Sitting of 4 December 1992

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

  United Nations
  9.35 am
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I beg to move,
  That this House pays tribute to the work of the United Nations and its agencies; congratulates the Government on the success of the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31st January; welcomes the Report of the Secretary-General Dr. Boutros Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, that flowed from it; considers that a speedy return by the United Kingdom to UNESCO is in the national interest; and seeks further action from the Government to improve the ability of the United Nations to secure justice and human rights and to maintain international peace and security.
  I believe that this is the first time that the House has had an opportunity to debate the United Nations for many a year. By chance, we have chosen a particularly topical occasion. We heard with relief this morning the news of the release of the three British service men serving with the United Nations force in Cambodia. We learnt of the resolution of the Security Council in New York to authorise the dispatch of 28,000 American service men to that troubled, blighted country of Somalia. I hope that it will be not a one-nation force but multinational and will come under the full command and control of the United Nations.
  Rather more disconcertingly, we heard from Serbia that British soldiers have been attacked from both sides. I hope that I will have a chance to say more about the former Yugoslavia in due course.
  I will not speak too long. A former Speaker once said that speeches, to be immortal, do not need to be eternal.That is wise advice for us practitioners on the Back Benches, particularly as I spoke after a 53-minute speech by a Labour Member last week.
  I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on the Government Front Bench. He and I have already had two chews at this subject. I was lucky enough last Thursday to initiate an Adjournment debate on UN peacekeeping. Last Friday we debated the middle east, on a motion moved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has come to have a second bite today.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will not be surprised if I take out one or two hobby horses and ride them around the paddock. For heaven's sake, if, after 18 years' membership of the House, one secures the first motion for debate on a Friday, one is a fool if one does not do so.
  The background to the United Nations is the failure of the League of Nations to stand up to the aggression that broke out in Europe in the 1930s and which led to the second world war. We must never forget that failure to resist aggression. It was very much in my mind when we debated what to do about Kuwait and whether we should take on the military might of that ruthless dictator Saddam
  500
  Hussein. The United Nations was conceived during the war. It was set up to take account of the political situation in the world in 1945.
  I approach the subject of the United Nations with considerable humility. Recently I became chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group. Members of that group have spent much of their lives seeking to improve the performance and practices of the United Nations. When Lord Gladwyn sent me his £2 subscription the other day, I looked him up and found that, when I had a satchel on my back and was wearing shorts, he was acting Secretary-General of the United Nations. He then went on to be a very distinguished ambassador in New York.
  I have placed on the Order Paper the words
  "congratulates the Government on the success of the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31st January".
  My advice to Back Benchers is that we should all resist congratulating Governments. If there is one thing worse than an obstreperous and bullying Whip—we do not have one here today—it is a smug Whip who is being congratulated. Members on both sides of the House should be able to unite on that point. "Congratulates" seemed to me, however, to be the appropriate word to use.
  I believe that the United Kingdom is in a special and privileged position within the United Nations. Therefore, it behoves us to give a lead to that body. There was no better way of doing that than calling the special summit. The Prime Minister reported back to us on 3 February of this year and told us:
  "I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the Council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful …This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the Council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations charter."—[Official Report,3 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 21.]
  The new Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace" flowed from that meeting.
  I understand that the British Government did not initially support the election of Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali—perhaps for good reasons—but I believe that he will be a very capable and interesting Secretary-General. He has had great diplomatic and ministerial experience in Egypt. He is a Coptic Christian. His wife is Jewish. He played a big part in the peace talks between Egypt and Israel.
  I warmly welcome "An Agenda for Peace"—I know that it is the bedside reading of my colleagues on these Benches. In 50 pages it makes, in very readable language, a number of sensible proposals. The Secretary-General not only produced this admirable report; he has also carried out a considerable measure of reform within the United Nations. There have been new appointments and a slimming down of the bureaucracy, which every hon. Member will welcome.
  From this distance I am not sure whether I know enough about what more should be done in New York, but I am advised by those who know something about it that there are still too many committees, still too much international bureaucracy, and still too much waste. We have to accept that 166 individual sovereign countries, will

  501
  rightly, ask that some of their diplomats should serve in New York, but when it comes to selection for promotion I should like greater emphasis to be placed on merit. That should be the key factor. The bureaucracy in New York has to deal on a day-to-day basis with the sophistication of the British Foreign Office, or the Quai d'Orsay, or the German equivalent. The United Nations bureaucracy is not yet up to the required standard.
  The Secretary-General also drew attention to a major problem: the mismatch between the aims and wishes of the Security Council—and, I believe, of the General Assembly—and the financial reality. An unplumbed, salt-estranging sea lies between the two. The situation is frightening. The Secretary-General wrote recently:
  "As of September 1992"—
  only a few weeks ago—
  "only 52 Member States had paid in full their dues to the regular budget of the United Nations. Unpaid assessed contributions total $908.5 million. Unpaid contributions towards peace-keeping operations stood at $844.4 million. At the end of August 1992, I was able to pay the salaries of the regular staff of this Organization only through borrowing from peace-keeping funds with available cash."
  I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the Government have a superb record in paying their membership dues on time.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the United States?
  Mr. Townsend: The hon. Gentleman leads me into my next point. I am ashamed to find that a number of allies have not yet paid their dues. In July of this year, the United States of America owed the peacekeeping budget $277 milllion, Russia $202 million, Germany $73 million, Japan—recently I welcomed the Japanese contribution to the peacekeeping force in Cambodia—$48 million and France $47 million. When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the ambassadors of those countries, in particular Ambassador Ray Sykes, who is a great success in London, I hope that he will have a private word with them about countries that demand more peacekeeping by the United Nations but cannot get round to signing and posting a cheque.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I do not argue with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument; I agree entirely with him. Simply for the record, however, may I say that the information that has been given to me is that the United States is by far the largest defaulter, as he said. It owes about $295 million to the United Nations regular budget and $145 million to the separate peacekeeping account. That amounts to $440 million, rather than the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted. They are only figures, and I am absolutely sure that the principle is right, but my figure is almost double that which the hon. Gentleman gave.
  Mr. Townsend: I shall leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to deal with that point. I am clutching a paper that the General Assembly produced in July 1992, which shows that at that stage the United States owed $277 million.
  There was, naturally, some talk at the special summit about who should be permanent members of the Security Council. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that he feels that such a discussion
  502
  is a distraction, that there is plenty of work to be done, and that the Security Council is working well. Those are admirable sentiments and there is much foundation to them, but the House should be aware that countries such as Germany, Japan, Brazil, India and Egypt think that they should have, if not a place in the sun, then a seat on the Security Council. It will not be easy for the United Kingdom permanently to defend the fact that, because the United Nations was set up at the end of the war, the United Kingdom, which has a comparatively low per capita income compared with that of other countries and a comparatively small defence force, should still maintain a permanent seat. At the end of the war the Royal Navy had about 600 surface ships but now has about 40 destroyers and frigates.
  I hope that the Government will continue to do all they can to maintain our seat on the Security Council—they would be foolish not to—but we must be aware of which way the wind is blowing. We must justify our position with considerable activity.
  I want to turn to an issue that is to the fore of the work of the United Nations—the sovereignty argument. In the hot summer of 1990, I had the pleasure of attending a conference in the beautiful surroundings of Ditchley park. The subject was the United Nations and its future. There was a long and excellent debate on the sovereignty question. I saw, in full array, the formidable legal might of the Foreign Office defending the unique concept of sovereignty. The advice of those learned gentlemen was that, once one moves that basic principle, one is in dangerous uncharted seas. When I said that perhaps there was something to be said for a change, they said, "No wonder this chap is still a Back Bencher. Has not he thought of Northern Ireland? What happens if the General Assembly reacts to a development in Northern Ireland and wants to send a peacekeeping force there?" The overwhelming view was that we should not change the status quo.
  I remember arguing in 1990 the specific case of a United Nations convoy that had been trying to get food to a Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon but was held up by a bloody-minded militia group. I remember thinking at the time, when women and children were starving in the mud, despair and squalor of those Palestinian camps, "Surely to God the United Nations, in the name of humanity, can force its way through that militia road block."
  When the plight of the Kurds first broke on our television screens, the Government thought that nothing should be done. That was an understandable attitude. Public pressure mounted and, as we know, a successful operation was carried out—against, I believe, the wishes of the Secretary-General at that time and of many members of the General Assembly. It was a watershed and the situation has changed notably since then. I welcome that, but we should be cautious.
  I attach to that what I call the United Nations imperial role. I am afraid that I must criticise the Foreign Secretary rather severely for using the word "Imperial" in a key speech on this subject which got the debate off on the wrong foot. The concept that the Foreign Secretary advanced, however, is extremely important, and I support it.
  In a few weeks' time, the military position in Somalia will be transformed. Any baron who stands up to a force of United States Marines rather than bury his weapon in

  503
  the sand needs his head examined. Peace will prevail in Somalia before long, but the problem is that government has broken down. The schools do not function, the sewage plants have been damaged, and there is no health service, no work and no jobs. The country needs government. A new team of civil service must be trained. The schools must start working again, teachers must be imported, and the infrastructure must be rebuilt. I unhesitatingly say that that role must be performed by the United Nations. We must establish a new system of trusteeship, and I understand that we shall have to give it another name. We shall not have district commissioners or district officers, but my colleagues will agree that the principle is important: the United Nations should have the capacity to run, for perhaps five or 10 years, an independent sovereign country and bring it back to such a state that it can become independent, sovereign and have its own elected Parliament.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I accept my hon. Friend's general proposition that there can be no lasting solution to Somalia's problems without the restoration of a proper administration, but that does not mean that one must go down precisely the detailed road that he suggests. Under the effective system of protectorates, a nation would take on activities that he suggests on the United Nation's behalf.
  Mr. Towsend: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are a number of ways of proceeding. He and I agree that the United Nations should be given powers to take over the administration of an independent country and bring it back to such a state that it can stand on its own feet and be independent and sovereign.
  Mr. Rogers: Surely the hon. Gentleman will refute the proposition that we should return to the old concept of protectorates, with certain countries having economic and political control over particular areas. That was one of the disastrous measures taken between the two world wars which has led to so many problems since.
  Mr. Townsend: I shall leave it to the hon. Gentleman to answer the point when he makes his speech.
  I want to come to the need for Britain to rejoin UNESCO, about which I have taken up much of the House's time in Adjournment debates. I have a sore head on it, and I do not mind telling my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that I believe that we have behaved disgracefully and that the sooner we rejoin the better. Ronald Reagan and the Heritage Foundation issued a lot of highly misleading propaganda about UNESCO. I am not an idealist about UNESCO. Many years ago, I had an Adjournment debate on the famous world information order, which has been disastrous; the organisation has been a shambles for many years. But if we wish to remain on the Security Council, the universality rule is fundamental. In its 1985 report, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded:
  "A breach by the United Kingdom of the principle of universality in the UN and its Agencies could have long-term, and damaging, consequences for those organisations, and not merely for UNESCO alone."
  When we were a member of UNESCO, we did better than most from it. We were one of the founder members and the conference that established it was held across Parliament square at the Institution of Civil Engineers. From the outset, Britain was on the inside track getting the
  504
  goodies. British publishing houses and British consultants did well out of UNESCO. Since we left UNESCO, France has very sensibly been pushing the French language at our expense and at that of the English language. Our English-speaking friends in the Commonwealth do not understand why we do not stand up for British interests and for their interests. In any one year we earned more money from UNESCO than we put into it.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I have been around this course already. He will say that we cannot afford the £9 million which is at stake, but I can happily name some aspects of Government expenditure on which we should not be spending £9 million but on which we are spending that sum. If it comes to the crunch, I should deny a famous cavalry regiment of the Rhine Army—or what is left of it—two tanks so that we could get back into UNESCO and also help our balance of payments. I believe that the so-called cultural establishment is overwhelmingly in favour of our return. We are missing a trick.
  The other day I wrote to one of my right hon. and learned Friend's colleagues in the Foreign Office. It got my goat when I had it explained to me that we could best influence the important reforms that have been taking place in UNESCO by standing back and scolding from the touchlines. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how, with regard to the European Community, I and colleagues argue that we need to be on the field representing Britain and putting forward a British view instead of being told what to do. However, when it comes to UNESCO, we are told how much better we shall do by not having a shirt on our back and not being on the field. That is nonsense, and I should welcome our return. We left UNESCO on Ronald Reagan's coat tails, and it would be a shame if we returned on Clinton's coat tails. Let us go in with him, or before him.
  Time is running out, but I wish to alight briefly on one or two trouble spots and the first must be Bosnia. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I am extremely cautious, although some of my colleagues will argue in the opposite vein. I read that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has said that there is danger in going in half-cocked; he wants a far greater commitment from us and the United Nations. I am on the opposite side of the argument. There have been civil wars, disputes and feuds in that part of the world for hundreds of years. There is a possible analogy with Ireland.
  The problems are deep seated, and my advice to the Government and, indeed, to the United Nations is to understand the strict limits and not to become party to a dispute. If we start bombing the Serbian artillery positions—and, God knows, the Serbs have behaved badly enough—we will put at risk the lives of the 3,000 British service men in that country and will have to withdraw the humanitarian aid on which we are concentrating. It should be a United Nations operation. We should concentrate on the humanitarian work and recognise the limits of the United Nations activity in this day and age.
  I know that some colleagues will have a different view, but I did not welcome the dispatch of the Cheshires. It is a famous, down-to-earth, professional regiment, conducting itself with great ability and having considerable success. However, it has been placed in a very dangerous position and given an almost impossible task. It is sitting in white boxes, without artillery support or air cover, and we learn from the newspapers today that it has come under

  505
  fire from both sides. I look forward to the day when my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us that the Cheshires have been withdrawn and that we are supporting the United Nations in that bitterly divided country with signallers, medical orderlies and truck drivers but without deploying a British infantry battalion.
  It will be no surprise to the House if I deal now with the middle east, which was the subject of the debate initiated last Friday by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I pay tribute to President Bush and Secretary of State Baker for getting the peace talks going. They have lasted a year. The problem is not a matter only for the American Administration under Bush or Clinton. There are vital United Nations resolutions on the books and the point of the Kuwaiti operation was to pay respect to those resolutions—we cannot pick and choose dishes from the menu. The United Nations passed resolution 242—a British-sponsored resolution—which deals with land for peace. It is essential that at some stage—I am not saying now—the United Nations becomes involved in the peacemaking process in the middle east.
  The phrase "self-determination" is in the United Nations charter, which is a splendid document. I ask my colleagues please not to say, "What does that matter in such a situation?" When the self-determination of 1,800 Falkland Islanders who had decided to live 8,000 miles away was at stake, we took military action and lost about 250 lives in the process. We thought that the Falkland Islanders were entitled to self-determination and not to be ruled by the Argentine army but to choose their own political leaders. I say without hesitation that the Palestinians are also entitled not to be ruled by an army of occupation and a brigadier but, in due course, to elect their own leaders.
  I deal briefly with Cyprus. My colleagues know that over the years I have taken up a great deal of the House's time in talking about Cyprus. I started my life there as a young soldier and guarded the last colonial governor of Cyprus. I was very nearly killed by EOKA, so I have no illusions about that tragic and bitterly divided island. As I recently told my right hon. and learned Friend, the watering down of the British contingent to the United Nations' peacekeeping force there was an error of judgment and was ill received in the south. It gives an unhappy example which others will follow.
  I want to deal with the peace process rather than the peace force in Cyprus. To all intents and purposes, the talks have broken down and a good early-day motion deals with that. In this case, the Secretary-General has allocated blame to an unusual extent
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva indicated dissent.
  Mr. Townsend: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) will contribute to the discussion—he and I hold opposing views.
  The Berlin wall has come down; other walls have come down in Europe. It is intolerable that a Commonwealth country—a European country—is divided down the middle by a so-called green line. I do not believe that the United Kingdom, as a guarantor power, can sit idly by and wash its hands, saying that it is all too difficult and leaving it to the United States or someone else.
  506
  Finally, I deal with the Atlantic coast of the Arab world—the western Sahara. The leader of the Polisario met many of us in London only a few days ago. The Secretary-General of the United Nations faces the appallingly difficult issue of who should vote in the forthcoming referendum. The Polisario says that the register should be confined to the census produced by the Spanish authorities, but, since then, Morocco has come up with a much longer list of names. In deciding who should vote, the Secretary-General largely decides the outcome of the referendum. I am waiting to hear the Government's view and what we can do to help.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a serious problem in that, while the United Nations representative was preparing for the referendum, the Moroccan army moved large numbers of people into the area to inflate the register and that that caused last year's referendum to be postponed?
  Mr. Townsend: I do not think that the Moroccan Government have clean hands in the matter. But, having criticised the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for speaking for too long last week, I must bring my brief thoughts rapidly to a conclusion.
  I mentioned the fact that I guarded Sir Hugh Foot in Cyprus. In his book "A Start in Freedom", Sir Hugh wrote some appropriate words about the United Nations:
  "I have always believed that the forces of conciliation are potentially stronger than those of conflict. The trouble is that the forces of hatred and conflict are so well organised and well led while the forces of conciliation are ill organised or ill led, or not organised or led at all. Now in the United Nations we have a permanent organisation for promoting international understanding and co-operation. It is this new initiative which gives us new hope in a divided world."
  When the cold war ended, there was a great wave of optimism. There was a new spirit at the United Nations. President Bush made his speech about the new world order that would unfold before us like a map. Then disillusion set in. As we read our newspapers today, watch television and hear of the ruin and misery, death and destruction in Bosnia, where European civilisation is clearly withdrawing rather than advancing, we share that sentiment.
  Inevitably, we must look to the United Nations to organise and prepare itself, and to adopt better procedures for setting up peacekeeping forces to deal with the new world in which we live towards the end of the century. It has been said that the United Nations was created not to take mankind to heaven but to stop it from descending into hell. I believe that there is a real danger that we shall go the wrong way unless the United Nations can assume a greater importance in world affairs. Of course, I look to the British Government to give a lead to the United Nations, and I hope that mankind will move onwards to new sunlit uplands.
  10.12 am
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)—although he sits on the other side of the House, he is my hon. Friend on this issue—on securing the debate and on getting it off to such an informed, useful and helpful start. There was almost nothing in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I disagreed—except that I differ slightly, in detail rather than in principle, on his perception of how to resolve the Somalian problem.

  507
  I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives the Opposition to discuss the United Nations, and I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said, and will flesh out some of what we should like to see as part of the role of the United Nations.
  It is specifically written into the Labour party's constitution that we not only support the formation, the work and the activities of the United Nations, but we are committed to its expansion and support. In a personal capacity, I am the chairman of the Labour council on the middle east—just as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath is chairman of the Conservative council on the middle east. Item 2 of the Labour council's constitution is the aim to resolve the conflict in the middle east through the resolutions and the work of the United Nations, so I welcome the opportunity to speak on that subject.
  Following the collapse of the old war—the conflict between the two great powerful nation states, the United States and the Soviet Union—many people had hoped that a new world order might emerge. However, although we played a major part in establishing the United Nations 47 years ago, we seem to have said little about how we believe that that organisation should move forward in the new world order.
  Many of us were worried about a range of issues throughout the world, especially in the middle east. We were faced with the dilemma caused by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the question whether we should stop and consider all the other major breaches of international law taking place in that area. We all agreed that it would not help international law or the processes of the United Nations if we did not immediately condemn the Iraqi invasion and, as part of those processes, see whether a force could be assembled that might relieve Kuwait and ensure that a new world order could emerge out of the old power structures that had supported the various dictators and repressive regimes that had existed hitherto.
  Everyone in the House knows that many of the problems with which the United Nations has had to grapple over the years, some of which the hon. Member for Bexleyheath mentioned—Cyprus, for example—could have been resolved many years ago had it not been for the determination of the United States to keep a base in Turkey from which it could continue to threaten the Soviet Union. Unless we admit that, we shall not be able to convince the parts of the world that have suffered either directly or indirectly from dictatorship that we are determined to create a new world order. There is no doubt that had Turkey not been on the borders of the Soviet Union, and therefore not been suitable for use by the United States as a base for its forward ballistic missiles, the people of the north and the south of Cyprus might well have been convinced that their future lay together.
  It also has to be said at the outset that although we in this country have not considered the new world order in any depth, many countries in what is called the underdeveloped world, or the south, have been concerned about how that new order might emerge. When I was talking about the United Nations during the emergency debate on 25 September, I said that I had been to a conference in Tunis. organised by the Tunisian Government, on that very subject. I was invited to attend the conference on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party, and I thought that it would be quite easy to find
  508
  material—I could ring up Walworth road, our party headquarters, and ask the people there to supply me with the most recent Labour party statement on the new world order. But when I phoned I discovered that we had not said very much—in fact, I must be honest and admit that, although many statements had been made which we could use as part of our vision of the United Nations role in the new world order, the Labour party had said nothing specific on the subject.
  I then said, "The Government must have said something. After all, the whole thrust of the debate here over many months was that the end of the cold war and the way in which we dealt with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was to be the basis of a new world order." I went to the excellent Library and asked the staff to give me all the most recent Government statements—statements by any Minister would do—on the new world order and how Britain saw it developing. I told them that the only problem was that I was going to the conference the following week, so I would need the material in three or four days—and I waited to see what I would be given. Three days later, the Library said, "Sorry, there is nothing that we can give you. The British Government have said nothing about a new world order either here or in the United Nations." I asked whether the Library had anything at all. The best that it could come up with was an article in The Economist and an article by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in New Statesman and Society. With those articles in my hand, I wondered what I should be able to say.
  The foreign affairs section of the Library looked at what had been said in the build-up to the Iran-Iraq war and subsequently. With their usual ability, Library staff trawled through various documents from various countries and came up with something that I was able to use.
  At the conference in Tunisia, I was able to speak with almost total abandon and lack of concern, knowing that no one in the British Government had said anything about the new world order. The conference was an enlightening experience. I discovered that I was almost the only representative from the European Community. There were some experts from the United States who were there in an advisory capacity rather than as speakers on behalf of their Government. The concept of the new world order has not been dealt with in any shape or form, so I welcome the motion of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath. It gives us the opportunity to discover how the Government perceive the new world order.
  Like the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I am a firm supporter of the United Nations. I was especially pleased by the appointment of Dr. Boutros Ghali to the secretary-generalship of the United Nations. I welcome his initiative to try to streamline the organisation.
  As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said, the United Nations has constantly been impeded by the determination of each nation state to ensure that it has a diplomat or a representative sitting on each body of the United Nations, sometimes for no reason other than to ensure that the particular body does nothing. That may seem strange, but there is clear evidence for anyone who cares to study the workings of the United Nations and its committees that specific placements have been made, especially by the more powerful western Governments, at various levels of the United Nations with the sole purpose

  509
  of ensuring that the committee either functions less efficiently or, in some cases, does not function at all. That happens when a particular Government do not agree with an aim or objective of an area of work of the United Nations.
  I welcome the Heads of Government meeting on 31 January. If nothing else comes out of the British presidency of the Community, the Prime Minister can fall back on that meeting and, in Edinburgh, he may claim it as one of his successes.
  The Secretary-General has brought forward "An Agenda for Peace" which I am sure all hon. Members welcome. The agenda fleshes out a new role for the United Nations and it gives specific definitions. Those of us who work with the United Nations have to deal with its resolutions and agendas. We know that the most important aspect of the work of the United Nations is not the resolutions themselves, but their implications and the language in which they are expressed.
  I was impressed by the way in which the Secretary-General sought to spell out in language that was easily understood what the new agenda would mean and what the problems were. As a result, we can see how the United Nations will deal with problems and how it will move forward.
  One important aim is that the UN will seek to identify at the earliest stage situations that may produce conflict. It can then try to use diplomacy to remove the source of danger before violence results. There are five aims in all, written in easily understood language. There will be less ambiguity in United Nations documentation, as long as Governments do not seek to change the language of the agenda.
  As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath knows, we have had 40 years of deciding whether resolution 242 should contain the word "the" before the words "occupied territories". The French believe that the word "the" should be included, whereas the British interpretation is different. The argument over whether the word "the" should be included has been an excuse for many Governments who have failed to move forward with that resolution.
  Like the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I am a little concerned that in the multilateral talks, resolution 242 and resolution 338 are being regarded as background noise rather than as the basis on which the middle east conflict will be resolved. I hope that the Minister will clarify where the Government stand on the issue.
  I read an interesting speech made recently by the Foreign Secretary to the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He had fun with his audience on the question whether the word "the" should be included when referring to the occupied territories. It is important that a message goes out today from this Chamber to those who are participating in the multilateral part of the middle east peace process that Parliament is committed to ensuring that the middle east peace process is resolved on the basis of resolution 242 and resolution 338, which refer to land for peace.
  I very much welcome the Security Council resolution on Somalia. In our debate on Somalia a few weeks ago, made the point that I saw Somalia as an area in which a UN peacekeeping force with effective military power could make a difference. There is an absolute difference between
  510
  Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The aid agencies on the ground must be concerned that if more military firepower arrives in the area, their activities may be curtailed. In Somalia, many people have guns, but do not have the training or ability to use them other than menacingly. A professional army with a clear direction can make a substantial difference to aid. I welcome the Security Council's unanimous decision to accept the initiative by the United States Government and to dispatch a far more powerful military force to Somalia to establish a secure relief effort.
  I also welcome the fact that the operation, on a day-to-day basis, will be under the direct control of the United States. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath spoke about the failure of the United States to make its financial contributions to the UN. It seems that rather than making contributions in terms of dollars, the United States, as a quid pro quo, is committing manpower and equipment to the many conflicts in which the UN is involved. It is using that to offset the imbalance in its financial contribution to the organisation and to the peacekeeping operation. I welcome the fact that the force in Somalia will be the main responsibility of the United States. The Minister made clear our support yesterday for the Security Council resolution. I hope that he will say today that, if necessary, there will be an input from the British Government to the peacekeeping effort in Somalia.
  If a professional force entered Somalia, it would quickly convince the warlords, gangs and thugs that it would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen so far, where humanitarian aid has been pilfered at road blocks and, in some cases, has been stolen from the supply stores in the dockyards.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: With regard to our involvement with the military force in Somalia, the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there is already talk of the Government sending troops to provide logistic support. Does he share the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the fact that we are sending logistic support simply because we are incapable of sending infantry battalions because of the overstretch resulting from "Options for Change"?
  Mr. Ross: I do not want to delay the debate, because other hon. Members wish to speak and there are other motions on the Order Paper. However, I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will deal with that point later.
  Rather than keeping our Trident submarines, it would clearly be preferable to have the men and women and the military equipment on the ground to assist the United Nations peacekeeping forces. No matter how many Trident submarines we threaten Somalia with, the Somalis probably would not understand what we are talking about. However, an infantry battalion, logistic support or military air power would certainly impress the people in Somalia.
  With regard to Somalia, I disagree with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath on only one point. Peace can be established very quickly in Somalia. Somalia is run on the clan system and many of the elders are still in the country. When the Soviet Union and the United States were competing super-powers, they gave weapons to different clans. Many other countries were also involved, but the

  511
  Soviet Union and the United States were the main protagonists. They were fighting over the bases and the other facilities in that country.
  The old family clan tradition in Somalia broke down very quickly because if one group in a clan had more firepower, it was able to challenge the leader. I do not suggest that the elders or leaders are the most capable people, but at least they are the basis upon which, once peace has been re-established, we could begin to deal with the horrendous medical problems and the starvation and so rebuild the infrastructure.
  I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath about the length of time that we will have to be in Somalia. It may be possible to rebuild Somalia reasonably quickly if we can use the elders and leaders, many of whom are still in Somalia.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that the United Nations and western Europe did not recognise the serious food problems in Somalia, and the country descended into the present chaos where gun law rules because of the lack of support much earlier on?
  Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is correct. I went to Ethiopia in 1981 with the former Member for Oldham, Central and Royton, Mr. James Lamond, and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It was obvious to us that feeding that country was a massive problem and we realised that there would be drought and starvation in the next few years. When we returned, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish wrote some first-class articles, one of which appeared in The Guardian, stating that Ethiopia was liable to sink into despair very quickly. Little or no attention was paid to that warning.
  The reason for that lack of response was easy to understand. At that time, Ethiopia was considered to be under the power and influence of the Soviet Union. It was, therefore, much more important to bring down the Government, to attack the infrastructure and to support the various factions in Ethiopia that argued against the Government of Mengistu. Whether or not it was right to support democracy, it was not right to bring Ethiopia to the point that we needed Bob Geldof to rescue that country in later years.
  That is the lesson to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is drawing our attention. We must be honest with ourselves. If we are to convince the third world that there will really be a new world order, we must admit that we have been actively involved in supporting oppressive regimes for all the wrong reasons. Even at a casual glance, it is clear that the United States and the Soviet Union were competing for control of Somalia. They did not care too much about who they were affecting and the long-term problems that they were going to create for that country.
  As I have said, I have only a minor difference with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath in respect of Somalia. A military force could quickly establish peace and ensure that the aid is released, start to rebuild the infrastructure and then use the system of clan elders in the area to rebuild democracy and some form of government in the country.
  Like the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I welcome the determination of western Governments and the United Nations to declare an air exclusion zone in the north of Iraq. Many Opposition Members, including my hon.
  512
  Friend the Member for Islington, North, disagreed with the attitude of many hon. Members in respect of the invasion of Iraq. As I have said, if we are to build a new world order, it must be built on the basis of international law. When international law is broken, we cannot say that we will not deal with that breach of international law because someone else is breaking international law at the same time. That is unacceptable.
  I have spent much time supporting many organisations, particularly the Palestinians, and I know that many of my colleagues were surprised when I supported so forcefully United Nations intervention against Iraq. However, I did that on a simple concept. Iraq broke international law when it invaded Kuwait. It does not matter about the rights or wrongs of any other international conflict elsewhere in the world. That was not important. Iraq's breach of international law was a threat to international law and it had to be dealt with.
  As I have argued that international law should be the basis on which to resolve conflicts through the United Nations, I was pleased that on that occasion, the world was prepared to do something meaningful. We all supported that. However, once that action was concluded, there were on-going responsibilities and many people had not thought about those responsibilities. The responsibilities were not only to the Kurds in the north but to the Shias in the south.
  The air exclusion zone in the north of Iraq was set up speedily, but we assured Iraq that we did not seek to break up the country and that we would recognise it as a country once democracy was restored—whenever that is. It is for the Iraqi people to decide on the internal arrangements between the Sunni Muslims, the Shias and the Kurds. We were not prepared to allow one group to cleanse ethnically a part of the country of another group. The air exclusion zone has proved to be a success and is another building block, showing our determination to move towards a new world order.
  The air exclusion zone in the south came rather late. It is difficult to know why some things become obvious and acceptable earlier than others. To those of us who knew anything about Saddam Hussein, it seemed obvious that unless force was shown to him, and in some cases used against him, he would continue to attack the Shias in the south, just as he had attacked the Kurds in the north and people in other parts of Iraq not covered by air exclusion zones. I welcome both zones.
  I hope that all hon. Members will encourage the Iraqi opposition groups and members of the Iraqi Kurdish Parliament who will be in London during the next few weeks to meet the Foreign Office. I also hope that they will encourage all the other people who are concerned about democracy in Iraq and will assure them of our support.
  The hon. Member for Bexleyheath mentioned Bosnia, which is a more difficult problem. The House has debated the subject many times, so I shall not stay on it too long. Our approach to Bosnia has been correct and has been one of moving forward slowly.
  Almost every male adult in the former Yugoslavia has been trained to carry weapons more professionally than the people of Somalia, who have just had guns stuck in their hands and been told that they are in one gang or another. As part of the Yugoslays' determination not to be invaded by the Soviet Union they had a patchwork of

  513
  resistance organisations and weapons throughout the country and all males were trained to use the weapons in time of need.
  People who suggest that we could simply go in and quickly quell the various factions in any part of the former Yugoslavia are being taught one or two lessons. The Serbs have demonstrated that they can look after themselves and the Croats have also demonstrated that, even with less military hardware and firepower than the Serbs, they can put up stiff resistance in support of their local communities.
  Clearly, Bosnia is a different proposition from Somalia, but, as has been said time and again, there are things that we could have done but have not. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will remind us that the agreed sanctions should be enforced more powerfully. The exclusion zone is being broken regularly. We must make it clear to the Government in Belgrade and to the Bosnian Serbs that that will not be tolerated. If they refuse to listen to us, we shall have to consider what actions to take to ensure that the air exclusion zone works. More than anything, we must ensure that sanctions work and become more effective, as that is the best hope for peace in the area.
  Also, we must never miss the opportunity to restate our determination to ensure that the various groups in Bosnia have a right to a say in the final determination of the Bosnia Herzegovina problem, and must encourage the Muslim community to realise that we are just as concerned about its right to a say in the future of the country.
  The decision taken by the Heads of Government of 50 Muslim states in Jeddah yesterday was helpful. It is one more weapon in the armoury of those who are committed to peace in Bosnia, to remind the Serbs that those 50 Governments gave us until 15 January 1993 to do something more effective to protect the Muslims and to ensure that the attacks on them cease. We can use that weapon to show the Serbian Government we are determined and it gives us a time scale within which we can tell the various forces in Bosnia Herzegovina that we are determined to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion.
  The debate has been useful, if only to allow us to tell the United Nations that we are committed to the proposals in the Secretary-General's agenda for change. We understand that some of those proposals mean that we might have to give up some powers. On occasion, we may well be outvoted, as other countries may disagree with our view of how to resolve a problem. We may have to accept that, although we think that we have the answer, the collective wisdom of the General Assembly may decide otherwise. We shall have to accept the decisions taken in that body and learn to live with them.
  I know that that is difficult, especially at this period in Parliament's history when we are having to deal with sharing power with another organisation just across the channel. It is difficult for the House to accept decisions made elsewhere, but, if there is to be a new world order, the more powerful nations must accept that they will not always win. If we are to share power and influence, on occasion we shall have to listen more closely to other parts of the continent or the United Nations. We might be called on to commit a larger financial contribution, or to provide
  514
  military forces or logistics to ensure that a conflict can be resolved, although we might not be allowed to determine how it is to be resolved.
  The hon. Member for Bexleyheath drew attention to areas in which the United Nations has played a role and clearly one of those is in human rights. The United Nations seems to me to be the only body which can be the world protector of human rights. Far too often, nation states are based on the rights of those in a particular group or area, and usually on a state's economic problems or aims, rather than on concern for the rights of individuals.
  I also congratulate the United Nations on the speed with which it has moved in certain parts of the world, for example, when trying to resolve the Cambodian crisis. A full member of the Security Council has allowed its client state or group to prevent the implementation of United Nations resolutions in Cambodia. It is clear that if China, which is a full member of the council, were to tell the Khmer Rouge that it has to abide by the resolutions and participate in the peace process, it would be required to do so. No one is in any doubt about that fact of life. The fact that the Khmer Rouge was able to retain members of a United Nations logistics force for two or three days—I join the hon. Member for Bexleyheath in welcoming their release—does not reflect the true problem.
  The problem is that the Khmer Rouge has decided, unilaterally, not to abide by the agreements hammered out through the United Nations peace process. It is determined to hold out for more power, which will prevent real peace coming to Cambodia. It is clear that China could resolve that matter quickly. We need to ensure that the Security Council regularly reminds China of its responsibilities as a full member of that council. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will say something about Cambodia and the efforts that we are making to ensure that the peace process can move forward as quickly as possible.
  The debate has provided the House with a useful opportunity to talk about the United Nations. I hope that it will spark off a series of debates in the Chamber and in Parliaments across the world so that we can achieve a greater understanding of the original concepts behind the United Nations and how they might be developed in the 1990s and beyond.
  The end of the cold war was a spur for the new world order. However, I believe that the explosion at Chernobyl was far more significant, because it demonstrated to the world that even the so-called peaceful use of nuclear facilities in the Soviet Union could not protect the population of that country or those in many other parts of the world. I am not sure whether all the sheep and lambs in Wales and Scotland are now edible. The fact that the explosion at Chernobyl affected the food cycle in such far-away countries put paid to the concept that power was the basis on which one can run the world.
  The accident at Chernobyl hastened the break-up of the monolithic state of the Soviet Union, but it also helped to refocus the minds of all politicians and ordinary people on the need to establish a world organisation that could arbitrate on and determine peace and human rights. That accident made everyone realise that no one country could deal with such a problem and that a responsible world organisation should be established. It is no good saying that because someone is our enemy, we will not help him, especially when—through no one's fault—a civil nuclear power accident in that person's country puts his people,

  515
  our own and so many others at risk. Chernobyl demonstrated the need for concerted world action to deal with major problems.
  I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath on his foresight in tabling the motion. It has allowed us to deal, if only briefly, with the problems facing the United Nations as it progresses and develops. It has also given us the opportunity to say that we are absolutely committed to "An Agenda for Peace" launched by Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali. We will play our full part in ensuring that, in time, that agenda becomes this Parliament's agenda and that of the world.
  10.53 am
  Mr. Michael Colvin: The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, has just complained that the United Nations is facing a crisis of too much credibility. There is some truth in that, because enormous extra burdens have been placed upon that organisation now that it is, at last, beginning to fulfil the role for which it was established 47 years ago.
  It is timely to debate the United Nations and the problems that confront it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing that subject for today's debate and on proposing his motion so lucidly. I also congratulate him on his election as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the United Nations. The knowledge and passion that he displayed in his speech today shows that he is well qualified not only to initiate this debate but to chair that important parliamentary group.
  I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and to the House for my forthcoming early departure from the Chamber. I will be unable to wait for the winding-up speeches because I need to go to my constituency to face my business men and to explain to them that the green shoots of the economic recovery are there, but, rather like my winter wheat, still below the surface, just awaiting the right economic climate to break through and produce results.
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)-he is not here; obviously he has departed for Hansard to read his very long speech. I apologise again, because I see that the hon. Gentleman is still in the Chamber. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman on his world tour, because I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak and is important therefore to be reasonably brief.
  I agreed with almost everything the hon. Gentleman said, but I part company with him on the question of additional forces in Bosnia Herzegovina. We must be extremely careful about the way in which force is deployed there. I agree that we must give protection to the delivery of humanitarian aid, but it would be extremely dangerous to embark upon a straightforward military operation on the ground. None the less, I have advocated on many occasions that certain key targets should be taken out through air strikes to make it clear to Serbia that we do not wish the hostilities to be prolonged, or to encounter the danger of them spreading next door to Kosovo or Macedonia. If that were to happen, the UN would be involved in far greater and more dangerous activities, and ones which we all wish to avoid.
  516
  In facing up to Serbia, we must acknowledge that that country has, at wartime-use rates, some two years of ammunition, weapons and equipment with which to fight a war. One must be extremely careful, therefore, about the escalation of military activity in that country.
  Only a few years ago it seemed credible that the UN would play the central role in the new world order that optimists assumed would flow from the collapse of communism. The cold war paralysis was gone and it was believed that the UN would be able to act as a police force, social work department and development agency on a world scale. I am afraid that it just has not worked out like that. Alas, with the passing of the cohesion of totalitarianism, we now have the chaos of tribalism and the breakdown of established order through the settling of old scores.
  Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, in "An Agenda for Peace", has said that the foundation stone of the UN's work must be the member state. He said:
  "Respect for its fundamental sovereignty and integrity are crucial to any common international progress…if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation that followed."
  Cohesion would go and peace, security and economic well-being—the objectives of the UN—would be ever more difficult to achieve.
  We have seen that happen in eastern Europe and most notably in Yugoslavia. However, we have not seen it happen in China. That country is home to one quarter of the world's population, and we must say to those in Hong Kong who press for ever faster progress towards democracy that the stability of China is extremely important to the world today.
  Imagine what chaos the world would be in if China were to fall apart. In the present situation, a quarter of the world's population lives in a country which still has cohesion. I do not accept that type of cohesion, but for the time being I hope that China remains as it is.
  It is as well to remind ourselves, as we consider the challenges facing the United Nations, what the UN is and what it is not. It is a voluntary association of states dedicated, through signing the UN charter, to the maintenance of international peace and security and the solution of economic, social and political problems through international co-operation.
  The UN is not a world government, and although there has been a suggestion in the debate about the possibility of the UN fulfilling a role in Somalia—perhaps by trusteeship or the provision of a protectorate—that should be done on only a temporary basis to establish some degree of stability and enable that country to accept its own responsibilities in due course. So the UN is not, and can never be, a world government. It has no right to intervene in the essential domestic affairs of a nation state.
  If the UN did not exist, we should almost certainly have to invent it. It succeeded the League of Nations and inherited many of its institutions and procedures. The name "United Nations" was first used in the Washington declaration of January 1942 to describe the 26 countries that were then allied together to fight the axis powers. The UN charter was drawn up by 50 nations in San Francisco in 1945, and following its ratification, came into being on 24 October of that year; and 24 October is still celebrated as United Nations Day.
  The UN has as its emblem the pale blue flag that we all know. I suggest that its vehicles deployed in activities

  517
  around the world, such as in Yugoslavia and soon in Somalia and elsewhere, should be painted pale blue to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that they are UN vehicles. Painting them white with "UN" printed on the side is inadequate, particularly in areas such as Yugoslavia where there will soon be a great deal of snow on the ground. UN vehicles must stand out clearly so that people who may fire on them are well aware of what they are doing.
  The original membership of the United Nations was 51 countries. It is now 178. It is significant that only just over half of those member states are democracies in the accepted sense. Only half of them are capable of fulfilling the sort of objectives for which the United Nations stands. Since the creation of the organisation in 1945, there have been more than 100 major conflicts around the world, leaving 20 million people dead. The United Nations was rendered powerless to deal with many of those crises because of the vetoes, 279 of them, cast in the Security Council. Those vetoes were based on the east-west divide of that period. Since the end of the cold war since 31 May 1990, there have been no more vetoes, and demands on the United Nations have soared.
  The original promise of the United Nations can now be fulfilled, but how is it to be achieved? I suggest that it can be done in four ways: first, through protective diplomacy; secondly, through peacemaking; thirdly, through peacekeeping; and, fourthly, through the new concept put forward by Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali of post-conflict peacebuilding. He defines all four in "An Agenda for Peace." Preventive diplomacy seeks to resolve disputes before violence breaks out. Peacekeeping and peacemaking are required to halt conflicts and preserve peace once it has been attained; if successful, they can strengthen the opportunity for post-conflict peacebuilding, which can prevent the recurrence of violence among nations and peoples. It is all set out clearly. We must now find ways to apply those definitions.
  Taken together, there is no doubt that, with the backing of all United Nations members, those four areas of action could fulfil the aims of the charter. By "backing", I mean the means and resources, for we have plenty of politicians and diplomats. The United Nations needs money and materials. The Secretary-General is the first to acknowledge that the organisation is not financially or structurally able to cope with the problems that it now faces.
  It has been pointed out in the debate that far too many countries are in arrears with their subscriptions, and the United States is no exception. We must pay our bills to the United Nations on time. A number of proposals about finance appear in Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali's "An Agenda for Peace." For example, he refers to the possibility of charging interest on assessed contributions not paid on time. Indeed, I should like that applied to people in this country who do not pay their bills on time. I hope that a measure to that effect, similar to a private Member's Bill put forward some time ago, will be proposed again.
  There is the possibility of suspending the financial regulations of the United Nations to permit the retention of budgetary surpluses, should there be any. There is also the possibility of increasing the working capital fund to
  518
  $250 million and endorsing the principle that the level of the fund should be about 25 per cent. of the annual assessment under the regular budget.
  We might establish a temporary peacekeeping reserve fund of £50 million. The Secretary-General would like the United Nations to be able to borrow commercially, and he has suggested a humanitarian revolving fund of £50 million and the establishment of a United Nations peace endowment fund with an initial target of $1 billion—a lot of money, to be provided, presumably, by direct contributions from member states.
  Two other interesting suggestions for raising the money have been made. One is a levy on arms sales and the other a levy on airline tickets, remembering that no business has a greater interest in preserving world peace than civil aviation. A levy on tickets might be a significant way to raise United Nations funds.
  There is also talk of a standing force of troops. I regard that as not only impractical but far too costly. But there is no reason why the logistics—equipment, trucks, wireless sets and so on—should not be stored around the world in places where they could be quickly available for use.
  The essential point is that member states must be willing and able rapidly to deploy peacekeeping troops in international emergencies. I question whether the United Kingdom, under the "Options for Change", will be able to do that. As I said, providing logistics for Somalia quickly is one thing. I do not believe that we could mobilise even a battalion-strength force to send to Somalia if we had to do so. The number of personnel deployed around the world in blue helmets has increased from 11,000 a couple of years ago to 50,000 today. That deployment is often delayed because authorisation is dependent on approval for financing.
  I will comment on only three current United Nations operations, the first being in Somalia, where preventive diplomacy has failed miserably. About 350,000 people there have died of starvation and a further 250,000 could be dead by the new year if humanitarian aid does not get through. About 1 million people have fled that country and 2 million—a third of those who are left—are at risk of being shot or starving to death. The United Nations admits that four fifths of the food and medicine aid that it is sending does not reach the starving and needy.
  The token United Nations military contingent is useless and the UN relief organisations are not much better. They were criticised by Mr. Sahnoun, the Algerian who was sent there by the United Nations to oversee matters. For criticising, he has been given the sack. I think that he was absolutely right and that, now that further action is being taken, he should be reinstated as soon as possible.
  If only force will save Somalian lives, it should be used. Therefore, the House welcomes the United Nations Security Council resolution. It is right to shoot in order to feed. I hope that the force will be truly multinational.
  The second trouble spot that I wish to mention is Angola and the elections which took place at the end of September under UN supervision. I did not witness those elections, although I was invited to do so, but I have spoken to several hon. Members who were there. There is no doubt that the 6,000 polling stations set up around the country worked well. The organisation and turnout to vote were good.
  However, in communicating the tabulated results from those polling stations, through the municipal headquarters, then via the provisional headquarters and the

  519
  Ministry of Security to the national electoral council, much went wrong. In short, some 500,000 votes went missing, largely from rural areas where UNITA is strongest. The UN should investigate that matter. I believe that the African subcommittee of the United States Congress Foreign Relations Committee has already requested that the UN investigate the matter. When UNITA representatives went to Luanda to negotiate over the removal of some of the electoral irregularities which they say and many others acknowledge took place, several were murdered.
  UNITA has already said that it accepts the election results. It is often misreported that it was against the results. However, in the presidential contest than. took place at the same time, no candidate achieved the 50 per cent. plus one vote required to be elected. Under the constitutional rules, there must be a re-run of the presidential contest within 30 days. That simply has not happened and the UN should carry out an investigation as soon as possible and ensure that a re-run takes place without irregularities.
  Mr. Corbyn: If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the election results, which have been authenticated and verified, he will see that it is clear who won and who lost. Obviously, the second round of the presidential election should take place without delay, but it is impossible to have an election if the UNITA forces have once again restarted a civil war.
  Mr. Colvin: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no doubt that, if a re-run of the presidential election is to take place, there must be a ceasefire. That is agreed by the parties concerned, but it needs proper United Nations supervision. Moreover, it must be ensured that, when the voting is finished, the ballot papers and election results reach where they are supposed to be finally announced. That did not happen before.
  The third trouble spot that I wish to mention is the western Sahara, which has already been mentioned by other hon. Members. The United Nations peace plan, which started with the official ceasefire between Moroccan troops and the Polisario on 6 September 1991 under Security Council resolution 690, established the United Nations mission to oversee a referendum in western Sahara about its future and whether it had independence. That was agreed by both Morocco and the Polisario.
  There is now evidence that Morocco is sabotaging the peace process. There have been more than 100 violations of the ceasefire, and there is evidence of the gerrymandering of the referendum result by the transplantation of large numbers of Moroccan people into the western Sa hara—some 100,000 in all. When one acknowledges that, in 1974 when the last population census took place under the Spanish regime, there were only 74,000 people in the western Sahara, one sees what difference it will make to the referendum's outcome if so many Moroccans are moved in. Why are there only 400 United Nations observers in the western Sahara at present, when everyone acknowledges that at least 2,900 observers are required to do the job properly?
  Those are just three examples of serious trouble spots and of the current United Nations peacekeeping actions, which illustrate the difficulties that that organisation faces. The United Nations has been the focal point of world concern in the past year as those and other problems
  520
  escalate. There are great hopes that, under the new Secretary-General, reforms will be introduced at the United Nations to enable us to capitalise on the new world order and not be beaten by it.
  However, the whole is only as strong as the sum of its parts, and the House will agree that Britain will continue to play more than its part to ensure that the United Nations can and will fulfil the aims and objectives that we need to achieve for a better world for this and future generations.
  11.16 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for the characteristically elegant and thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate.
  The hon. Gentleman complained that there had been a speech lasting 53 minutes last Friday, but he cannot possibly have been referring to me, because I took only 52 minutes to introduce that debate. He must have been referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
  I share the hon. Gentleman's vehemence about UNESCO. As he said, UNESCO was started not far from here, in the Institution of Civil Engineers. As he well put it, we could have renewed our subscription for the cost of two tanks and should frankly never have left in the first place.
  I also share the hon. Gentleman's sense of caution about what is happening in Bosnia. We would do well to remember that Tito's deterrent was not nuclear weapons or even tank regiments. It was training his people in the techniques of guerrilla warfare. That was what deterred Stalin. It is the idea of holding those people down—people who had occupied 37 German divisions from 1943–44 that makes one shudder. To think that one would come out unscathed from that is tempting providence.
  I also share a sense of caution about Somalia. We all heard this morning that the Americans plan to be in and out before 20 January. Does it really work like that? From Northern Ireland to Afghanistan, people have found that it is much easier to put in armies than to take them out. The experience is in, in and in—deeper into the mire. Because of the appalling pictures that one sees of terrible cruelty and starvation, I do not jump to the conclusion that it should not be done, but I should be much happier if their entry were under full United Nations control rather than seen as an American-led operation. Indeed, it should not be a non-United Nations coalition.
  Has the Foreign Office given any thought to peacekeeping training? Those of us who did national service must realise that people who have normal training in the forces are not well trained as peacekeepers. As a national service man, I would not have been much good as a peacekeeper. It is an art in itself.
  Is the Foreign Office in contact with the Bradford university school of peace studies at which much serious work is being done on the theory and practice of peacekeeping? I understand that a major study by Betts Featherstone, Dr. Nick Lewer and Dr. Tom Woodhouse is to come out in January.
  Any of us who have had the good fortune to go on parliamentary delegations to the United Nations and, in my case, to be welcomed most hospitably by Sir Anthony and Lady Parsons and Brian Urquhart, know that

  521
  financing the United Nations constitutes a perpetual problem. The United Nations must be properly resourced because we cannot expect to conduct unpaid peacekeeping operations. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath gave a figure of $844 million. Those of us who expect the United Nations to help in various parts of the world must understand that our countries have to cough up.
  What is the policy of the United Nations and Britain on what is happening in the Sudan? It seems to be an especially pathetic position. I should be interested in any information that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), could give on that matter.
  There is a new drive in the world to export arms, simply because of the dearth of domestic orders. As the home market for arms slumps in many countries, the drive to keep jobs becomes more frantic. That is why last Friday in the House some of us argued for a United Nations conference to cope with what can be described only as an arms bazaar. We believe that there should be at least a United Nations register of arms sales. I should be grateful if we could be told of any Foreign Office thinking on that issue.
  That brings me to the issue of nuclear arms and the non-proliferation treaty. I have the good fortune of being able to ask the Prime Minister an oral question on 15 December. It is a closed question on the nuclear proliferation treaty. As is my wont, I wrote to Downing street as soon as I knew of my luck in the ballot and offered the Prime Minister an explanation on the exact background to the issue. The issue was summed up in the Observer last Sunday. What is the reaction of the Foreign Office to the statement that the
  "revelations, together with documents showing Ministerial knowledge of the supply of nuclear equipment to Baghdad, raise for the first time Britain's flouting of international law, not just the Government's own guidelines"?
  The report in the Observer continues:
  "John Gordon, until 1988 head of the Foreign Office's Nuclear Energy Department, says he is prepared to give evidence to the inquiry under Lord Justice Scott…Matrix Churchill's deep involvement was known to MI6, which alerted other Government departments. Despite these warnings, export licences were still being granted for machine tools with potential nuclear use up to the eve of the Kuwait invasion in August 1990…Mr. Gordon, who has been shown copies of some of the secret Foreign Office documents on the Matrix Churchill case, believes Britain may have breached Article I of the 1968 treaty, which forbids signatories from doing anything 'to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons'."
  Is this so?
  "In the minute, Stephen Lillie, a Middle East Department official, noted that the Baghdad company that wanted the Matrix Churchil lathes was involved in 'Iraqi attempts to obtain equipment for the development of gas centrifuge technology for uranium enrichment'."
  Is that so?
  On 18 December1979 at 5·12 in the morning in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate I raised in detail the case of Dr. Ali Qadar Khan and the thefts of knowledge about centrifuge technology from the Urenco establishment at Almelo in Holland. Since then, I have had a deep interest in the subject.
  I ask the Minister whether the article in The Observer,under the byline of Martin Bailey, John McGhie and Peter Beaumont is accurate. I do not know whether it is
  522
  accurate, and I ask that as a genuine question which must be answered. The question is critical, as it relates to whether the United Nations sanctions are being flouted and busted to such an extent. If the Minister does not answer today, I fear that I will go on and on at it, and I will hope to ask a direct question of the Prime Minister during Question Time on 15 December.
  I move on to the problem of Iran. To many of us it seems that the United States is in danger of frightening Gulf neighbours by expressing concern about Iran armaments. Western powers and their news media state that Iran is seeking military dominance in the region through the purchase of advanced weapons. That is the view, rightly or wrongly, of President Rafsanjani. He argues that there is an attempt to raise alarm in regional countries so that the west can sell new weapons.
  Part of the argument for calling some sort of United Nations conference on arms control is that one hopes that Iran will be high in the in-tray of President-elect Clinton. The issue is whether President Rafsanjani will try to turn militant Islam into a substitute for the cold war threat from the Soviet Union. It would be tragic if that happened. We should restore civilised relations between the most powerful nations and one of the world's oldest nations.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, knows that both in Committee and in the House I have gone on—he would say, "banged on"—about Libya. Last Friday I was fortunate enough to come top of the ballot and I chose for debate the reassessment of our relations with the Arab world. No attempt was made to answer a number of the serious questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant)—who has been to Libya several times—and me. Therefore, I do not apologise for returning to the subject, because the United Nations is involved in the issue of sanctions on Libya—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's points are relevant to this debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes, they are directly relevant to the United Nations, as they relate to United Nations sanctions. At the United Nations on, I think, 15 December the issue of sanctions against Libya will come up again.
  In a question on 22 October 1992, I asked
  "the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek amendment to the rules on international extradition regulations, with a view to clarifying the legal position of Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie bombing."
  He replied:
  "The legal position is not in doubt. By its resolution 748, the Security Council of the United Nations decided that the Libyan Government must surrender the accused for trial, either in Scotland or in the United States. Under the United Nations charter this obligation prevails over any other obligation which Libya might have under any other international agreement."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 371]
  What is the position of the law of individual states? This is the sovereignty issue which was raised by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath. Are we sure that United Nations law takes precedence over Arab law? In the Government's view, does United Nations law automatically take precedence over international law? This was the Ditchley problem. Those of us who have had the good fortune to benefit from the Ditchley case from time to time during our public lives know that it is a serious matter. I can understand the hon. Member for Bexleyheath saying that

  523
  he was brow-beaten by Foreign Office lawyers. What is current thinking on the question of the precedence of international law and United Nations law over national law?
  I shall slide away from Libya by repeating a question that I asked last week concerning Father Patrick Keegan. I shall give the reference to shorten the argument. Father Keegan is the Lockerbie priest, and he was returning from the United States. He said:
  "The cat does not want to catch the mouse because the mouse would not just squeal but scream and implicate Syria, Iran and Bush and Thatcher."—[Official Report,27 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1099.]
  I should like some comment on Father Keegan's view.
  On several occasions the United Nations has allowed itself to be manipulated by the the United States and the west. That is far from healthy for the international organisation. In November 1990, Mr. Speaker Weatherill chose me to lead a parliamentary delegation to Zaire because of my interest in rain forests. The delegation went to see the Foreign Minister of Zaire in Kinshasa. At that moment the Security Council was making decisions on the Gulf. We asked the Foreign Minister, naturally enough, why a rotating member of the council, Zaire, should have chosen to support the western position rather than supporting a position that did not recommend military force. It transpired that Zaire's position did not rest on any judgment on the merits or otherwise of the decisions being taken on the Gulf. It was felt that by obliging the Americans during a day-long meeting with Secretary Baker, aid—it had been understandably denied by the Americans to Zaire because of that country's appalling human rights record—would be restored if, as a quid pro quo, Zaire supported the position of the United States in the Security Council. In one form or another, that could have been said of the Ivory Coast and possibly of several other states. There is a real problem of manipulation by the west of the United Nations, which will bring the UN into disrepute.
  I return to the Iraqi sanctions. This is not a matter of hindsight. To protect myself, I shall quote The Scotsman of 11 November 1992. The article reads:
  "Back in early 1990, Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow was accusing officials and Ministers of turning a 'Nelson's eye' to the sale to Iraq of materials capable of being used for weapons, including the so-called 'super gun'."
  Last Friday, Idealt with the views of the British Afro-Asian Solidarity Group on Iraq sanctions. I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that both its submission and that of Christian Aid is in order. That is because we are talking about sanctions.
  One of my constituents, Hazim Mahboba of 45 Echline drive, South Queensferry, came to see me at my surgery, he comes from Najaf and he is a Shia. He urged that urgent action should be taken—not quite along the lines advocated by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson)—
  "Using the Iraqi frozen assets, which are the property of the Iraqi people, to provide food and medical supplies for the suffering Iraqi people, especially the Shias of the south of Iraq and Kurds in the north. To ensure that the sanctions imposed on Iraq are aimed at the Saddam regime and do not cause further suffering to the Iraqi people. To ensure that UN Resolution 688 which deals with safeguarding the safety of the civilian population from the human rights atrocities of the regime is fully implemented."
  I shall quote also Riad El-Taher, who is an Iraqi who was born in Basra. He writes about the effect of sanctions.
  524
  Again, he takes a rather different view from the one held by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West. He writes:
  "Similarly, the port of Um Qasr is being brought back to use. this is another example where the people of Iraq cannot understand the attitude of the United Nations' Security Council. When they allowed the importation of food (not that Iraq has any foreign currency to buy any!) they stipulated that Iraqi ports such as Um Qasr must not be used. Iraq can only import through another country, such as Jordan. They ask, why? They can find no logical answer. It seems to them yet another example of the American and British Governments' desire to humiliate the people of Iraq and make them incur unnecessary costs.
  One aspect of war damage that was not reported on was the deliberate destruction by British and American bombing of civilian food stores such as grain silos and cold storage units. I saw two of those. At Bab Al-Zubair in Basra and Al-Taji near Baghdad. Most of the people I talked to find it difficult to understand the reason for the targeting of these obvious civilian installations. The destruction of almost 75 per cent. of grain silos rules out operational errors. It appears to be deliberate. At least, that is what the local people believe.
  Even today, American and British war planes based in Turkey regularly break the sound barrier over the northern city of Mosul, terrifying the population. They also drop flares and other incendiary devices on crops. Farmers watch as their meagre crops are burned, again unable to comprehend the reason for it."
  We must be extremely careful about how United Nations sanctions and United Nations policy is working out with the new generation in Iraq. If we are not careful, we shall breed a generation that is extremely bitter against the West. Is that really what we want?
  I ask the Foreign Office yet again the questions that are set out in column 1133 in Hansard last Friday, especially those that relate to arms dealings that are alleged by Box Productions to have been conducted by Mark Thatcher.
  Last Friday, the Minister said that he would not reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. That is a matter between my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office. I asked seven extremely careful questions. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen the allegations. I do not know the rights and wrongs of them, but there must be some answer. My first question was as follows:
  "First, are the Government aware that an executive of the defence company, United Scientific, introduced Mark Thatcher to the arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian in the autumn of 1910 as part of its efforts to win a contract to sell night vision devices, ultimately to be used by Iraq?"—[Official Report,27 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1103.]
  There followed six other questions.
  That coincides with the issue of whether the British Government secretly connived with defence contractors to run a coach and horses through their own arms embargo and United Nations policy.
  The delicacy of United Nations policy obviously bothered The Sunday Times leader writer of 15 November:
  "The export licences were secretly granted in February 1988, the DTI warning that 'there seems to be considerable merit in keeping as quiet as possible about this politically sensitive issue' and the Foreign Office observing that 'if it becomes public knowledge that the tools are to be used to make munitions, deliveries would have to stop at once.' Clearly, ministers had embarked on a policy they were ashamed to defend in public."
  This is apparently flouting United Nations policy.
  I ask another direct question. Under the byline of Tim Kelsey, The Independent asserted:
  "The British Embassy in Baghdad knew that British-made machine tools were being used by the Iraqis for the manufacture of weapons."

  525
  Did they?
  "A British technician who worked on the Iraqi weapons programme for one of its international subcontractors said yesterday that he kept diplomats in the Iraqi capital informed. Another source said that diplomats were under 'no illusions' that 'civilian machine tools' were being used in the weapons programme."
  Is that so?
  I take the view—a number of my colleagues think differently—that the present Prime Minister did not know about those matters, for a combination of two reasons. It was put acidly by someone who knows the Foreign Office well that perhaps they were very busy trying to teach the right hon. Gentleman where Africa was. I believe that he is far quicker on the uptake than that, but I think that there is the basis of fact in suggestions that relations between him and the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) when he was in the Foreign Office were not the happiest.
  That was outlined in The Independent of 24 November, by Jonathan Foster:
  "Jealousy and resentment of John Major led to important papers about arms exports to Iraq being kept from him as Foreign Secretary in 1989, political and civil service sources have claimed.
  William Waldegrave, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, felt 'passed over' when Mr. Major was appointed.
  'The relationship between them was extremely chilly,' a Foreign Office insider said. 'Nothing hostile was exchanged in a form of words, but William Waldegrave looked down his nose at John Major. Instead of consultation between junior minister and Secretary of State, matters were referred up only on a need-to-know basis.
  Mr. Major's term of office ran from July to October 1989. During that period, Mr. Waldegrave became alarmed by an increasing volume of evidence about Iraqi arms procurement in Britain."'
  Mrs. Emma Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to link his attack on the British Government's conduct in the Iran-Iraq war with the United Nations, but I suggest that that link is wholly spurious. There was no unilateral United Nations arms embargo against Iran or Iraq during that eight-year period. The hon. Gentleman is indulging himself, and that is unwarranted and at the expense of others who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will be the judge of that. The hon. Gentleman is getting very near the mark, but he keeps returning to United Nations sanctions—and, bearing that in mind, so far he has just remained in order.
  Mr. Dalyell: I would say rather sharply to the hon. Lady that the House was told that the whole Gulf operation was justified by United Nations resolutions. Her point of order reveals that in the minds of many, it was an American-British operation. Therein lies a lot of the trouble.
  Mr. Rogers: I find the remarks of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rather disturbing. There was a United Nations embargo on arms imports into the middle east. Lord Howe, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, has repeatedly asserted that the British Government were sticking to the guidelines laid down by the United Nations and reinforced by the Government. There was an embargo, and the
  526
  Government's criminality in putting arms and the potential for making them into the area needs to be examined—and the Scott inquiry will do that.
  Mr. Dalyell: Out of deference to the House, I will not pursue Jonathan Foster's argument, but that matter must be investigated. I was being a bit defensive of the present Prime Minister, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a bit generous being defensive of the Prime Minister, because on 2 December, in reply to a written question of mine that asked
  "whether the briefing material relating to United Kingdom exports to Iraq, prepared for the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister in September 1989 still exists",
  the Prime Minister replied:
  "Yes. The brief referred to British media interest in Iraqi procurement activities in the United Kingdom, naming Learfan and Matrix Churchill as examples. No further details were given and there was no other reference to United Kingdom defence exports to Iraq."—[Official Report,2 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 220]
  So he knew that much.
  The Prime Minister wrote to me on 23 November, and the last paragraph of his letter stated
  "At the beginning of August 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait, I did see a copy of a minute about the implications of the invasion for trade with Iraq. That minute referred to Matrix Churchill as one company with potential exports that would need to be prevented."
  On Tuesday 17 November The Daily Telegraph,which is not exactly a Labour paper, ran a long and detailed article by Sean O'Neill under the headline
  "The stories Major missed on his way to see Aziz."
  Whatever the situation in relation to the Prime Minister, it is clear that his predecessor, Lord Howe—who left the Foreign Office on 24 July 1989, when the present Prime Minister was appointed—was, indeed, informed.
  I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), who is the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary group, to refer to his correspondence in relation to sanctions. On 18 February 1988 my hon. Friend wrote to the then Foreign Secretary:
  "I enclose herewith correspondence which has been passed to me by our union"—
  that is, the AEU—
  "regarding the growing problems of the machine tool industry relative to Iran and Iraq. I should be most grateful to receive your observations".
  There has come into the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley a document identified as 000046 and dated 29 February 1988, headed
  "MP's letter: machine tools for Iraq."
  It states:
  "Ken Eastham MP wrote to the Secretary of State on 18 February enclosing a letter from D. K. Todd, District Secretary of the AEU, concerning the export of machine tools to Iraq. I submit a draft reply."
  That document was signed
  "A.J.H. Cowell, Middle East Department."
  It continues:
  "The AEU's concern seems to have been prompted by an article in the Daily Telegraph which gave the misleading impression that a complete embargo on this equipment has been approved. In fact, in the second half of 1987, the IDC agreed a series of licence applications for the export of machine tools to Iraq worth over £44 million. The IDC was satisfied that the lathes and tools were civilian items for general industrial purposes, as the companies had claimed.
  Since the licences were approved we have received information from secret sources that the two Iraqi consignees, Hutteen General Establishment for Mechanical Industries

  527
  and Nassir General Establishment for Mechanical Industries, intend to use the equipment to set up a munitions manufacturing facility. We have also received a letter from an employee of Matrix Churchill of Coventry, an affiliate of the T I Matrix, Brechin, referred to in Mr. Todd's letter, concerning that machine tools for manufacturing shell cases are being supplied to Iraq. It was decided last month, given the companies contractual position, and the industrial consequences should the licences be revoked, that existing licences should be allowed to stand. Further licences should, however only be granted after careful scrutiny and once we are satisfied that their export would not contravene the guidelines."
  He did know.
  There has also come into my hands from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley document 00048:
  "Thank you for your letter of 18 February enclosing a letter from D. K. Todd, District Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, concerning the export of machine tools to Iraq. As you may be aware, the Government operate special guidelines on the export of licensable goods to Iran and Iraq, which reflect our stance of strict impartiality, and our commitment to preventing any escalation of the conflict. Since the beginning of the conflict we have prohibited the sale of any lethal equipment to Iran and Iraq. In 1985, this policy was tightened and refined into the current Ministerial guidelines which were announced in the House in October 1985. Essentially, we prohibit the sale of any defence related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. This policy is enforced by a strict export licence regime and all applications are rigorously scrutinised. It is possible that industrial machinery which could be used for the manufacture of military equipment would fall within these guidelines. However, contrary to the report in the Daily Telegraph of I February, there is a complete embargo on such goods. Each export application is assessed against the guidelines on a case by case basis and we have no plans to change this policy."
  The Foreign Secretary knew.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley has another document, 00050, which he has given to me. It says:
  "I attach the draft reply which was submitted for the Secretary of State's signature"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. While he has been strictly in order, in one sense, there is so much repetition and quotation in his speech that I hope he will now consider making a speech with fewer quotations.
  Mr. Dalyell: I shall bring them to an end very briefly, but I have to be extremely careful about fact in such delicate issues. My point is that Mr. Culshaw said:
  "On reflection it seems better for Mr. Mellor to reply to this letter. The Secretary of State has commented"
  —that means that he knew—
  "only that he is not sure which side our correspondent wishes us to take on this issue. It may therefore be best just to restate our standard policy, although Mr. Mellor might consider the possibility of including the points in the last paragraph of MED's submission."
  The official position was very different. On 9 March 1988, reprinted in The Sunday Times of 22 November, the official position of the Foreign Office junior Minister—because the Foreign Secretary was not going to touch it—was that
  "The Government operates special guidelines on the export of licensable goods to Iran and Iraq, which reflect our stance of strict impartiality [in the Iran-Iraq war], and our commitment to preventing any escalation of the conflict. Since the beginning of the conflict we have prohibited the sale of any lethal equipment to Iran and Iraq. The policy was tightened and refined in the current ministerial guidelines. We prohibit the sale of defence-related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to
  528
  exacerbate or prolong the conflict. This policy is enforced by a strict export licence regime and all applications are rigorously scrutinised."
  I would just say, because of your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on 6 September there was a letter from the then Minister of State, Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West—printed in The Independent On 12 November—to Lord Trefgarne which tells a very different story. This is the difficulty with the whole question of sanctions: that Ministers say one thing to Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and others when they know that there is another whole policy on arms exports. I might just mention the various statements of Alan Clark, who is no longer with us. There are dual standards.
  Although I said earlier in my speech that, maybe, the present Prime Minister did not understand or was not fully briefed in his short time at the Foreign Office on the intricacies of all these matters, his successor was a very different kettle of fish. Few men have come to the office of Foreign Secretary with a greater knowledge of world affairs than the present Foreign Secretary. He is a man who is very clever and very quick on the uptake.
  I cannot believe that Foreign Office officials would have dared, in these matters, not to brief this incoming Foreign Secretary.
  Therefore, I ask, in relation to United Nations sanctions, what was the role of the present Foreign Secretary who chaired the Cabinet committee in July 1990 which questioned the efficacy of the guidelines. Again—this is a matter of public knowledge—
  "Highly-placed United Nations sources told The Independent…that Matrix Churchill computerised numerical controlled (CNC) machine tools were used to make components for gas centrifuges and calutron electro-magnetic isotope separation equipment used in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons."
  I do not make too much of it, but for 27 years I have been the weekly columnist of the New Scientist and understand a great deal about these matters. I raised them in December 1979. They are of lasting interest to me. Then I read that
  "The CNC equipment was found by UN inspectors making searches of Iraq's nuclear development installations in Iraq. The components have been destroyed, but the Matrix Churchill machine tools have been sealed and logged by officials."
  Mr. Rogers: I do not want to prolong my right hon. Friend's speech because I understand that he is coming to the end of it. However, I want to reinforce what he has said and to bow to his extremely well-founded scientific knowledge. Does he not also find it strange that the ignorance that seems to be professed by the Government at present, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or anyone else, is confounded by the fact that the schedule that was given to the Trade and Industry Select Committee contained many of the items that my hon. Friend has just mentioned and that there was also a schedule of many other pieces of equipment that were enhancers, as well as actual pieces of military equipment, that were exported to Iraq?
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may help the House, and certainly the hon. Gentleman, if I draw his attention to page 365 of "Erskine May", which says:

  529
  "A Member is not permitted to read his speech, but he may refresh his memory by reference to notes. A Member may read extracts from documents, but such extracts and quotations should be reasonably short."
  The hon. Gentleman has been going beyond that, and I hope that he will bear it in mind.
  Mr. Dalyell: I shall end, therefore, with one short quotation. Hon. Members may recollect the Foreign Secretary's statement on nuclear trigger devices. The subject was at the top of his mind; this was not an ill-considered, off-the-cuff remark. He turned round to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) remembers the occasion; I certainly do because I was one of the uncalled by Mr. Speaker Weatherill—and said:
  "The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear." [Official Report,29 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 673.]
  I do not want to be thrown out of the House because I know that that is what happens when one uses the word "lie", but when a man as well informed as the Foreign Secretary tells the shadow Foreign Secretary that
  " we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear"
  it calls for some explanation—and certainly long before Lord Justice Scott reports to the House, by which time the Foreign Secretary may have ceased to be Foreign Secretary, may be greatly honoured and perhaps moved to another place.
  I think, if not in the wind-up, at least very soon, against the detailed background that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed me to give this morning, an explanation must be given of how the Foreign Secretary could give his considered opinion that
  "we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear."
  I think that that is misleading the House of Commons.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: I shall be fairly brief as I am aware that a considerable number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I shall endeavour to ensure that my remarks have some proximity to the motion.
  Dag Hammerskjold said that
  "The United Nations was not set up to get us into heaven but to save us from hell."
  It is inevitably a fallible human organisation. Our expectations of it must, therefore, be low.
  I welcome the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said earlier, it is the first debate on the range of the United Nations' functions for many years. In fact, a dip into Hansard failed to reveal when the last debate was held. I congratulate him on drawing the subject to our attention, which gives me the opportunity to say how much many hon. Members appreciate the work that he does in association with the United Nations.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey andWaterside (Mr. Colvin), I must apologise for being unable to stay long in the Chamber due to other commitments.
  A few years ago, I was a United Nations sceptic, but I am not now. I am encouraged by the effort with which it seeks to address a wide range of issues, a number of which
  530
  have been referred to, so I shall not repeat them. It must consider issues such as population growth, environmental protection, human rights and health and the regulation of essential international accords—a roll call of numerous worthy objectives.
  In a nutshell, the United Nations's charter governs the conduct of international behaviour between sovereign states. If it did not do so, what else could fill the gap? The world needs a talking shop. It must retain communications between states in a formal, procedural manner. It must have an opportunity to vent violent pressures, and the General Assembly is the only place for universal international talks. If nations are not talking, we may be warring.
  The world needs an international policeman ensuring that international laws and standards are not based on might and a code of international morality that does not undermine the legitimate sovereignty of Governments—a point to which I shall return in a moment.
  The United Nations was established after the second world war with the primary objective
  "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
  One could argue that it has failed miserably in that objective. It ran into the cold war, and there has been repeated regional or local warfare ever since. But there has been no world war. Is that because the United Nations or of the nuclear deterrent? Certainly at moments of great international crisis the role of the United Nations has been important. The Cuban missile crisis and the middle east conflict in 1973 showed that the United Nations can work as a positive power to reduce international tension. It has been successful in mobilising world opinion against aggressors, as it did over Afghanistan.
  In its first 40 years, the United Nations was involved in eight peacekeeping operations. Since 1988, there have been at least 10 others, including Cambodia and now the former Yugoslavia. In addition, other nations have been sanctioned to take action on the United Nations's behalf, as in Korea and Kuwait.
  As the cold war has rolled back and the threat fof nuclear warfare between the two super-powers has receded, so the importance of the United Nations for dealing with localised conflict has grown. The old conflict between the allied powers of the Soviet Union and those of the United States led to some international discipline. So it follows as that role changes with the breakdown of the super-power groupings there is an increasing need for localised discipline to be imposed by nations acting in concert.
  I want briefly to praise the work of the troops that perform the peacekeeping functions of the United Nations because little has been said yet on this. It is important to place that on record. They are people who go into action, often without arms and under threat of their lives. Fortunately, the six observers who were detained in Cambodia have just been released, but they demonstrate only too clearly the risks that are run by many on behalf of world peace.
  I want to return to the point about national sovereignty and whether it is appropriate for an international force to override the legitimate Government of a country. What is a legitimate Government of a nation? Are Governments legitimate only because they are elected, or because they are carrying out the functions of government?
  It is difficult for the United Nations to be called in to support a corrupt regime against its own people. Yet that

  531
  regime might be the legitimate Government of the country concerned. Is it legitimate and proper for the United Nations to prevent risings by oppressed minorities when human rights are threatened? Is it correct that law and order should be restored by the United Nations when it has broken down within the boundaries of one country and when the Government of that country do not seek outside help?
  It will never be easy to address such issues. They must be judged item by item as they arise. It is perhaps wrong to set down in advance too many criteria for judging whether it is appropriate for the United Nations to be involved. It is certainly true that the United Nations must act as a doctor, saving life after an accident rather than as a law enforcer seeking to prevent the incident.
  I shall suggest criteria that it might be appropriate to consider. All, or certainly most, of these criteria should apply before it is proper for the United Nations to become involved in the affairs of a nation. The first criterion is that there should be extreme violence, not isolated terrorist acts. Secondly, there should be a breakdown of law and order. Thirdly, world or regional peace should be threatened. Fourthly, there should be extensive suffering of the civilian population. Unless those criteria apply, I do not believe that the United Nations should take action.
  Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman say that all those criteria should apply at any one time?
  Mr. Thomason: Certainly most of them should apply. I have already said that each case should be considered on its merits. It is wrong to lay down hard and fast rules in isolation from individual cases.
  Hon. Members have already referred to the United Nations costly operations and its difficulties in dealing with its duties without proper funding. I shall not repeat what has been said, but much criticism has correctly been levelled at the United States. However, the United States contributes—or at least is due to contribute, although it does not always do so—30·7 per cent. of the United Nations budget. We must bear in mind the considerable burden that falls upon that one country.
  Mr. Corbyn: It does not pay it.
  Mr. Thomason: The United States funds the United Nations substantially, but the funding is often rather late. The critical problem is the United Nations cash flow. The figures cited earlier reveal that more than 80 per cent. of the current year's subscriptions as at July were unpaid. That represents the accumulated total, including arrears of previous years' subscriptions. In addition, there are peacekeeping costs.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job of defending the indefensible. Should not the United States simply pay up? As it wishes to play a major role in the United Nations, the least that it can do is to pay its subscriptions.
  Mr. Thomason: I have made it clear that I believe that the United States should pay, and it is rightly criticised for not paying its contribution, but some provisos should be added to that argument. I am interested to note that in the past few hours the United States has announced that it will send 28,000 troops to Somalia. It is not clear whether they will be paid for by United States taxpayers or whether a contribution will be made from the United Nations
  532
  budget. If the former, by contra-entry, as it were, the United States may make a substantial financial contribution to the peacekeeping budget.
  There is no doubt that to function properly and effectively the United Nations must be properly funded. It is disgraceful that it is left in its present condition, not knowing whether it can pay its salaries month by month. I make it absolutely clear that the United Nations needs the financial as well as the moral support of the nations of the world. The United Kingdom has been in the forefront of ensuring that the contribution is made. So have other European countries—at least, with regard to the subscriptions. The criticisms of nations such as Germany and Japan relate not to the payment of subscriptions—they often pay up well—but to their contributions to the peacekeeping role over which they have been laggardly in doing their duty.
  The United Nations structure needs to be reformed. I shall not repeat what was said earlier about the work of the present Secretary-General in introducing much-needed initiatives in that process. He has not yet been able to go far enough, and I hope that so far we are seeing only a start.
  Duplication between agencies must be avoided, and the management structure must be reviewed to show a clear chain of command. Inter-agency in-fighting must be reduced, and staff must be chosen according to merit rather than nationality. The credibility of the organisation needs to be enhanced, to general good will.
  Only the United Nations can provide action in the wide spheres that require a complex and important organisation. The International Maritime Organisation, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation are important bodies whose work must be acknowledged. So is the World Health Organisation, which has achieved the eradication of smallpox, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Commissioner on Narcotic Drugs, the World bank, the Universal Postal Union, and the International Telecommunication Union. They are all essential parts of the work of an important international body.
  I must emphasise the importance that the United Nations now gives to the environment. The United Nations initiated the Rio summit, and has addressed vital issues—but the pace is slow. Our initiatives in this country have not been reflected across the world. The issues must be addressed with greater urgency.
  The United Nations charter governs the conduct of international behaviour between sovereign states. To succeed, therefore, the organisation must be effective and efficient, and must raise its profile so as to command respect. It must deal with current international issues such as the environment, but it must not become involved in issues that are irrelevant to international action. It must direct and initiate action to help the helpless, but it must not simply provide food for the starving people of a nation while thereby allowing that nation's Government to be free to buy arms and equip troops. Food must be given to those who need it, not to remove pressure from a Government to allow it to equip troops who then steal that food because of their power.
  The United Nations must avoid becoming a permanent policeman. I noted what was said earlier about the organisation becoming locked in to certain areas of

  533
  difficulty in the world. It must be an agent for peaceful settlement and then withdraw. Its affairs must be managed with transparent accountancy.
  Above all, the United Nations must help all the nations of the world appreciate the difficulties of international operations. Patience is needed where time is short. Achievement is measured by the shuffle, not the stride, and success is often merely survival.
  12.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I shall emulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) by making my comments as brief as possible, and to the point.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing the United Nations as the subject of the debate. That is especially appropriate in view of yesterday's announcement on Somalia by the Security Council.
  I welcome the general tone of the debate and the attitude of the Government these days to the role of the United Nations. Not long ago one could have been forgiven for thinking that there was sheer hostility in the Conservative party towards the role, functions and work of the United Nations. That is not true under the present Prime Minister, but it was under the previous Prime Minister in her more strident mode.
  It is a depressing fact that, as those hon. Members who have been lucky enough to be called so far have said, the end of the cold war has led to an upsurge in regional conflict. The existence of two military super-powers naturally provided a stalemate, but a stalemate is not a solution to problems. All it does is to keep the lid firmly pressed down on them. It was a dangerous stalemate because it was brought about by the possession of vast quantities of nuclear weapons on each side. That was clearly unsatisfactory. Whatever price we are now paying for the end of the cold war, it is, to echo the words used by others, a price well worth paying on this occasion. However, we must accept that there is a price to pay.
  The break-up of the Soviet Union and its empire has posed enormous problems, specifically for Europe. Yugoslavia is the most bloody at present, but there could be more and far worse to follow in eastern Europe. I am worried about the 14 newly independent former Soviet republics in whose territories there are 25 million ethnic Russians. The thought of Russia intervening militarily in any of the republics is a frightening prospect. We need to be aware of that possibility, and we need to ensure that the United Nations is able to deal with any problems in the area.
  There is great economic suffering in Russia and I want to use this debate to mention that fact. We read so much about the suffering of the Russian people and others in eastern Europe. I do not believe that the west is doing enough. It is no good wringing our hands and saying that we hope that things will work out well for people there. Of course we have the problems of recession in this country, but, even with the Conservative Government's economic policies, our problems are probably temporary.
  The problems of the former Soviet people are long-term problems which can be solved only by a massive transformation of their economies. That will require an
  534
  equally massive transfer of wealth from the west to the east, such as the Americans gave to war-ravaged Europe after the second world war by means of the Marshall plan. We need a latter-day Marshall plan. Our failure to transfer resources to eastern Europe could result in a tragedy of historic proportions.
  The end of the cold war has highlighted the work and role of the United Nations in a changed world. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the United Nations is the hope for the future because of all its international roles. At the moment, its peacekeeping role is the most significant. As a result of the way in which the world has changed in recent years, the peacekeeping role of the United Nations is now putting enormous demands on that organisation. The United Nations has done as much peacekeeping in the past four years as it had done in the previous 40 years. That is the scale of peacekeeping facing the United Nations.
  Conservative and Opposition Members have said that peacekeeping is an expensive function. It cost $233 million five years ago. It is estimated that it cost $421 million last year, and that the figure for this year will be $3 billion. The United Nations budget is roughly $2 billion a year for all its functions, including peacekeeping. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about costs and contributions and about the fact that we should ensure that this country and the United States pay their full subscriptions on time. It is important that subscriptions are paid on time. The United States, Russia, Germany and France are well behind with their contributions. Although it is good to know that the British Government have paid their annual subscription, I understand that about $500,000 is still owed by the Government as a contribution towards peacekeeping.
  The United Nations is undertaking 12 peacekeeping operations around the world. To ensure that adequate support can be given to those operations, it is necessary greatly to expand the United Kingdom budget. These are difficult times in which to talk about giving more money to international organisations, but the price of failure is so great that we cannot simply ignore the need to put more resources at the disposal of the United Nations. We must take a long-term view. We must not merely look at our own short-term economic problems when there are so many long-term problems facing the world which require action now if they are not to develop into tragedies.
  The Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, has called for a standing UN peacekeeping unit. That is an excellent idea, but it has not met with a favourable response from other countries, especially the United States. I welcome the announcement that many extra troops are to be sent to Somalia, but I make the point that the United States is very reluctant to put its own troops under the military control of the United Nations. As long as the United States refuses to do that, the finger of suspicion can always be pointed at it, even when it is acting in the best interests of the world.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to the United States. He knows that it has been the convention over the years that the super-powers should not take part in United Nations peacekeeping operations. The United States has been discouraged from joining in.
  Mr. Banks: I take that point. However, in view of the problems we now face which require such large numbers of troops armed with sophisticated weaponry, only countries such as the United States can fulfil the needs.
  I remain one of the great critics of American foreign policy, but it is necessary that the finger of suspicion does not point unfairly at the United States when it is acting in the best interests of the rest of the world. I cannot see what the United States will gain nationally out of sending 30,000, or 60,000, troops to Somalia. Indeed, the United States Administration may become the target of strong criticism internally as soon as American soldiers start coming back in body bags. I understand that. The American Administration might be better protected and less misunderstood if they were more prepared for their military forces to be placed under United Nations control when they intervene in countries with the sanction of the Security Council.
  I believe that there should be a United Nations army under the control of the Security Council. I believe that Britain should pledge its full defence resources to the United Nations and should put them at the disposal of the United Nations. One of the great benefits of the peace dividend is that we could say that the United Nations should be able to call on this country whenever it needs to, so that our military could intervene in areas where it was considered necessary for it to do so by the Security Council.
  I believe that the UN should have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. I know that there are Conservative and Labour Members who disagree. In a world that purports to be civilized—I do not believe that we can call ourselves civilised, but I hope that we are moving towards a more civilised world—we cannot allow the political leaders of a country to massacre their own people while we stand aside and claim that that is a matter of the internal affairs of another country. I cannot see how the people who are being massacred will be grateful for that legal advice.
  On the basis of unanimity within the Security Council, the United Nations should have the power and be prepared to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries. I know that there are dangers in that respect, but there are even greater dangers for the people who are on the receiving end of the barbaric actions of a number of political leaders around the world.
  It was right for the United States to be prepared to send troops to Somalia. I hope that the British Government will provide military support. Why should gangsters in Somalia prevent humanitarian aid reaching the Somali people? It is right that there should be intervention. Why should Serb thugs in Bosnia be able to do what they are doing?
  It is now time for the United Nations to intervene militarily in the former Yugoslavia if only to stop that conflict stretching into Kosovo and Macedonia and then involving Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and even Italy. There are dangers; but the greater danger is that of doing nothing at all.
  Although I will not adopt the "action man" mode of the leader of the Liberal Democrats and want to send large numbers of troops in without thinking about it, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has a point. However, it is very easy for politicians within the comforts of the Palace of Westminster to decide to send troops abroad to intervene in trouble spots; we do not run the
  536
  risks. In those circumstances, troops should be volunteers. I do not know how that fits in with the fact that ours is a professional army, but we should send troops on a voluntary basis rather than on the basis of, "Pick up your pack and off you go, laddie." It would be wrong for politicians to adopt that attitude.
  Military intervention rarely provides a long-term solution. We must look to the United Nations political role to solve those problems. We must make people sit around tables and ensure that they stay there until they find solutions to their problems. Naturally, economic sanctions must be imposed, and perhaps with greater enthusiasm than they have been imposed. As has been said, arms control is also essential. We must cut off the causes of regional conflicts rather than deal with the symptoms.
  I am clear in my mind. I have not changed my position with regard to the United Nations. I have always believed in the role and function of the United Nations. It holds the key to the very future of world peace, and it deserves our unstinting support.
  12.31 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. However, I add my apology to the apologies of several others as I will not be present for the winding-up speeches, because my wife had a baby yesterday and I must pick her up from hospital. However, I will read the winding-up speeches with some interest.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is now the third Conservative Member to preface his remarks by saying that he will have to leave the Chamber early. I am aware that there is no coercion on hon. Members to stay. However, it is most discourteous. If it is simply a Government trick to scupper the debate on colliery closures, that is appalling. Conservative Members come into the Chamber, make their speeches and then walk out without any courtesy to the Minister or anyone else who has to wrap up the debate.
  Mr. Brazier: I have taken a considerable interest in this subject and three of my letters on the subject have been published in the press. Although my wife had a baby yesterday, I have come to the House today to speak on the subject because I feel exceptionally strongly about it. I will read the record carefully to see what the Front-Bench spokesmen have to say. However, it is not unreasonable that I should want to return home, especially as I have to pick up my wife from the hospital.
  Mr. Rogers: I sincerely apologise to the hon. Gentleman. As the father of four children, I appreciate the calls of the family. If I had known the facts, I would not have attacked the hon. Gentleman in that way. However, I deprecate the actions of other Conservative Members. I am aware of the strong commitment of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and I apologise unreservedly to him.
  Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's apology.
  Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brazier: Several hon. Members are waiting to speak and I have very little time left. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Thomason: I thank my hon. Friend. It is interesting that quite a few Conservative Members wish to participate in the debate. This is an important issue on which many of us spent a considerable time preparing papers because we are interested in the subject, but there are large empty spaces on the Opposition Benches. It ill-behoves Opposition Members to make such points when hon. Members have taken time to be here.
  Mr. Brazier: I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's remarks, but it is time that we returned to the subject of debate.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing a good topic and on his excellent speech. Before I continue to the main burden of my speech, on the UN policy in the Balkans, I must endorse his argument that there can only be a long-term solution to the problems of Somalia with the restoration of an Administration there. I do not want to discuss how that can be achieved, but unless an Administration is restored, the chaos will return as soon as the troops leave.
  The international community—in particular the United Nations and the European Community—is pressing all parties in the Balkans, particularly the Serbs, to establish a peace based on the internationally recognised borders of Bosnia. In principle, that aim is commendable, because we should uphold international law and because if we give way on the principle of borders, there are frightening precedents for other parts of eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet republics. I am sure that my central message will be unwelcome in some parts of the House, and it runs contrary to Government and United Nations policy. Nevertheless, I think that that aim is unattainable. If we choose to use Bosnia as the test case for that valuable principle we shall test it to destruction. Furthermore, I do not want the lives of British service men—perhaps substantial numbers of them—to be lost in an exercise in trying to make water run up hill. I welcome the recent comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, which gave the strongest possible hint that all military advice is that the aim is unattainable.
  The burden of my speech is to establish that fact. I shall briefly consider a more attainable objective and mention the implications for our defence policies of trying to assist the United Nations in such areas.
  Why is the aim unattainable? If we look back as far as we like in Balkan history we find that there have been wars there. Today, the focus is on Serbian aggression, but in world war two the Serbs suffered horribly at the hands of the Ustachi Croatians and their Bosnian Hanjar supporters and one sixth of the occupying Wehrmacht was made up of Muslims.
  It is important to look further back in history to the five centuries of extremely bloody Turkish rule in Serbia. The spiritual mother of the Serbian nation is a lady who lost nine sons fighting the Turkish occupying forces.
  Mr. Rogers rose——
  Mr. Brazier: I shall not give way again because some of my hon. Friends want to speak and I must make progress.
  538
  Turkish rule is significant because against the background of that terrible historical heritage, the worries of the Serbians and their Greek allies are constantly fuelled by recent examples of brutality by Muslim regimes against Christian minorities, to which all too often they see the western powers and the United Nations casting a blind eye. One example is the Azerbaijani treatment of Armenian minorities and another, is the Syrians' treatment of Lebanese Christians. An example that is even closer to home is the near silence on the treatment of Christian minorities in mainland Turkey. A Greek Member of the European Parliament reminded us of that in a pamphlet which we all received last week. Those considerations make the Serbs determined not to be ruled by an Islamic Government.
  I do not for one second seek to justify the hideous atrocities committed by the Serbian guerrilla forces in Bosnia—I think that they have been largely committed by such forces rather than by the Serbian regular army. I simply want to explain why they are fighting and their motivation for doing so.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does that make it okay then?
  Mr. Brazier: No, not at all.
  A number of options have been put forward for restoring Bosnia to its original borders. I should like to eliminate two of them. The stronger of the two options is that we should deploy ground troops in an offensive. I have already said why I believe that the Serbians are fighting and it is interesting to consider how they would be likely to fight.
  When the Germans rolled into Yugoslavia on the heels of the Italians in the second world war, there was, contrary to popular belief, little initial fighting. Wehrmacht casualties ran to a few hundred only. Once the Germans had established themselves, however, the guerrilla war began. I believe that if the United Nations were to deploy a fighting force in Serbia, which had nothing to do with delivering humanitarian aid, exactly the same thing would happen. Initially they would not oppose it, but, subsequently, a guerrilla war would begin and, as in so many other places—Palestine, Cyprus and Afghanistan—the Serbians would make extensive use of children and the elderly, the most vulnerable, in propagating that war. Eight-year-old children would shoot at British and other United Nations soldiers. Women and children would be pushed to the front of crowds to act as a screen for terrorists.
  Once we saw our soldiers being killed and the world media began to cry out at the killing of civilians, which would be unavoidable when trying to hold down a hostile population, the inevitable result would be the withdrawal of those United Nations forces. After that the fighting would begin afresh with renewed vigour.
  The other option for re-establishing Bosnian control of the original Bosnian state is the so-called air option. If the first option is unwise, the second one does not exist. It is ludicrous to draw a parallel with the Gulf war. Then, air crews were flying over vast empty spaces that were home to no one. There was no forestation and air power could be used without the slightest hesitation. Are we really going to bomb Serbian gun positions in the middle of villages and bomb their ammunition dumps, which would be located in the middle of their concentration camps?

  539
  If we conducted sporadic bombing in Serbia itself against selected targets, all the evidence from past wars suggests that that would stiffen morale and deepen hatred. Surely no one is suggesting that we should initiate a Dresden on Belgrade.
  The truth is that there is no limited air option. There is no way in which we can put. Bosnia back together again by following an acceptable policy with acceptable casualties. What, then, should we try to do to overcome the plight of the wretched Bosnians?
  We must recognise that the border must change—there is no other option. The Serbs have already said and the Croats, too, I believe, that they would be happy to give up some of the ground that they have captured in exchange for a negotiated settlement involving a genuine border change. In effect, Serbia would be given a substantial chunk of Bosnia and Croatia would be given a smaller chunk. The Bosnians would be left with a smaller, viable "place in the sun", to coin the famous phrase. I believe that such a solution could be negotiated. We have had suggestions from the Serbians in Bosnia that they would be willing to consider and negotiate that option.
  Even that might prove unattainable without the use of force. The longer we wait before entering negotiations based on a border change—the longer we try to uphold a good principle of international law in the face of an impossible example, with a state that has existed for only 18 months and which was created against the wishes of the two minorities who together form a majority of the country—the more we undermine the possibility of success. I believe that we should go for it now.
  What would be the implications for our defence policy if we were willing to intervene on behalf of the UN in a really active military fashion in Bosnia or a similar type of situation? I accept that matters could become so bad that it might be necessary to intervene, but I would be willing to contemplate intervention in only one event, and that would be after a serious attempt had been made to negotiate fresh boundaries for a much smaller Bosnia in which the Bosnian Muslims were left to live in peace.
  Only if that proved impossible—the signs do not suggest that it would be impossible—might it be necessary to try to establish the sort of enclave that we have for the Kurds on the basis of a much smaller and defendable patch. But we must be clear that the consequences for our defence policy would be absolutely profound if Britain were willing in principle to intervene in that type of way there or anywhere in eastern Europe.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to leave the matter there. He refers to our taking action. Is he aware that it is not for Britain to decide what shall happen in Bosnia? The purpose of the UN having a new agenda is to make it acceptable to minorities, particularly minorities in parts of the world which have felt that only the big powers, the majorities, have taken action against them. It is for them—not just the Serbs but the Muslims and Croats—to decide whether they want to divide up their country. It is not for us to tell them how to divide it up.
  Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman missed the point I was making, which was that the UN and EC line at every peace negotiation has been based on the objective of making all parties agree to restoring Bosnia to its original or perhaps I should say "nominal", boundaries. That has
  540
  been the pre-condition at every conference, including the recent one in London, and my basic message is that that demand is unattainable and that until the UN moves away from it, there can be no prospect of a successful peace conference. The British Government and the UN should be aiming for a conference designed to negotiate a realistic border change, and the Serbs have said that in such circumstances they would be willing to give up some of the ground they have captured.
  I am anxious to consider the implications for British defence policy should Britain, either in Bosnia or some other eastern European situation, agree to play a significant military role, similar to that which we played in the Gulf, as part of a United Nations force that was doing real fighting and was not engaged in a purely peacekeeping operation.
  Our armed forces, and particularly the Army, are moving from being very small to even smaller. Indeed, after "Options for Change", our Army will be only slightly larger than that of Holland or Belgium. It is desperately overstretched and we could not realistically expect such a tiny force—we are catering for only 100,000—to take on a commitment of that size, over and above all its other commitments.
  The funding is also in the process of being squeezed, even more so than manpower, from 5·2 per cent. of GDP in the mid-1980s to a projected 3·2 per cent. in the mid-1990s, a squeeze of 40 per cent. For us to become involved in the type of campaign in prospect in, say, Bosnia, would involve us in vast quantities of new and expensive equipment, of which helicopter gunships are an example.
  It would be unwise for the United Nations to become involved in trying to enforce in a military fashion its present objective, which I believe to be unattainable. Moreover, if we were to contemplate military intervention in defence of a much more limited objective of providing an enclave for the Bosnians—it is the only circumstance under which I might be willing to contemplate military intervention—it would require a total reappraisal of our defence policy and "Options for Change", with enormous resource implications.
  I am genuinely sorry that I shall not be present to hear the wind up of this debate by my hon. Friend the Minister, but I shall read the record with considerable interest. In summary, I firmly believe that the United Nations' present objective in the Balkans is unattainable and I am horrified at the idea of pouring away the blood of our own service men and women in trying to attain it. An attainable objective could and should be formulated at a conference, without pre-conditions. It should be based on substantial changes in borders which, after all, are of only 18 months' standing as internally recognised boundaries.
  Finally, we should be clear about the fact that if, under any circumstances, we plan to become involved in a United Nations war-fighting role as distinct from small-scale peacekeeping operations, the implications for resourcing our armed forces will be profound.
  12.51 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on the United Nations role. It is high time that we did so and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on getting the debate and on his consistent interest in UN matters. It

  541
  underlines a problem in the House—we seldom get round to debating matters to do with the United Nations or have Government time set aside during which the Foreign Secretary can report on Britain's contributions to the UN and its agencies. It is an extremely important issue and we do not spend enough time discussing it.
  I strongly support the view that Britain should renew its membership of UNESCO. To have left that organisation was appalling and a kick in the face of a valuable part of the UN's operations. It was also a signal to the rest of the world that we did not care about cultural and scientific aspects of UN operations or about the rest of the world. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, because I think that one of UNESCO's most important contributions was its attempt at setting up a world information agency. It was trying to ensure that the pro-western bias in the world's media-gathering agencies was at least in part redressed.
  The new UN Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Ghali, has produced a report on how he sees the UN and its agencies developing. It is important that he has done that and useful that he has set out his objectives. Although I do not agree with all the objectives or with several decisions that he has already taken, at least he has attempted to set out the scenario by which the UN can develop.
  There are fundamental structural problems within the United Nations. It was born at the end of the second world war and the victors of that war played a large part in its establishment. They set up the concept of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and gave permanent members of the Security Council powers of veto, essentially to keep the Soviet Union and the United States in place in the United Nations. Since then, we have been bedevilled by the Security Council's power and the limited powers of the General Assembly.
  It cannot be right that the Security Council's five permanent members—Britain, France, Russia, the United States and China—should still be the same permanent members after all this time. Why cannot there automatically be a place on the Security Council for at least one representative of each continent? Why does no third world country have a permanent place on the Security Council? Why are not economically powerful countries such as Japan permanently represented? No African or Latin American countries are permanently represented. India, with the second largest population in the world, is not represented. There are many arguments about it.
  Unless the issue of the structure of the United Nations is properly dealt with, and real democracy is developed in it, the process that we have seen in the past four years of growing United States interest and control over United Nations decisions will eventually lead to the disintegration of the United Nations. Third world countries will increasingly band together through the movement for non-alignment, the Group of Seven or whatever, depending on the area involved. It is all very well for western triumphalism to be in charge and in the ascendancy of the United Nations at present, but, unless the issues are seriously addressed, the United Nations simply will not survive. I say that not as one who wants to see the United Nations fail—I do not—but as one who
  542
  wants to see it succeed. Unless the United Nations is prepared to change and recognise the reality of the world, it will start to decline.
  The Rio summit should have been a great triumph for the United Nations. But it was not a great triumph because of all the caveats that were pushed into the final communiqués on environmental considerations, especially by the United States. Unless one of the world's largest industrial economies, the United States, is prepared to agree to the wishes of the rest of the world to protect the environment, the species and the regeneration of natural environments, the whole concept and consequences of the Rio summit will be called seriously into question.
  There is a great deal of concern about the restructuring of the United Nations in favour of its economic role. After all, the United Nations economic role is one of its key roles. That role is being taken away from the redistributive agencies of the United Nations and handed over effectively to the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. I say that because I know that most of the debate today has been dominated, understandably, by the issue of United Nations peacekeeping operations and the dangers of wars, including civil wars, in various parts of the world. I understand that, but the majority of the world's population do not have secure employment, secure housing, available education, available health care or decent food supplies. A quarter of the world's population is malnourished. More than 500 million people in the world regularly face starvation. Life expectancy in most of the world is rather less than 50. We are looking at a world that is deeply and grossly divided and becoming more deeply and grossly divided.
  The United Nations and its attempts at fair trade through the UN Conference on Trade and Development in the past, its distribution of food through the World Food Programme and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, and its attempts to examine the enormous power that multinational corporations hold in the world, must be applauded. In that sense I deeply regret the decision taken by Boutros Boutros Ghali immediately after the Rio summit to close down the United Nations office which dealt with transnational corporations.
  A very good article has been published in the July issue of Third World Resurgence,which is produced by the Third World Network in Penang, Malaysia. The article is entitled
  "UN restructuring against South's interests".
  The reality is that the restructuring of the United Nations is done very much according to the image and the wishes of the United States. That image seems to be that the only thing that matters in the world's economy is the power of multinational capital and the freedom of multinational capital to trade. Much less interest is taken in the needs of third world agriculture or the redistribution of power and wealth around the world.
  I refer to the point I made earlier. Unless the issues are taken seriously by all member states of the United Nations, and we recognise the need for democracy within the United Nations and for contributions to be made to it, I do not think that the United Nations will last much longer. The tensions within the organisation will become far too great. Boutros Boutros Ghali expressed it well. Thinking back to the period when the great powers of the world spent a long time ignoring the United Nations in the 1960s, 1970s and the early 1980s, Boutros Boutros Ghali

  543
  now sees that the rest of the world has a surfeit of interest in the United Nations. We saw that surfeit of interest in the procedures leading up to and surrounding the Gulf war.
  I have never been an apologist for Saddam Hussein. I was calling for an arms embargo on Iraq in 1986, a long time before the British Government recognised the dangers there, so I do not need to apologise about that. I thought that the Gulf war was immoral. The consequences of that conflict, which was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, but not under its day-to-day command or control, included the death of at least 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a profit to the 13ritish Government from the income received from the war. The Government conveniently forget about the money that they lost in export credit guarantees from sales to Iraq in the past. The war also brought instability in Kuwait, poverty in Iraq, and instability in the south where the Shias live and in the north where the Kurds live.
  Perhaps we should have taken more notice of what the Kurds said about their right to self-determination in the late 1970s and early 1980s, rather than taking an interest far too late in what they were saying. Instead, this country and others were more interested in building up the power of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend, but what would he have done about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? We all know that Saddam Hussein was maltreating citizens. I agree that we should not have been selling arms to Hussein, irrespective of whether he intended to invade Kuwait. But once Hussein was in Kuwait, it was clear that he was attempting to destroy the Kuwaiti nation, so how else could we have dealt with that problem?
  Mr. Corbyn: We could have dealt with it in a number of ways. First, we should not have been supporting Iraq by selling arms to it, particularly during the Iran-Iraq war. Secondly, much closer observation should have been taken of Saddam Hussein's intentions in the lead-up to the invasion of Kuwait, particularly the United States intelligence information that was made available to all parties. Thirdly, the sanctions were having some effect. Fourthly, President Gorbachev had broken an agreement that Iraq was, in principle, prepared to withdraw from Kuwait at that stage. However, the United States war machine was so large and was very much in place by then, so there was no question of President Bush being prepared to allow an opportunity for other action to be taken. The subject of my speech is not solely the Gulf war, but its consequences have been absolutely horrific and it is hard to find any benefits from it at present.
  On the issue of peace around the world in a more global sense, the United Nations sponsored the non-proliferation treaty. The British Government say that they support the United Nations and that a cornerstone of their policies is their support for the United Nations. In that case, why are the Government ordering and building a fourth Trident submarine? They are, apparently, prepared to consider further nuclear weapons in future. The Trident submarine programme is the most massive proliferation of nuclear firepower in any world state at present. If all the warheads are put in place it will increase Britain's nuclear firepower by 400 per cent. over the existing Polaris fleet The programme is nonsense, a waste of money and deeply immoral. I say that as one who is not prepared to countenance the holding or use of nuclear weapons in any
  544
  circumstances. We should pay some heed to the non-proliferation treaty, which was sponsored by the United Nations.
  The United Nations is attempting to have an effect in some regions of the world. However, in some cases, what is happening is not what we are led to believe is happening. We know of the past horrors of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the hundreds of thousands of skulls found in chambers—the charnel houses of the dead of Cambodia. Everyone recognises the evilness of that regime. The degree of genocide in Cambodia was on a par with the genocide of the Nazis against the Jewish people, gipsies and others in Germany, both pre-war and during the war. I accept that, but the reality in Cambodia at present is that the United States strategy has always been to get rid of the Han Sen regime in order to destroy the Vietnamese influence on Cambodia. At the same time, the United Nations presence in Cambodia is working alongside the Khmer Rouge and the remains of the former Pol Pot army.
  Pol Pot is there. His influence is powerful. The regime has control over large areas of Cambodia. I draw the attention of the House to an article by John Pilger that appeared in last week's New Statesman and Society One passage states:
  "The United Nations is normalising the unthinkable in Cambodia."
  He quotes a conversation that he had with the United Nation's Australian commander, Lt. General John Sanderson. This is John Pilger:
  "I referred to the 'genocide' committed by the Khmer Rouge. 'Genocide is your term!' he came back. I reminded him that actually, no, it wasn't. In 1979, the United Nations Human Rights Commission described Pol Pot's crimes as 'the worst to have occurred anywhere in the world since Nazism'; and in 1985, the United Nations special rapporteur on genocide ruled that what the Khmer Rouge had done was 'genocide…even under the most restricted definition.'"
  That is what is going on in Cambodia at present.
  The United Nations promised development aid to Cambodia of £880 million. That was pledged at the Tokyo conference. Hardly any of that money has found its way into Cambodia.
  There are enormous armies in Cambodia and the army of the Pol Pot regime is settling down alongside them. I fear that in the long run we shall see a return for Pol Pot by some back-door method with the connivance of the United Nations. A seat was kept throughout at the United Nations, with the support of the British Government, for the remains of the Khmer Rouge regime.
  In an Adjournment debate last year I talked about the situation in the western Sahara. The rights of the Polisario and the rights of the people of the western Sahara to self-determination are understood and generally recognised by the United Nations. Like all conflicts, however, nothing is simple. The conflict in the western Sahara interests the people who are there, but interest does riot extend beyond that. There is, of course, interest in the minerals that are there and the fish in the sea. Interest extends to the Spanish colonialists of the past.
  In supporting the Polisario movement, the people of the western Sahara have amply demonstrated over many years their deep commitment to their own self-determination and independence. That must be well understood. It is in that setting that the behaviour of the Moroccan forces in the past must be examined, along with the role of the United Nations now.

  545
  The United Nations was due to broker a referendum in the western Sahara. Some United Nations officials were suspended during the preparation of the electoral roll because they were passing on to the Moroccan Government information that should not have been made able to them. They were showing partiality, and they were disciplined. The referendum should have been held about a year ago, but there has been delay. Moroccan forces have moved civilians and further Moroccan armed forces into the area that is claimed by the Democratic Republic of the Sahrawi People. By moving in these people the Moroccans have produced a deadlock when it comes to determining who will vote in any referendum. We know that determining who is to be on the electoral roll can be the deciding factor in who wins the referendum.
  I do not want to see the present situation in the western Sahara continue for any longer. Can it be right that the vast majority of the population of the western Sahara have been forced to move out of their own homes, areas and villages to live in refugee camps in Algeria. It is not right. I think that everybody recognises that. It is essential that something is done about it. It is all very well passing United Nations resolutions on the subject, but if, at the same time, we maintain normal relations with Morocco—normal trade, military relations and all the rest of it—that country will not feel in the least inclined to carry out the wishes of the United Nations and hold a plebiscite, which I believe would lead to a peaceful settlement once and for all. It is clear that the people of the western Sahara wish to have the opportunity that is provided by self-determination, which will bring an end to an appalling conflict. That is the only part of Africa where the Organisation of African Unity supports the declaration of an independent state within existing political borders. African borders are fraught with difficulty, and the OAU's support for the Sahrawi case is interesting.
  I want to make brief mention of the terrible conflict in Liberia, which is in part a matter of United Nations interest, in that the Security Council has discussed it. The article in last Sunday's edition of the Observer was chilling in its horror. It told of the children who have been dragged into the war by all sides, all factions. Five-year-old children have been handed knives and guns and taught how to kill. The long-term psychological damage done to those children and the chaos in that country ought to concern everyone deeply.
  In that civil war, the supposed peacekeeping force organised by the west African states is overwhelmingly dominated by Nigeria. That force has air supplies and air cover and has taken to shelling the positions of the army led by Charles Taylor. That has become a civil war, and the forces of the west African states—with the military support and intelligence of the United States—have in effect become a war against the forces of Charles Taylor.
  My purpose in raising that issue is to point out that unless a brokered ceasefire can take effect and there is a genuine halt to the fighting and support for the refugees in Liberia, many more will die than the 20,000 already killed in that civil war. Another potential Somalia or Beirut is developing in west Africa.
  Many do not accept that the west African peacekeeping forces are particularly even-handed or interested in securing the peace. It has, with the support of other states
  546
  within the region, become a civil war. The United Nations must take that situation seriously and try to broker an urgent ceasefire. Otherwise, the killing will continue.
  There are many other places in the world where issues of war and peace are not yet resolved, and where there is a need for peacekeeping forces and to recognise the rights of people to live in peace. That is an important and major role for the United Nations.
  I remind the House that the absence of fighting or belligerence in a conflict does not mean that people are living at peace. It cannot be right that we know that the behaviour of the majority of industrialised nations is ruining our environment and potentially ending life on this planet. We know also that the world economic system does not redstribute wealth from the richest nations to the poorest but sucks yet more wealth from the poorest and hands it to the banking systems of the richest. One thinks of the debt crisis, the power of multinational capital, unfair trading arrangements, and the low prices paid for commodities.
  It cannot be right that millions of children are growing up in slums on the outskirts of capital cities. It cannot be right that life expectancy in so many countries is less than 50. It cannot be right that millions are dying of starvation while we are getting rid of surplus food to maintain high prices.
  The United Nations can provide the framework and the solutions to those problems, but if the United Nations becomes solely the plaything of the powerful, rich, industrial nations of the north, that might satisfy the egos of those nations initially and give them a feeling of well being and self-satisfaction, but in the not-too-distant future it will lead to the United Nation's demise, as the poorest nations grow angrier and angrier at experts arriving from the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to tell them how to run their economies. They know full well that advice will be "Cut your public spending, and close your hospitals and schools", to repay a debt that is unfair and non-repayable. Unless we take those issues seriously, we shall not be doing any favours to ourselves, the world or our own futures.
  1.14 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: It is classical to start by congratulating the movers of motions on their success in obtaining them and by thanking them for their speeches in support of them. This morning, we have been privileged to hear some fine speeches and some profound truths expressed. I should like to say how much I honoured and valued the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) that began the debate this morning. It was, however, no less than I expected, because the fine standard of his debates on international issues, particularly on the United Nations, is an example to the rest of the House. We are fortunate to have the benefit of his knowledge, and I was glad to be present today to hear him.
  I particularly welcomed my hon. Friend's comments on the value of UNESCO. I do not share his warm glow about some of UNESCO's earlier actions, but, like him, I believe that the time has come for Britain to rejoin. We do ourselves and UNESCO no favours by staying out.
  I thank my hon. Friend warmly for drawing the House's attention to the report of Dr. Boutros Boutros

  547
  Ghali entitled "An Agenda for Peace," consequential upon the Security Council summit meeting of 31 January. It is an important document which we need to study carefully.
  I have just become a member of the executive council of UNICEF, and I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the fine work of UNICEF in so many areas of the world.
  Dr. Robert Spink: On UNESCO, is not the only remaining issue of any substance of the nine points of dissatisfaction that were raised by Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, in his notice of withdrawal in 1984 the decentralisation of personnel from their headquarters? Is not the fact that the United Kingdom—and probably the United States of Americ—will rejoin UNESCO in this parliamentary Session to be welcomed?
  Miss Nicholson: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. As a signatory to two letters to The Times from the parliamentary group seeking the United Kingdom's rejoining of UNESCO, I support what he has said and I am confident that the Government will have heard and taken note of it.
  I do not wish to sound a jarring note too early in the debate, but I have been saddened by one speech. I raised a point of order when your predecessor, Madam Deputy Speaker, was in the Chair and I wish to put down a marker. I did not raise it for a frivolous reason. An hon. Member opposite, who is not here—he has barely been here since, and I do not name him—used his speech to read out extract upon extract, letter upon letter and statement upon statement attacking the Government on an issue unrelated to the United Nations. He cobbled together some tenuous link with the debate by continually dropping in the name "United Nations". I pointed out that in the Iran-Iraq war the United Nations had passed no motion saying that there should be an arms embargo on Iran and Iraq by members of the United Nations. He claimed that I was wrong. I understand that I am correct in saying that the United Nations attempted to pass such a motion but did not manage to do so.
  I believe, therefore, that the entirety of the hon. Gentleman's over-lengthy and, frankly, boring speech was an irrational attempt to attack the Government. 11 was against the spirit of the debate, the spirit of the House and the spirit of the mover of the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath. I am sad that he did that. Of course the United Nations issued guidelines, but so did the Government, which were drafted in 1984 and passed by the House in 1985, but that subject is a topic for a different debate. I am sad that so much time has been misused this morning.
  I deal again with the United Nations, as is proper for everyone else who speaks in the debate. I pay tribute to the relative success of the United Nations work in Somalia. I say only "relative" success because what is happening is a tragedy and it is difficult to use the word "success" in that framework. However, the work done by UNICEF and other United Nations agencies has been remarkable and I am sure that it will continue.
  Despite the many criticisms made of the interventions by the United Nations and other bodies such as the Government in the former Yugoslavia, I know that the United Nations has brought hope to many troubled victims there and I entirely support its work.
  548
  I turn now to a part of the world in which I believe that the United Nations has failed drastically, dramatically and without good cause—Iraq, south and north. Sadly, I lay special blame at the door of Dr. Boutros Ghali for his signing of the recent United Nations draft memorandum of understanding between the regime of Iraq—which is defined in the memorandum as a Government—and the United Nations. I am aware that the memorandum of understanding was considered by many to be better than nothing and I am also aware that the negotiations were undertaken by James Grant, the executive director of UNICEF, whose good will and energy in bringing aid to children in Iraq and many other countries is unceasing and must be honoured and praised by all. However, what the United Nations did was wrong.
  I know from experience the miseries and deprivation in the south of Iraq. I have not yet visited the north, but hope to do so—I have a number of outstanding invitations. I well know—and have told the House on many occasions—what a wretched business it is now to live in the south of Iraq especially, being what is familiarly known as a marsh Arab, a member of the Ma'dan. I have seen the victims and have discussed the tragedies and traumas at length with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. There is much torture and many deaths and imprisonments underground year after year. That is the stuff of my daily work and thinking, and I know that what is happening is unacceptable to all right-thinking people's wishes.
  In addition, I have much evidence of the victims' experiences and of the tragedies now occurring. Only yesterday I received a fax about the Third River project which states that water in 46 villages in the Messan marshes has dried up. Those villages were in the middle of water, but there is now an acute shortage of it. The population of 40,000 people has started to dig wells to get water for daily use. This is a marsh area it is not an area such as the Norfolk broads but is about half the size of Switzerland and always has deep water. It has now dried out and the surface of the reed bed of the marshes is cracked.
  My corresponent, who is the local rapporteur for human rights in Iraq in the south of Iran, tells me that the villagers are in a very bad way because their ability to keep hunting and fishing and to retain the water buffalo depends on marsh water. The fax states that the Iraqi regime has started to cut the date palms to deprive the people wholly of their ability to feed themselves. It is a tragedy of enormous magnitude. I have the names of the villages and the numbers of people, and I am certain that the facts are correct.
  A couple of weeks ago I learned of a new report to be submitted to the United Nations by its special rapporteur for human rights in Iraq, Mr. Max van den Stoel. I have the document here, and I would gladly share it with the rest of the House. Reading out the full report would indeed add to the tragic thoughts of everyone in the Chamber, but it would not add to my speech, as I know that hon. Members understand what I am saying.
  Max van den Stoel, formerly the Netherlands ambassador and now special United Nations rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, has written a report to the United Nations which makes devastating reading. He criticises the United Nations for failing to act effectively in the south

  549
  and the north of Iraq, but most of his criticism, properly, is directed at the regime of Saddam Hussein and its complete destruction of any pretence of the practice of human rights in Iraq. I have the dossier here to show my colleagues.
  What has been the United Nations reaction to the tragedies that Max van den Stoel and others, including myself, have been bringing to its notice for months? The reaction has been the drawing up of the final memorandum of understanding, signed by Mr. Nizar Hamdoon—who signs himself ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, permanent representative of Iraq to the United Nations—and by Jan Eliasson, the undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs. Yet this is no humanitarian report. I shall tell the House just a few points which I have culled from it. I must stress that they show my own perspective on it.
  First, the memorandum of understanding recognises the sovereignty of Iraq. Yet the concept underlying all the United Nations resolutions on Iraq has been that the Security Council has already taken away Iraq's legal authority. If the Security Council has essentially overridden Iraq's sovereignty on humanitarian matters, through a combination of the sanctions resolution and the humanitarian assistance resolution—known so well to us as resolution 688—what is the point of the debate over the memorandum of understanding?
  Iraq has long since lost any moral authority that the regime may ever have possessed. The games involving the memorandum of understanding cost valuable months, and took away the United Nations initiatives, playing into the hands of the Iraqi regime. Furthermore, the memorandum recognises the sovereignty of the Iraqi regime, which is unacceptable and unthinkable. It also took months to achieve, despite the earlier UN statement that if the memorandum of understanding on humanitarian supplies was to achieve anything supplies had to be in place before the winter set in. Supplies were not in place. The memorandum has only just been signed, and it is based on a plan that does not even exist, and which has to be agreed by the Iraqi regime. Indeed, paragraph 6 says that the Iraqi regime will co-operate with the United Nations. When has Iraq ever done that? How can that be proved, how can it be made to happen? The idea is nonsense.
  The joint co-ordination committee, the body behind the memorandum of understanding, grants Iraq two more vetoes, one over implementing the programme—we must remember that that programme does not yet exist—and another over attempting to resolve
  "any difficulties that may arise in practice".
  The whole memorandum defies logic and understanding for those of us who care for the oppressed people of Iraq. Furthermore, it allows only a small number of UN guards to be available. The number is ridiculous. There is none for the south, and there are only eight for Baghdad. One can tell that even to keep United Nations property safe in Baghdad would require at least 30 guards—to protect UN buildings, vehicles, stocks and so on. Over and above that, the United Nations guards' actions and their communications network will be funnelled through the Iraqi regime.
  The present memorandum of understanding is an admission of failure on the part of the UN and especially on the part of Mr. Eliasson's office. In the light of that
  550
  so-called "agreement", we should ask ourselves two questions. First, is Iraq to be trusted with such an agreement? Millions of lives hang in the balance. Secondly, what contingency plans have been prepared for the possibility of the Iraqis failing to live up to expectations?
  A couple of weeks after the memorandum of understanding was signed, we heard that trucks were going into the north. We were told that we should not be too fussed about the memorandum of understanding because it was going to be effective. I leave aside the fact that no aid was to be given to the south, that there were no guards in the south and that the south was not even mentioned in the memorandum of understanding. What has happened? The convoy of trucks to the north was fire-bombed by the Iraqi regime and the supplies went up in flames. That is the United Nations memorandum of understanding in practice. I believe that the United Nations has failed Iraq and that we should do all that we can through our membership of the Security Council and of the various committees of the United Nations to bring about a greater political will among all countries in the United Nations to achieve something more effective.
  I am glad that, on 19 November, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Shias in Iraq which was sponsored by Anthony Simpson, the British MEP for Northamptonshire and South Leicestershire. I will not read it out, but it is here for all to see. I am also glad that members of Congress are at last trying to achieve something. I am in correspondence and telephone contact with Senator Edward Kennedy.
  The British Government have been wonderfully supportive of the efforts of those of us who have been trying to help Iraq. I have here a recent letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in which he gives his support and says:
  "We will keep a close watch on developments in southern Iraq…If necessary, we will go back to the Security Council to consider what further action we might take to help protect the population of southern Iraq against systematic repression in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 688."
  The time has come. I urge the Minister today to consider carefully taking that action now.
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on having made an elegant and witty speech. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is no longer here. I was bewildered—I am sure that it was entirely my fault—by his point about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister being unaware of where Africa was when he was Foreign Secretary. The hon. Member for Linlithgow must be unaware that my right hon. Friend lived and worked in Nigeria for many years.
  It is timely to talk about the United Nations and about its future role. We are in a new epoch in the history of the United Nations and Britain will play its part in the future destiny of the United Nations as we have done in its past. The 20th century has seen some of the most dramatic power struggles in world history. There was first the carnage of the first world war and then the genocide of the second world war. There was the ending of the great colonial powers, such as Britain. There were the steps into the atomic age and the emergence of two super-powers, with the race for supremacy. There was the formation of two ideological and military armed camps which faced

  551
  each other through the cold war. There was the rise and fall of communism. We now stand on the brink of ever-increasing numbers of regional conflicts.
  The United Nations in the cold war was largely ineffectual, as the two super-powers were mostly at odds and, to a large extent, dictated international policy on the basis of brinkmanship. The role of others on the world stage seemed to be merely as advisers, camp followers and supporters, with the so-called "non-aligned" movement being anything but that.
  In recent times, the United Nations has played a stronger and more vital role around the globe. It was instrumental in ending the Iran-Iraq war with the deployment of the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observation Group—UNIMOG; it played a similar role in the Afghanistan conflict and it has played a peacekeeping role in Cyprus, Angola and Kashmir. However, despite the good intentions, in situations like the Lebanon and Somalia, it has made very little headway.
  However, for the first time in its history, the United Nations should now be well placed to establish itself as a primary agent for peace as a consequence of the ending of the cold war. Some would say that the United Nations is now under greater strain than at any time since the end of the second world war.
  Change begets conflict and the world has changed rapidly over the past five years and the first point that I want to consider is whether the United Nations has changed fast enough to keep up. I welcome the appointment of such a distinguished person as Dr. Boutros Ghali as the first Secretary-General of the United Nations from the African continent. He has stressed his concern about north-south relations showing a sensitivity to development issues as well as to political and security matters.
  Although I have some sympathy with Dr. Boutros Ghali's statement that if there is no development without democracy, there is no democracy without development, I have been somewhat taken aback recently by the fact that, bearing in mind all the problems that we face, Dr. Boutros Ghali surprised us with his ethnic comments.
  It is a cardinal rule of the United Nations that ethnicity should never enter the argument. Dr. Boutros Ghali seems to be trying to set himself up as a champion of the third world. However, what is now required is statesmanship and not an attempt to transform the paralysis that permeated the United Nations during the cold war into a further period of impotence through a new north-south standoff.
  It is entirely possible that Dr. Boutros Ghali's error of judgment rose because he had been accused of pushing African interests to one side during his leadership. That criticism obviously hurt and his rebuke to the Security Council over its concern for the war of the rich in Yugoslavia rather than about that of the poor in Somalia was perhaps hasty. No one concerned with the United Nations should make such distinctions and allow the world to be polarised once more.
  However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he said:
  "The Secretary-General finds the queue outside the door growing all the time. I was not surprised he feels occasional exasperation, but we are on his side and we will work with him."
  552
  We must at all costs avoid a collision of cultures between the member states that speak for the advanced world and those that represent the third world. We must prevent the United Nations from plunging deeper into a growing identity crisis that threatens to paralyse its efforts
  Under the United Nations charter, the Secretary-General is something more, but not very much more, than a servant of the Security Council. He can draw situations to the attention of the Council, make recommendations to it and has the duty of interpreting its decisions—often to the displeasure of some of its members. However, no previous Secretary-General has reprimanded the Security Council as Dr. Boutros Ghali did recently.
  The root problem, which is more fundamental than the style of the Secretary-General, is his belief that the Security Council is out of tune with the needs of the people represented at the United Nations and that the east-west split of the cold war risks being replaced by the north-south split of the new world order.
  The difficulties between the Secretary-General and the Security Council are symptomatic of the great changes that the organisation has undergone since the end of the cold war. While the cold war lasted with the Security Council deadlocked between the super-powers, both sides wooed the countries of the third world. The General Assembly was still of some importance, though in prolonged decline.
  The Secretary-General was of considerable importance as a mediator between east and west. In future, we must not get into another adversarial position where the Secretary-General is the mediator between the north and the south. At the recent Security Council summit 15 heads of state set out a timetable assignment for the new Secretary-General. What is he to implement in the current world context?
  The collapse of the eastern bloc and the disintegration of the communist Soviet empire, welcome as it is, has only made the world a more volatile and dangerous place. The rising tide of nationalism in the old USSR and the inevitable fall-out after the suppression of many years of freedom, has had a knock-on effect around the world as countries are torn apart by ethnic and religious differences. We are also faced with escalating civil wars in the countries that are least able to cope with them, such as the Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia.
  Among the liberal democracies there is an increasing belief that models of sovereignty need to be altered when the internal affairs of one state can so easily affect those of another. The spread of conflict and nationalism in eastern Europe, the international drugs trade and the vexed issues of refugees and migrants provide examples. Those are matters of national self-interest. Additional to that self-interest, the concept of humanitarianism establishes a moral identity with citizens of other states, as recently demonstrated in Iraq after the Gulf war.
  In April 1991, Security Council resolution 688 insisted on
  "immediate access by international organisations"
  to those in need of assistance
  "in all parts of Iraq".
  Although that was not systematically pursued, it was followed by the safe havens project for the Kurds. In September 1992, the French proposed a new international code of conduct, allowing minorities to request humanitarian assistance from outside powers during a crisis. That followed the December 1991 resolution which

  553
  allowed the United Nations to intervene in a member state to provide humanitarian assistance, given the consent of the state concerned. That was an effective compromise between western demands for respectable interventionism and softer definitions of sovereignty, and third world fears of military action against dictatorships under the guise of humanitarianism.
  I am conscious of the time and so will conclude by saying a few words on Britain's continued role as a permanent member of the Security Council. Britain is not merely another member of the European Community. Britain and its people have historically and uniquely fashioned the world that we know today. British institutions—our concept of the rule of law, of democracy, of commercial practice, human rights and value systems—are the norms recognised by the majority of the world's population. The English language is spoken by more than 1·5 billion people in the Commonwealth and is the glue that keeps people of different ethnic and national groups together.
  Britain's continued role in the European Community should be seen as an augmentation of its existing world position, as a force for good, given its historic experience in world affairs. Finally, neither gun boats, armed capability or sheer population size should now be the criteria for membership of the Security Council. In the new partnership for change that I mentioned earlier and in the changing circumstances of the United Nations and its future role in the world, it is vital not only that Britain remains a permanent member of the Security Council in its own right, but that it is recognised by other nations as being an arbiter and a moral force for good.
  1.37 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The debate has been extremely interesting and I am glad that we were able to squeeze in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva). I shall certainly not comment on his speech, but I shall read it with interest in Hansard
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on obtaining the debate. His profound interest in issues as large as the United Nations is an example to us all. Often in our domestic politics, as well as in our general approach, we seem to get bogged down on specifics and do not have the breadth of approach that the hon. Gentleman has shown. I do not say that condescendingly and I sincerely thank him for the opportunity to debate this subject, although I do not think that my wife in Wales, who was flooded out this week, will appreciate the fact that I have had to stay here on a Friday.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) could not get into the debate. I think that she is the only hon. Member who has sat from beginning to end who could not speak. I remarked on the fact that some people were unable to speak and I am sincere about that. If hon. Members cannot stay for the whole debate perhaps they ought not to speak in the beginning.
  The hon. Member for Bexleyheath rightly emphasised the role of the UNESCO and that subject was taken up. I entirely support the proposal that the British Government. should take us back into it.
  554
  I was disturbed by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that we might want to set up protectorates and that the rich and more powerful countries might want to adopt weaker ones. Judging from experience, both before and alter the war, the protectorate system is not one which we should seek to emulate at this stage in the 20th century.
  The hon. Member for Bexleyheath questioned whether sufficient support has been given to the Cheshire Regiment since it was sent to Yugoslavia. I entirely agree that it is no good sending troops, especially infantry, into situations where they do not have proper cover. In common with the hon. Gentleman, I say that as a former infantry man. Failure to provide such support could be criminal. I pray that our young lads—they are all young lads in the Cheshire Regiment—will not be exposed to far greater weaponry than their own.
  It is all right to talk about not wanting to escalate the problems in former Yugoslavia, but we do not want troops—Croat or British—to be slaughtered because they do not have sufficient weaponry and arms capability to respond. For that reason, I urge the Minister of State to take up this matter with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. When that Minister of State and I previously discussed Bosnia he refused to accept that it might be a good idea to supply some air cover for our troops. There will be much blood on the hands of the Government if they do not back up our troops, after putting them into such a dangerous situation.
  If we take it as a matter of policy that combatant troops will be sent to Yugoslavia, the delivery of humanitarian aid might go out the door. However, if troops are sent in to carry out a humanitarian function, they must be protected.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I have a rhetorical question for the hon. Gentleman. What if we do not give full support to our troops and if we do not encourage the United Nations to put forward a resolution for the protection of forces on the ground? Surely that would be at great cost to the entire Balkan region, which is something we would find hard to bear.
  Mr. Rogers: I agree with the hon. Lady and I believe that we are on the same side of the fence on this.
  I also agree with what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said about watering down our commitment to Cyprus. Cyprus represents an intractable problem. President Bush may say that United States troops will be in and out of Somalia by 20 January, when he leaves office. Troops went into Cyprus and may stay there for ever, exactly the same as in Northern Ireland and so many other places. It is easy enough to commit young people of whatever nationality to a certain place to deal with a difficult situation, but I firmly believe that the first option that one must then consider is how to get those troops out. We saw how difficult the Americans found it to get out of Vietnam even with all the resources available to them.
  The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) spoke about the difficulty of sending British troops to Yugoslavia in response to demands from hon. Members on both sides of the House, but in particular from the leader of the Liberal party. I notice that no member of that party attended this important debate. Today's attendance

  555
  has not been as good as it should have been, but dozens of hon. Members have listened to parts of the debate; not one member of the Liberal party has done so.
  I should have thought that today was an admirable opportunity for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to put forward a constructive argument to back up his Action Man plans for our young soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman says we should send troops here and there; that is his knee-jerk response to all the problems in the world. However, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, as a result of "Options for Change" we do not have the troops to do that. Even if we wanted to send far more troops to Yugoslavia, we have not got the resources to do that. As a result of "Options for Change", the size of our infantry battalions has been cut dramatically in the past year. Such cuts provide a classic example of the fact that we no longer have the means to meet the aims that we support.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not talking about just British troops being sent to Bosnia and the Balkans, but all the world joining in a United Nations response?
  Mr. Rogers: I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes, and we can discuss that in due course. First we must consider what happens when we ask others to come in. There is the problem, if the super-powers are excluded—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath pointed out that it was traditional to exclude them—and they do not contribute troops, which countries provide them? Then we must go on to consider the logistics and back-up support. It is all very well, in many situations, to say that we will provide the logistics and others can provide the men, but eventually the point is reached when we run out of logistics—[Interruption.] It is not a never-ending resource, and, having spent five years shadowing the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I assure the House that our logistics are even more run down than our manpower numbers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke about the provision of aid to Russia and eastern Europe and suggested that we needed a latter-day Marshall plan. That might be a good idea. We have a substantial interest in helping the emerging democracies of eastern Europe. We applaud the collapse of corrupt communist Governments, but we must now support the emerging democracies and be more positive in our attitude to them. As I say, most of those on these Benches come from a Christian Socialist tradition and are committed to extending our international role.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a Christian Socialist?
  Mr. Rogers: I do not intend to criticise the views of any of my hon. Friends in relation to the way in which they come to the concept of socialism. That is up to them, so long as they do not become communists. I hope that the Minister can be sure that some of his more right-wing hon. Friends, who are well known to us, do not slip that little bit further into the fascism that we see raising its head in central Europe. I leave it there, accepting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his own problems.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), who spoke and then had to leave, attempted an analysis of,
  556
  and drew up a list of criteria for, the ways in which people should interfere in other's affairs and how the United Nations should enter situations. When I asked how he would select those situations and arrive at the balance of which he spoke, he failed dismally to answer. As I say, he has retreated the field, though probably not for that reason.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove also attempted an analysis of sovereignty and rather lectured us on how the concept of sovereignty had altered in recent years. He went on to suggest when and how we might interfere in the affairs of sovereign states. We must also consider when to keep out of events as regimes oppress and murder their populations, because they have been elected to office, or maybe simply because somehow they have got into power. We see that happening in East Timor, where we are doing nothing to help the people who are being slaughtered by a so-called legitimate Government.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Rogers: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. Time is very short.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury said that while he did not justify the actions of the Serbs, he understood them, and he revealed his position when he added that we had to remember that many Muslims had served in the Wehrmacht. Whether he regarded that as justification for the Serbs now killing the Muslims I do not know. I thought of intervening to tell him that many Germans served in the Wehrmacht and that that was not a good reason for killing Germans today.
  If we adopt such attitudes, we shall never resolve any issues. Yugoslavia represents an intractable problem and we appreciate how people's fears go back over the years and raise issues of revenge for tribal, family and nationalistic indignities, cruelties and so on. Not to acknowledge that there is substantial fault on the Serbian side in the conflict is to miss what is happening.
  I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for drawing attention to the Kurdish problem years before many hon. Members did so. I was pleased to join him a couple of years later, when we were the only two hon. Members battling away about the export of arms to Saddam Hussein. As Opposition defence spokesman, I challenged the Government about exporting arms to Iraq and the Minister of State told me that it was a vile calumny and an obnoxious statement. We have now been proved to be right and the Scott inquiry will prove that.
  Mr. Douglas Hoggindicated dissent.
  Mr. Rogers: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He simply has to look at schedule 2 of the submission to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to see a list of arms and weapon-enhancing equipment. I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept evidence submitted by his own Government to a Select Committee. It is not stuff that was brought up in the newspapers or which we have dragged up, but information supplied by the Government. If he does not believe that the equipment on that list enhances the weapons and capabilities of Saddam Hussein——
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman must not elide between weapons and machinery—they are different.
  Mr. Rogers: I am not talking about the export of machinery or Matrix Churchill which, in some ways, is irrelevant. I am talking about weapons that were exported, such a mortar-locating laser equipment. It was not much fun for our troops sitting at the end of guns, firing at the Iraqis, when they knew that the Iraqis could identify their positions because of the equipment that we had exported to them. I challenge the Ministers to go to the Library and look at the four-page list submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry of arms and equipment exported to Iraq by the Government.
  Saddam Hussein was a butcher with whom we should never have become involved, however much we may have wanted to use him to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The Government made a bad mistake, which rebounded on us. Were it not for the overwhelming weaponry of the United States, we would have landed up in a bad position.
  Iraq is an example of the implementation of the United Nations role because of the breakdown in the cold war, which prevented the veto of certain action. As my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, the United Nations should be involved in many other areas, outside purely peacekeeping roles. The problems of the population explosion, environmental pollution, AIDS and the huge drugs markets that are eroding the basis of our democratic societies and confounding our young people must all be tackled on an international scale. A properly serviced and funded United Nations could be an admirable vehicle for that.
  The United Nations should be able to take up many issues in a better way. It is all right to talk about intergovernmental co-operation, but, unless a comprehensive approach is taken to many of those problems, bilateral or even multi-governmental relationships will not work. Nowadays, we seem to be swamped by non-governmental agencies, which are probably creating their own problems.
  The United Nations as it exists today is only a framework. It needs to be fleshed out and given more muscle. The Labour party has consistently supported the United Nations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said, it is part of our constitution. Perhaps when we were in government there were occasions when we did not do all that we should have done. We are prepared at this stage to accept those criticisms. I only hope that when we get back into government in a few years' time we will fund the United Nations and support it to a greater extent than the present Government are.
  We are a global society, and we have seen the development of communications and general relationships. We simply cannot live on our solitary islands, throw shields around ourselves, and say that we are not influenced by what happens in every other part of the world. All people are human, irrespective of whether they are Yugoslav souls, or little black Somalia souls dying, or children dying from a bomb, a shell, starvation or disease. Whether people are black, white, yellow or blue, they are still humans. People who have never had an opportunity to live a full and proper life are just as precious to us as anyone else.
  The argument that we must take care of one problem because it is nearer to us in Europe is not a good one. That is why I am pleased that more resources will be put into Somalia. I applaud the fact that the United States will send
  558
  in sufficient troops to structure the aid development of Somalia. However, I do not think that development will be completed by 20 January.
  There is a possibility of developing and training a cadre of people. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath said that we should adopt the more positive aspects of United Nations training and funding, not take a negative approach and say that we will go in and commit resources when a big problem is highlighted on our televisions and when the public conscience is stretched to such a point that we must do something. I hope that we will increase the number of missions in the southern part of the former Yugoslavia, from Kosovo down into what is called Macedonia—one must be careful how one uses that word these days—to anticipate the problems that we know will arise if we are not extremely careful.
  Many hon. Members have raised the issue of finance. It is true that the United States has fallen badly behind—by almost $400 million. It is misleading for people to say that they cannot afford peacekeeping forces. Peacekeeping is probably one of the cheapest options open to the United Nations. The cost of one-and-a-half days of the Gulf war woud have paid for all the United Nations peacekeeping operations worldwide for one year. It is much cheaper to keep the peace than to allow problems to develop into a war. The role of the United Nations needs to be developed. We have a strong and positive commitment to the United Nations.
  I pay tribute to people such as Brian Urquhart, who published a pamphlet entitled
  "The United Nations in 1992: problems and opportunities".
  We should all read that pamphlet. I have certainly done so. The pamphlet raises many of the issues that I have outlined today.
  Labour Members have been consistent in their views, not only as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West but throughout the Labour party. At our party conference my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, said:
  "Right at the heart of our policies should be strong and consistent support for the United Nations. I have always believed this is the best means of principled and collective international action. I want to see the powers of the United Nations strengthened, and I want to see it broaden its agenda to tackle the economic and social issues which call out for a global approach just as desperately as do the environment, poverty and peace-keeping."
  That is the commitment of the Labour party to the United Nations. As soon as we, the Opposition, are in government in the next couple of years, we shall be implementing the poicy that has been outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend.
  2.5 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Every Member who has contributed to the debate has prefaced his or her remarks by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on selecting the United Nations as a subject for debate. I join in congratulating my hon. Friend. The elegance and lucidity of his speech, delivered largely without notes, impressed all those present.
  It is right that we should be debating the United Nations, both for a particular reason and a general reason.

  559
  The particular reason is that we have seen the deployment of United Kingdom troops in what was Yugoslavia, and last night there was an important resolution by the Security Council on Somalia. The more general reason is that over the past two years or so we have seen an enormous expansion in the prestige, responsibility and authority of the United Nations. We need, therefore, to ask ourselves both general and particular questions about the United Nations activities.
  I speak of the enhancement of the authority of the United Nations. There are probably at least three reasons for that. First, there was the success of the Security Council with regard to the middle eastern war two years ago. Secondly, the former Soviet Union collapsed and we are now able to work harmoniously within the permanent five. That is an important contribution to the proper workings of the Security Council. Lastly, I believe that there is an ever-increasing desire, manifested in this place not least, to see the humanitarian and political problems of the world addressed in a collective way.
  The increased activity of the United Nations can be demonstrated by some basic figures. There are now about 52,000 United Nations personnel deployed in peacekeeping roles whereas early in 1992 there were only 11,500. To take another measure, in 1987 there were 49 meetings of the Security Council, 43 consultations of the whole and 14 resolutions of the Security Council. In the first seven months of 1992 there were 46 resolutions, 81 meetings and 19 consultations of the whole. We can see a substantial expansion in the operations of the United Nations.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a range of questions. I shall not respond to them, but I shall give him the credit and courtesy of explaining why I shall not, as I regard the hon. Gentleman as a friend of mine. First, I think that he was abusing the motion to pursue issues which, in my judgment, were of little relevance to what the House was discussing.
  Secondly, and in any event, it was a very curious ordering of priorities. We were debating matters of major international significance, but, frankly, the hon. Gentleman was not. Thirdly, there are practical difficulties associated with responding to him, and he may care to keep these points in mind.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked many immensely detailed, complicated questions—perhaps 20 or so. I could not even to begin to respond to them and leave any time to deal with the main debate. In any event, I would not do so, because I do not have any personal knowledge of any of the detailed issues. Consequently, I would have to rely on ad hoc notes from the Box, which is not a sensible way to deal with detailed questions of that kind.
  I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow—I regard him as a friend—that he is wasting his time and that of the House in dealing with such issues in the way that he chooses.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I have been critical of the hon. Gentleman, so I will give way.
  Mr. Dalyell: It was my intention to call the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to account, and I have just one further question. The Foreign Secretary said that
  560
  "we do not supply arms to Iraq".—[Official Report, 29 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 673.]
  How is it suggested that the House should pursue that crucially important matter? It is a matter of truth to Parliament.
  Mr. Hogg: One way is to give notice of that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he will give the hon. Gentleman a fair and robust answer. There is no point to hopping up in the middle of a debate, dragging out a quotation of which no one has received previous notice, and expecting anything like a full answer. It is absurd. The hon. Gentleman does neither his reputation nor the time of the House any good.
  Mr. Rogers rose——
  Mr. Hogg: No, I will press on.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister not give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I will press on. I am quite firm about that, Madam Speaker. I am going to get on with it.
  Many tributes have been paid to the United Nations Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Ghali—and quite right too. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on a number of occasions, and I believe that he will prove an important and innovating Secretary-General.
  Dr. Boutros Ghali has already presided over a number of important initiatives. Last night's decision of the Security Council to deploy American troops in Somalia owes a great deal to his own initiative. Moreover, the Government welcome the Secretary-General's response in his report, "An Agenda for Peace", to the request made to him in the early part of this year by the Security Council meeting at Heads of Government level. That meeting was instigated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was the first to convene a meeting of that kind and who asked the Secretary-General to advise us all how the United Nations could develop its policy of peacekeeping, peacemaking and preventive diplomacy.
  The suggestions in that report are of considerable interest and importance, and we propose to address them as constructively as possible. One can see certain ways in which they have already been acted upon. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convened the London conference on the former Yugoslavia, working closely with the United Nations. That was one instance of two important, international organisations working together.
  The House will know also of the United Nations deployment in Macedonia, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe deployment in Kosovo, and the European Community monitoring mission in the former Yugoslavia. They are all examples of preventive, pre-emptive diplomacy, and show that we are reacting responsibly to a number of the Secretary-General's proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath mentioned the important issue of reform of the Security Council, as did the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), to whom I apologise for not hearing all his speech but I was having a morsel of food——
  Mr. Dalyell: A morsel?
  Mr. Hogg: It was only a morsel and it was quickly eaten; none the less, I apologise.
  Both hon. Members, and others, dealt with reform of the Security Council. The Government are not seeking to

  561
  change the composition of the Security Council, not least because it would require a change in the charter, which we do not want at the moment. I should be surprised—I speak now as a national politician rather than as a world statesman—if it were in the interests of France or the United Kingdom to promote such change. It is probably not in the interests of anybody else either, because for about the first time since the war the Security Council is working harmoniously together and the five permanent members have been constructive about the way in which the council has been using its power. We should not interrupt that which is going well. Moreover, there are many postulants, and whereas a Security Council of 15 may work extremely well I am far from sure that that would be true of a Security Council of 25 or 30.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath is right to say that the members of the Security Council have obligations. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will feel that the Government are conscious of the obligations that they owe as a permanent member. It was with that consideration in mind, at least in part, that we deployed about 2,000 men to what was Yugoslavia, making us the second largest troop contributor to the region. It is why we have a large military presence in Cyprus and why we deployed military personnel to Cambodia. To answer the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross),we do not plan to put troops into Somalia.
  We have obligations in addition to the military ones that I have just described. We must keep our colleagues in the European Community closely informed. We must inform them of what is going on, must take and represent their views as appropriate and must be very sensitive to the aspirations and desires of other members of the European Community to have their interests fully reflected by us. We shall certainly do that.
  Much of the debate has rightly focused on Bosnia. I echo and endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath said. He told us to be cautious; I agree. He said that we should concentrate on humanitarian work; I agree. He said that we should not take sides; I agree. I shall come to the question of the Cheshires in a moment, because I believe that that is the only source of disagreement between us.
  It might be helpful to outline our policy in broad terms. It is a twofold policy: first, to do all that we can to promote a peace settlement by defining what seem to us to be the guiding principles and by excluding the things that are not acceptable. I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), to whom I always listen with much attention, but I am bound to say that I wholly disagree with what he said about Bosnia. We will not allow Bosnia to be partitioned and we will not allow its frontiers to be disturbed by force. If we allowed that to happen, there would be anarchy in central and eastern Europe, so to those principles we will hold.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a political solution for Bosnia is the only answer at the end of the day, and that Milosevic's supporters must be made fully aware that if they continue to support him they will have to bear the consequences of any continuation of his expansionist programme?
  Mr. Hogg: The present policies of the Serbian Government, which reinforce the warlike efforts of the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia, will bring disaster on themselves and on the adjoining countries.
  The second part of our policy is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid. That is why we thought it right and proper to deploy the Cheshire Regiment. I accept that that is a risky business, and that there are real hazards involved, but I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath that I believe the deployment of the Cheshire Regiment and the other members of UNPROFOR 2 has made a great contribution to the rest of the world's ability to deliver aid. I hope that we shall be able to continue that policy with the support of the House.
  I say to the House—or rather, I say to this country, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the House is greatly impressed by the courage and skill shown by the United Kingdom service men now in Bosnia and the rest of the former Yugoslavia. By that I mean the Cheshire Regiment, the field ambulance units in UNPROFOR 1 in Croatia, the RAF units flying sorties day on day into Sarajevo, and the RAF personnel who support them. What they are doing is worth doing, and the House thanks them for it.
  Several specific points have been raised in that connection, including the no-fly zone for the Serbs. I should be very surprised if the Security Council felt it appropriate to allow grave breaches of the no-fly resolution to pass unpunished. Furthermore, if the Serbs used force in Kosovo that would introduce a new dimension to policy making; it would be gravely contrary to the interests of Serbia to embark on such an exploit.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, West that the proper enforcement of the sanctions regime is the key to our policy. That is right. The House may not fully understand the success of the sanctions regime now in place. For example, industrial output in Serbia has fallen by 75 per cent. since December 1989, and trade is down by between 50 and 70 per cent. However, I concede that oil and petroleum products are crossing the frontiers into Bosnia in very much larger quantities than we would wish. It is possible that to some extent supplies may have been released by Milosevic from military stores. Nevertheless, supplies are getting across, and that is not good enough.
  That is why resolution 787, which prohibits transhipment across Serbia of certain strategic products, was passed, about 14 days ago. As the House knows well, we have already put in place what are laughingly, or friendlily, called the SAMs—sanctions assistance missions. We are in the business of tightening sanctions enforcement and making sanctions bite. That is the policy of the Government, which we shall drive forward.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West also asked another question about Bosnia. The Muslim peoples are right to be concerned about what is happening in Bosnia. It is a crime. It is the worst tragedy in Europe since the end of the second world war. We are extraordinarily sensitive to the plight of the Bosnians in Bosnia. That is why I have to say, as robustly as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, that I cannot support his policy on partition and the forcible changing of frontiers. That is not our view of what is right. We believe that we need to achieve a settlement that respects people's religious, ethnic and civil rights within the frontiers of existing Bosnia.
  Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance have come forward with a range of constitutional proposals which we back. We will

  563
  not allow that country to be fragmented, occupied by others, eaten up by aggressors or partitioned. Anybody who supposes that the western world will accept that is making a grave error.
  The question of the budget was rightly fixed on by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and by others as being of great concern to us. There has been a dispute about figures. I am always cautious when I come to figures because I normally get them wrong. I am especially cautious when the hon. Member for Linlithgow is in the House. I believe that the arrears at the moment are of the order—weasel words if I ever heard them—of $1·25 billion.
  It is true that the United States is the largest debtor. The second largest debtor is the Russian Federation. We are deeply concerned about that. It is for that reason, at least in part, that we welcome the Secretary-General's decision to establish the international advisory group to advise on United Nations funding. The House will know that Sir David Scholey is the United Kingdom representative on that body.
  There are some encouraging signs. President Bush has made it plain that he plans to pay off the outstanding arrears within a five-year term. Congress has appropriated $376 million for peacekeeping operations in 1993. The United States recently paid $229 million to the regular budget and $100 million to the peacekeeping amounts. There may be further payments. I understand that the Russian Government intend to pay off $130 million of arrears by 31 March 1993. Although the point was not raised, it is worth saying that we strongly support the peacekeeping reserve fund and we shall find ways, if we can, to fund that.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath raised the important subject of the middle east which was also touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). Politicians, especially before elections, always talk about unique opportunities, so we should always be cautious about uttering or believing such a phrase. However, I actually believe that there is an opportunity to be grasped. If we do not secure peace within the foreseeable future, there is likely to be war in the middle east within a decade.
  564
  All one can do at this stage is state principles. There are three principles worth stating. First, I believe that the security of Israel is of paramount importance and must be assured. Any scheme that does not provide for that will not be acceptable. Secondly and closely related to the first principle, the Palestinians are a people with a right to self-determination and with a right to land to make a reality of that self-determination. The hon. Member for Dundee, West is right; negotiations must proceed on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338 because that is the only sensible way in which they can go forward.
  Thirdly, it would be a mistake for the Government of Israel to suppose that they can achieve a free-standing peace with any Arab state. In the end, the thing must be comprehensive, by which I mean separate peace with the an Arab states and an acceptable arrangement with the Palestinian people. One cannot get one without the other.
  The process has gone on for 13 months and it has been a grind. People have despaired from time to time. I say to those who are participating in the negotiations that they must grind on. The thing is worth the doing. I very much hope that everyone party to it will keep that fact well in mind and show the kind of flexibility and compromise that is necessary if we are to bring the thing to a necessary conclusion.
  This has been an extremely instructive and helpful debate and there has been an extraordinary amount of consensus on both sides of the House. There is no doubt that the Security Council and the United Nations will be at the core of British foreign policy in future. I am glad to think that the House will rally behind that proposition.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House pays tribute to the work of the United Nations and its agencies; congratulates the Government on the success of the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31st January; welcomes the Report of the Secretary-General Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, that flowed from it; considers that a speedy return by the United Kingdom to UNESCO is in the national interest; and seeks further action from the Government to improve the ability of the United Nations to secure justice and human rights and to maintain international peace and security.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    HOSPITAL SECURITY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 December.

    AIRPORTS (TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 December.

    MISUSE OF DRUGS (ANABOLIC STEROIDS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 February.

    OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Objection taken. Second Reading what day? No day named.

    EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 15 January.

    PROCEDURE
    Ordered,
    That a Select Committee of not more than seventeen Members he appointed to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations.
    That five be the quorum of the Committee.
    That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time.
    566
    That Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Paul Channon, Sir Peter Emery, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. James Hill, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Lady Olga Maitland, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson, Ms. Rachel Squire, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. David Winnick be members of the Committee.
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament—[Mr. MacKay.]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Edward Garnier and Mr. Patrick Thompson be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. Roy Thomason and Mr. Nigel Waterson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
    Ordered,
    That European Community Document No. 9697/92, relating to guide prices for fishing products for 1993, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 9th December, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Fisheries not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday, 10th December, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—
    (1) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Anthony Nelson relating to Banking not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and
    (2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to Consumer Protection not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon;
    and the aforesaid Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Hartley Booth be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. Peter Atkinson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Point of Order
2.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you draw to the attention of Madam Speaker for reflection a question of what I might call Friday behaviour in the House'? I do not doubt that the hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) had pressing and important engagements in their constituencies or elsewhere. However, we all have important engagements and we have to make a choice.
If they have, we have, I have or any other hon. Member has important engagements, we had better decide not to speak in Friday debates. It used to be the case that whenever an hon. Member spoke, unless there were quite exceptional circumstances, at least he or she waited for the winding-up speeches.
Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I spoke for a long time. However, I would certainly not have done so had I not known that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), whose motion is the second on the Order Paper, had had it made quite clear to him that there was no chance of his motion being reached.
If, as the Minister said, I asked a number of detailed questions, when is there an opportunity, other than in a Friday debate, to ask serious questions against a background of evidence about what a——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of his original point of order. He asked whether I would pass on his views to Madam Speaker, which I readily undertake to do; but the matter cannot be taken further at present.

Employment (Leavesden)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
2.34 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I wish to raise, more in sorrow than in anger, the subject of employment for the skilled workers at Rolls-Royce. I regret that I have had to come to the House to criticise the position taken by the Ministry of Defence. In essence, the reason behind the Adjournment debate is to ask the Minister why the Ministry is not giving British workers at Rolls-Royce in Leavesden the opportunity to quote for a Ministry of Defence contract but is instead handing the work on a plate to a French company. To reinforce that message, last night I presented to the House a petition on the subject of jobs and skill losses at Leavesden.
The background to this sad affair is that Rolls-Royce has operated on the Leavesden site for decades. Quite understandably, it is consolidating its activities on fewer sites. While it is moving many of its present operations to other sites, which is commercially understandable in difficult economic times both here and abroad, it is not moving every activity from Leavesden. That is the nub of the problem.
Because of the change, the repair and maintenance of the MOD-owned Turbo and Astazou 3N and 16D French helicopter engines, which takes place on the Leavesden site, will be not transferred but terminated. The 70-plus workers—who have more than 1,000 years' experience between—them who do the work would like to bid for it and to have the contract. To put it bluntly, the Ministry will not even give them the opportunity to quote, which effectively means that a skilled and technically qualified team of specialists will be broken up and its use and value lost to the nation.
The Ministry of Defence wishes to give the work on a plate to the original engine manufacturer Turbomeca, and thus at a stroke increase United Kingdom unemployment and our already sad balance of payments deficit. I argue that as those British workers have been doing the work for decades and have been providing repair and engine support work for the facilities at Leavesden, they should be given the chance to quote, to find out whether the work could remain in the United Kingdom.
That is the background to, and the reason for, this debate. As the House may imagine, there has been correspondence on the matter between myself, the Ministry of Defence and the Minister. As the replies to those letters rolled in, the words of a fellow Conservative Member of Parliament came to mind. About four years ago he was in a dispute about monopolistic practices concerning supplies to the MOD and he wrote:
"If we cannot…get the assurances…which my constituents seek then I shall feel obliged to embark on a parliamentary campaign until the matter is resolved."
That is exactly how I feel. I have a suspicion that my hon. Friend the Minister will closely identify with the position, the words and the person who uttered them.
In the same vein, I confess that I am at a loss to understand the Ministry's reaction to the request by my constituents to be allowed to quote. What they are asking for is directly in line with what I understand to be the Ministry's policy.

569
I should like to refer to an article in The Guardian on 18 November concerning the programme that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement announced to allow British firms to quote for MOD work. The article reported that my hon. Friend
"emphasised that he did not want foreign companies to win the work. 'Any suggestion, say, that the Italians or the Germans might win work to service our ships and planes is remote.' He also threatened to use articles under the Treaty of Rome to ensure that foreign competitors do not win the work."
Those were strong words and I would not want to go as far as that, but I could go along with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expressed in an article in the Financial Times when it reported that
"he envisaged the companies which won the contracts using the staff who currently carry out the work."
The Daily Telegraph reported that my hon. Friend had explained that
"the aim was to invite bids from private contractors and in-house MoD workforce. Areas will include helicopter maintenance".
I stress that my hon. Friend said that that work would include "helicopter maintenance".
It seems to me that what I am asking for sits neatly and squarely inside my hon. Friend's policy. Instead, I received a letter from my hon. Friend, dated 21 November, which said—I shall not read out the entire letter, only the appropriate part:
"In line with our policy to widen our competitive base for the repair of all helicopter components, including engines, we are holding discussions with Turbomeca with a view to offering the work for competition in the future. Although progress is being made, we have no alternative at the present time but to place the new contracts with Turbomeca for a period of up to three years"
That letter is extraordinarily insensitive. It was probably drawn up by a civil servant with an inflation-proof pension to whom the scythe of unemployment is virtually unknown. It is insensitive to say to men who will lose their jobs in about three months, "No chance this time, lads, but come back in three years' time." What chance will they have to compete then? My hon. Friend knows the answer, and so do I—absolutely zero. The team will be broken up, the opportunity lost and my constituents will be out of work.
It is not as though the work force are going along blind. They have got together with a company, Strongfield International, the managing director of which also lives in my constituency. That company is not a newcomer to the scene. It is an engineering support service company with worldwide interests. The mainstream business of the company is the provision of engineering services to the aviation industry. I understand that, among its major projects, it provides support services to MBB for the Tornado. It is also helping with an aircraft-build programme in Indonesia. In fact, the managing director is in Indonesia today to meet with Baroness Thatcher, who is inspecting that plant.
I am just a Back-Bench Member doing my level best to promote my constituents' cause, which I believe to be just. I am not pleading for subsidies or handouts. All I am asking is that my constituents, who, under the Rolls-Royce banner, have done such work for decades, be allowed to quote. They should be allowed to see whether they can
570
continue in work. If their quote is too high and the work goes to France, so be it. All I am asking for is an even break.
2.45 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on securing the debate, and it has been entirely appropriate for him to use our Adjournment debate procedure to voice the concerns and fears of his constituents. He adduced a forceful and lucid case.
I also congratulate him on the interesting nature of his research. He attempted, in a subtle way, to pin on me the charge of inconsistency between my previous correspondence as a Back Bencher and now my ministerial speeches and letters. Far from indulging in monopolistic practices, about which I was complaining in the correspondence from which he quoted, I shall later in my remarks hope to persuade him that we at the Ministry of Defence intend to follow our declared policy of full and fair competition. I shall go into that at some length later.
I share his understandable concern for the plight of those who are being made redundant by Rolls-Royce at Leavesden, and he presented their case admirably. He was right to call it a sad affair, but it is much more complicated than he suggests and, before coming to the issue of those jobs at Leavesden, I shall explain the background to the situation.
The repair and overhaul of United Kingdom-owned French helicopter and Jetstream engines, with a number of other engines, has been undertaken by Rolls-Royce at its Leavesden site for many years.
As part of its business rationalisation plans—which my hon. Friend thought were justified—the company has advised us that it intends to withdraw from the support of the three types of French engines currently in service. They are the Astazou 3N for the Gazelle; the Astazou 16D for the Jetstream; and the Turmo 3C4 for the Puma. I understand that Rolls-Royce intends to transfer the repair of its other engines elsewhere.
I should stress that all of those French engines are proprietary to Turbomeca, the French engine company based in Bordes, southern France, which is the original equipment manufacturer. Neither the French nor the United Kingdom Ministries of Defence have any user rights in the design. That is what the phrase "proprietary to" means. That sort of arrangment is common to most engine manufacturers, which in that way retain full responsibility for the quality and, above all, safety of their engines.
Clearly, any manufacturer would have to be satisfied that an incoming prospective repair company was fully competent to meet the extremely exacting safety and other standards before granting it a licence. Rolls-Royce is at present licensed in that way by the French company to conduct repair and overhaul of the United Kingdom-owned engines, and it is the only British company so licensed.
The present maintenance contracts are due to expire at the end of this year. To put its closure plans into action, while still maintaining support for our helicopter fleet, Rolls-Royce has successively sub-contracted more of that repair and overhaul work to Turbomeca.

571
That situation left us with a difficult decision. Plainly, to hold an immediate competition for the requirement would be fraught with difficulties. Competitors would have to meet Turbomeca's standards as well as ours: if Turbomeca wished to compete, how could a level playing field be maintained; and how could we ensure that Turbomeca would grant a licence to the winning contractor?
The easy option would have been to award a non-competitive contract to a company which we knew well and with which we felt comfortable. But that would have been a monopolistic practice, it would have been bad for defence, bad for the industry and, worse still, bad for the taxpayer, apart from the fact that there was only one company, apart from Rolls-Royce, with the qualifications necessary to take it on now. That was Turbomeca. So the House will not be surprised to learn that we wished to avoid that option.
We shall have a competition, and I shall give the details. It will be apparent to the House that a competition that is to surmount the obstacles that I have described will be a complicated affair, but the arrangements for it are being put in hand.
We intend to advertise our requirement in the contracts bulletin to ensure that every company that feels that it has the necessary capacity and capability to undertake the work has an opportunity to bid, whether for prime contractorship or as a sub-contractor. A number of companies will rightly expect that opportunity. Many suitable qualified companies are hungry for business. We shall select a short list of suitably qualified bidders, from among those companies.
It will be for the bidders to enter into negotiations with Turbomeca for a suitable licensing agreement., and Turbomeca has given us satisfactory assurances that it will co-operate fully in that.
We intend to seek competitive tenders as quickly as we can, but, given the amount of work involved in that critical flight safety area, it is likely to be towards the end of 1993, with contracts placed by the end of the following year. That will allow a minimum of 15 months for a new contractor to begin to tackle the tasks concerned while Turbomeca starts to relinquish its responsibilities.
It is vital, for both operational and safety reasons, that there be no break in the repair chain. Therefore, in the meantime, to ensure continued support beyond the end of the year when our contract with Rolls-Royce expires, we have little choice—indeed we have no choice—but to turn to the manufacturer for an interim arrangement. That is why we have placed a contract for the repair and overhaul of the engines with Turbomeca. It will commence on 1 January next year and will last for up to three years.
We intend to ensure that the interim contracts with Turbomeca contain the flexibility to allow the contractor that we eventually select to take on the work as soon as possible. That may well be within the three-year deadline that we have set ourselves. It may be before that three-year time limit expires, but we could not realistically have set the time limit at less and, for the time being, there is simply no company other than Turbomeca capable of taking on the work.
My hon. Friend's principal complaint was that Strongfield International should have been awarded the interim contract. That is not a realistic opportunity for us.
Mr. Page: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I should hate him to go away with that thought.
572
Turbomeca must obviously charge for the work that it will undertake. My simple request was that we should also allow Strongfield International to quote for the work. If it is more expensive, it should not get the job. I was not seeking a one-off contract for Strongfield alone on that basis.
Mr. Aitken: Strongfield will have an opportunity to hid in a full and fair competition, but at present it cannot qualify or bid for the reasons that I shall explain.
Our paramount concern is the need to maintain front-line support to our troops. It is my and my Department's duty to assure the safety and airworthiness of the helicopter fleet.
If we are to be confident of achieving that, the successful bidder must give us firm assurance on his existing capabilities in a number of areas. First, he must have the expertise and facilities to undertake the work; secondly, he must have the necessary quality and process controls to assure us that the work is being professionally managed; and, thirdly, he must assure us that he is financially strong enough to take on that substantial commitment. Fourthly, and most importantly, the successful contractor will need to negotiate a licence with Turbomeca. Strongfield does not yet appear to be in a position to offer us or Turbomeca those assurances. Although my Department has been advising the company on the steps that it will need to take to gain such approval, it does not appear that any such steps have been taken.
It is not a question of bureaucratic delay. It is not a question of the Ministry of Defence being insensitive, as my hon. Friend suggested. The House would not expect me to award contracts on the taxpayers' behalf without checking thoroughly that a company could do the job.
Nothing that I have said is intended in any way to criticise Strongfield. I welcome the involvement of new companies in the business of defence, provided they meet the criteria that I have outlined. I should be delighted if Strongfield entered the competition. It knows the procedures, and it will have time to go through them before it bids. I am sure that the House would agree that we should not award a contract to a company that has not met such important requirements. However, that is what we would have had to do if we had not decided to make our interim arrangement with Turbomeca.
I emphasise for the House an important point about quality assurances and airworthiness. The criteria for safety and airworthiness dictate that those companies that seek to repair and overhaul any engines must have the requisite corporate quality controls for, and experience with, engine overhaul in the appropriate engine power range. Aero engines are qualified to meet stringent controls aimed at safe operation of the aircraft within the declared flight envelope, and the integrity of vital rotating components necessitates the observance of strictly controlled procedures during the overhaul process. Therefore, to meet the Ministry of Defence's minimum requirements, tenderers need to be registered with the Department as complying with the quality control and inspection requirements—AQAP/4 or ISD 9002—which would guarantee the control of processes, maintenance schedules and so on, and assure airworthiness.
I hope that I have shown the House that the whole saga, which my hon. Friend calls a sad affair, was more

573
complicated. The Ministry of Defence had to take more precautions and move more cautiously than we would have wanted.
As for the human concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend, naturally, we are all anxious about the plight of the work force that is being shed by Rolls-Royce. I also come from a constituency in which there are serious unemployment problems. I wish that I could find some way to assist those 70 employees of Rolls-Royce to avoid unemployment, but there simply is no responsible way in which my Department can help at present. I am sorry that I have to tell Strongfield to come back, perhaps not in three years' time but in a few months' time. That is all I can say at present.
I emphasise that the decision to withdraw the work was taken not by my Department but by Rolls-Royce. Rolls-Royce is the prime mover and creator of the problem that we are discussing.
As I have said, it is our intention to hold a full and fair competition for the engine repair requirement in accordance with our declared competition policy. We are in the process of setting up the arrangements with the
574
engine manufacturers. By those means we will ensure that industry is treated fairly and that all companies that want to bid for the contract are treated fairly. We will also ensure that the taxpayer is well served and that our defences are well maintained. The policy also helps to keep the British defence industry efficient, which underpins its superb export performance—now at record-breaking levels—in bringing jobs and wealth to this country.
I understand the consternation and distress that job loses can cause in a local area. My hon. Friend has been right to raise the subject tin the House this afternoon. I am sure that it will be given proper attention by the newspapers in his district. However, I hope that they will understand that my Department cannot take risks with safety and that we cannot intervene to stop industry restructuring, much as we sympathise with the plight of individuals and companies. We support industry and we need it. I hope that this has been a useful opportunity to explain how our policies for procurement translate into action and why it is to the benefit of industry, our forces and the taxpayer. I am only sorry that my words cannot extend any real comfort to the 70 employees whose plight we have been discussing this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people received legal aid this year; and how many of these would have been eligible and how many would pay increased contributions, if the changes in legal aid announced for England and Wales were to be introduced to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the year ended 31 March 1992, the legal aid department of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, issued 14,585 civil legal aid certificates. In addition 56,508 bills for legal advice and assistance and 11,320 bills for legal assistance by way of representation were paid.

  In the above cases contributions were required in 1,601–11 per cent.—of civil legal aid cases, in 1,607–3 per cent.—of legal advice and assistance cases and in 1,242–11 per cent.—of assistance by way of representation cases. In all other cases no contribution was required.

  Information regarding how many of those involved would be eligible and how many would pay increased contributions, if the changes in legal aid announced for England and Wales were to be introduced in Northern Ireland, is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The system of granting criminal legal aid in Northern Ireland is different from that in operation in England and Wales and a direct comparison of the effect of proposed changes in England and Wales is not possible.

  Divorce
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he has completed his review of all aspects of divorce reform and conciliation following the Law Commission's recommendations; and what proposals he has to establish a counselling and mediation service.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is considering the Law Commission's recommendations and the role and funding of family mediation services. His review of these matters is not yet complete and therefore it would be premature to put forward proposals on what are difficult and controversial issues.

TRANSPORT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.
  388
  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has relocated 267 posts from London in the last five years and 307 in the last 10 years, as follows:

  New Location

  Unit

  Posts Relocated

  Farnborough—

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch

  40

  Nottingham—

  Driving Standards Agency Headquarters

  120

  Leeds—

  Highways Computing

  42

  Coventry—

  Motorway Widening Unit

  105

  Roadside Testing
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to introduce roadside testing to ensure on-road compliance of motor cycles, cars, light vans, buses and heavy goods vehicles with emission standards for(a) carbon monoxide, (b) smoke and (c) noise; and if he will set annual targets for such testing.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The police and the Department's vehicle examiners have the power to check vehicles at the roadside for emissions. The use of those powers by the police is a matter for the chief constables. The Department's examiners make a visual assessment of emissions at the roadside as part of roadworthiness inspections. The targets for these inspections in 1992–93 are 125,000 heavy goods vehicles, 23,000 public service vehicles and 33,000 cars and light goods vehicles. In addition, there will be metered roadside checks of smoke and carbon monoxide emissions from some 13,000 vehicles.

  By 1 January next year, annual roadworthiness tests of most vehicles apart from motorcycles will include metered checks of carbon monoxide and smoke. Those tests are the main way of dealing with excessive on-road emissions from individual vehicles.

  Excessive noise arising from a missing or a faulty silencer would lead to failure at annual test and prohibition at the roadside.

  Catalytic Converters
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to his proposal to allow a derogation for the sale of cars not fitted with catalytic converters after 1 January 1993; how many respondents(a) supported and (b) opposed his proposal; which motor manufacturing companies (i) supported and (ii) opposed his proposal; what estimate he has made of the number of vehicles not fitted with a catalytic converter left unsold on 1 January 1993; and when he will announce his decision.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Of some 400 representative organisations consulted in accordance with section 195(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, only 25 replied with substantive comments. Of these, 18 were in favour or raised no objection and seven opposed the derogation. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders welcomed the measures on behalf of the industry as a whole. Of individual motor manufacturing companies, Ford, Mazda, Proton, Rolls-Royce and Rover welcomed the proposal, whereas Bristol Cars did not consider it would be of use to them. No motor manufacturers opposed the proposal. We estimate that there may be some 32,000 cars
  389
  left unsold by 31 December which will benefit from the proposal. This represents a little under 2 per cent. of projected registrations this year. Having considered the representations, I made the related regulations (Sls 1992 Nos. 2908 and 2909) on 19 November and they were laid before the House on 26 November.

  Motorcycles
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received(a) at the international motorcycle show or (b) elsewhere about the desirability of relaxing rules which prevent motorcycles with plastic petrol tanks being sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There have been a number of representations from the motorcycle industry requesting a relaxation of the current rules so as to allow plastic fuel tanks to be used on motorcycles. We are actively considering a change and intend to consult on draft-amending regulations very soon.

  Thames Bridges (Traffic)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the information he has about plans to close or restrict vehicular and pedestrian traffic during the next six months in respect of each of those Thames bridges between Tower bridge and Hampton Court bridge which allow vehicular or pedestrian access.

  Mr. Norris
  The Thames bridges which carry trunk roads and for which my right hon. Friend is the highway

  authority are those at Twickenham (A316), Chiswick (A316), and Kew (A205). He has no plans to close or restrict any of these bridges in the next six months.

  The appropriate London borough councils, and the City of London, are responsible for the other Thames bridges. The following restrictions apply or are planned:-

  Tower Bridge

  17 tonnes weight. Weekend closure on 22–23 and 29–30 January for renovation.

  London Bridge

  Lane closures for one week at some time in the summer for resurfacing the King William street approach.

  Waterloo Bridge

  Closure on 2–15 January to replace an expansion joint. Westminster Bridge

  7·5 tonnes weight. The co-ordination of work to upgrade the bridge, starting in the summer, and work to extend the Jubilee Line is currently under discussion.

  Lambeth Bridge

  Closures and lane closures to renew expansion joints, but no start date yet decided.

  Chelsea Bridge

  Footways will be repaired in January and February.

  Albert Bridge

  Closure for one weekend in March for programmed maintenance. Further weekend closures in the summer for deck repairs.

  Battersea Bridge

  Closed since 29 November and expected to re-open in February.

  Hammersmith Bridge

  3 tonnes weight. Lane closures from 4 January to mid-February for programmed maintenance.

  Blue Light Emergency Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those companies registered with his Department who are offering blue light emergency services; and if he will make a statement.
  390
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Operators of vehicles using blue warning beacons and special warning lights are not required with this Department.

  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations make provision for these lamps to he used on "emergency vehicles" which are defined as motor vehicles of any of the following descriptions:

  (a) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes;

  (b) an ambulance, being a vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) which is constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick or injured persons and which is used for such purposes;

  (c) a vehicle owned by a body formed primarily for the purposes of fire salvage and used for those or similar purposes;

  (d) a vehicle owned by the Forestry Commission or by a local authority and used from time to time for the purposes of fighting fires;

  (e) a vehicle owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used—

  (i) for the purposes of the disposal of bombs or explosives,

  (ii) by the Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation for the purposes of a nuclear accident or an incident involving radioactivity,

  (iii)by the Royal Air Force mountain rescue service for the purposes of rescue operations or any other emergencies, or

  (iv)by the Royal Air Force armament support unit;

  (f) a vehicle primarily used for the purposes of the Blood Transfusion Service provided under the National Health Service Act 1977 or under the National Health Service (Scotland) act 1978;

  (g) a vehicle used by Her Majesty's Coastguard or Coastguard Auxilliary Service for the purposes of giving aid to persons in danger or vessels in distress on or near the coast;

  (h) a vehicle owned by the British Coal Corporation and used for the purposes of rescue operations at mines;

  (i) a vehicle owned by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and used for the purposes of launching lifeboats; and

  (j) a vehicle primarily used for the purpose of conveying any human tissue for transplanting or similar purposes.

  London Buses Ltd.
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the privatisation of London Buses Ltd.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has written to the chairman of London Transport to inform him of the Government's agreement in principle to the early privatisation of the subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd.

  Before the companies can be sold, the services they operate on behalf of London Transport must be put on a clear contractual basis. Forty per cent. of the London Transport network is already operated under contract by private firms or London Buses Ltd. companies, and there will be a further round of competitive tendering next year to increase that proportion. The remaining routes operated by London Buses Ltd. subsidiaries will be put on a formal contractual basis from 1 April 1993, paving the way for the London Buses Ltd. companies to be offered for sale from late 1993 onwards.
  391
  The Government remain firmly committed to deregulating the London bus market at the earliest opportunity. Early privatisation will help to ensure that competition in the deregulated market takes place on a free and fair basis.

ENVIRONMENT

  Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work has been undertaken to date by his Department to monitor emission levels from manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The main polluting industries are controlled under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Alkali etc. Works Regulation Act 1906. The emphasis is on operators of these industries monitoring their own emissions. The relevant enforcing authorities have powers to check that this monitoring is undertaken satisfactorily and to carry out their own monitoring in order to substantiate the operator's results or to investigate matters not covered by the operator's monitoring programme.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance Her Majesty's Government gave to improve water quality for each of the last five years before water privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A considerable proportion of investment by the former water authorities had the effect of improving water quality. Some details of that expenditure were given in the DOE chapters of the annual public expenditure White Paper. Investment expenditure was met from water charges and borrowing: the limits for the latter were set out in the White Papers.

  Water Supplies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to which authorities the disconnection of a water supply to an inhabited premises with a water meter is notifiable.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 4 November 1992, at column 235, which applies irrespective of the method of charging in use.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of private sector housing starts in England for the 1991–92 year.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is estimated that in England during the financial year 1991–92 there were 113,300 private enterprise and 19,700 housing association starts.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analyses of the safety, or impact on human health, of unleaded petrol have been carried out; if he will give details; and if he will make a statement.
  392
  Mr. Maclean
  The hon. Member may have in mind the fact that the benzene content of unleaded petrol in the United Kingdom is typically rather higher, at 3 to 4 per cent., than for leaded petrol—2·5 per cent. Benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen. A number of studies have been made of the effects of occupational exposure to benzene, and the Department's expert panel on air quality standards has been asked to make recommendations on an ambient air quality standard for benzene. However, the major source of benzene emissions in the United Kingdom is not the evaporation of petrol but rather petrol engine exhaust, and most of the benzene in this exhaust arises from the "cracking" of aromatics in the engine rather than from the original benzene content of the fuel. Harmful exhaust emissions, including benzene, can be drastically reduced by fitting three-way catalytic converters to cars. This will be mandatory under EC standards for new cars from the end of 1992. Cars with catalytic converters will run only on unleaded petrol.

  Tarmac
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many meetings took place between Tarmac and individual members of the Property Services Agency Projects board from October 1991 to October 1992; and if he will make a statement on the nature of these meetings;

  (2) if he will list the meetings between Tarmac and the Property Services Agency Projects board from October 1991 to October 1992; and if he will make a statement on the nature of these meetings.

  Mr. Redwood
  Many meetings would have taken place between individual members of the PSA Projects board and Tarmac as with any major construction company, in the normal course of business. The PSA board has met Tarmac twice during this period as part of projects' efforts to establish itself as a commercial organisation. In addition during the due diligence phase of the sale process, both the board and individual board members met Tarmac on the same basis as other shortlisted bidders. Following Tarmac's selection as preferred bidder at the end of September there were frequent meetings between board members and Tarmac in preparation for staff consultation about the sale and to develop Tarmac's plans for the business.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list and quantify all existing claims for liquidated damages(a) from the former Property Services Agency Projects board against Tarmac and (b) from Tarmac against the former Property Services Agency Projects board.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no existing claims between Tarmac and the former Property Services Agency Projects board. Property Services Agency Projects no longer advises client departments on current claims against or by Tarmac. The contracts relating to such claims have been the responsibility of client departments since 1 April 1990. The amounts of claims by commercial companies against Government Departments are commercially confidential.

  City Grant
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the expenditure on city grant in the assisted areas in each year since its inception;
  393
  (2) how much city grant expenditure there has been in the metropolitan borough of Wirral council district in each year since its inception;

  (3) what percentage of city grant spending took place in the assisted areas (a) in each year since its inception and (b) in total since its inception.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  City grant expenditure approved for projects in assisted areas since the introduction of city grant in 1988, and the percentage of total expenditure is as follows:

  £ million

  per cent.

  In assisted areas

  1988–89

  4·752

  19

  1989–90

  28·684

  44

  1990–91

  34·741

  65

  1991–92

  56·468

  74

  1992–931

  31·128

  66

  In Wirral metropolitan borough council aarea

  1988–89

  0·000

  —

  1989–90

  0·000

  —

  1990–91

  0·126

  —

  1991–92

  2·173

  —

  1992–93

  0·000

  —

  1 In first eight months.

  Total expenditure approved for projects in assisted areas represents 58 per cent. of all city grant expenditure approved to date.

  All figures exclude grant offers not taken up.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria or performance indicators will be taken into account, apart from measuring each authority's performance against the strategic objectives and outputs specified in the action plans, for the purposes of the city challenge scheme in considering which pacemaker authorities should receive more or less than the average sum originally promised per pacemaker authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 11 city challenge pacemakers will each receive £37·5 million over five years, subject only to an annual review of progress toward achieving the strategic objectives and outputs specified in their action plans.

  Building Control Fees
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the current level of building control fees; and what was the level of those fees in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the rise in both actual and percentage terms of the most recent increase in building control fees; when that increase was implemented; and upon what basis that increase was calculated;

  (3) if he will make a statement outlining the reasons for levelling building control fees; and for which precise categories of building work they are levied.

  Mr. Baldry
  The current level of building control fees payable to local authorities in England and Wales is set out in the Building (Amendment of Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1992 (1992 No. 2079). These regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 9 September 1992 394
  and came into operation on 1 October 1992, provided for an increase in fees for all three categories of building work: new housing, domestic extensions and alterations, and all other types of work including industrial and commercial.

  Building control fees are levied so that the costs of providing the service are paid for primarily by the developer rather than by the taxpayer generally. The purpose of the increase was threefold: to keep fee levels in line with inflation since the previous increase in February 1991; to reflect increased local authority workload arising from the Building Regulations 1991; and to reduce the deficit between fee income and the cost of the building control service, which was particularly large for work involving domestic extensions and alterations. The average increase for most categories of work was 9·4 per cent. The actual fee for an average sized house increased from £209 to £228; for 10 houses from £1,802 to £1,972; for a £0·5 million non-domestic building from £2,440 to £2,668. For non-domestic work above £1 million the fees remained unchanged. Fees for domestic extensions and alterations inceased by 50 per cent., involving an actual rise for an average sized extension from £60 to £90; and for larger extensions from £120 to £180.

  The level of fees charged by local authorities over the last 10 years are set out in the following statutory instruments which are available in the Library of the House:

  Statutory Instrument

  Came into force

  1982 No. 577

  1 July 1982

  1983 No. 1611 (Amendment)

  19 December 1983

  1985 No. 1576

  11 November 1985

  1986 No. 2287 (Amendment)

  1 February 1987

  1988 No. 871 (Amendment)

  13 June 1988

  1989 No. 1118 (Amendment)

  1 September 1989

  1990 No. 2600 (Amendment)

  1 February 1991

  The separate building regulations system for London was incorporated into the national arrangements in 1985 and 1987 and the building regulation fees existing at the time in England and Wales were applied to London under the Building (Inner London) Regulations, Statutory Instruments 1985 No. 1936 and 1987 No. 798 which came into force on 6 January 1986 and 1 July 1987 respectively.

  Home Improvements (Compensation)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish a consultation paper on the new right to compensation for home improvements in the Housing and Urban Development Bill.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have today published a consultation paper entitled "Compensation for Tenants' Improvements". The consultation paper seeks views from interested parties on the operation of a new mandatory scheme whereby local authority tenants can receive compensation for carrying out worthwhile home improvements, once their tenancy ends. In line with the citizens charter, the scheme will benefit all council tenants, and provide encouragement and recognition for the commitment some tenants make towards improving their homes.

  The powers to establish this new scheme are contained in clause 109 of the Housing and Urban Development Bill.
  395
  A consultation paper on the introduction of a similar scheme in Scotland will be issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Copies of both consultation papers will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Waste (Definition)
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the regulations governing the definition of waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: Waste is defined in section 75 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Government have no plans to amend the section. The definition of controlled waste in the same section of that Act is qualified in the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 588).

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution has been promised by the United Kingdom to the interim multilateral fund to assist with the prevention of ozone depletion; and what funds have so far been paid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Burnely (Mr. Pike) on 3 December (column 302).

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will describe the place and the date on which each of the photographs in the citizens charter first report: 1992 Cm. 2101 was taken; and if he will place in the Library an untrimmed copy of the photograph facing the contents page, showing the background behind the people.

  Mr. Waldegrave

  Page 6 St. Marys Hospital Paddington, London W2—October 1992.

  Page 11 Woodcote Primary School, Croydon—October 1992.

  Page 17 Dorking BR station—February 1992.

  Page 18 Victoria BR station, London SW 1—October 1992. Page 24 South West Mechanised Letter Office, London SW8—August 1992.

  Page 33 Watford Tax Office—October 1992.

  Page 36 Sheffield—October 1992.

  An untrimmed version of the photograph that faces the contents page has been placed in the Library of the House. It was taken in Victoria street, London SW I, in June 1989.

EDUCATION

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements he is making for the appointment of the proposed school curriculum and assessment authority.

  Mr. Patten
  To ensure that the appropriate preparations can be made for the establishment of the school 396
  curriculum and assessment authority, my Department has appointed a firm of management consultants to help draw up a list of appropriate candidates with the qualities and skills necessary to a successful chairman. A panel, chaired by the first civil service commissioner, will consider their advice, interview those on the shortlist and make recommendations to me. Any appointment will be subject to the passage of the legislation.

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements he has made for setting up the new school curriculum and assessment authority.

  Mr. Patten
  The Government intend, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, to establish a new authority in England to be responsible for matters relating to the national curriculum and the associated assessment arrangements. Parliamentary approval to expenditure associated with preparing for the establishment of the new authority will be sought in a supply estimate for the schools, research and miscellaneous services vote (class X, vote 1, in 1993–94). Pending that approval, essential preparatory expenditure estimated at £90,000 in 1992–93 will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the bursary scheme for students on courses of initial teacher training in shortage subjects.

  Mr. Forth
  The shortage subject bursary scheme provides incentive payments to students taking postgraduate certificate in education and two-year BEd courses in mathematics, science, technology and modern foreign languages. Although recruitment to these and other courses of initial teacher training is buoyant and the vacancy rate for teachers is now lower than it has been for over 10 years, the bursary scheme is still needed to help maintain teacher supply in those subject areas which are most difficult to recruit to. My right hon. Friend will therefore make expenditure provision available for the scheme in the next financial year; but, to reflect spending priorities, the current bouyancy of recruitment to teacher training and the lw loevel of teacher vacancies, my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intend to seek parliamentary approval for a change in the relevant statutory instrument to alter the level of payment at which the bursary will be set.

  The current main rate of bursary is £1,500 a year, and there are extra payments to those on courses in physics and craft, design and technology. We intend to introduce a flat-rate bursary of £1,000 for all students commencing eligible courses on or after 1 September 1993.

  Engineers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans his Department has to encourage qualified engineers to enter teaching; how many qualified engineers and electrical engineers have been recruited to the teaching profession for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the total number of (a) qualified engineers and (b) electrical engineers currently in the teaching profession at (i) school and (ii) university and higher education level; and if he will make a statement.
  397
  Mr. Forth
  The Government do not collect statistics on the number of qualified engineers in or joining the teaching profession in schools and higher education.

  The Department provides bursaries to encourage graduates in appropriate disciplines—including engineering—to undertake initial teacher training in certain secondary school subjects including technology and physics. The Department has also initiated a number of specific measures to encourage mature career changers, including engineers, to enter school teaching. These include organising and part funding a programme of "Taste of Teaching" courses run by higher education institutions; encouraging the development of new shortened teacher training courses for mature entrants, including engineers; and introducing and financing new entry routes into the profession via the licensed teacher and articled teacher schemes.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans his Department has to increase the use of outside engineers in technology courses.

  Mr. Forman
  There has been a considerable expansion of links between industry and education over the last decade. Government have encouraged and welcomed this development which has led to an increase in the involvement of engineers with education at all levels. Within this context, it is for individual institutions to decide the form particular links with industry should take, and the extent to which this could include the involvement of practising engineers in engineering and technology courses.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans his Department has to encourage qualified engineers and electrical engineers to enter teaching at university and higher education level.

  Mr. Forman
  It is for institutions to recruit the staff they need to provide high-quality teaching in engineering and other subjects. The Government have no plans to intervene in this process. More flexible pay structures in recent years have enabled management to target pay on specific areas of recruitment difficulty.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans his Department has to promote engineering within technology courses in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A number of national curriculum subjects, including mathematics, science, technology and art, offer pupils the opportunities to acquire fundamental knowledge, skills and understanding appropriate for the study of engineering after the age of 16. My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales are currently considering the recommendations of the national curriculum technology review group and will make a full statement when their joint proposals are published for consultation later in December.

  Technology
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to promote technology courses within the national curriculum in(a) city technology colleges and (b) other schools; and if he will make a statement.
  398
  Mr. Forth
  Under the national curriculum, the study of technology is now compulsory for all pupils in maintained schools aged between five and 14 (unless specifically excepted) and will become so for pupils aged between 14 and 16 from August 1993. It is for local authorities and individual schools to decide how best to support this study from within the £176 million of expenditure supported through the Department's grants for education support and training programme to assist with the implementation of the national curriculum.

  City technology colleges have been established specifically to promote the teaching of mathematics, science and technology. Similarly, schools funded under the technology schools initiative are committed to promoting particularly their technology teaching and its vocational aspects. My right hon. Friend will be announcing a further tranche of funding under this initiative shortly.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each city technology college(a) the total number of pupils taking GCSE in technology, (b) the total number per grade obtained and (c) the percentage of pupils who participated in technology courses for the latest year figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The first pupils to have undertaken a full CTC secondary education will not take GCSE until 1993, and the majority not until 1995. There are therefore no GCSE results for CTC technology yet. All CTC pupils undertake technology courses.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of pupils participate in technology courses in schools other than city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the national curriculum, the study of technology is compulsory for all pupils in maintained schools aged between five and 14 (unless specifically excepted) and will become so for pupils aged between 14 and 16 in August 1993. Information about the number of pupils aged between 14 and 16 following general courses in technology in the current academic year is not available centrally.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the proportion of students in England who currently go on to higher education.

  Mr. Forman
  The usual indicator of participation by young people in higher education is the age participation index (API)—that is the number of full-time and sandwich home initial entrants aged less than 21 expressed as a percentage of the averaged 18 to 19 age group. The API for Great Britain in 1991–92 was 23·5 per cent. and is thought to have reached about 28 per cent this autumn. No corresponding figures for England are available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many miles of(a) sea defences and (b) coast protection works there are in Northern Ireland; where each is situated; who is responsible for them; and what is the residual life of each.

  Road

  Location

  Length (miles)

  Approximate residual life (years)

  A2

  Warrenpoint

  1·55

  20

  A2

  Drumesk Road, Rostrevor

  0·12

  20

  A2

  Rostrevor Quay

  0·12

  20

  U6573

  Harbour Road, Kilkeel

  0·06

  20

  G316

  Benagh Road, Kilkeel

  0·06

  20

  C317

  Benagh Road, Kilkeel

  0·19

  20

  A2

  Islandmagee

  4·35

  20

  A2

  Lame—Garron Point

  15·50

  20

  B202

  Point Road, Magilligan

  1·25

  10

  A2

  Garron Road, Waterfoot

  6·00

  3

  A2

  Coast Road, Waterfoot

  0·75

  3

  B92

  Main Street, Cushendum

  0·10

  10

  B92

  Bay Road, Cushendun

  0·50

  0

  B15

  Whitepark Road, Ballintoy

  0·25

  1

  U88

  Murlough Road, Ballycastle

  0·75

  0

  U83

  Carrickmore Road, Ballycastle

  2·50

  3

  U26

  Giants Causeway Road, Bushmills

  0·50

  0

  U5I13

  Dunseverick, Bushmills

  0·50

  5

  U5I15

  Harbour Road, Ballintoy

  0·30

  3

  U5114

  Portbraden Road, Bushmills

  0·10

  5

  U5224

  Dalriada Park, Cushendall

  0·25

  3

  A2

  Quay Route (Craigavon Bridge/Guildhall)

  0·50

  25

  A2

  Quay Route (Craigavon Bridge/Boating Club Lane)

  0·50

  25

  U1119

  Point Road, Culmore

  0·75

  10

  U1515

  Bay Road, Panneburn

  0·50

  25

  U3557

  Beach Road, Portballintrae

  0·10

  10

  A2

  Portstewart Promenade

  0·40

  20

  U3533

  Strand Head, Portstewart

  0·10

  10

  A20

  Newtownards to Greyabbey

  A20

  Kircubbin

  U301

  Portaferry

  11·20

  20

  A2

  Donaghadee/Millisle/Ballywalter/Ballyhalbert/Cloughy

  A2

  Holywood

  0·93

  20

  A2

  Killough

  5·90

  20

  A2

  South of Strangford

  U240

  Ballyhornan

  Northern Ireland Railways carries out running repair sea defence work on the following lines:

  Location

  Length (miles)

  Approximate residual life (years)

  Lame line

  8·00

  20

  Londonderry line (along Foyle Estuary)

  10·00

  20

  Bangor line at Holywood

  0·25

  20

  The Department of Agricultural has statutory powers under the Drainage (NI) Order 1973 to maintain sea defences which have been designated by the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland The locations and the lengths of designated sea defences are:

  Miles

  North Down

  Newtownards/Comber Dyke

  3·0

  Holywood

  0·2

  North Londonderry

  Myroe Embankment

  3·0

  400
  Mr. Atkins
  Roads service of the Department of the Environment carries out work to deal with coastal erosion at the following locations where the structural stability of the road is threatened:

  Miles

  Ballykelly Embankment

  2·0

  Longfield Embankment

  3·8

  Black Brae Embankment

  2·0

  It is not possible to determine accurately the residual life of each designated sea defence as this depends on future weather and tidal combinations as well as the condition of the defence.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what surveys have been carried out funded by his Department on coastal erosion in Northern Ireland in recent years; and where the conclusions were published.

  Mr. Atkins
  Two studies have been carried out by Professor R. W. G. Carter and funded by the environment service of the Department of the Environment.

  (i) "Coastal Erosion and Management in Antrim Coast and Glens and Causeway Coast AONBs" published by HMSO Belfast in early 1991 as "Shifting Sands"; and

  401

  (ii) "Monitoring Sand Removal in Antrim Coast and Glens and Causeway Coast AONBs". The findings of this survey were published in "Aquatic Conservation" Vol 2 in 1992.

  In addition the Department of Agriculture has agreed to make a contribution towards a feasibilty study which was commissioned by Coleraine borough council into coastal erosion problems at Portballintrae. The study report has just been completed and its publication is now a matter for Coleraine borough council.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve(a) sea defences and (b) coastal protection in Northern Ireland in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Subject to the availability of finance, the roads service of the Department of the Environment proposes to spend approximately £21,000 and £50,000 in the 1993–94 and 1994–95 financial years respectively to improve existing coastal protection measures in the Coleraine and Ballycastle areas. The Department of Agriculture has plans to commence works in 1993 to refurbish the Myroe embankment at Lough Foyle. Following a recent preliminary inspection of the other three Lough Foyle embankments, the Department is about to commission more detailed feasibilty studies on the Ballykelly and Longfield embankments. A study of the Black Brae embankment will also be initiated within the next three years.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums were expended by Government on(a) sea defences and (b) coastal protection works in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and how much in each year was expended on (a) capital works, (b) repairs and (c) maintenance.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  Financial year

  1Roads service Department of the Environment

  2Northern Ireland railways

  3Department of Agriculture

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  1987–88

  146

  2

  40

  1988–89

  291

  137

  109

  1989–90

  93

  15

  164

  1990–91

  251

  21

  223

  1991–92

  202

  99

  332

  1 Expenditure on repairs and maintenance to protect coasts where structural stability of a road was threatened—no capital expenditure incurred.

  2 Mostly capital expenditure on running repairs.

  3 Expenditure on maintenance and repairs of designated sea defences.

  In addition the environment service, Department of the Environment has paid out the following amounts in grant-aid towards local anti-erosion schemes carried out by agencies:

  Agency and financial year

  Amount

  £'000

  1987–88

  0

  Ballycastle Golf Club

  1988–89

  7

  1989–90

  15

  North Down Borough Council

  1990–91

  16

  1991–92

  11

  Draught Proofing
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for replacing the energy grant for draught proofing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Economic Development is reviewing the administrative arrangements for assistance with draught proofing and insulating low income homes in Northern Ireland and I hope to announce the outcome early in the new year.

DEFENCE

  RAF Elvington
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if, in considering the future of the runway at the erstwhile RAF station at Elvington, near York, he will undertake to give first priority to potential purchasers representing recreational organisations;

  (2) whether the disposal of the runway and flying facilities at the erstwhile RAF station at Elvington, near York, will be with, or without, flying rights;

  (3) if he will list the potential alternative uses being considered for the runway at the erstwhile RAF station at Elvington, near York; and what consideration has been given to the practicality of the dismantling of the runway for the provision of construction infill;

  (4) what proposals he has for retaining, or disposing of, the headquarters building and residential accommodation associated with the erstwhile RAF station at Elvington near York;

  (5) what proposals are under consideration, or what decisions taken, for the future of all, or part, of the runway at the erstwhile RAF station at Elvington, near York.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Elvington ceased being a relief landing ground with effect from September 1992. My Department is currently examining whether there is an alternative defence use for all or part of the station. It is therefore too early to say what the possible future uses for RAF Elvington may be but, in keeping with our obligation to secure the best possible receipts from the sale of public assets, we would wish to explore all available options in consultation with the local authorities should the site become surplus to requirements.

  Potential options indentified to date include the return of the airfield to agricultural use; its sale for outdoor recreational or flying purposes; and its use as a source of construction infill through the removal of the runway and hardstandings. Preliminary specialist advice in respect of the latter option has been sought. It is not possible to foreclose any option at this stage or to give priority to any particular use, either for the runway or the airfield as a whole. All relevant factors, including local aspirations and our own operational interests, would be assessed before decisions were taken on whether any disposal would be with or without flying rights.

  There are no headquarters buildings or residential accommodation specifically associated with RAF Elvington although our requirement for facilities at RAF Church Fenton, which were previously used to support RAF Elvington, is currently 'being reviewed following the former's transition to relief landing ground status from April 1992.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many investigations into incidents involving low-flying jets were conducted in Cumbria over each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records arc not kept by county of the number of investigations conducted into incidents involving low-flying aircraft.

  Submarines (Irish Sea)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held with representatives of the fishing industry in the constituency of South Down concerning the operation of submarines in the Irish sea and north channel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The operation of submarines in inshore fishing waters, including the Irish sea and North channel, has been discussed at a number of meetings of the

  Year and period

  Event

  Location

  Military action

  1966

  16 May to 30 June

  Seamen's strike

  Nationwide

  5 RN vessels delivered essentials to Scottish Isles

  1970

  13 to 29 July

  Dock strike

  Nationwide

  34,000 troops placed on standby

  27 September to 5 November

  Local Authority manual workers strike

  Nationwide

  1. On 21 October, 12 soldiers on standby to take over a sewage plant at Swindon

  2. On 24 October, 30 to 40 Grenadier Guardsmen and Sappers with military vehicles cleared refuse in Tower Hamlets (London)

  7 to 14 December

  Power workers overtime ban

  Nationwide

  Loan of some 400 mobile generators to Hospital Boards nationwide

  1972

  9 January to 28 February

  Miners' strike

  Nationwide

  1. Fabric storage tanks loaned to the CEGB

  2. Contingency plans concerning the distribution of coal and oil to power stations considered but not implemented

  28 July to 16 August

  Dock strike

  Nationwide

  1. Parade ground in Connaught Barracks, Dover, loaned to Harbour Board as vehicle sorting area awaiting ferry services

  2. RAF delivered supplies to Orkney and Shetland

  3. Army landing craft delivered supplies to Western Isles

  1973

  26 October to 5 November

  Fire Brigade strike

  Glasgow

  618 Servicemen (130 RN, 311 Army and 177 RAF) with 28 Green Goddesses

  1974

  10 February to 11 March

  Miner's strike

  Nationwide

  No direct action but logistic support was provided to the civil police

  14 to 28 May

  Ulster Workers' Council general strike

  Northern Ireland

  2 infantry battalions and over 700 specialists (total 1,831) sent to the Province as reinforcement for contingency plans covering electricity, gas, water, and sewage, post and oil. Only the last plan was actually implemented

  1975

  13 January

  Refuse

  Glasgow

  2,000 troops cleared refuse

  404
  relevant sub-group of the Fishing Industry Safety group, on which the Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation is represented.

  Civil Emergencies
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out all the occasions since 1962 in which Her Majesty's forces personnel have been used in support or assistance to national and local authorities, as a result of civil emergencies, including industrial action, showing the number of personnel involved, their units and the approximate duration of their deployment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of military assistance during industrial disputes is given in the table. I also refer the hon. Member to table 6.3 in successive editions of the "Statement on the Defence Estates" volume 2 and to table 3.13 in the "Defence Statistics 1992".

  Details of assistance during civil emergencies is not held in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  405

  Year and period

  Event

  Location

  Military action

  1977

  August to 1 November

  Air Traffic Control Assistant's strike

  West Drayton, London

  12 × 4,000 gallon military oil tankers driven by RAF personnel delivered fuel to RAF West Drayton

  4 September to 7 November

  Electricity workers' dispute

  Nationwide

  Contingency plan involving 6,000 Servicemen considered but not implemented

  14 November to 16 January 1978

  Fire Brigades' strike

  Nationwide

  20,750 Servicemen with over 1,000 Green Goddesses in Operation

  1978

  February

  Oil tanker drivers' dispute

  Nationwide

  15,000 troops on standby

  26 July to 14 August

  Naval Dockyard workers dispute

  Faslane (Scotland)

  Royal Navy personnel replaced civilian workforce to load Polaris submarine HMS Revenge

  3 to 10 November

  Prison Officers Association dispute

  Nationwide

  1. In Great Britain: RVH Netley and Gordon Barracks, Guildford, reconnoitred as possible temporary prisons

  2. In Northern Ireland: WETC Magilligan converted to Her Majesty's Prison Foyle 118 soldiers provided the outer guard force and 20 cooks the catering facilities

  18 December to 10 January 1979

  Oil tanker drivers* overtime ban

  Nationwide

  1. In Great Britain: Soldiers on standby

  2. In Northern Ireland: 672 soldiers deployed

  1979

  Early to 12 January

  Water workers' strike

  North West England and South Yorkshire

  Servicemen on standby

  22 January to 9 April

  Ambulance Service strikes

  Nationwide

  Over 2,000 Servicemen crewed Service ambulances

  Mid May to late June

  Civil Service dispute

  Clyde, Devonport, Glascoed (Gwent)

  Some Royal Navy personnel involved in naval work in Devonport

  September

  Industrial Civil Servants selective strikes

  Naval Dockyards, Ordnance Factories, RAF stations, Aldermaston

  Some Service personnel used to take over emergency tasks, e.g., a RAF fire-fighting crew was deployed to AWRE Aldermaston and RAF fitters replaced civilians at St. Athan

  24 October to 3 December

  Charing Cross Hospital engineers' strike

  London

  Assistance in providing oil considered but not implemented

  1 to 17 December

  Oil tanker drivers' overtime ban

  Nationwide

  Troops on standby

  1980

  17 January to 21 February

  Water Workers' dispute

  Nationwide

  Services on standby

  November to December

  Fire Service dispute

  Nationwide

  472 Service crewed Green Goddesses on standby

  6 October to 20 February 1981

  Prison Officers Association dispute

  Nationwide

  1,000 Servicemen at Her Majesty's Prisons Frankland and Rollestone in Great Britain and Her Majesty's Prison Foyle in Northern Ireland

  1981

  7 to 14 January

  Ambulance Service strike

  South Yorkshire

  Some crews on standby. Dispute ended before military assistance needed

  16 February to 16 March

  Water workers' strike

  North East and North West England

  Troops on standby

  9 March to 3 August

  Non-industrial Civil Servants' strike

  Defence Establishments Nationwide

  16 Royal Navy personnel used at Coulport to Re-arm Polaris submarine HMS Resolution

  406 407

  Year and period

  Event

  Location

  Military action

  15 June to 3 August

  Ambulance Service strike

  Nationwide

  Although military ambulances and crews were stoodby, only 9 RAF ambulances were actually involved in Wales

  16 November to 2 December

  Oil tanker drivers' strike

  Nationwide

  15,000 Servicemen on standby

  1982

  June to July

  British Railways and London Transport strike

  Nationwide

  Sappers laid Somerfield and Class 30 Trackway in Hyde Park and Regents Park in London

  May to September

  Ambulance Service strike

  Nationwide

  Military ambulances and crews on standby. Only one recorded use in London. Dispute ended 16 December 1982

  1983

  24 January to 24 February

  Water Workers' strike

  Nationwide

  Troops placed on standby

  31 March to 8 April

  Merchant Navy Crew dispute

  Tyneside

  55 Royal Navy personnel replaced civilian crew of the Keren

  April

  Fire Brigade dispute

  Nationwide

  13,000 Servicemen and 850 Green Goddesses on standby

  1984–85

  12 March 1984 to 5 March 1985

  Miners' strike

  Nationwide

  Logistic assistance to police

  1986

  April to August

  Prison Officers' Association dispute

  Nationwide

  6 Field Support Squadron Royal Engineers, with a troop of 3 Field Squadron, converted Rollestone Camp to a temporary prison. Troops earmarked to operate the prison not deployed

  29 May to 4 June

  Post Office dispute

  West Yorkshire

  Temporary Field Post Office set in York (4–6 June) to handle official mail. "Self-help' Plan not fully implemented

  1987

  June to November

  Prison overcrowding

  Nationwide

  9 Paratroop Squadron Royal Engineers, converted Rollestone Camp to a temporary prison for civilian use. Handed back to Ministry of Defence 27 November

  5 to 7 October

  Fire Brigade strike

  West Glamorgan

  1 Royal Hampshire Battalion Group with 320 Servicemen (including 17 Royal Navy and 20 Royal Air Force) manned 15 Green Goddesses and 3 Fire Rescue Teams

  1988

  30 March to 2 December

  Prison overcrowding

  Nationwide

  400 troops, mainly Royal Engineers, converted Rollestone and Alma-Dettingen Camps to temporary prisons. 500 tri-Service personnel operated the two prisons

  8 to 23 September

  Post Office dispute

  Nationwide

  21 British Forces Post Offices set up in United Kingdom to provide an emergency postal service for Ministry of Defence and Her Majesty's Forces at home and abroad

  5 to 10 October

  Fire Brigade dispute

  Bedfordshire

  One convoy 2 Green Goddesses with drivers from 27 Regiment Royal Corp Transport, to man a total of 5 Green Goddesses, plus 2 Royal Navy and 4 Royal Air Force FRTs. Troops were warned for the operation, but did not deploy

  1988–89

  8 November to 19 March

  Ambulance Services strike

  Nationwide

  Over 1,200 Servicemen crewed Service ambulances

  4 July to 25 August

  British Railways and London Transport strike

  London

  Sappers laid Trackway in Hyde Park and Regents Park

  408

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Historic Buildings (Fires)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice has been given to those who manage, on behalf of the nation, the royal palaces, Crown and stately homes following the result of the investigations into the cause and extent of the fire at the National Trust property, Uppark house, West Sussex in 1989.

  Mr. Brooke
  In 1990 the Fire Protection Association, on behalf of the United Kingdom working party on fire safety in historic buildings, published a guide to the protection of historic buildings—"Heritage under Fire". This publication, which had full Government support, was intended to help the owner or occupier of an historic building to implement procedures to reduce the possibility of fire and, in the event of fire, to minimise its impact on the building and its contents. It drew on the experience of a number of fires, including those at Uppark house and Hampton Court palace. The guide has been distributed widely to owners of historic buildings, including the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and Government Departments. The Department of the Environment also produces a series of regularly updated guidance notes on fire prevention in historic buildings.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, when the Berkshire fire service report on the cause of the Windsor castle fire will be published.

  Mr. Brooke
  Both the royal household and I have received the report. The royal household is publishing the report today and I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cars (Security Systems)
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to legislate to ensure that all British car manufacturers provide in-built security systems to all models of motor cars.

  Mr. Jack
  Manufacturers selling into the United Kingdom market are already obliged to comply with the Motor Vehicle (Type Approval) (Great Britain) Regulations 1984 which, in turn, require them to meet certain minimum standards as regards preventing the unauthorised use of motor vehicles.

  Work is in hand to update these requirements but new legislation on car security is dependant on reaching agreement within the European Community. Discussions are therefore taking place within Europe on vehicle alarm systems, door locks and improved steering locks. The Department of Transport is taking the lead in these discussions and has the full support of the Home Office. The requirements of any future European Commission directives on car security will form the basis of legislative proposals.

  In the meantime, we are encouraging motor manufacturers to improve voluntarily the level of vehicle
  410
  security. Many manufacturers have responded positively, and many more new cars are now being fitted with security systems as standard equipment. We shall continue to press for further improvements in this area.

  Metropolitan Police (Damages)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much in compensation, both in court and in out of court settlements, the Metropolitan police have paid to members of the public who have brought court cases for damages in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Out of court settlements £

  Court awards £

  1988

  250,000

  104,000

  1989

  267,000

  252,000

  1990

  557,000

  188,000

  1991

  390,000

  21,000

  19921

  401,000

  193,000

  1 To 30 November.

  Asylum
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide an up-to-date account of the number of applications for asylum currently outstanding.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During the first week in November we undertook a full count of asylum cases. This shows that on 1 November there was a total of 51,800 initial applications awaiting decisions. These figures exclude dependants.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department how many life licence prisoners who are currently the subject of a Parole Board recommendation for release on licence are awaiting a ministerial decision; and what is(a) the average time taken in processing and (b) the target time for processing such decisions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 27 November, the cases of 64 life sentence prisoners who had been recommended for release by the Parole Board were under consideration.

  In the 12 months ending 30 September, the average time taken to notify life sentence prisoners of the outcome of reviews—from the date of the local review committee's initial consideration—was 6·5 months. We aim to get the average down to six months by next March.

  Arrests
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested in each police force area in England and Wales in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is contained in the following table:
  411

  Arrests for all types of offence by police force area England and Wales

  Police force area

  Number arrested

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  42,421

  39,216

  Bedfordshire

  17,705

  17,543

  Cambridgeshire

  18,389

  17,699

  Cheshire

  27,823

  29,684

  Cleveland

  26,584

  28,061

  Cumbria

  19,479

  21,275

  Derbyshire

  23,079

  23,708

  Devon and Cornwall

  31,404

  34,024

  Dorset

  17,487

  18,382

  Dyfed Powys

  12,699

  13,466

  Durham

  25,965

  25,125

  Essex

  39,990

  40,100

  Gloucestershire

  17,043

  17,020

  Greater Manchester

  116,678

  116,916

  Gwent

  17,060

  17,796

  Hampshire

  63,171

  62,330

  Hertfordshire

  22,648

  23,191

  Humberside

  36,066

  35,847

  Kent

  47,007

  47,992

  Lancashire

  57,235

  62,104

  Leicestershire

  24,949

  26,417

  Lincolnshire

  21,474

  22,680

  City of London

  4,809

  4,688

  Merseyside

  69,207

  72,930

  Norfolk

  22,727

  20,898

  Northamptonshire

  18,242

  19,353

  Northumbria

  65,694

  68,847

  North Wales

  22,629

  24,338

  North Yorkshire

  20,221

  20,936

  Nottinghamshire

  45,468

  46,487

  South Wales

  56,061

  57,143

  Number and percentage of persons aged 10 to under 18 years convicted at all courts by age and type of offence 1990 and 19911

  England and Wales

  Year/Offence

  Aged 10 and under 18 (= 100 per cent.)

  Aged 10 and under 15

  Aged 15 and under 18

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1990

  Indictable

  46,117

  6,692

  15

  39,425

  85

  Sumamry non-motoring

  21,696

  2,026

  9

  19,670

  91

  Summary motoring

  16,564

  416

  3

  16,148

  97

  All offences

  84,377

  9,134

  11

  75,243

  89

  19911

  Indictable

  42,019

  5,714

  14

  36,305

  86

  Summary non-motoring

  17,918

  1,831

  10

  16,087

  90

  Summary motoring

  13,869

  341

  2

  13,528

  98

  All offences

  73,806

  7,886

  11

  65,920

  89

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted teenagers are in prison; and how many on remand.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  According to the records held sencentrally, which are approximate, there were 1,413 untried, 585 convicted unsentencd and 3,127 sentenced persons aged 14 to 19 held in prison service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1992.

  Refugees
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many citizens from(a) Serbia, (b) Montenegro, (c) Croatia and (d) Bosnia-Herzegovina have been granted refugee status in the United Kingdom during the months of September, October and November;
  412

  Police force area

  Number arrested

  1990

  1991

  South Yorkshire

  43,979

  45,722

  Staffordshire

  36,861

  39,142

  Suffolk

  13,905

  15,796

  Surrey

  20,920

  19,940

  Sussex

  37,358

  39,247

  Thames Valley

  59,098

  59,458

  Warwickshire

  13,161

  14,138

  West Mercia

  32,285

  32,048

  West Midlands

  123,868

  131,062

  West Yorkshire

  84,172

  85,867

  Wiltshire

  14,507

  13,670

  England and Wales (excluding Metropolitan Police District)

  1,531,528

  1,572,286

  Metropolitan Police District1

  116,865

  113,570

  1 Notifiable offences only.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles were convicted of offences in each of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what percentage were aged(a) between 10 and 14 years and (b) between 15 and 17 years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for 1990 and 1991 (which is provisional) is given in the table. 1992 data will not be available until autumn 1993.

  (2) how many citizens from (a) Serbia, (b) Montenegro, (c) Croatia and (d) Bosnia-Herzegovina have been granted permanent residence status in the United Kingdom during the months of September, October and November.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: In the period January to October 1992 a total of around 4,000 nationals of the former Yugoslavia (excluding dependants) have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom, of which around 2,000 applied during September and October 1992. The large majority of the applications are still under consideration. More detailed information on the origin of the applicants is not available.

  Information on asylum applications in November, and on acceptances for settlement in the United Kingdom in the period September to November of nationals of the former Yugoslavia, is not yet available.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total prison population on the last day of September, October and November 1992; and in each case what was(a) the breakdown by sex and age and (b) the numbers (i) on remand and (ii) serving a sentence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: The readily available information is given in the table.

  Prison population by sex, age and type of custody: September, October and November 19921

  30 September

  31 October

  330 November

  MALES

  Remand

  Aged under 21

  2,394

  2,287

  —

  Aged 21 and over

  6,680

  6,518

  —

  Sentenced

  Aged under 21

  5,266

  4,998

  —

  Aged 21 and over

  28,829

  27,771

  —

  Total1

  43,394

  41,855

  41,309

  FEMALES

  Remand

  Aged under 21

  57

  55

  —

  Aged 21 and over

  324

  303

  —

  Sentenced

  Aged under 21

  118

  115

  —

  Aged 21 and over

  1,126

  1,049

  —

  Total1

  1,626

  1,522

  1,494

  Total prison population1 2

  45,020

  43,377

  42,803

  1 Excludes prisoners held in police cells (815 in September, 528 in October and 356 in November).

  2 Includes non-criminal prisoners.

  3 Provisional figures; detailed breakdown not available.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 30 November to the hon. Member for Thurrock,Official Report, column 445, if Windsor castle has a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: No. Windsor castle itself has no fire certificate. A premises within Windsor Great park used as offices already holds a fire certificate and a certificate is likely to be issued in respect of a similar designated premises shortly.

WALES

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 19 November,Official Report, column 322, if he will give details of the numbers of private detective agencies currently under contract to his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his current guidelines for approved use of private detectives by his Department.
  414
  Mr. David Hunt
  Enquiry agents have been used from time to time in cases of damage to trunk road furniture; personal injuries and medical negligence claims. There are no specific guidelines for their use other than value-for-money considerations in individual cases.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 19 November,Official Report, column 322, if he will specify the names and addresses of private detective agencies currently approved for hire by his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London, (b) in Cardiff and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of civil servants currently employed by my Department in the locations specified is:

  Number

  (a) London

  28

  (b) Cardiff

  1,734

  (c) Elsewhere

  556

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs have been created in the manufacturing sector in Wales since 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  While comprehensive information on total jobs created is not available, levels of employment in the manufacturing sector in Wales each year are given in the following table:

  Employees in manufacturing industries

  Year

  Thousands at June

  1990

  238

  1991

  223

  1992

  220

  Source: Employment Department, Quarterly estimate series.

  National House Building Council
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what checks on the discharge of functions of the National House Building Council and its approved inspectors his Department has made during 1991–92 with regard to properties built in Delyn during that period.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None, although the Department has corresponded with the National House Building Council about a particular property in Delyn.

  Hearing Impairment
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in South Glamorgan and in each county in Wales have been statemented in regard to special educational needs involving hearing impairment in each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the types of disabilities of children with statements of special educational needs was not collected centrally for 1991.

  The number of children with hearing impairments for whom statements of special education needs were made in each of the years 1986–90, in each county in Wales, is given in the following table:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  5

  9

  3

  10

  19

  Dyfed

  8

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Gwent

  9

  4

  3

  6

  3

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  14

  10

  6

  33

  22

  Powys

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Glamorgan

  10

  7

  7

  11

  3

  West Glamorgan

  11

  9

  8

  12

  7

  Wales

  60

  43

  31

  80

  62

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requirements he has imposed on South Glamorgan health authority and Llandough hospital unit for public consultation before any plan to close Ward West 2 is implemented.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 3 December at columns 304–5.

  Bechtel Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 28, if the contract secured by Bechtel Corporation was won in competitive tender; when it was advertised; and what percentage or fixed sum fee has been agreed for the contract.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The contract for the project management consultancy for Cardiff Bay barrage was the subject of a competitive tendering exercise. Selected companies were invited to tender on 17 August 1992. The contract has not yet been signed, and it would therefore be inappropriate to release proposed details at this stage.

  Ministry Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many acres of land in Wales are currently under the control of the Ministry of Defence; what rights of way across this property have been rescinded whilst it is being used for military purposes; and what information he has on land contamination on these sites.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were employed in the Health and Safety Executive area offices in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of(a) nurses and (b) doctors employed in Health and Safety Executive area offices in Scotland in each year since 1978 was:

  (a) Nurses

  (b) Doctors

  1978

  11·0

  10·0

  1979

  11·5

  9·0

  1980

  9·0

  8·0

  1981

  9·0

  8·5

  1982

  7·5

  8·0

  1983

  7·5

  7·5

  1984

  7·5

  7·5

  1985

  6·0

  7·5

  1986

  6·0

  7·5

  1987

  6·0

  7·5

  1988

  6·0

  5·5

  1989

  4·5

  6·0

  1990

  8·0

  6·0

  1991

  7·0

  6·0

  1992

  5·0

  6·5

  Note:

  Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  The reduction in the number of doctors and nurses reflects primarily a policy of HSE not itself directly providing occupational health services. For example, it appoints local doctors to conduct statutory medical examinations that were previously conducted by H SE staff.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new job vacancies were notified to job centres in Birmingham in each month of 1991 and 1992; and what was the proportion of jobs offering day rate remuneration of £3 per hour or less for the last month for which these figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M.E. G. Fogden to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 4 December 1992]:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the number of new job vacancies notified to Jobcentres in Birmingham in each month of 1991 and 1992 and the proportion of jobs offering day rate renumeration of £3 per hour or less for the last month for which these figures are available. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  I am unable to let you have details of the number of vacancies offering wage rates of £3 per hour or less since Jobcentres do not retain information on rates of pay. The attached table shows the number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres in the Birmingham area in the specified period.

  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written

  417
  Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Vacancies notified to jobcentres in the Birmingham area

  Statistical period

  Vacancies notified

  January 19911

  2,599

  February 1991

  1,920

  March 1991

  1,919

  April 1991

  2,309

  May 19911

  3,035

  June 1991

  3,406

  July 1991

  3,027

  August 19911

  2,905

  September 1991

  2,656

  October 19911

  3,231

  November 1991

  2,454

  December 1991

  1,176

  January 19921

  2,741

  February 1992

  2,382

  March 1992

  2,447

  April 19921

  2,398

  May 1992

  2,049

  June 1992

  2,017

  July 19921

  2,870

  August 1992

  2,052

  September 1992

  2,877

  Note: All months are 4 week statistical periods except those marked' which are 5 weeks.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants are currently employed by her Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A total of 11,333 in London and 55,774 elsewhere on 13 November 1992.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants from her Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Between 1982 and 1992 some 4,380 civil service posts from the Department were relocated to other parts of the United Kingdom. In the last five years 1,504 posts were transferred: 938 to Sheffield; 400 to Runcorn; 85 to Aberdeen; 56 to Merseyside and 25 to Bootle. In the previous five years 2,877 posts were moved: 1,877 to Sheffield and 1,000 to Bootle.

  Training
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the risks of 18-year-olds slipping through the net between what is available under YTS and the options available under the various adult training and employment schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There should be no risk of 18-year-olds missing out on training or employment measures. Those who leave full time education are immediately eligible for YT, and those who have been unemployed for six months or more are guaranteed appropriate support under the range of provision for unemployed adults.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to establish a418
  simplified and co-ordinated information service targeted at 17 to 18-year-olds following merger of the employment action and employment training schemes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Comprehensive information, advice and guidance to 17 and 18-year-olds is provided by local education authority careers services. They will provide information on the new training for work arrangements, as they do for the range of training programmes. Information will also be available from the Employment Service, athough it will mainly deal directly with those 18-year-olds who might be eligible for adult programmes through being unemployed for six months or more.

  Safety Helmets (Sikhs)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) of 20 November,Official Report, column 396, for what reasons she will not include special provision for turban-wearing followers of the Sikh religion in the proposed regulations to implement the European directive on the use of personal protective equipment at work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The regulations in question have been made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Exemptions cannot be granted other than on grounds of health and safety. It was not therefore possible to include any exemption or special provision in the regulations to implement the use of personal protective equipment directive. Exemptions can only be secured by primary legislation, as in the case of the current exemption from the requirement to wear head protection on construction sites which was secured by the Employment Act 1989.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to extend the existing exemptions under the Employment Act 1989 concerning Sikhs, to non-construction sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to extend the existing exemptions under the Employment Act 1989 for turban-wearing followers of the Sikh religion.

  Older Workers
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will now announce the membership of the Advisory Group on Older Workers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I announced the membership of the Advisory Group on Older Workers on 2 December. I am very pleased to have secured the services of 11 people with wide experience of industry and the problems caused by age discrimination. The group, which I shall chair, will start work in the new year.

  The members are:

  Lilian Bennett

  Chairman, Manpower plc

  Roslin Fraser

  Deputy President Royal College of Nursing

  Anne Gibson

  National Officer, MSF

  Archie Gibson

  former General Manager, Bank of Scotland

  Sally Greengross

  Director, Age Concern

  Anne Mackie

  former employee relations manager, Unilever plc

  Rafiq Malik

  member of Blackburn Racial Equality Council

  Anthea Tinker

  Professor of Gerontology, King's College

  419

  Stephen Ward

  Personnel Director, Birmingham City Council

  Denis Waxman

  Managing Director, Hays Personnel

  Dianah Worman

  Equal Opportunities Adviser, Institute of Personnel Management

  Domiciliary Care Agencies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to her answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 55, if she will break down the overall figure of licensed employment agencies whose activities may include domiciliary care work indicating in which local authority or travel to work areas these agencies are located.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A breakdown in the form requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Greater Manchester ambulance service personnel have successfully proved unfair dismissal at industrial tribunals in each of the past four years and 1992 to date; and what is the total sum of money awarded by tribunals over the same period.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  According to the records held by the regional office of the industrial tribunals—Manchester—there have been three such cases. The awards made in respect of these cases totalled £21,183.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Budget Proposals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the budget proposals for 1993 for(a) income support, (b) family credit, ((c) council tax benefit and (d) the social fund; and if he will list these budgets indexed against, (i) the retail price index and (ii) average male earnings.

  Mr. Burt
  Details of our expenditure plans, including those for income support, family credit and council tax benefit for the next financial year will be available when the departmental report is published in February 1993. On 12 November it was announced that income support, family credit, and council tax benefit would be uprated, from April 1993, by the Rossi index (3·6 per cent.), which increased at the same rate as the retail price index (RPI) for September 1991 to September 1992. The average male earnings index for the same period was 4·7 per cent.

  The social fund discretionary budget will be around £340 million in 1993–94. This represents an increase of 12 per cent. over the previous year.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money is included in income support payments to meet water charges; and how many income support claimants have water charges of(a) less than £2 per week and (b) £2 per week or more, giving the number for each additional range of £1.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 18 May 1992 420
  at cols 28–9. It is estimated that in 1989 the distribution of water charges for income support recipients was as shown in the table.

  Water charges (£ per week)

  Caseload

  Nil

  745

  0–2

  2,330

  2–3

  960

  3–4

  110

  4 and over

  20

  Total

  4,160

  Notes:

  1. Caseloads are thousands rounded to the nearest 5,000

  2. Source: 1989 Family Expenditure Survey. Caseloads have been weighted to the 1989 Income Support statistical enquiry.

  3. Amounts for water include sewerage and environmental charges.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of income support and oilier benefits in real and at 1983 price terms for each of the last 10 years for(a) 16 and 17-year-olds, (b) 18 to 24-year-olds and (c) those aged 25 years or over.

  Mr. Burt
  Income support was introduced in April 1988. The tables provide the rates for each year since 1988 and at 1992 prices.

  Table (A) single person (aged 16–17)

  Income support rate £

  Average real value of benefit at April 1992 prices over the period

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1992 prices at date of uprating

  April 1988

  19·40

  24·33

  24·83

  April 1989

  20·80

  24·73

  25·28

  April 1990

  21·90

  24·28

  25·03

  April 1991

  23·65

  24·35

  24·91

  April 1992

  25·55

  —

  25·55

  Table (B) single person (aged 18–24)

  April 1988

  26·05

  32·67

  33·34

  April 1989

  27·40

  32·58

  33·30

  April 1990

  28·80

  31·93

  32·91

  April 1991

  31·15

  32·07

  32·81

  April 1992

  33·60

  —

  33·60

  Table (C) single person (aged 25 or over)

  April 1988

  33·40

  41·89

  42·75

  April 1989

  34·90

  41·50

  42·41

  April 1990

  36·70

  40·69

  41·94

  April 1991

  39·65

  40·83

  41·76

  April 1992

  42·45

  —

  42·45

  Notes:

  1. As supplementary benefit (the predecessor to income support) varied according to household status and entitlement to a range of special additions, it is not appropriate to make comparisons with income support. Because of this, the reply is restricted to 1988 onwards and 1992 prices.

  2. Anyone receiving income support is entitled to maximum housing benefit and community charge benefit (ie 100 per cent. of eligible rent and 80 per cent. of eligible community charge).

  3. A wide range of other benefits are available to single people subject to their meeting the qualifying conditions.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money is included in income support payments to meet water and sewerage charges.
  421
  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 18 May at cols 28–9.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the maximum figure for the transfer of funds from Parliament to the national insurance fund of 17 per cent. of benefit outgoings from 1994–95 onwards was fixed; and what working assumptions were used.

  Mr. Burt
  Proposals for the maximum amounts of Treasury grant were finalised at the time of the Chancellor's autumn statement. The working assumptions used to inform consideration of the maximum amounts were those published in table 2D.1 of Cm. 2096.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the reasons for the decrease in the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund(a) between 1981 and 1985 and (b) currently.

  Mr. Burt
  (a) The Social Security (Contributions) Act 1981 permited the amount of the Treasury supplement to be varied by up to 2 per cent. The changes in amounts between the tax years 1981–82 and 1985–86 reflected the views taken by the Government at successive re-ratings on the appropriate balance of national insurance fund expenditure to be met by contributors and taxpayers, in the light of the circumstances at the time.

  (b) The Treasury supplement was abolished in 1989.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the assumptions used in calculating the maximum level of transfers from Parliament to the national insurance fund of 20 per cent. of benefit outgoings in 1993–94 and 17 per cent. in future years were identical to those used in table 20.1 of Cm. 2096.

  Mr. Burt
  Yes.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect each increase in unemployment of 100,000 would have on the national insurance fund in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Burt
  The effect in 1993–94 is set out in paragraph 22 of the Government Actuary's report (Cm. 2097). In later years the figures would be broadly similar.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what working assumption of unemployment levels was used for 1994–95 and future years to calculate the maximum transfer of money provided by Parliament to the national insurance fund of 17 per cent. of benefit outgoings.

  Mr. Burt
  The working assumptions published in table 2D.1 of Cm. 2096 were taken into consideration in setting the maximum level of Treasury grant for the years 1994–95 onwards.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox),Official Report, column 690, what percentage of the national insurance fund has been paid out in national insurance rebates, tax reliefs and other incentives paid in respect of personal
  422
  pensions contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme for each of the past four years; and what is the equivalent expected percentage in each of the next four years.

  Mr. Burt
  Although for administrative reasons tax relief is paid with the rebate, because it is claimed back from the Inland Revenue it is not a charge on the national insurance fund.

  Not all the information requested is available. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1

  Tax Year

  NI Fund Income (£m)

  Percentage

  1988–89

  29,825

  1·1

  1989–90

  30,446

  8·5

  1990–91

  34,490

  6·3

  1991–92

  34,679

  7·4

  Table 2

  Tax Year

  Estimated NI Fund Income (£m)

  Percentage

  1992–93

  35,993

  8·1

  1993–94

  45,684

  6·3

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what means are used in pursuing maintenance payments from males under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Burt
  All absent parents are liable to support their children. If under the age of 18, cases are referred to a manager who will consider the circumstances and decide whether the absent parent should be approached. If the absent parent is under the age of 16, a parent or guardian must be present at any interview. If between 16 and 18, the absent parent can choose to have someone else present.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he is making to the criteria by which war pensions are awarded from 1 January 1993; what is the estimated number of people likely to be affected by the new regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State anounced proposals to introduce, from 7 January 1993, a threshold for claims for noise-induced hearing loss bringing the war pension rules more into line with those for industrial injury awards. The effect would be that those with less than 20 per cent. disablement in respect of that condition would receive no award. No existing war pensioners with an award in respect of noise induced hearing loss would be affected. It is estimated that in 1993–94 some 10,000 new claimants would be affected.

  It is also proposed that savings from this proposal be used to remove rank differential, in war disablement pensions from April 1993. Almost 200,000 war disablement pensioners would gain up to £5 a week as a result.

  These proposals were discussed yesterday with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions; the comments of committee members are under consideration.

  Benefit Offices (Newham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Social Security (1) if Newham district Benefits Agency offices are paying all social fund claims falling into revised high priority groups for community care grants and budgeting loans;

  (2) what items and circumstances previously eligible for community care grants and budgeting loans have been removed from high priority lists in Newham's benefit offices during the current year;

  (3) what guidance was given to the Newham Benefits Agency social fund manager in respect of categories removed from the high priority list of items and circumstances for community care grants and budgeting loans between August and October; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what changes in the level of priority of items for community care grants and budgeting loans in the Newham district Benefits Agency social fund resulted from the budget overspend in June and July;

  (5) if he will increase the budget allocation for community care grants and budgeting loans to Newham district Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 3 December 1992:

  As chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Social Fund priorities and budget allocations in the Benefits Agency's Newham District.

  Social Fund Officers (SFOs) must determine each application on its own merits in the light of all the relevant factors and circumstances. While SFOs are subject to the law and the Secretary of State's directions, they have discretion about whether to make a payment, having regard to the circumstances of an individual applicant.

  SFOs must give priority to high priority needs while adopting as consistent an approach as possible throughout the year. To assist them in this, the Area SFO (District Manager) gives them guidance on priorities. It is for the Area SFO to give guidance on the order of priorities for his area, and which are to be classed as high, medium or low priority. It must be stressed that this is guidance and therefore not binding on the SFO, but it must be taken into account. There is therefore no question of eligibility for payment. All items and circumstances may be paid depending on the individual circumstances of the applicant.

  Allocations are made annually to each District for loans and grants. In order for the Area SFO to manage the allocations effectively, monthly profiles of expenditure are planned. These serve as a guide only and it is not the case, therefore, that the Newham District allocation was overspent in June and July.

  The Benefits Agency's Newham District is continuing to pay all Social Fund applications that fall into the high priority groups for grants and loans as suggested by the Area SFO.

  The Secretary of State requires the Area SFO to monitor monthly expenditure on Social Fund and adjust the guidance to SFOs as required. No specific additional guidance has been given by the Secretary of State. Following the monthly review in August, the Area SFO decided that payment for some items and services could no longer be sustained consistently from the District allocation. She therefore issued amended guidance with effect from 1 September 1992. The effect of this
  424
  guidance was that some items and services which the previous guidance had indicated would normally attract high priority would now attract medium priority.

  Social Fund budgets are closely monitored and Newham District received an increase of £49,525 to its loans budget in November. There are no plans to increase the grants budget of this District.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Day Centres
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons why individuals on invalidity and sick benefit are entitled to claim re-imbursement for travel to health service day centres but not to local authority day centres.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are statutory arrangements to provide help with the travelling expenses necessarily incurred by National Health Service patients on income support, family credit or low income when they attend a hospital for treatment, including attendance at day hospitals. Local authorities have discretion to charge for the day and domiciliary services they provide, including transport to day centres. In doing so they should have regard to the service user's means and ability to pay.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received at the recent preparatory committee from Governments of tropical countries concerning the expansion of the International Tropical Timber Agreement to encompass timber from all forest types; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A few tropical timber countries represented at the preparatory committee proposed that the agreement should be extended to include non-tropical timber. No formal proposal for such an extension was put forward by tropical timber countries as a whole.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments have been made by the United Kingdom in relation to the International Tropical Timber Organisation's targets and guidelines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As a member of the International Tropical Timber Organisation we are committed to playing our part in achieving the target of the year 2000 for all internationally traded tropical timber from sustainably managed forests and assisting in the implementation of the International Tropical Timber Organisation's guidelines on sustainable management and biodiversity.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much funding has been contributed by the United Kingdom Government to the administrative and special accounts of the International Tropical Timber Organisation since 1987; and what is the Government's overall budget for matters related to the International Tropical Timber Organisation.
  425
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our contributions to the International Tropical Timber Organisations administrative account which are annually assessed in United States dollars are:

  $

  1987

  58,466

  1988

  59,895

  1989

  66,411

  1990

  74,601

  1991

  98,602

  1992

  86,358

  The sterling equivalent of the 1992 payment was £49,500. In addition we also make payments on a case by case basis to projects under ITTO's special account. In the United Kingdom financial year ending 31 March 1992 we contributed £213,000.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps taken by the Government(a) to investigate the feasibility of forest monitoring, timber tracing and product labelling of timber from well managed forests and (b) to monitor the level of imports into the United Kingdom of tropical timber from sustainably managed and environmentally benign and socially beneficial sources.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We provided finance to ITTO to carry out an initial study of the feasibility of labeling based originally on a proposal from Friends of the Earth. We are supporting work on incentives which might be introduced at local level in Ghana to ensure sustainable forest management. We are also offering the Soil Association help to finance the preparation of draft standards for tropical forest management as part of its work on timber certification in association with the Forest Stewardship Council.

  More work needs to be done on the design and establishment of labelling, certification and monitoring systems before it would be practicable to introduce import monitoring of tropical timber as proposed.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received by the Government from representatives of the timber industry concerning the renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Representations have been received from the National Hardwood Association of the Tropical Timber Federation.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of a relationship between tropical deforestation rates and population growth.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The relationship is complex. To improve our knowledge and understanding of the linkages we have commissioned a programme of research through the University of Bradford.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent preparatory committee to renegotiate the international tropical timber agreement.
  426
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The recent Preparatory Committee provided for an initial exchange of views on the possible elements of a renegotiated agreement which will be pursued at a further meeting in Quito, Ecuador next January.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received by the Government from non-governmental environmental organisations concerning the inclusion of timber from all forest types under the international tropical timber agreement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Representations have been received from the World Wide Fund for Nature and Friends of the Earth.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement reached at UNCED regarding the trade in forest products.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the forest principles agreed at UNCED, it was decided that trade in forest products should be based on non-discriminatory and multilaterally agreed rules and procedures consistent with international trade law and practices.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government to review the progress made in implementing the international tropical timber agreement 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In preparation for the renegotiation of the ITTA, the ODA, in co-operation with other interested Departments and EC member states and in consultation with interested non-governmental organisations and the relevant trade federation, have been assessing progress on the implementation of the agreement to date.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that commitments made at the UNCED concerning the conservation of the world's forests are promoted through the United Kingdom Government's contribution to the renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the renegotiation of the ITTA, we are pressing for the inclusion of the relevant elements of forests principles agreed at UNCED to be incorporated into the agreement.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to expand the mandate of the work of the International Tropical Timber Organisation to deal with timber trade from all forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no such plans but we are prepared to consider proposals put forward formally by the ITTO tropical timber producing countries.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the prices received by developing countries for their exports of mahogany, iroko, meranti, ramin, sapele and kertuing timbers and timber products since 1985.
  427
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The prices received by developing countries fluctuate with market conditions and variations in quality and the specification of the timber product. They

  Prices FoB per year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  African Mahogany (£)

  209

  229

  247

  212

  256

  275

  260

  280

  Iroko (£)

  170

  161

  162

  155

  233

  290

  233

  252

  Sapele (£)

  250

  270

  274

  256

  275

  327

  302

  306

  Brazilian Mahogany ($US)

  450

  610

  625

  560

  795

  810

  720

  655

  Meranti (Malaysian $)

  706

  735

  862

  870

  1,350

  1,195

  1,395

  1,391

  Kertuing (Malaysian $)

  285

  328

  466

  640

  580

  600

  760

  686

  Ramin (Malaysian $)

  904

  1,112

  1,412

  1,034

  1,327

  1,600

  1,632

  1,303

  Cameroon
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what overseas development aid is given to Cameroon by either Britain or the EC; and what plans he has to reduce it because of the Cameroon Government's policies.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  Britain's aid programme to Cameroon in the current United Kingdom financial year is £3·2 million, focused on forestry and education. EC aid for 1992 is 49·5 mecu (£37·5 million), devoted to rural development, the environment and roads, of which the United Kingdom share is 8·1 mecu (£6·14 million). We are keeping the situation under review in consultation with other major donors.

  Leningrad Model Farm
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 695, if he will make a further statement on progress on setting up a model farm in the Leningrad Oblast.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: Following a visit to Russia from 23 July to 2 August. 1992, the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS), in close consultation wih the St. Petersburg Agrarian university, has drawn up a business plan for the establishment of a privatised model farm in the Leningrad Oblast. The plan has been submitted to the mayor of St. Petersburg. We await his reactions.

  Russia
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to provide specialist advice from the know-how fund on the establishment of co-ownership housing schemes in the Russian federation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: Know-how fund (KHF) assistance to Russia concentrates on four priority sectors: energy, small business development, food distribution and production. and financial services. The establishment of co-ownership housing schemes falls outside these sectors. We have no plans to change this policy.
  428
  are quoted in a range of currencies. In recent years the trend has been for trade in value added goods—eg moulding, and window frames to increase.

  The following indicative figures have been supplied by the Timber Trade Federation.

  All-Russia Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial and technical assistance he has made available to the all-Russia fund for the promotion of individual flats; and if he will make it his policy to provide the all-Russia fund with expert legal, financial and policy advice from appropriate agencies and companies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: We have provided no financial and technical assistance to the all-Russia fund for the promotion of individual flats and we have no plans to do so.

  Humanitarian Needs Assessments
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessments of humanitarian needs have been conducted by his Department, the European Community and the United Nations in respect of Albania, Bosnia and Croatia for the next six months; what were the results of those assessments; and what funding his Department will provide to meet estimated needs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: In Albania an assessment of food needs was made by the European Community in June 1992. As a result the EC agreed further food aid of £28 million, bringing total EC food aid in Albania to £84 million. The United Kingdom contribution to this is £12 million. It is estimated that the latest grant, together with assistance pledged by other donors, should be sufficient to satisfy food requirements up to spring 1993. In addition bilaterally we have contributed £1·5 million to needs identified by various NGOs between September 1991 and November 1992. The EC, United Nations and United Kingdom are also monitoring the situation in northern Albania where there are reports of extensive loss of life following recent floods.

  In Bosnia and Croatia, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has taken the lead in assessing needs and co-ordinating the international community's response to the crisis. In September they estimated that total requirements for humanitarian relief for all of the former Yugoslavia from September 1992 until April 1993 were approximately $1 billion; and they appealed for $434 million (£287 million) to meet the highest priority needs. We have responded by providing more than £70 million of which £41 million has been channelled through the EC and over £29½ million bilaterally. Virtually all of this has been

  429
  used in Bosnia and Croatia but specific figures by country are not available. The UNHCR continues to keep assessments under review.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Self-regulatory Organisations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the self-regulatory bodies overseeing the banking, insurance and pensions institutions and the number of organisations affiliated to each.

  Mr. Nelson
  The investment business activities of banks, insurance and pensions institutions are regulated under the Financial Services Act by the Securities and Investments Board, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation and the Securities and Futures Authority. Latest available information on the total number of firms regulated by each body and the numbers falling within the specified categories are as follows:

  Total

  Banks

  Life offices

  Pensions scheme members

  SIB

  79

  12

  6

  —

  LAUTRO

  640

  —

  226

  —

  IMRO

  1,248

  52

  8

  162

  SFA

  1,342

  203

  —

  —

  Note: Firms can be regulated by more than one body.

  Financial Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to establish a statutory body to monitor the financial services industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  No. Many of the statutory functions under the Financial Services Act are exercisable by the Securities and Investments Board.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to amend the Financial Services Act 1986 to increase protection for savers.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans to do so.

  EC Membership
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in real terms United Kingdom receipts and expenditure arising from EC membership in each year since 1972.

  Sir John Cope
  The United Kingdom's gross expenditures (after abatement and negotiated refunds) to, and public sector receipts from, the European Community budget in constant 1991 prices for the years 1973 to 1991 are given in the table.

  £ million 1991 prices

  Year

  Gross contributions after abatement and refunds

  Public sector receipts

  1973

  1,055

  460

  1974

  908

  761

  1975

  1,364

  1,587

  430

  Year

  Gross contributions after abatement and refunds

  Public sector receipts

  1976

  1,603

  1,025

  1977

  2,240

  1,118

  1978

  3,679

  1,435

  1979

  3,832

  1,572

  1980

  3,332

  1,923

  1981

  2,654

  1,943

  1982

  3,071

  2,062

  1983

  3,432

  2,408

  1984

  4,047

  3,055

  1985

  5,313

  2,726

  1986

  3,862

  3,070

  1987

  5,334

  3,067

  1988

  4,380

  2,697

  1989

  5,111

  2,441

  1990

  4,991

  2,339

  1991

  3,309

  2,765

  Note: Figures are taken from relevant statements on the Community budget, converted to constant 1991 prices using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Drugs
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of drugs seized in the United Kingdom for the year 1991–92.

  Sir John Cope
  In the year 1991–92, the value of drugs seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise was £354·87 million.

  Drugs Seizures
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of drugs seized at Welsh ports by customs officers in 1991–92.

  Sir John Cope
  In the year 1991–92 the value of drugs seized at Welsh ports by customs officers was £3·6 million.

  Sundry Payments Account
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what costs relating to hon. Members have been paid out of account HMT 121655999P since 1979; and for what purpose the account is held.

  Mr. Nelson
  Account HMT 121655999P is a sundry payments account. It is not possible to check records as far back as 1979. However, a check has been made of all records back to 1989. Apart from a payment of £4,700, to Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners, the only payments from this account which relate to hon. Members are for the purchase of minor items of stationery for Ministers' offices, which over the three years from 1989–90 to 1991–92 amounted to some £289. Payments in the current year to date amount to £54.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to ensure that the Inland Revenue "Investigations Interview Manual", filed in the Library under reference 8177, is sufficiently widely available to all those who need professional access to it.

  Mr. Lamont
  The version currently issued to trainee inspectors is available from the Inland Revenue at Room 3, New Wing, Somerset House, London WC2R 1LB. I have today placed a copy of this version in the Library.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inheritance tax changes are proposed for the new London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The only market makers who qualify for inheritance tax business relief and the option to pay inheritance tax on business assets by interest free instalments at present are those on the stock exchange. New regulations will be made to extend these reliefs with effect from 23 March 1992 to traders performing similar functions in relation to financial futures and options on the London international financial futures and options exchange.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average value of inheritances in (i) Pendle, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) England for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The average value of inheritances other than of surviving spouses and excluding all inheritances of under £1,000 in England in the years 1985 to 1989 is estimated at £14,700. Figures for individual years are subject to too large a margin of uncertainty to be meaningful. Information about inheritances in Pendle and Lancashire is not available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to apply the income from fines imposed on those who pollute water to the restoration of polluted fisheries.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Revenue from fines imposed by the courts is not available to the National Rivers Authority. The authority is however already able to recoup from those responsible the cost of dealing with polluted incidents and, where appropriate, to apply the costs to the restoration of affected fisheries.

HEALTH

  Subfertility
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the availability of treatments for subfertility through the NHS; and what action she is taking to ensure the provision of a comprehensive service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for subfertility. Decisions about the resources to be made available for these services must be left to individual health authorities as they are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Advice is available to health authorities and clinicians in two recent publications:

  (a) The "Effective Health Care Bulletin" on management of subfertility, published for the NHS
  432
  Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  (b) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility—Guidelines for Practice".

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the accuracy of the waiting list information on the numbers waiting for hospital treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Individual hospitals are responsible for the accuracy of waiting lists. To assist in this, last year, the Royal College of Surgeons issued good practice guidance on waiting list management to clinicians and the Department of Health issued complementary guidance to managers.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons she had decided not to exemplify a distribution based on the present standard spending assessment with the elderly residential component fully calculated and the resulting population redirected to originating authority using the national health service central register origination data as a basis for assumptions regarding the distribution of community care funding after April 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  It was not considered appropriate to do so.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 77, if she will indicate what proportion of the further additional funding for community care support and other service costs for 1993–94 is expected to meet each of the identified elements.

  Mr. Yeo
  Authorities have differing priorities for their allocation of the community care special transitional grant and it would not be appropriate to give a break down of the allocation of the additional £140 million.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage increase in the number of home helps in England from 1979 to 1992.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information shows that the number of home helps (whole time equivalents) rose from 44,600 in September 1979 to 53,450 at 30 September 1991. This represents an increase of 20 per cent.

  Private Ambulance Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce regulations to govern the operation of private ambulance services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no such plans.

  Wessex RHA (Dr. Cox)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary- of State for Health (1) if she will require the Wessex regional health authority to publish the full text of the statement made by the authority on Friday 20 November in connection with its employment of Dr. Cox.

  (2) what conditions were imposed by the Wessex regional health authority on Friday 20 November, in deciding to allow Dr. Cox to return to work at the Royal Hampshire county hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The conditions imposed by the Wessex regional health authority in deciding to allow Dr. Cox to return to work at the Royal Hampshire county hospital were set out in the authority's statement issued on 20 November 1992.

  Homeless Mentally Ill
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the implementation of the initiative announced in July 1990 for tackling the problem of the homeless mentally ill in London; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Considerable progress has been made. Four short term hostels have been opened and two more will open during 1993, providing 73 places in all. A further 77 hostel places are planned for the next phase of the initiative.

  Five community psychiatric teams have been established. The work of the teams and client outcomes are being evaluated independently. The indications are that the teams have been effective in making contact with severely damaged individuals who have had little or no previous contact with psychiatric services. Numbers of contacts to date are estimated at 1,700.

  The Housing Corporation has undertaken to secure up to 750 move on places for mentally ill people in re-lets of existing housing association stock and new-build, ranging from independent single units to more supported shared accommodation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest estimates for the number of homeless mentally ill who are sleeping rough in(a) London, (b) Birmingham, (c) Manchester, (d) Leeds and (e) Bristol.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is difficult to obtain accurate data on homeless people. On the 1991 census night the following numbers of people were found to be sleeping in the open air on sites previously identified by local statutory and voluntary organisations.

  Numbers

  (a) Greater London

  1,275

  (b) Birmingham

  1—

  (c) Manchester

  23

  (d) Leeds

  21

  (e) Bristol

  128

  1 Not available.

  We estimate that at least 30 per cent., and possibly up to 50 per cent., of homeless people living rough on the streets have a mental health problem.

  Intentional Deaths of Patients
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by her Department to medical, nursing and ancillary personnel about their rights and obligations when they become aware that medical personnel are seeking to take steps intentionally to bring about the death of patients in their care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. The rights and obligations of professional personnel in relation to such matters are covered by guidance and codes of conduct and ethics issued by the professional bodies.

  Mental Illness (Deaths)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made with the confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  A director and steering committee have been appointed. Terms of reference have been established both for the scope of the inquiry and for the steering committee.

  Work is in hand to establish confidential working arrangements by which the inquiry may proceed.

  London Health Services
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate she has made of the capital cost of hospital investment in London resulting from the recommendations of the Tomlinson report; and what provision has been made for this expenditure in public expenditure plans;

  (2) what estimate she has made of the cost of transfer or redundancy pay for doctors displaced as a result of the recommendations of the Tomlinson report; and what provision has been made for this expenditure in public expenditure plans;

  (3) what assessment she has made of the validity of the estimate in the Tomlinson report of the cost of provision of further primary care services in London; and what provision has been made for this expenditure in public expenditure plans.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: The capital cost implications of Sir Bernard Tomlinson's recommendations are being studied as part of the Government's consideration of the report. Clearly they are dependent on whatever decisions are made.

  We shall put forward our proposals for the future direction of London's health services, including the financial implications, in the new year. At that time we will take full account of the implications of any changes for national health service staff working in London.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which signatories of the non-proliferation treaty are seeking an indefinite extension of the treaty without amendment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not know the positions of all signatories of the non-proliferation treaty but in addition
  435
  to the United Kingdom and its co-depositaries, the United States and the Russian Federation, all G7, European Community and NATO partners have indicated a commitment to seek indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states in the Commonwealth of Independent States have signed the non-proliferation treaty; which of these have reached safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency; and on what dates these events occurred.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Uzbekistan acceded to the non-proliferation treaty on 7 May 1992. Azerbaijan acceded on 22 September 1992. We understand that neither has yet concluded safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which international treaties and arrangements other than the non-proliferation treaty, contribute towards the Government's non-proliferation policies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Apart from the non-proliferation treaty, the main international treaties which contribute to the Government's non-proliferation policies are: the 1925 Geneva protocol, dealing with chemical weapons, and the 1972 convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and on their destruction (the BTWC). The United Kingdom has also pledged to be an early signatory of the chemical weapons convention, which is likely to enter into force in 1995. There are in addition a number of international arrangements, notably the safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Euratom, and the export controls agreed by COCOM, by the Zangger committee, by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and by the Australia Group. We have also signed and ratified the two additional protocols to the treaty of Tlatelolco which is aimed at creating a nuclear weapons free zone in Latin America. The United Kingdom is also a founder member of the missile technology control regime which controls the transfer of missile systems capable of delivering nuclear, biological and chemical warheads.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has relating to the possession of nuclear weapons by(a) Israel, (b) Iran and (c) Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no information either to confirm or deny the rumours that Israel may have nuclear weapons. We continue to emphasise the importance we attach to Israeli accession to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. As states parties to this treaty both Iran and Syria have undertaken formal commitments not to acquire nuclear weapons which we expect them to honour in full. However, the experience with Iraq has demonstrated that membership of the non-proliferation treaty alone is no longer a guarantee of non-proliferation. We therefore take every opportunity both bilaterally and in international fora to stress the significance we attack to all states parties to the NPT complying fully with all their obligations.

  IAEA
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states have made a commitment to the International Atomic Energy Agency to open any site and any installation on their territory to visits from Agency inspectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that the following states have indicated to the IAEA that they would allow unrestricted access to any sites the agency may wish to visit: Iran, North Korea, South Africa.

  Nuclear Materials (Theft)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 173, what information he has about the original source of the stolen nuclear material that has recently been seized in Italy and Germany; what discussions he has had with his European and NATO counterparts on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Release of information on the source of the material recovered in these incidents is a matter for the Italian and German authorities. We discuss the general isue of illicit trade in nuclear materials with other European and NATO counterparts as appropriate, most recently at NATO's ad hoc group on nuclear weapons on 16 November.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants from each wing of his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since 1988, 97 diplomatic wing posts have been relocated to Hanslope park, near Milton Keynes. In the same period the aid wing has relocated 53 jobs to East Kilbride and 321 to Chatham. No relocations took place in the previous five years; 427 posts from the aid wing had already, however, been moved from London to East Kilbride in 1981.

  Nuclear Suppliers Group
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 169, on the Nuclear Suppliers Group, what consideration the working group on institutional questions established by the Nuclear Suppliers Group has given to the inclusion of China as a member of the group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 3 November at col.169. The proceedings of the working group on institutional questions like all meetings of the Nuclear Suppliers Group are confidential. If China were to seek membership of the group, their application would be carefully considered.

  Nuclear Tests (South Asia)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with NATO, Indian, Pakistani and Chinese counterparts relating to the conduct of nuclear tests in the south Asia region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are not aware of any nuclear explosion in South Asia since India exploded a nuclear device in 1974, and we have not recently discussed nuclear testing in this region.

  US National Security Agency
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the locations from which the United States National Security Agency is permitted to operate in Britain.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to answer questions of this nature.

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following is the information.

  Council of ministers business for December 1992

  1. The following meetings are planned:

  3 December

  :

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  7/8 December

  :

  Transport Council

  7 December

  :

  Foreign Affairs Council

  9 December

  :

  Research Council

  14 December

  :

  Economic and Finance Council

  14/15/16 December

  :

  Agriculture Council

  15/16 December

  :

  Environment Council

  17/18 December

  :

  Internal Market Council

  19/20 December

  :

  Fisheries Council

  21 December

  :

  Foreign Affairs Council

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  (a) Labour and Social Affairs Council—3 December

  Proposal for a directive on Health and Safety in the Extractive Industries (Mines and Quarries) (7162/92)

  Progress report by the Presidency on Biological Agents (8925/92)

  Draft Presidency resolution on Transparency of vocational qualifications (9964/92)

  Proposal for a Presidency resolution on tackling unemployment

  Proposal for a regulation on a European agency for safety and health at work (9937/92)

  Proposal for a regulation and directive on free movement of workers (10239/92)

  Progress report by the Presidency on Helios II (8315/92)

  Draft Presidency resolution on occupational pensions (9961/92)

  Proposal for a directive on posting of workers (8255/92)

  Draft Presidency conclusions on Implementation and Enforcement of Community Social Legislation (9963/92)

  Proposal for a directive on organisation of working time (possible)

  (b) Transport Council—7/8 December

  AVIATION AND LAND TRANSPORT ISSUES

  Aviation and slot allocation regulation (4496/91; 7810/92)

  Aviation external relations

  ATM equipment (8420/92)

  EUROCONTROL

  438

  Commission report on ATC research

  Resolution on state aids

  Road freight fiscal issues

  Road haulage cabotage (10083/91; 4943/92; 5334/92; 7187/92; 7662/92)

  Mandate frorinland waterways negotiations (7341/91; 6724/92; 7261/92)

  Infrastructure (8065/92) (possible)

  Transit agreement with Slovenia

  Road safety communication (possible)

  Commission report on transport White Paper (possible)

  MARITIME ISSUES

  Dangerous goods at sea (7074/89; 9793/90)

  Shipping (positive measures) (8368/89; 5052/91; 4035/92)

  External relations

  Terremolinos Convention (7330/92; 9778/92) (possible)

  Maritime cabotage (possible)

  Commission report on maritime safety (possible)

  Commission report on implementation of 1986 maritime package (possible)

  (c) Foreign Affairs Council—7 December

  Immigration

  Enlargement

  Nuclear safety in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union

  Delors II

  GATT

  Internal frontier controls on people

  Former Yugoslavia

  Revision of EC defence instruments (anti-dumping etc.)

  (d) Research Council—9 December

  Supplementary Financing of the Third Framework Programme (1990–1994) (8366/92)

  Fourth Framework Programme (1994–1998) (9302/92)

  The European Communitty and Space (9599/92)

  Paper on EC Framework Programme Management (possible)

  International Association for promoting co-operation in the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (8174/92) (possible)

  (e) Economic and Finance Council—14 December

  Follow-up to the European Council (possible)

  CO2/Energy tax-progress report

  Third countries traveller's allowance

  Road transport tax

  Special VAT arrangements applicable to second-hand goods, works of art, collector's items and antiques

  Directive on deposit guarantees (possible)

  (f) Agriculture Council—14–15–16 December

  Bananas (8372/92; 9023/92; 9421/92; 9432/92; 9953/92)

  Milk quota consolidation (8950/1/91; 9280/92; 9994/92)

  Italian milk quota (8067/92; 9269/92)

  Stickler cow and deseasonalisation premiumk (8846/92; 9972/92)

  Potatoes

  Sheep meat voluntary restraint agreements

  New Zealand butter

  Transitional arrangements: Spain Portugal (10181/92)

  Agrimonetary regime (7907/92; 9361/92; 9951/92)

  Maize and sorghum imports

  Fruit and vegetables—amendments to basic regime (9840/92; 10248/92)

  GATT beef balance sheets (possible)

  GATT—agriculture (oilseeds dispute)

  Poultry meat

  Zoonoses

  Balai (animal products)

  Animal welfare

  Plant breeder's rights (possible)

  Derogations from Directive 92/5 (meat products) (possible)

  (g) Environment Council—15/16 December

  Van emissions (5777/92)

  Fifth Environmental Action Programme (6132/92)

  CFCs Regulation/Ozone layer (5762/92)

  ECO-audit regulation (5218/92)

  439

  Community ratification of Basel Convention (8304/90) (possible)

  Packaging (8426/92)

  CITES regulation (10500/91) (possible)

  Climate change (7569/92)

  Implementation and enforcement

  European Environment Agency (possible)

  (h) Internal Market Council—17/18 December

  Proposal for a fund for Customs Agents (8321/92)

  (i) Fisheries Council—19/20 December

  Fishing opportunities for 1993 including Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas

  Fishing in Spanish and Portuguese waters

  Fisheries agreements with Norway, Sweden, and Greenland NAFO TACs and quotas

  Third country agreement with French Guyana

  Community system for fisheries and aquaculture

  Accession agreements for Spain and Portugal

  (j) Foreign Affairs Council—21 December

  Follow-up to European Council

  GATT: Uruguay Round and oilseeds (possible)

  EC/Morocco

  EC/Cyprus Association Council: Approval of Community position

  Former Yugoslavia

  Other EPC items

  EC/Cyprus Association Council (in margins)

  3. The Labour and Social Affairs Council will meet on 3 December and will discuss Health and Safety in the Extractive Industries (Mines and Quarries); Biological Agents; Presidency resolution on Transparency of vocational qualifications; Presidency resolution on tackling unemployment; the proposal for a regulation on a European agency for safety and health at work; free movement of workers; Helios II; occupational pensions; posting of workers and implementation and enforcement of Community social legislation. They may also discuss the proposal for a directive on organisation of working time.

  4. The Transport Council will meet on 7–8 December and will discuss transport liberalisation issues that have been prominent during the presidency. Ministers will focus on aviation slot allocation; aviation external relations; air traffic control issues; discussions on state aids; road freight fiscal harmonisation; road haulage cabotage; the inland waterways mandate; the mandate for transit negotiations with Slovenia; dangerous goods at sea; positive shipping measures and maritime external relations. They may also discuss post-1992 infrastructure funding and, the Torremolinos Convention. In addition the Commission will be presenting their reports on road safety; the Transport White Paper; maritime safety and the implementation of 1986 maritime package.

  5. The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 7 December. Ministers will discuss immigration; the progress on preparations for enlargement negotiations; nuclear safety in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; Delors II; recent developments in the GATT negotiations; internal frontier controls on people; the former Yugoslavia, and the revision of EC defence instruments. A conclave of Foreign Ministers will meet on 8 December to discuss ratification of the Maastricht treaty, subsidiarity and openness, in preparation for the European Council.

  6. The Research Council will meet on 9 December and will discuss supplementary financing of the third framework programme (1990–94); the Commission's working document for the fourth framework programme (1994–98) and the European Community and space. Programme management and the International Association for promoting co-operation in the Independent States of the former Soviet Union may also be discussed.

  7. The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 14 December to discuss matters arising from the European Council on 11 December. The directive on deposit guarantees may also he discussed. This draft directive is a priority under the United Kingdom Presidency and we hope that a political agreement can be reached by the end of the year. The Council
  440
  will also discuss the Commission's proposal for a CO2/Energy tax; Third Countries Travellers Allowance; VAT arrangements for second-hand goods and Road Transport taxation.

  8. The Agriculture Council will meet on 14, 15 and 16 December. Ministers will discuss bananas; the agrimonetary system; the agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations; milk quota consolidation; Italian milk quotas; suckler cow premium; potatoes; sheep meat voluntary restraint agreements; New Zealand butter; transitional arrangements for Spain and Portugal; amendments to the fruit and vegetables regime; poultry meat; zoonoses; Balai (animal products); and animal welfare and exotic diseases. They may also discuss beef tariff quotas; plant breeders' rights and meat products.

  9. The Environment Council will meet on 15 and 16 December. It is hoped that agreement will be reached on a directive to tighten emission limits from vans; a Council resolution on the Commission's fifth action programme on the environment; a regulation introducing a Community eco-auditing scheme and an amended regulation bringing forward the phase out dates for CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. The Council will also discuss the proposed directive on packaging and packaging waste; controls on trade in endangered species (CITES), and measures on climate change. A report on implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law will also be tabled by the Commission for discussion by Ministers at Council.

  10. The Internal Market Council will meet on 17 and 18 December to discuss the proposal for a fund for Customs agents. The remainder of the agenda is not yet known.

  11. The Fisheries Council is due to meet on 19 and 20 December. Fisheries Ministers may discuss fishing opportunities for 1993 including total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas; fishing arrangements for European Community vessels to fish Spanish and Portuguese waters; fisheries agreements with Norway, Sweden and Greenland; the NAFO TACs and quotas; the third country agreement with French Guyana; the European Community system for fisheries and aquaculture and accession arrangements for Spain and Portugual.

  12. The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 21 December to discuss the follow-up to the European Council; EC/Morocco; the former Yugoslavia and any other EPC items. The GATT: Uruguay round and oilseeds may also be discussed. The EC/Cyprus Association Council will be held in the margins.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the conduct of the presidential elections in Cameroon on 11 October.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Whilst we welcome the holding of multi-party elections as an important step in the process of democratisation, we noted with concern that the conduct of the recent election was flawed and that the primary responsibility for the shortcomings rests with the Government of Cameroon. In the light of the widespread dissatisfaction with the outcome inside Cameroon, we have urged the Government strongly to begin a process of national reconciliation among political parties.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 November,Official Report, column 644, what is the value of export guarantees for the supply of defence-related goods, including machine tools, to Iraq that have had to be called in the past eight years.
  441
  Mr. Heseltine
  I will write to the hon. Lady in due course.

  Timber
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has about the extent of illegal trade in timber from the rain forest countries of South-Eash Asia.

  Mr. Needham
  Authoritative information about the extent of illegal harvesting and exports of timber from the rain forest countries of South East Asia is limited. I have, however, been sent a copy of a report on such matters by the TRAFFIC Network, which was published with the support of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what international agreements supported by Britain relate to the international trade in timber;

  (2) what steps are being taken by the United Kingdom Government to ensure that all United Kingdom imports of timber are derived from legally felled forests and are traded legally.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government's policy on timber is to encourage the sustainable management of forests. We support the International Tropical Timber Organisation's target for all internationally traded timber to originate from sustainably managed forests by 2000. Except as provided for under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species there are no restrictions on the import of tropical hardwoods into the United Kingdom; wider restrictions would be neither practicable nor desirable.

  Mahogany (Brazil)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests the United Kingdom Government have received from the Government of Brazil for assistance in helping to control illegal harvesting of mahogany in the states of Rondonia and Para.

  Mr. Needham
  I am not aware of any requests from the Government of Brazil for assistance in controlling illegal harvesting of mahogany.

  Trade Balance
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out in real terms the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and other members of the EC in each year since 1972.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom trade in real terms by trading partner is not available. Data in current prices are published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, CSO", which is available in the Library of the House.

  EC Investment
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out in real terms(a) United Kingdom investment in other EC countries and (b) investment in the United Kingdom from other EC countries in each year since 1972.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on United Kingdom inward and outward investment in real terms is not 442
  available. Statistics on investment in current prices are published in "Business Monitor MA4, Overseas Transactions", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the total amount of inward investment the north west of England has received in the last 10 years, year by year;

  (2) what measures are being taken to attract inward investment to the north west of England.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau promotes the whole of the United Kingdom as an attractive location for overseas inward investors. In 1992–93 it provided grant-in-aid of £1,112,000 to INWARD to undertake overseas inward investment promotional activities for the north-west region.

  The table shows the number of inward investment projects and the associated jobs which the north-west has received in the last 10 years.

  Year

  Project

  New jobs

  Total jobs1

  1982

  14

  1,291

  1,291

  1983

  22

  709

  1,823

  1984

  40

  1,135

  3,046

  1985

  28

  2,271

  3,649

  1986

  34

  1,400

  2,789

  1987

  28

  1,323

  6,219

  1988

  30

  1,763

  5,607

  1989

  52

  2,646

  7,184

  1990

  53

  1,810

  10,507

  1991

  65

  1,373

  8,945

  Total

  366

  15,721

  51,060

  1 Total jobs includes jobs associated with acquisitions and with investments creating new jobs where existing jobs were considered to be safeguarded by the investment.

  Note: The figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves as notified to DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau and reflect the companies' intentions at the time of the decision to invest and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Coal Review
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those individuals and organisations which have made submissions to his review of the coal industry and identify those submissions which are confidential; and if he will place the remainder in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: The individuals and organisations who have submitted evidence to the coal review, and whose evidence has been received by the review team at 5.30 pm on 3 December, are listed and total 277 submissions. Those whose submissions include confidential material are marked with an asterisk. Copies of the evidence which is not confidential are being placed in the Library.

  Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce

  Action Group on Northern Ireland Electricity Prices

  Adams, J. M. S.

  AEA Technology

  Alliance Gas Limited

  AMCO Corporation plc

  Amerada Hess Limited

  443

  Amos, J.—Hoare Lea and Partners

  Anglo United plc

  Antrim Coal Company Limited*

  Anyon, R. (Shop Steward at BNFL Springfields) and P. Logue.

  Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance

  Applied Energy Services Electric Limited

  Architects and Engineers for Social Responsibility

  ARCO British Limited

  ASEA Brown Boveri*

  Associated Electricity Suppliers Ltd*

  Associated Octel Company Limited*

  Association for the Conservation of Energy

  Association of British Mining Equipment Companies

  Association of Independent Electricity Producers

  Babcock Energy Limited

  Ball, S.

  Barking Power Limited

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Black, A.

  Blue Circle Industries Ltd.

  Botham Engineering Limited

  BP BITOR Limited

  BP Exploration Operating Company Limited

  BRINDEX

  British Alcan Aluminium plc

  British Association of Colliery Management

  Britsh Ceramic Confederation

  British Coal Corporation

  British Gas plc

  British Nuclear Forum

  British Nuclear Fuels plc*

  British Wind Energy Association

  Broadland District Council

  Brunner Mond and Company Limited

  Cairn Energy plc

  Caledonian Mining Co. Ltd.

  Carribine c—Low Valleyfield Residents' Association

  Centre for Intermediate Mining Research Limited

  Chamber of Coal Traders Limited

  Chemical Industries Association

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Chriswoll Jones, J.

  Churches Energy Group

  City of Nottingham Development Department

  City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  Clackmannan District Council (Alloa)

  Clay Colliery Company Ltd.

  Clwyd County Council

  Coal Advisory Service

  Coalfield Communities Campaign

  Cobex Limited

  Combined Heat and Power Association

  Communist Party of Great Britain

  Confederation of British Industry

  Confederation of British Industry (Northern Ireland)

  Confederation of UK Coal Producers

  Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  Consortium of Opposing Local Authorities

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Co-operative Wholesale Society

  Cory Environmental Ltd.

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland

  Country Landowners Association

  Countryside Council for Wales

  County Planning Officers' Society

  Cox, H.

  Co-Steel Inc.

  Currall Lewis & Martin Ltd.

  Cytun Industrial & Economic Affairs Network (Welsh Clergy)

  Day, A. C.

  Derbyshire County Council

  Digby Worthy, W.

  Domestic Coal Consumers' Council

  Durham County Council

  E. Gas Limited

  East Midlands Electricity Consumers' Committee

  444

  East Midlands Electricity plc.

  Eastern Electricity plc.

  Eastern Region Electricity Consumers' Association

  Electricity Consumers' Committee, Merseyside and North Wales

  Electricity Consumers' Committee for London

  Electricity Consumers' Committee Southern Region

  Electricity Pool of England and Wales

  Electricity Supply Trade Union Council

  Energy and Chemical Projects Ltd.

  Energy Information Centre1

  Energy Intensive Users Group/Major Energy Users Council

  Energy upply Company Ltd.1

  Engineering Consultancy Services Ltd.

  English Nature

  Enron Europe Limited

  Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd.

  Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors

  Federation of Small Mines of GB

  Fells, Professor—Newcastle University

  Fenton Solid Fuels Ltd.

  Fife Regional Council

  Food and Drink Federation

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Foster Wheeler Energy Limited

  Friends of the Earth

  Galvanizers Association

  Gas Consumers Council

  Gas Strategies

  GEC Alsthom Limited

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Gilbert, F.

  Glyn, A.

  Godfrey, D. F.—Lerken & Co. Solicitors

  Grampian Regional Council

  Greenpeace

  Gruber, P. A.

  Leverton Limited*

  Hamilton Oil Company Ltd.*

  Harrison, K.

  Harvey, R. E. A.

  Hawkes, G.

  Highland Regional Council

  Hopkinson, D.

  Horrocks, R.

  I. & H. Brown Limited

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.

  Institute of Civil Engineers

  Institute of Economic Affairs

  Institute of Energy

  Institution of Mining Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Institution of Mining Engineers

  Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists

  Ivo Energy Limited

  Jervis, R. M.

  Johnson Matthey plc

  Kelt UK Ltd.

  Kingsnorth Developments Ltd.

  LASMO North Sea plc

  LE Energy

  Leicester City Council

  Lester, Jim MP

  Levack Civil Engineering

  Liberal Democrats

  Liebherr GB Ltd.

  Lipman, Professor N. H.

  Loadmaster Ltd.

  London Electricity plc

  Lynam, F.

  Lytham St. Annes Methodist Circuit Social Responsibility Committee

  Mansfield District Council

  Manweb plc*

  Marks and Spencer plc

  Mason, J.

  McAlpine, G.

  Mechanical Handling Engineers' Association

  MECO AFC Ltd.

  Merz and McLellan Limited

  Metropolitan Planning Officers' Society

  445

  Mid Glamorgan County Council

  Midlands Consumers' Committee

  Midlands Electricity plc

  Midlands Electricity plc/Central Power

  Miller Mining

  Millington, Mrs. G.

  Mining Association of the United Kingdom

  Mobil Gas Marketing (UK) Ltd.

  Monktonhall Mineworkers Ltd.

  Monument Oil and Gas plc*

  National Association of Colliery Overmen Deputies and Shotfirers

  National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators

  National Association of Local government Officers

  National Consumer Council

  National Engineering Construction Employers' Association

  National Grid Company plc

  National Network of Chaplains in the Electricity Supply Industry

  National Network of Coal Industry Chaplains

  National Power plc*

  National Rivers Authority

  National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection

  National Union of Mineworkers

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Nicholson, K.

  Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd.

  North Derbyshire Health Authority

  North Eastern Region Electricity Consumers' Committee

  Northern Ireland Electricity plc

  NORWEB*

  Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Nottinghamshire Rural Community Council

  NSM plc

  Nuclear Electric plc*

  Nykomb Synergetics

  O & K Orenstein and Koppel Ltd.

  Offshore Contractors Council

  Offshore Manufacturers and Constructors Association

  Oil and Chemcial Plant Constructors Association

  Open University Energy and Environment Research Unit

  Oxford Institute for Energy Studies

  Parkhill Estates Limited

  Pearce, A. J.

  Phillips Petroleum Company United Kingdom Limited

  Point of Ayr Colliery Survival Committee

  Pontefract Graders Ltd.

  Powergen plc*

  Powys County Council

  R. J. B. Mining Ltd.

  Rackwood Colliery Co. Ltd.

  Regional Studies Association

  Reynolds, J.—Merrill Lynch

  Robinson, D.

  Rolls Royce plc

  Rotherham and District Trades Union Council

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council*

  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  Royal Institution of International Affairs

  Royal Town Planning Institute

  Safecom UEP Ltd.

  Save the Moors From Opencast (SHAMROC)

  Scottish Hydro Electric plc*

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Northern Region Electricity Users' Sub-Committee

  Scottish Nuclear Limited*

  Scottish Power

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Seabridge, A. T.*

  Seeboard plc

  Severn Tidal Power Group

  Shawater Ltd.

  Sheerness Steel Company plc

  Shell UK Ltd.

  Shepway Friends of the Earth

  Shirebrook Traders Association

  Skegness 2000

  Slough Trading Estates Ltd.

  Smith, E.

  446

  South Eastern Regional Electricity Consumers' Committee

  South Wales Electricity plc*

  South Wales Region Consumers' Committee

  South Western Electricity plc

  South Western Regional Electricity Consumers' Committee

  Southern Electric plc*

  Southern Scotland Electricity Consumers' Committee

  Staffordshire County Council

  Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales

  Statoil UK Ltd.

  Taylor Woodrow Mining Division

  Texaco

  Trades Union Congress

  Trainload Freight

  Transport and General Workers Union

  Tyne and Wear Chamber of Commerce, Trade and Industry

  UK Offshore Operators Association Ltd.

  UK Onshore Operators Group

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  United Gas Company Limited

  Viscosuisse Textured Yarns

  Walker, J. F.

  Ward Brothers Mining Division Ltd.

  Watt Committee on Energy

  Watt, J.

  WEFA Energy Group*

  West Midlands Regional Forum of Local Authorities

  Westoe Colliery Campaign Group

  World Solar Power Foundation

  Yorkshire Electricity Group plc*

  Yorkshire Opencast Objectors

  Yorkshire Water Services Limited*

  Young Group plc*

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the coal contract negotiations between British Coal and the electricity supply industry following the coal review he announced on 21 October.

  Mr. Hesetine
  I wrote to the chairman of British Coal yesterday in the following terms:

  You asked for my views on British Coal's contract negotiations with the electricity supply industry following the Review I announced on 21 October.

  As you know, in my statement to the House on 21 October, I announced a wide-ranging Review of the prospects of the 21 pits proposed for closure but not subject to statutory consultation. The Review will decide whether the case for closure of each of the 21 pits has been fully made and whether it is sensible to mothball any of these pits. I also made it clear that the Review would consider whether the market prospects for coal had been correctly assessed, and that it would look at the level of coal stocks, both at the pithead and at the power stations, and whether plans to run them down were sensibly phased.

  The Review will consider views and evidence on the future of each of the pits in question, in the context of the Government's energy policy, including the consequences of that policy for British Coal and employment prospects for the industry. The Review will decide whether the case for closure at each of the pits in question had been fully made and whether the market prospects for coal have been correctly assessed.

  The future of the British coal industry depends crucially on the level of its sales to the power generators. The Corporation's current coal supply contracts with National Power and PowerGen for 65 million tonnes expire on 31 March 1993. British Coal's proposals to close 31 pits reflected the assessment that you were unlikely to sell the power generators more than 40 million tonnes of coal in 1993–94. The Government's decision to launch the Review was taken against the background, among other factors, of widespread concern and representations that there could be a market for substantially higher tonnages.

  Negotiations on future contracts are of course a matter for the coal and electricity industries. However, against the

  447
  background to the Review, and the deep Parliamentary and public concern about its outcome, I hope that British Coal and the other parties to the contract negotiations will find it possible to agree arrangements which will ensure a sound and stable basis for the British coal industry and the electricity supply industry to plan their business at least for 1993–94, and pending implementation of options identified in the light of the Review of the prospects of the 21 pits.

  I am looking to all the parties concerned to ensure that any contracts which may be agreed do not prejudice the outcome of the Review.

  I am therefore copying this letter to National Power and PowerGen and the twelve regional electricity companies so that they are aware of the Government's views. I am also sending a copy to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and proposing to make it available to MPs through a written statement and to issue a press notice.

  British Steel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has provided to the United States Government about subsidies paid to British Steel; and by what sums British Steel is currently subsidised.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government and United Kingdom companies complied with the United States authorities' requests for information on subsidies to the British Steel Corporation as part of a recent investigation under United States countervailing duty legislation. No Government subsidies have been granted to British Steel since the company was privatised in 1988.

  Electricity Imports
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the price paid to date to Electricité de France in respect of electricity imports in each month for the term of the present contract, together with the prevailing pool price in each of those months.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for those electricity companies that have contracts with EdF.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the proportion of energy supplies for electricity generation that are likely to be imported by 2020 based on the forecast contained in the DTI Energy Paper 59, October 1992, entitled "Electricity Generated by Type of Plant" (per cent),(a) overall, (b) coal, (c) gas, (d) oil, (e) nuclear and (f) other.

  Mr. Eggar
  Energy Paper 59 is primarily intended to offer a range of energy-related carbon emissions scenarios as a basis for discussion of environmental issues. Because the carbon contents of domestic and imported fuels are similar the scenarios do not distinguish between them.

  Imported Coal
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the tonnages of imported coal(a) for power generation, (b) for industrial applications and (c) for domestic use, in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures requested are:

  Thousand tonnes

  Year

  1 Power generation

  2 3 Industry applications

  3 Domestic use

  1987

  1,358

  6,945

  1,478

  1988

  1,973

  7,709

  2,003

  1989

  1,963

  8,497

  1,677

  448

  Year

  1 Power generation

  2 3 Industry applications

  3 Domestic use

  1990

  4,721

  8,964

  1,098

  1991

  7,251

  9,863

  2,376

  1 Major electricity generating companies as denned in Energy Trends.

  2 Including coke ovens and manufactured solid fuel plants.

  3 These are estimated figures based on data supplied by Customs and Excise. The use of which the coal is to be put is not recorded at the time the coal is imported, but assumptions on who uses particular types of coal have been used to allocate imports to the industrial and domestic sectors.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for how many documents Her Majesty's Government have claimed public interest immunity in respect of the application in the High Court by the NUM on pit closures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: None. On 26 November 1992 counsel acting on my right hon. Friend's behalf in these proceedings properly drew attention of the court to the fact that two documents which had recently been submitted in evidence by the National Union of Mineworkers and which were already in the public domain fell within an established class of document capable of attracting public interest immunity. The question of whether the documents should attract such immunity was left entirely to the court which subsequently decided that they should be allowed as evidence.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give greater priority to manufacturing companies in the distribution of grant-assisted aid for development and expansion purposes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: Around three quarters of my Department's programme spend goes to manufacturing companies.

  Trade Deficit
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current United Kingdom trade deficit with(a) France, (b) Italy, (c) the Netherlands, (d) Germany and (e) Belgium respectively; and what is the total deficit in trade between the United Kingdom and all other EC countries.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: Information on United Kingdom visible trade with members of the EC is regularly published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, CSO", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Market Share
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the European Community share in the United Kingdom market for the financial year 1990–91; and what is the estimated share for 1991–92.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: Information on the EC shares of the United Kingdom domestic market cannot be provided without disproportionate cost. The EC accounted for 52 per cent. of visible

  449
  imports into the United Kingdom in 1990–91 and in 1991–92. The EC share of United Kingdom imports of manufactures was 55 per cent. in 1990–91 and 54 per cent. in 1991–92.

  Libyan Sanctions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made of the effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments of Libyan sanctions.
  450
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: It is impossible to say what additional trade might have occurred or the effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments—if sanctions against Libya had not been adopted by the United Nations Security Council.