They are expectations that have been raised so high. At last these peoples have managed to free themselves from their oppressors but in many cases the alternatives in terms of experiences in everyday life are worse. At present the virtues of democracy and a market economy are for them a bit of a joke. Somehow the rest of us must provide good reason for them to cling to their hopes. As your Lordships know, at present an enormous number of individual initiatives are being taken by all countries in the West, in particular Germany; by governments; by the European Community; by G7; by the private sector and by many organisations. All that is excellent as far as it goes. However, my own view is that these efforts need to be augmented. I should like to see in place a structure where all the issues can be looked at together and where both sides of the European divide can find out in terms of political reality, how best to build the bridges that are needed to bring the whole Continent gradually into a balanced and harmonious entity.
In opening the debate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the issue of economic convergence in the European Community. Of course he was right, but in my view the convergence of the whole Continent is of equal and greater importance. That is a great challenge. There are constraints for the West no less than there are huge problems for the East and many bridges will be needed. At the top of the list are investment, technology and managerial training. In addition, cultural and educational bridges will have
40
a major contribution to make. The bridge of the English language is of fundamental importance. The best expression of that which I heard recently came from a professor at Moscow University. When speaking at a seminar at Dartmouth House she said:
"Teachers in English have never been so important and so wanted and so unable to satisfy the cry for help".
The professor continued:
"For very many people, English is the standard bearer of democracy".
I believe that the building of these bridges will be greatly facilitated by a structure that encompasses all the countries of Europe together with the United States and Japan whose strength and wealth will surely be needed. In other words, we need a group such as the components of CSCE which appears to be a good starting point. My anxiety is that without some such structure, without a method of looking at the whole picture, our efforts to build these bridges could easily falter or be inadequate. That would be a catastrophe and we would not be able to escape some blame for that. I expressed the same anxiety in our debate a year ago but today I feel it even more strongly. I believe that view is shared by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
Two trends stand out clearly in recent history of which your Lordships are well aware. The first is the large increase in the number of independent countries in the world which are taking their seats at the United Nations and elsewhere. Each country has its own distinctive culture, interests, aspirations and opinions. That number could increase significantly in the years ahead. Secondly, there is a marked growth in the sense of nationalism and independence. That is felt by millions of people throughout the world.
As regards Europe, it is natural, indeed inevitable, that after 50 years of iron rule and with no individuality permitted, people will use their newfound liberty to express strong personal feelings, instincts and loyalties. Those trends are much to be welcomed because they are what people want. However, they make the world more difficult to organise and govern. There are so many conflicting interests to try to reconcile both within and between countries. As a result of the volume and complexity of conflicting interests they will be resolved, if they can be resolved, only in an atmosphere of self discipline and patience in the context of international institutions and structures that command universal confidence and are man enough for their task.
That brings me to what I consider to be one of the central issues of international affairs today; it is the need to redefine the balance between national sovereignty and international responsibility. We face an acute example of that in relation to the European Community but all countries face the same issue because the concept of the all-powerful, independent nation state has been diminished by technology. That concept in the manner in which we have known it is out of date. Technology has made all nations interdependent and that is a new feature. It transforms the whole political international landscape and makes new methods of governance unavoidable.
I have no doubt that nation states will continue to be the foundation of any world order, but they will be

41
operating in a changing context. One element of that context is already in place; it is the regional groupings that we see throughout the world. They are dealing with regional issues and will surely develop strongly in the future. However, few people appear to be thinking about the world institutions and I do not believe that it is wise to postpone that any longer. More and more issues become global in scale and can be dealt with only globally. Technology, communications, environmental issues, financial markets and many other matters know no national boundaries. The existing machinery to help mankind handle issues on a global basis is in my view inadequate. Existing institutions serve us well but they were designed in the age of steam and cannot bear the weight which is now put on them and they were not designed to do so.
There is a view that any proposal to alter those institutions is so fraught with difficulty that it is better not to try. I regard that as a pusillanimous point of view and one which ignores the realities of the world. It would be wise to put this issue firmly on the international agenda in order to find ways to evolve our institutions so that they keep up with the pace of change.
A more difficult part of the task may be to adjust people's attitudes and psychology towards their own nation state in the face of changed world circumstances. As I said, nation states will remain the foundation of any system but they must work in different conditions.
As it happens, there is a marvellous opportunity next year to promote the whole concept of a global level of government. The United Nations 1992 Conference in Brazil on Environment and Development is the ideal vehicle for that purpose because environmental issues are the ultimate global issues. They cannot be regionalised or nationalised. The whole earth is at stake. At an individual level, people have come to realise that the earth's resources are limited and that this is the only world that we have and we all belong to it so we must look after it. That means that we must develop our institutions and create a methodology which enables the world to cope effectively with global issues as they emerge. The Brazil conference is the opportunity required. I say that especially in the light of the cohesion of the United Nations in the Gulf crisis, which was a very optimistic state of affairs
Nobody believes that that task will be easy, but that is by the way. Somehow it must be done.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Pym, I wish to confine my remarks to Europe. Before doing that, I should like to report to your Lordships that I had the privilege a short time ago of spending time with the British Army on the Rhine and with the Royal Air Force in Germany. I was deeply impressed by the levels of enthusiasm and professionalism which I found in their ranks. It is 15 years since I was last there and I am sure that the standard is much higher now than it was then. That is a great tribute. It was also a tremendous privilege to
42
meet many of those pilots and soldiers who had served in the Gulf and to share with them some of their experiences. I echo every word said so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley.
However, I left with one impression; namely, that the Government have failed to convince those who must carry out the nation's tasks that the resources fit the commitments. From the many conversations I had, I believe that no one thought that to be so. I believe that Options for Change began as a genuine exercise to find out how our commitments, now that the Soviet threat is reduced, could be met. However, it seems to me that what began as a genuine Options for Change ended up as a Treasury-driven exercise. That is the mistake which has been made.
I believe that the Prime Minister has a special responsibility in this matter. I hope it will not be thought that I am making too much of the point if I say that it is a pity that the Prime Minister has only been Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would have been far better had he been also Foreign Secretary or defence Secretary. I urge him strongly not only to read his briefings and to listen to what he has been told but also to investigate the matter himself. It is important that he should convince those who have responsibility for carrying out the Government's tasks that they will have the resources to do so. If that is not the case, the Government must adopt one of two options: either they must reduce the commitments as they think appropriate and come to this House about that; or they must increase resources. If those who study those matters and must operate those affairs are to be convinced, I do not see how the Government can evade that responsibility.
I now turn to the major part of my speech. Naturally I welcome the re-affirmation in the gracious Speech of Her Majesty's Government's continuing commitment to NATO and the recognition of the need to be prepared against instability in Europe. Indeed, having listened to the speeches made by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble Lord, Lord Pym, instability seems to me to be something of an understatement of the situation which we are facing there. As we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, a civil war is raging in Yugoslavia. In eastern Europe there is evidence of an ugly nationalism and racism arising. Ethnic minorities are endangered and old grievances about borders are being revived.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pym, said, overshadowing that is the total collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union. Powerful interests, whose attempted coup was foiled last time, are still there and are capable of striking again. The army is discontented and morale is low. We read of troops selling their weapons and indulging in the black market in so many different ways. A Russian said recently that 85 per cent. of the borders of the Soviet Union lack legitimacy. As the noble Lord, Lord Pym, said, some 20 million citizens who are estimated to work in arms production—including those in a number of cities where the whole economy and the livelihood of their

43
citizens depends entirely on arms production—face unemployment. Europe could be confronted by a refugee tide which could turn into a flood.
I was particularly struck by the stark verdict of Mr. Rutskoi—Boris Yeltsin's deputy—who said:
"The confusion is worse than in your wildest dreams".
His assessment is that the first priority in the Soviet republics, because the rule of law does not apply, is the restoration of a measure of order. That must be tackled before anything else. Mr. Rutskoi even suggested to his German audience that a solution would b for the Russians to join not only the European Community but also NATO, at a later stage. That is an unrealistic proposal but it is a measure of the total lack of confidence which some of the Russian leaders have in their capacity to solve their own problems.
We face more than instability. Today in western Europe we are living on the edge of a revolution; a revolution the range of which cannot be foreseen and the consequences of which may not be discerned for perhaps another 20 years. Fortunately—and this is the major point I wish to make—western Europe has two stable institutions to steady us against any shocks which may come. I refer, of course, to NATO and to the European Community. Nothing must be done at this time to weaken either. On the contrary, we need a stronger European Community and a more relevant North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
There is also the further factor of Germany and its growing influence upon European affairs. Germany is seated geographically in the centre of Europe and is now united. It is a nation of 80 million people and is the most powerful nation in Europe, with the strongest economy. The question for Germans, which other noble Lords and I have seen over the years, has now been articulated whereas before it was not; namely, how their strength is to be used. The answer concerns not only the future of the Germans but also the people; of the rest of Europe, the United States and, indeed, the Russians. President Bush recognised that; he almost brought the matter to a head when he talked of the reality of German strength and called upon Germany to become, in company with the United States, "a partner in leadership".
For at least two decades German leaders Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and now Chancellor Kohl, have been aware of the dilemma in presenting Germany on the international stage; namely, how they were to use the latent political power that accompanied Germany's growing economic might without alarming their neighbours in the rest of Europe. In my own time I have seen that because of their knowledge of Germany's history and its recent past both Brandt and even Helmut Schmidt felt inhibited from assuming the political role to which their strength entitled them. Germany has given a clear answer to the dilemma and sought to reassure us by exerting her influence through the energetic and enthusiastic support of the European Community. I must say that the rest of us must be relieved that that is so.
However, the answer carries with it certain conditions. As I said, it brought the issue to a head.
44
Hans Dietrich Genscher was responsible for calling on Germans to shoulder their world responsibilities. That coincides with the single market in 1992 and what I regard as the natural evolution of a common economic and monetary union which will require Germany to take some risks with the strength of the German mark and the German economy. The answer from Chancellor Kohl has been to call for full-blooded political union which will require a surrender of German sovereignty. He made that a condition for Germany's willingness to relinquish control of its currency. Britain should listen to that with sympathy and understanding. It would harness the German giant's great strength to the European chariot and, let us be frank, inhibit that strength from being used —not at present but under different leadership—at some time in the future, perhaps in a manner that could harm the rest of Europe.
There are genuine differences between Britain and Germany on that issue. It is no use disguising them and they should not be hidden under any kind of verbiage. Let me suggest why I believe them to exist to enable us to decide how to overcome them. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, historically Britain has always expressed her personality through a variety of institutions, of which the European Community is but one. In addition, Britain has a permanent seat on the Security Council; Germany does not. Britain has membership of the Commonwealth; Germany has no such counterpart. Britain has a long history as an independent state; Germany is only around 100 years old.
Germany has come to terms with her past and decided that the way to fulfil her role in the future is through a united Europe. I submit to your Lordships that that is equally in Britain's long-term interests and our security as a nation. When Chancellor Kohl, our Prime Minister and the remainder of the European Community meet at Maastricht the difference between our two nations—which arises from our different history—should not be one of principle but one of timing. The British people are not yet ready for a full surrender of sovereignty. That must be clear to all and must be explained to Germany. We need a full public debate but it is for us to give a lead on the direction we should follow and why it should be necessary for us to follow it.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn made a helpful proposal that we should classify the matters that can be agreed and reserve for further discussion those that cannot. If we proceed in that way then there is a chance of reconciling both the position of Germany in Europe—seating her firmly in the centre—and, at the same time, safeguarding and promoting our own future.
I turn to the WEU. I shall cut down what I had intended to say because I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Craig, in his maiden speech, who speaks with far greater authority. Incidentally, I noticed that the gracious Speech did not mention the WEU, the Anglo-German initiative, the Franco-German initiative or even the Anglo-Italian initiative. Whether that

45
is due to a lack of conviction on the Government's part that the matter is of importance I do not know. If so, I would agree.
In the light of what the noble Lord said, I suggest that Europe is in danger of muddling up its defence structures. We do not make those arrangements any more logical by hiding them under verbiage about strengthening the European pillar of the alliance. As has been explained, NATO is seeking to adapt to changed circumstances with the establishment of a rapid reaction force some 75,000 strong under British command and with a strong element of American troops. Those with whom I had the opportunity of speaking last week said that the professionalism of the United States forces in the Gulf filled them with admiration. I was told by those who served with them in the Gulf that the American army has been transformed since Vietnam. I hope that that is true. It is a great comfort to hear that view expressed.
I realise that it is early days, but neither the mission nor the role of the rapid reaction force has been defined. Against what force is it to react? In what countries and within what geographical boundaries is it to react? As usual France is unenthusiastic due to the presence of American troops. It is high time the French overcame their pride and prejudice in the matter. It is ironic that the Russians should be more keen to preserve the strength of NATO than the French.
East Europeans are unhappy now that the Warsaw Pact has been broken up. I wish it had been possible to create a European security community through the CSCE. However, having seen that in action, although it has a forum that embraces the whole of Europe, I fear that the unanimity role would make it impossible to use the CSCE for any decision making that required immediate and urgent action.
The WEU is perhaps a little more practical. However, it was intended to exclude the United States but such a force would need to depend in its entirety upon the United States for all its major facilities— reconnaissance, communications, logistics, intelligence. What can any force do without those? How can the WEU operate unless it has that backing? In those circumstances, why do we want to depart from the necessary adaptation of NATO which could give us the same result?
With due respect, I say to the Government that I understand that there is a desire and feeling that we must counteract the Franco-German initiative for setting up a force of 25,000 to 40,000 men. But we do not achieve that purpose by proposing Anglo-Italian initiatives. They seem to have little more to say for themselves than we can obtain by a revised NATO structure with perhaps an extended role and a new and different mission. Those should be our aims. I would say to Germany that from her point of view, as well as from the point of view of Britain and the other allies, it is a better bet to work out a new role for NATO than to create alternative forces which may weaken its cohesion and its integrated structure. That, if badly handled, could cause uninformed opinion in middle
46
America, which hardly knows where Europe is, to create political pressure for the removal of American troops from Europe.
Since World War II, western Europe has done remarkably well. Our countries have enjoyed the two bulwarks, one against external aggression and the other to promote internal progress. If we decide to use those two instruments, suitably revised and certainly strengthened in the direction of political unity as we get there, Europe can then take its place as an old continent alongside the United States and Japan in offering world leadership to the other countries of the world.
4.20 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, previous speakers have concentrated on great events which have and are taking place in the world, in Europe and in the Gulf. We have had the magnificent maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord. Since it is also a major feature of British policy, I wish to speak briefly about the administration of Hong Kong and co-operation with China as regards the implementation of the Sino-British declaration. We hear much. particularly in the media, about the hazards of implementing the declaration. These have been multiple and real. I should like straightaway to congratulate the Government on the skill and professionalism with which they have faced them, including getting things moving as regards the airport to which the noble Earl referred and which, of itself, involves so many other things in the Hong Kong-China relationship.
The latest example of action relative to Hong Kong has been the agreement with Vietnam to receive back illegal immigrants in Hong Kong who are judged not to be refugees. That has been a frustrating and protracted negotiation. It started in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. and was pushed to success by the noble Earl. When he winds up it would be valuable to hear what the American attitude is to this development which is so important to Hong Kong. In particular, we should like to know what prospect there is of the Americans lifting their ban on World Bank support for the rehabilitation of Vietnam. Surely the absence of that lies at the heart of the immigration of these hopeless people from an at present hopeless land.
The agreement is yet another demonstration of the United Kingdom's determination to do what it can for Hong Kong. Obviously, the principal aim is to smooth the path in implementing the joint declaration. I say at once that I am sure that this path would have been blocked without the better working relationship established with China. It was well done to achieve that, and it was achieved through the patient. firm work of officials of the Governor and eventually of that of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I believe that both showed considerable political courage in what they did. This path will not be an easy one because it enters ground which is entirely new and which has never been covered before in international

47
relations The administrative, financial and political problems that beset it are real and lend themselves to doomsday reporting.
Today there are very many speakers and I do not want to go into the problems of implementation. I wish to confine myself to emphasising what I believe to be the essential fact that underlies this joint Sino-British endeavour. That is the continuing economic success of Hong Kong and the whole area.
It is against that background of success that the well publicised political and administrative problems should seen. Hong Kong itself continues to be a boom city successfully outriding the world recession. But for my part I am equally, if not even more, encouraged by the dramatic economic success of adjacent areas of China. The Chinese success has resulted from the open-door policy of Deng Xiaoping. It has bun steadily implemented despite what may have been happening elsewhere in China. It has been implemented in the key areas such as the coastal provinces of South East China including those adjacent to Hong Kong. There has been huge benefit to the tens of millions of inhabitants and the productive capacity of the area. It is a success story on a gigantic scale.
Hong Kong has been a large beneficiary of this extraordinary development just as it has been a major contributor to it in terms of finance and management. The problems of implementing the joint declaration which faced the two governments and the people of Hong Kong are political, administrative and psychological. No doubt we shall hear a certain amount about them during this Session. Their solution should be assisted by the mechanisms now established between the two governments. But in considering them as they arise, I suggest that we should be encouraged by seeing Hong Kong not in isolation but under the policies of the two governments in what it is proving to be; namely, a key part in NN hat is economically accepted as the fastest growing economic area of the whole world. Against that background of economic success, surely the political and administrative problems will be solved. I congratulate the Government on what they have been doing to solve them.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope that it will not be considered improper that someone should take part in this debate on the humble Address following the gracious Speech who was not here for that Speech. While noble Lords were fainting under the heat in the Chamber, I was striding out along the banks of the Zambesi in the rain. I was there because I had been invited to look at the general election campaign in Zambia by the Commonwealth Secretary as part of the observer group. I arrived back into London early this morning and I thought that I might spend a few moments informing your Lordships of what happened in that general election because I believe it was a very significant event.
In addition to the honourable member for Devon West and Torridge, the team consisted of me and a further 11 much more distinguished members of the
48
Commonwealth. Among them was the President of the Australian Senate, a former Governor-General of Canada, the Vice-Chairman of the Indian Upper House and a former Bangladeshi High Commissioner to London. We were led by Mr. Justice Telford Georges who was a former chief justice of Tanzania, Zimbabwe and the Bahamas. The terms of reference that we were given by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, whom we met in Harare at the end of the Commonwealth Conference, were these. We were to serve every relevant aspect of the organisation and conduct of the elections in accordance with the law of Zambia in relation to elections. Our function was to ascertain whether, in our impartial judgment, and in the context of that law, the elections were free and fair. We had no executive role and our function was neither to supervise nor to act as a commission of inquiry. It was to observe the process as a whole and to form a judgment accordingly; to report to the Secretary General and, subsequently, to the Government of Zambia and the leadership of the political parties taking part.
Noble Lords will appreciate that this was a huge task because Zambia is a huge country. It is about 750,000 square kilometres in size which is equivalent to the size of France, Belgium the Netherlands and Switzerland. It has a population of about 8 million which is thinly spread. Thirteen people do not go very far in those circumstances. Nevertheless we were not the only observers. The Carter Foundation had a number of observers; there were local monitoring organisations, and the High Commissions also travelled about the country on polling day. Here I should like to pay tribute to the British High Commissioner and his staff in Lusaka who not only gave us considerable support, but played an important part in the monitoring.
The important thing was that we were seen. We were welcomed by the Zambian people. We had been invited by President Kaunda and the leaders of the Movement for Multi-party Democracy, which was the opposition party, the MMD, and we were certainly welcomed by the Zambian people wherever we went. I do not remember when I was last so popular anywhere.
These elections have wide repercussions for third world countries as well as for the whole of Africa. I believe it was an act of courage to agree to allow these elections to take place at all, given the dictatorial powers that President Kaunda had before the elections took place. It was of course fatal both to his presidency and to his government. I shall come to that later.
We spoke to a wide range of people. We spoke to the President himself, to the Electoral Commission, to the head of the police and to delegations from the various monitoring organisations. We looked very carefully at the practical provisions that had been made, and we listened to a number of worries and objections that came from all sides. They mainly came from the opposition, the MMD. The government party had fewer problems since they had been responsible for designing most of the practical provisions. The serious worries were really because in

49
a situation where there had been a one party state for 17 years people found it difficult to distinguish between the government party and the government. I have to say that some candidates found it difficult to distinguish between the role as Minister and the role as candidate.
The electoral laws had been tightly drawn. Many noble Lords would have recognised them as being the child of the British electoral system. Whatever faults that may have in relation to matters of electoral procedure, or at least voting systems, it did not really apply because there were only two parties in contention. The sealing of the ballot boxes, for instance, one would recognise from having been in a polling station in this country; the rules of conduct within the precincts of the polling station one would also recognise.
There were some differences. Voters had to produce identity cards, which we do not have. They also had to produce voting cards, which we do not have—or if we have them we do not have to produce them. They had to have their thumbs marked with indelible ink, which people in this country would find less than pleasant. There were problems with the electoral roll which had originally been designed in 1988 and brought up to date in 1990. It was inadequate. Many people whose names were on the roll clearly were either not living there or perhaps were not even living at all. It meant also that nobody between 18 and 19 years of age was able to vote.
There were fears that the count would be corrupted. The count did not take place in the polling stations; ballot boxes were brought to central counting points. The opposition were very fearful that some of the ballot boxes would be tampered with between the polling station and the central count. This is where the monitoring groups came into their own. These people watched those ballot boxes like hawks. They followed them by every possible means of transport, because transport was a great difficulty. It was a great difficulty for the authorities, apart from anything else. One has to recognise that this is a very poor country and I was in one of the poorest parts in central Mongu which is about 500 miles from the centre of the country. They were very short of transport. The permanent secretary of the province told me that he had expected to have something like 45 vehicles and he had 25. Some of those were broken down and not at all suitable for the terrain.
It is a poor country because of the fact that it has suffered—and one has to give them credit for this—for being a front line state for a long time. The country has been attacked from all sides. It is also a poor country because of incompetent economic management stemming from a single party state. The agricultural industry has been destroyed by government interference; by the so-called Parastatals, the nationalised parts of the industry; by patronage; by placemen; and by corruption. The fall in the price of copper proved fatal to the very basis on which they try to run the economy. The country is virtually bankrupt and its infrastructure is collapsing.
50
In western province, where we were, we found that they did not even have petrol to put into the vehicles that they were using to send out the ballot boxes. The reason they had no petrol was that they had a cheque for 350,000 kuachas (which is about £3,000) but the bank of Zambia in Mongu did not have any money with which to cash that cheque. Even if they had, there was no petrol at the petrol station because the tanker was still on its way from Lusaka. I say this not to mock them in any way, but to give the House an indication of the kind of difficulties that these people had in putting an election together at all.
On polling day there were not sufficient rubber stamps for the polling clerks to have one each when they needed them; they were sharing the stamps between them. However, in spite of all these physical difficulties, I believe that those local government officials worked miracles on that day —miracles of dedication, of effort and of patience.
The question of fairness of the campaign itself was something that we studied. There is no doubt that in the early stages of the campaign the government had far more access to television, to newspapers and to radio because those were within their control. That was corrected once the monitoring groups started to make their presence felt. Two new newspapers appeared—one a daily and one a weekly. They certainly took the opposition viewpoint very forcefully indeed. In some ways it was quite a brutal campaign once it got under way. That led people to worry that after the election there might be trouble. For instance, the MMD was allowed to hold a rally only if it obtained a permit from the police. The government party, UNIP, was able to hold rallies without a permit if a Minister was present. Since most of their candidates were Ministers, that put them in a slightly privileged position.
In spite of all that, the opposition party fought a remarkable campaign. It captured the hearts and minds of the people of Zambia in a way which those of your Lordships who have seen the results must realise it had. They fought on the slogan, "The hour has come". They demonstrated this by using a hand signal representing the hands of the clock at one o'clock. Wherever we went throughout the length and breadth of Zambia small children and people walking by the roadside were giving us "The hour has come" sign as we drove along. That had a slightly odd consequence because on polling day when we went into the polling stations we were asked to take our wrist watches off lest that be seen as a political slogan. We suggested that perhaps the presence of a picture of one of the presidential candidates in most of the rooms might also be seen as a matter of bias and those were taken down as well.
On polling day one saw people walking many miles and standing for four or five hours in the hot sun waiting to vote. It was an inspiring sight. Those people who said in the press that there was apathy were not there to see the enthusiasm with which people voted. If one supposes that the percentage vote was only 45 per cent. or 50 per cent., that was not because all the people who had the opportunity to vote did not come to vote. It was because the electoral rolls were not

51
adequate to allow them all to vote. When it came to the count, again, the local government officers showed themselves to be extremely competent. They were not rapid in their counting, but they were meticulous. They had been up the whole of the previous day; and when the count took place the following day, many of them had had hardly any sleep for 24 hours, and yet they went on doing their job.
It was a resounding victory for Frederick Chiluba and the MMD. It was also a resounding victory for local government in Zambia, because for the first time its members recognised that they were getting away from the politicisation of the Civil Service from which they had suffered for a good many years. They knew that they no longer had to kow-tow to their masters in one political party, and we could see them growing in stature as the hours went by.
The Zambians have shown themselves to be far more mature than people outside might have suspected. They behaved calmly throughout the whole of the day. Trouble was predicted, whatever the result. There was no trouble. The police also behaved with great calmness. Apart from the one provincial governor whom I saw thrown out of three polling stations, I saw no one causing any trouble.
The result came out, and one wondered how the transfer of power would go. Here, nothing has so enhanced the reputation of President Kaunda than his method and the speed with which he laid down his presidency. He conceded graciously and quickly. In response the new president, President Chiluba, made a masterly inaugural speech which bodes well for the future of politics in Zambia. They have terrible tasks ahead of them, but they are beginning along the right lines. It may be symbolic, but I understand that a certain official, who shall be nameless, in the new Government of Zambia, was asked whether they intended to change the name of Saddam Hussein Avenue. He replied, "That will be the new Government's first task".
A new era has begun, not just for Zambia but for the whole of black and central Africa. All those countries which suffer under dictatorships can now feel hope from what the people of Zambia have done. That applies not just to Africa but throughout the whole world. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will respond to that new situation and will be forthcoming, not just with cash—that is not what is required—but with all kinds of assistance to try to train the necessary people in this country now that that country has become a true democracy. It was an inspiring experience. I was privileged to be there. I hope that this country will do its best to ensure that the new Government of Zambia are given every possible support.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps I may start by joining in the congratulations offered by other noble Lords to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on a distinguished maiden speech. He no doubt recalls the tactics adopted by Admiral Lord Nelson at Aboukir Bay when he sailed between the French line of battle and the shore. It has always given
52
me great pleasure to see the way noble and gallant Lords sitting on the Cross Benches sail with such confidence between the Benches occupied by the Government and the Opposition, offering advice of great value to both sides.
I propose directing my remarks to relations between the European Community and the United Kingdom. It is perhaps unfortunate that that subject has to be debated under the omnibus heading of "Foreign Affairs and Defence". That is almost as though there was something foreign about the Community of which we are members and as though we required defence against our fellow members. That at times is the impression one gathers from reading the columns of our newspapers and from listening to some of the speeches from our politicians. I was impressed therefore by what my noble friend Lord Caithness said this afternoon. His remarks were well measured, showed great balance and a judicial approach to the problems that we face.
The dilemma that we face is much more fundamental than arguments about particular provisions or words in a treaty. It goes to the heart of our membership of the Community and to the obligations that we undertook when we joined it in 1973. To understand fully the issues involved, one must go back to the commencement. The Community of course started in 1952 with the Treaty of Paris, and not with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, as is so often thought. Although it dealt specifically with coal and steel, the Treaty of Paris looked forward to the establishment of a community among the peoples of Europe, and referred specifically to the creation of an economic community.
By the time we joined the Community in 1973, it was already 21 years old. It had reached maturity. It was endowed with a series of policies which had already been agreed and to which we were committed by the Treaty of Accession. We have always acted as though we had a tabula rasa upon which we could write anything that took our fancy. That never was so; nor could we ever. We were in fact Johnny-come-lately. We were obliged under the Treaty of Accession to respect the Community's policies as already established.
From the very commencement, the intention was to create a community in the fullest sense of the term. Free trade, customs union, and the Economic Community itself were merely steps along that road. That comes out clearly in the texts of the treaties themselves. The point is perhaps most clearly made in the Treaty of Rome, where the opening words —this is not buried in the body of the text—read:
"determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Note that it is "the peoples"; it is not "the states". To make certain that that was so, and that it is not an error of translation, as has sometimes happened, I referred to the original French text of the treaty. There is of course no English text going back to 1957 for the simple reason that we were not members. The French text reads:
"déterminé à établir les fondemonts d'une union sans cesse plus étroite entre les peuples Européens".

53
The unofficial translation prepared by the Foreign Office and issued in 1962,
"for the convenience of Parliament and the public"—
it is interesting that the public was brought into the picture—reads:
"determined to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples".
There cannot be the slightest doubt therefore that what the treaties provided for was a union among the peoples. The perversion of the phrase to:
"a union among the Member States"—
which is sometimes even elaborated into the phrase:
"a union among independent sovereign states"—
was a pure heresy, invented by General De Gaulle, who did not like the Community; adopted by Mrs. Thatcher, who shared many of General De Gaulle's views; and repeated since by lesser mortals. But a heresy it is, and that needs to be said unequivocally and without hesitation.
What has happened in the Community ever since the treaties were first signed is continuing progress along the path set out in the treaties. Sometimes slow and hesitant, sometimes determined and much faster, but it has always been progress forward, never progress backwards. The single market programme which I launched in 1985 represented the completion of the Common Market which was the foundation stone of the Community. The single currency is the next logical step to be followed by the achievement of economic union and ultimately political union. Exactly what "political union" means at this stage is a matter of some debate. While not in any way controverting the ultimate aim, I myself believe that it might have been approached in a more measured fashion. I entirely appreciate and indeed agree with the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, of the attitude of the German Government. Indeed, in a Community of 12, much must be done to accommodate different views. But I feel that the real problem lies not in how fast or how slow we are going, but in a degree of mistrust on the part not only of Germany but indeed of certain other countries—many other countries—as to our commitment to the ultimate objectives. If that commitment was clear, I think that there would be much less difficulty over the pace at which political union was reached. But however we approach this, that progression is entirely consistent with the principles set out in the treaties. It is in that spirit that I believe we should approach the intergovernmental conferences at Maastricht next month.
From time to time there has been talk of an eleven to one situation emerging once again and indeed the use of a veto. Of course, there is no such thing as a veto under the terms of the treaty. It was another of General de Gaulle's heresies. True in some instances the treaty requires unanimity, but the purpose of unanimity was to enable all the member states to move ahead together, not to allow one member state or a small minority to block progress. One can see this very clearly if one looks at the detailed provisions of the treaty where in the early days during what was called the "transitional period" unanimity was required. But at the end of the transitional period, which
54
incidentally ended in 1973 at the latest, unanimity was replaced by majority voting. That is strictly in line with the original intention of the treaties. In a general sense we must take care of our own interests but that does not and cannot extend to frustrating the clearly expressed intentions of the treaties when the Community by virtual unanimity wishes to progress towards the objectives actually set out in the treaty.
There has been much talk of national sovereignty. We have heard some reference to it in the House today. But to the extent that we surrendered national sovereignty in 1972 when we signed the Treaty of Accession that was our own decision: no one ever asked us to join the Community; indeed, some people did not want us to do so. It is also argued that economic and monetary union and political union will further erode our sovereignty. That is perfectly true. But it was inherent in our decision to join the Community in the first place and in the specific terms of the Treaty of Accession. We cannot resile from that without reneging on our own solemn word.
There is also talk of no surrender of the sovereign powers of the Westminster Parliament. The Westminster Parliament understandably is zealous in the defence of its powers and privileges. But sovereignty in the fullest sense of the term belongs not to the Parliament but to the people. At the end of the day it is the good of the people, not the good of the politicians, that matters. It is interesting that the most vigorous defenders of parliamentary sovereignty are also the loudest voices demanding a referendum. But a referendum is a massive vote of no confidence in the Parliament which is thought to be unable or not to be trusted to take so important a decision. I see that there is a proposal to make a new musical version of the Gettysburg speech with the voice-over of our previous Prime Minister. Perhaps it would be unkind to remind her when she declares those immortal words that what President Lincoln actually said was:
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Like the Treaty of Rome, it was "the people" and not the Parliament or the member states. If we find that the other member states of the Community wish to proceed along the path delineated by the treaties and we find it impossible to do so, as I recognise might well happen, the only honourable course would be for us to withdraw from the Community, and not to attempt to exercise a supposed right of veto in order to frustrate the legitimate will of the majority. It is a path I hope that we would never wish or need to tread. But it is the only alternative to going along with the will of the majority which is the basis upon which all democracy is founded.
Of course, it is always possible for us to seek to leave ourselves out of specific developments in the Community by way of derogation or otherwise. There are plenty of precedents for such action, although no one has ever liked it very much. But that is quite a different matter from trying to stop other people going ahead. We need to recognise that it is in every sense a confession of failure. We would be voting ourselves into the position of second-class citizens; it would not be a question of other people putting us in that position. But if it is our judgment that it is the second

55
division where we belong, so be it. However, at some stage the British people may have something to say about that. Therefore, we have a choice in these matters, but it is necessary to say very, very clearly indeed just what is that choice.
My personal views on these matters are so well known and on the record that it is really not necessary for me to repeat them. But I believe that we should and indeed need to respect the spirit as well as the letter of the obligations which we undertook when we joined the Community in 1973—to be willing to proceed along the path to the goal so clearly and unambiguously set out in the treaties in co-operation, not in conflict, with our fellow members.
I do not expect other people necessarily to agree with me. But I do ask that the nature of the choice facing us should be fully understood, that there should be a realisation that it is not just matters of detail or bargaining over words which matter but above all our honour 2nd integrity as a nation in relation to the commitments we not only voluntarily but clearly and publicly shouldered when we joined the Community.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the inexorable consequence of an ever closer union is the ultimate creation of a single European super-state with Westminster reduced to county council status and a single seat at the United Nations with a unified Army, Navy, Air Force, and so on?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the short answer to that is no.
5 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, this debate has underlined that we live in extraordinary times. The transformation of East-West relationships has fundamentally altered our outlook, both as Europeans and as world citizens. It has enthused us with optimism because the global stalemate which blocked progress for so long has now dissolved.
However, I have often noted that the analytical tools seen as vital to third world development are not applied often enough to the first and second worlds. The over-arching relationship between human rights —political, civil, social and economic—and human progress is the same the world over. Raw communism and raw capitalism alike have failed humanity. Neither the unbridled power of the mighty state nor that of the mighty market must be allowed to dominate and dictate to human society. That is the lesson of history and nowhere has it been learned more painfully than in the third world.
Scanning the East-West axis, we see many problems which have parallels in the poor South. We have to look carefully at the changing spheres of influence and new alliances which are filling the vacuum as the Soviet empire breaks up. It is hardly necessary at this time to emphasise the crucial importance of tackling the root causes of conflict in the Middle East, although frankly I sometimes tremble a c the inability of key actors, both Arab and Israeli, to see that ownership of any solution is vital on
56
all sides and that others—Arab or Israeli—endeavouring to pick and choose representatives of the Palestinians whom they see as acceptable—whatever the majority of Palestinians themselves prefer—is potentially self defeating. Representatives must be representatives.
We must look carefully at conflict in Yugoslavia where for many years deep internal rifts were suppressed instead of tackled by communism and where the European Community's patient diplomacy is blunted by the world's failure to tackle a major challenge to democracy—the question of the rights of minorities. This issue is of central importance to Europeans. If we do not forge new constitutional, legal, political and economic methods to tackle it, ethnic violence threatens to unravel the tenuous stability in central and eastern Europe as well as in the Soviet Union and, who knows, perhaps nearer home as well.
In the crumbling Soviet Union this winter we must tackle the real threat of hunger and face the awe-inspiring scale and complexity of turning round an economic structure which has the capacity to "nuke" the globe, which can send people into space, but which cannot feed its people on the ground. It took the grim week of the failed coup to reverse the G7 aid policy. But even if we can help stave off hunger this year, we must ask whether the West is doing enough and whether it really has the know-how to transform a dangerous juggernaut. What of all that nuclear potential amid so much unpredictability and volatility?
In Albania we must tackle the abject poverty of third world proportions and worse. It is a disaster that illustrates not only the total failure of bigoted communism but also the driving force behind the new threat to western Europe—that of mass migration away from chaos in eastern Europe. We all remember the thousands of desperate people pouring on to the Brindisi quayside. Simply to erect immigration barriers is not an adequate response. We must prioritise the common objective of assisting the rapid yet sustainable development of eastern Europe. A western European oasis of relative prosperity in a morass of poverty and conflict cannot remain unscathed indefinitely. At the same time, we can delay no longer in tackling the dubious commerce of massive arms sales to unstable conflict zones. What kind of profit did Europe derive from arming Iraq?
We must nail the scourge of poverty in the rich world itself. Here in Britain, the gulf between the rich and the poor has widened unacceptably during the 1980s. In the United States, there has also been a dramatic increase in poverty. Over the past decade and despite economic growth, there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the numbers of people in the United States officially classified as living in poverty—over 33 million US citizens, 13.5 per cent. of the population. We must ask whether this trend away from social justice in the world's one remaining superpower, as well as here in Britain, makes for long-term stability. As we prepare to enter the 21st century, it is poverty we must determine to leave behind, not the poor.

57
We all know that the only sane policy for the future of humanity is sustainable growth with equity; economic progress coupled with social justice. But what is Europe doing? How are we applying this in the way we conduct our foreign affairs? My fear is that Europe remains disturbingly inward looking. To date, the process deliberations do not augur well. If we follow the current trend, our common foreign policy will be little more than the lowest common denominator of our separate national foreign agendas. That common denominator will be the simple desire to enhance and protect our own enclave of comparative prosperity.
The alternative, if we Europeans choose it, is a confident and outward-looking Europe. We need a European Community with a foreign policy which looks south as well as east and west; a Europe which takes the long view of its own interests and which understands that the real threats to its own security must be tackled by a constructive integrated foreign policy.
We need a Europe which takes seriously its humanitarian and development aid responsibilities, and I mean here our responsibilities both towards the third world and towards the repeatedly demonstrated instinctive priorities of the home electorate. The latest figures on Britain's aid effort are depressing. Despite the unquestioned personal commitment of the Minister at present responsible for aid, at a time when there are unparalleled humanitarian and development aid needs, at a time when, despite the recession, the public have voluntarily dug deep into their pockets to help, the British Government's aid as a percentage of gross national product remains totally inadequate. It is time our political leaders listened to their own Minister responsible for aid and caught up with the British people. The Prime Minister's recent initiatives on debt are at least some encouragement, but they must be followed by a renewed more general commitment to positive engagement in the third world.
We already have a European Community which effectively co-ordinates at the UN level. What we need in addition is a common agenda which dedicates political will towards securing the rights of minorities, towards conflict resolution and prevention mechanisms, and towards effective humanitarian relief.
We need a Europe which uses its position of influence in the Bretton Woods institutions to advance key foreign policy principles and to ensure that the remits of the two institutions are co-ordinated in their relevance to the deep and complex economic crisis afflicting the third world. Promoting growth with social justice should guide structural adjustment policy. However, in saying that, we must recognise that without doubt the cause of social justice equally demands radical change on the part of many third world governments.
If we recognise that improved terms of trade can boost poor economies more than aid alone ever will, we must also recognise that we need a European Community which uses its position of influence within
58
GATT to give poor countries fair market access to the rich world but never at the cost of their national food security and environmental protection.
We need a Europe which acts on environmental degradation for the good of humanity, not just when the costs of our energy supplies rise uncomfortably. We need a Europe which is able to tackle the terrible upsurge in racism and fascism which the unresolved social and economic pressure of rapid change have alarmingly unleashed. Immigration barriers to keep the world's poor out will of themselves never provide a lasting solution. We need also a Europe which plays its full part in the reduction of nuclear weapons and tension within the context of a wider commitment to global collective security. However, an integrated European foreign policy does not necessitate an isolationist European defence policy. That would certainly be destabilising.
We must learn our lessons. Our foreign policy must follow through the logic of our own experience in Europe. We have experienced the pain of extreme ideological power exercised by fascism and communism. We have experienced the pain of war, famine, mass poverty and massive population upheavals. During the Cold War we were the theatre of East-West nuclear tension. The situation was that of a disaster waiting to happen. Now we see the terrible effects of environmental abuse. By contrast it was we in western Europe who pioneered the dynamic, responsive mix of mutually supportive government action and private enterprise which underpins modern economic growth with social justice. We should be proud of that achievement and we must stand by it if we are to sustain our commitment as the cradle of democracy.
It would be tragic if the fall of the Berlin Wall led only to a modest enlargement of a rich man's club. That would put the seal on our terminal decline. Civilisation is about the recognition of our qualitative as well as quantitative potential. It is about our moral responsibilities. That surely is also what the foreign policy of a civilised Britain, as part of a civilised Europe, should be about.
3 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, the gracious Speech emphasised the great importance that Her Majesty's Government attach in their foreign policy to maintaining the nation's security in a still dangerous and unstable world, and their determination to keep substantial and effective forces in support of the country's influence and interests. It is evident that many noble Lords will welcome that necessarily general statement of intent.
Against that background and the significant easing of East-West tension currently being experienced, it makes some military sense, at least in the short and medium term—quite apart from the political and eventually financial advantages—tomain Armed Forces which are somewhat smaller than at present. That factor is typified by the replacing of the comparatively large and cumbersome British Army of the Rhine—geared rather rigidly to an awkward and now unnecessary forward defence deployment—with

59
a smaller, although largely British, rapid reaction force with only one British armoured division and two Royal Air Force airfields on the Continent.
Quite apart from the value of that force for and in NATO—that body is still the most generally reassuring and stable framework for European security, and it has scope for enlargement and modification—it will give us, from within the United Kingdom components, some capability to operate with allies outside NATO and outside Europe if the need arose. We will thus have significant flexibility in the vital interim period when perhaps it really will become possible to judge how the critical power balances in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are going to work out, and whether the threats to European and British interests have receded as far and as much as some people imagine.
At the moment it is too early to be certain about those factors. That is why this flexibility and the need for a proper balance is so essential. That point was made so well by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley in his excellent and moving speech. He has had a great deal to do with evolving this policy. He played a distinguished part in masterminding the Gulf War which brought great credit to our arms.
The policies I have outlined make sense. However, it would not make sense in this context to cut such a splendid national asset so deeply, particularly in terms of manpower, that what is left would not be in a position to carry out the day to day commitments which invariably continue to come its way—I am sure noble Lords would agree that this national asset is one of the few with an untarnished reputation—without a continuation or even an aggravation of the present totally unacceptable overstretch.
One sometimes wonders whether those people who arrange these matters in Whitehall have any idea of the extra strain imposed on stretched manpower, for example, in the context of anti-terrorist guard duties which are increasing all the time. One also wonders—and my noble and gallant friend referred to this—whether they have any idea of the need for the stretched manpower to be in a position to react quickly, and without all the contortions and cannibalisations that were such a feature of the Gulf deployment, to a wide range of challenges with which, historically, our forces seem to be faced every nine to 10 years. En view of the current state of the world they may be forced to tackle such challenges even more frequently. Neither would it be sensible for the Options for Change reorganisation to be so underfunded in the next three years that it became impossible to carry it out properly and economically, or treat fairly and generously those who have served their country so well in peace and war and who now find that their services are no longer required.
Despite considerable evidence as well as some manifest concern by professional advisers that the final turns of the screw have gone too far, and that the fears I have mentioned are likely to be realised, it is clear that Ministers will not admit to any flaws in Options for Change whatever, let alone indicate a willingness to try to correct them. Rather than go over the ground all over again which would be a complete
60
waste of time, I shall concentrate on a few points for the future which I hope the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence, will find constructive. Noble Lords may be surprised to know that my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver and I are in almost entire agreement on these points. For example, I was disappointed that the gracious Speech made no mention of reviewing our nuclear capability or of our pressing for the streamlining of the command structures in NATO and our desire to make them more relevant.
With the likes of Saddam Hussein still in power and the tension in the Middle East and what was the Soviet Union still unresolved, no one in his right mind would want to denude us of an effective nuclear deterrent in the background to prevent any irresponsible threat or use of a nuclear device against Britain and others. However, with the moral and political restraints on anyone ever employing such weapons becoming yearly even more apparent, I believe there is still a degree of over-insurance and overkill in our nuclear capability which may in the future lead to a greater drain on our limited resources than can now be entirely justified. That matter should be reconsidered whatever political hooks may have to be negotiated.
Equally, now that NATO should be assuming more the mantle of a security organization—perhaps, as I said, embracing a wider area—rather than providing a framework and structure for war fighting, some significant savings could undoubtedly be made in our contribution to the rather cumbersome and duplicated command structures.
I am also disappointed that the gracious Speech—perhaps for reasons of space—made no mention of using this opportunity to modernise the organisation of our Armed Forces and particularly the Army's combat arms. One of the reasons why I have been against special pleading for this or that regiment is that, apart from perhaps exacerbating an already acute manpower and funding problem, it diverts attention from the real problem, which is how we can design for the future a viable regimental system which will stand the test of time—a regimental system by which Ministers emphatically and not unnaturally set great store, as I do.
Such a system must be one in which the regimental family is small enough in terms of pedigree, regional loyalty or professional specialisation to have a natural ethos of its own and thus to mean something very special to the individual from the moment he joins as a recruit. His recruit training is a fundamental part of the system. The regimental family must be large enough to be generally viable in terms of up-to-strength units and their rotation and in providing opportunities for regimental homes where families can congregate, buy houses and consistently educate their children. The Army Board has so far failed to grasp that nettle. However, in future it must work towards fewer, larger regiments or groupings of three or at least two battalions, or units which would give the advantages obtained by the Cardwell reform of over 120 years ago. Otherwise the hotchpotch of large and small regiments will become increasingly unworkable

61
and tend to bring the whole system into disrepute when it has to be watered down, as it very largely was in the Gulf.
I was also sad that in connection with reducing the size of the regular forces no reference could be made to the greater importance which Her Majesty's Government should now attach to the reserve forces. In an earlier statement the Secretary of State said that he would not turn away willing volunteers. However, that statement is meaningless if the desired establishment strength is not fully funded and the commanding officer cannot afford to train the recruits he attracts to his unit. Nor will the value of the reserve forces be fully realised unless there is a clearer idea about their future role. That must include an easier ability to mobilise at least some units or parts of units in an emergency short of more general conflict, as happens in the United States with the National Guard. That could have been done with good effect in the Gulf with our own reserve forces.
It takes some time to work up an entire Territorial Army battalion or regiment to regular army standards. A company or sub-unit can be made almost indistinguishable from its regular counterpart after only the shortest period of work-up training. I can think of no more effective or motivating way of using the Territorial Army in future than to see that in an emergency such as the Gulf a regular battalion, which even with fewer units in the Army is unlikely to be established at sufficient strength to deploy that all-important fourth company which all wars demand, will be able to receive that fourth company made up entirely of volunteers from its affiliated Territorial Army battalion.
In a world in which lower intensity emergencies are far more likely than anything requiring general mobilisation, I believe that the future of the Territorial Army and perhaps also the reserves of other services lies not in specialist individual reinforcements as happened largely in the Gulf, nor in formed units as was the common practice when the British Army of the Rhine had to be trebled in size on general mobilisation, but in providing at short notice sub-units of volunteers to be grafted onto the regular units and to operate with them.
I apologise for going into detail inappropriate for the gracious Speech, but Options for Change hangs heavily over the defence scene and must now be faced up to in the most constructive way possible. There is a good deal of detail to be filled in before anyone can be confident that the Government are as keen on defining the future roles of the Armed Forces and developing strategy as they are on cutting the Armed Forces down to size within a fairly arbitrary financial ceiling.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, in the most impressive speech he has made today on the defence scene. Defence is part of the gracious Speech, and it is inevitable that in a debate such as this we should discuss in some depth some of the detailed
62
aspects of defence as well as the macro view on foreign affairs which has been covered so well by so many noble Lords on both sides of this House and on the Cross-Benches today.
I should perhaps declare an interest as a director of the Westland Group; but I hasten to add that in no way shall I bring into the discussion this evening anything relating to defence equipment. I want to speak this evening—and very briefly because a number of noble Lords wish to speak—following part of the debate which we had in this House on 16th October in the last Session, aspects of which have been touched on so skilfully by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, today.
None of us who spoke in that debate on 16th October—including the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is to speak today and who made an outstanding contribution on that occasion—received a reply in the winding up by my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State. I do not criticise my noble friend personally for that because it was a very long debate with nearly 40 speakers and there was not enough time. However, I hope that he will find time this evening to answer the questions put forward by noble Lords on all sides of the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who expressed some surprise to discover me on these Benches under a different name from that with which I sat in another place.
I should therefore like to restate very briefly the anxiety which is felt in the Army today and which was underlined by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. As a former Life Guards officer and subsequently a Territorial Army officer in the 21st Special Air Service Regiment (Artists Rifles) I am aware not only of the problems affecting the regular Army but also of the problems facing the reserve forces which were touched on by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
Can my noble friend explain to us why there has been no defence review? We have had Options for Change around our necks for the past two years. It was put into reserve in a filing cabinet during the Gulf war and was pulled out again after the war. There is no doubt in the minds of all of us who spoke in the debate on 16th October—and I suspect in the mind of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall today—that the Options for Change programme is entirely Treasury driven. We are told again and again by the Secretary of State and by my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State that it is not Treasury driven. However, there is no longer any credibility in the Government's statements when it is quite clear that the Treasury is telling the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, through the Secretary of State for Defence how much can be spent. That has been laid down before the Ministry of Defence had assessed our commitments.
I asked questions in the earlier debate, which were not answered. One was that such is the shortage of money that I understand that at Sandhurst today gas rattles are used to indicate the use of automatic weapons in exercises instead of the real equipment which has been used for many years since the last war. Is that true? Again, the commanding officer of a

63
well-known territorial yeomanry regiment is about to take his regiment on a three-week annual course on which it will carry out exercises with only one blank round for each member of his unit. Is that correct? If it is correct, I do not blame the Secretary of State; I blame the Treasury. I believe that the Treasury is cutting hack the amount of money available to the Army.
The Government have admitted on many occasions that there is a morale problem in the services as a result of Options for Change. That point was underlined in the leaked letter from General Chapple to the Secretary of State. A defence review would provide credibility and show whether the commitments which we are told we still have are balanced by the correct amount of military resources.
I should like again to detail the position of the Household Cavalry. That organisation has to perform public duties and has a fighting role which it performed in the Falklands and more recently in the Gulf War. It will be made into a composite regiment consisting of two sabre squadrons of the Life Guards wearing their cap badges and two sabre squadrons of Blues and Royals wearing their cap badges, forming an armoured reconnaissance regiment with a headquarters squadron. I do not understand the point of the reorganisation because both regiments could be kept as they are at the moment with just one more headquarters squadron of 100 men. Is it not possible to reconsider that option? Many noble Lords raised the subject in the debate on 16th October, but we received no reply. The Minister, my noble friend Lord Arran, said on 16th October (at col. 1209 of Hansard) that manpower increments would be provided for public duties for battalions of the Grenadier, Coldstream and Scots Guards which would be retained after putting into suspended animation the second battalions of those three regiments. However, does that manpower increment apply to the Household Cavalry; and, if not, why not?
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, the future is uncertain. It is so uncertain that the point was made clearly by Her Majesty in the gracious Speech when she said that:
"instability and other risks remain in Europe and elsewhere"
That instability and those other risks remain with us. Whatever we do with our defence arrangements, it is vital that we restore and maintain morale and the career structure in the Household Division and in other regiments. It would not be appropriate, nor is there tine today, for me to mention the Scots regiments which, I understand, have made their views plain to the Government. Perhaps my noble friend will comment on the stories, which are rife, about reconsideration regarding those Scottish mergers. I hope that the Government will have another look at the overall position following Options for Change.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos paid what many of your Lordships may consider a justifiable tribute to President Gorbachev for the actions that he has taken and the catalytic role that he has played since 1986.
64
There have been three developments of which we are all well aware. The first is the considerable easement in the problem of arms stocks, particularly nuclear arms stocks, throughout the world. The easing of the Russian attitude and the comparatively easy coming together of the United States and the Soviet Union—the two great nuclear superpowers—have lifted, although not entirely, a shadow from the whole of humanity.
In connection with the Gulf War and the enhancement of the role of the United Nations to a point at which there was agreement between the Soviet Union, the United States and the rest of the Security Council, it should not be forgotten that that agreement enabled effective military action to be taken against Saddam Hussein. Incidentally, it enabled this country to assert its sovereignty independently of any other country in giving support to the United Nations and the United States in the successful military operation that took place. So far as I can recall, there was no degree of substantial unanimity among our colleagues within the European Community.
Those events underlined the necessity for the United Kingdom, with all its associations with other organisations outside the European Community, including the G7, the Commonwealth and the Security Council, to retain its sovereign powers of decision with regard to matters of international importance. I shudder to think what would have happened to the Gulf campaign had a proposal from the Commission—the European Council can act only on a proposal from the Commission—for some action to be taken against Saddam Hussein been acted upon and what proceedings would have taken place at the next meeting of the Council if one had been called within a reasonable period of time.
There are other matters associated with that. One detects a certain degree of indecision among one's valued colleagues in the European Community. Perhaps I am over-sensitive, but I discerned a certain hedging when the coup against Mr. Gorbachev was attempted. President Mitterrand appeared to leave his options open at that time. I do not know what influence he would have had in any meeting of the Council of Ministers. M. Delors was for once unconscionably silent.
The third aspect of the changes that have taken place in the Soviet Union has undoubtedly been a passionate desire, and the expression of a passionate desire, for democracy within the Soviet Union. There has been a demand for the progressive disintegration of the bureaucracy and the giving of democratic power to the people. That has been the aim of the various component member states. There has also been nationalistic expression, due partly to geography and partly to language. But there can be no doubt that the changes in the Soviet Union have unleashed throughout the world, and particularly in Europe, a desire for people to be able to govern and control their own affairs as distinct from their being controlled by a bureaucracy that tells them what to do. We should welcome that development.
What has happened in Europe since the passing of the Single European Act in 1986 on which I had the

65
honour to lead my party and speak from the Front Bench? I do not wish to retract anything that I said during those debates. We were told, although some of us expressed doubts, that the Single European Act would lead to the facilitating of the completion of the single European market. It would facilitate the freedom of movement of goods and services and of capital and people across Europe. It would do all those things, which would be to the great benefit of the people of Europe.
There is no reason why the Community could not have attempted those tasks. There is no reason why the Commission, on whose proposals alone the Council can act—it cannot act on its own—should not have produced constructive additional proposals for facilitating the common market itself, the freedom of transmission of goods and so on. There is no reason why it could not even have applied itself to the entire reform of a ridiculous common agricultural policy which threatens the whole of the GATT negotiations and which costs consumers and taxpayers in Europe very much more than they ought to have inflicted upon them. It could have embarked upon a whole series of measures and voluntarily put forward proposals to the Council for the elimination of widespread fraud in Europe, particularly in the administration of the common agricultural policy. Yet, as I recall, when fraud on a massive scale was first revealed, the Commission itself tended to pooh-pooh and minimise it, despite the fact that evidence of fraud was clearly presented to it. There were many constructive things that could have been done to remove those problems. The Commission could have applied itself to the enforcement of the existing regulations instead of turning a blind eye every time France committed offences against the régime.
All those things could have been done and would have obtained wide national and international support. Instead, from the moment that the 1986 Single European Act was signed, the Commission applied itself diligently to the task of obtaining more power for itself and more power for the bureaucracy because it was afraid that democracy might progress too quickly. The present position is that the Maastricht treaty is being negotiated and, I am told, is for signature somewhere in the middle of December. I am sure that anyone reading its 87 pages, which I managed to do over the weekend, can come away with no conclusion other than that its only effect is once again to increase the bureaucratic power of the Commission.
I want to refer to one aspect only of the dangers involved; namely, the powers that are proposed to be taken in relation to economic and monetary union—in effect, a single currency. A case can be made for economic and monetary union—not, I believe, based on sound economic grounds but there is at any rate a case for it—provided that the whole operation is under democratic control. Anyone who reads the draft treaty will know perfectly well that that will not be the case at all. The whole monetary union is to be under the control of an independent European bank responsible to no one. By virtue of that fact, the
66
United Kingdom, along with the rest, would give up its power not only in regard to the exchange rate, which is implied in having a single currency, but also its control of public expenditure and monetary and fiscal policy. Those are all matters which have been reserved for the democratic control of this Parliament, and similarly the other parliaments of the Community. There would be no way to exercise democratic control.
That is one limited aspect of the matter. Perhaps I may draw upon my own experience. I have been in politics for a long time. As a member of the Junior Imperial League I remember canvassing for the Conservatives in Paddington in 1931. I had the wisdom to join the Labour Party in 1935 and I have been a member ever since. I well remember the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s. There are not many in your Lordships' House who were alive at that time. However, I still remember it. The whole basis of the rise of fascism in Italy, Germany, Spain and elsewhere was large-scale unemployment. Large-scale unemployment lay at the core of the rise of fascism.
Maybe as a consequence of my advanced age—I trust it is not a lack of sensitivity—I begin to wonder what is happening today. I learn from reports of an opinion poll in France that some 32 per cent. of people are in support of Mr. Le Pen and his ideas. I well remember the Croix de Fer and the Action Francaise before the war. I remember too some of the disturbances that took place in Germany in the early and later 1930s. Today I learn once again of unrest in some cities in Germany, arising from the resurgence of the neo-nazis.
I do not suggest that history will repeat itself. We have advanced considerably since the 1930s. But once there is the imposition of an EMU régime with the consequences that I have outlined, there will be institutionalised unemployment. At the moment unemployment in Europe stands at some 12 million people. Over the past 10 years it has averaged 9.8 per cent. of the employed population in Europe. I warn your Lordships that on the basis of following our policies under the independent control of banks—bankers do not receive universal acclaim these days—there is likely to be institutionalised unemployment. From institutionalised unemployment will come not only human suffering but also unrest.
Mercifully, all is not lost because during this period the seven countries of EFTA have joined with the European Community in a common market for goods and services which, I am given to understand by Mr. Edward Heath, was the original prime objective of the European common market itself—the EEC. One thing is for sure: if the seven eventually join the existing 12, with the addition of Turkey—on the assumption that Turkey can live in approximately the same room as Greece—followed by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and possibly more, the formation of a super-state under the control of the European Commission becomes a figment of the imagination which would be so ridiculous that it could not happen.
That is the only hope that we have: to proceed in Europe in full collaboration with one another, in the utmost friendship with one another, but not under the

67
bureaucratic control of a non-elected Commission. I know perfectly well that what I have said will be called old hat, and that 1 may be accused of being what is called a little Englander. I can only say that when I joined the Territorial Army before the war, and when I was in the Army during the war, that accusation was not then made against me.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should like to deal as briefly as I may with one specific military problem and one major foreign policy issue which I believe flows logically from it.
The military problem is the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, to which reference has been made on several occasions during the debate. In an earlier debate in your Lordships' House I referred to this rapid reaction corps as a mythical animal of dubious political parentage. I suggested that its military value was somewhat limited. I did not mean to suggest—and perhaps I should make it clear now—that the concept of a rapid reaction corps is not an admirable one. Indeed it is. However, my problem and my criticism of it is quite simply that it does not have the resources to be in any way militarily or geopolitically effective. That is a point that has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, and indeed the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in his totally admirable and impressive maiden speech.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to Command Paper 1595,Britain's Army for the 90s, and remind your Lordship; what it says about this rapid reaction corps. It states:
"We shall be assigning to the Corps an armoured division based in peacetime in Germany, [and] a predominantly mechanised division which will be based in the United Kingdom"
That is the third United Kingdom division. The paper later states:
"The Allied Rapid Reaction Corps will be available for timely deployment anywhere within the Allied Command Europe area".
So far so good, my Lords. However, a few paragraphs later it states:
"For as long as they are needed we"—
the British—
"shall continue to provide forces for our dependent territories and other overseas responsibilities, including the Falklands, Brunei, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Belize".
The next paragraph states:
"The 3rd (UK) Division"—
which noble Lords will recall is a part of the rapid reaction force—
"will also provide a national 'strategic reserve' capability to undertake a range of operations beyond the NATO area with parachute, airmobile or mechanised formations".
Therefore it is not only to be deployed in the allied command area but presumably, parts of it, anywhere in the world.
Finally, in very small print at the bottom of Annex C, the paper states:
"Garrisons for Belize and the Falkland Islands will, as now, be found from forces in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Cyprus".
The point on which I should like to question the Government quite firmly and seriously is this. Do they really believe that this rapid reaction corps can indeed
68
fulfil all those military commitments effectively? Will the rapid reaction corps, which was meant originally to be deployed in Allied Command Europe, be responsible for out-of-area commitments? Will parts of it be used as reliefs for our units in Northern Ireland, Belize, the Falklands or our United Nations contingent in Cyprus?
If it will not be used for those, how will those commitments be met? How shall we rotate battalions through Belize, Cyprus, the Falklands and the United Nations forces to which we contribute our own contingents? How will those commitments be fulfilled if units of the rapid reaction corps are not to be used? Per contra, if units of the rapid reaction corps are to be used, can anyone really regard it as a rapid reaction corps of any meaning? Noble Lords familiar with the history of the Holy Roman Empire may conclude that it is not rapid, it is not reactive and it is not even a corps.
Dealing with forces as we are now at a time of extremely technical, complicated equipment, it is absolutely essential that any rapid reaction force, or any force that will be effective, must train continuously with its equipment. It is quite simply no good thinking that somewhere one can have a theoretical rapid reaction force with highly technical equipment, possibly airmobile, capable of fighting in a sudden emergency, if for the past few months it has been sitting in a garrison somewhere like Belize. Forces required for such a purpose must train all the time with their equipment. They must train all the time in the techniques and operations that will be required if the crisis arises for which the rapid reaction is needed.
We might at a stretch have been able to do all that I have outlined when we had three divisions in Germany, although your Lordships will recall that at the time of the Gulf war we had to denude those divisions of a great deal of their equipment and manpower in order to meet our Desert Storm requirements. Even then, when we had three divisions in Germany we were constantly taking sub-units away for commitments in Northern Ireland and our allies complained bitterly from time to time. What will it be like when we shall have only one division in Germany?
I therefore ask the Minister in all seriousness whether he would not agree that the Government need to consider again this question of matching resources to commitments. It is not a matter only of the rapid reaction corps. I simply use that as a classic, typical and easily explained example. It is no good having smaller armed forces, although the Government say they will be better armed forces, if they cannot provide the resources to meet all the commitments that remain. I have no time to deal with all the other areas in which I believe, even in the other two services, we are failing to match commitments with resources.
On the broader aspect, I believe that failure to match military resources to our security requirements and commitments is symptomatic of a malaise which seems to be affecting our external policies generally in this country. Effective military power—that is to say, the military power that is proportionate to the place of a country in the world—is absolutely essential not

69
necessarily to project our power abroad (it may be no longer relevant that we should require to do that) but to protect ourselves against threats, menaces, blackmail or any of the factors that might prevent us from carrying out the role in the world that we have set for ourselves.
But what is that role? What is the Government's vision of the role that this country will play in foreign affairs in the remainder of the century and the beginning of the next? I recall that, when I was writing the biography of the gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, he said to me over and over again, practically every day I saw him, "There is one thing you must remember, my boy, about military affairs generally. You must have a plan". That was Monty's great slogan.
As a result of what I have heard today and in previous debates in this House it appears to me that the recent changes in our defence policy are not based on any coherent plan. There is no clear vision of the role that it is intended Britain shall play in the new world order. I do not blame the Government alone for that; it appears to be a national malaise. I hear from no quarter of the political spectrum—or more accurately from no band in the political spectrum—any suggestion that it knows precisely what it wants this country to be and how it wants it to act. In my view, we appear to be losing some of the qualities that have enabled us to play a unique and decisive role in the development of world events and the resolution of national issues. We are in danger of being fashionably embarrassed by the very idea of greatness. We are in danger of becoming contemptuous of history. We are in danger of being frightened by the very concept of power as though it were something evil and undesirable.
It may be that the Government have decided that our future will be very different from our past. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, it may be that we are to be an offshore island. As other noble Lords have said, it may be that we should be content with policies that are driven by anxieties for the third world, overseas aid, the Commonwealth, global collective security and arms control. All those are respectable enough views and policies and, if the Government intend to pursue them, they are perfectly entitled to say so. However, they are no substitute for a coherent, strategic foreign policy or for a vision of the world and a Britain of the future.
There are many possible visions of the future. However, in my view, any responsible government must have at least one of those visions and, furthermore, the will and capacity to inspire the people of the country with the vision to which they aspire. I believe that it is a national malaise but it is the duty of any democratically elected government to lead and to inspire.
I return to the focus of the remarks with which I opened my speech. The main requirement now is for the Government to persuade me, and I suspect many other people, that there is a strategic and coherent policy. In the context of our defence, we require a radical review of defence policy and not a tinkering
70
with our armed forces largely determined by the dominance of the Treasury and the political establishment.
Some people will say that those are the views of someone of the much older generation. That is not entirely so. I often meet younger people—it is not too difficult to meet people younger than myself—and people in schools and universities. I detect a feeling that they need a clear leadership which will tell them what this country will be in the 21st century, how it is to become that country and how and where it will act. Noble Lords who are familiar with the Book of Proverbs may remember perhaps the most memorable. It is:
"Where there is no vision, the people perish".
Almost certainly within the coming months we shall hear a great deal about the council tax, the National Health Service, the Children Act and social security. It is right that we should hear a great deal about those issues. However, some of us would also like to hear from both sides of the political battlefield a word or two about their vision of this country's role in the world affairs of the future.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, as I was preparing for today's debate I found myself walking by chance backwards and forwards along the corridor between St. Margaret's and Westminster. In the cold a number of people were gently hammering crosses into the ground; small crosses to mark the boundaries of the territory and larger crosses to mark the names of great regiments which performed great services for this nation. Feeling marginally emotional, I tried to recall many of the great events. Then I realised that having been able to complete my National Service—but only just!—I had neither the knowledge nor the stature.
As I was contemplating the issue, a number of thoughts flashed across my mind. They were not of Mafeking nor Omdurman but were of more recent events that had occurred as a result of the breakup of colonial empires or post-imperial activities. I thought of Angola and Mozambique, of the Congo, Brazzaville; and Zaire; of Dien Bien Phu and Chad. There were ranges of activities across the world and as empires broke up revolts took place causing distress and internal revolution.
I also wondered whether we might learn something in contemplating the recent great events in eastern Europe. I recalled Pitt who said:
"Roll up this map [of Europe]; it will not be wanted these ten years".
However, I had not in my mind the knowledge of the map of Europe. I searched your Lordships' Library and found nothing available other than a children's guide to the time when Mongol herds moved across Europe. I could not find a single map laying out Europe as I believed that I had been taught it when first at school. There were names of countries that we have only recently come to know about again when watching television.
As I stood before the crosses, I thought of the simple phrase, "Lest we forget". With age and experience your Lordships have greater memories than Members of another place. Those memories

71
bring thoughts of dangers and perils ahead. Almost every noble Lord who has spoken today, and probably those who will follow, has spoken in similar vein, drawing attention to past experience in detecting some worry for the future.
Someone once said to me, "Better a known foe than an unknown friend". In a way known foes create stability. We have only to think back one or two years when we had two superpowers. I remember hearing in your Lordships' House the definition that there were two aspects of "superpower"; that is economic and military. The Soviet Union and the United States were super military powers; but only the United States was a super economic power.
After seeing the breakup of the Soviet Union into territories and the return to the original maps, one wonders whether there will be stability or instability. I am not alone in concluding that we are in for a period of considerable instability. During a period of such instability one wonders why one detects a government trend to cut back and withdraw. I remembered being present in this House after the Suez crisis and hearing noble Lords opposite—then in Governmmt—saying that perhaps there was no role for this country East of Suez. I remember too the Think Tack; a committee inspired by the Treasury to discover whether it could reduce the strength of the Foreign Office because we no longer needed it. Since those days I have detected a change among noble Lords opposite in many of the issues for which they stand. That is quite logical. The world seemed to be divided historically into fascism and communism. Suddenly fascism was replaced by the so-called evil of capitalism, and communism was replaced by socialism.
Those changes and trends caused a certain stability because a e 189 countries of the world which were not part of the various bodies could divide themselves into no camps. as the growth of the non-align movement came, or into the Soviet camp, NATO, or the United States camp. Now it is more difficult and it will be more difficult for those countries as we may see revolt after revolt and possibly revolution. I think of the occasion after the storming of the Bastille when Louis XVI first heard the news from one of his courtiers. He said, "Is it a revolt?" His courtier said, "No, sire, only a revolution".
However, if there are to be revolts around the world which will cause instability to whom do people turn? I believe that but for the Falkland Islands issue we should never have seen the support which came from the United. Nations in the Middle East. In times past when incidents have occurred in general, countries have stepped back and waited to see what will happen before committing themselves because of guarded interests in other parts of the world.
In all of that I believe that as a nation we can take great credit for having begun to play a greater role for many decades in foreign affairs. There is no doubt that our standing has risen. I have no hesitation in attributing much of that to the activities and initiatives of my rig ht honourable friend the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. I remember a lunch which I was privileged to attend at Downing Street when she
72
said, "It will not be long, I think, before I will be talking to Mr. Gorbachev about the dangers of the reunification of Germany".
Only last week I thought about the Soviet Union. The chairman of the East European Trade Council, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, told me off many times for referring to the Russians as Russians. I had just become used to calling them Soviets and now we are back to calling them Russians.
Last week I sat with a Russian in London. He was a young man, under 40. He made me realise that we assume that in that nation and in that part of the world there are no intelligent and well-trained people. I asked him what would happen to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin and so on. A few years ago or even months ago he would have said nothing. However, he said: "I will answer that by saying that I think it might not be impossible to contemplate Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Gorbachev applying for the same job at the United Nations, and I think Mr. Gorbachev might get it". That made me think. He said, too: "Do not forget that we are grandmasters and pastmasters". He reminded me that most children are still brought up with a knowledge of chess, and that they think and plan ahead. During our discussions, I was reminded also that the Iraqis are the world's greatest poker players. They are taught poker from birth.
I do not know what that may have to do with the debate today. I believe that if we do not concentrate upon strengthening our Foreign Office and defence at this time, we shall be doing ourselves a grave disservice. If the factors affecting us are purely economic, then I take comfort from knowing that on the debate on the Address, this subject always comes first and some priority is still given to defence and foreign affairs over economic matters.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I am afraid that because of my rather advanced age, it may not be possible for me to be here until the end of this long debate. If so, I can only apologise and ask to be forgiven.
Always supposing that the virtual collapse of the Soviet Union as such continues, what may we reasonably expect the defence of Europe to be like during the coming years? Most people seem to agree that, for the time being, the cuts in the Armed Forces of the West, including our own, broadly speaking, are acceptable and the general arrangements for defence should continue as they are. However, what happens if present tendencies persist and a revival of the cold war is something in regard to which serious defence planning is entirely unrealistic?
It seems to me that, in view of continuing heavy commitments in the eastern Pacific and elsewhere, and no doubt for purely financial reasons also, we may eventually expect the Americans to assume that the defence of Europe, west of the Oder, is the concern of Europeans only and that there is, therefore, no further need for their military presence on the Continent. But that is no reason why the North Atlantic Treaty should not remain in being. Indeed the United States might continue to have a certain joint responsibility for the defence of the two flanks—Norway and

73
Turkey—where the presence of the Sixth Fleet could well be some reassurance in the event of trouble in the Middle East. But NATO in Brussels would clearly become a European centre, within the alliance, with of course an American observer and acting in close co-operation with America.
There is no reason for us to be alarmed at such a prospect. But it would have at least one result: it would make the formation of some European defence organisation inevitable if a Europe dominated by a united Germany is to be avoided. All the difficulties in the way of it that now loom so large would simply have to be overcome. Membership would presumably be limited to those members of the European Community who were prepared to assume the necessary responsibility—whether as members of WEU or not. The others—Ireland and no doubt future members of the Community who might prefer not to be associated—would not necessarily be bound by any of the defence decisions. There are various ways in which this kind of difficulty could be resolved.
European Defence could, to the extent judged necessary, mount guard on the Oder and would have its own nuclear force in the shape of the British and French strategic deterrents. But these should only be deterrents against any conceivable Russian (or other) nuclear attack. Nobody in their senses could ever imagine a nuclear first strike against the Russians or anybody else. And since both the Americans and the Russians would no doubt by that time have abandoned short and medium-range missiles, there would be no need for them in Europe either, whose chief defence would therefore be conventional only. But perhaps its chief concern—and I say this in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont said—should be the formation of an effective force which could be at the disposal of the United Nations, or the Atlantic alliance, or, indeed, the European Council itself. It is obvious that this system, if it were to operate meaningfully, would involve the council in some form of majority voting. But it must be recalled that we are considering circumstances in which unanimity would almost of necessity impose itself. It is also conceivable that, in the last resort, a member of the Defence Council in a minority of one might by agreement decide not to join in any proposed action while yet not preventing its being put into effect.
Peering yet further into the future, it must be fairly obvious that if matters work out at all in this way, there is no reason why Europe should still be only represented on the Security Council of the United Nations by Britain and France. Their place should rather be taken by one person appointed by the Council of Ministers, thus leaving a gap in the Security Council which might possibly be filled by Japan. Indeed such a development, though no doubt a long way off, would seem to be in the nature of things.
In the meantime, what should we do to prepare ourselves for what, on the face of it, seems to be a quite probable future? Very broadly, the following line suggests itself. First, agree at Maastricht on a provision for European defence which contains at
74
least some potential elements of supranationality and is thus capable of development as I have suggested in the event of American withdrawal from the Continent.
Secondly, consider the possibility of reducing the number and the power of the war-heads carried by the four Trident submarines already ordered and the way in which they might best be deployed in co-operation with the French. Thirdly, and above all, proceed here and now with negotiations for the ending, within five years or so, of all our overseas commitments (with the possible exception of our bases in Cyprus) which are only the rather expensive relics of a vanished past and of no possible use for the defence of these islands or of Europe. That is something which the present Government may well find impossible to contemplate, but which an alternative government might.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the Minister who is to wind up. I must leave early to fulfil a long-standing commitment to attend a conference in Derby.
There can be little doubt that the most important foreign policy issue facing us today is the question of the draft treaty on political and economic union in Europe which we shall be asked to sign at Maastricht next month. It is not only a foreign policy issue but also one which may profoundly affect us all. Indeed our future as an independent country may be at stake.
It is therefore strange that until recently the British public appeared to be largely indifferent and are only now beginning to wake up to what it all means. Perhaps their strange lack of interest has something to do with the terms in which the issues are described. Most ordinary people have little idea of what is meant by subsidiarity, federalism—which means different things to different people—the extension of Community competence, the concept of co-decision described by The Times as "moonshine" and by Sub-Committee E as "inherently unsound". They do not understand the democratic deficit, qualified majority voting, the IGC and the CFSP. I sometimes wonder whether that jargon is made deliberately obscure and whether my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg is right in writing in the Independent on 14th October that,
"the front bench Europeanists are trying to lead their parties into a closer European integration by the method normally reserved for leading horses out of burning stables. The horse is first blindfolded and then led by the nose".
Moreover, what public debate does take place is often conducted purely in terms of party politics. Will the Conservative Party be split? Can the Labour Party outflank it by coming out in favour of a single European currency? But what is at issue is far more important than that and as yet the British people have scarcely been informed, let alone consulted. One point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is that it is their view which really matters.
Five years ago we debated the European Communities (Amendment) Bill introducing the Single European Act on the basis of a report from a Select Committee of your Lordships' House which had pointed out that there would be a,

75
"gradual replacement of national competence by Community competence".
I asked the Government what our long-term objective really was. I received no clear reply, although the noble Baroness, Lady Young, assured us at col. 1082 of the Official Report on 31st July 1986, that there was,
"no question of moving forward to a United States of Europe",
and that there is no question of our being out-voted on foreign policy issues. I pointed out at col. 1065 that we had.
"an unfortunate tendency to find ourselves enmeshed in organisations where our own views are far apart from those of the majority, so that we find ourselves constantly isolated with our backs against the wall".
Five years on not much has changed. Now a whole range of problems relating to European unity have, by accident or design, come to the crunch at once. So far as one can judge from the outside, thus far the Government appear to have taken a firm and robust line on all of them, and I was encouraged by what the Minister said in opening today's debate. They deserve our full support. From the media at any rate they receive little backing. In most of the countries in which I served, the media usually gave vigorous support to the Government when they were perceived to be upholding the national interest. But not here. The Government must be aware that if in the end the Prime Minister were to decide that the Maastricht treaty was not acceptable, he would receive little understanding from our media. The BBC would wheel up Mr. Heath for the umpteenth time and no prizes need be offered on where he would pin the blame. And the newspapers would denounce British isolation and intransigence and predict all manner of woe, oblivious of the fact that were an unsatisfactory treaty to be signed, they may cease to be national papers and become provincial ones.
Yet the fact is that the Government are under extreme pressure from most of our Community partners and from the Commission to agree to plans which manifestly they regard as unsatisfactory or damaging. On the Social Charter, the Greek Commissioner, Vasso Papandreou, is reported as boasting that the British Government are powerless to block her proposals, while Mr. Howard and his officials so y that a maximum 48-hour week could cost British industry up to £5 billion a year. We are at odds with the Germans who want a European immigration policy which may deprive us of our right to control access to this country. The Anglo-Italian plan for a European defence force under NATO control has come up against the Franco-German plan for a joint force distanced from NATO under WEU control. On that I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
People seem to have forgotten that France has consistently refused to take part in integrated NATO defence and that Germany is prevented by its constitution from sending troops abroad. That does not seem to prevent the Germans from laying down what the arrangements should be for a force to operate outside the NATO area and, at one stage, urging military intervention—presumably by others—in Yugoslavia. The warning given to us by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley in his
76
excellent maiden speech should be heeded. Moreover, we should not give up part of our defence capability in the interests of an inadequately thought out European security plan.
On foreign policy we seem to be in a minority in resisting M. Delors' demands for decisions by majority vote, which the Dutch say should include relations with the United States and Russia. The prospect of conducting our relations with the United States through Europe rather than direct seems so bizarre as hardly to be worth taking seriously. However, it is what M. Delors and the French, Germans and Italians are apparently demanding of US.
Then there is the proposed extension of the powers of the Commission and of the European Parliament. It is suggested that the Council of Ministers could in future act as a type of second chamber in Europe while the Commission becomes its effective government. We have already transferred important powers to the Commission in the fields, for example, of agriculture, fisheries and trade. The results are not encouraging. Moreover, our own Ministers are accessible and have constantly to explain and justify what they are doing. We can talk to them and write to them and they respond. Commissioners have no such obligation. They are accountable to no one.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, reminded us earlier that accountability is one of the marks of good government. Sometimes it shows. When Sub-Committee D was preparing its report on the future of the common agricultural policy, Mr. Gummer gave us valuable evidence and answered our questions fully and frankly. But Mr. MacSharry, whose proposals lay at the heart of our inquiry, took four months to respond to our invitation and then said that he was not prepared to see us. Such offhandedness—indeed arrogance—strikes me as singularly unfortunate.
I am not sure that I would go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in describing the European Parliament, as he did the other day, as a "farce"—Official Report, 21/10/91; col. 1359—but its procedures are clearly unsatisfactory and, with its enormous constituencies, it is scarcely representative. The Times says that it is difficult to take it seriously. Who knows who his or her MEP is or what he or she does? I believe that the Government are right to argue that the job of the European Parliament is to monitor and question the work of the Commission, not to initiate legislation.
Finally, there is the most important question of all: the single European currency. I am still firmly of the opinion that I expressed in your Lordships' House a year ago that a single currency means a single nation, though I do not believe that I convinced the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on that occasion and I do not suppose that I do so now. I believe that once it is established, we shall have, as the Germans at any rate accept in fact if not in name, a single European country. If that currency replaces the pound our own independent status is at an end. As I said on that occasion, if that is the considered view of a majority of the British people, so be it; but I very much doubt if that is really so. I believe that it is essential that in one

77
form or another they should be asked. It seems inconceivable that we should give up our independence unless we are certain that that is the wholehearted desire of the people of this country. An opt-out clause, which is in effect just a stay of execution, may simply put off the need for decision.
How is it that we have arrived at this position where we are at odds with the Commission and nearly all our partners, and where we see every day some bullying or disobliging reference to our attitude by commissioners or others? I believe that all these arguments arise from a profound difference of outlook, aim and intent. Most of us want to work closely with the countries of western Europe. We want a genuine Common Market—which has hitherto been distinctly one-sided and which does not seem to enjoy the support of French farmers—and close co-operation on a whole range of issues. But fundamentally I believe that we want the Europe des putries envisaged by General de Gaulle of whom the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, clearly disapproves. We want to be governed from Westminster and not from Brussels or Strasbourg, while not excluding the gradual convergence of national policies which might lead, through unforced organic growth, to a closer union of all the countries of Europe, genuinely desired by everyone, at some point in the future.
But on the continent, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, reminded us in speaking about Germany, things are different. The EC began as an association of the defeated, of countries that had to a far greater extent than we had lost confidence in their own capacity to stand on their own feet. Some of these countries only came into existence in the 19th century. None has democratic institutions remotely as strong, ancient and effective as our own. The peoples of continental countries, with the possible exception of France, seem content to see their national identities fade away to be replaced by a European state of which they will become citizens.
Besides that, I believe that some European leaders and officials are jealous of our different status; of our record during the Second World War, of our permanent seat on the Security Council; of our close relationship with the United States and of our Commonwealth connections. They want to pull us off our perch and to remind us that in the Community we are merely the equals of Greece and the Republic of Ireland. Hence the constant sniping at us. It is ironic that last month the Community signed an agreement forming a single market with EFTA. So it seems that if we had stayed with EFTA instead of abandoning our partners in that association to join the Community, we might in due time have got the free trade area that we always wanted without having to accept all the disadvantageous and disagreeable aspects of the Community. We would be far less shackled than we are today.
As it is we face in any event a worrying future in the Community. For example, all of us who listen to the radio hear demands, day after day, from every quarter for more Government funding for health, education, law and order, research, transport or whatever. But
78
the Community is committed to a massive transfer of resources from the North (ourselves and Germany) to the South (Greece, Spain and Portugal). So many of the demands on our Government will have to be rejected when the money goes to develop Greece, Spain or the Mezzo Giorno. It is now reported that Spain is demanding a doubling of these transfers as the price of agreeing to a Maastricht treaty. As one consequence the British budget rebate may come to an end next year.
So what happens now? Our negotiators seem to be holding the line though it was a jolt to learn this past week that the Prime Minister numbers Mr. Neville Chamberlain among his heroes. It is important that this time there should be no fudging. So often in the past, faced with unreasonable demands, our passion for compromise has led us to make some concessions that have led us bit by bit down a path along which we really did not wish to go. But this time we must not make that mistake. We should make clear, quietly but firmly, what our fundamental sticking point is and say unequivocally "thus far, but no further".
A true European union must be based, if it is to succeed and to last, on genuine, wholehearted consent. The breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia shows us all too clearly what happens if unions are forced on reluctant participants. If the other countries in the Community want to sink their identities now in a single European state, they must do so. But such a future is not for us. We need to work for a looser, more flexible, more outward-looking Europe, which includes EFTA and Eastern Europe. I believe that that is a far more attractive prospect than a narrow, centralised Western Europe run by the Brussels bureaucracy.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by adding my tribute to the excellent maiden speech that we heard today from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. When the USSR Defence Minister, Mr. Shaposhnikov, was asked in late September who was now the Soviet armed forces' political adversary, he replied:
"1 do not see potential adversaries at present, but a military threat has not been entirely eliminated since there remain large groupings of armed forces. Some leaders have aggressive aspirations, and the solution of some political problems by force has not been ruled out. As long as this situation remains, we should maintain our armed forces at a proper level".
He added that there were plans to reduce spending on arms purchases, but he opposed the idea of slashing the budget in order to resolve social issues. He opposed reducing expenditure for military research and development.
I only wish that we could see a similar approach from our own Secretary of State. We who question the apparently inflexible position being maintained in support of Options for Change are not disputing that the world has changed and that there should be some adjustment to meet those changes. But we remain deeply anxious about the timing and the scale since the situation in the USSR remains wholly uncertain and explosive. Not only we, but the central command

79
apparatus of the USSR itself does not know what dangerous upheavals may yet take place there. On 8th October Mr. Shaposhnikov said that he must either agree to the collapse of the Armed Forces or he must strengthen the Armed Forces. He said that at present the central Asian republics favoured unified forces while Belorussia, Moldavia, and the Ukraine favoured united forces.
While we in the West must clearly recognise that much of what is being said by the republics—that is to say, the Ukraine's declared intention points to the takeover of the Black Sea fleet and to forming a 450,000-strong Ukrainian Army; the Kazakhs' claim to the cosmodrome launch pad at Baykonur, and so on—is largely hot air, arising at least in part from fear of the RFSFSR, Mr. Gorbachev's decree on military service refers to numbers to be determined by the agreement between the USSR defence ministry and the sovereign republics. There are thus serious grounds for many in the USSR high command to be tempted even now, were another and more professional coup to be mounted, to see it as their duty to act to protect the long-term future of the services from the anarchy which, as they will see it, now threatens them.
The powerful defence-industrial complex has equally strong motives to oppose all radical economic change which would dilute its power. That is the nub of the matter. Conditions are only too favourable for another coup by a more effective group which could be more successful and could place a very different leadership in power. The Kazakh leader, Mr. Nazarbayev, called the August coup a bureaucratic coup when for three days power passed into the hands of a few high ranking officials. "I saw this," he said, "as the death throes of the command and administrative system in the USSR. Just as that system had been inept in ruling the show for seven decades, so it was inept in the putsch and signed its own death warrant." Alas! there is every reason to fear that the bees may have been smoked out; but they can still sting. There are now stronger popular arguments for, "an end to anarchy".
The ordinary Russian in the street can see what Mr. Khasbulatov recently called the Balkanisation of Russia. He was speaking of the troubles in Chechen Ingushetiya, in north and south Ossetia and in Tatarstan, and the Caucasus generally, both nationalistic and Islamic fundamentalist-orientated.
There is the threat, to add to that, of civil war within Georgia; the daily killings in Nagorno-Karabakh; strife between Armenia and Azerbaijan; unrest in the central Asian republics and Moldova's move to independence. The Russian populations in particular must feel threatened when they see how the interim administration is operating—or failing to operate. They become vulnerable to any group offering stability and order. Colonel Rutskoy, the RSFSR vice-president, speaking on 10th October—the day a rumour of the assassination of Mr. Gorbachev was spread through Moscow—described the current situation in Russia as "complete anarchy". "We adopt," he said, "mountains of laws, but no one observes them since there is no mechanism of the state,
80
nor is there control over execution. Anarchy is setting in as a consequence." Meanwhile Mr. Yeltsin, like Mr. Gorbachev, has had to recognise that administration on the ground is still in the hands of that very nomenklatura which remains stubbornly procommunist and determined to sabotage his policies.
Yavlinsky the very next day, after announcing that the slump in production had reached 17.5 per cent., added that a fall to 20 per cent. would lead to complete paralysis of the economy; and that, "if we continue to give politics priority over the economy, we shall be buried under the debris of the disintegrating state by next spring".
Unfortunately, no amount of aid from the West can substitute for effective government, and that is not yet in place. Meanwhile, our Government are proceeding with Options for Change. These were presented as the outcome of a long, hard look, together with NATO, at the strategic long-term future.
I find it disturbing that as recently as August this year—according to the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies—the NATO supreme allied commander was arguing strongly for the alliance to deploy a sizeable military presence in the central region to confront what he considered the most immediate threat: the fact that the Kremlin still has the capacity to put together 45 divisions with 13,000 tanks west of the Urals in about 45 days "from a standing start". I believe, as we all must, that today's Kremlin government genuinely wishes to end the East-West confrontation. But we have now allowed enough time to enable them to consolidate their power. After the recent inquiry into the KGB's part in the coup, 32 relatively middle-ranking officers were dismissed out of a strength of 486,000. Equally, in all the flood of words from Moscow about the reform of the Armed Forces, we have heard little about the implementation of the CFE programme of cuts—apart from more evidence of evasions—except for a brief aside from one of Mr. Gorbachev's advisers, Mr. Zagladin, who remarked on 3rd October that, "the destruction of nuclear weapons requires money".
All we are asking the Secretary of State to do is to recognise that the situation in the Soviet Union has not yet stabilised sufficiently for strategic decisions to be made and to give it time to do so.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his superb, knowledgeable and informative speech. I shall make one or two additions to the points he made as they strike me as vitally important. In 1939 through to 1944 far too many young men who were called up into the forces were unfit for military service. That situation endured for some years, until living standards of the ordinary people were raised and we realised that a corporal and a sergeant were as important as a general and a field marshal and we began improving living standards. Then along came the National Health Service. Ever since then I have believed that good living standards and our National Health Service are part and parcel of the defence of our land.

81
Debates like this one should be called Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs; not merely Foreign Affairs and Defence. It is inevitable that in most speeches that have been made this evening the Commonwealth has, quite rightly, been mentioned in one way or another.
I believe that the Harare Conference was not too badly handled. The Government and the Prime Minister did pretty well at that conference. At least Britain is back in the centre. However, what I regret is that the human rights commitment, advocated by Britain, was not accepted by that conference. Nevertheless the "Ten Steps" were a move in the right direction.
As has already been said, we have to acknowledge —because it is inevitable in a debate of this nature —that if one is halfway down the list, or towards the end of the list of speakers, much of what one wants to say has already been said. However, some points are worth reiterating. For instance, Britain and the Commonwealth have developed, quite rightly, a new role in a changing world. We have acknowledged a new Europe; we were compelled to acknowledge a new Africa emerging; and this country has much still to offer. I hope that at the important conferences to come we shall not have handbag slogging matches which spoil the force and submissions of this country. The developed nations are united in seeking a cancellation of third world debts. Britain has once again given a reasonable lead.
There is one question I should like to ask the Minister. I do not necessarily expect an answer tonight, but perhaps on some other occasion. I have been somewhat disturbed by reports in our responsible newspapers that the Germans have been selling Soviet tanks to Israel, and that the deal has been fixed by the German secret service, the BND, and Mossad. The probability is that the ordinary Israeli has not the faintest idea what Mossad is about, any more than the ordinary German knows what BND is about. However, it is no good talking about democracy, and wanting to see democracy, and shutting our eyes to the behaviour of secret services, even if some of them are in democratic countries. They are a vulgar stain on democracy when they behave in this manner.
In the Middle East land has been a grave issue. It is quite remarkable. I did not think it could ever happen—or at least not for another 20 years or so —that the Israelis and the Arabs would sit down together. It is a shame that the Syrians behaved in such an abominable manner, but they were put in their place by the Israeli spokesman. Ordinary Israelis and ordinary Arabs who understand their two great religions, do not wish to kill and butcher one another. When we hear tell of the appalling sufferings of Jewish people throughout history—the most recent in our lifetime, during the last war—we realise that these things were awful.
Israel was created by the United Nations. But the Arabs did not agree with the United Nations decision so they declared war and they received a good thumping and a bloody nose. Now the Israelis must
82
have the courage to do what we would have done. When we got rid of nazism in Germany and Austria we did not give large chunks of those countries to our country and call them part of overseas Great Britain. We would never have done that. We dared not.
The Israelis have made their point and have been generous in their approach; but they must be made to understand this: I love my country; the Germans love their country; the Israelis love their country; and the Palestinians love their country, too; and it should be returned to them as laid down in the United Nations resolutions. We must have our defences properly examined. The Government are right to reduce the financial burden, but caution is required.
We must reconsider the proposed abolition of some of our famous regiments. Over the weekend the coal mining and steel working families in the North demonstrated to me their feelings which are almost bitter. In addition to having a coalminer or a steelworker in the family?, they have always had someone in the British Army or the Royal Air Force. Their great regiment, the Durham Light Infantry, is one of which they speak with great pride. No nazi or fascist regiment was able to destroy it, but it seems as though the British Government are going to have a good go at doing so. That would be awful.
We should also reconsider what we are going to do about Britain's nuclear deterrent. I was never a member of the organisation which wanted to see the complete removal of British nuclear weapons. I should have liked to have been on its side and to have supported the abolition of nuclear weapons, and I should have done so had I thought that everyone else would do the same. But the world is not like that. We should take note of the warning given by General John Galvin of the US Army and of the fact that Europe is still unstable. We need evidence that we do not need strong armed forces. That point has been reiterated and supported by Mr. William Taft, the United States ambassador to NATO. He believes that we should not undermine the Copenhagen Declaration. I agree.
Two of our eminent politicians pointed the way. The man who created NATO when he was Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, was passionately anticommunist. I worked with him. He loathed communists. It did not matter to which country they belonged. He would say that he had driven them out of the Transport and General Workers Union—he did —and that we should be prepared for them to try to take over our land. Out of that feeling came NATO.
There was then Aneurin Bevan. I remember him making a great speech at the Labour Party conference which was then moving towards the idea of abolishing nuclear weapons. As I said, I was torn. I did not know which way to turn. I wanted to see those dreadful weapons removed, but I did not want to see my country occupied by a communist government. Bevan explained that we were willing to talk, examine one another's points of view and co-operate. He asked the Labour Party conference not to send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber. Those two points made by Bevin and Bevan apply today.

83
The servicemen are at the sharp end of the proposed military cuts and their futures are disturbing. I am president of the metropolitan area of the Royal British Legion. The legion is worried about the effects of the manpower reductions, especially those in the infantry divisions. We should have had a debate on that aspect of defence alone. We have had soothing words from the Government, but firm decisions are awaited. The servicemen affected expect Parliament to appreciate the problems that they will face on return to civilian life if tens of thousands of them are made redundant. Men who believed that they would be continuing in the Army, Navy or the Royal Air Force for a further 10 years will want the Government to examine what is to happen to them.
There is an example to follow. The British Steel Corporation dealt with a similar problem in the mid-1970s when the market for steel collapsed. It faced vast redundancy problems. A similar situation is being faced at the end of the so-called cold war by the British Government. Numbers differ but the effect will be the same. In South Wales there is no work available for redundant coal and steel workers which compares with what they were doing. Servicemen are in the same position. The Ministry of Defence must reconsider the redundancy terms—generous compared with private sector schemes—which are unsatisfactory to many of the organisations that support our ex-servicemen from the three services.
I shall give an example of what has been happening. A debate was organised in the Queen Elizabeth II conference hall by General Burgess and Colonel Creasy of the Royal British Legion. We were supported by Admiral Sir Peter Herbert, who took the chair, and Air Marshal Gilbert. Their main interest was servicemen facing redundancy. There was a contribution from Mr. H.D.B. Hawksley of British Steel. He told us that British Steel had provided a large sum of money to help people it had had to make redundant. It also provided a measure of security for a person who was to lose his job. Where possible it encouraged and helped that person to obtain a job. Where the salary was lower, British Steel made it up to what the employee had been receiving previously. It offered help to solve housing problems, and it did magnificently. In some instances, British Steel provided two thirds of the cost of a house so that the redundant steelworker would not have to bear the frightful burden of a mortgage. We all know what mortgages have done to tens of thousands of people who believed that they were buying their home in a free society. They could not keep up the mortgage payments, so along came their fellow countrymen and turfed them out. British Steel said it would not allow that to happen to its employees.
I hope that the Minister will examine British Steel's experience. It is worth examining. I have spent a great deal of time with Mr. Hawksley as have General Burgess, Colonel Creasy and the Air Marshal. We examined the scheme in depth. We believe that it is an excellent scheme. If a privatised organisation can operate successful scheme surely the nation can for the servicemen it is getting rid of.
84
Our servicemen will be losing their jobs. Many of them love their jobs. As a senior member of the Royal British Legion I have spoken to many of them. I have talked to RAF men, sailors, and members of great regiments who feel crushed at having to leave. They are worried not just at the thought of having to find a house and job but by the fact they are having taken from them the privilege of being a regular sailor, soldier or airman. I ask the House to support me when I say that they have earned and deserve all the consideration that a good parliament can give them. I ask the Government at least to examine the British Steel scheme in the interests of the servicemen and their families.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I should like to turn to a point made by the Minister in the earlier part of his speech. He talked about Iraq's success in secretly building up a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical and, we are told, biological. That happened despite the fact that only a couple of months before Iraq invaded Kuwait the IAEA had inspected all the nuclear plants that the country was supposed to possess. The same point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when he referred to the break-up of the USSR and to the danger of proliferation. If the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, believes that these things will never happen again, the answer is that they will; that is, unless the IAEA is given proper teeth and the NPT becomes an international treaty which is respected in the way that it should be and in the way that it should have been from the very start. My noble friend Lord Chalfont and I both had parts to play in bringing about that treaty.
The main international watchdog to prevent proliferation from occurring and to prevent countries like Iraq building up secret arsenals is the International Atomic Energy Agency. It became the executive arm of the NPT but began life as the result of a speech made to the United Nations by President Eisenhower. That speech was made in 1953 and became known as his "Atoms for Peace" address. His purpose was to propose that those advanced countries which were already in the nuclear business could help other countries, both by providing them with fissile material and with know-how and by helping them build plants for the generation of electricity. They were to be provided with help under the strictest of safeguards. Those who have read the IAEA statutes will realise that, on paper, you cannot have stricter statutes. But those strict statutes did not work in practice.
In 1970 the IAEA, which started life as a peaceful organisation, was charged with the even more important role of becoming the NPT's watchdog in seeing that countries which were party to that agreement complied with its terms. However, it operates under a statute which limits its powers of action to what can be agreed bilaterally. It cannot enter a country unless it has that country's permission. It cannot do things about which it has not warned that country in advance. Its arrangements with Iraq were

85
bilateral before Kuwait. Incidentally, Iraq was not only one of the earlier signatories to the NPT but, if I remember correctly, it was also within the first 20 signatories of the 1925 chemical warfare convention—the Geneva Convention.
In its actions the IAEA has to avoid hampering the economic and technological development of its clients, some of whom are not signatories to the NPT (the non-proliferation treaty). It can offer advice on the design of a nuclear reactor to assure the best health and safety standards, while watching that the country concerned is not proceeding with plans to further any military purpose. However, in the event of non-cooperation and if it suspects that a country is in fact not abiding by its agreements, all it can do is to "withdraw any materials and equipment" which it may have provided.
We now know that, despite repeated inspections of Iraq's supposedly peaceful nuclear installations, it was easy to hoodwink the IAEA's teams of inspectors: Iraq had in fact embarked upon a comprehensive nuclear weapons programme. Today the IAEA's teams are operating in Iraq. They are searching for evidence and bits and pieces in connection with that country's programme. However, they are acting as a special UN commission set up specifically for the purpose. All I can say is that, in so far as the IAEA's operations before Kuwait were by consent, the answer to the proposition suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is that the same thing will happen again; that is, if inspection is by consent.
I shall suggest in a few moments what I believe must be done. The IAEA is absolutely necessary on the civil side. We cannot dampen the demand for electrical power as the world's population increases and as the demand for higher standards of living continues to grow in the advanced world as well as in the third world. We know that there is not enough in the way of fossil and renewable reserves of energy to satisfy world demand. I do not think that there will be any opposition to that proposition. There will come a time when renewable and fossil reserves will not be enough. Nuclear experts suggest that by the year 2050 we shall certainly have to double the present output of nuclear energy, which provides, I believe, 17 per cent. of world consumption today. We also know that we must worry about environmental matters—for example, the greenhouse effect. The provision of nuclear power is one way to avoid speeding up an adverse environmental process which may be irreversible.
However, at the same time, there is worldwide popular reaction against the thought of further pursuing the nuclear path. Several countries which had already begun to do so are now being forced to stop or turn back. It is my contention that only a strengthened IAEA and one invested with the full authority of the international community can help the world to steer a rational course between nuclear fear and nuclear need. We all know about that fear. The effects of Chernobyl have not yet left us. Sheep farmers in Wales and in Cumbria are still suffering from the effects of an accident which took place thousands of miles away.
86
Despite its failure in Iraq, the IAEA carries out valuable work and publishes a magnificent report every year. But, as I have already said, without any power to deal with any contravention of the agreements made with the country concerned. At present, when the upheavals in the USSR leave us wondering whether there will be any true central control of nuclear weaponry, that country is increasingly approaching the IAEA in Vienna for help.
The NPT is due for its next review in 1995. It will be a difficult negotiation and one which could be as difficult and almost as futile as that which took place at the end of 1990. For a number of reasons, no conclusion was reached. For instance, Mexico demanded that before agreeing to a five-year extension, the US, the UK and the USSR should cease testing nuclear warheads. Only the USSR agreed.
In 1995 the IAEA can be given real authority. It operates on a shoestring at present. I have tried to relate its total costs to the cost of building a single nuclear plant: they are about 5 per cent. The organisation operates by consent, as does the London group of suppliers, as they were called, who were undoubtedly among those who helped Iraq in her secret programme.
The UK is committed to the NPT and IAEA. Those bodies are there to save the world from nuclear disaster, whether it be from an accident like Chernobyl or from a nuclear weapon used in anger. It seems to me that it is more important that, after the 1995 review, the NPT should carry on as an effective body with teeth than to look for safety in schemes such as Star Wars, SDI or the other schemes referred to in an article in The Times Saturday Review this week. If we are to be saved, we need both safe nuclear power and a continuation of deterrence. We can be satisfied now, in the new relationship between East and West, that our respective arsenals can be cut still further than has already been negotiated and that deterrence will continue.
What we could do without any cost to ourselves is to provide an assurance that we will not build a nuclear reactor, a civil plant, without the IAEA people sitting with the body that holds the initial inquiry. Sizewell B is an example of one that recently took place. Why do we not provide the IAEA with a measure of moral authority so that it can sit in on national inquiries into civil nuclear power? That could be done without any cost to us if we were to declare now, before the 1995 review, that that would be our intention. We should not continue to seek commercial advantage in the building of nuclear plants when, if the total world effort were costed, it would be recognised as the worst business venture ever to be invested in. But we still need nuclear power, however much the world is worried by nuclear fears.
As to the military side, I suggest that, when the IAEA sends its teams to find out whether a country is building a nuclear arsenal in secret and if it suspects that there is a contravention of the arrangements, it should be fortified with whatever secret information the Secretary General can be provided. Thus the teams working on the ground will be—as I hope they are at

87
present—supported by whatever information is available to the intelligence agencies about matters which they themselves suspect.
Nuclear power is too dangerous to play with on a national and certainly on a competitive commercial basis. Harold Macmillan recognised the dangers of the atom in the late 1950s and early 1960s. His vision failed to prevail with the US and the USSR. The goal of a comprehensive test ban which he wanted to see in place ended in a partial test ban that allowed the nuclear arms race between the two superpowers to continue. It was a race which some of us who were associated with Mr. Macmillan—later the Earl of Stockton—realised would only whet the appetites of the non-nuclear countries at the same time as it brought danger to all of us. We must have effective controls if proliferation is to be stopped.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, these debates on foreign affairs and defence could be justified by the opportunity they give us to hear someone with notable authority speak on an issue as important as the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has addressed his remarks. However, one wonders how many more of these debates we shall have. After all, it is apparently the intention of the Commission in Brussels—an intention applauded, I gather, by the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord BonhamCarter—to remove foreign affairs and defence from the purview of national governments and national parliaments. If that were done, then it would be as otiose for us to devote half a day or a day to the consideration of these matters as it would at the moment be otiose for Hampshire County Council to devote a meeting to discussing our foreign policy and our defence.
Noble Lords may feel that I exaggerate, but I should have thought that the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was fairly outspoken. I am sorry that he departed after lifting Salome's seven veils. He said that the original intention was to create a federal union. He called it a community, but as described it could equally well be called a federal union. That was the original intention. Those who thought that they were going in for mere mundane matters like the freeing of trade or the moving of people more freely across national frontiers were misled. They must now accept the logic of what they did, even if they did not know what they were doing. I think that on the whole he is right.
In a speech which I made in your Lordships' House on a report of a Select Committee of this House I pointed out that the story of our involvement with the Community had been one of the constant accretion of power to the Commission, assisted by the court in its interpretation of borderline questions. I said that that was perhaps the inevitable outcome of placing a number of persons of talent —they must have talent or no doubt they would not have been nominated—in positions where it would be natural and proper for them to seek, above all, to increase their own authority. I was talking on that occasion about matters not of secondary importance but perhaps of
88
relative secondary importance, that is to say the constant flow of directives and regulations which limit the power of our own legislature in important matters such as the relations between employers and employed, the methods of planning in relation to our transport and our countryside, not to mention the horrors of the common agricultural policy. That latter matter was dealt with effectively by noble Lords in another debate. However, we are still left with something.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is perhaps worried that the younger generation will not be given a vision. The kind of vision they would receive from this spectacle, transferred to our position in the world, is surely not a very encouraging one. After all, it is not merely proposed that we should seek agreement, as we always should, with our nearest neighbours on matters of foreign policy, and co-operation with our neighbours, where possible, in matters of defence. It is also proposed that these factors should be gleichschaltet—only the German word is satisfactory here—that is, amalgamated with and based upon the ordinary procedures of the Commission and the Council of Ministers, including majority voting. In that way British soldiers could be committed to action by the votes of mighty Luxembourg and gallant little Belgium. I do not believe those are prospects which are largely acceptable to the population of this country. It is idle for noble Lords—particularly for noble Lords opposite on the Liberal Benches —to say that the only opposition comes from a reactionary element in the Conservative Party. If they really believe that, they have another think coming.
Euromanes are present in the Conservative Party but they are and will remain a minority. It is worth reminding ourselves that despite all the talk there has been of a wave of federal enthusiasm sweeping western Europe from which only Britain is immune, much of that talk is false and much of it is imaginary. There are in all countries, and rightly, national interests which the governments, legislatures and political parties of those countries believe they ought to forward.
In a most illuminating speech the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to the position of Germany. He pointed out that Germany has special and understandable reasons for wishing somehow to share the burden of its greatness. But as we have seen in the past week or so, when it comes to a question of how the Mark will fare and how Germany is to preserve the way in which it combines growth and stability in a new set of arrangements, even the Germans begin to realise they must consider those matters carefully.
We seem to concentrate, understandably, on Germany. Nevertheless it is curious that, as far as I am aware, no one either this afternoon or on previous occasions when we have discussed this subject, has said anything serious about France. After all, from one point of view, what is the machinery of Brussels? It is an extension of French foreign policy. The French, unlike us—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would agree with me on this point—study history. They are concerned about their history. Successive generations of French political leaders want to appear to have adopted a satisfactory role in

89
that history. Understandably the statesmen tend to identify themselves with the great figures of the past —General de Gaulle and Joan of Arc. General de Gaulle took a rather different view on Europe from that of his predecessors and successors.
Most of the statesmen limit themselves to Louis XIV and Napoleon. However, I believe they show a preference now for Napoleon. What did Napoleon do? He conquered Europe and proceeded to organise it by setting up satellite monarchies whose monarchs were chosen from his own family. But occasionally the monarchs began to feel they had some responsibility for their citizens. They started to take a view which was not altogether that of Napoleon.
Noble Lords will remember that only a few weeks ago M. Delors was the object of tremendous criticism in the French press because on some relatively minor matter he did not insist on vetoing a decision on something that concerned a French economic interest. He is after all in Brussels—as seen by the French—to represent the French, just as Napoleon thought his hapless brother Louis was sent to Holland to ensure that the Dutch did what the French wanted them to do. If people will think of Louis Bonaparte every time M. Delors is mentioned, they will obtain the real flavour of the situation.
What is the object of that policy? The object is threefold. First, and notoriously, the object of the policy is to maintain French agricultural and industrial protectionism. France has been a consistent practitioner of mercantilism since the time of Louis XIV. That has damaged, and is damaging, the interests of Eastern Europe—to which much attention has been devoted in this House—and of the third world. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked us to take seriously the problems of the third world.
The second objective—this is a perfectly honourable objective—is somehow or other to avoid the possibility of being dominated by Germany. On the whole the method sought has been to go along, where possible, with German ideas on Europe.
The third objective, which is the one that most nearly concerns us, is that of eliminating from Europe the influence and protection of the United States. That is why there is equivocation over the projected role of WEU and the Franco-German force. People may think I am anti-French, but in fact I am rather pro French. They have a good case against the Americans. It is my belief now—I stated this belief at the time —that President Roosevelt's treatment of De Gaulle and the French movement for national liberation was an enormous blot on his record in foreign affairs. However, I should have thought that by now that chapter might reasonably be closed.
It is not closed. Therefore, we have a proposal which if it were taken seriously, and we accepted into a treaty of political union a disposition of the armed forces of Europe which would implicitly exclude the Americans, would lead inevitably to the Americans excluding themselves. In that event the French triumph would have been gained at the expense of all of us and of the whole of Europe.
90
It is no good talking in abstract terms about sovereignty or the lack of sovereignty and about democracy or the lack of democracy. As we approach these last few weeks before the meeting in Maastricht let us for once look at matters realistically. Let us remember that if an Italian commissioner tells us that our water is not drinkable he intends mainly to divert attention from Italy's appalling record of nonobservance of the directives for which it has voted at Brussels. The Germans wish to take up a matter, equally domestic here, as to whether or not we should trade on Sundays. That is a matter on which one can take either view—pro Sunday trading or anti Sunday trading. However, because Germany has very strict sabbatarian laws and does not have factories which operate continuously over the weekend we are to be weakened by having a rigid rule imposed upon us preventing work on Sundays. However, it would not be imposed by the Germans, who keep in the background, but by Mrs. Papandreou, a Greek.
It may appear to be carping to talk about these matters but they reflect real anxieties. Those anxieties will grow in ways which have nothing to do with splits in the Tory Party, the Labour Party or any other party. Incidentally, I see that even Mr. Ashdown has said that he is beginning to worry a little about the intrusions of the Commission into our affairs, so even the Liberals are not solid on that front.
It is a terrible tragedy. I do not speak in this way with any pleasure. I have always regarded myself as pro-European. I have always believed that cooperation between the countries of Europe is right. However, I also feel that the European ideal has been hijacked by the Brussels machinery. What is the use of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, drawing us a picture of the straits to which the Yugoslav war has brought that country and saying that the way to deal with it is through the European Commission when the European Commission, despite the valiant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been unable to deal with the situation because its members do not agree and most of them are too remote to care? When we had the concert of the great powers and the kind of Europe which the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—Gladstone—favoured, there might have been a solution to a local problem of that kind. It will not be achieved through Brussels mechanisms.
As it is possible, as many people have said, that the treaties will prove unacceptable, it is necessary that at the same time we should commit ourselves to a continued belief in the European ideal. The Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, in a remarkable statement this morning, said that he thought that the latest atrocity in Ulster was such that people who had joined the IRA for idealistic reasons ought now to reconsider their membership. I believe that much the same, though luckily on a much less sanguinary scale, has occurred in relation to the European Community. Those who thought that this was the right way to handle the problems of a United Europe ought now to think again.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise somewhat hesitantly after hearing so many distinguished speakers. To pick up one sentence of the previous speaker, if German sabbatarian laws create the weakness that the Germans exhibit then please give me some of that weakness. I know that sometimes my contributions to debates irritate your Lordships. I can only hop, that, rather like the grit in the oyster, my efforts may some day bring forth a pearl.
I wish to speak about people, about empowering people and transferring power from the vested interests of land and capital to people. It is a fit subject to raise in your Lordships' House because we have had some experience of it. Over the past 150 years there has been a shift in power from this House as the House of vested interests of land and capital to the House of Commons representing the people. That has enabled the people of the United Kingdom to come together to discuss and debate the great issues of the day and to work together for the common good.
Over the years we have evolved democratic structures and mechanisms which value every adult, male and female, over 18 years old as equals. We have constituencies of approximately equal size—about 60,000 electors, although there are one or two anomalies—each of which sends a representative to Parliament. Our local government is structured in a similar way. The European Parliament operates on a similar basis, with each Member of the European Parliament representing about half a million electors. It is interesting to ponder that United States Congressmen—members of the House of Representatives—represent approximately the same number of people.
We in the national parliaments of Europe must be more relaxed about enabling the people of Europe to work together for the common good. Although that is generally described as transferring power from the nation state to the European Community or regional assemblies, I do not see it in that way because there are certain things which cannot be done at the level of the nation state. Reference has been made to the need to tackle environmental problems. That is just one example of actions which cannot be taken by nation states individually but which can be achieved by the peoples of continents coming together. We must work towards enhancing that facility for people to work together.
In world terms the United Nations General Assembly can be seen as representing vested interests in terms of land through national representation rather than as representing people. There is also the rather curious executive structure called the Security Council, which is dominated by the victors of the last world war rather than representative of the human realities of today.
The nub of my proposal this evening is that it is interesting to consider that a world parliament, with each member representing approximately 50 million people, would be a reasonably sized assembly and, by happy coincidence, would result in one representative for the United Kingdom, which is what we have today at the United Nations. I make the suggestion in the
92
hope that we shall start to recognise the value of every member of the human race on this planet and so help the process of enabling all of us to work together for the benefit of everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Pym, spoke of the need to transfer some power from national to international arenas. I agree with him, as I am sure do most noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Judd spoke of the need to value human life both at home and abroad and of the need to address the sources of instability in our world—the reasons for migration, for example. I hope that the concept of a parliament for the peoples of all the world that I have introduced this evening can be seen to help the process of meeting those needs.
The United Nations General Assembly is rather like this House of Lords. I suggest that one of the tasks of the people of the world is to build the equivalent of the House of Commons. I hope that the British people will not be found wanting in support of that task.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may correct him on one point. He suggested that the average MEP represents 500,000 people, but that figure is not uniform throughout the Community. The average Luxembourg MEP represents only 100,000 people while the average British, French, German and Italian MEP represents 660,000. That is one good reason for not giving more power to that parliament.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in quick response to the noble Lord, I said that there were anomalies both in our own national Parliament and in the European Parliament. I hope that we would be prepared to address such matters together with other people rather than make pronouncements as to the irrelevance of a particular structure just because it contains some anomalies.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, at this stage of the debate the most appropriate thing that I can do is to be brief. I have a strong feeling of sympathy with the noble Earl who opened the debate and with the noble Earl who will wind up. Both face immensely difficult agendas in foreign and defence policy. I doubt whether there has ever been a time when the international situation right across the world has been so confusing, volatile and potentially dangerous. To make more difficult the right decisions, our political parties are naturally being tempted to exploit the situation in the light of the coming election.
Europe necessarily comes first on the agenda. I have one general suggestion to offer: it was, I believe, reflected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Must we in the Community be in such a hurry to reach agreements? If I remember rightly, the idea of two intergovernmental conferences with a time limit was sprung upon the Dublin summit in a Franco-German ambush inspired in part by hostility towards Mrs. Thatcher. That was a perfectly legitimate but somewhat ill-mannered ploy. However, since the Dublin summit the world has turned upside down, and the European situation is totally different.

93
As the noble Lord, Lord Pym, wisely and eloquently indicated, the situation is far from stable and the future is obscure.
Community Ministers agreed at Dublin that the conferences were to be concluded by December 1991. Would they have set that timetable if they had foreseen the events of the past two years? Perhaps not. M. Delors was then intent on protecting the integrity of the Twelve. He now talks of planning the expansion of the Community and has made an agreement with EFTA which he had once hoped to keep at arm's length.
Because of all that, it would not be a tragedy if agreement on amendments to the treaty was not reached next month. It would be better if discussions continued into the new year and even beyond. We should not now try to fudge compromises because of an outdated timetable. Ministers and shadow Ministers may say otherwise, but I would be surprised if, in their hearts, they, along with the leaders of several other Community countries, did not prefer more time.
That is particularly true of defence policy. I was impressed by the speeches of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Carver, before the recess and by the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, today. Those noble and gallant Lords recommended interim decisions for good reason. The situation in the Soviet republics has far from settled down; members of the Community are themselves at sixes and sevens; there is unfinished business in Iraq; and potentially dangerous disputes are smouldering across the world. Should not some members of the Community be wary of talking of dispensing with American support in Europe? Would it not be more prudent to proceed with greater caution and to try to develop the vision to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred? The Yugoslav situation, which is not a purely European disaster, has reminded the Community of the limitation of its power to make peace without the assistance of others. In those circumstances, is it right to commit ourselves with such certainty to the proposed cuts and reorganisation of our forces?
I shall not take up more time of the House by trying to deal in detail with other parts of the world. The campaign for democracy and human rights is a just cause to pursue, but we should not be surprised if some of what we say about human rights sounds very different to those in, for example, China, who reflect on their relations with western Europeans during the past century. In particular—the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to this point—I hope that HMG will give special thought and take action to help that lonely, Nobel Prizewinner in Rangoon who is surely the most deserving of all the prisoners of conscience.
Lastly, the new president of Zambia is probably right when he says that the era of dictators in Africa is over. But that does not solve the present problem of starvation and ethnic conflict—an immediate problem which our aid policy must try to alleviate, although inevitably conflicting with the development needs of eastern Europe. We in the United Kingdom are well
94
placed to help with the problems of southern Africa. I hope that we shall continue to try to do so in our own interests and those of the people who need help.
I do not believe that there has been any serious reference in the debate to the recent Commonwealth conference. I am not sure whether the communiqué has been put in the Library of the House. I wonder whether the Minister will feel able to comment on that when he winds up the debate.
Lastly, let us not forget the remarkable speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cheshire, and his vision of the future role of the United Nations. Whoever is selected as the next Secretary-General must receive the full support of the membership and especially of the Security Council. The strengthening and redesign of the United Nations must be a constant and urgent objective for this country. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, mentioned a subject which could be well tackled within the United Nations in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Pym, referred to the United Nations conference on the environment to take place in Brazil next year. It is indeed a very important conference. I should like to be assured that our representation at that conference will be of the highest quality.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, touched on a great many of the issues contained in the gracious Speech. I very much welcome that. In this debate we have tended to concentrate on events which are taking place in Europe. I shall do so not because those events may be more important than the issues touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, but because they are more urgent. Within a few weeks major decisions may be taken which will affect many of the issues that have been debated in a more general way this evening.
I should like to mention here the very interesting speech made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. Nobody can fail to recognise its importance and significance in the overall development of our foreign relations. However, I should like to welcome the undertaking made by Her Majesty's Government in the gracious Speech that they will continue to play a constructive role in the two inter-governmental conferences. It is a critical and crucial time when decisions will be taken in Western Europe which affect the prosperity and security not only of this country but of other members of the European Community and indeed of many millions of people who live outside it.
I shall make a few brief points on the short-term issue and three or four points on the long-term issue. As regards the short term, I believe it is true to say that the British people as a whole will want to have some kind of decision at Maastricht but not at any price. We must make that perfectly clear. Our Government will do their best for Britain but it will not be just because they must sign that they will sign. That is something on which I, who, after all, have been a European by tradition and practice over the past 20 years, nevertheless would totally support the Government.

95
We must also not lose sight of the principles which were expressed in the EC treaty of 1957: freedom of movement, deregulation and competition. But we do not see much of those issues in the draft treaty or what one might call the non-paper which was circulated by Luxembourg. Other noble Lords have referred to the fact—I stress it also—that a powerful, centralised bureaucracy must be avoided. There is no doubt at all that the Commission is becoming more and more powerful in relation to the duties that it is meant to carry out.
I quite understand why that has happened. I have the greatest respect for the former Commissioners who are in your Lordships' House and for the people who work in the Commission. They are first-class administrators and the Commission is a very open civil service. But it is not the task of the Commission to do many of the things that it is now doing. Why does it do them? It is because the Council itself is failing to keep control of the actions of the Commission. The Council has been far too ready to delegate, first under Article 155 and now under Article 145 of the Single European Act. It allows the Commission to undertake secondary legislation and indeed take certain important decisions. I believe that it is up to the Council to ensure that the Commission does not run away with more power than it has already.
One has only to look at the so-called non-paper to see the number of additional competences which are being passed over to the Community and which will therefore be exercised in the main by the Commission. I shall mention some of the issues that are being considered. There seems to be very little intellectual or legal ground for extending health, education and culture to a European level. Those matters are already dealt with, and have been for several years, perfectly efficiently by the Council of Europe. That includes the six EFTA countries plus Liechtenstein and, more recently, some of the central and eastern European countries outside the Community, all of which are future candidates for European Community membership should their peoples so demand.
Perhaps those issues, including many social issues, could eventually be dealt with, when the European Community is enlarged. Recommendations and international conventions seem much more appropriate to those fields of policy. Standards would be set but the national institutions of the countries themselves would be allowed to implement and decide the issues as it suited them.
Incidentally, it is perhaps worth recalling that the envisaged harmonisation of social standards was intended to encourage and facilitate the free movement of labour. However, the statistics show that the people who move from one national member state to another member state, whether in the sphere of the professions or the workforce, are extraordinarily few. In fact the people who move are immigrants from outside the Community, refugees or those seeking asylum. In that respect European Community standards and regulations should be enforced throughout the 12 member states, but without impinging upon the freedom of movement of
96
nationals. I know that there are already rules on residence and so on, hut, the statistics show that very few people actually benefit from the harmonisation of these issues.
My second point on this issue concerns the powers which it is envisaged should be allocated to the European Parliament. They seem to have created a great deal of concern in the national Parliament, particularly in another place. But the fact of the matter is that none of the powers under consideration in this non-paper affects in any way the powers that so far still exist in the national Parliament. If the national Parliament were only aware of it, the power to make many decisions has already passed to the Community. What is needed is further powers of scrutiny and monitoring of the Commission by the European Parliament as well.
I should like to suggest a far more effective and efficient scrutiny of draft legislation in the national Parliament, though I almost dare to exclude the Select Committee on the European Communities of our own House, which is so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and which does sterling work in examining draft legislation and bringing it before your Lordships' House for debate. We have always had the benefit of an answer on it from a Minister of the Government, giving the Government's position. In this House we have a very effective form of scrutiny, though possibly we do not deal with as many issues as need to be considered.
I should now like to make two or three points about the long-term issue. In our debate on 21st October on law-making procedures in the Community, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a very effective speech which was not so much concerned with the procedures as with the fact that we should remember that in 1940 we stood alone. We did indeed stand alone. That is one of the reasons why most of us now are Europeans, in that we no longer want to stand alone, we do not want our children to stand alone and we do not want our grandchildren to stand alone. To me, that is the whole purpose of the European Community. In this dangerous world we must be sure that we have an integrated membership within the member states. That legal and economic integration that we have seen taking place has been our guarantee that our 12 countries can never go to war with each other again.
I am old enough to have been taught history when I was a small girl. I remember that most of my lessons concerned the memorising of dates of battles. My grandchildren do not seem to learn the same things. However, we were brought up to learn of battles that took place between the French, English, German, Spanish, Dutch—you name them. In the past 40 years such battles have been no longer possible. Surely that is the essential characteristic of the European Community: it must be maintained in a form which guarantees that structure. That is most important in particular now that we have a European economic area with the six EFTA states plus Liechtenstein joining us.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggested that if we had stayed in EFTA we should have benefited.

97
However, perhaps he forgets, or does not realise, that all the EFTA countries have had to accept all the European Community legislation to date. This affects standards, transport, competition and policy in all the areas which unite us in the economic community. We, as Britons, are part of that European Community. We have taken part at every stage in the decision-making process. That would not have happened if we had merely remained in EFTA.
Whatever is decided at Maastricht, it is essential also that provision is made to foresee an enlarged Community, involving the Twelve and the Seven and gradually extending it to the other countries of Eastern Europe, including the three Baltic states, which will no doubt request membership.
I wish to make two further short points without expanding on them. Our security and defence over these years has been guaranteed by NATO. General Galvin had a famous saying when talking about people doing trick riding on aeroplanes: "Don't leave go of your secure hold until you have another one!" I believe that the position is the same now: we are walk-riding on aeroplanes. If we leave go of NATO we shall be leaving go of the one guarantee of safety without having anything else to put in its place. I believe that we have to stay within NATO therefore. Whatever else is arranged it must include that principle and be on that basis.
It is also essential for us, whatever may be the French view, that we keep the closest ties with the United States. That is not only for security reasons. We sometimes forget that the United States is the biggest exporter to the European Community and the biggest importer of European Community produce and services. It would therefore be folly to attempt to take ourselves away from a close relationship with the United States. The democracies in an unstable world surely have to stand together.
Whatever happens at Maastricht I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his Ministers will be negotiating for the good of Britain and of the British people. Once that treaty has been signed, he and his Government will come before Parliament to explain and to stand by the decisions that have been made. Once again I believe that the democratic system of our national Parliament will be a guarantee that the decisions that are taken, whatever they may be, will be for the good of the British people. I therefore put my total trust in the Prime Minister and the Government.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, throughout this inevitably wide ranging debate, there has been an underlying sense that over the next few weeks, months and perhaps year or so, a series of critical decisions must be taken in the field of international affairs, in the United Nations, the Middle East, in connection with Yugoslavia, and in the European Community. They are decisions that will seek to maintain international stability in a new world situation that is simultaneously hopeful and frightening.
98
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I wish to concentrate on the European Community aspect. One has a consciousness that after the exciting and historic events of the dissolution of the Soviet Empire in Europe there is now an increasing, uncomfortable awareness of the vacuum in world affairs that has been created by the virtual disappearance of the Soviet Union as a world power. I rarely disagree with the wise caution of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for which over many years past I have had reason to be grateful. However, I felt that his argument that there ought to be a further delay in the timetable for coming to decisions at Maastricht because the world had turned upside down since Dublin, was an argument itself turned upside down. It is the extraordinary developments that have taken place in the world situation that give a degree of urgency to these matters.
The Foreign Minister of Italy said the other day that the choice for Europe and the world now lay between integration into a new world order or disintegration into a new world disorder. The question for Britain is surely how best she can make her contribution to that search for a new world order. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned that Britain has many roles to play at the United Nations, in the Commonwealth, in NATO and elsewhere. However, undoubtedly one immediate task is ready to hand; namely, to play a positive and enthusiastic role at the Maastricht Summit. I am sure that it will not be an uncritical one, but will be more constructive than was the British practice under Mrs. Thatcher and more constructive than is apparently now being advocated by no less than Mr. Norman Tebbit and Mr. Nigel Lawson.
Has the prime ministerial attitude under Mr. Major really changed? That question is very much in all our minds. Frankly, it is hard to tell. Sometimes it looks like it has done and sometimes it does not. A great deal is at stake in the tone and manner in which the Prime Minister and his team approach the Maastricht Summit. If there is to be stability in Europe in the face of the economic problems of the former Soviet territories, and the ancient ethnic rivalries that have once more been unleashed causing civil war in Yugoslavia and chaos in the Soviet Union and which are bubbling up in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, there is need for an economically strong, politically cohesive European heartland.
Only the European Community can provide it, and if it is to be done wisely and well it needs Britain at the heart of the Community. I believe that those were the Prime Minister's own words on a recent occasion. It needs Britain pulling its full weight along with the other major Community members —Germany and France.
In terms of the domestic political scene, there should be the chance for Britain to play a leadership role in Europe on the basis of support across the party political spectrum for the first time in 20 years. For perhaps the first half of that period the Labour Party was opposed to entry or wished to get out of the Community. Sadly, its conversion to making a success of the Community coincided with Mrs. Thatcher

99
leading the Conservatives into the "never-never-never" land of her Bruges speech. There ought now to be an opportunity, fortunately at a fateful moment in the Community's development, for all of that to be put behind us.
There remain minorities in both the country at large and in Parliament who believe with deep conviction that Britain should never have joined the Community. However, with all due respect to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I believe that the number of members of the general public who take that view is smaller than ever. I have no doubt that there is a parliamentary majority for being part of the Community and a common sense British view that if one is going to be in the Community one had better do one's best to make a success of it. All that is required is what in Brussels jargon used to be called the political will but which perhaps in simpler Anglo-Saxon is the political guts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made clear with his usual inexorable logic, we have the right under the letter of the treaty, if not the spirit, to seek derogations. We have apparently spent much of our negotiating goodwill in bringing about one proposi-tion carefully tailored to suit Britain as part of the preparations for Maastricht. But surely it cannot be in the British interest to opt out of these historic developments, and still less to consider staying out.
I find it inconceivable that the Government would volunteer to relegate the United Kingdom to the second division of the Community league. The greater danger, and it is a real danger that has happened too often in the past, is that we shall opt out for temporary party-political reasons only to sign up later after we have lost influence and goodwill. That is the way to earn the worst of all worlds. It would be particularly self-defeating for Britain to do that, aspiring as it does to keep London as the financial capital of Europe. The proposed European monetary institute—the embryo central bank—ought to be in London which has too small a share of Community institutions. We run the risk of losing any chance of bidding for that by giving priority to the opt-in/opt-out clause in order to see the Government through the forthcoming general election.
The critics of what has been planned for the Maastricht summit appear to suffer simultaneously from two very different fears: federalism and centralisation. Historically they have always struck me as being odd fears for citizens of the United Kingdom. For more than 250 years it has been a political, economic and monetary union, highly overcentralised for most of the time, without making the Scots notably less Scottish or the Welsh notably less Welsh Nor are they in any danger of turning into identikit Europeans as a result of anything that might flow from Maastricht. The fears of federalism or overcentralisation are greatly exaggerated.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that the more real of those fears is the latter of excessive harmonisation by the Commission. Speaking as a former infamous bureaucrat of Brussels, I freely confess that the Commission is subject to the temptation of harmonising some matters which are
100
best left to national or regional administrations; indeed, some matters which are best left altogether. A European Parliament enjoys a degree of democratic legitimacy that is greater than that of the European Commission which should be a little more conscious of how insubstantial its legitimacy is. However, it too is prone to being overzealous and seeking to harmonise consumer behaviour from Greenland's icy mountains to Sicily's golden sands.
Achieving the right constitutional balance for the future between Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission will not be easy. It will need a much longer timetable than the Maastricht summit provides. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, spoke wise words when he said that if the Government were more clearly to commit themselves to the goal of European union it would be a good deal easier to obtain agreement on the method and timetable for reaching that goal.
As regards federalism, in my judgment there is no possibility of the ancient, idiosyncratic, language-bound nations of the European Community turning themselves into a tidy federation on the lines of the United States of America or of the Federal Republic of Germany. Both those countries enjoy a common language. However, there is a real possibility of developing the European Community into a body with a strong political purpose and a common foreign policy based on an economic and monetary union and acting as a single, liberal unit on the world trade scene.
I agree with Sir Julian Bullard, the former ambassador to Germany, who recently wrote that he sees that notion applying to a common foreign policy which complements national foreign policies and not to a single foreign policy which replaces that. I believe that within that formula there is room to draw up agreement in areas where majority voting is entirely appropriate. Certainly it is inconceivable that with the Community growing from 12 in number one can continue to run it on the basis of unanimity without majority voting.
The world badly needs an effective Community as a critical bastion of stability. Europe is facing greater instability than at any time since some of the acute crises after the Second World War when the cold war was at its height. The alternative to having an effective, cohesive European Community would be a Europe overshadowed, perhaps dominated, by a new united Germany once the former GDR becomes the first former communist economy to be successfully converted to a prosperous Western standard. Who can doubt that the Germans will achieve that and not over a long period?
In what I thought was a particularly impressive and significant speech, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, made clear that we are singularly fortunate to have a contemporary Germany which has no desire to use its economic strength and resilience to return to the nationalism of the past. Indeed, Germany sets us an example with its consistent vision of a united Europe, with its desire to he an integrated member of the European Community and, in defence, a partner in a multilateral NATO. We are fortunate that the German leaders have shown none of the signs of

101
preserving jealously an outdated degree of national sovereignty that sadly distinguished and, I am afraid, disfigured the final days of the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. I plead that her successor should put all that behind him and show the statesmanship to restore Britain to her proper role of sharing positive leadership in the developments that will undoubtedly go ahead in the European Community.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, the gracious Speech promises that the Government will support the Commonwealth. That is a welcome assurance to those of us in the Conservative Party who have been distressed by the way in which our relations with the Commonwealth have been handled by the party's leaders during the past 20 years and the attitude to it of the Conservative press.
It is most encouraging to see the constructive and conciliatory part which the Prime Minister played at the recent conference in Harare. He was unfairly criticised for spending eight days away from Whitehall. Surely that was a short time in which to repair the damage caused by two decades of confrontation and neglect. As a result we can now hope that the new initiatives discussed at Harare will strengthen the Commonwealth and give it a new role in the promotion of democratic government, the protection of human rights and the economic development of its members.
There is much to be said for linking the provision of aid to the form of government and the human rights records of developing countries. But, so far as Great Britain is concerned, we must be careful to ensure that it is not suspected by those countries that this is an attempt to revive British imperialism in a new guise. However much our record as an imperial power may be recognised by future historians as contributing to the success of the Commonwealth countries when they achieved independence, it is not always recognised in ex-colonial countries under successor regimes.
The establishment 30 years ago of the Ministry of Overseas Development, separate from the Foreign Office and the CRO, was intended to help to meet the needs of the developing countries of the Commonwealth and to emphasise the fact that aid was not aimed at maintaining British political influence and control in the post-colonial era. If in future aid is to be employed to promote democracy and human rights it must be backed by something which is seen to be independent of the United Kingdom's policy and interests.
Therefore, I believe that the ground should be laid by the Commonwealth Secretariat for consideration at the next conference in 1993 of the establishment of a Commonwealth Court of Human Rights analogous to the European Court and with members drawn from the judiciaries of various Commonwealth countries. Two might come from the "old" Commonwealth, two from Asia, two from Africa and one from the Caribbean. Its role would be to pronounce on the seriousness and extent of the abuse of human rights in cases which came before it. The publication of its
102
judgments would be a sanction in itself. It would then be for Commonwealth countries providing aid to decide individually what pressure should be brought to bear by the withdrawal of aid or by other means.
As regards the maintenance of democratic government, we should take great encouragement from the recent developments in Zambia. Those stand in stark contrast to neighbouring Zaire. I hope that an immediate and generous programme of aid will be launched by the Government here and by governments elsewhere to help Mr. Chiluba in restoring Zambia's prosperity. That is an opportunity which must not be missed to give substance to decisions at Harare.
Still further to emphasise Britain's new commitment to the Commonwealth, I suggest, as I did last year, that a Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be appointed Minister for Commonwealth Relations. He or she would have special responsibility for all aspects of our diplomatic relations, aid provision and cultural contact with the Commonwealth. The Minister would have an influence in encouraging Commonwealth students to come to Britain for training and in ensuring that developing Commonwealth countries receive a fair share of the resources available for overseas aid provided by Great Britain. There is a danger that their needs may be forgotten in the light of the demands for aid coming from Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and elsewhere.
We cannot rely on the fact that we all tend to play cricket and some of us are better at playing rugby than others to keep together the cement of the Commonwealth. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said earlier this afternoon, our membership of the Commonwealth is an important asset for Britain's foreign policy. We must now build on the Prime Minister's success at Harare and give it a new dynamic in the field of democratic government, human rights and economic development as an example to the rest of the world.
8.22 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be delighted to hear that I shall not make a speech because I have just had some news and I must leave before the end of the debate. I thought I should remain to apologise to your Lordships, however.
I had intended to make a speech regarding some of the Highland regiments. I understand that that matter has been discussed before in this House. I plead that the Queen's Own Highlanders are not amalgamated with any other regiment. I believe that that was done in 1961, and, although it depends to some extent on its location, once that has been done, the regiment is never the same again.
Having said that, I shall not make a speech. I crave your Lordships' indulgence and excuse myself from the remainder of the debate.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred to Aung San Suu Kyi. That was a right and proper reference and I am glad that my noble friend said what he did. He might have said—as I am about to say—that that reference should have been in the gracious Speech itself. It should not have been left to someone outside the Government to make a reference to such an important matter. Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of the great hero of Burma, U Aung San. She is democratically successful in that country and has been improperly imprisoned in her own house by the military. She has properly been awarded the Nobel Prize. It seems to me that it would have been better for the Government to mention that. It should not have been left to my noble friend, although I am glad that he did so.
With due respect, I convey my sympathy to Her Majesty for having to deliver such an uninspired Address. I should also make it clear that although constitutional change is in the air, it is not my intention to introduce such a Bill before the next general election. The Labour leadership is nerving itself in that direction and it will clearly be desirable to see what it comes up with. Therefore, I have decided not to give way to the temptation to indulge in private enterprise on the matter at this time.
One further point which I wish to make is on the content of the gracious Speech outside the content of this debate. I have taken the precaution of consulting the authorities on this point and I understand that I am entirely in order in making this reference. It concerns an omission from content rather than content. The gracious Speech deals with a number of areas where this country has collapsed from the top of international league tables to a position in which we are in some danger of relegation. However, there is one table where we are still near the top; that is, our standing in the arts.
It is one of the few areas in which the Government can claim some brownie points in spite of making sad mistakes. The arts have urgent needs and there is no opportunity to discuss those in the debates on the gracious Speech. Therefore, I make this passing reference. There is no mention of the arts in the gracious Speech. I wonder what Mr. Renton thinks about that. As arts Minister I once kicked up a dreadful fuss about the Queen's Speech. I insisted upon an undertaking to remove entrance charges from the national museums and galleries. I got my way in the end but it was not easy. Is Tim Renton happy that his responsibilities do not even rate a mention? That says something about the Government's priorities.
Now I turn to our muttons—or perhaps I should say munitions. In the gracious Speech the Government talk about the importance of maintaining our security. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, was extremely enlightening and had more to say on that than the Government. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, may have made a coded reference to the subject, which I shall address, when he suggested that the Government were perhaps economising in the wrong direction. I believe I know what he meant.
104
As regards maintaining security, the Government say that substantial and effective nuclear forces are to be maintained. We are not told from where the threat comes but one imagines that it must be real because to meet it, among other things, Trident is to go ahead. President Bush includes measures of unilateral disarmament in his response to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. President Gorbachev comes up with deep nuclear and conventional cuts. But our Prime Minister says that we must have Trident. He calls it our "minimum deterrent". Perhaps one may ask who is being deterred, at what cost and why. Minimum? Trident represents an eightfold increase in our nuclear capability at a time when the other nuclear holders are cutting back. Is that right? Is it the right policy to adopt at this time? Should we stand out as the greatest increaser of all with an eightfold increase in our nuclear capacity by the acquisition of Trident? Is it necessary? Is it even sane?
We are now, in theory, covering 64 targets with Polaris. I say "in theory" because Polaris seems to be mostly out of order. With Trident we should be able to cover 512 targets. What is the necessity for that at this time? What are we up to? What does one mean by "cover"? It means an ability to totally destroy towns, including their inhabitants. Incredible though it may seem, the destructive capability of Trident in terms of warhead kilotonnage is between 16,000 and 20,000 Hiroshimas. That is 16,000 to 20,000 times the most terrible killing yet inflicted on mankind. So what are we about at this time of decreased tension? It makes no sense. Has everyone gone mad?
What of the Labour leadership? Neil proposes to continue with Trident while negotiating it away. That is the language of Nassau. It makes no sense. It means consent to lunacy. Trident serves no useful security function whatever. Deploying it simply justifies proliferation, and at what cost.
As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, pointed out, however effective the International Energy Authority may be in the civil area, it is militarily ineffective. The estimated minimum cost of Trident is £10 billion. That is the equivalent of spending £30,000 a day every year for 1,000 years. What is the use, the purpose, the reason for that kind of expenditure at this time of lesser tension? The cost of dismantling the nuclear reactors has not even been calculated. Cancel Trident now. There is no other sensible course. I can promise the Government that should they decide to do so, there will be no opposition from Labour.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, a common theme in this debate has been the recognition of the extraordinary changes which have taken place in the world during the past 12 months or so. Noble Lords referred to the collapse of the Soviet empire, perhaps the most sudden collapse of any empire since the Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453. We heard references from the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, to the reunification of Germany, an event which has long been an objective

105
of our policy but which I never expected to see in my lifetime. That change alone will profoundly alter the nature of European politics.
We have also heard of the termination of the ideological conflict between East and West and the diminution of the military threat which we face from the East. That event caused the prompt reaction of our own Government in unilateral force reductions, an action which a number of noble Lords—including myself—consider to have been somewhat too hasty if only for the total uncertainty which prevails about the nations which may arise on the territory of the former USSR. That is a point to which I shall return in a moment.
The parallel conclusion I would first draw is that those events are confined to a small part of the world —the developed world of Europe and North America. The bulk of the world population is not greatly affected by what has happened. For the populous nations of China, India, and Africa there has been little change. There the problems which matter most to ordinary people are the problems of disease, malnutrition and poverty. We can perhaps expect more significant effects to reach those parts of the world from the greater changes which I mentioned; for example, in Castro's Cuba after the withdrawal of Soviet support, and in Afghanistan if the superpowers agree to restrain support for their rival partisans. Optimists may even hope that the Middle East will benefit from the reduction in the rivalry of the great powers although it would be unwise to expect any early result from the Madrid conference, given the bitterness of feeling between Israel and most of her neighbours.
However, there is a more realistic possibility that the collapse of the communist threat will enable the democratic West to contribute more actively and effectively to easing the problems of the developing world than it has been able to do in the recent past. The need is particularly great in Africa where social conditions and economic prospects have deteriorated so rapidly in recent years. I believe we have a special opportunity in Africa. It arises mainly from the change in the policies of the South African Government which make it possible to overcome some of the political obstacles which apartheid placed in the path of peaceful collaboration and development. We can see in the results of the Harare conference that that is not altogether misplaced.
I suggest that our understandable absorption in the collapse of communism and the future of the European Community should not mask those issues completely. Nevertheless, for Europeans and especially for citizens of this country there is a specific task nearer to hand; that is, the next stage in the construction of Europe. The crucial meeting of the European Council in a few weeks' time at Maastricht looks like being the most important discussion of the leaders of the European Community for a long time. I do not propose to examine the details as many noble Lords have done. But I suggest that it is important for us to recognise the nature and extent of the task on
106
which the European Council will be engaged. It is nothing less than determining the identity of the European Community of the future.
It is right and natural that attention should be focused on the details of the European union, its constitutional arrangements and the powers entrusted to the European Parliament. But we should not become so worked up about these matters that we neglect the biggest issues of all. For example, who will ultimately wish to join the European Community? It is the membership which determines the character of the club. Do we wish to see an institution which could ultimately embrace all the nations of the European continent? If so, should the European Community be entrusted with specific responsibility in the field of defence? Not all of the postulants may wish to assume that collective role for defence. Should they assume it, their view of the task may not tit very well with our own. Can this new defence role be assumed in such a way that the partnership between western Europe and the United States is not undermined?
I suggest that these two underlying questions—the ultimate membership of the Community and its potential responsibility for defence—transcend most of the other issues under discussion. I also suggest that it would be wise not to prejudge them in the decisions taken at Maastricht or indeed at the further meetings which may prove to be necessary. I too share the feeling that some of your Lordships have expressed. It may be difficult to arrive at a complete settlement of all those major issues at one meeting.
My reason for believing that it is wiser to think of a more extended timetable is that we do not know, and cannot at present judge, the nature of the successor states which may appear on the territory of the Soviet Union. It follows that we cannot now determine how Russia's neighbours in central Europe will decide to protect their essential security interests any more than we in western Europe can make any long-term judgment about our security arrangements for the same reason. So we should not do anything now to make it more difficult for other states to create closer links with the EC should they wish to do so in future.
Sometimes this problem for the Community is presented as a choice between deepening and widening. But the more you think about it the less satisfactory this formulation seems. I would prefer to say that we need to build higher on solid foundations, allowing scope for extension of the structure if the neighbours wish. Provided that the architects and the builders think ahead, there need not be undue structural difficulties. The recent Anglo-Italian initiative on the Western European Union looks to me to be a particularly helpful way of handling the defence dimension.
I return to the identity of Europe. That is now a more open question than it has been for many years. We are surely at one of those turning points which occur only rarely in human affairs when the decisions taken will mark the terrain for a long time to come. We can also see that the last year has unmade some of the mistakes committed earlier in this century. We

107
have a chance to retrieve them, taking care to avoid the skeletal remains we can see around us of earlier errors and divisions.
It is indeed surprising how much the landscape has changed. Perhaps I may give one example from personal experience. Twenty-five years ago I climbed Mount Olympus in Greece with two friends. In my knapsack I carried with me a copy of that classic travel book, Kinglake's Eothen. On the mountain I can remember reading the opening pages of the book in which Kinglake describes the East-West frontier of the day—the passage of the River Sava at Belgrade which was then the frontier between the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian empires. It was clearly just as alarming an experience for him as I found it crossing between East and West Berlin in the 1950s. Yet when I read the book that old frontier on the Sava seemed a distant and improbable anachronism. But the current conflict in Yugoslavia has uncovered this very same historical division between Turkish Moslem Europe and the Europe of the Orthodox and Catholic faith.
If the divisions of the Europe created in 1945 are crumbling away, the defects of some of the settlements made after the First World War are emerging afresh. Above all, they are the problems caused by the partial application of that essential principle of international life; self-determination. These are once again some of Europe's largest problems. But we do have an unexpected and fresh chance to tackle again these long quiescent rivalries and to determine the future identity of Europe for a long time to come.
I do not wish to take your Lordships on a conducted tour of Greek mountains, but another experience recently may illustrate the general point that I am 1 tying to make. A few weeks ago I was in the northern Pindus Mountains of Greece and climbed Mount Grammos on the Albanian frontier. This is a place famous in modern Greece as the scene of the last engagement of the Greek civil war in 1949 when the communists were finally dislodged from Greek territory. From its summit you look north into the plains of southern Albania, for long forbidden territory for outsiders. But now communist society has collapsed as totally there as anywhere else, leaving its unfortunate citizens impoverished and hungry. Albanians—for so long tightly confined at home—are now telling us that they too feel part of Europe. Looking into the unfamiliar landscape from the top of my mountain, you could see another part of this question of European identity. The European Community has, by its success, created a pole of attraction for others elsewhere in Europe for whom it represents the democratic freedom and prosperity to which they too aspire.
We should not disappoint those aspirations. In representing the interests of the nation in the next crucial discussions, I hope that the Government will always remember the wider perspective and the longer view. Whatever their preoccupations are in an election year it is on this that they will ultimately he judged.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, in the debate on the loyal Address last year I spoke about the situation in Poland. I trust that your Lordships will forgive me for returning to this subject after the passage of a year as I have spent nearly two months of the Summer Recess in that country. I have an interest there as my wife is Polish and is the owner of a house on the outskirts of Krakow. It is a very nice house and we intend to keep it and live in it from time to time.
I was glad to hear in the gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government,
"will further encourage the development of democratic institutions and market economies in central and eastern Europe; and pursue the completion of Association Agreements with Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia".
I should like to tell noble Lords about the changes which I have witnessed in Poland in the past two years. I was in Poland for six weeks in the summer of 1989 and was actually there on the day when 44 years of communist rule came to an end. But unlike in Czechoslovakia and Romania, it was a day that was unmarked by demonstrations of any kind. It was a day just like any other day. That of itself was rather remarkable.
In August 1989 Poland was profoundly depressed. Apart from the fact that there was no actual damage, to my mind it resembled a country which had just fought a war and been defeated. That was after 45 years of so-called peace. There was little or nothing to buy in the ordinary shops except of course for bottled beetroot. One shop I visited had shelves and shelves of very nice though identical crystal ashtrays. I wonder whether they have all been bought yet. After a long tour of the beautiful city of Gdansk, we found that the only item available in the cafes of that city was soda water. In Krakow, where I spent most of my time, the city was still crumbling and desperately polluted by the factories of Nova Huta eight miles away. Most of the time the sky was invisible and the air, though breathable, was pretty foul. Buildings had scaffolding around them which local people told me had been there for at least 20 years.
I can only report to your Lordships that after two years the change is staggering. It is not the same country. Not only can one see the sky in Krakow, but the awful miasma of depression has lifted. Most people, especially the young, look alive and active. Buildings are being renovated; roads are being repaired; cafes are thronged; shops are open and busy and selling everything that one might require. The natural energy of an intelligent and inventive people has been released and one has to rub one's eyes to remember what it used to be like. It is these natural energies which are the most important thing of all. The Government have got off people's backs and they are allowed to get on with it. Judging from what I saw, they are getting on with it.
There is always another side to anything. I am well aware that there is another side to this picture. There are some people who have not gained and through no fault of their own are finding themselves unemployed or otherwise impoverished. There are the super-rich, too; but I shall not make too much of that. There were

109
super-rich people in Communist times, mostly party members, some of whom are now feeling the wind a bit.
As I said earlier, there are many who are suffering from the changes; but I say to the House that serious though their deprivations are—and I am not reducing them in any way—they are as nothing to what they would have been had the communist system remained in place for another two years. It is impossible to imagine what that situation would now be.
I should like to take issue with many of the comments in our press and on our television. At present it seems that there is an attitude that wants to run Poland down. One must remember that Poland until two years ago had been misgoverned since 1939, sometimes—as under the nazis—with atrocious malevolence, and sometimes with more well-meaning bungling and neglect. Poland has had so far only two years to put right the ills of nearly half a century. It would be simply miraculous if there was nothing wrong; but it is not helpful to keep on harping about decaying industry, unemployment, discontent and arrest. As a farmer, I notice that if I burn old grass it takes time for the new grass to establish itself. I wish some of our media would be less patronising and would imagine, just for a moment, how we would fare in a similar situation.
I turn now to the internal political situation. At present this appears to be chaotic and to be a re-run of the French Third and Fourth Republics, without the benefit of the extremely efficient French Civil Service. One commentator, himself of Polish extraction, in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph actually seemed to write the country off both politically and economically. I personally know far too many Polish people to accept his diagnosis for one minute. The politics will sort themselves out but the whole point of what is happening is that people have been freed. It is people—hard working and inventive people—who will make Poland prosper. For once the government is taking a back seat and I hope it stays there.
For the benefit of noble Lords opposite who are indulging in thoughts of PR, I should like to make a brief point on the subject of the Polish elections. They ought to take notice of the situation in Poland where there are 100 parties and where the ballot papers are so confusing that many people have given up and decided not to vote at all for the simple reason that they do not know who or what they are voting for. If they want the House of Commons to become a replica of the present Polish Sejm, then they should go ahead with PR. However, I do not believe that the Social Democrats or the Labour Party will find that they are beneficiaries. Nor will the British people.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord must be aware that there is more than one system of PR. He must be aware that in Germany they have PR and there are not 100 parties.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I do not know which form of PR he advocates. Perhaps we would be as happy as Germany and not as unhappy as they are with the
110
Polish Sejm at present. I shall pass on that point except to say that I very much hope that Poland will abandon PR and go for the system that we have here.
One thing struck me which was depressing. There seemed to be very little evidence of British involvement in the growing volume of trade in Poland. In Poland there is a market of 40 million people. Supplying that market are Germans, French, Danes, Swedes, and so on. There are enterprises and goods from all over Europe. Part of the reason for this is that movement in central and western Europe is remarkably free and frontiers are easy to cross. The result is that Polish businessmen can visit their counterparts easily throughout most of Europe. The only country where there are difficulties is in Britain. It takes so long for Poles to get visas at our consulate in Warsaw that they are inclined to give up and trade with Germany or France instead.
At this point I have to say that the biggest thing standing in the way of good relations between this country and Poland is the British consulate in Warsaw. I cannot but believe the voluminous number of stories that I hear about the activities in this consulate. There are just too many of them. I do not intend to stand up in your Lordships' House and blame our officials. Whatever happens in our consulate in Warsaw is the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. The Government are answer-able and not the harassed officials who work in Poland. I visited the consulate in August and was most courteously received by the vice-consul who showed me round the building. We then repaired to his office where he invited me to ask questions. After one or two questions, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships, I asked him the million dollar question. I asked if, in his opinion, visas were to be scrapped would there be any more illegal Polish workers in Britain than there are already. He replied that he did not believe that there would be and that he could not understand the obsession of the Home Office with visas. That is from the man on the spot.
From personal observation I believe that to be the case. The visa regime is working against families, families which have been divided by war and the iron curtain for 50 years and are still divided by the visa curtain. Certainly a lot of Poles want to come here from time to time. I want to visit my wife's relations in Poland from time to time. From my end it is easy. I have to say that if someone is determined to come here from Poland and to work, they will succeed in spite of the system. But if they want to visit a sick grandmother, they will either fail or she may be dead by the time they arrive. I must also ask if it is necessary to inquire of young ladies visiting the United Kingdom whether they sleep with their husbands. I have heard too many tales of this happening to doubt it.
If Her Majesty's Government are determined to continue with visas—and I hope they are not—they really will have to do something about the inadequate consular building where the visas are processed. No one, least of all those working there, would disagree with that. The present situation is a disgrace and it is bringing this country into disrepute.

111
Finally, I put the question: what does Poland need from us? I would say that she needs the largest possible breaking down of barriers for trade and movement. She needs that even more than she needs money—though money is always welcome.
I do not believe that we are doing enough in this direction and it will not be possible to do enough so long as the present visa regime remains unchanged. Small Polish businessmen cannot visit this country to deal with their counterparts here. Perhaps the bigger businesses can get a special concession through the consulate but small ones cannot.
The visit of the President of Poland last summer to this country was very welcome. How splendid it would be if Her Majesty the Queen could return the visit after the establishment of free movement between our countries.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I have been wondering how an historian a hundred years from now will judge British policy in the second half of this century. Of course he will allude to the great change that is taking place in the affairs of the Soviet Union and the effect that that has had on British defence and foreign policy. However, I suspect that he will also draw a parallel between Soviet and British policy which he will say was not perceived at the time by British statesmen.
The parallel is this. The Soviet regime did not appreciate how technology was changing the world. They concentrated on heavy industry on 19th century lines and they forced this policy on their East European satellites. They developed rocketry as a natural response to the American nuclear programme. They then spent millions of resources in orbiting in outer space. Meanwhile they kept a vast army and air force in being, and they built a new navy supplying arms to any country that they hoped to bring into their orbit. In the end their economy broke down. It broke down not only because it was strangled by a gigantic bureaucracy and a corrupt party, but because it could not supply reliable consumer goods.
The historian will then point out a certain similarity in Britain. After the war we still tried to act as one of the world's arbiters. Despite our inability to pay the costs of the British zone in Germany, we alone sent forces to Korea and rearmed. We continued despite Suez and the desperate state of the pound in the 1960s and 1970s, to maintain armed forces far exceeding in strength all those of our European allies. It was thanks to Mr. Denis Healey that we at last retired from east of Suez in the late 1960s; but we still today regard as inescapable military commitments, the Falklands, Honduras and Gibraltar.
Our historian will no doubt praise our wise retirement from our former colonies, but he will note that we still regarded ourselves as the policemen of the world. 142 will also note that one of the reasons we gave for refusing to surrender that role was that we feared for our armaments industry and the unemployment that would result if that were dismantled. How could we sell arms abroad and gain much needed hard currency unless we ourselves had
112
sizeable Armed Forces'? So, like the Soviet Union, we continued subsidising heavy industry—shipbuilding, aircraft, tanks, guns, and an independent nuclear deterrent for which it is impossible, it seems to me, for any fair-minded person to imagine a situation it which it could ever be used.
Of course it can be argued that our independent nuclear deterrent deterred Russia during the cold war. But does any one believe that it was our nuclear weapons, and not the vast American arsenal, which deterred the Soviet Union? It is on that point that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and that is not always the case. We still maintain that weapon today. Against whom? If the Americans declined to use nuclear weapons in the Gulf war, when, if ever, are we likely to do so?
Meanwhile, the nations that were defeated in the Second World War—Germany and Japan—starting from ruined industry and hungry people, rebuilt their economies. They spent little or virtually nothing on defence. Today they stand as triumphant economies. The historian 100 years from now will conclude that the humiliation of defeat is a better spur than the vanity of victory to teach men how to rebuild their own dear country.
I am no sympathiser with CND. I am grateful for the American nuclear umbrella. Of course I sympathise with the feelings so ardently expressed in the debate in the House on the Defence White Paper by those who regret the amalgamation of famous regiments and the reduction in the size of the Household Brigade, aircraft squadrons and in the number of frigates. It is ironic that at a time when the British Armed Forces have never been more professional and efficient that they should be reduced in size. If our industrialists had been as efficient as our Armed Forces, we should have been able to afford far better health and educational services. The Government are to be congratulated on their decision in this matter. What we need however is an assurance that with the reduction of forces the Foreign Office will also propose a reduction in commitments.
It is impossible to ask the Government to outline our strategy for the new era because that gives away too much to those ill-disposed to us; but it is necessary, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, emphasised, for us now to restructure our Armed Forces. I say that because during the defence debate I heard it argued that since our Armed Forces might be summoned to fight anywhere in the world, so far from reducing them, we should strengthen them. It is not given to us to foresee the future, but we must make assumptions about it. We can perhaps guess at what will happen within the next 10 years. Even then, we cannot do that with certainty; but Winston Churchill was not wrong or inconsistent to plead for a reduction in defence expenditure during the 1920s, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then in the 1930s to plead for vastly increased expenditure. Until Hitler came to power there was no real threat to peace in the West.
But is it not evident that we must integrate our defence commitments with our colleagues in the European Community, while relying upon America to

113
act as the policeman of the world? I do not mean that we should join a polyglot army with uncertain leadership, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, feared we might have to. At Waterloo, Wellington commanded Dutch and Hanoverian as well as British troops, and the Prussian army was on our left flank. We should continue to operate within NATO or its equivalent. It is for that reason that I join the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in emphasising the supreme importance of the deliberations that are to take place at Maastricht and subsequent Community summits.
The aim that our Armed Forces should co-operate internationally was the conclusion of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cheshire, in his remarkable and widely praised maiden speech in which he envisaged a force emerging which could act as the policemen of the world under the auspices of the United Nations. I confess that I am not as sanguine as he is about the United Nations' role; but such a force, which must act in conjunction with American armed forces, can emerge only in the early stages within the European Community.
I have already referred to the speech made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I was very pleased to hear him say that, on this occasion at any rate, he found himself in agreement with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I say that because I thought that the most cogent speech on the White Paper was that made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. It grieved me to hear his speech at once being rubbished by a former Minister of Defence; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
If there is any lesson to be learnt from the past years, it seems to me that it is this: our survival as a power depends on our economic strength first and only secondarily on our military strength. That is the lesson which Sir Nicholas Henderson outlined to the government of the time in his farewell dispatch from Paris where he was such a notable ambassador.
There is another point I should like to make in that connection. Our Government's first priority must therefore be to strengthen our economy and to strengthen British industry, not to support lame ducks but to support the initiatives and enterprises of the leaner and tougher leaders who have survived two recessions in the 1980s. If we do not do so, and if we still intend to act militarily independent of the Community, we shall continue to suffer from what I call the Soviet syndrome. I know that that is an unpopular view to take in this House because, in a way, this Chamber is a guardian of the Armed Forces. Indeed, one can always find those who will support and pay tribute to those who have served the country in those forces. Nevertheless, I feel that I must express it.
All that depends upon our being an effective member of the Community. I greatly enjoyed the robust defence of the Treaty of Rome made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. However, I am bound to say that it simply will not do to declare that "the people" of Europe will rule the Community. Does the noble Lord envisage government by perpetual referendum? The fact is that "the people" have never
114
ruled; only their representatives can rule. I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord ought to be requested by the House to attend lectures on political theory and institutions by his noble friend Lord Beloff. That is why I believe that the Community must develop some democratic structures and safeguards. That is what we need to do in the Community. At this point I shall not proceed any further because that would lead me into making a very much longer speech.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, when Gorbachev came to power and was elected to lead the Soviet Union his intention was to rebuild that country and make it into a strong world power. Indeed, a literal translation of the word perestroika is "rebuilding". In order to achieve that aim he perceived that he would first have to end the cold war. It was a logical decision. He knew that he would not be able to outgun or outspend the United States. Secondly, he had to end the isolation of the Soviet Union in order to reintegrate it into the technical interchange with the western powers and overcome the innate resistance of Soviet bureaucracy to technical change. He also decided to end the command economy and introduce a market economy so as to release incentive and native talent. He saw what Margaret Thatcher had done and was an ardent admirer of hers.
Gorbachev then decided to end the dictatorship —he was not the first to attempt to do so; indeed, Krushchev had tried previously—and introduce democracy. But that sudden change was so startling and so unbelievable that he found it difficult to convince people, especially the Americans and Mr. Reagan, of the sincerity of his purpose. However, he embarked upon that course so as to release the native talents of the Soviet peoples. Unfortunately, democracy is not something that you can ordain. Free men are bred: they are not appointed. It takes generations, if not centuries, to be able to handle freedom. That political maturity did not exist in the Soviet Union. In circumstances where democracy is introduced too soon, it does not necessarily lead to freedom but to anarchy. That is what happened in the Soviet Union.
Possibly in a way we share responsibility for the chaos and anarchy so dangerously created in eastern Europe because Gorbachev was pushed and pushed to keep proving that he meant democracy. Although he was warned by his own people that the capacity to absorb this change did not exist and that he was going too fast, he felt that in order to keep his credibility he had to continue along that road.
The Soviet people have a simplistic attitude: in shorthand, dictatorship means oppression to them and oppression means poverty. Democracy means freedom to them and freedom means prosperity. It is as simple as that. When people discovered that it was not as simple as that, they went to the ruler, Gorbachev, and said, "Well, we voted for you, we have democracy. Where are the goodies? Where is the standard of living?"
I was recently in Moscow and in Lithuania. It is difficult for anyone from the West to understand the

115
economy of the Soviet Union. The wage for a factory employee working normal hours is £1 per week or £4 per month. The manager of a factory employing 5,000 people receives the princely wage of £5 a week. Of course he has perks and opportunities to steal from the factory, but that is the situation. There is no miracle. If one wishes to understand the Soviet economy one must look at the economy of a prison or the army. People there do not pay rent, nor do the Soviets or hardly any. People in prison or in the army do not pay for basic food or uniform or clothing nor are they paid for working. However, over the years people in the Soviet Union have settled to that and it was ultimately a "nanny" state. In other words, the government decided what were the practical essentials which were given to people at a highly subsidised price or virtually free.
If democracy does not lead to freedom but to anarchy, anarchy in turn leads to instability. Internal instability could lead to external adventurism and great danger. When the coup of the eight men took place, Gorbachev was temporarily isolated. It is said that they cut off his red telephone and took away the suitcase which held the codes for the atomic arsenal. That was a dangerous moment, near doom, and it could happen again. The world is too small now for anarchy in one place not to endanger its neighbours.
Stalin was evil but predictable. He was a chess player, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, pointed out. He was not an English sportsman. He tended to put a bet on a horse after it had passed the post. However, he was predictable whereas anarchy is not. It is accident prone.
Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, there are supposed to be 2,000 atomic weapons of one kind or another in the Ukraine which wants to be independent and create its own army. It not only possesses the 2,000 weapons; it has the personnel who are fully trained in how to handle, service and look after them. Kazakhstan and Tadjikistan are in much the sari e position. The population of Kazakhstan includes a strong Moslem fundamentalist element.
While in Russia recently I was informed that 12 tanks were sold on the black market to Iran. Some noble Lords in this House know more about atomic weapons than I do. I am nevertheless aware of the inherent danger of some half a dozen little states having the awesome power that atomic weapons would enable them to have. That power would at least give those states blackmail possibilities.
Would Saddam Hussein have used an atomic bomb in the Gulf War if he had had one? Hitler stated during his final days in the bunker that he thought the German people deserved to go down with him. Such dictators become suicidal if they cannot get their own way. We have to ask ourselves whether Yeltsin can keep all the existing weapons in the Soviet Union under his control.
The noble Lord, Lord Cheshire, said on 16th October in this House in a remarkable speech that our army should have an international role. He added that the army should be the police force of the international scene. It should be the keeper of international law and order. The United Nations has
116
respect for the sovereignty of states, but human individuals also have sovereignty that should be respected. He also said that if that were grossly violated, the United Nations should have the authority and the teeth to do something about it. Those remarks illustrate the core of the problem. The principles mentioned should be pursued in defence matters.
As regards civil matters, Yeltsin is now the only man on the horizon who has a chance—although not a certainty—of bringing some kind of order to Russian affairs. When the history of this era is written, it may be recorded that the western powers were not wise to raise the despair threshold in Russia because although the Russian people are long-suffering they are now reaching the point where they are disillusioned with everything. Such a situation is an ideal breeding ground in which a ruthless dictator may emerge. Such a person may not come from Moscow. If he inherits control over some of the Russian arsenal, he will command awesome powers of blackmail. There is perhaps still time to ensure that Yeltsin is given his chance. Unfortunately he has a weak heart. However, if the situation is allowed to deteriorate much further I shudder to think what may happen.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I must apologise in his absence to my noble friend Lord Caithness and to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the fact that, due to a long-standing engagement at a charitable function which was attended by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, I was not in my place for their speeches.
Inevitably a foreign affairs debate on the gracious Speech covers a wide territorial spread. It is not surprising that the European Community has taken up much of the debate concerning foreign affairs. There can be no quarrel with that. However, it is a little depressing that very little mention has been made of the Commonwealth. I should like to say a few words about the Commonwealth. Your Lordships will not be surprised that New Zealand comes to my mind.
Although today the Commonwealth is a dirty word to some in the media, it still plays an important part in our proceedings. Last year the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, initiated a debate on the Commonwealth for which only two and a half hours was allowed. I hope that in the present Parliament there will be a further opportunity to debate the Commonwealth, particularly following the recent conference at Harare.
Of course all is not necessarily well with the Commonwealth any more than all is well with Europe. We all make mistakes and the Commonwealth is no exception. However, we must all hope that after 1992, especially in view of the very important impending conference at Maastricht, the Commonwealth will not lose out, particularly in terms of trade and our defence relations with the Commonwealth under the Anzus pact. Our own defence forces have the closest links with Australia and New Zealand and with the other Commonwealth countries.
The statement in the gracious Speech that:

117
"My Government will Continue to support the Commonwealth",
is good news. I do not expect that this evening my noble friend the Minister will tell your Lordships how the Government intend to support the Commonwealth, because he will have a gargantuan task to reply to the points that have been raised. The wording of the gracious Speech always conjures up good intentions. The question is whether any government can put those intentions into practice. It is to be hoped that in the foreseeable future some time will be devoted to the Commonwealth, both the old Commonwealth and the new members.
Yesterday my wife and I attended a large function in the City organised by New Zealand News. It was interesting how many young New Zealanders attended that function. It was not a political function. It was very good to see so many New Zealanders and Britons getting together. It was also encouraging to discover how many young people visit Australia and New Zealand (my son worked in Australia for two years) and the number of exchange visits that take place. I am all in favour of exchange visits within Europe since it is very important that we should have a stake in Europe. It is also vitally important that we have a stake in the Commonwealth.
I now turn briefly to another part of the world in which I have an interest, namely Scandinavia and the Nordic countries, particularly Finland. I have made three visits to Finland. We have far more links with that country than many people think. As has been said, we hope that the European Community will embrace Finland, Sweden, Iceland and possibly other Nordic countries and in the future—who knows?—possibly the Baltic states. It is ironic that the new developments in Russia have hit Finland hard as much of its trade, particularly in energy, was done with the Soviet Union. That has hit extremely hard a country which had a fine gross national product. When people ask what or where Helsinki is, it is worth mentioning that the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty discussions took place in that city.
A month ago my wife and I were in Denmark. I was speaking at a conference organised by the Registered Nursing Home Association—not a subject germane to today's debate. We were impressed, as I was when I first visited Denmark in 1968, by the important links between Denmark and Norway and this country. Those of us here this evening who are old enough to remember the days of the last war will know how much we owe to the armies, navies, air forces and civilians of the Scandinavian countries, particularly Norway and Denmark. We should bear that point in mind when we consider Europe.
I hope that I am not a Little Englander. I do not in any way deprecate the European Community. It is obvious that we have to become part of Europe, but I look forward to the day when we have an association with the countries which care about us. In Europe, those are the Scandinavian and Nordic countries which have done so much for us.
I conclude by making a plea to the Government with regard to the Commonwealth. We must all
118
welcome the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Australia next year—a well-timed visit as there is a great deal of irresponsible comment at present about Australia going republican and not liking royalty. When I was there four years ago on a Commonwealth parliamentary delegation, that was certainly not the case. We all wish Her Majesty well in her visit to Australia.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Cheshire: My Lords, before I embark on what I have in mind, I feel constrained to make one response to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, because it is something that I have heard said by a number of people. She said that Britain stood alone in 1940. With all respect, I have to say that we never stood alone. From the outset the entire Commonwealth and all the dominions were behind us.. Literally from the first day, Australians packed their bags and began to make their way towards us to fight our war. They came from New Zealand and the entire sub-continent of India, from East Africa, Southern and South Africa, West Africa, the West Indies, in tens of thousands from Canada and from the United States. By June 1940 every occupied European country had already organised its resistance. If I labour that point it is because I feel privileged to be able to acknowledge the debt that we in Britain owe to all those people in the dominions, in the Commonwealth and in occupied Europe.
I want to confine myself to defence and make two fairly simple points, both interrelated and both going to the very heart of the issue. With your Lordships' indulgence, I shall start by making a personal statement, because the timing of this debate —the moment of time in which we stand—makes such an inescapable impact on me.
The day before yesterday was All Souls Day, the day when the Church directs our thoughts and prayers to those who have died. The coming Sunday is Remembrance Sunday. We have entered remem-brance week: the week in which in the inner silence of our hearts we should confront the nightmare of world war with the dream of world peace. The dream should give us hope, strength and resolve to work together as one world. The nightmare should, among other things, make us humble, because the nightmare consists not only of tens of millions of lives lost in war and devastation on an almost unbelievable scale, but of devastating miscalculations, political and also, I fear, military.
Listening to this debate has impressed upon me that everybody is genuinely, from the bottom of his heart, seeking the right solution and it is clear that an immense amount of thought has gone into what is required by way of a defence capability. But I venture to say that, no matter how able we are, no matter what experts we have consulted nor how hard we have tried, in the tremendous, bewildering changes that we are facing we cannnot be certain that we have got it right. Those who went before us in public office were good men. Look at the mistakes they made. Can we say that

119
we are better? We need to be very cautious before we can truly say, "We think we have not made the mistakes they made".
There were just two points that worried me a little in the two speeches that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, made on the 16th of last month. He talked about unexpected crises and said that they were unexpected as regards location and timing and that the initiative lay with the aggressor. That may have been true, but if so we need to take steps to wrest away the initiative in future; in other words, we must take the necessary steps to foresee what will happen. I do not believe that it would have been too difficult to foresee the Argentinian attack on the Falklands, but I suspect that the reason we did not do so was that our entire intelligence effort was directed towards the Soviet Union.
Yes, the unexpected will happen. The noble Earl said that the Government were fairly confident that they could cope with another Gulf war—another unexpected development. However, that relates to unexpectedness in timing and location. What about unexpectedness in the nature of the attack? I do not wish to be alarmist, but I believe that one of the problems we face is that of a future aggressor who, as the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, said, realises that he has come to the end of his time. Hitler said as he died, "The German people were not worthy of me". He would willingly have brought the world down with him if he, had had the means. We cannot say that such a thing will not happen again. We have heard from many noble Lords that nuclear weapons are fairly easily available. The armed forces know how to deal with a military attack. We can even hope that a missile attack can be thwarted.
But there are other delivery systems. The world's skies are criss-crossed by domestic airlines flying scheduled flights. What if one of them, doing everything outwardly as it should do, contained a lethal cargo? As it came into a westerly wind over the Thames it issued a May Day call, saying, "I've lost control of my aircraft," and went into a spiralling dive aimed at Westminster. How could the armed forces deal with that? They could not. They could take reprisals, yes, but they could not stop it.
The only way that such an event could be stopped is by building up our intelligence. We could not do it alone, but only in conjunction with all our allies. That is another argument in favour of working to the utmost of our ability and strength towards a strong United Nations and a strong global peacekeeping force with highly developed intelligence services that can isolate the potential aggressor and foresee what he will do.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, speaking in your Lordships' House is always a very alarming experience. Speaking after the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cheshire, is a particularly humbling one. I shall therefore try to emulate in my speech what my noble friend the Leader of the House said about the coming Session: it will he shorter than usual.
120
However, there are two points that I wish to raise. The first is about defence. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on his splendid, informed and downright maiden speech, in which, as one would expect, he flew straight to the heart of the problem, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Our forces, like elastic, can stretch only a certain extent. If cut down too far they will not be able to meet their commitments.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and, not surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, also made the point about overstocking with nuclear weapons. If as a housewife I have to feed a large family, rather than keep two tins of caviar in my store cupboard for special guests, for the same price I shall stock one tin of caviar and 50 tins of baked beans. I may never use the caviar but the baked beans will come in very handy. As did the noble Lords, Lord Fanshawe and Lord Callaghan, I reiterate: please, please think again about cutting the Army, in particular the Household Brigade and the Scottish regiments.
My second point is about Czechoslovakia, which I, together with other noble Lords, our spouses and Members of another place had the good fortune to visit last month. We were in Bohemia, which was friendly, smiling and coming well out of its communist past. Everyone we met in office was new to the job. The mayor of Prague had been mayor only for three months, although he had been a councillor for a year. The head of the Foreign Office had, as a non-communist, been kept demoted until two years ago. Many of the nice and enthusiastic Members of Parliament had been there for only a year. They were young, keen and seeking a democratic future in which they hoped to achieve qualification to join the European Community.
We did not visit Slovakia, although we heard much of Slovakian independence. There is to be a referendum in December. Slovakia, formerly part of Hungary and predominantly agricultural, was only incorporated as a federal state with Bohemia in 1918 when Tomas Masaryk was looking for non-German allies to make a big enough state to be a viable entity after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire. With 4 million Slovaks and 6 million Czechs, the country was big enough (with Moravia and Silesia) to stand on its own, so Czechoslovakia was created. But there were massive differences not only of nationality but of religion. The Czechs were largely Hussite Protestants; the Slovaks Catholics. The Czechs had, as Bohemia, had a long history of separate nationhood. The Slovaks have never been a separate nation.
Under the communist regime, much heavy industry, including arms factories, has been built in rural Slovakia. Many of these are 40 years old and environmentally very unfriendly indeed. Most of the power stations and all the oil refineries are situated in Slovakia as well as the arms factories, which employ 200,000 people. There are also well founded suspicions that many of the public service employees and some of the politicians in the Slovakian Parliament are still hard-line communists. These, combined with the

121
Slovak nationalists, make a powerful and sinister alliance. We can only hope for the future of the Slovak people that the December referendum will not take them along the path of isolation and communism.
Eighty-five per cent. of the investment in Czechoslovakia comes from Germany and very little from Britain. After the Czech nation of Bohemia was totally crushed by the Austrians in 1620 at the Battle of the White Mountain, it had little real independence until 1918, and that lasted only for 20 years. Now it is once more an independent nation. It can surely not be coincidence that the Christian name of President Havel is the same of that of the patron saint of Bohemia; our own Good King Wenceslas.
At the Battle of the White Mountain the Czechs looked in vain for help from our King James VI, father of their Winter Queen. Now, 370 years later, let us give every help we can to the nation of Czechoslovakia. As their patron saint's carol says:
"Wherefore Christian men be sure,
Health and wealth possessing,
Ye who now do bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing".
9.48 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wish to add a few words to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, on the importance of Britain's role in looking after the implementation of the Sino-British agreement for the future of Hong Kong. Last week I returned from a short visit to Hong Kong where I found a great improvement in both commerce and spirit from the situation that I observed in November 1990. During a difficult two years Hong Kong has benefited from steady government. I believe that we owe a particular tribute for this to the governor of Hong Kong, Sir David Wilson, and his deputy, Sir David Ford.
The direct negotiations with China through the joint liaison group, which more or less came to a halt after Tiananmen Square are now, at last, under way again. The year of the snail has ended. We have not yet reached the year of the hare. Perhaps we should be content to move at the steady and purposeful rate of the tortoise.
One major development has been the success of the first democratic elections to Hong Kong's legislative council—18 out of 60 seats. I should like to congratulate Mr. Martin Lee on winning 16 of those seats. I am sure that we all wish to salute his courage and integrity in standing up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong against threats from China.
Recently there was some local criticism that Mr. Lee has not been appointed to the governor's executive council. That criticism is ill-founded. Mr. Lee made it clear that he would not wish to be bound by the collective responsibility of that body and would wish to be free publicly to pursue his dissent from its decisions. If that were to be allowed, it would turn the executive council into a mere advisory body to the governor and thus remove an important component from participatory—one cannot yet say democratic —government in Hong Kong.
122
I urge also the democrats in the legislative council to consider carefully before exercising their indisputable right of free speech to campaign for political reform inside China. I understand that seven of the 16 are members of the Hong Kong alliance in support of the patriotic and democratic movement in China. That alliance was founded in the aftermath of Tiananmen—and understandably so.
The bedrock of the 1984 agreement upon which Hong Kong's future depends is the concept of "one country, two systems". That means that China must not interfere with the internal politics of Hong Kong. I hope that we here will be vigilant in discouraging China from doing so.
However, it does not seem to me to be sensible for the democrats to use their cherished right to free speech to advocate political change inside China. I would remind those who are tempted to do so that in the four decades which followed 1949 it proved necessary to ensure that the political activities of the Kuomintang inside Hong Kong were discouraged from provoking China. Indeed there may have been occasions when such restraint—it was mainly voluntary restraint—was crucial in ensuring the survival of Hong Kong.
I fear that I do not agree with those who claim that democracy in Hong Kong is not possible without democracy in China. Indeed, the difference between reform in China and the Soviet Union is that in Russia there has been much glasnost but not much perestroika. In China, perestroika has come first. Although we are right to remind China of the importance we attach to human rights, we should not seek to demand that they embrace glasnost at a rate faster than they think fit.
There is, however, a crucial and positive role for the new democratic component of LEGCO: that it should put an independent view on economic policy in Hong Kong. The most serious economic problem facing Hong Kong at present is inflation. The economy is clearly overheated, and with full employment and, once again, a booming property market, inflation is currently at 11.5 per cent. It has been damagingly high for the past four years. If that continues, the link between the Hong Kong dollar and the American dollar could come under pressure. As your Lordships will remember, that link was established at 7.80 Hong Kong dollars to 1 US dollar in September 1983 and successfully underpinned the Hong Kong dollar at a moment of great political uncertainty. Since September 1983 consumer prices in Hong Kong have risen by 75 per cent. while those in the United States by only 36 per cent. over the same period. Purchasing power parity arithmetic would suggest that an exchange rate of about 10 Hong Kong dollars to 1 US dollar would now be appropriate.
However, the September 1983 fixing link greatly undervalued the Hong Kong dollar's real economic strength. And the effect on Hong Kong's commercial industrial costs of rising domestic wages has been diluted by the low Chinese labour costs from which much of Hong Kong's mainland production now

123
comes. The extent of this production inside south China was spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose.
The Hong Kong Government are shortly to unveil their anti-inflation package. It is expected to include measures for the importation of contract labour from China. Frankly, I view that prospect with apprehension and unease. I fear social disruption could follow on both sides of the border. The importation of contract labour has too strong a 19th Century flavour for my taste. It is said that the use of monetary policy is limited by the perceived wisdom that Hong Kong interest rates must stick closely to American interest rates to avoid exchange rate pressures. I should like to see that assumption tested in the markets. Noble Lords will at once recognise in this a parallel with the problems of the European monetary system.
Perhaps I may end on an optimistic note. I believe that China is as increasingly dependent on Hong Kong, as Hong Kong is on China. I see signs that this is recognised at the highest levels of the Chinese leadership. There is much goodwill towards Hong Kong inside China in the places where it matters most. I was greatly encouraged to read the words of the director of the Hong Kong and Macao office of the State Council of China, Mr. Lu Ping, the top official responsible for Chinese policy on Hong Kong, when he said at a seminar in London on 16th September this year:
"I would like to give you my personal pledge that I will spare no efforts and will do everything possible within my power to see that in Hong Kong the policy of 'one country and two systems', as well as all the policies enshrined first in the Sino-British declaration and later in the Basic Law, will be fully observed and properly carried out".
That, my Lords, for a Chinese mandarin is indeed a positive statement.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government are making serious efforts to adjust their defence policy to the new world situation. But in some respects it seems to us on these Benches to be unduly hesitant and indeed misguided. We had one example in the speech of the noble a ad gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who stated that he had at last found an important aspect of defence policy on which he agreed with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The whole House waited breathlessly to hear what that aspect was. He said that in the new situation this country is over-insured in its nuclear capability. That is profoundly true and important.
In our last debate I asked why the British are now building two devastating new nuclear weapons systems, not only Trident but also a new sub-strategic tactical air-to-surface missile (TASM). The noble Earl did me the courtesy of sending me a reasoned reply by letter. He justified the sub-strategic weapons system by saying:
"The knowledge on the part of a potential aggressor that NATO has this link between its conventional and strategic forces is an essential part of deterrence".
That is a strange throwback to the military thinking of the 1970s and 1980s and to the doctrine of flexible
124
response which the Government defended with enormous zeal and which has now been abandoned by NATO.
I have never questioned Britain's need to possess nuclear weapons. I confess that I have two neckties bearing Polaris insignia. One of them was presented to me about 25 years ago by the Polaris executive for defending Polaris against unilateralists in the Labour Party. The other necktie was presented to me about 15 years ago for defending Polaris against unilateralists in the Liberal Party. Therefore, I claim the right to speak critically not of Britain's possession of nuclear weapons, but of this Government's extraordinary decision to build up not one but two nuclear weapons systems. The Government say that NATO needs as a deterrent Britain's sub-strategic weapons as well as Trident, and as well as the United States' strategic weapons and sub-strategic weapons. In other words, according to the Government, NATO might be confronted by an aggressor who would not be deterred by its conventional forces or by strategic nuclear weapons; neither would the aggressor be deterred by the Americans' nuclear strategic weapons nor by their sub-strategic weapons. However, it may be deterred if, in addition, Britain had sub-strategic nuclear weapons.
That scenario is not credible; it is preposterous. The Government might do better if they put their case for TASM on the basis of the needs of Britain or Europe. They might argue that Europe or Britain alone might be faced with nuclear blackmail without the support of the United States. For example, Libya or Iraq possessing nuclear weapons might not be deterred by Britain's ability to deliver a warhead with pinpoint accuracy by submarine, but they might be deterred by Britain's ability to deliver a warhead by aircraft. The Government might argue that. They do not argue that because it is not credible. I say to the noble Earl that we on these Benches will need much greater justification for spending billions of pounds on this new nuclear weapons system than we have had so far.
In this debate we have had new warnings from noble Lords opposite about the inadequacy of our resources. However, there is a different reasoning behind their arguments this time. When the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, moved the Motion on defence in June, we had chilling speeches from the Benches opposite about the size of the Soviet defence budget and its remaining submarine and tank capability. At that time I said that it was not enough to count the Soviet forces; one also has to ask which side they are on. That was true then and it is even truer now.
The ethnic divisions which are disintegrating the Soviet forces are so fierce, deep and old-established that it is hard to believe that powerful Soviet forces can be re-established for several decades, if they are ever re-established. That produces problems. How can we get the CFE and START treaties implemented on the Russian side? To whom do the weapons belong? With whom do we negotiate? We would urge the Government now to make the closest contacts with the republics in order to insist on the fulfilment of the disarmament and arms controls obligations entered into by the former Soviet Government. That produces

125
problems, but it also produces a vast relief and a chance to have major reductions in defence expenditure and reductions in forces manpower.
Judging from this debate noble Lords opposite—those who criticise the Government—now accept that Soviet military power has disintegrated. However, they continue to demand more army manpower in the new situation. Of course, we still have commitments and we must fulfil them and have the resources to fulfil them. But singly or together they are not on the same scale as the old departed commitment to deter and, if necessary, to defeat an all out Soviet conventional attack on the West. Moreover, with the end of the Soviet threat—which is now universally accepted in this House—the remaining commitments can, with far less difficulty, be reinforced if necessary from British troops in Germany and the United Kingdom.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is in his place. He will forgive me, I hope, if I say that when he attacked Options for Change as being Treasury led, I could not help recalling the decisions on defence taken in 1966 when he was a strong and able Chancellor of the Exchequer. He laid down an absolutely tight ceiling of £2,000 million for the defence budget, as a result of which the Government decided, whilst staying east of Suez, keeping all our defence commitments east of Suez, to scrap the aircraft carriers. That was an outrageous decision which led inevitably to the resignation of the First Sea Lord and of myself as Navy Minister. The noble Lord will forgive me, but that was a Treasury led defence policy.
It is a very strange Chancellor of the Exchequer who does not demand cuts in defence expenditure. It is a very strange Cabinet in which all the other spending Ministers do not gang up against the Defence Minister on the side of the Treasury, hoping to get bigger budgets for themselves.
Nothing has been produced in this House to suggest that the Cabinet that decided on Options for Change went through anything out of the ordinary or anything different from the usual bun fight.
A number of noble Lords have referred to NATO. We on these Benches entirely agree that the fact that NATO has triumphantly fulfilled the purpose for which it was formed certainly does not mean that it can now be wound up. The obligation for mutual defence must remain; so must the habit of constant
126
consultation; so also, for a period, must the United States forces. We need their surveillance and their intelligence capability which is unparalleled in the world. Surely that need should not prevent the need for maintaining NATO. I am very glad to see that the Government are encouraging consultations with east European countries. We on these Benches do not agree with not allowing those countries to join NATO. There should be consultation and mutual support and mutual exchange of information. All these things need not and should not prevent the emergence of a specifically European defence structure. Surely in time it will become unacceptably anomalous that the European Community should have the same trade and aid policy, increasingly the same foreign policy and yet have nothing whatever to do with defence. That is not a viable situation.
We on these Benches welcome the Government's decision to develop the WEU. If we were told more about it, we might welcome the Anglo-Italian agreement about which the Government are strangely silent. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will tell us more about the state of play between the different concepts of the Anglo-Italian agreement and the Franco-German proposed European army. Why should not the development of the WEU lead in due course to a European defence community; with a Council of European Defence Ministers meeting regularly; and with a Community directorate-general for defence?
At one time there were 250,000 American soldiers in Europe. Soon there will be 50,000 only, and yet the command structure for European defence is wholly United States dominated. Surely that must now be changed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what line the British Government will take on Wednesday and Thursday of this week at the NATO summit which will be discussing that issue. On these Benches we feel that the time has now come for a primarily European command structure for the defence of Europe. We trust that the Government will take a positive line in that direction.
On the level of defence forces and the future structure of European defence, the Government's approach seems unduly hesitant and slow. The most charitable explanation is that Ministers are scared of their Back-Benchers. If that is so, they are timid souls indeed!
10.12 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the speeches that we have heard leave little doubt as to the testing and dramatic phase through which international affairs have moved in the past year. The debate has been characterised, as it so often is, by the experience and knowledge of many of the speakers. I should like from these Benches to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on his impressive maiden speech. I must admit that I found myself wondering which caused him more fear—facing the enemy on the battlefield or their Lordships on the occasion of his maiden speech. I came to the conclusion that he was probably fearless in both situations. We congratulate him on his authoritative and informative speech.
Many speakers pointed to the good news: during the year peace has won victories on several fronts; notably in Angola, Ethiopia and Mozambique. Now there is even a glimmer of hope coming from the peace negotiations between the north and the south in Sudan. We have also seen South Africa enter a new phase, with a fairer and more equitable future facing its people. We applauded the signing in Paris, about a week ago only, of the Cambodia agreement to end the tragic conflict in that country.
We hope also, as has been said many times during the debate, that good will flow from the Middle East Madrid conference. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, we are happy that the representatives of those countries have agreed to meet and talk to one another.
More sombrely, we recognise that conflict continues in Afghanistan; that the Yugoslav people are suffering the most brutal of civil wars; and that 29 million Africans south of the Sahara face starvation as a result of drought, exacerbated by civil war, internal debt and overpopulation. We also recognise that there are still many governments with appalling human rights records.
The majority of speakers have concentrated upon events in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and Britain's position within the European Community. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn asked some important questions about the Government's intentions at Maastricht. I hope that the Minister will give us some more precise information about how the Government intend to speak at that all-important meeting. I also hope that he will take note of the encouragement given to him by his noble friend Lord Cockfield that the Government should follow the spirit as well as the letter of the obligations which we undertook in 1973. However, there was a great deal of dissent in the speeches which came from the Benches opposite. He may perhaps find it rather difficult to know how to answer, therefore.
My noble friend also put some questions to the Minister regarding Options for Change. Many speeches have been most critical of the Government's defence policy. I hope that we shall be hearing more about that from the Minister. I should like to ask him one question on the defence side of the debate. Can he say, in the light of the recent nuclear disarmament initiatives made by Presidents Bush and Gorbachev, when Her Majesty's Government will enter the disarmament process? Can he also outline the
128
direction which the development of Britain's nuclear forces will take, in particular as regards the size and composition of the arsenal required?
I shall now leave those parts of the debate which have received so much attention and address my few and brief remarks first to our policies on overseas development, secondly to Britain's response to human rights abuse and thirdly to the need for support for the UN in the very challenging role it is facing in various parts of the world.
My noble friend Lord Judd gave a very good background to the state of countries in the third world. We must ask ourselves: what are the Government's overseas development policies and what do we, as one of the world's richest countries, do to redress the balance between North and South? The answer must be that we do not do nearly enough. Over the past decade the Government have in no way made sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty in third world countries a priority. Their overseas aid budget has fallen to an all-time low since the OECD first started recording such figures. I know that those figures are often addressed to the Government, but I believe that one cannot say often enough that a mere 0.2 per cent. of GNP is really a miserable amount for a country of our wealth to offer towards overseas development.
The Minister for Overseas Development, who has many fans in this House, among whom I certainly count myself, would obviously like a larger budget and has often said so. But because of the very low priority given by the Government to her department she is in a very weak position to fight the Treasury in order to obtain more money. I believe that that stresses the necessity to underline the importance attached to aid and development policy which we on these Benches support. The Labour Party plans to establish a separate department of state for development and co-operation which would be headed by a Cabinet Minister. I believe that that is the only way to ensure that the UN aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP would be met. That is the intention of the Labour Party.
Her Majesty's Government attach importance to aid conditionality. They believe that good government should be rewarded, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to that in his opening speech. Here I can but agree that there should be some way for democratic countries to register disapproval of tyrannical governments who have no respect for human rights and who make their own people suffer. However, I believe, first, that such a policy must be applied consistently. That is not the case with the British Government, who, for example, do not have a bilateral aid programme with Vietnam—despite the poverty of that country—because its regime falls short on democratic practice but who have maintained one of the highest levels of assistance going to Kenya, despite President Moi's record on human rights at the moment, which leaves a great deal to be desired. I feel there must be some consistency in the policy, but also that, to compensate those people suffering the double disadvantage of bad government plus a lack of foreign aid, increased funding should be given to those

129
humanitarian agencies and NGOs which work to relieve poverty and disease in all countries irrespective of their politics.
Here I must give the example of UNICEF, which has an unprecedented record of working with all shades of government throughout the world. The Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, told me a few weeks ago that government funding of the UK committee of UNICEF in 1989–90 of £9 million had never been higher. That sounds good, but he omitted to say that, despite that, Britain has slipped in the table of contributors from sixth place in 1988 to 12th place in 1990. In view of the enormous, immeasurable help that UNICEF gives to the poorest people in third world countries, and to keep up with the generosity of other countries, surely we should do better.
While on the subject of aid conditionality, we believe there should be a stick and carrot element in our aid policies. For example, when British Ministers speak of the operation of good government, they do not include anti-poverty strategies. Yet we believe that the socially progressive governments of developing countries who emphasise jobs, land reforms and policies to reduce poverty should be encouraged with increased aid. The prime objective of all aid programmes must be to reduce the number of people living in poverty. This should be brought about by every means.
Moving to the subject of the welfare of children worldwide —they always suffer most from the effects of poverty—I wish to ask the Minister, when he replies, to say when the Government will ratify the convention on the rights of the child. We know that there are various problems for the Government but nevertheless the time has come to anticipate a date, since nine countries have ratified the convention and it would be good to have a date when Britain will do the same.
I also wish to know whether, in accordance with the plan of action and declaration made at the world summit for children, Britain has adjusted its aid programmes to focus more on the needs of women and children. I wish to ask the Minister whether he has taken note of the disquieting report published last week by the international study team on the Gulf crisis which describes the plight of Iraq's children following the war. The 87 researchers from different countries concluded that the only way to prevent a tragically high child mortality rate this winter was to lift sanctions on Iraq's non-military exports to enable the Iraqis to buy food, medicines and spare parts to rebuild their infrastructure. I noted what the noble Earl said about the political position regarding Iraq, but the humanitarian position is becoming a matter of great concern.
As I said at the start of my speech, human rights abuse is still evident among governments in many parts of the world. Indonesia's illegal occupation of East Timor and the cruel oppression of its people is one example. Yet, despite the Foreign Secretary's statement on human rights and the recent Commonwealth initiative, the UK Government are still selling arms to Indonesia. I believe that, as my
130
noble friend Lord Judd said, the whole policy on arms sales should be reviewed. To sell arms to a country which has annexed its neighbour and treated it so cruelly is unbelievable.
I am happy that my noble friend and several speakers today mentioned the leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma and expressed their admiration not only for her Nobel Peace Prize award but also for her courageous commitment to non-violence and democracy. I hope the Minister will say whether Her Majesty's Government are willing to assist that country in a practical way. Although we are agreed it is quite right to withhold aid from such a regime, would it not be useful to help those who have suffered from the system such as the thousands of student refugees on the Thai and Bangladeshi borders for whom an education programme has been set up by the voluntary agency, Prospect Burma, but which badly needs funds?
Several speakers have referred to South-East Asia and have remarked how the situation there is changing rapidly. We certainly welcome the agreement with Vietnam concerning the repatriation of the boat people. However, we stress that the successful rehabilitation of those unfortunate people in their own country depends enormously on the improvement of the Vietnamese economy which in turn depends on the normalisation of the USA's relations with Vietnam and the consequent unblocking of World Bank and IMF restrictions. We urge the Government to do what they can to hasten the process of the normalisation of relations.
We also welcome the first elections to take place in Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, spoke of that matter. We offer Mr. Martin Lee our congratulations on his success in those elections. We on these Benches feel that the election process should be accelerated. We hope that in the 1995 elections a larger number of elected representatives will be voted into office. I understand that LEGCO shares that desire.
We also welcome the signing of the Cambodia peace treaty but stress that the UN will need support from all its members in its role of overseeing the ceasefire, carrying out the repatriation scheme and maintaining the peace until the elections take place. That will be the biggest and the most complex operation ever to take place in the history of the UN.
In his opening speech the noble Earl spoke of the vital role of the United Nations today. The world expects a great deal from the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Cheshire, attributed a peacekeeping role to the UN. However, at present the UN is in a sad financial state. It is owed 1.3 billion dollars. That presents a sombre picture when one considers that so much is expected of the organisation at the present time.
It is evident from the debate that we look forward to the coming year with some apprehension. We foresee that many momentous international decisions will have to be taken regarding eastern Europe, the Community, the United Nations, the Middle East and the developing world. We very much hope that the British Government will play an effective role in that

131
decision-making within the framework that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn mentioned of the EC, NATO, the UN and the Commonwealth.
10.28 p m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the extraordinary events of the past three years and those which continue to unfold so rapidly before us are the clearest example possible of the interaction, interdependence and indeed the partnership between foreign and defence policy. That partnership is the theme of our debate today. It resides in the recognition that Britain's security is founded not only on the bedrock of defence provided by our armed forces, but also in the robust good health of its political, economic and cultural life. Our security will be maintained by our policy of defence and deterrence and through the links of common interest we can forge with our allies and former adversaries.
In mentioning defence and security I join other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on his fine maiden speech. I do not need to remind your Lordships of the immense contribution he made as chief of the defence staff during that most difficult but nevertheless highly successful conflict in the Gulf. His generous words on those who fought and those who fell in that conflict were most moving.
For much of the past 40 years our relationship with the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies was based on mutual antagonism and was symbolised by that stark phrase, the Iron Curtain. Indeed, very often there was little interaction and no empathy, the core of any relationship. Thankfully, that has evaporated and with it the ideological hostility which characterised the era. Despite all the current uncertainties and the multiplicity of issues which face us we are able to discuss them with an increasing degree of mutual understanding and indeed perception of shared interest.
In its most positive dimension we see this expressed in the quickening pace of arms control agreements undreamed of in the obscurantism and rigidity of the past. The INF agreement was signed in 1987, CFE in November 1990 and START earlier this year. Those bilateral and multilateral agreements were followed in late September by President Bush's historic announcement of unilateral cuts in the American nuclear capability, followed a week later by President Gorbachev's welcome response. Britain has reacted positively to these events and is playing a leading role in the development of alliance strategy.
In the past our links with the Soviet Union were at best rudimentary; today we meet at ever more regular intervals, not only at ministerial level but also at official and service level covering an increasing variety of issues. We are looking forward to establishing regular meetings between the defence staff and their Soviet counterparts.
Our commitment to dialogue and understanding through increased contact and friendship found further expression during Operation Dervish 91, the visit of HMS "London" to Murmansk and Archangel. The voyage of HMS "London" commemorated the
132
50th anniversary of the first arctic convoy to reach Archangel and the celebrations included over 100 veterans from the Second World War. I gather they had a good run ashore.
In his opening speech my noble friend Lord Caithness spoke with optimism of the new climate of international relations, full of opportunities and challenges. The last year has been something of a roller coaster. There are enhanced prospects for peace and progress in areas where conflict seemed both unending and intractable. We are in an era of profound and rapid change. Many of the underlying assumptions of international relations for the last 45 years have been swept aside.
The inventory of change in the past few years has been extensively catalogued before and I shall not dwell on it at length tonight. Your Lordships have referred to many of its dimensions. It is still less than two years since the Berlin Wall came down. It is less than three months since the failure of the coup against President Gorbachev—the final evidence of the bankruptcy of the communist system. It is only a month since President Gorbachev gave his response to the United States' initiative on reductions in force levels. Perhaps the most surprising feature of the revolution that has taken place in recent years, and it is most certainly that, has been the pace and the depth of change.
The picture I have painted reflects the roller coaster. But lest it be thought I see the world through rose-coloured spectacles, there are the downturns. Of course we welcome the reforms which have taken place in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, but our optimism must be qualified by a strong sense of realism. Risks remain although different in their form and for the most part much reduced in their immediacy. That being so we must continue to provide for our security through the principles of dialogue, defence and co-operation set out by NATO Ministers in their meetings this year.
It is accepted that the countries of western Europe should take on a greater responsibility for their security and that of their interests. That has been reflected in the ongoing debate on European security and defence. The UK has contributed positively to that debate throughout, and we welcome the concept of a European defence identity so long as that is compatible with the NATO alliance. I can say to both my noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Beloff that we shall not exclude the Americans. We see the continued need for defence because of continued uncertainty. We see that the safest and surest defence is through NATO. NATO could not exist without the Americans.
The United Kingdom is keen to reach agreement, but that cannot be at any price. There is still much to be done if we are to reach agreement on the issue, which has become increasingly central to the current political union negotiations for a common foreign and security policy as well as to the debate within NATO and the WEU.
There are a number of proposals on the table. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we believe the Anglo-Italian declaration on

133
European security and defence of 4th October represents a genuine move forward. It sets out a practical and balanced way of developing a European defence identity that is wholly compatible with a reformed North Atlantic alliance. In so doing, it demonstrates how a continued and reformed transatlantic alliance can and should accommodate the process of European union.
However, above all, and notwithstanding positive developments on the evolution of the European pillar, the principal focus for our security and defence needs remains NATO—a fact firmly acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—not merely because it has served us so well in the past but because it contains the political and military structures which can be developed for our future needs. To put it baldly, NATO works. Politically, it reflects the interdependence of Europe and the United States and, militarily, it has provided a crisis management organisation for both deterrence and, if that fails, defence. Those requirements are no less important today than three years ago. Certainly, NATO will not remain static; its doctrines and its institutions are evolving to meet new circumstances.
The alliance's defence ministers discussed progress on NATO's new strategic concept at their meeting in Taormina on 17th-18th October. The concept will be submitted for approval to the meeting of NATO Heads of Government at the Rome summit on 7th-8th November. We anticipate that it will be published, although it is too soon to reveal details of its contents.
During today's debate a number of your Lordships returned to the theme of reductions in the Armed Forces and particularly the Army. We debated this matter at some length a little over two weeks ago. The international situation is now markedly different from what it was two or three years ago. As I said earlier, many of the underlying assumptions of international relations of the past 45 years have disappeared. Your Lordships would be rightly critical of the Government if they took no notice of such developments.
As a result of those developments, we have assessed what scope there is for changes in our future commitments. Although I shall return to this point in a moment, I must say again to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that Options for Change was strategically originated and not cash-driven. Further, when I visit units as I do most regularly, I do not find that scepticism exists as regards future resources for our Armed Forces. On the contrary, I find morale to be high and servicemen and women looking forward to being better equipped, trained and housed.
I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Fanshawe who said that I did not answer any of the questions in the defence debate a few weeks ago. I answered one of his questions and the questions of many other noble Lords. I have written to those I did not answer, and I am still in the process of writing. I take this opportunity to say that the same process will apply tonight as regards the questions that I cannot answer. Either I or my noble friend Lord Caithness will write to the noble Lords concerned.
134
However, I intend to answer two of the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Fanshawe. He asked about the Household Cavalry. The structure of the combined regiment will mean that the Household Cavalry mounted regiment will be made up, as it is now, of one Life Guards and one Blues and Royals squadron. As there has been no change to the Household Cavalry mounted regiment, there is no need for an increment to assist with public duties.
My noble friend also spoke of the problems of a territorial yeomanry unit in northern England and the simulation of gunfire at Sandhurst. Both those situations have been caused by a problem in the supply of some types of training ammunition. Supplies do not currently exist in the quantities required to meet the demands of all users. However, our aim is to rectify that as soon as possible.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan, Lord Chalfont and Lord Greenhill, all spoke of the need for more resources to meet our future commitments. They suggested that we would have insufficient resources to meet our future commitments once reductions under Options for Change had been implemented. The programme to restructure Britain's Armed Forces arose as a direct result of the wide-ranging political, strategic and military changes which have taken place in Europe over the past three years. Once again, I can assure your Lordships that it has not been driven by some financial, arbitrary target. We are planning for prudent and measured change.
The opportunity to realise savings on expenditure must be taken but not at the expense of our determination to maintain strong and flexible forces which will be able to meet fully all our operational commitments. We are fully satisfied that there will be sufficient capacity within infantry role units and other arms to meet the full range of peacetime operational commitments while permitting adequate training in wartime roles and meeting readiness requirements of the RRC.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the Leader of the Opposition, and my noble friends Lord Fanshawe and Lady Strange spoke of the Scottish regiments as well as other regiments and the amalgamations. I can confirm that all decisions on the amalgamations of the regular regiments, including the Scottish regiments, are final and that these amalgamations will be implemented over the next three to four years. Of course if, over that period, we find that we have taken on a large number of extra commitments for one reason or another which the Army at its then size cannot meet, we shall clearly have to look again at the decisions that have been taken.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, went on to speak about the reserves. As I have said before to your Lordships' House, it is our intention to retain strong professional forces supported by well trained reserves. Although a Statement on the future of the Reserve and Territorial Army is not expected until next month, I can say now that the essential role of the reserve forces will be maintained in our new force structure. The reduced threat from the Soviet Union will allow them to carry out substantial portions of the

135
defence of the United Kingdom currently sustained by the Regular Army. That will both increase the role of the reserves and reduce the overstretch on regular infantry battalions. I can also confirm that we shall provide the necessary funding to sustain the strength of the TA which emerges after the restructuring.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth pointed out the extent of change in the military in the Soviet Union. I agree that the Kremlin wants to end East-West confrontation, but the process of positive change is beset by uncertainty. The future is not necessarily benign. We must maintain our guard against instability in the East just as we did against hostility from the East—again as outlined by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cheshire.
Moving on to foreign affairs, in particular I should like to start first with Maastricht, on which many differing views and opinions were expressed, including those pat forward by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. I should like to re-emphasise what my noble friend Lord Caithness said in opening the debate. We want agreement but not at any price, as my noble friend Lady Elles pointed out. Now that we are in the thick of negotiations, your Lordships would not expect me to divulge the detail of our negotiating position. But we are working hard to reach agreement. The treaty will be in two parts: that strange bird the EMU; and a bird as new to politics as to ornithology—the EPU. On EMU it looks as if finance Ministers will thresh out a good agreement. The economic and monetary union should help business and the general public and will be based firmly on economic convergence. The anxieties of this Parliament will be respected. When the time comes to move to Stage 3 and to a single currency, only then will the British Parliament decide whether or not to join. It makes no sense to decide now something which will not happen for half a dozen years.
The prospects for EPU are more mixed. We want a common foreign and security policy which helps and streamlines the current system of political cooperation. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that this is not in any way the final summit determining the Community's final shape. There are many challenges ahead beyond the scope of the Maastricht agenda, as my noble friend Lord Pym reminded us. Next year we must build on the reform of the CAP and prepare for the next phase of enlargement. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, we must agree what we can at Maastricht so that we can move on.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, asked about the United States' attitude to the return of the Vietnamese boat people. The United States' position is well known. They are signatories of the comprehensive plan of action and accept a provision in the CPA that non-refugees must be returned.
Many noble Lords again expressed profound anxiety about events in Yugoslavia. Again the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the Leader of the Opposition, asked what further steps Her Majesty's Government have in mind. We supported the mandatory arms embargo adopted by the United Nations. Last week, the Secretary-General's report made it clear that the
136
embargo has been breached. We want the embargo to be strengthened and extended. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has proposed an oil embargo but he stresses the difficulty of agreeing such an embargo. Many UN members were unhappy with the original arms embargo. To get them to go further may prove impossible.
However, it is clear to us that we should now begin to think in terms of differentiating between those parties who are helping and those who are hindering the peace process. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, speculated on the outcome of the crisis. He suggested that it might be six independent republics. However, such a solution would not be clear-cut or easy. Any solution must deal with the rights of minorities. The new six states would not be homogeneous. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that a solution, although it may be assisted from outside, must come from inside.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned Britain's aid as a percentage of GNP. But the most important figure is the absolute figure. This financial year Britain is giving £1.8 billion. Britain is still one of the biggest half dozen aid donors in the world. As important as the absolute figure is the quality of aid. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and echo his praise for my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. She has played a key part in ensuring high quality aid confirmed by the development assistance committee of the OECD in its report earlier this year. Britain's aid is carefully and effectively targeted. It maintains its focus on the alleviation of poverty.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked whether it was time that we think again about the EC. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was sceptical of the advantage of EC membership. While we join him in welcoming the agreement with EFTA of a European economic era, I point out that those in EFTA do not regard EFTA as the last word. Two of them, Austria and Sweden, have already applied for EC membership. Others—perhaps all the others—will follow. It is clear that if we had not joined the Community in 1973 we would be clamouring for EC membership; we would form part of a queue already five strong.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, asked about the IAEA. The Government support the aims and work of the IAEA. We are grateful for the noble Lord's most authoritative view.
My noble friend Lord Alport will not have forgotten that my honourable friend Mrs Chalker, in a reshuffle of FCO portfolios, took on Commonwealth responsibilities. I hope that both he and my noble friend Lord Auckland agree that she fills the task he outlined with vigour, dedication and success. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton for his moving description of the latest developments in Poland. I can assure him that the visa regime is under constant review but I cannot promise him immediate movement. His arguments should, however, weigh tellingly in future deliberations.

137
In closing, my noble friend Lord Caithness and I have spoken of the need for more openness, co-operation, trust and confidence in the conduct of international relations. My concluding theme and watchword for the future is preventive diplomacy. Prevention is preferable to cure; deterrence to war. That is our aim. But the world, as so many noble Lords have said, remains an uncertain place and always will be so. Thus we must retain the capability to maintain our security and national interests from wherever challenges may come. More often than not we will act in concert with our allies as in the Gulf and on occasions alone as in the Falklands. We plan for a wide range of contingencies but equally we shall ensure at all times the mobility and flexibility to cater for the unexpected.
10.49 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision by giving effect to proposals in Cm. 1599 (The Citizen's Charter) relating to publicity and competition, for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the manner in which local authorities carry out certain activities; and to make new provision in relation to local government in England for effecting structural, boundary and electoral changes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Woodgrange Park Cemetery and Crematorium Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolutions of 16th and 17th July last the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and committed to Select Committees.
Torquay Market Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 18th July last the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and reported from the Committees.
Harris Tweed Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 18th July last the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and committed to Unopposed Bill Committees.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolutions of 16th and 21st October last the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, passed through all their remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  OFFICIAL REPORT: PRICE
  OFFICIAL REPORT: PRICE
  UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER LABOUR GOVERNMENTS
  UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER LABOUR GOVERNMENTS
  YOUTH TRAINING
  YOUTH TRAINING