Sitting of 16 November 1995

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

  Business of the House
  2.34 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the details of future business?
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): As the House is aware, the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 22 November.
  It may be helpful to remind the House of what you, Madam Speaker, said yesterday about the pattern of debate so that all the information about the next fortnight is conveniently available in one place. The debate today is on foreign affairs and defence. On Friday 17 November, it is on health; on Monday 20 November, on investment—that is trade, industry and transport; on Tuesday 21 November, on social affairs, embracing education and home affairs; and on Wednesday 22 November, on the economy.
  The business for the three days following the conclusion of the debate on the humble Address will be as follows:

  THURSDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Chemical Weapons Bill.

  Second Reading of the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill.

  FRIDAY 24 NOVEMBER—Debate on earnings top-up on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

  MONDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Student Loans Bill.

  TUESDAY 28 NOVEMBER—My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

  WEDNESDAY 29 NOVEMBER—Continuation Of the Budget debate.

  THURSDAY 30 NOVEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.

  FRIDAY 1 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.

  MONDAY 4 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate, which will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 December.

  [Thursday 28 November: Budget Statement
  The following document is relevant: The unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 26 July 1995 relating to the Council recommendation to the United Kingdom with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive deficit in
  120
  the United Kingdom, prepared in regard to Article 104c(7) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.]
  Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. During the last parliamentary Session, he assisted Members very much by giving early notice of business and recess dates. I hope that, in the spirit of Jopling, he will be able to do that and to improve on it during this Session.
  With regard to next week's business, may I ask the Leader of the House about the debate on Wednesday morning on water supplies in west Yorkshire, a debate in which, of course, I have a special interest? Will the Leader of the House ensure that a senior Minister responds to that debate, because Yorkshire Water has shown itself to be utterly incapable of dealing with the crisis? We need to hear what action Ministers intend to take to ensure that water supplies remain available to my constituents and people throughout west Yorkshire and to local industry. Will the Leader of the House take steps to ensure that we get not just sympathy from Ministers, but action to tackle the crisis?
  The Chemical Weapons Bill has its Second Reading on Thursday 23 November. The Leader of the House will be aware that there is a general welcome for this measure. Will he confirm that the Bill will be committed to a Committee of the whole House following Second Reading as that would meet with the general approval of Members on both sides of the House?
  On Monday 27 November, the Leader of the House has announced the Second Reading of the Student Loans Bill. Will he confirm that the proposed student loans legislation will be an enabling Bill, and that its implementation will consist of nothing less than an auction among the banks to try to find someone to finance the scheme? In light of the banks' rejection of the previous Government-inspired private student loans system, should not Ministers satisfy themselves that the latest scheme commands enough support to be viable before introducing the Bill? Or is this another example of the Government legislating in haste only to repent at leisure later?
  Finally, on the matter of the asylum Bill, the Leader of the House will be aware that the Prime Minister said yesterday
  "In the interests of good race relations, I will ensure that we have a fair system of asylum—fair for those who need help, and fair for those who do not believe that this country should receive bogus asylum seekers either."—[Official Report, 15 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 30.]
  As that is common ground, and especially as the Government are introducing the legislation a mere two years after the last asylum Bill, would not it be wise to ensure that Parliament gets this attempt at legislation right? Will the Leader of the House give full and proper consideration to the constructive proposal made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—which, I understand, some Conservative Members also consider worthy of serious consideration—that the Bill should be considered by a Special Standing Committee?
  Mr. Newton: It may be convenient if I take those questions in reverse order.
  Of course I recall the exchanges yesterday, and I remind the hon. Lady of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about considering what the Leader

  121
  of the Opposition said. That consideration will be given. However, I am not in a position this afternoon to add to what my right hon. Friend said.
  The hon. Lady or other hon. Members will have their opportunity to develop their arguments on the Student Loans Bill in due course, but the Bill will be designed to provide a better loans system and a better deal for students, and I hope that the private sector institutions will take advantage of the opportunity that we plan to provide.
  On the Chemical Weapons Bill, I hope that I may take the hon. Lady's remarks as a more public than usual representation through the usual channels about the way in which business should be handled. I would expect to respond positively; that is to say, we shall propose that the other stages beyond Second Reading are taken on the Floor of the House.
  On water, I had noted the debate next Wednesday, which I believe is in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I am not in the business of ordering my colleagues about, but I will bring the hon. Lady's request to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of the Environment. I hope that it will be recognised that a massive operation has been mounted to move water into that region by tankers—probably the largest exercise of its type ever undertaken.
  I had harboured some ambitions of announcing the dates of the Christmas and Easter recesses today. Those have been frustrated by one or two bits of further consideration that we need to give, but I shall use, as the phrase goes, my best endeavours to say something at the conclusion of the debate on the Address next week.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, which affects the debates on the Queen's Speech and on the Budget? The Committee felt most strongly that, now that the Budget is no longer in March or early April, there is a considerable need for a two-day debate on the economy at that time, and that we could find the time for such a debate by cutting a day off the Budget debate and a day off the debate on the Queen's Speech. Can my right hon. Friend carry that further, perhaps through the usual channels, so that he can give us an assurance when he next comes to the Dispatch Box?
  Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I will be able to give any assurance the next time that I come to the Dispatch Box, but I will discover whether it is possible, through the usual channels, to give further consideration to that very constructive suggestion.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Following the answer that the Leader of the House gave about water, will he acknowledge that anxiety exists on both sides of the House—and is widespread throughout the country—about the regulation of all the privatised utilities? Will he give us an undertaking that there will be a statement and, if possible, a debate following, specifically, the Ofwat criticisms, which appear to suggest that at least three water companies and sewerage companies are "cheating their customers"? Will he acknowledge that that is a matter of considerable concern?
  No reference was made to that matter in the Gracious Speech, so we would have difficulty introducing it in the current debate. Does it not demand a debate on a wider
  122
  scale than the one that has been mentioned, which is simply about Yorkshire? In that connection, perhaps the Leader of the House would like to read early-day motion 37:
  [That this House notes the criticisms made by the Director of Water Services of the management of North West Water, South West Water and Yorkshire Water; especially notes the application by the latter company for a 24 hour drought order, potentially leaving half a million domestic customers and many industrial users without water, despite promises to reduce leakage and introduce a grid to improve the supply; believes that all three water and sewerage companies should be the subject of a full public investigation under the auspices of the Environment Select Committee; and urges the Government to review the powers of the regulator, particularly with reference to penalising companies for inadequate performance with mandatory compensation payments.]
  Mr. Newton: I have had a quick glance at early-day motion 37. However, I would not want to add to what I said earlier about next week's debate. It seems to me that the first thing to do is to hold that debate.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: When, as we hope, my right hon. Friend gives us the details of recesses on Wednesday next week, will he also try to list the sitting and non-sitting Fridays? Will he also bear it in mind that there is a great deal to be said for the Special Standing Committee procedure; and that all ideas proffered from the Opposition Front Bench are not necessarily bad ones?
  Mr. Newton: I shall respond to my hon. Friend in a way that he will find appropriate. Of course I acknowledge his last point. [Interruption.] My confrontational colleague from Essex, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), regards that as such an inflammatory comment that he wants me to resign. I have no intention of resigning for being reasonable. The hon. Gentleman has now distracted me so much that I cannot remember what my hon. Friend asked me—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: About the Fridays.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend can take it that the House will invited to agree those arrangements before too long.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Leader of the House will no doubt have noted that, between the prorogation of the last Parliament and the start of this one, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the case of Ordtech, for which an appeal was allowed. In that case it was shown that ministerial certificates denied the defence the documents necessary to conduct the defence, which led to a suspended sentence being imposed on a number of persons. Should we not debate, as a matter of urgency, the fact that ministerial decisions of this kind—whether or not misleading Parliament over Iraqi arms sales—seem to outweigh the interests of justice?
  Mr. Newton: In view of the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he will not expect me to accept the basis of his question; but with, I hope, my usual reasonableness and courtesy I shall of course reflect on what he has said.
  Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend consider, in the light of a certain incident

  123
  yesterday, the advisability of holding an early debate on the security of Members who are pursuing their perfectly legitimate and legal duties while talking to the media on College Green?
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's remarks clearly drew an echo from other parts of the Chamber. That is not of course a matter for me alone: it is for the House authorities in a much wider sense. But I think it will be right to give some consideration to our arrangements in the light of what happened yesterday.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with the representations from the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) about using the Special Standing Committee procedure for the asylum Bill. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it covers a highly sensitive issue for many people in many parts of the country? Furthermore, as the Prime Minister himself said, this should not be and will not be a party political matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Procedure Committee of 1976 to 1978, which introduced Select Committees, commended this very procedure for such a Bill? If it is not adopted, the matter will not be dealt with in the way the country believes it deserves to be.
  Mr. Newton: Of course I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot add at this stage to what I said when responding to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate next week on equal opportunities, in the light of a flagrant example of sex discrimination in my constituency: the national imposition of a women-only shortlist on my constituency Labour party? It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that, as a good constituency Member, I raised the matter with the competent authorities. I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, only to receive a reply from some junior spin doctor who did not answer my constituents' questions and who just swept the matter under the carpet. Why should Labour voters in my constituency be confined to choosing a candidate from a minority of potential candidates?
  Mr. Newton: I cannot provide an answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question. Indeed, I rather doubt whether Labour Front-Bench spokesmen can either—even if they want to. I will only observe that I find that large numbers of women are offended by sex-based shortlists.
  Mr. David Winnick: In view of the vote that was taken in the House on 6 November about financial disclosure arising from the Nolan report and the fact that a number of Conservative Members have said that they will not observe the resolution of the House, will there be an early statement about what will occur if hon. Members refuse to obey the instructions of the House? Should we not make it perfectly clear that the resolution that was passed on 6 November must be implemented in full?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a question for me, but it might be put to the Committee on Standards and Privileges when it is established—I hope fairly swiftly.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on inward investment,
  124
  which has provided tens of thousands of jobs in this country and transformed whole sectors of British industry? Does he believe that we would attract more or less inward investment if we signed up to the social chapter and to a national minimum wage?
  Mr. Newton: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is that clearly we would attract less inward investment—probably a lot less—in those circumstances. I welcome the latest significant investment, the Chunghwa project, which is a big coup for both Scotland and the United Kingdom.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: While welcoming the forthcoming Chemical Weapons Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House to provide some guidance on whether the Government will make an early statement about the misuse and abuse of Internet? It can be used to pass messages in support of terrorism, as was witnessed in the mathematics department of the university of Texas, and the problem has not yet been rectified.
  Mr. Newton: I am not aware of any plans for an early statement about the matter, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Heritage Secretary, and my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend reject the advice, which is coming mainly from the Opposition Benches, that the asylum Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee? If we stick to the usual Standing Committee procedure, we will demonstrate that the Opposition are not only soft on crime but soft on the bogus asylum seekers who are coming into this country.
  Mr. Newton: As I have said to Opposition Members, I note my hon. Friend's point but I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why cannot the Leader of the House allow time for another statement about the Nolan committee? Why cannot the committee meet again before the next general election to discuss the funding of political parties? The people want to know before the next general election what the Tory party did with the £440,000 that Asil Nadir gave to it before he jumped bail. How did he get to Cyprus? Did someone help him? What about all the other money from the Greek colonels, the Chinese and the rest of them? Is it not important that, before we have the historic vote in the next general election, the public should know exactly where the money is coming from?
  Mr. Newton: I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's comments as an open letter to Lord Nolan, as clearly the timing and the nature of the committee's meetings are for him and not for me to decide.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Further to the interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), may we have an early debate on the practical workings of Nolan? I notice that today's Order Paper contains an amendment about local authority and trade union rights and global capitalism—so much for new Labour—that has been tabled by 15 hon. Members, at least nine of whom belong to trade unions such as the National Union of Public Employees, the

  125
  National Union of Mineworkers, Unison, the MSF and the Transport and General Workers Union. None of those hon. Members has an "R" against his or her name, in contradiction of the Nolan requirements.
  Mr. Newton: That is an interesting point and it is the first time that it has been brought to my attention. The newly appointed Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards took up his post yesterday and my hon. Friend may wish to bring the matter to his attention.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: As someone who is not sponsored by a trade union, I impress upon the Leader of the House the urgent need for an early debate on the Government's implementation of the recommendations contained in Lord Donaldson's report, entitled "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". Are not the Government ducking some very important issues, including the need to confine large vessels—especially tankers—to the deep water route west of the Western Isles? May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that Lord Donaldson was wholly wrong when he said that such vessels could use the Minch in exceptional weather? In heavy weather, those and other large vessels should stay west of the Western Isles in deep water.
  Mr. Newton: The best thing for me to say, appreciating the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising the matter, is that I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is due to answer questions on Monday 27 November. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks were a plea for sympathy or support, but I offer him my sympathy if he wishes to have it.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the treatment of war pensioners, particularly the payment of benefit to them? It would provide an opportunity for myself and others to draw attention to the mean behaviour of Labour-controlled Norwich city council, which refused to disregard war pensions when calculating benefits. I hope that my right hon. Friend will help with such a debate.
  Mr. Newton: I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. No doubt, either by this exchange or in other ways, my hon. Friend will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant council.
  Mr. George Mudie: Does the Lord President understand the disappointment felt by thousands of haemophiliacs who received impure blood from the national health service and have the additional affliction of hepatitis C? The Lord President has always shown genuine sympathy when the matter has been raised. Will he now use his real influence to find time for a debate on this important matter?
  Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reference to me. As he knows, I was the Minister for Health when the problems first arose in relation to AIDS and haemophilia, but he will understand that my right course is to draw those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  Mr. Max Madden: May I add my voice to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members
  126
  for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) in support of a Special Standing Committee for the latest asylum and immigration Bill? That would be in the best interests of obtaining a calm and informed public debate on the issues.
  As a very dissatisfied customer of Yorkshire Water, may I declare that interest and urge the Leader of the House to ensure that the Environment Minister who replies to the debate on Wednesday will announce that every necessary action will be taken to ensure that there are no interruptions to the water supply in any part of Yorkshire and that there will be a wholly independent public inquiry into the mismanagement and total incompetence of Yorkshire Water and several other water companies, as the matter is now of widespread public concern?
  Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks on both points. He will realise by now that I have little alternative but, to use a time-hallowed phrase, to refer him to the answer I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have a statement on the comment by the President of the Board of Trade to the CBI that job insecurity is just a state of mind? It certainly matters to millions of people in Britain who are worried about their employment and their future. Is it just in the Government's mind that job insecurity does not matter?
  Mr. Newton: What is in the Government's mind is to pursue policies that will further strengthen the economic recovery that is under way and address the concerns to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on early-day motion 1?
  [That this House supports Bristol Coroner Paul Forrest's call of 14th November 1995 for a ban on bull bars at the inquest on Helen Baggs aged 10 of Melksham who was killed by a Land Rover fitted with bull bars; believes that many deaths and serious injuries would have been avoided if the Government and the European Commission had swiftly acted to ban bull bar fashion accessories that concentrate and multiply the force of collisions at the level of a child's head.]
  The Bristol coroner, Mr. Paul Forrest, has demanded a ban on bull bars. He was speaking the day before yesterday on the inquest on 10-year-old Helen Baggs, who was killed by a bull bar in July. Helen's mother said that the House moved very swiftly when there were a number of attacks on children by dangerous dogs. She is aware that the matter has been raised in the House on many occasions over the past two years by Members on both sides of the House and the Government have done nothing. She rightly asks how many more children must die before the Government act.
  Mr. Newton: The Government share the concern of the Bristol coroner and that of the hon. Gentleman that aggressive bull bars are likely to compromise road safety. The hon. Gentleman should know, if he does not already, that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for road safety recently met Commissioner Kinnock to agree a way forward. It was agreed that the only effective solution was an amendment to the external projections directive by the European Union. Commissioner Kinnock promised to

  127
  take that forward. The Government continue to discourage manufacturers from providing bull bars and vehicle owners from using them.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) mentioned job insecurity. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 129 people in Trawden in my constituency have been told that they will lose their jobs in January when Beartex, which supplies blue chip companies such as Marks and Spencer, closes down? Is there not a case for an urgent debate on the textile industry to ascertain what we can do to ensure a level playing field so that skilled and dedicated workers like the people in Trawden, who have much to contribute, are not thrown on the scrap heap?
  Mr. Newton: With all Members, I regret any development of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in his constituency, as we would regret it in any of ours. As I am not familiar with the background in detail, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Peter Hain: During Monday's debate on investment, the President of the Board of Trade should make a grovelling apology for his statement that job insecurity is a state of mind. Does the Leader of the House agree that the statement was an insult to millions of people who live in constant fear of losing their jobs as well as to the millions more who do not have a job? Surely it is time for such an apology to be made to the House.
  Mr. Newton: I expect my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he speaks on Monday, to repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen): that it is the Government's purpose further to strengthen Britain's economy by, for example, attracting overseas investment, as we have been doing extremely successfully, and thus address the concerns to which reference has been made.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When a Law Commission Bill is referred to a Second Reading Committee, will the Leader of the House ensure that he draws attention to such a referral when making his business statement? Will he adopt the same practice when the Second Reading debates on consolidation Bills are moved forthwith? Does he understand that the recent changes to our Standing Orders will diminish the opportunities for Members to be aware that such proposed legislation is to pass through the House? Unless we want to reduce ourselves to rubber stamps, we need full notice that this business is to come before us.
  Will the proposed divorce legislation come before us as a Law Commission Bill? If so, will it be considered by a Second Reading Committee?
  Mr. Newton: The proposed divorce legislation will come before the House as a public Bill in the ordinary way and will be subject to the ordinary processes of such Bills. That has arisen precisely because a Bill that had been put through a procedure intended for non-controversial legislation transpired to be regarded by some as controversial. That is reasonably clear.
  Not even my ambitions run to reducing the hon. Gentleman to a rubber stamp, but I shall bear in mind his suggestion.
  Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance? As my hon. Friend
  128
  the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, nine of the Members who signed a motion on trade union rights are trade union-sponsored. What can the House authorities do about this sleaze?
  Madam Speaker: I can deal with the matter. I think that it was said that the Members concerned were members of trade unions, not sponsored. I shall examine the matter carefully. I think that the Leader of the House replied absolutely correctly. If there is any doubt, we have employed a parliamentary commissioner to deal with these matters instead of dealing with them by means of points of order.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    HONG KONG (OVERSEAS PUBLIC SERVANTS)
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Roger Freeman and Mr. Jeremy Hanley, presented a Bill to confer power to make provision for the making of payments to, and to permit early retirement by, certain Hong Kong overseas public servants; to authorise the provision of resettlement services to certain Hong Kong overseas public servants who retire early; and to confer power to make provision for the making in certain circumstances of payments to supplement pensions and gratuities paid to or in respect of retired overseas public servants in respect of service in Hong Kong: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1.]
    CHEMICAL WEAPONS
    Mr. Secretary Lang, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, presented a Bill to promote the control of chemical weapons and of certain toxic chemicals and precursors; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
    AUDIT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
    Mr. Secretary Gummer, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs. Secretary Shephard, Mr. Secretary Dorrell, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Sir Paul Beresford, presented a Bill to extend the functions of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales; to alter the financial year of that Commission and of the Accounts Commission for Scotland; and to make provision about the manner of publication of certain information required to be published in pursuance of a direction of either Commission: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to,be printed. [Bill 3.]
  Orders of the Day

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

    Foreign Affairs and Defence
    3.4 pm
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The debate on the Loyal Address began yesterday with a contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), my predecessor as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I should like to use this opportunity to place on record what I believe to be the very great debt that this country owes to my right hon. Friend, whom I believe was one of our great Foreign Secretaries and an international statesman of the highest repute. Now, sadly, he suffers the fate of all retired Foreign Ministers and ambassadors: when he gets into the back of his car, he finds that it does not go anywhere.
    The debate yesterday on the Gracious Speech concentrated—quite properly—on the domestic issues that deeply divide the nation and the political parties. Traditionally, while bipartisan policies are pursued in many areas, in foreign policy, there is less fundamental disagreement. Whether Governments come or go, the interests of the country do not change, and that is reflected in many aspects of our foreign policy. Towards the end of my remarks this afternoon, I shall draw attention to what I believe are differences in that matter in three important respects: the extent to which, on all the great and fundamental issues that have divided the country on foreign policy, the Labour party, since the days of Ernest Bevin, has been wrong—by its own admission—[Interruption.] I said since the death of Ernest Bevin. I pay very great tribute to Ernest Bevin, who was a realist, a patriot and never ceased to fight for the interests of the country. I am afraid that that is more than can be said for many of his successors.
    I also wish to draw attention to the clear unwillingness of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to accept the need to fight for Britain's interests whenever that might mean that we stand alone, and I wish to draw attention to the growing divergences on certain fundamental aspects of European policy.
    Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later in my speech. Until then, he must wait in eager anticipation. In the meantime, I shall comment on a
    130
    number of important issues on which I believe that there will be a substantial measure of agreement on both sides of the House.
    I shall start with the situation in the middle east following the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. A week ago, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I, accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, represented this country at Mr. Rabin's funeral. There is a clear appreciation that he was a man of extraordinary ability and talent. I draw attention to particular aspects of his character that are of crucial significance to the future of the middle east. I believe that he was uniquely able to inspire trust, both from his own people in order that certain concessions be made and from the traditional enemies of his country, and that has enabled great progress to be made.
    Mr. Rabin was also a man of great courage, not just physical courage—clearly he had that in abundant supply—but moral courage. Recognising, as he did, that the interests of peace meant that the traditional policies of his country towards the occupied territories had to be changed, he was prepared to make that change in his fundamental position, despite what he knew to be the intense unpopularity that it would evoke in many quarters of his country.
    Following Mr.Rabin's death, the greatest interest has been in the consequences for the peace process. Having been in Israel and having visited the countries in the region, I have no doubt whatever that the peace process will continue. There is an overwhelming belief within Israel that his death should not be seen to have happened in vain. There is, however, no overstating the great sense of pain that exists within Israel as it comes to terms with the fact that fanaticism and extremism are not just qualities to be found in Arab countries, as many Israelis like to believe—it now has to be accepted as existing within Israel itself. The positive side of that coin is, of course, the growing common judgment, the common vision that the Israelis and Arab Governments in the region share of the need for the peace process to continue, and of its irreversibility.
    If I had any doubts about that irreversibility, they were clearly answered in a number of ways during the course of last week, when I was able to fly non-stop from Damascus to Tel Aviv, a flight that would have been inconceivable a few years ago; when, after seeing Yasser Arafat in Gaza at lunchtime, later that day he drove to Tel Aviv to pay his condolences to Mrs. Leah Rabin; when we heard King Hussein, in an extraordinarily brave speech in Jerusalem, talk of Mr. Rabin not only as his friend but as his brother. Those are clear, symbolic but nevertheless highly relevant ways of demonstrating the fundamental change that is taking place.
    As for Israel's relationship with Syria—one of the most difficult relationships of all—I believe that in Damascus as well as in Tel Aviv there is a willingness to get the negotiating process going again. It will be slow and difficult, but I believe that the will exists.
    The key to that, and to the whole future of the middle east in regard to Israel's relationship with its neighbours, is the future of the Palestinians. Visiting Gaza for the first time, but comparing what I saw there with what I understand to have been the situation there a year ago, I could only be struck by the extraordinary economic

    131
    progress—the tremendous development of the social and economic welfare of the Palestinians in Gaza, and the degree to which that will be extended elsewhere.
    The United Kingdom is very proud and privileged to be playing a part in that process, having contributed some £83 million over the past few years to assist the Palestinians. I announced a further project during my visit to Gaza. We are providing some of the observers for the election procedure in January, when the first direct elections take place; we are also assisting with the training of the Palestinian police force, and helping in a number of other ways.
    I think that there is a great potential in the middle east, and that, if the peace process is brought to a satisfactory conclusion, the countries concerned will be able to bring together the unique economic assets that both Israel and its Arab neighbours possess, and introduce unprecedented prosperity and economic and social development to the region. Moreover, at a time when we know that a grave threat of terrorism still exists in a number of countries in the region, it will enable all the moderate, responsible Governments to work more effectively together.
    Only a couple of days ago, an extremist atrocity occurred in Saudi Arabia, causing the deaths of a number of Americans and injuries to many people. We convey our deep condolences to those affected by that terrorist incident. The existence of terrorism in Saudi Arabia and in Israel emphasises the extent to which moderate, responsible Governments must work closely together as part of the international community to remove this scourge once and for all.
    Let me now deal with Nigeria and the recent Commonwealth conference. There, too, we have seen events that, although tragic, have given rise to important new developments. The United Kingdom Government have made no secret of their condemnation of what we believe to have been the judicial murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other eight Nigerians who were cruelly hanged by the Nigerian Government. It has been right and proper for the Commonwealth to respond in an unprecedented way. I believe that Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth, the action that we and others have taken in regard to the imposition of an arms embargo and the withdrawal of high commissioners, and the discussions that are taking place about whether further steps need to be taken at this time constitute a very appropriate response.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the best way in which to hit this brutal regime would be to freeze its bank accounts and foreign assets?
    Mr. Rifkind: We need to examine all the options carefully. We certainly do not exclude any option at this stage, but we are primarily concerned to identify measures that would not harm the Nigerian people but would make the international condemnation of the Nigerian Government clear and unmistakable.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Foreign Secretary think that this is the right moment for Shell to be launching its major new gas investment in Nigeria? If not, what is he doing about it?
    Mr. Rifkind: In the first instance, that must be a matter for the company concerned. I understand that the
    132
    company has said—it is for the company to explain its position—that the investment would not bring any revenues to the Nigerian Government until after the turn of the century. If that is true, we all hope that Nigeria will have a democratic Government long before then.
    Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: I want to make some progress, but I shall give way, for the last time, to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson).
    Ms Jackson: Expatriate Nigerians who are living in my constituency as refugees and seeking asylum because their lives are in danger of being extinguished in their own country have made strong representations to me. They believe that the Government should whole-heartedly support President Mandela's call for sanctions to be exercised against Nigeria. They say that the circumstances of the ordinary people of Nigeria can in no wise be any worse than they are now under this corrupt, brutal and illegal regime.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that that may be the view of the people whom the hon. Lady has spoken to in London. However, it is important to reflect carefully on the implications for people in Nigeria if general economic sanctions were proposed.
    In an important way, the Commonwealth has turned a significant corner. Quite serious accusations used to be made that the Commonwealth had double standards, that it was prepared to attack human rights abusers in the old Rhodesia or South Africa, but that it turned a blind eye to comparable abuses in other parts of the world and especially in the third world. What is significant on this occasion is that the Commonwealth, with President Mandela of South Africa as one of the leading forces, has been prepared to take action against a country that is guilty of grave human rights abuses. The Commonwealth as a whole is stronger for that and it shows that the Harare declaration, which was passed a few years ago, has considerable force. The creation of a group consisting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in which the United Kingdom will play a part, is an important step in monitoring policy in this crucial area.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary is being extremely generous in giving way. He will appreciate that this issue has some immediacy and that it obviously concerns many hon. Members. In considering sanctions, will he take account of two factors? The first is that sanctions against Mr. Milosevic appear to have had some effect in making him change his mind. Secondly, will he bear it in mind that we continue to exercise sanctions in the name of the United Nations against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, no doubt because we believe that they are likely to be effective in persuading him to change his mind? In assessing the value of sanctions against Nigeria, are not both of those compelling examples?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have been willing to see sanctions applied against Iraq and Serbian Montenegro essentially because of the international aggression for which the Governments of those two countries were deemed to be responsible. This is always a complex issue and, as I have said, the Government have not ruled out any course of

    133
    action. Any action would have to be international and at this time there does not appear to be in the Security Council or elsewhere the kind of international consensus that that would be the right way to go. It is early days and I would not want to exclude action of that kind.
    There have been some major and beneficial developments over the past few weeks in the former Yugoslavia. In particular, I draw attention to the agreement that was reached on eastern Slavonia, an area in which there was the potential for the beginnings of a new war in the Balkans. The agreement between Croatia and Serbia is of great significance and, as I know the House will be aware, it will allow the reintegration of eastern Slavonia into Croatia. That ought to resolve the difficulty.
    There has also been progress at the talks in Ohio and agreement has already been reached on certain issues. However, big issues still divide the parties and it looks increasingly unlikely that there will be the kind of comprehensive breakthrough that we ideally wish to see within the next few days. I am not too depressed about that because if the parties are unable to reach a comprehensive agreement in the next few days, the most likely outcome is a temporary suspension of the negotiations rather than a breakdown. There is still a high probability that in the relatively near future there will be agreement. That will be of great significance.
    The progress that has been made owes its origins to three quite important developments over the past few months. First, the United States—very much on the recommendation of the European countries—has put its full weight behind the diplomatic process. Until a few months ago, the United States had shown some reluctance to enter into the diplomatic efforts with all the authority at its disposal. Fortunately, that policy was not pursued during that time and that has been an important contributor to the progress that has been achieved.
    Secondly, as the House will recall, the London conference that was called by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led to the creation of the rapid reaction force involving the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands. That gave considerable additional authority to the United Nations forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina and was an important factor in creating stability, especially with regard to Sarajevo. Finally, one must also refer—it is of major significance—to the success of the contact group and of the international community in divorcing President Milosevic from the Bosnian Serbs, leading to a split in the Serb position and, ultimately, to President Milosevic being given plenipotentiary powers on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs, which has enabled much agreement to be reached in areas that previously were resisting progress of any significant sort.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify for us the Government's position with regard to the war crimes tribunals? Will he assure us that the British Government are working to get even-handedness in that process, including the large number of people responsible for atrocities in Krajina and representatives and military commanders in the Bosnian Government forces who have also carried out atrocities, that our position is impartial, unlike that of some other Governments, that we recognise that there can be no
    134
    imposed solution that takes one side in the conflict, and that we shall get that message through to the United States of America as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, atrocities have taken place, for which people in each of the communities concerned have been responsible, and it is for the tribunal to judge where the evidence to bring such charges exists, but I agree with him that there must be no assumption that charges can be levied only against persons from one particular community. If the evidence is there, the consequences should follow.
    If and when there is agreement in the talks going on in Ohio, the next step would be a conference that the British Government have said they would host in London, which will be concerned with the matters that are the responsibility of the international community: for example, the need to develop a reconstruction package to assist the rebuilding of former Yugoslavia; the need to reach final agreement on the shape, composition and role of the implementation force likely to be led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and that will replace the United Nations Protection Force in helping to monitor the settlement concerned; and the measures that will be needed to supervise elections and to help in the return of refugees and such matters.
    Those will be important measures, but it is crucial that such a conference takes place fairly soon after the completion of the negotiations between the various Bosnian parties. We cannot tolerate any gap or vacuum that might emerge and that would give opportunities for the agreement to disintegrate. Therefore, we would hope to move quickly towards such a conference once the political breakthrough had been achieved.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I welcome and agree with everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, including his initial remarks, but will he nevertheless place it on record yet again that the vast majority of the appalling incidents that have so disfigured that part of Europe have been the responsibility of the Bosnian Serbs, and that it was the united, tough and cohesive action against them that did more than anything else to bring about the present better state of affairs?
    Mr. Rifkind: We certainly believe that, on all the evidence that is available, more responsibility must be borne by the Bosnian Serbs for the atrocities that have taken place. I would be reluctant to ascribe particular percentages or to seek to be more detailed than that because atrocities have taken place to the detriment of each of the communities concerned, but certainly the Bosnian Serb leadership must bear the heavy burden that it has seemed to have been both the initiator of this behaviour and responsible for most of the incidents that are known about.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rifkind: No, I am sorry. I must make progress.
    Recently, the United Nations celebrated its 50th anniversary. That was an historic occasion, and the UN has unfairly been subject to much criticism because it has not achieved everything to which its founders might have aspired. That is a wrong test. A more appropriate and relevant test is to compare what the UN has achieved with any previous attempts, the failure of the League of

    135
    Nations, and the fact that, before the league, there was no attempt at international action to deal with matters of a comparable sort.
    Over the past 50 years, great progress has been made and we have seen, especially since the end of the cold war, how the Security Council has been able to act with a single voice and that the UN's level of peacekeeping has been of a high and unprecedented order.
    Mr. Flynn rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to continue.
    Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that, in its 50th year, the United Nations also faces an unprecedented crisis because of the weak and crumbling financial base on which all its operations depend. We have seen two developments: first there is a bloated bureaucracy—a bureaucracy that can be, and needs to be, reformed. It needs to be reduced so that the United Nations concentrates on that which is essential and does not see itself guilty of some of the extravagances that, sadly, can be identified now. It is also important that all members of the United Nations pay their debts and contributions because that is the single most important reason why there are large deficits now.
    The United Kingdom, which I am happy to say is not among those who can be criticised in that respect, has been working with like-minded countries to bring forward ideas for reforms which would help to ensure that the United Nations is on a much sounder basis. I believe that the solution lies in both short-term and longer-term reform. For example, it is absurd that the United Nations has to pay interest on any money that it borrows when those who owe money are not charged interest. That is a situation which each one of us would be happy to enjoy in our personal life but, since it is not seen to be relevant to our personal circumstances, it is a little unreasonable to expect the UN to have to accept it.
    We also have the foolishness of the present policy of cross-subsidising the regular budget with the peacekeeping budget. That means that when a crisis breaks suddenly, the UN may not be able to respond simply because of a lack of relevant funds. The United Kingdom, together with Sweden, has put forward proposals for a major, fundamental reform which would link more closely and in a more flexible way the contributions that each country could make to UN finances to its GNP. That would mean that, as a country became richer or poorer, its contributions could alter in a fair and acceptable way. We hope that the proposals will be accepted.
    Mr. Flynn: Is it not a matter of national ignominy that, while we are celebrating unanimity among nations and seeking the coming together of international opinion, we stand virtually isolated in supporting the French nuclear tests? Not one of the other 51 Commonwealth nations supports our view. The Government's policy is not supported by 98 per cent. of British public opinion. The Foreign Secretary has argued that the Prime Minister is battling for Britain. On the French tests, his craven behaviour is not battling for Britain but surrendering to the far-right extremists on the Government Back Benches.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Labour party spends most of its time trying to hide its past links with the Campaign for Nuclear
    136
    Disarmament and to convince the public that it is now a strong defender of our defence requirements and our nuclear deterrent. The hon. Gentleman has disclosed the true face of the Labour party.
    The reality is that it is no coincidence that the United Kingdom, as a west European nuclear power, should perhaps have greater understanding of why the French have found it necessary to carry out certain final tests before they, too, become a signatory of a comprehensive test ban treaty. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not understand that, it is because they remain as unreconstructed as ever with regard to those crucial matters.
    Mr. Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to give way to an hon. Member who is not ashamed of his party, of its past or of its previous commitments.
    Mr. Corbyn: I should declare that I have been a member of CND since the age of 15 and will continue to be so. I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary would give a serious response to my question. When the Prime Minister had lunch with President Chirac, they had a number of discussions about future nuclear co-operation. Strangely, there was no statement from the Prime Minister in the House on the following day or on the days after that about what agreement had been reached. I think that we need to know what the discussions were about and what future co-operation there is likely to be on nuclear matters. Is there some sharing of information from the French tests? Is that why there is this sort of sotto voce support for the French testing programme, or is it a desire on the part of the Government to do exactly what the French have done, the problem being that they have nowhere to undertake the tests?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an unequivocal reply. There is no access to information from the French nuclear tests. We have not been offered such access and we do not wish to have such access. As far as we can tell, the information would not be relevant to our nuclear deterrent, so the hon. Gentleman can put his splendid conspiracy theory back into the box from which it came.
    There is good co-operation between Britain and France on nuclear matters. A year or so ago, we set up, openly and publicly, a joint nuclear commission. It has done very good work in discussing attitudes towards nuclear weapons, their role and relevance in the post-cold war age and other matters. Those are important issues, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to refer to them in response to his question.
    Much of the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is of course concerned with matters of diplomacy, but I should like on this occasion to stress the crucial contribution that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its staff make to the commercial, industrial and export interests of the country. It is not often appreciated that fully one third—or more than one third—of our diplomatic staff overseas have responsibilities for assisting industry and exports, attracting investment and undertaking a series of duties that are highly relevant to the immediate economic needs of this country. I believe that they can share some of the credit for the fact that the United Kingdom has, for example, become a great haven

    137
    for inward investment, most notably in the form of the recent announcement by Chunghwa, which will mean more than 3,000 jobs going to Lanarkshire.
    We also need further improvements in our export market. In two of the most crucial areas—Asia and Latin America—important progress is being made. In south-east Asia alone, our exports have gone up 90 per cent. in the past three years. That is something of which we can be very proud.
    I said that one of our major objectives for the future is the development of moves towards transatlantic free trade between Europe and north America. We have made that one of our top priorities for economic as well as political reasons—for economic reasons because, as a Government, we are committed to global liberalisation and moves towards global free trade, and we support strongly the work of the World Trade Organisation. We know that it cannot all be realised in the short term. Therefore, it is important to concentrate in the short and medium term on those aspects of the liberalisation of markets that could have important implications for our own economic future.
    We have seen the great historic achievement of the single market in Europe and the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Government want to work with our western European allies and our allies in north America to bring together those trading groups, not as an end in itself but as a further step towards the global liberalisation that should be our objective.
    It is sometimes suggested that the United Kingdom has to make a choice between its Atlantic identity and its European identity and that moves towards transatlantic institutions or activities are somehow a means of escaping from our European identity. I do not recognise that choice as appropriate or relevant. The reality is that these islands, because of their geography and history, have an Atlantic and a European identity. To require us to choose is rather like asking the United States to choose between its Atlantic and Pacific dimensions. Both are important and both should be advanced. That is not an escape from reality but a recognition of the real interests of Europe as a whole and of the United Kingdom in particular.
    Because of our language, history and culture, the United Kingdom can provide a particular initiative in bringing together the countries of Europe and north America, and I believe that sufficient common interests would be advanced by doing so to justify our making that an important priority.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I would not wish to take away from any of the efforts made on the trade side, but I am concerned that my constituents feel that they are not served well by our embassies and high commissions in cases of child abduction. For example, I have a case in my constituency in which the people have been told that they must deal with the Scottish courts administration and the police of the other country involved. My constituents do not feel that, although they are British citizens and have a child who is a British citizen, they are being well served. It seems that our embassies are pushing more for trade and becoming less involved in looking after the British citizen.
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being unfair. Our consular representatives do all in their power,
    138
    but he must appreciate that legal disputes involving families and children are ultimately matters that the courts alone can determine. It is unreasonable to expect embassies or consular officials to do other than be as helpful as they possibly can when dealing with such problems.
    I have made it clear that revitalising the transatlantic partnership is not a substitute for Britain playing her proper part in Europe. Britain's future prosperity and security do not command such an artificial choice. Few hon. Members doubt that the future of the United Kingdom lies in the European Union. In an increasingly competitive world, European countries must co-operate if their voice in world affairs is to be heard and their companies are to prosper and provide jobs. Beyond that basic premise lies the question of what sort of Europe we want—what sort of Europe is right for Britain. We shall be motivated by the interests of the United Kingdom. That is a matter not of blinkered self-interest but of the Government's inescapable obligation to their people, and it is a reflection of the principle that a voluntary association will not prosper unless it balances the interests of all its members.
    We recognise the benefits that the European Union continues to bring to us, but we want to make it work better. That will be very relevant to next year's intergovernmental conference. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall support moves towards a Union which is fairer, more flexible and more relevant to ordinary people through more effective co-operation in areas such as foreign and security policy and the fight against crime.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the perception of Britain in Europe is of a Government no longer interested in participating fully? After that vile, xenophobic, chauvinistic, ranting speech from the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), the Secretary of State for Defence, which is well known and much commented on all over Europe, no British Government containing him in their ranks can be taken seriously on any European question.
    Mr. Rifkind: Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels better for having got that off his chest, it bears very little relevance to the issues before us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes it does."] No it does not. The issue at stake is whether a Conservative Government or a Labour Government would fight to protect British interests, and be prepared if necessary to be unpopular and to be isolated, if the protection of British interests required that. That is the crucial question that needs to be addressed.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Rifkind: I must make progress.
    What we cannot and will not accept are proposals for a more centralised Union. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall oppose further extension of qualified majority voting. Unanimity has been retained in the treaty for a number of highly sensitive issues, such as treaty change, foreign policy, and new community resources, for which it would be quite inappropriate to take decisions by majority vote.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), the Minister of State, has put British views very firmly and clearly during meetings of the reflection group

    139
    in which he takes part. I believe that that is making an important contribution to a wider understanding of what is appropriate for the intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Phil Gallie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in Europe, there is a feeling that, perhaps for Europeans across the board, there would be some advantage in having a Labour Government? Is it not a fact that they see the Labour party carrying the white flag on British interest in Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is undoubtedly a school of thought that some parts of Europe would like to wait until the next general election. Of course they would have to wait a lot longer than that if they were looking for a Labour Government who would roll over at the first appropriate moment.
    Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
    Mr. Rifkind: I must make progress. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be called at the appropriate time.
    I should like to comment specifically on the proposals for the Western European Union. Of course we wish to see and have, indeed, taken the lead in promoting, specific proposals for closer co-operation between the WEU and the European Union on defence matters. However, we shall not support the subordination or integration of one treaty-based organisation with another treaty-based organisation which has different membership.
    It is quite absurd to contemplate that the European Council, which includes four neutral countries—Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Austria—should take part in decisions involving the use of armed forces in respect of the WEU, of which they are not treaty members and when countries such as Norway and Turkey, which are associate members of the WEU, have no voice in the European Council. I appeal to our European colleagues who have aspirations for an integrated relationship with the European Council to realise that, while that might in theory be possible if the membership of the two organisations were identical, it does not make sense as long as we have neutral countries that do not participate in collective responsibility.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have sought clarification from Ministers on this matter before, but have not received answers. Are there circumstances in which a member state of the European Union could suffer external aggression and it not be deemed to be aggression against the whole Union? Does it not go to the heart of the treaty that, if one state were invaded, it would be considered an attack on the whole Union, particularly given that we now have citizenship of the whole European Union?
    Mr. Rifkind: The European Union is not a defence and security organisation. It cannot defend the citizens of its member states. For that, we must look to both NATO and the WEU, especially NATO. That is the political reality and we would be foolish to ignore it.
    Having considered a number of important issues, I shall now identify what I believe to be growing differences in a number of important respects between the Government and the Opposition with regard to the foreign policy needs of our country. The Opposition would have us believe that
    140
    a Labour Government would give Britain new influence and leadership in the world. Well, the truth of the matter is that, since Bevin—I pay tribute to Ernest Bevin again—Labour has been wrong on all the major foreign policy issues. It was unilateralist and hostile to reinforcing NATO when we faced the nuclear might of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. Crude anti-Americanism was the order of the day. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Defence Secretary were unashamed members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament under the leadership of Michael Foot. They were hostile to the proposed deployment of cruise and Pershing and, had their advice been accepted, the Soviet Union would have taken years longer to collapse.
    Now that the cold war is over and Russia is a friend, Labour asks us to believe that it has become a sincere convert to Trident and Britain's position on nuclear weapons. It is a most extraordinary conversion, to be opposed to nuclear weapons during the cold war and in favour of them once it is behind us. It is symbolic of the cynical opportunism of the Labour party that it was against nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war and in favour of them once Conservative Governments in Britain and the United States had been successful in bringing the cold war to an end. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) explain that extraordinary conversion. Perhaps he will have the humility to confess that he, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary were fundamentally wrong to argue for many years in favour of a policy which they now profess to disown and which they say is of disservice to the interests of this country.
    Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Rifkind: No, not at the moment.
    The so-called "conversion" is, however, populist and skin deep. It is populist because the Labour party leaders realise that the British electorate will never vote for a unilateralist Labour party. That is the true reason for the change. It is skin deep because they showed their true anti-nuclear colours, as we heard a few moments ago, by joining the pack denouncing France for its final series of nuclear tests.
    I said that the Labour party has been wrong on all the major foreign policy issues. Nowhere has that been more true than on Europe. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Livingston were against our membership of the European Community. We recall how the Leader of the Opposition said, in 1983, that they would negotiate withdrawal from the EEC, which had drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs. A year later, the hon. Member for Livingston said that many Labour voters, including himself, were still unconvinced that it was a good idea to join the Common Market in the first place. They are now the leaders of a party that has changed its policy on the European Community no fewer than six times in the past 30 years.
    Mr. MacShane: Is that all?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that it has not happened more often, but if he waits a few more years, he will no doubt find that they will change their minds again and again.

    141
    Now the Labour party leaders have all the zeal of a convert. Having tried to force us out of the European Union, they have lurched to the opposite extreme and support the elimination of the veto in regional, social, environmental and industrial policy. In each of those sectors, they are willing to see policies imposed on this country even if they, as a future British Government, were opposed to them. The Opposition are prepared to see themselves outvoted in those sectors, and to see measures imposed that could be harmful, in their own future estimate, to British jobs and British prosperity.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Foreign Secretary mentioned the Europe that the Opposition want. Is it not true that the Europe we have cannot change because of three treaties that his party signed without an electoral mandate? In respect of economic and monetary union, to which his Government have given allegiance in possible principle and in economic practice for the next few years on the formula, why is convergence related only to Government accounting and not to the economies of all the countries in all their facets? Why is it so limited in effect?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not have enough time to give the answer that that question clearly deserves. The hon. Gentleman refers to the economic convergence criteria relating to economic and monetary union. The Prime Minister and the British Government have said that we will not prejudge that matter. The interests of the United Kingdom will be the basis on which we shall come to a decision. That is right and proper.
    Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rifkind: I must give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Radice: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the comment of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley) that the Conservatives are now an unattractive blend of nationalists, populists and little Englanders?
    Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not.
    Even worse, in terms of the Labour party's position, is its promise to roll over and to accept any European Union measure in respect of which we have a permanent opt-out. I refer the hon. Member for Livingston to his speech at the Labour party conference. He sought to reassure his hearers there, and the British public, that the Labour party would protect British interests. What he did not reveal were the contents of a document published on the same day by the Labour party. In that document, the Labour party said explicitly, "we reject permanent opt-outs". That is a significant statement to which not enough attention has been paid.
    First, if the other countries of the Union knew that a Labour Government would eventually accept that Britain must participate in a proposal of integration, however damaging to British interests, that would gravely undermine the negotiating position of any future Labour Foreign Secretary. Secondly, the Labour policy document confirms that the only doubt about Labour and monetary union—or the Schengen proposals, the abolition of frontier controls and other such matters—is not whether a
    142
    Labour Government would succumb to such a proposition, but when. If permanent opt-outs are forbidden, that is the only conclusion one can draw.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: When all the dust has settled on the question of the Common Market and the people out there have to make a decision based not on crystal ball gazing but on the facts, they will find that, in the 1970s, a Tory Government took us into the Common Market, and the Labour party opposed it; in the 1980s, it was Lady Thatcher who took us into the Single European Act with a guillotine that gagged Members of Parliament speaking against it; and in the 1990s, it was the present Government who signed the Maastricht treaty, and once again the Labour party opposed it. It was that lousy, rotten Government who got us more embedded into the Common Market and, whatever reservations there might be now, it was the Labour party that voted solidly against. Those are the facts.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that his party voted solidly against those proposals. He does not point out that the Labour party is very apologetic about that now, admits that it was wrong, and says that it wishes to take progress even further. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be seen as the great man of principle that he normally presents himself as, surely he should be directing his criticism to his own Front Benchers. He should not continue the shameful habit of adopting the uncharacteristic pose of a Trappist monk until the election is over, and then, no doubt, resuming his criticisms of his own colleagues. It is an uncharacteristic pose for the hon. Gentleman and does not conform well to his self-image of a man of principle. He should realise that.
    The Leader of the Opposition recently wrote an article in the Evening Standard under the title:
    "How we would win back our friends around the world".
    That symbolises Labour's attitude towards foreign policy. Its cardinal error in foreign policy is to confuse being liked with being successful—to believe that the purpose of foreign policy is to please other Governments. Sadly, it is not always possible to achieve both popularity and success, and a Conservative Government would give priority to the latter.
    Britain should be grateful that the Leader of the Opposition was not in power for the past 16 years. We had to accept total isolation in the European Union in order to negotiate the rebate that my right hon. Friend Lady Thatcher obtained on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. We are told that a Labour Government would not have been prepared to accept the unpopularity and isolation that was necessary to bring that about.
    The pathetic attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to convince the Confederation of British Industry that the social chapter would be safe in Labour hands beggar belief. The Leader of the Opposition went to the CBI and sought to reassure its members. Let me conclude my remarks by quoting the Leader of the Opposition's words. He said to the CBI:
    "The social chapter is not detailed legislation. It is a set of principles. The real fear"—[interruption]
    wait a moment—
    "is that by being part of it we may in future agree to the import of inefficient practices to Britain. A Labour government will not pursue such a course. Each piece of legislation will be judged on its merits. I have no intention whatever of agreeing to anything and everything that emerges from the European Union."

    143
    Those are fine words—I am sure that they were meant to sound a reassuring note—but for one thing. The Leader of the Opposition does not know, or omitted to inform the CBI, that once one accepts the social chapter, one is bound by the fact that most of the social chapter proposals are subject to qualified majority vote. It does not matter whether a Labour Government believe that the proposals would be right or wrong; they would be overruled by a majority of other countries.
    If Opposition Members say to me, "Yes, but some parts of the social chapter do require unanimity," I agree; but the Labour party has committed itself to eliminating the veto in exactly those parts, because it has said that the veto will be removed from all aspects of social policy, so there is a basic dishonesty in what the Leader of the Opposition said to the CBI a couple of days ago.
    I invite the hon. Member for Livingston to explain that discrepancy. How can the Leader of the Opposition say to the CBI that a Labour Government can guarantee that policies harmful to Britain in respect of the social chapter would not be implemented, when he knows perfectly well that a Labour Government might be outvoted by other members of the European Union? That is a typical example of the Leader of the Opposition making comforting noises to every audience that he speaks to when the Labour party has entered into policy commitments that fly in the face of those assurances.
    I shall conclude my speech by saying a few words to the hon. Member for Livingston. He has a personal record of having been wrong on the policies of nuclear defence, on the crude anti-Americanism that characterised the Labour party for so many years and on his hostility to our membership of the European Union. I hope that, when he comes to the Dispatch Box, he will at least begin by acknowledging that he speaks from one of the weakest positions that a shadow Foreign Secretary could hope to occupy.
    The hon. Gentleman might show at least some remorse that, if the policies that he and his hon. Friends proposed had been carried out during the past 15 years, the destiny, security and well-being of the country would have been very poor indeed. The hon. Gentleman owes that to the House and to the whole country.
    3.53 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary is, by profession, an advocate. The conclusion to his speech demonstrated that pearl of advice to all practising advocates—"When you don't have a case, abuse the other side's advocate." I shall come back to some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said—I shall not call him the right hon. Gentleman in this context following his last remarks. I shall return to the hon. Member's references to me and my party and to the issues that divide us later, but I shall begin by recalling a more dignified Foreign Secretary, his predecessor, who yesterday made a characteristically graceful speech, in which he enjoined us to avoid
    "empty noise and phoney warfare."—[Official Report, 15 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 9.]
    That part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech appears to have passed over the head of his successor.
    In the spirit of this advice, however, let me begin with the issues that do not divide us and can unite us. In the light of the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, let me
    144
    commence by expressing our support for the reference in the Gracious Speech to maintaining support for the middle east peace process. The whole House condemns the conspiracy that sought to achieve by the bullet political objectives that could not be achieved by the ballot. There is no doubt that those involved in the conspiracy may have calculated that such an event would give rise to chaos and confusion, and that in the ensuing political turmoil the peace process could be derailed. It is to the credit of the peoples of Israel and Palestine that they have responded to the outrage with dignity and restraint. The result may be to strengthen, not weaken, the peace process, because it has exposed those who are most opposed to peace as the end as the very people who are most prepared to use violence as the means.
    The other peace process at a critical phase, also referred to in the Gracious Speech, turns on the negotiations in Dayton, Ohio on the former Yugoslavia. The whole House wants a successful conclusion to those talks. I have just spent a fortnight in Washington and New York. I regret the fact that the follow-up to the talks has already become a matter of partisan warfare between the Congress and Administration of the United States. I invite those in Congress who are already making statements about how they will behave after the conclusion of those talks to have some regard to how their words impact on the talks now.
    I must tell the Foreign Secretary, despite his roundly abusing us, that the Government will have our full support for any measures that they feel appropriate for Britain to contribute to make the peace settlement work. We shall judge the outcome of the talks on the extent to which they provide for the restoration of multi-ethnic societies in the former Yugoslavia, and the restoration of pluralist political processes. Critical to that must be the preservation of Bosnia as a single state, rather than its partition into multiple ethnic statelets. Also critical are the right of refugees to return to their homes and the prosecution before the international tribunal of those who have been indicted for war crimes.
    It is worrying that, this week, President Tudjman has chosen to promote an officer the day after he was indicted before the international war crimes tribunal. That raises the anxiety that those carrying out the negotiations do not yet understand that there can be no reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia unless there is no impunity for war criminals. The tragedy of the former Yugoslavia is that the nationalist leaders promised their peoples that they were going to take their countries into a post-communist Europe; yet the endless arguments in Dayton over every mile of border between the countries belong not to a post-communist Europe but to the pre-communist Europe of the turn of the century. If the leaders of these countries really want to take their people into modern Europe, they must recognise that modern Europe is based not on putting up new borders between nations but on bringing down barriers between communities.
    Finally on the balance sheet of agreement, I assure the Foreign Secretary that we share fully the objectives set out in the Gracious Speech to ensure a smooth transition of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. There are fewer than 600 days until the point of transfer and in that time frame we will judge the record of this Administration and of Governor Patten, not on how much more can be achieved in the last few months before the sands run out, but on how we can ensure that the reforms that have been introduced in Hong Kong are entrenched to survive our

    145
    departure as a colonial power. Of particular importance is a smooth transition for the Legislative Council and for the Bill of Rights. Although 1997 will see Britain give up its sovereignty over Hong Kong, it must not see Britain give up its interest in Hong Kong.
    The Gracious Speech has managed to carry us further in agreement than I anticipated. Before I turn to the various areas of controversy in the Gracious Speech, I shall deal with a curious omission from that speech and from the speech of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. The omission is all the more curious as the Gracious Speech is supposed to set out the work of Parliament in the forthcoming year. I refer to an issue that I suspect will give rise to some of the most heated debates that we shall see in Parliament this Session.
    Although it is not in the Gracious Speech, I very much hope that we can look forward to receiving the Scott report on arms to Iraq some time this Session. We have not received it in three parliamentary Sessions and I hope that a fourth Session will not pass without its release.
    Dr. John Reid: There was no mention of it today.
    Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend says, the Foreign Secretary did not mention it today. Although the Gracious Speech omitted any reference to the Scott report, an even greater power in the land enlightened us about it at the weekend. On Sunday the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister—I think that I have all of his titles correct—told us that the Government have every right to reject the inquiry's findings. He said that the Government do not feel obliged to follow its recommendations.
    That is a bit rich coming from a Deputy Prime Minister who, for the past three years, has followed me around every television studio in the land telling me to shut up and wait for the Scott report. His appeals to wait until we receive the report will look like so much self-serving humbug if the Government have no intention of abiding by the outcome of the inquiry.
    Only last week, the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the Ordtech appeal laid bare how the Government first turned a "blind eye"—in the words of one of their ambassadors—to the export of arms to Saddam Hussein and then attempted to cover it up by suppressing evidence that was needed to ensure a fair trial. I did not think it possible that even this Government could make the scandal worse, but the Deputy Prime Minister has managed to do just that by saying that the Government may refuse to admit that they did anything wrong. The Government chose Sir Richard Scott as their judge: we will expect them to abide by his verdict and the nation will expect any Ministers who are censured by him to leave public office.
    As to the remainder of the Gracious Speech, it may be appropriate to examine Government foreign policy by departing from it to consider the Government's own choice of the highest-profile measure: the asylum Bill. Throughout the world there are currently 40 million refugees and displaced persons. If that gives rise to a burden of asylum applications that is too heavy for Britain to bear, foreign policy has a part to play in finding a solution by removing the pressures that cause an increase in the number of refugees around the world.
    146
    We could put human rights at the centre of foreign policy, and we could begin with Nigeria. Since the election of 1993 was annulled by the military junta, Nigeria has provided the largest number of asylum seekers to Britain. I put it to the Foreign Secretary that, given all that we now know about the brutality of the regime, it is very difficult to understand why in the past 12 months, out of the 2,032 applications for asylum from Nigerians, one has been granted and 2,031 have been rejected. I challenge the Foreign Secretary. Can he put his hand on his conscience and tell us that 99.95 per cent. of those applications were bogus? If the Government want to cut the applications for asylum, in their own self-interest, they ought to use every available lever to restore democracy and human rights in Nigeria.
    I welcome the fact that the Government have now proposed a comprehensive embargo on arms sales. It is all the more welcome as in the past year they granted 30 licences for defence equipment and refused only one. On 15 June, the head of the Nigeria section of the Foreign Office told the World Development Movement that the Department had just granted an export licence to Nigeria for CS gas and rubber bullets. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether that was right and if it was, does he in retrospect really consider that to give those tools of repression to such a brutal military regime was just? Can he give an assurance that, under the new terms of the embargo, it cannot happen again and that such equipment will never again be supplied to the military regime until it returns to democracy?
    If we are serious about bringing home our revulsion to that regime, we need more than the measures so far outlined by the Government. The best way to bring home our revulsion is for the Government to go to the United Nations and ask for oil sanctions against Nigeria—not to wait and see what others do, but to take a lead in the world on the issue.
    I am familiar with the dilemma that applying economic pressure to a regime can bring pain to its people, but perhaps we should remember that the whole point of Ken Saro-Wiwa's campaign was that the peoples of Nigeria saw too little of the oil revenue—too much of it was swallowed by the regime in high military spending and large bank balances in Europe. The way to show we are serious is to prove that we are prepared to cut the flow of oil and therefore, cut the flow of cash to the Nigerian Government.
    Mr. David Winnick: I fully support everything that my hon. Friend has said. He echoes the feelings of all Labour Members. Does he agree that the argument used by the Foreign Secretary earlier this afternoon—that we should take into consideration the effect of sanctions on the Nigerian people—is precisely the same argument that Tory Governments used repeatedly against sanctions against the apartheid regime? Our solidarity with the Nigerian people is our first objective and sanctions are absolutely necessary.
    Mr. Cook: I find it hard to see how any other member of the Nigerian population will be hurt if we freeze the bank accounts of the Ministers and the Government. That would be a good practical first step.
    Measures to impose once again on the Nigerian Government the importance of restoring democratic rights, an independent legal system and human rights

    147
    would be a far better way of reducing the number of people seeking asylum in Britain than anything proposed in the Queen's Speech.
    As I understand it, the Government's concern is that most asylum seekers are economic migrants. If the Government are to be believed, all but one of the applications from Nigeria were economic migrants. If that is the Government's worry, surely another priority of our foreign policy ought to be sustainable development.
    I was pleased to read in the Queen's Speech that
    "A substantial aid programme will be maintained,"
    although I would have been more pleased had the Foreign Secretary found one sentence in his long speech to make reference to it. I would also have been pleased if instead of being promised a "substantial aid programme", we had been promised that the aid programme would be maintained at its present level. The Foreign Secretary will recognise that it would be a grotesque deceit of the House were we to vote for the Gracious Speech containing that line and the week after be asked to support a Budget which, it is rumoured, will cut overseas aid by 6 per cent. I agree with the Foreign Secretary about reforms to the United Nations, but we cannot profess support for the United Nations while turning our backs on the United Nations' targets for development.
    I would not be so foolish as to appeal to the compassion of Conservative Members—
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: Well, let me try. I make that appeal.
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have done much work in Africa and south America and that I am well aware of the third world. He will be aware, as I am, of the time that it takes for economic aid to filter through. As it will be many years, sadly, before the third world, the developing world, can catch up with the first world, would it be his policy to throw open our doors to economic migrants and all?
    Mr. Cook: I was obviously mistaken in appealing to the hon. Gentleman's compassion.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the catching-up process will take years. Surely that is precisely why we should start that process now and not cut the budget on which third-world countries depend.
    Mr. Fabricant: Answer my question.
    Mr. Cook: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman in his own terms.
    Let us forget for the moment what the cut would mean for people's standard of living, for the survival of their young children, for women's development and for development overall. Forget what it would mean for the peoples of Africa. If the hon. Gentleman wants to stop economic migrants coming to the United Kingdom masquerading as asylum seekers, why not help them achieve sustainable growth in their own countries?
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: Not at this moment.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Cook: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Cohen: I agree that it would be deplorable if there were to be cuts in the overseas aid budget. Does he agree
    148
    that instead there should be an increase in that budget, bearing in mind the extensive problems that have come to light involving land mines in various countries throughout the world? Assistance is needed to clear them. Surely that means that we should increase the overseas aid budget. In addition, the Government should take strong action to prevent the production, trade and use of land mines throughout the world.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the appalling environmental damage that is done by the 100 million land mines that are spread throughout the globe. It is a matter of acute regret that there was a failure to reach agreement on the issue at the recent United Nations conference.
    I shall take up some of the Foreign Secretary's observations. I must compliment him on one thing—
    Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No. I am dealing with bigger fish than the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to forgive me.
    The Foreign Secretary expressed better than I could hope to do the difference in essence between the Government's foreign strategy and the Opposition's. As he said, in a way that I could not improve upon, the Government's aspiration is to stand alone while ours is to find partners. It is as well that the Government welcome isolation as a measure of their success. They have had plenty of experience of that over the past year. There was a spectacular example of splendid isolation on the highest-profile issue before the Commonwealth conference. Britain was a minority of one on French nuclear tests. The tests were condemned by the rest of the Commonwealth members. No doubt all of them are secret members of CND. The rest of the Commonwealth condemned the tests while we made a brave condemnation of the rest of the Commonwealth.
    The Prime Minister described all the other Commonwealth leaders as factually incorrect, intellectually inconsistent and unbalanced. That is successful diplomacy in the Government's terms. It proved that they could stand alone. In fact, it demonstrated how isolated they were.
    Those of us who care about the Commonwealth's future cannot fail to be alarmed by a British Prime Minister behaving not as the leader of the Commonwealth but as the odd one out. It was as if a Tory Back-Bench Member was heckling below the Gangway while the other members of the conference were making decisions.
    In his Chatham house speech the Foreign Secretary described the Commonwealth as a priceless asset. He was right to do so. It is a valuable source of access and it is of great interest to Britain. It provides us with a partner in every continent. It brings together a third of the membership of the United Nations. But that will be an asset only so long as Britain treats it with respect and behaves as a leader, not a heckler. I say "Britain", but, of course, Britain was not really represented at the Commonwealth conference. What was represented there was the Conservative Government. They do not speak for the people of Britain on the issue of French nuclear tests. The last opinion poll found that 3 per cent. of the people of Britain agreed with the French nuclear tests—even less than the support for the Tory party. The other 97 per cent.

    149
    cannot all be in CND. This is a Government who speak only for themselves but who damage international relations for the whole of the country.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting to the House that the world would be a safer place and that Britain would have been better represented had the Labour party under Michael Foot won the 1983 general election, with him as a leading unilateral disarmer?
    Mr. Cook: I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that both Britain and the world would be a better place if Labour had been in power since 1983 instead of that lot there.
    There is another dimension to the Government's isolation on this issue; there is another dimension to the eccentric role that they have taken over French nuclear tests. Referring to the Pacific in his Chatham house speech, the Foreign Secretary said:
    "We must pay far more attention to the region".
    That is right. The centre of gravity of the world economy and of world trade is shifting to the Pacific. By the first quarter of the next century, six out of the 10 largest economies will be in the Pacific, not around the Atlantic. Yet despite that insight, the Foreign Secretary is presiding over foreign policy on French tests at odds with every nation of the south Pacific. Australia and New Zealand are important players in the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation. As that trade association grows in economic significance, Australia and New Zealand will grow in significance to us as allies. This is not the moment in history to tell their leaders that they lack knowledge, intellect and balance. Of course, I have to say, it is hardly surprising to the House that the Government find themselves isolated among the countries at the other end of the Pacific when they cannot even live with the countries on the other side of the channel.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo) rose—
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman does not know how appropriate it is that he rises at this moment.
    Mr. Portillo: The French President was advised by his experts and scientists that the French nuclear deterrent required to be tested. If the hon. Gentleman were in power and British scientists and experts advised him that the British nuclear deterrent required to be tested, would he be willing to test it or would he refuse to test it?
    Mr. Cook: There is no contest here. I believe that the security of the world would be better served by a comprehensive test ban treaty than by each of the individual nuclear powers going around undermining it. The right hon. Gentleman sits in a Government who say that they are committed to a comprehensive test ban treaty. Will he tell us, if he were faced with that choice, what decision he would take? Is he telling us that they would rather carry out a test programme than go ahead with a comprehensive test ban treaty? If so, is that the view of his Foreign Secretary? That is something to which the House is entitled to have an answer. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has been asked a perfectly fair question: does he or does he not support a comprehensive
    150
    test ban treaty, which is supposed to be the policy of his Cabinet? We know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman regards it as something different from collective discipline within the Cabinet, but we, are entitled to know whether he believes in the commitment of his Government.
    I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, since he has interrupted, that the Gracious Speech is likely to be rather less resonant on the continent than the exceedingly ungracious speech that he made to the party conference. It sounded depressing in its original English. It must have sounded frightful when translated into German. The Defence Secretary told his conference that he will
    "not allow Brussels to control our defence policy".
    For 30 years, the key decisions on defence policy for Britain have been taken in Brussels, at the NATO headquarters. The vulgar "we stand alone" isolation of the Defence Secretary is in flat opposition to the real security interests of Britain—interests that for five decades have been served by collective defence based on the principle of international solidarity: that an attack on one is an attack on all. In the same way that our prosperity is best guaranteed by international trading agreements, the survival of our environment is best provided for by international agreements to rescue a world climate. The Defence Secretary's jingoism had had its day a hundred years ago; it is a positive menace in the modern world.
    Yet, the week after that speech, the Defence Secretary described himself and the Foreign Secretary as being at one. On the day of the speech, the Prime Minister led the applause—the same Prime Minister whom I seem to remember, two years ago, casting some doubt on the parentage of the Defence Secretary.
    In early July, when we last debated Europe, a war was going on the Tory party over Europe. Let me tell Conservative Members that it is a consistent part of our foreign policy to welcome peace wherever it breaks out. I acknowledge that there is currently a truce in the Tory party—a truce brought about by the surrender of the Prime Minister to the rebels. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) put it bluntly at the party conference, "We've won," or as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said rather more colourfully,
    "We are the storm-troopers of the new orthodoxy."
    The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have bought unity in their own party, but once again at the expense of Britain's isolation. The scale of that isolation is recorded in the minutes of the reflection group's preparation for next year's intergovernmental conference. The Minister of State—who has just left us—has demonstrated in the reflection group not only that he is not afraid to be isolated, but that isolation is a habit with him. According to the recorded positions taken in the reflection group,Britain is in a minority of one in regard to one in three decisions—not just in a minority, but in a minority of one.
    Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the Prime Minister stood alone in Europe at Maastricht when he secured the opt-outs on the social chapter and European Union? That was before the so-called rebels had had any effect on the Conservative Benches. Surely it demonstrates—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but they would certainly sell out Britain's interests in Europe. That is something that

    151
    the Prime Minister is not prepared to do; nor is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would do it, however.
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. After I have been speaking for 28 minutes, he has grasped my central point. The Prime Minister does indeed stand alone in Europe, alongside his Cabinet; but the issues on which they have chosen to stand alone are mystifying.
    One of the issues on which the Minister of State has recorded his position as being in a minority of one is the question of whether the treaty should be amended to provide for a commitment to combating racism. Britain has a larger ethnic minority population than any other country in Europe. Surely it should be in Britain's interests to have a common European commitment, so that when the members of those ethnic minorities from Britain travel in Europe they are free from discrimination on the ground of race.
    Similarly, the group is in a minority of one over the question of any extension of co-decision in the European Parliament. I recognise the source of that. I remember the slogan of the rebels: "No more powers to the Parliament". This, however, is an odd power against which to take a lonely stand. Co-decision-making does not facilitate European legislation; it gives the European Parliament another hurdle to put in the place of legislation—to test that legislation, but this time through a democratic process. Increased use of the co-decision procedure will give the European Parliament a useful veto over unnecessary or undesirable European laws. Surely the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) would agree that that is common sense. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not agree because the last sentence came from the leader of the Tory group in the European Parliament, and I agree with it.
    The Foreign Secretary likes to accuse me, and presumably his leader of the Tory group, of having a federalist agenda. He persists with it however often I try to put him right, but I shall try once again. Labour does not support a federal European super-state. Labour is the party of devolution. We want to practise real subsidiarity and we want to hand power down to local people, not up to Brussels. Our vision is of independent member states coming together not to surrender national sovereignty, but to co-operate because they have common interests. We shall get a better deal for the people of Britain through co-operation than through competition.
    Mr. Fabricant rose—
    Mr. Cook: I give way for the last time.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for a second time. What experience does he have of negotiating outside his party? Does he not realise that one can negotiate only from strength? He will recall that he was prepared to roll over supinely in the 1980s on the deployment across Europe of the Soviet Union's SS20 missiles. Is not he rolling over supinely again when he says that he would give away our veto? What sort of sovereignty is that?
    Mr. Cook: We are not giving away Britain's veto. The document from which the Foreign Secretary is fond of quoting specifically says that we will keep the veto on all major strategic issues. It arises naturally from the Foreign Secretary's speech that it was a Tory Government who
    152
    took us in on the ground of qualified majority voting. Even more relevantly, it was this Tory Government who, by way of the single European market, introduced a massive extension of qualified majority voting. After that they can hardly accuse us of U-turns and pretend to be the people who support the veto.
    On one issue the Government's criticisms of us are spot on, because we will indeed sign the social chapter. I concede to the Foreign Secretary that on that issue the Government are not absolutely isolated because the National Front in France agrees with their opposition to the social chapter. We shall sign up to it because we want the working people of Britain to have the same rights to information and consultation at work as working people on the continent, who often work for the same companies.
    One of the familiar faces in our debates on foreign affairs which is sadly missing is that of Derek Enright. When we last debated Europe he observed that real sovereignty was about giving people power over their lives. That is why we are committed to the social chapter. May I offer the Foreign Secretary an invitation? I would welcome it if on every day from now until polling day he toured Britain telling the working people that Labour will sign the social chapter for the rights of working people and that the Government are determined to make sure that the working people of Britain get worse rights at work than those in any other country of the European Union. It would be even better if he coupled that advice to the electorate with the remarkable statement this week by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that job insecurity is all in the mind. That statement will help to convince millions who are fearful for their jobs that it is not they who are out of their minds but Ministers.
    I opened my speech by seeking the common ground between us. I shall close by trying to find the redeeming feature in the Gracious Speech. Perhaps the kindest thing that one can say about the Gracious Speech is that it will be the last one introduced by the Government.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): No.
    Mr. Cook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would enlighten us as to when we will have the opportunity of getting rid of him and his colleagues. The Gracious Speech is so slim on ideas, so thin on new initiatives and so irrelevant to the real problems of Britain that any further Gracious Speech from this Administration would set new standards for minimalist literature. The best feature of the debate is that when it is repeated we may be debating a Labour Queen's Speech. That speech will put Britain on the road towards a competitive economy, based not on exploitation of lower wages, but on investment in high skills, and towards a just society that will outlaw poverty pay, give the long-term unemployed the opportunity of work and put us on the path to an open democracy that gives back to local people the powers that these Ministers have taken to themselves and to the thousands of clones with whom they have peopled this country's quangos.
    We will offer a foreign policy based on our recognition that, just as the individual needs a strong community to give opportunity to the talented and protection to the vulnerable, so too each nation needs a healthy international community to provide it with opportunity to

    153
    trade and security against threat, and we will seek alliances and partnerships in that international community rather than condemn Britain to stand in isolation.
    That is the Gracious Speech that the House may have after the next opening of Parliament. What stands in its way is a bankrupt, broken-backed Government who this week have comprehensively revealed that they have no useful project left to justify clinging to office for a further year, denying the wishes of an electorate who are weary with them and who, at some point in the coming year, will demand that they go.
    4.31 pm
    Mr. David Howell: Before coming to the enjoyable parts, or some parts, of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon, including the latest version of the Labour party's foreign policy, which seemed to have changed a little even since yesterday, I should like to revert to a less agreeable set of comments made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday about the Gracious Speech. At one stage, he observed that one-nation Toryism was "dead" and that it was all "finished". I felt a bit uncomfortable there because I do not feel dead at all and I am chairman of the One-Nation Tories. He and his colleagues should understand a little more carefully and analyse in a more modern way what the one-nation spirit is about, as it is in the Tory party and perhaps abroad and in the Labour party as well.
    The point that is not understood is that the common ground on which all politics is moving today, not just in this country but round the world, has shifted away from the assumptions of the old one-nation view and of the moderate, less socialist wing of the Labour party that the answer to the nation's unity and security—the "one nationness"—was to be found through high welfare spending, universal social provision, high taxation and a heavy role by the Government to underpin it. Country after country and party after party have found that such collectivism is inefficient and, in the end, does not work. Where it was applied in extreme forms in the former communist countries, it collapsed under its own weight, as it has everywhere else.
    If the Leader of the Opposition is to join the One Nation—he is welcome to do so if he wants—he should understand that the unifying forces of the modern nation are new, different and do not equate with the simplicities of just spending more of other people's money and of hanging on to the inefficiencies of a welfare state that has failed to provide security and strong family life, which exist in many modern states that do not have anything like the social security provision and extensive administration and bureaucracy behind them that we, in the past 40 or 50 years, have built up for good reasons, but in an increasingly inefficient way. It is time, therefore, for some new thinking from the Leader of the Opposition when he talks about one nation, and I would be glad to give him a tutorial if he would like to make the application.
    The other sector that depressed me yesterday, although I was a little more cheered up by the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Foreign Secretary, involved all the talk about Britain's interests. There was much talk about that yesterday and today and many good and clear analytical observations were made
    154
    today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, but yesterday, as opposed to today, every time the Leader of the Opposition talked about interests, he seemed to have just one sector in mind: our interests in Europe. There has been a lot of talk about that again today. It is Britain's destiny to be in the European Union.
    I do not disagree for one second with the vast importance of the single market. The much-criticised Tory Government of the 1980s spent a great deal of time taking the lead—not being anti-European—in creating that single market. We worked in Brussels, in various committees and engaged in endless negotiations and the same occurred in the 1970s. As I have said, I am not against parts of the great single market. I want to see it enlarged and completed, which it is far from being now.
    But I ask the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary to stop and analyse a little more carefully the real interests of this country. Of course, there is the security interest and we have debated that today. However, the interests of British people in terms of welfare and jobs are to be found in two elements that have not been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Foreign Secretary. First, there is the size of our gigantic owned capital assets—assets owned by this country around the world. One's interests are one's assets. That is common sense. Britain is a huge investor around the world. We are in the super league, second only to the United States.
    Secondly, there is the amount of investment that others are prepared to make in Britain. Those are the primary interests. Trade follows not just from talking about things but from capital assets. Investment, direct and portfolio, goes in first and trade follows. If we want to see how interests are pursued, we should look at yesterday's Financial Times to see how the Japanese are redeveloping their interests by placing vast assets and direct investments around Asia and becoming involved successfully in the huge and booming markets of that area. We want to understand what our assets are and where they are.
    I want to emphasise strongly that 80 per cent. of the vast ownership and assets of this nation are not in Europe. Half of them are in the United States and about a third are in countries of the Commonwealth and the emerging markets. The earnings that flow from them are colossal. In fact, our invisible earnings exceed our entire manufactured export earnings and are nearly as big as all our visible earnings put together. About four fifths of those earnings flow from outside the European Union and a little more than a third come from the countries that are currently members of the Commonwealth.
    So is not it a little extraordinary that when we talk about interests, the suggestion is that it is all about getting our position straight with the rest of Europe? Of course that is important because Europe is moving rapidly. On a whole range of issues with which I shall deal later, what was isolation yesterday is not isolation today. I should have liked to hear more yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition about this country's real assets and how they are to be furthered. I was pleased that the shadow Foreign Secretary seemed to have moved a few notches back in that direction. He had a great deal to say about the Commonwealth generally and he even said a little about the Commonwealth as a useful network for the prosperity and interests of this country.

    155
    The Commonwealth has been hijacked by the headlines in recent weeks with the discussions about the French nuclear tests, about which the Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say, and, more recently, the discussion about the horrific killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and others in Nigeria. Despite that, the Commonwealth is an important part of furthering the future interests of this country. It is time that policymakers in all parties, certainly in Whitehall, spent a little more time understanding the interests of this country outside Europe as well as within it and how those interests can be furthered and strengthened by using the Commonwealth network as a resource.
    The Commonwealth is not just a gathering of people with high-sounding rhetoric, which was exemplified at the Heads of Government meeting, but is a criss-cross network of a common working language—English—of business, trade, investment, culture and a variety of connections. It is trans-regional and is not another trade bloc. As other hon. Members have said, it contains a series of the world's fastest-growing markets and economies.
    It is not the old Commonwealth of the begging bowl or even the Britain bashers. I concede that there was some Britain bashing over the French tests, but they were wrong and we were right. Nowadays, it is a Commonwealth that contains some of the most dynamic and fast-growing movements of internationally mobile capital, not only from Britain outwards or back to Britain but between, for example, Malaysia and Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia, Australia and India and Australia and Africa. They are all areas where huge amounts of business are growing, where lively British businesses are getting involved and where we have vast interests to protect and encourage. Those interests are also worth a word or two when the shadow Foreign Secretary talks about the interests of this country.
    It is not all that easy to get figures from politicians, and certainly not from Whitehall, about what our interests really are. In passing, it might amuse colleagues to know that when the Foreign Affairs Select Committee tried to examine the possibilities of the new Commonwealth as a resource, it sought to obtain specific briefing from officialdom, but we were told that officials were unable to obtain any Commonwealth-specific briefing in advance from the Foreign Office and that it would be provided by the post in each country.
    It is time for all who take seriously this country's interests—I include the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and hon. Friends and high officials in Whitehall—to examine a little more carefully what is happening in the world of internationally mobile capital where our assets now are and from where our vast earnings now come, which enable us to deal with domestic spending or tax cuts or anything else. We shall no doubt be talking about that next week in the Budget debate.
    The second point which I regret did not feature in the shadow Foreign Secretary's speech is why and how it all works. Much of the gigantic international capital movement, which is of such great interest to everyone in this country, is driven by the financial machine in the City of London. I must declare that I have a general interest in that sphere.
    156
    To listen to Opposition spokesmen, one would have thought—I suspect that we shall hear more of the same in the Budget debate next week—that the City of London's financial machine was on the whole an outfit to be constrained, criticised and regarded with suspicion, rather than one of the building bricks of this country's prosperity and earnings. The fact is that 23 per cent. of our national income comes from invisible earnings and from financial services-related earnings, and 48 per cent. of all our earnings comes from invisibles which, as I said, are well above our earnings from manufactured exports.
    The truth that we never hear from Opposition politicians, although I hope that they will learn a little more about it, is that the much-criticised financial machine in the City of London has the largest market share of financial services across the globe, including Asia and the Commonwealth countries, including Africa. It has from 27 per cent. up to 81 per cent. of the market share of the various financial services. It ranges from selling Eurobonds, arranging mergers and acquisitions and managing the funds of the great savings nations of Asia. They are the ones that will call the tune. We manage their funds in London.
    The City of London has 500 banks and it is the heart of Europe. It is the heart of the new global financial system. Some people claim that we are being marginalised and isolated, but the Leader of the Opposition does not have a clue about what has happened in the real financial world that drives our exports and imports. He does not seem to be aware that, far from being isolated, London is the very heart of the system. German banks are running to get office space in London, not in Frankfurt. Banks from every corner of the globe are doing the same because London is the heart of the system.
    We have acquired, almost in a fit of absent-mindedness, a new empire of financial power and financial services that gives us a colossal global reach. While we are at the heart of Europe, we want to balance our position against our other interests round the world.
    I do not deny for a moment that the European Union is important to us. We have to decide how we should handle it. The Opposition spokesman's witty speech about the dangers of isolation is all good fun, but it does not connect with where we stand and what our interests are. The problem with the European Union today is not that we shall be isolated in it, but that it will endanger the things which I have described and which are bringing to this country £108 billion a year in invisible earnings, enabling our exports to rush into some of the new and most exciting markets in the world, and linking us to India, Australasia, south-east Asia, the Pacific rim countries and even new countries that are not yet on the financial map. In this regard, Israel will emerge as a middle eastern tiger. They are the new areas where we shall make our money and help our people.
    The danger is that we shall let the European Union, through over-ambition and too much unnecessary centralisation, dictate everything and undermine all that we have gained and are gaining in the new global environment. We should not let the European Union centralise our detailed social policy. The Opposition spokesman should realise that that is not a matter of sovereignty, at least not in my book, or chauvinism; it is a belief that social policy should be sensitive and focused as near the shop floor as possible.

    157
    I urge on my colleagues one important message about the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. I hope that we shall not accept the view that if we lie low and do nothing, everyone else will disagree and there will a minimalist result. That would be a mistake and a lost opportunity. I am not saying what the federalists are saying—that it is a pity that there is so little agreement and that there cannot be a great leap towards a federalist and closed European system. That is anathema to me, but let us not imagine that the alternative is merely to do nothing. Doing nothing is quite dangerous and could easily lead to various developments that would undermine the true strength of our position, as I have tried to describe it to the House.
    We need to be a good deal more than minimal and to put forward our own agenda to do two things. First, we need to preserve the European Union for which I have spent much of my life fighting, in the House and outside, and prevent it being divided by over-ambitious federalism. Secondly, we must ensure that it does not weaken the new global system, which will allow a place for trade blocs but which must not be dominated by trade blocism to the exclusion of world free trade.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: If the Government's policy on Europe was not as positive as it is, surely this country would cease to attract some 40 per cent. of the inward investment in the European Union from the United States and Japan. Our economic climate, the fact that we speak English and the fact that we have such a good industrial relations record, which investors would not want to see reversed under Labour, are all good reasons why that investment has come here. In that context, it makes no difference whether we are in the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend has put my case far more eloquently than I have. We have done extremely well. We attract 40 per cent. of the total investment in Europe, much of it from the new Asian countries, incidentally. We have a gigantic global reach, and we are certainly the biggest European exporter of capital to places such as China. We do not want that upset by further attempts to corral us in an over-centralised European system.
    Unlike some hon. Members, I like the Europe that we have had in the past. The single market was a great achievement, but it is threatened by the imminent explosion of the European Union's budget. If there is to be enlargement, which we have said that we favour, although I notice that Brussels is cooling over the idea—for very good reasons, from its point of view—and if we keep the existing common agricultural policy or anything like it and remain committed to the structural, cohesion and social funds and all the other things that Labour loves, one can confidently predict that we shall at least double the cost of Europe. By doubling it, we shall undermine it. We shall literally sink the European venture under the weight of excessive budget demands. That is one other thing that I hope that we can stop in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference; we should not just stand by and hope that it will not happen.
    I would like to see—it is meant to be outside the remit of the IGC, but will come into it—more realism about the single currency. I cannot understand why people do not
    158
    realise what a Europe-splitting, Europe-destroying project it is. Every day that goes by brings new evidence that even if the introduction of a single currency is attempted, even if the scheme gets a core of countries to go all the way, and even if the poor French are dragged to the edge of this European project for reasons deep in their own psychology—with which I half sympathise, but do not agree—it will do the most frightful damage to European unity. Indeed, it has already.
    Already the feelings in Italy and Spain are much more hostile to the elements in Germany—which seem to be a small minority—and in France that want to push ahead. Already the arguments are for new barriers to be put up against those who have the impudence not to be part of the core hard currency. Already the dangers are visible on every side. There is the prospect of Mr. Waigel's stability pact imposing even tougher conditions—fines for countries' failures to conform with the fiscal requirements of this uniformity; this standardisation.
    Such things are immensely dangerous and anti-European. They are destroying the kind of Europe that I favour. I cannot understand why the Labour party does not unravel the situation a little and look more carefully at the elements, instead of being gung-ho for Europe on every front. Such a point of view is dangerous. I do not think that the Labour party will become the party of government because we Conservatives will get in again. But supposing it did, for heaven's sake will it please prepare itself and look at such issues a little more sensibly and less generally than the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday?
    The leader of the Labour party is getting very casual with his facts. He said that there was no mention of jobs in the Queen's Speech—there is. He said to the Confederation of British Industry that the social chapter would not impose on the Labour Government any measures that they did not want. It is bound to do so, by definition. The right hon. Gentleman must watch his facts more carefully and those who advise him must be more precise about what the Labour party's commitment to Europe really means. We should be checking the powers of the Commission and putting forward proposals to facilitate doing so. We should be working very hard to create democratic procedures rooted in the ancient, democratic nation states that we have always had.
    In stepping—if I may—right out of line with regard to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I think that after the next IGC, whatever the outcome, we should have a referendum and settle for another 25 years the matter of what sort of Europe we want to be part of. Let us fight for the sort of Europe that I and many of us want—a single market—and let us have a referendum and see whether everyone else wants it as well. I suspect—others may disagree—that a very large majority of people would want a sensible, confederate Europe, with a confederate agenda, enlargement and a powerful single market stretching from the Russian border to the Atlantic and from Calabria to the Orkneys. I think that there would be very strong, sensible support for that in our sensible British nation.
    But these are the tactics. The heart of the matter is strategic. Economic and political powers in the world are shifting, as the hon. Member for Livingston recognised, from the Rhine and the Ruhr to the capitals and rivers of Asia. The strategic central consideration is that, as I said,

    159
    80 per cent. of Britain's global assets, and about the same percentage of the nation's colossal earnings from those assets, arise outside Europe.
    The new reality is that Britain's total earnings from outside the EU—all our overseas earnings in this huge trading nation—are some 50 per cent. higher than those from within the Union. Although we should not be anti-European, we should not go overboard in uncritical commitment to something that represents only a minority of our interests.
    It so happens—this is perhaps the most important consideration of all for the future—that Britain is ideally positioned in the great new markets of Asia because of our past, and because of the way in which we succeeded, despite being an empire and a colonial power, in remaining very close friends with and attracting the continued admiration of all the countries concerned. Quite unlike—dare I say—other empires and metropolitan powers, we remain befriended and admired by those people. We have colossal advantages that we can exploit, because we are extremely well equipped to meet the new kinds of demand for services and skills, and for categories of product and sales that do not yet seem to come into the thinking of Opposition Members. I hope that they do so soon.
    The sooner that those basic realities about our interests of today and tomorrow are embedded in the minds of, yes, the Labour party and, yes—possibly—Whitehall as well, the more prosperous, competitive and influential for the good we shall be in the modern world.
    4.54 pm
    Mr. John Fraser: I shall speak on the issue of Nigeria, but before doing so I should like to raise the associated matter of asylum, which found its way into the Queen's Speech. To some extent, the Government's concern about asylum is a consequence of events in Nigeria, which have led many Nigerians to seek asylum in this country and which show that no country is immune from conditions in another country.
    Political asylum should not be a party political issue. Indeed, it cannot be because we are all subject to an international convention on asylum, which applies equally irrespective of what party we belong to. We have been a party to the United Nations convention on refugees for almost 50 years. The only issue is how we deal fairly and effectively with applications: not allowing so much time for applicants to take advantage of the system, and not allowing so little time that justice is not done.
    Asylum should be considered on its merits, not according to politics. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will accept the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to try to reach a sensible consensus. There can be no difference of opinion on our obligations under the international convention.
    Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I know that the hon. Gentleman is well versed in these matters—indeed, we had exchanges on the subject in a Committee that considered a related Bill. Surely one of the important aims is to deter bogus applications. Last year, 38,000 applications were submitted, of which only 1,700 were not bogus. How would he deter bogus applications?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not like using the phrase "bogus applications". As a legal practitioner I have some
    160
    experience of dealing with immigration and I know that bogus is not the right word to use. People are often under immense pressures—pressures of family, pressures of poverty and so on. I am not saying that many of the applications meet the terms of the international convention, but it is not the right approach to talk of deterring applications and of bogus applications. The right approach is to deal with applications relatively quickly, but not so quickly as to do an injustice. That is the answer.
    If there is a lesson to be learned, we should look to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, as was the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva). The Act has not worked. If it is to be revisited, we should try to reach a consensus on how we honour our international obligations instead of making it a purely political matter.
    I shall devote the rest of my speech to Nigeria. I commend the Prime Minister's outspoken comments and condemnation of events in Nigeria at the Commonwealth conference and the outspoken way in which the Foreign Secretary has talked in the House today. It is very pleasant when the Government speak for the nation instead of for their party. I like that and it happens from time to time. Indeed, we should speak as a nation on many issues and not try to politicise them all.
    If rainbow South Africa is the triumph of Africa, Nigeria is one of its tragedies. It became independent in 1960 and now has a population of more than 100 million. It has been blessed and cursed by its ethnic diversity, but following the civil war in Biafra a few people believed that its destiny lay other than in a multi-tribal, multi-lingual, multi-religious state. Despite all its problems and setbacks, Nigeria has evolved into a state where people pride themselves on its size, potential and generally tolerant diversity.
    Nigeria's unity in diversity has been illustrated by the reaction of so many Nigerians from different tribes and regions to the judicial murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his compatriots from Ogoniland.
    Nigeria's assets are legion: oil, gas, fertile land, strong family, cultural and artistic traditions, a thirst for education and achievement. So what has gone wrong with the country?
    The symptoms are many. There was the civil war of secession over Biafra; the repression of the Ogoni people in River state in the cause of oil and profit, culminating in the brutal and sickening executions that shocked the world last week; and long years of military dictatorship in the 35 years since independence. In the short periods in which there has been democracy in Nigeria, democracy has not come out of it well. It has been besmirched by corruption, nepotism and tribalism, and it has provided an excuse for the military to take over and indulge in similar practices. The result is that Nigeria now has a per capita income equal to that of Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world; abuse of human rights is growing; Nigeria's elected and past President is in prison; and there is growing hardship and isolation. Thus, a country that should have been a leader of Africa has become the laggard of Africa.
    Those problems are our concern, too, because Britain has strong links with Nigeria. Many Nigerians have been educated here, mainly in further education, and many thousands of Nigerians live here temporarily or

    161
    permanently, especially in south London. I am happy to be the sponsor of an organisation called the Nigerian Organisation for Democracy with Integrity, and I was happy to join in the vigil of outrage and protest outside the Nigerian high commission this weekend.
    To help Nigeria, we must set ourselves two objectives. In the long run, the first objective depends on the second. First, we must use every practical means to bring democracy and human rights back to Nigeria. Secondly, we must help Nigeria to rid itself of corruption, whereby public office equals private enrichment. It is for Britain, the United States, the Commonwealth and the European Union to help Nigeria in that way. We must help Nigeria to bring integrity back into public administration and public life. Those two objectives add up to what we call good government.
    On the first objective of bringing back democracy and respect for human rights, I commend the Government for joining in Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth. I do not want to see Nigeria expelled because that would have severe citizenship effects both on people who live in this country and on people who want to come to this country. To bring back democracy and respect for human rights, the United Kingdom and all countries that manufacture and export arms must apply an absolute prohibition. All kinds of military assistance must be banned. Such little aid as we give to Nigeria should be directed not to the Nigerian Government but to non-governmental organisations, and directed at the poorest in the community there.
    We must hit Nigeria's corrupt dictators where it hurts most: by freezing their bank accounts and the huge amounts of money that have leaked out of that country. I hope that Britain will do so and urge other countries to follow. Much of the oil revenue goes directly into the pockets of the military. We must put pressure on oil companies such as Shell, although it is not the only oil company concerned, which have ravaged the environment and then provided the revenue to allow the military to ravage the country as a whole. Multinationals cannot be neutral in those matters. We must impose oil sanctions because they are the most effective way to bring home our disapproval of what has been happening in Nigeria and to try to bring about a change in the regime.
    Other sanctions must be applied, including sanctions on sport. I know that it is unpleasant, but they would bring home to the Nigerians, as they did to the South Africans, the revulsion of the rest of the world. That is not an exhaustive list of what we should do but the most important measures are oil sanctions and the freezing of bank accounts.
    On the second issue—corruption and integrity—nobody in the western world is entitled to be smug and complacent about corruption. Italy has been riddled with corruption, and is currently dealing with that. In the past couple of weeks, Britain has had to deal with the issue because of the interaction between corruption and the integrity of public life. However, in Nigeria, the corruption and plundering of state assets and revenues has reached monumental proportions and millions of ordinary Nigerians pay the price. I seek not to stigmatise Nigerians but to condemn the practice that impoverishes the country and so many ordinary people who live there. Corruption devalues democratic institutions. From time to time it
    162
    provided an excuse for the military to step in. The military then plundered the revenues even more than the democratic institutions plundered them. Naturally, that provides a massive incentive not to return to democratic rule and accountability, which is why Babangida's regime never allowed the handing over of power to Abiola. That is one reason why the present announcement of a three-year progression to democracy is a farce, which is underlined further by the brutal executions that took place last week.
    So extensive has been the scale of corruption in Nigeria that a whole scam industry has been built up on the expectation that corruption in some public offices is the order of the day. People receive letters almost every day of the week about off-quota oil cargoes, currency arrangements in which one must give bribes to obtain currency coming out of the country, and the procurement of arms.
    The budgets of individual states have been filched and used for outrageous luxury expenditure by those involved outside Nigeria by salting the money out of the country. Rating and tax assessments have been distorted to gain political advantage. Public procurement has been grossly abused. Federal or individual states do not procure themselves; they procure through intermediaries, which take a cut. That cut in the price of the product is then left in other countries, in bank accounts in the names of private intermediaries. Enormous amounts of money have been siphoned off from federal revenue into private accounts.
    Ordinary people pay for all that corruption, and democracy and justice are in danger of being snuffed out. People's lives are even being snuffed out. The fact that corruption has been widespread does not mean that everyone is corrupt—far from it. Most Nigerians want to free themselves from the yoke of corruption, which has corroded their judicial system and forms of government.
    It is not for us to attempt to prescribe the detail of how Nigerian institutions should work or the detail of Nigerian law, but we must do whatever we can to help the restoration of democracy and give advice from our experience of those matters. We have great experience of public procurement and how to have public procurement that is free of graft and corruption. Although it does not always work, we must offer our experience in the context of a restoration of democracy. We have developed high standards of accountability for public funds and of audit, both nationally and locally. Let us offer all the help that we can on those matters. We reformed corruption in the civil service and the armed forces in the last century with the Trevelyan-Northcote reforms, by having a wholly independent appointment of civil servants. Let us offer advice and assistance on those matters as well as on remedies for administrative abuse. To their credit, the Government have developed those remedies not too badly through the citizens charter over the past few years. Let us try to ensure that power equals responsibility and accountability, and that power in Nigeria no longer means private enrichment. Some people say that we should not interfere with the affairs of other countries. In truth, we are all tied together, and we have common obligations under the convention on human rights and the conventions on refugees.

    163
    Nigeria's problems are our problems; our opportunities will be its opportunities. I hope that the Government will continue to be as outspoken as they have been, and to develop every detailed practical step to rid that country of corruption and to restore democracy and human rights.
    5.9 pm
    Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I acknowledge his considerable knowledge of Nigeria and his call for sanctions, but the general experience is that sanctions rarely work unless they are universal, and they often fail unless backed up by blockades. One of the worries about Nigeria is that it is another country, along with the Sudan, where the fault line bisects the Muslim world and the Christian world. When we consider, at some future date, the question of the extension of NATO and its southern flank, that is one aspect of international security policy that we should approach carefully.
    I endorse what was said earlier about the death of Mr. Rabin, a man who first fought for peace, then lived for peace and finally died for peace. I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that there is a very good chance that Mr. Rabin's death will strengthen rather than harm the peace process in the middle east.
    The debate has concentrated on foreign affairs. I would like to shift the emphasis to the related subject of defence. It is proper that, traditionally, the priority in the Gracious Speech has been the defence of the realm. I welcome the opening sentence, which confirms that
    "national security remains of the highest importance"
    to the Government.
    I wish to address a number of subjects mentioned in the Gracious Speech; the future of NATO; the Western European Union; reserve forces; peacekeeping operations; and transatlantic free trade. I will also take off my Select Committee on Defence hat for a moment to comment on defence procurement.
    The future of NATO was the subject of the Defence Committee's 10th report in the previous Session, and we are currently studying the question of NATO's southern flank. We believe that NATO will enlarge gradually and cautiously, not only to the east, but to the north and the south, to embrace suitably qualified states as fully contributing members of the alliance, within the integrated military structure. That would permit the stationing and exercising of NATO forces in fulfilment of the terms of the preamble to the Washington treaty, subject to the willingness of existing member states to give the article 5 security guarantee. We would like more open discussion of approximate target dates for enlargement, assuming that it will probably start within the next decade.
    The Committee welcomes the "Partnership for Peace" initiative, in particular, the participation of Russia. We have underlined the United Kingdom's continuing pivotal role in cementing the transatlantic alliance, not least by persuading our European partners of the importance of maintaining and strengthening that alliance, and of the dangers of embarking on fanciful chimeras that might weaken it beyond repair.
    We wish to see progress on the plans for the combined joint task force.
    164
    The Committee has only just commenced its inquiry into aspects of the Western European Union, so I cannot anticipate the outcome. However, two principles seem to be emerging which could have general support: first, the Western European Union should not be integrated into the European Union; and, secondly, nations should not become members of the WEU without first becoming full members of NATO, and by full members, I mean integrated into the military structure.
    I hope that the time will come when France and Spain will join the integrated military structure—IMS. I was interested to see a newspaper report today that the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Solana, might be a candidate for the vacant position of Secretary-General of NATO. We should applaud the fact that Spain is already involved jointly with NATO countries in the former Yugoslavia, where it has sent 1,500 troops who are committed to operations there.
    The House will welcome the Government's proposal to introduce a Reserve Forces Bill following extensive and intensive consultation. Defence Ministers normally rejoice in the fact that they have little legislation to worry about, but during this Session we will consider two defence Bills, the Reserve Forces Bill and the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill.
    The Select Committee on Defence published a report on the reserve forces, its 12th report, last Thursday. We gave broad support to the reorganisation of the Territorial Army, and its new role as the general reserve for the regular Army. We expressed our concern, however, at the high rate of turnover, which is 29 per cent. for the TA as a whole, and which particularly affects those serving under three years. We thought that the selection process could be improved. We also want to see a higher quality and quantity of training, particularly for those units taking on new roles and using new equipment.
    We advocated the measurement and monitoring of basic fitness and shooting standards, and called for a stronger commitment to integrate TA units with their regular counterparts.
    We noted the increase in the numbers of regular and non-regular support staff in the TA. We urged the Ministry of Defence to civilianise those posts with no genuine military content, make full use of the commercial contracts available to the regular Army and reduce current levels of administrative support where possible.
    The Select Committee recommended that the Royal Naval Reserve should be given more worthwhile training and experience at sea. We suggested that it should perhaps be given new roles, such as fisheries protection and environmental monitoring, which could help towards improving recruitment.
    The Select Committee welcomed the fact that the RAF reservists are given trials in flying Wessex helicopters and Hercules aircraft: We also welcomed the concept of an active flying reserve.
    Our report also considered the role of the regular reserves. We regretted the absence of any current training liability, and we would like the MOD to initiate training for those with specialist functions most likely to be required in operational services. We expressed our broad support for the principles set out in the draft Reserve Forces Bill, and the new categories of reserve—the sponsored and high-readiness reserves. There is no doubt that an increasing reliance on, and willingness to use,

    165
    reserve forces must be accompanied by an increased commitment to preserve their strength and improve their quality. Our reserve forces must be seen to be not just smaller but demonstrably better.
    As for the peace implementation forces planned for Bosnia, I believe that out of a total force of between 50,000 and 60,000, the United Kingdom's contribution is assumed to be around 15,000. That would increase the proportion of our Army engaged in operational missions to more than half. In terms of overstretch, that will make it even harder for the Army to meet its stated objective of 24 months between deployments. It will also have a significant effect on training for high-intensity conflict. I would be interested to know what means of deployment we will use. Will troops go over land to Hungary or will they travel by air or sea? Will it be necessary this time to hitch a ride from the United States? With the welcome involvement of Russia in the operation, perhaps we can expect the Russians to provide heavy-lift air transport.
    I presume that 24 Air Mobile Brigade will be part of that force, because although most of the troops are now back in the United Kingdom, their equipment remains in theatre. In the Minister's reply to the debate, perhaps we may be told whether the Army chiefs' advice to send a division-sized unit with tanks and artillery is accepted, and whether the MOD budget or the contingency reserve will bear the cost of that operation.
    I read that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has called for 350 volunteers from the Territorial Army to act as linguists, weathermen, intelligence officers and public relations officers for the peace implementation force. Our recent report on the reserve forces welcomed wider use of the TA and I very much hope that, even before the Reserve Forces Bill is enacted, employers will be sympathetic to the release of people who wish to volunteer for duty in Bosnia.
    I have received a letter on the Board this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in which he tells me that the Reserve Forces Bill started its passage through Parliament in the other place this afternoon. He says in his letter:
    "A business Compliance Cost Assessment has been prepared for the Bill. It estimates the average cost to business of the call-out for 9 months of a typical Reservist as £1,900. Payments to employers under the safeguards of the Bill are expected to reduce the average net cost to zero."
    That is very welcome.
    I should like to hear a Defence Minister's forecast of the limits of that mission. I was under the impression that the PIF would be deployed for between nine and 10 months. I acknowledge that there is a danger of what is called mission creep into a larger engagement, but I believe that that would be extremely serious.
    The Gracious Speech also said that Her Majesty's Government would
    "continue to pursue the objective of transatlantic free trade".
    The Defence Select Committee is studying, jointly with the Trade and Industry Select Committee, aspects of defence procurement. I cannot anticipate the outcome of that inquiry; I hope that the report will be published quite soon. However, I am aware that access to the United States defence market might be a good deal freer. There has been shrinkage in the defence industrial base of the
    166
    United States and the United Kingdom as a direct result of the so-called peace dividend. Less is now spent on defence, to such an extent that the viability of the UK defence industrial base is in question; that was the principal reason for that joint inquiry.
    We have witnessed jobs in our defence industry shrink from about 200,000 to only 100,000 in the past 15 years. The collapse of the iron curtain and the economic difficulties of the former Soviet Union now mean that there is an increasing sale of high-quality military equipment on world markets to earn foreign currency.
    We have also witnessed the growth of indigenous defence industries in developing countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, India and South Africa, where labour costs are a good deal less than they are in the United Kingdom.
    Falls in turnover, in the volume of sales—especially exports—and in profits mean that less money is now spent on research and development. In that respect, a good case might be made for closer collaboration, both transatlantic and with our European partners, especially within the Western European Union, on research and development to preserve our technological lead and our competitiveness.
    I shall comment on two procurement issues. I am aware that the Government are currently comparing the relative merits of leasing or buying American F 1 6s with those of upgrading the Tornado F3s. There has been much public comment about that, but I feel that that proposal has much more to do with destabilising the Eurofighter than anything else.
    I hope, therefore, that the Minister who replies to the debate will take the opportunity to describe as complete nonsense the Observer story on Sunday 12 November that Britain might consider the purchase of American F22s instead of proceeding with the Euro 2000 programme, which is now well into its flight development stage. Apart from anything else, the F22 is twice as expensive as Eurofighter, with little additional performance.
    Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that national newspapers stopped simply publicising reports given to them by American aircraft companies without even considering the effect that that has on companies in Britain, and concentrated a little more on publicising the facts about what is going on in the aircraft industry in Britain?
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of the Royal Air Force and the defence industry, made the argument extremely well.
    I wish to mention a constituency issue. Many Vosper Thornycroft workers live in Romsey and Waterside and have a considerable interest in the outcome of the two-horse race between GEC Yarrow and Vosper Thornycroft for the orders for the final batch of three type 23 frigates. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) in the Chamber this evening. No doubt he will support what I say about that.
    GEC already has a monopoly for submarines and a near-monopoly for service ships of more than 6,500 tonnes. Continued competition for the supply of frigates is essential. We are fortunate at present to have Vosper Thornycroft as a strong and capable alternative to GEC for the supply of frigates. Vosper has already

    167
    demonstrated its capability to build large steel surface ships for the Royal Navy. One of those, a stretched type 42 destroyer, HMS Gloucester, is 3,880 tonnes and 141 m long, which is bigger and heavier than a type 23 frigate, at 3,500 tonnes and 133 m long.
    Vosper Thornycroft can therefore build steel ships up to and including 6,500 tonnes, which is the size of the common new generation Horizon frigate, which is now on the drawing board.
    We must ensure that there are at least two British yards in the Horizon contest to maintain effective competition within the UK. That, in turn, has a considerable effect on exports.
    If that contract were lost in its entirety to Yarrow, Vosper Thornycroft's 1,500 shipbuilding work force would be cut by one third in 1996. Were the orders won, 500 new jobs would be created. That order is therefore vital to Vosper Thornycroft, which can deliver on price, time and to the highest quality standards required by the Royal Navy, and will help secure more export orders for the United Kingdom.
    I add a final footnote. The current world security scene is decidedly disorderly. The stability of the cold war has gone. As an international trading nation, with many remaining small dependent territories and worldwide interests, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) described, it is vital to identify and quantify worldwide risks. To do that, we and our allies need the edge in intelligence. That is costly, and co-operation is essential.
    It is said, rightly, that time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted. I trust that Her Majesty's Government acknowledge that need as part of the priority that they have given to our national security in the Gracious Speech, which I endorse and applaud.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Although this day's debate on the Gracious Speech is assigned to foreign affairs and defence, one cannot escape the conclusion that that is something of a luxury, as only very recently we had the two-day debate on the defence White Paper. Therefore I propose to concentrate rather more on the foreign affairs aspects of the Gracious Speech.
    However, I wish to comment about an issue that was mentioned in that debate as recently as two or three weeks ago, and which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). He is now the distinguished Chairman of the Defence Committee, under whose chairmanship I have the pleasure to serve as a member of that Committee. That issue is the proposal to lease F16 aircraft instead of proceeding with the mid-life update of the Tornado F3.
    The issue was canvassed to some extent in the two-day debate on the defence estimates, but there have been more recent reports suggesting that the F22 might be offered as an incentive to lease the F16. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside acceded to the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans)—that these reports emanate from a mischievous manufacturer of aircraft in the United States. My information is rather different. I believe that some person or persons close to the Secretary of State for Defence has or have suggested some preliminary enthusiasm for the idea. We know,
    168
    following a question that I asked last week, that our fleet of Royal Air Force tankers is not fitted in such a way as to be able to refuel F16 aircraft if we were to lease them. So the possible costs of a proposal of this kind clearly require further investigation than they have so far undergone.
    I do not shrink from the conclusion that if we proceeded to lease F16 aircraft, no matter at what giveaway prices they might be offered, the result could only be deeply damaging to the UK aerospace industry and in particular to British Aerospace. Certainly, if we are offered the F16, it will not come in its more recent variants, the E and the F; we will be offered the A and B versions, currently parked in the deserts of Arizona and for which an alternative resting place is being anxiously sought by those responsible for them.
    If we proceeded in this way and accepted some sort of arrangement involving the F22, how could the Eurofighter project possibly survive? How could the United Kingdom continue to have a capability in this area; and what hope would there be for the HALO project—the high-agility, low-observability aircraft that is already under consideration? We would become wholly dependent on the United States of America.
    It is notable that when such issues of supply of aircraft have been raised in the past between the United States and other countries, the intervention of Congress has often proved an obstacle. Hon. Members may be aware that the Government of Pakistan purchased a number of aircraft from the United States, but because of the intervention of Congress the planes have never been delivered, although they have been paid for. When the Saudi Arabian Government were desirous of purchasing the F15E from the United States they were not allowed to have the aircraft, again because of the intervention of Congress, and had to settle for what came to be described as the F15XS—the same airframe but with less capability than the F15E which the Saudi Government had wanted in the first place.
    The point is that the process makes a country depend entirely on the United States, both industrially and militarily, and on the political will of Congress at the moment such aircraft are due to be supplied.
    Mr. Colvin: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier remarks. Does he recall that the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), spent some time persuading the Italians not to lease F16s but to lease from Britain the F3 Tornado? Having persuaded the Italians to do that, the Government would look pretty stupid if they gave serious consideration to doing the precise opposite.
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I can do no better than echo his description: it would indeed look pretty stupid. But when this point was made to Ministers in the course of the two-day debate on the defence estimates, hon. Members will recall that their response was to the effect that Her Majesty's Government would not be fulfilling their responsibility unless they gave careful consideration to a proposal of this kind. On the contrary; I say that the Government would be guilty of a grave breach of responsibility if they proceeded in this way.

    169
    I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here at the moment. There has always been a relationship between political and procurement issues—so much is undeniable—but it would be wholly unacceptable if some anti-Europeanism were to dictate a procurement decision of this type. An anxiety to cement the Atlantic relationship at the expense of the United Kingdom's capability in this area would be misplaced and would be a price not worth paying.
    On the matter of the reserve forces, it is generally accepted that it is time for new legislation, to take account of the reductions in all three armed services and of the circumstances that obtain following the end of the cold war. I have no doubt that the measure will command, in principle at least, universal support in the House, although there may be some differences of opinion over its detailed provisions.
    Likewise, I deduced a large body of support in the House for the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the middle east peace process. Indeed, he spoke for the whole House when he emphasised the desire of this country and this Parliament to ensure that that process is not stalled or disrupted by the assassination of Mr. Rabin. He spoke rightly of the confidence of the Palestinian people being an important component in the peace process, and referred in particular to his experience in Gaza. I suggest that we should not forget the need to inspire the confidence of the Palestinians in other parts of the territories that are part of the peace process. I think especially of Hebron, where the issue of civil rights is one of acute importance.
    I hope therefore that the Government, accepting the will on the part of this House to support the implementation of the peace process, will not avoid any opportunity to make the point to the Israeli Government that the confidence of the Palestinian people, in Gaza and elsewhere, will be fundamental to the continuation of the peace process.
    The Gracious Speech refers both to the Western European Union and to NATO, and it is right on an occasion such as this, when we are considering wider issues, to mention both. It is important to remind ourselves of precisely what the treaty of Maastricht said. It states that the European Union should
    "assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy … including the eventual framing of a common defence".
    That is rather tentative language; it hardly justifies the assertion made at a seaside town towards the end of the summer that Brussels would tell the United Kingdom how and when to fight. The treaty also says that the WEU should simultaneously be the agent for the European Union's defence identity and become the newly strengthened pillar of NATO. Other provisions in the treaty make it plain that nothing in the treaty is to be allowed to prejudice the obligations towards NATO which subscribers to the treaty have undertaken.
    There is no doubt that we need to make the sort of contribution to our own defence envisaged by the Maastricht treaty. To be tackled effectively, it is self-evident that matters of security must be dealt with on a supranational or international level. Just as our economic success depends on a successful Europe, so I believe our security is better assured through a Europe in which security has a prominent part to play.
    170
    As I have said before in this House, I am firmly of the view that the reduction in defence budgets will drive forward joint procurement and force specialisation as the only ways in which to meet the costs of advancing technology and to continue to provide a range of capability sufficient to meet any requirements that may present themselves.
    I have no doubt that Britain's long-term security will be best achieved through a continuing American interest in Europe. We have a unique—although perhaps not a special—relationship with the United States. Our most recent ambassador to the United States, Sir Robin Renwick, spent much of his time in Washington trying to discourage the use of the phrase "special relationship". However, the two countries have a unique relationship in some respects, particularly in relation to the transfer of missile technology. The United Kingdom is the only country to which the United States supplies the Trident weapons system and it is the only country to which the United States is willing to sell the Tomahawk cruise missile.
    However, we must remember that opinion in the United States about such matters is not set in concrete, any more than our attitudes are. Undoubtedly, in the United States there is a greater degree of interest in the Pacific than there has been for a considerable time. That means that there is an expectation—I believe it is entirely justified—that Europe will undertake greater responsibility for our own defence than we have in recent times. I believe that that can be best achieved through a higher degree of integration, block by block and step by step, among the countries of the European Union.
    In the matter of the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to which reference has been made, there would be very little point in enlarging it if the consequence was to weaken or to dilute NATO's collective defensive response, which the relevant article of the Washington treaty provides. It must be pointed out that that response involves nuclear means if necessary.
    When people talk about a diminution of sovereignty if the United Kingdom accepts the social chapter, they should ask themselves what is a greater diminution of sovereignty: the acceptance of common standards in relation to maternity leave and things of that kind, or the acceptance of a treaty obligation that requires one to go to war in defence of any of 15 other countries, using nuclear means if necessary?
    In the post-cold war environment I believe that a European defence policy is inevitable and is entirely consistent with NATO. However, we will not suddenly wake up and say, "Today is the dawning of the European defence policy." Such a policy will emerge on a case-by-case basis—block by block and step by step—and if at some stage any of the parties to that process wish to reverse it or to stand aside from it, they will be able to do so. NATO provides the transatlantic link between Europe and north America. The European defence policy is a recognition of Europe's obligation to assume greater responsibility for its defence.
    I turn briefly to the issue of NATO and Russia. Russia is special and, as such, must have special arrangements. Any effort to expand NATO to the borders of Russia without putting special arrangements in place could prove extremely destabilising. With the approaching two elections in Russia—for the Parliament and, in due

    171
    course, for the presidency—we must recognise that a stable Russia, continuing on the path to reform and gradually adopting the kind of democratic institutions of which we would approve, is very much in our interests. We must be extremely careful about doing anything that might destabilise Russia or divert it from its path of reform.
    On the matter of nuclear weapons, the Gracious Speech says that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the
    "Preventing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority".
    With the signing of the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in May this year, those with an interest in nuclear disarmament—whether multilateral or unilateral—might have enjoyed feelings of hope and of optimism. Much of that optimism has been blunted by the French nuclear testing in the south Pacific, and let us not forget also the nuclear testing by the Chinese Government.
    I cannot help thinking that we would have been better able to criticise the Chinese Government's decision to embark upon a series of nuclear tests if we had adopted a similarly critical attitude toward the French Government. If we accept the tests that the French Government have embarked upon—and which our Government are unwilling to criticise—I do not believe that our Government can then be critical of the Chinese Government. If one reads the exchanges from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty negotiations, it becomes clear that many of what used to be called the "non-aligned" nations—particularly the group of countries led principally by Egypt and Mexico—would have been very reluctant to sign an indefinite extension of the treaty if they had been aware that two of the nuclear powers which are permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations were intent upon embarking on a series of explosive nuclear tests soon after the treaty negotiations were completed.
    Her Majesty's Government say that they will pursue negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty. I hope that all hon. Members support that course of action. However, we must remember that our ability to test at all is entirely dependent upon the good will of the United States. When President Bush announced a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, Her Majesty's Government did not accede to it, at least in theory, for some time—although they had no option but to do so in practice. I hope that the Government will pursue the matter with considerable vigour and enthusiasm. I believe that the signing of such a treaty would be an important milestone in long-term efforts to achieve a reduction in our reliance upon nuclear weapons for our defence.
    I was interested to note that in the exchanges between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), there was some dispute about public opinion. It is not just public opinion in the United Kingdom that is opposed to the French programme of explosive nuclear testing; the majority of public opinion in France is opposed to the tests. I do not suggest that we should always follow public opinion, but if one is seeking to gauge where the political balance lies on the issue, it is surely relevant to take some account of domestic public opinion in the country that is carrying out the tests.
    172
    As to the chemical weapons convention, I believe that there is a sense of relief among those who have taken an interest in the matter that at last the Government are getting around to ratifying it, as is foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech. I certainly welcome the proposed legislation, but it must be examined carefully to ensure that it is sufficiently strong and that its terms are adequate to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with the provisions of the treaty and that we can demonstrate that fact to the rest of the world. I would like the United Kingdom to adopt best practice in its implementation of the treaty and to play a leading role in the international organisation that will be established to oversee the general health of the treaty.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred to the United Nations and he correctly drew our attention to the fact that it is much criticised and that many of its achievements are unsung. It is clear that the world is becoming more tribal: disputes are as likely to occur within states as they are to occur between states. That prompted the Secretary-General of the United Nations to produce a document some 18 months or two years ago entitled "Agenda for Peace". Apart from some initial attention, it has not received much scrutiny.
    The Secretary-General said that the classic definition of sovereignty and the immunity from intervention that members of the United Nations enjoy under its charter may need to be reviewed. Internal instability—rather than instability between states—could have environmental, political or other consequences. It must surely be for consideration as to whether, in certain specific circumstances, the international community should have the right to intervene.
    The United Nations has the opportunity to increase its responsibility, but it has more to be responsible for and in rather less clear cut circumstances than in the past. One thing is certain: deterrence is always cheaper than war. In 1988, the peacekeeping budget was $230.4 million. In 1994, it was $3,610 million. Over the same period, the number of military personal increased from 9,570 in 1988 to 73,393 in 1994. Between January 1992 and January 1995, 11 new peacekeeping operations were established, 82 per cent. of which involved internal conflicts.
    The United Nations will not be able to operate unless all its members pay their dues on time. In that regard, we cannot ignore the fact that the United States has shown continuing reluctance to do so. That reluctance springs from doubt about the utility of the United Nations and we should bear that carefully in mind. If the United States ever took a similar view towards NATO, for example, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which dues might not be paid to that institution.
    That reluctance to pay for peacekeeping, or the regular dues of membership, makes it necessary to reform the bureaucracy and the institutions of the United Nations so that it can better perform the responsibilities that we heap upon it. We need a United Nations agency for the prevention and suppression of conflict. We need to re-establish the United Nations military staff committee and we need a staff college so that those we send to carry out the difficult and dangerous activity of peacekeeping, shading as it sometimes does into peacemaking, are properly trained and understand just how different it is from high-intensity warfare.

    173
    The United Nations may well need its own independent intelligence-gathering organisation and at some time in the future we must surely determine whether its interests are best served by a standing force or by assigned forces, which can move at much shorter notice than the time it takes those contributing nations that participate in peacekeeping operations to deploy their forces.
    For the foreseeable future, the effectiveness of the United Nations will be related to the extent to which the United States is fully engaged politically, militarily and economically. We must ensure that the confidence of the United States in the United Nations is maintained, but we have also to ensure that the United Nations does not become the implement by which the policy of the State Department is carried out. There is a difficult balance to strike, but unless it is properly struck, the United Nations will lack the resources to do what we ask of it, or alternatively it will become no more than the handmaiden of United States policy.
    In regard to Europe, I do not want to add very much to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said yesterday. I believe that four principles should direct the attitude of the United Kingdom at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
    First, we should reaffirm the proposition of the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom should be at the heart of Europe. Secondly, we should declare our intention to join the single European currency, if one is created and if the financial criteria are met, and we should be part of the preparations for that. Thirdly, we should declare that we seek the rigorous application of the principle of subsidiarity and the reform and reduction of bureaucracy. Finally, more for our domestic consideration than for the consideration of those with whom we shall be in negotiation at the IGC, we should declare that any substantial change in the constitutional arrangements between the United Kingdom and the European Union should be the subject of a referendum, so that the people of the United Kingdom can pass their judgment on what is proposed.
    I should like to say more, but I am well aware that others are waiting to speak. In regard to aid, I hope that the rumours in September that there is to be a 12 per cent. cut in the aid budget are unfounded. I suppose there is a danger that if something less than 12 per cent. is cut, we will regard it as a victory. A 12 per cent. cut in the budget would mean a 40 per cent. cut in our bilateral aid to the poorest countries.
    I do not shrink from saying that we have a moral responsibility. It would be quite wrong for us to cut what we give at the moment. We should remember that at the Rio summit the Government said that they agreed to and were doing their best to work towards the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. The principal aim of the aid budget should be to assist the poor to achieve sustainable social, political and economic development. That cannot be achieved by cuts in the budget.
    In conclusion, in foreign policy we must surely have the foresight and determination to exercise value judgments as to which countries benefit from relations with Britain. Those that permanently flout human rights with oppressive regimes should not benefit from such
    174
    relations. We should not accept in any part of the world any departure from those high standards. We should be robust in our criticism of Nigeria, where there was deliberate provocative, calculated, cruel and inhuman behaviour constituting a gross violation of human rights.
    Totalitarian behaviour is surely unacceptable in a Commonwealth of which Her Majesty remains the head. I hope that sanctions, to which I referred in an intervention and others mentioned in their speeches, will be given serious consideration. I return to the examples that I quoted. We still maintain sanctions against Iraq because we believe they help to drive Saddam Hussein to implement all the Security Council resolutions. We have maintained sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro because we believe—and some suggest that we have been successful in this—that it is one way to persuade Mr. Milosevic to take a less difficult and obdurate line. If sanctions operate in those circumstances, we must give serious consideration to whether they will operate in the circumstances of Nigeria.
    President Clinton was elected on the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid" as the electorate of the United States punished President Bush for the amount of time that he spent on foreign affairs. Governments are often elected on domestic policies, but as President Clinton soon found out, foreign policies cannot be excluded from consideration. One might argue that foreign policies are more likely to be influential on the reputation of a Government than domestic policies.
    I cannot predict the battleground on which the next general election will be fought, but I am certainly convinced that when it is over and a new Government are installed, they will of necessity require to pay as much attention to foreign policy as to domestic policy and I hope that they will do their best to ensure that the reputation of the United Kingdom is enhanced.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. James Hill: What a glorious year and a half we have had in the United Kingdom. We have celebrated the 50th anniversaries of the Normandy landings, VE day and VJ day. If any Members attended any of the parades, I am sure that they would have had great respect for the Old Contemptibles. They were still military in their mode; they were able to turn out in any weather—I remember getting drenched just viewing them at Portsmouth one morning. It was a glorious time for the old soldiers.
    The Normandy landings thrilled me most of all. I have in mind the scaling of the cliffs. It could be said that the Americans had the worst part of the beaches. The men were tied down for many a long hour and there were considerable losses.
    It is said now, unfortunately, that we have no rapport with the United States and there is no longer any special feeling. Surely that is wrong. We have had tremendous rapport with the United States over the past 100 years. Whatever we say in this place will not change that. Our people have tremendous affection for United States service men and they treasure everything that they did during that almost impossible time when we had our backs to the wall. The Normandy landings presented us with a wonderful vista of the true world. We were shown that people were prepared to give their lives for a cause.

    175
    We celebrated VE day, which was spectacular. There were various celebratory functions. When we reached VJ day, we were deeply in sorrow. We thought of the people on the Burma railway who were treated so abominably by the Japanese. There was a massive number of deaths as a result of fevers such as malaria and beriberi. Those people experienced all the dreadful illnesses that result from an inadequate diet.
    A friend of mine in Southampton, Fred Gilley—he is dead now—contracted leukaemia during the building of the Burma railway. I have talked to the old boys who were with him and in other areas. It is clear that they carried on in spite of all their difficulties. I was shocked when they told me that they had been compensated by the Japanese Government to the tune of £74 for everything that they had suffered while in prisoner of war camps. Not many of them recovered from the experience. My friend, Fred, had leukaemia for the rest of his life. He had to go to hospital regularly to have a complete blood change.
    If we are to be friendly with the Japanese, I hope that we can find a way of resurrecting the issue of compensation for those who were treated so badly in the Burma campaign. There cannot be many victims alive now. Cabinet Ministers and perhaps Back-Bench committees should raise the issue again. To be awarded £74 in full settlement is not good compensation.
    In Southampton, at Marchwood, we have the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—in other words, supply ships. Hardly anyone ever hears of them. We see aircraft carriers and battle cruisers, which small and underarmed ships must follow to refuel or restock, or even to provide with NAAFI stores. By and large, they are stationed at Marchwood.
    Mr. Colvin: In my constituency.
    Mr. Hill: Indeed, but more facilities must be provided. There is the quaint idea that we cannot build a port at Marchwood Wood because the vergers of the New Forest may not agree. We are stifled when it comes to expanding Marchwood.
    Mr. Colvin: The Marchwood military port has been substantially enlarged. It is probably the most comprehensive and modern military port in the world, and certainly in Europe. The problem is that a short distance along the coast at Dibden bay—an area that has been formed from the dredgings of the Solent over the years to enable vessels to sail to and from my hon. Friend's constituency—dredgings have been dumped and 700 to 800 acres of wasteland have been created. Controversy now rages. Should the port of Southampton, which following the abolition of the national dock labour scheme is becoming an outstanding financial success, extend to the other side of the Solent?
    Mr. Hill: That is illuminating. My hon. Friend is talking about a commercial project. I do not associate Marchwood or the Royal Fleet Auxiliary with anything that is commercial. It is—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend has outlined a battle that must be fought between the various local councils. As he says, the port of Southampton is doing extremely well. It can handle the largest container ships in the world. We know—[Interruption.] Of course, dredging must take place if those vessels are to reach container ports. Without being fanciful, I believe that the area could become a mini-Hong Kong in handling container traffic.
    176
    I am talking about Marchwood and not the port of Southampton. We know that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has grown and must grow—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The conversation between the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has continued for too long. It is interesting, but we are talking about foreign affairs and defence.
    Mr. Hill: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend for his interruptions. The stage was reached when I had to give way.
    I shall return immediately to our forces. I do not know whether anyone in the Chamber remembers that there used to be a Hampshire regiment. It became the regiment of the Princess of Wales. We are all aware of the difficulty in that area. I think that there is a roving role for the Princess of Wales as an ambassador. This might give my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary something to think about. A job must be found for her. After all, she has a wonderful personality. She would be invaluable in terms of trade with the eastern world.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Princess of Wales might enhance her chances of being given such a role if she decided not to go forward with a certain programme on Monday next week?
    Mr. Hill rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test would be wise not to respond to that question.
    Mr. Hill: I would merely say that no one has seen the programme to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) refers.
    We should return to the debate. I often say that in Committee. I support the impassioned plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on behalf of Vosper Thornycroft. Some of its employees who live in his constituency may become unemployed. That, too, would be the position in my constituency. We need a type 23 contract. Vosper Thornycroft is geared up for it. Possibly it did not win as many contracts as it should have in the past, but it is now highly specialised. I have been around the shipyard several times, and there is not a better yard for building naval vessels in the whole of the European Union. It is waiting anxiously for a contract from the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Colvin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I promise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to start indulging in a corner conversation this time.
    Does my hon. Friend not believe that, in a debate on a matter that is so crucial to the area that we both represent, the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who are not here, should be present in the Chamber, as this is the last opportunity that the House will have to debate the matter, and we are told that the Ministry of Defence is likely to reach a decision on the contract before Christmas?
    Mr. Hill: I shall be guided by you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will obviously say that it would not be proper to say anything at this stage. The hon. Members

    177
    concerned obviously have extremely important engagements somewhere, but it is a missed opportunity for both of them—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I always wonder what use such points are in a debate. Sometimes they are of very little use.
    Mr. Hill: One of the little jobs that I have done in the House of Commons for many years is to be a member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. It was only a few weeks ago that Herr Kohl came to Strasbourg to make a speech, in which, to my amazement, he said that whereas five years ago there were only 24 member states of the Council of Europe, there are now 42. It is getting a bit out of hand. Everyone wants to join—the functionaries of the Council of Europe want them to join—but I wonder whether the facilities are there for such a number.
    The WEU is heading precisely the same way. There will be many more applications to become members, as more and more people join the Council of Europe as the first step, but then wish to come to the WEU. The highlight of the WEU was when it put forward a defence plan in the Persian gulf—as I still call it—with minesweepers and finance before the war with Iraq took place. There was almost a perfect plan for co-operation among the nine members. I heard earlier that France may have to be excluded from the WEU if it does not join NATO. That is a very strong statement, because France, for years, has said that it would not join NATO. Indeed, to my knowledge it still has not done so. But it is there, probably in an advisory capacity.
    At a working level, we have had a very able president of the WEU for the past two years. The WEU is sometimes overlooked in the House. It seems as if no papers over here report anything. No hon. Members seem to come back and push the word around. We do not all succeed in alerting our fellow colleagues to the importance of the WEU. I am pleased to see that, at long last, the Government are beginning to observe.
    I heard earlier that it is hoped that there will be a smooth transfer of power in Hong Kong. We all hope that. Are the signs good? They seem to vary from day to day. The whole House should do its best to ensure that, in Hong Kong, and in our relations with China, we do not make ridiculously strong statements that could affect the Chinese. There is some good will to work on that. It really is up to the Government to promote a smooth transition in 1997.
    6.14 pm
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I shall concentrate solely on the middle east and on the part of the Gracious Speech that referred to the determination of not only Her Majesty's Government but everyone in all parts of the House to pursue the middle east peace process.
    I had the good fortune to meet Yitzhak Rabin in March this year, although I knew of his actions and his activities, when he attended the socialist international middle east committee, which met in Tel Aviv. He spoke passionately of his determination to achieve peace and security. He impressed everyone, even those who, perhaps, had disagreed with him in the past over the way in which,
    178
    when he was the military commander of the west bank, he introduced his policy of breaking bones in an effort to break the intifada—the uprising by the Palestinian community on the west bank. From a man of war, he turned into a man determined to work for peace and security in that area, and he impressed everyone who listened to him at that time.
    Yitzhak Rabin was very clear in his determination to pursue that peace process, despite the opposition against him and despite the narrow majority that he had in the Knesset. He made it quite clear to all of us who were present that, as long as he had a majority, even if it was a majority of only one, he would pursue peace. We now know that he paid for peace with his life. To that extent, we all owe him a great debt of gratitude. It is the responsibility of those of us who have been involved in that process for many years to continue that work and ensure that the middle east comes to peace.
    It is difficult to say that any good can come out of anyone's death, but just occasionally when someone dies something happens as a result that helps to ease the pain. I have been very impressed to hear people who have recently returned from the region speak of the role that has been adopted by Yitzhak Rabin's widow, Leah Rabin. It would appear that she has become the conscience of the state. She is an extremely forceful presenter of her husband's agenda and is determined to see its implementation. There seems to be a new mood among the Israeli public. Visitors who have just returned from the region speak of a deep soul searching going on within Israeli society as a result of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
    Much more importantly for all of us who are involved in the middle east is an opinion poll, which has been published in the past few days in Israel, that indicates a dramatic upsurge in support for the peace process—up from the low 50s to 74 per cent. We have been gratified by the fact that the new Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, is just as committed in his determination to press ahead with the peace process. In particular, we welcome his decision to bring forward the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Jenin. It was a bold and very reassuring move, welcomed by all in the middle east, and it is certainly one that needs support. It is important that that withdrawal continues to move ahead, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, there are areas of concern other than Gaza and Jericho. The Israeli forces have now withdrawn from Jenin. They are due to withdraw from Tulkarm by 19 November; from Nablus and Kalkia by 26 November; from Bethlehem by 3 December; from Ramallah by 10 December; and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, from Hebron. No specific timetable is attached to that withdrawal.
    We know that there are specific problems associated with Hebron, and we must allow the Palestinians and the Israelis to work them through. We should, however, be concerned about one area of Hebron, which has been mentioned in the House before—certainly I have raised it on a number of occasions, most recently in correspondence with the Minister of State. On 16 October, I asked him about the new Oslo B agreement relating to the new temporary international presence that is intended to help the withdrawal in Hebron.
    Replying to my letter, the Minister wrote:
    "This is a timely moment to examine the lessons of the last TIPH in May-August 1994."

    179
    I readily agree with that comment, but I should like to know whether the European Union and Israel have drawn the correct conclusions from the mission to ensure that the structural inadequacies and operational shortcomings that featured in the 1994 operation do not occur again. As I have said in the House before, the last international presence in Hebron ended up being protected by the local population, rather than the other way around.
    We know that Norway has been asked to lead the operation, and that two other European states will be involved. We have a responsibility to ensure that, if a new temporary international presence is introduced, we get it right this time.
    In the last few days, the Centre for International Human Rights Enforcement has published a report on the subject. Not only does it review the last TIPH but, more specifically, it sets out guidelines that I suggest the Government should use in their dialogue with our European partners. According to the report, the following questions need to be addressed:

    "a) area of operation and access within that area for TIPH personnel;

    b) the human rights and humanitarian law standards to be applied by the mission;

    c) the transparency of the mission and its ability to build confidence among the Palestinian population of Hebron; and

    d) the related requirement of regular reporting on the activities and efforts of the mission in a manner available to the Palestinian public, as well as to the constituencies of the participating states."

    We have a unique opportunity to get it right—and it is essential that we do get it right. If the withdrawal of Israeli troops does not go ahead, the Palestinian elections cannot take place either.
    Those Palestinian elections are one of the principal objectives of those of us who have been involved in the middle east peace process over many years. We all know that what is needed is a democratically elected Palestinian authority that can not only take control of the west bank and Gaza, but sit down as an equal partner with an elected Israeli Government to pursue the process to a successful conclusion.
    Let me compliment the Foreign Secretary on his first visit to meet the chairman of the Palestine National Authority, Yasser Arafat: I know from my contacts that it was well received. Announcements of further aid will undoubtedly go a long way towards helping the peace process.
    After a very shaky start, the Palestine National Authority is now settling down to its task. The collection of taxes has greatly improved the position, helping to ease the financial difficulties confronting the authority; the signing of the Oslo B interim agreement has also eased the concerns of donor countries. Much remains to be done, however, and I urge the Secretary of State to continue the assistance that the British Government have given so far and to ensure that it reaches those who need it—the Palestinian population on the west bank and in Gaza—as soon as possible.
    We now know that the European Union unit that will oversee the Palestinian elections on 20 January 1996 has been established. The advance guard has been set up on the west bank, and we look forward to the good work that it will do in helping the Palestinians to move towards democracy through democratic elections. Those elections are essential—and I was very pleased to see Andrew
    180
    Sackur's report on last night's "Channel 4 News", which included the registration of Palestinians for the elections by the electoral authority. We wish them every success.
    Even in that area, however, we can do more. Earlier this year, through its Westminster foundation management committee, the Labour party launched a project to involve Palestinian women in the elections in a positive and practical way. The project was launched in April 1995; 139 Palestinian women from all over the west bank and Gaza, representing the different political parties—including the opposition—attended the course. According to a report from Palestinians to the Westminster foundation,
    "The project was very successful both in terms of content and organisation. It will be remembered for having offered a combination of comprehensive, well balanced and much needed skills, techniques and information that satisfied the participating women's needs and encouraged a number of them to participate in the elections as candidates."
    One of those women said:
    "To become a candidate is no longer a mystery … My fears and concerns have disappeared, not because I think it is an easy job, but because now I know what my weaknesses are and I know what to do about them."
    The project was carried out over a two-week period in five different locations: Hebron, Tulkarm, Nablus, Ramallah and Gaza. As I have said, local organisations firmly believe that, if there are women who are likely to participate in the elections, it is more probable that they will come from the group that participated in that project.
    If we are committed to the peace process, we must also welcome the possibility of a dialogue between the Palestine National Authority and Hamas. That also reflects a growing confidence among the Palestinians in their ability to move forward, as one, to the elections. In the House, there has been a good deal of concern about what are regarded as fundamentalist groups—and, where the Palestinian community is concerned, Hamas is certainly regarded by some as one of those groups.
    We should, as I have said, welcome the forthcoming dialogue, which was first hinted at when a member of the Knesset, Talib al-Sani, visited Shaykh Ahmad Yasin, the leader of Hamas, who is currently in an Israeli prison. At that meeting, the leader of Hamas committed himself to the agreement signed by the Palestine National Authority and Israel indicating that Hamas
    "adheres to the regulations banning possession of unlicensed weapons, the supremacy of law … and the right of everyone to take part in the Palestine National Authority."
    Since that announcement, there has been an unofficial dialogue—which will shortly become official—between the Palestine National Authority and Hamas. I welcome the most recent report that I have read, which came from the BBC's monitoring service and which suggested that Dr. Mahmud al-Zahhar, the official spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, had said that it had been agreed that a dialogue should be held in Cairo, rather than Khartoum. He emphasised that the choice of Cairo had positive practical significance for Hamas and its political progress, and said that the early announcement of the formation of a political party for Hamas supporters within a broad Islamic front was intended—along the lines of the Islamic action movement in Jordan. He said that the front would have no interest in military concerns and added that it would operate democratically and that its members would have the right to decide whether to participate in elections.

    181
    Those of us who are committed to the peace process welcome the current dialogue between the Palestine National Authority and Hamas as a further sign of the success of the peace process. If that process is to be successful it must be comprehensive, and Syria and Lebanon must play their part. That is why I welcome the Foreign Secretary's visit to Damascus. He was able to liaise between the Government in Damascus and the Israeli Government. I commend his activities and encourage him and other hon. Members to do all that they can to encourage the Syrian and Lebanese Governments to work closely for a more comprehensive peace in the area.
    For the first time, a joint middle east councils delegation from the House visited Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in July. We were particularly impressed by the commitment to a comprehensive peace in the middle east based on international law and on Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 425. That was set out in great detail by all the Syrian officials whom we met and also by Syria's Foreign Secretary, its Vice-President and its Prime Minister.
    We were deeply impressed by the Lebanese commitment to the principled stand of peace based on international law and Security Council resolutions. The President spoke to us about Hizbollah, an Islamic group that concerns everybody who is involved in the middle east peace process. He made it clear that the members of Hizbollah were Lebanese citizens and that they had the right to participate in Lebanese democracy. The only conditions that they could be asked to accept would be loyalty to Lebanon and a refusal to act on instructions from any other country.
    The Foreign Minister assured the delegation that when Israel committed itself to full withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the Lebanese Government would send their army to stop the resistance and restore democracy. When the Lebanese Government have full control of all Lebanese territory, there will be no cause for Hizbollah to launch attacks on Israel. He welcomed Israel's positive statement that it had no further claims on Lebanese territory or resources, but he wondered when Israel would back that statement with movement on the ground. He insisted that Hizbollah was a political rather than a military problem and said that the day that Israel commits itself to withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hizbollah will lose 60 per cent. of its raison d'être. He also assured us that a full security programme for southern Lebanon could be achieved only within the framework of Security Council resolution 425.
    While we were in the area we raised the question of the Palestinian refugees, and everyone, including the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister made it clear to us that it was an international problem and had to be dealt with by the international community. Although Lebanon could be asked to absorb perhaps a small number of the Palestinian refugees, 400,000 Palestinians could not be left in Lebanon as a continuing focus of resentment and resistance.
    The middle east peace process faces outstanding difficulties. There are refugees not only in southern Lebanon but in other parts of the Arab world. Other problems are Jerusalem, the right to return, settlers,
    182
    boundaries and sovereignty, and the Palestinians and Israelis will have to find solutions. We must also be involved where we can. The international community must be involved with the Palestinian refugees.
    The delegation was struck by the principled position of Syria and Lebanon on the bilateral peace negotiations. We were convinced that it was not just a negotiating tactic but rather that the insistence on a peace agreement that was based firmly on the principles of humanitarian law and Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 425 was sincerely felt and that a practical stand offered the best chance of a comprehensive and sustainable peace in the region. We are close to achieving peace in that area, but it requires the whole House to be committed to the peace process. I commend the actions so far of the Foreign Secretary in the short time that he has been in his job.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. Phil Gallie: I start by apologising to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because I hope that I shall not be here for the winding-up speeches. I hope to return to my constituency.
    Like the hon.Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I had the privilege of meeting Prime Minister Rabin about two and a half years ago. He told us of his vision of peace in the middle east. I respected Mr. Rabin, but I felt that his was a vision too far. However, it is now a reality and that speaks volumes for Prime Minister Rabin.
    I welcome the Gracious Speech and the large amounts that are spent on defence. That is as it should be because for the Government defence has always been a priority. I welcome the maintenance of the United Kingdom's minimum nuclear deterrent commitment. Currently there are difficulties with the Polaris fleet. A Trident submarine is at sea and another is about to be commissioned. The Government showed great vision on that matter. There was a long period of opposition but now Opposition Members seem to have recognised the wisdom of moving along the Trident line. The Gracious Speech shows the Government's intention on the nuclear deterrent.
    I welcome the commitment to encourage a co-operative relationship between NATO and Russia and the offer of further help to countries in central and eastern Europe. Just this week my constituency had visitors from the Ukraine. They were a sign of the Government's commitment to spreading the democratic message. The visitors were from the Rukh party in Ukraine and they came to learn about our democracy and the ways of political parties. No doubt people from such parts of Europe will visit the constituencies of Opposition Members, and that is how it should be. We should try to extend our democracy because it is precious.
    I especially welcome the moves to create flexibility for the reserve forces. I recently welcomed the establishment of a new approach in Scotland—the Lowland brigade—as well as the establishment of A squadron of the Scottish Yeomanry, which places on record the great service that the Ayrshire Yeomanry has given to this country over many years. Also based in my constituency is B company of the 3rd battalion of the Royal Highland Fusiliers. It has a long tradition. The Government's proposals will give those divisions and people who give their time to the Territorial Army much to value and much to do. They have much to give to the country in future.

    183
    I welcome the Government's commitment to signing on to the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I recognise the concerns in recent times over France's tests in the Pacific. I too registered some concerns, but the stance taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is commendable in many ways. It would have been easy for him to sign on to what would have been seen as a populist stance; he did not do so. He stood behind what he believed to be correct and that says a lot about him.
    Perhaps my right hon. Friend was looking to the longer term. Perhaps it would not have been wise to isolate France on that issue. Perhaps there will be benefits. It will be of great value if the signing of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the south Pacific comes about because of this. If we end up with a wider test ban, my right hon. Friend's actions will be seen to have been full and ripe for commendation.
    On the statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Britain's intention to promote wider security interests by contributing to the maintenance of international peace and stability, it is right that Britain commits itself to and stays in Europe and that that commitment to wider security interests is followed. The words are full of merit, but there is a limitation that follows from the peace dividend that everyone in this country expects following the collapse of the Berlin wall.
    We have had "Options for Change" and now we aim at "Front Line First". They put great constrictions on our military forces' capabilities to enter into spheres. We cannot become the policemen for the world: the British taxpayer would not allow it. We have commitments in Bosnia, the Falklands, Kurdistan, the middle east, Rwanda in relation to military medical aid, the Caribbean and Northern Ireland. Who can say what will happen in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein and the IRA have not shown the commitment to the Downing street talks that we would like to believe they gave some years ago. When they start to lay down their arms, it will put us in a much more reliable position to consider Britain's commitment on the military front and may allow us to play a wider role in other regions, but the military is now under great pressure. I recognise that the Reserve Forces Bill may play a part in lessening the effects of reducing personnel in our armed services.
    I am especially privileged to be part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I have spent almost 12 months with the Royal Air Force. Sadly, that is coming to an end, but it has been time especially well spent. I have made 16 visits to strike command stations and bases both in the United Kingdom and beyond. I have spent time at 13 logistics and personnel establishments throughout the UK. The time spent in the air has been exciting, instructional and awe inspiring. Those were tremendous experiences for someone who has just come into Parliament at a late stage in his life and who never believed that he would be flying in fast jets, but that has been opened up to hon. Members.
    More important than that, however, is the fact that ordinary Members of Parliament have been able to get to grips with the armed forces' problems in today's world: the problems of equipment and of the capabilities that that equipment offers. It is just as important for hon. Members to get into contact with personnel at all ranks, and not just with the personnel who serve in the forces, but with their wives and families, an important part of the service ethos.
    184
    There is great trepidation in the RAF. There has been a major reduction in the number of blue suiters, as they call themselves. In 1989, there were 89,000 blue suiters in the RAF. By 1994, that was reduced to about 75,000. By 1999, it will be down to 52,200. That is a tremendous challenge for the individuals who serve in the RAF. It is a major change. Change always creates anxiety in whatever walk of life it affects and it is certainly doing so for service men and service women.
    Across the board, however, those individuals recognise that there must be limitations on budgets and the need for reduction. They want better high-cost equipment and they recognise that one way of attaining it is to have a correlation with manpower reductions. They feel, however, that, rather than hit what appears to be a relatively inflexible service manpower target, financial targets could be better suited to the current position and that perhaps there should be some change in current dependency on fixed manpower figures for the future. I recognise that the Reserve Forces Bill will do something to deal with those problems, but they will not respond in all aspects.
    I do not have time to discuss in detail every aspect of my findings in the scheme, but I shall list the key matters of concern that have been expressed to me and to my colleague and partner from the Opposition, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen). On the negative side, there is disappointment and resentment among people who have served for some 10 years, who have not had any promotions and who inevitably will be out on their ear in a year or two. Many of those individuals may not have been suited to the promotional structure, but they are highly skilled technicians and it will be a loss.
    Difficulties will also accrue with the secondary duties that every service man must undertake. It will be almost impossible to maintain those and there are particular concerns with respect to voluntary aspects such as the role of the mountain rescue teams. There may have to be changes in relation to the involvement of civilians who will fulfil the blue suiter role to an extent, coming in to pick up on voluntary duties.
    Sports activities are often a major feature of the services. Many stations cannot release personnel to fulfil their weekly football and rugby commitments. That is unfortunate. On a more serious side, more and more frequently, as service men pick up on the amount of detachments that come up, there is an adverse affect on families and pressure on marriages. At the same time, among the junior ranks, the number of service marriage breakdowns is reaching crisis point.
    Earlier I referred to changes; this is another feature that we should rethink. There are pressures on the medical provision for service families and pressures in relation to housing. Perhaps there is too much change at this time, when we are asking service men to pick up ever-increasing numbers of detachments. A review would be justified in this sector, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to consider that.
    Without doubt, there is an overall loss of flexibility and, believe it or not, at a time when we are looking at redundancies, a fall-off in the recruitment that is needed for expertise in the future. Perhaps that could be attributed to the loss of town centre recruitment facilities which has

    185
    come about because of budgetary pressures. The employment agencies now fill that role, but I suspect that that is not quite the same as the old recruitment facilities.
    I believe that young people entering the RAF now have a lot to gain for the future. They will gain from the excellent training that they will receive and from the service ethos that still exists. I would encourage young people to consider the RAF and the other military organisations as a positive way of developing their careers.
    I must mention some of the positive things that we have found as we have visited the stations. There is a recognition of the need for change. There is also great pride in the skills that have been achieved within the military. Individuals recognise that they have a valuable role to play in civvy street and valuable skills to take to that role. I hope that one result of the Government's Reserve Forces Bill will be that many of those who leave the services in the next few years will come back in as reservists.
    A determination to succeed still remains within the RAF and will ensure its excellent reputation in the years to come. The new recruits like the detachments. They recognise that they are not looking at the same length of service contracts as those who went before. Some of the current difficulties and the loss of morale may dissipate when the new entrants come to terms with the RAF as it is today rather than as it was before the collapse of the Berlin wall.
    There is stability within the service. "Front Line First" said that we should go so far and no further and I believe that the Government have given a commitment on that. I am slightly worried by the words of Opposition Members when they talk about a defence review. In my experience, whenever we have a defence review, we inevitably end up with downward financial pressures. We should not inflict that upon the military. It is far better to concentrate on the "Front Line First" options. I believe that a daily analysis is made of the pressures and the requirements, and that is how it should be.
    We should review the civilianisation programme within the services, perhaps looking at the financial targets rather than the stringent and inflexible manpower targets. I believe that we should be looking at detachments and at the pressures on family welfare within the services, particularly with respect to health and housing. We should look at establishing precisely our ceiling on commitments for those who serve in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Extending the services beyond their capabilities will do nothing for this country or for those outside it.
    I repeat my welcome for the Gracious Speech and I welcome the Government's commitment now, as in the past, to the defence of the realm.
    6.53 pm
    Mr. Keith Hill: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) spoke with great eloquence and wisdom on the subject of Nigeria. We both represent constituencies in the London borough of Lambeth which has the largest number of Nigerian residents of any borough. We are both in constant touch
    186
    with our Nigerian constituents and we know the shame and anguish that recent events in that country have caused them.
    At business questions on 2 November, two days after the death sentences imposed on Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight colleagues, I called for a statement on Nigeria by the Foreign Secretary and urged a new and tougher sanctions regime by the Commonwealth. Thus, I became the last hon. Member to raise the tragic case of Ken Saro-Wiwa on the Floor of the House before the hangings were carried out. I claim no special virtue for that; scores of hon. Members had already expressed concern about the death sentences in support of early-day motion 1556 and I know that the concern was shared more widely on both sides of the House.
    In the aftermath of what the Prime Minister has termed the "judicial murder" of Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni leaders, concern has turned to outrage here in Parliament, in the country at large and in virtually the entire international community. It is essential that that moral outrage should be translated into effective international action to force the generals out of power. History and the importance of our commercial relationship with Nigeria place special responsibilities on Britain in that initiative.
    If we mean what we say about the nature of the Nigerian regime and its international pariah status, it has implications for not only the conduct of foreign policy but domestic policy and, in particular, the Home Office's treatment of Nigerian political asylum seekers. Those are the issues on which I wish to concentrate.
    Last week the Government had an opportunity to come to the House to announce that Britain was taking the lead in forging a serious sanctions package against Nigeria in advance of the Commonwealth summit. Would that have stopped the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa? Who knows—there were no guarantees. We do know that precious time was lost in prevarication, pious utterances and affirmations of faith in quiet diplomacy in which not only this country but those who should know better were inculpated. Ken Saro-Wiwa's defence counsel, Olisa Agbakoba, wrote to President Mandela saying:
    "Were quiet diplomacy pursued in South Africa … I doubt you would be alive today."
    Is it any surprise that the generals considered themselves to be immune from effective international action? After all, it is now 12 years since the military seized power in Nigeria. During that time Britain has supplied Nigeria with a wide range of weaponry, including Lynx helicopters, Lightning F53 aircraft and some 200 Vickers tanks. Most of the sales were made under Export Credits Guarantee Department cover or other loans financed by the British taxpayer. Nigeria currently owes Britain a colossal £2.3 billion, virtually all of it as a result of arms purchases.
    The annulled presidential elections of 1993 should have been the final writing on the wall for the military regime in Nigeria. I was present for those elections as a member of the international observation team together with three other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is in his place. That international team of observers was united in its conviction that the elections were free and fair and that M. K. O. Abiola had won them fair and square based on a clear majority across all tribes, faiths and regions of the country. Above all, in those elections Nigerians were

    187
    expressing their complete and utter rejection of military rule. Within a month, as is well known, the then head of the provisional ruling council, Babangida, had cynically overturned the elections. Within a year his successor, the yet more ruthless Sani Abacha, incarcerated the elected president, M. K. O. Abiola.
    The response of Britain and the European Union to those events was feeble—some limited visa restriction on military personnel, some limited cuts in aid and a promise to review new defence export licences on a case-by-case basis with a so-called "presumption of denial". Critically, because the Vickers contract had been signed before this qualified embargo came into effect, the junta continued to take delivery of the Victor tanks. Eighteen of those tanks were delivered last year to the Nigerian armoured regiments, which are the backbone of the army and the guarantor of military power.
    Moreover, despite the presumption of denial, we now know that no fewer than 30 export licences were granted for defence exports to Nigeria in the past two years. According to the Government, those licences were for "non-lethal" military equipment, but I have to point out that the Government had exactly the same rule for defence exports to Iraq. That allowed anything from tank and military helicopter spare parts to mortar-locating radar and military communications equipment to be shipped to that country. I do not mind making the presumption that the follow-on parts for Vickers tanks have been included in the defence sales to Nigeria over the past two years.
    Despite constant probing by Labour Members, the Government have consistently refused to disclose details of the sales on the ground of commercial confidentiality. In a written answer, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), explained that it was Government practice not to reveal such details
    "unless requirements of confidentiality are outweighed by the public interest."—[Official Report, 21 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 302.]
    The cat is now well and truly out of the bag about Nigeria. The murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues has brought home the nature of the regime with a vengeance.
    I believe that certain principles are more sacrosanct than the confidentiality of commercial contracts, and not colluding with a bunch of vicious military despots is one such principle. The public need to be reassured that the defence licences to date have not served to sustain these thugs in power, that the arms ban announced by the Prime Minister in Auckland means what it says, that all such contracts will cease to have effect forthwith and that there is absolutely no question of further supplies of defence materials being sent to Nigeria. I call on the Government to disclose details of the defence sales and to offer an absolute guarantee that no more British military equipment will reach Nigeria until the junta is overthrown.
    An embargo on arms sales would strike at the heart of the military regime in Nigeria. It is a matter of urgent necessity that Britain should use all its influence through the United Nations and the European Union to make that embargo stick. However, if military might is the heart of the military regime, its life blood is oil. Indeed, 90 per cent. of Nigeria's state revenues comes from oil sales. Much of that money goes straight to line the pockets of the military kleptocrats who rule that country.
    188
    It is estimated that, during the eight years of the Babangida regime, £9 billion was siphoned off from the oil revenues into the bank accounts of the generals. The Prime Minister was quoted as warning in Auckland that
    "a comprehensive oil embargo would harm the Nigerian people more than it would the ruling military junta".
    He is quite wrong. Has the Prime Minister got any idea of how the vast majority of Nigerians live?
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Yes, he worked there.
    Mr. Hill: He worked there 30 years ago in a bank for eight months. I am not aware that he has been back in the intervening period. If so, he would have discovered that—[Interruption] If the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wants to challenge me on that point, I shall give way. He asks from a sedentary position how long I was there. Does he want to defend the present state of affairs in Nigeria? Does he deny the atrocious conditions in which most Nigerians live and which I am about to outline? Does he want to challenge me on that?
    Mr. Corbyn: It is interesting to note that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has been laughing and giggling all the way through my hon. Friend's comments about Nigeria's appalling human rights record. The Minister is in a position to know what defence equipment was sold to Nigeria and to stop any more going the same way. The very least that the House can expect is an intervention from the Minister to say what he is going to do to restore human rights in Nigeria.
    Mr. Hill: The Minister declines to take the opportunity to do so.
    Dr. Reid: So does the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    Mr. Hill: That reinforces our anxiety about the fact that, although the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that all the options would be examined and that the possibility of sanctions would be kept under review, there is thus, to date, very little solid commitment to effective international action against Nigeria. That is the point of our appeals this evening for effective action.
    I am sure that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be interested to learn that most of the schools in Nigeria are closed most of the time, that the university system has broken down, that there is little or no health provision, that crime is rampant and that the economic system is on the point of collapse. The truth is that the oil revenues have not gone and are not going to the Nigerian people, many of whom face the daily prospect of starvation. The revenues from oil sales have been looted by the generals and their civilian collaborators, who have stashed the money in western banks or squandered it.
    Half of Nigeria's oil goes to Britain and the United States and most of the rest of it goes to Europe as a whole. In other words, an oil embargo agreed by the United States and the European Union would have an immediate and immensely damaging effect on the junta's finances and would seriously weaken its position.
    The Government should take firm action to halt Shell's planned £3 billion natural gas project at Bonny in Ogoniland. Shell is responsible for half the oil extraction in Nigeria. No other company has been more heavily involved in sustaining the generals in power. In Ogoniland

    189
    people say that the fires of Shell are the fires of hell, and it was the rape of Ogoniland in pursuit of oil which led to the creation of Ken Saro-Wiwa's Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People and thus to his murder by the regime.
    It is wholly misleading for Shell to claim that because the project will not come on stream until the turn of the century, it will not assist the current ruling clique. The condition for any such deal will be huge upfront back-handers to the generals. That is why the Shell project should be stopped, and that is why Labour is right to call for the generals' personal assets in the European banks to be frozen. The Government should take the lead in arguing for the necessary Security Council resolution to that effect. I am told that during the Falklands war the assets of the Argentine junta were frozen. That is a clear precedent, and similar action ought to be taken against the Nigerian junta.
    The truth is that the Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have pussy-footed around for too long in their treatment of the Nigerian junta. In August this year, the Commonwealth human rights initiative reported:
    "By almost every human rights criterion, Nigerians are excluded from the guarantees which any Commonwealth country should expect."
    At the same time, however, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was compiling a country report on Nigeria for use by Home Office immigration officials. That report denied extensive human rights abuse in Nigeria, and that guidance has led to the scandalous record of only four grants of political asylum being made to more than 2,000 Nigerians who have applied for that status since the annulment of the election in 1993. If the Government are sincere in their condemnation of the Nigerian regime, they must draw the appropriate conclusions for their treatment of Nigerian political asylum seekers in Britain.
    Ken Saro-Wiwa once said:
    "Nigeria is a great country made small by little leaders".
    What is now required is the imposition of an effective sanctions regime by Britain and the international community, which will fatally weaken the generals and pave the way to a return to democracy and civilised government in that potentially great country.
    7.9 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall not follow the comments of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) save to say that there can be no hon. Member who has not been deeply shocked and, indeed, appalled by the events in Nigeria in recent weeks. My only slight note of criticism of what the hon. Gentleman said, in a very eloquent speech, is that I do not think that he should cast any aspersion on the total commitment of the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister said in Auckland carried with it the support of the overwhelming majority of people in this country, regardless of party or any sort of affiliation.
    It was right that Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth. Many of us thought that—perhaps—Nigeria should have been expelled from the
    190
    Commonwealth, but the judgment that was exercised was a fine one. Perhaps a degree of influence can be exercised in suspending rather than expelling Nigeria. I am content to rely on the total commitment and judgment of the Prime Minister. What was decided last week was entirely appropriate. It is right that the hon. Member for Streatham referred to the matter. It is right that he condemned in the roundest and most explicit terms the activities of what is obviously an abominable regime. I join him in hoping that its days are numbered.
    I listened to the opening speeches and originally decided not to take part. I had thought that the House would be full for foreign affairs. From a personal point of view, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak, but I am sure that I would carry with me hon. Members in all parties in saying that it is a pity that, on this the second day of debating the Queen's Speech, more hon. Members are not taking part in what is in many ways the week's central debate. None the less, I welcomed much of what was mentioned concerning foreign affairs in the Gracious Speech and I shall refer to a few of the commitments given.
    First, I shall deal with the Government's commitment
    "to encourage a co-operative relationship between NATO and Russia,"
    and to
    "offer further help to countries in Central and Eastern Europe to consolidate democratic reforms and build stability and prosperity in the region."
    The events over the past seven or eight years have been as dramatic and cataclysmic as any we have seen in Europe this century. There can be nobody in the House who did not experience a sense of real relief and a thrill when the Berlin wall came down and when those countries that had suffered that long, dark winter of the cold war emerged into a sort of hesitant freedom.
    I do not know what other hon. Members present think, but I feel that, perhaps, we could have done more to encourage and to assist. I think back especially to a conversation that I had when I took a delegation to Czechoslovakia—as it then was—some four years ago. We were received by the Speaker of the Parliament, Alexander Dubcek—one of the most remarkable men whom I have ever met. About 15 Members of both Houses were present and we had two hours of conversations with him.
    Mr. Dubcek talked most movingly of his own career, of the appalling privations of his people and of the way in which he looked particularly towards Britain. As we were about to leave, I said to him, "Mr. President," for that was his title as Speaker of the Parliament, "what would be the message that you would like to give and what message should I take back to Britain?" He said, "It is very simple really. Of all the investment in my country, 85 per cent. at the moment is from Germany. Of the other 15 per cent., very little is from Britain. That is the message you should take back."
    I did indeed take back that message. I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), then Foreign Secretary, and we discussed the matter. Of course he understood and shared the desire to see greater British investment. I do not know the precise figures, and of course Czechoslovakia has split into its constituent parts—the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic—but I felt then and feel now that there was not throughout the

    191
    west, perhaps with the exception of Germany, a sufficiently vibrant response to the coming down of the wall and the ending of the cold war. So I greatly welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to which I referred.
    That commitment ties up inevitably with another in the Queen's Speech. Over the page, we read of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference and the desire to
    "contribute to preparing the Union for further enlargement."
    I believe passionately that if we are to have a peaceful, prosperous and secure Europe through the next century, it is very important that the European Union is enlarged to include the Czech Republic, one hopes Slovakia, certainly Hungary, Poland, later Romania and the Baltic states. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spoke earlier of a Europe stretching from the coast of Brittany to the Urals and I would welcome that. Indeed, I believe that very few hon. Members would not welcome it.
    Of course, such an enlarged Europe would be very different from the current European Union. It is impossible to think of sustaining the structural funds in their present form—not to mention the common agricultural policy in its present form—if it becomes that enlarged Europe. The very institutions will have to change too. One could not necessarily have Commissioners from every single country, especially if the Union takes in Malta and Cyprus, which are already on the list. We could not have Commissioners from everywhere. We certainly could not have a European Parliament that made any sort of sense if it had 1,000 members. That is what we are looking at if we enlarge the Union.
    So there has to be much careful and deep thought at the intergovernmental conference next year and in the discussions leading up to it. I very much hope that that will happen because I would like to see that wider, enlarged Europe. In coming together, there is the greatest guarantee of security.
    There is an analogy in the words of an American friend, to whom I spoke not so long ago and who was in Hawaii. He was walking with a British friend who commented on the number of Japanese premises and the amount of Japanese investment that he could see. The American turned round and said, "Well, if there had been that amount of Japanese investment previously, there would not have been Pearl harbour." The greater the commitment—financial and otherwise—the lesser the chance of conflict. The greater the contact between people, the greater the understanding and the lesser the chance of conflict.
    So, an enlarged Europe, including the countries that I have mentioned, would be the best possible guarantee of a secure, prosperous and peaceful Europe for our children and our grandchildren. Beside that goal, the narrow interpretations of sovereignty—I am not a federalist but a confederalist—pale into insignificance. What matters to individuals above all else is their security. They want to grow up in peace and have a degree of prosperity. Those are old words and slogans but they still ring true and have validity. So I welcome enormously the mention of enlargement in the Gracious Speech.
    I am pleased that the Government are to work for the continued implementation of the principle of subsidiarity, although it is a pretty awful word. Obviously, I welcome
    192
    the efforts to combat fraud, although I sometimes think that we get that out of perspective. Of course it is reprehensible and should be rooted out but, set in the scale of the achievement of the European Union to date, it is a minor problem.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) talked of VE and VJ day. I am not among those who claim that the European Community, the Common Market and now the European Union alone was responsible for maintaining peace in Europe, but it is absolutely clear that, at its core, the alliance between France and Germany has done more to banish the prospect of war from western Europe than any other single factor. We should recognise that fact. Although I greatly welcome what appears to be a new and deeper accord—a new expression of the entente cordiale between Britain and France—when people have returned from meetings of the Council of Ministers in recent years, they have tended to talk of other members of the European Union as if there were a quasi-enmity between us. They are our partners and allies. They are nations with which we must work in ever closer accord if peace, prosperity and stability are to be achieved. I greatly welcome that section of the Gracious Speech.
    I recently spent some time with colleagues in Finland, one of the new members of the European Union. It is an impressive country of remarkable reliability, efficiency, warmth and friendship, which has achieved an enormous amount since the war. Finland has been independent for only 77 or 78 years, emerging from a long, difficult period when it was part of the then Russian empire. Within a matter of 20 or 21 years, there came the period of the "winter war" and then, technically, Finland was on the other side from Britain, although Churchill and Mannerheim maintained a mutual respect. Churchill always regarded Finland as perhaps a co-belligerent of Germany but never an enemy of Britain. Strong ties exist between us. When I was there, it was apparent that Britain was held in the highest possible regard. That was also apparent when the Finnish President came here on a state visit a few weeks ago.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said that Britain was held in high esteem around the world. That is true. I am not being egocentric when I say that other countries around the world regard Britain as a special country. They greatly admire the fact that we are a permanent member of the Security Council, a member of the Group of Seven, a founder and leading member of NATO, as well as an important member of the European Union. They look to our long democratic tradition and the evolution of this place with affection and envy. I was certainly conscious of that in Finland. I visited the fine Parliament of that very democratic country, but the Finnish Government had to walk an extraordinary tightrope, maintaining Finland's freedom and democracy when the cold war was at its height, despite the fact that it had a 1,300 mile long boundary with the Soviet Union.
    Given the regard in which this place is held, we must be careful not to damage it and talk it down. In some of our debates in recent weeks, even hon. Members tended to denigrate this institution. We must also remember that Finland, which is now the easternmost member of the European Union, forms the European Union's border with Russia. It is therefore particularly concerned about some of the issues to which I referred earlier, such as enlargement. It wants the Baltic states and Poland to

    193
    become part of the European Union. It believes that it has a pivotal position—no one can deny that—but it also believes that, given the strength of our democracy, we have a contribution to make in bringing that about. We must not fail the expectations of friends and allies like Finland within the European Union.
    The Gracious Speech also says:
    "A substantial aid programme will be maintained, focused on the poorest countries, to promote sustainable development and good government, including respect for human rights."
    I was particularly glad to see that commitment in the Gracious Speech. This country has an aid record of which we can be proud, without being complacent, but many people are perturbed by recent suggestions that our aid programme will be cut in the forthcoming Budget. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the Front Bench. I hope that he will convey to the Chancellor, as I have already done in writing, my earnest hope that our aid programme will not be cut. Although we have every right to be proud of our programme, we are a great country and we have all the responsibilities consequent upon membership of the organisations that I mentioned a few moments ago. We have a pivotal position in the European Union and it would be shortsighted and unfortunate, to put it mildly, if there were a cut. I do not think that it will be cut in view of the bold and realistic commitment in the Gracious Speech, which I welcome enormously.
    I suppose that I have some of the prejudices—we all have prejudices—of the old paternalistic Tory, but I take pride in the fact that this country built a great empire in the last century and took a degree of civilisation around the world. I never feel apologetic about our imperial past. Of course, we would rather that some episodes in it had not happened. That is inevitable in any human organisation, but the balance sheet is overwhelmingly on the credit side.
    I hold the Commonwealth very dear. I believe that we have a responsibility, and a moral one, to many of the poorer nations. I suppose the poorest one I visited in my capacity as a Member of the House was the Solomon Islands, way down in the South Pacific. People may think, "How wonderful and romantic." Yes, it is beautiful and the people are friendly and delightful, but they live in grinding poverty and their life expectancy is half that of our own. It is therefore most important that such countries should be given every possible help.
    I visited the Solomon Islands in 1988 for the state opening of Parliament. The temperature was 110 deg, the band played "God save the Queen", the Speaker wore his wig and robes and everyone else wore three-piece suits. It was an absolutely marvellous, splendid occasion.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Did the hon. Gentleman wear that pullover?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: No.
    The Solomon Islands is yet another country that looks to us, and has adopted the Westminster model of democracy. Its people talked with great affection about the Houses of Parliament. They talked with gratitude of the aid that they had received from this country. I would never like to think that we let such people down. I am
    194
    therefore glad that the Gracious Speech contains such an explicit—one might say starkly explicit—commitment to aid.
    The Gracious Speech also refers to the reform of the United Nations and efforts to enhance its effectiveness in peacekeeping operations. It also refers to the Government's commitment to promote a negotiated settlement in the former Yugoslavia. Some Members present would not be surprised if, during the course of any speech on foreign affairs, I talked at some length about the former Yugoslavia in general and Bosnia in particular.
    I would like to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and through him to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, that I admire enormously what they have done in the past few months. I believe that the sad catalogue of Bosnia's history from April 1992 has been a dark, dark chapter in post-cold war history. As we have moved towards a new world order, there has not been any other episode that we will look back on with greater regret than the bloodletting of Bosnia, the destruction of so many towns and villages and the wholesale slaughter, maiming and rape of so many. We have spoken about that in the House before.
    In earlier exchanges today, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) intervened on the Foreign Secretary and said that no one side in the conflict is immune from accusations of committing atrocities. He is right, of course. I have never sought to suggest otherwise, but I have always said that the largest share of responsibility for starting the conflict and perpetrating atrocities lies with Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs. I repeated that assertion again this afternoon and the Foreign Secretary accepted it.
    I am extremely glad to note that in recent months, President Milosevic, doubtless continually reminded of how precarious his own economy is by the effect of sanctions, has taken a more constructive part in seeking to bring about a peaceful settlement. I will never be persuaded, however, that he has entirely changed his character, but we must live with such facts.
    I am sad that we must live with the knowledge of a quarter of a million people dead. I believe that had we taken more cohesive, resolute and determined action earlier, that would not have happened. I am delighted that, at long last, real punitive action was taken during the summer. I believe that the exemplary manner in which our forces have behaved brings enormous credit to them. We would not be having talks in Dayton, Ohio or anywhere else had that action not been taken. It was a painful but necessary ingredient in the peace process. I just regret that firmer action was not taken and more united resolve shown earlier on in the conflict. In saying that, I do not cast any aspersions upon our troops, who had to cope for a long time with a fairly hopeless mandate; nor am I singling out for criticism any particular person. I am glad that that action was taken, and I believe that there is now a chance for peace.
    When peace is finally agreed, it is crucial that Bosnia's identity is preserved. It is a nation state, it has been recognised as such and it has its seat at the United Nations. Some people may say that it should never have been given such recognition, but that happened, and we cannot allow a nation state to be snuffed out. If we did, the message that went out for the rest of this century and the century beyond would be dire. We have talked about that before.

    195
    Bosnia must have its territorial integrity respected. Any settlement reached must be a proper one. It must be agreed by all the parties concerned and then it must be internationally guaranteed. The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, made it plain several times in the House that we were fully committed to such an international guarantee. His successor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have confirmed that on numerous occasions in recent months, which is good.
    Britain will play a full part in guaranteeing any settlement, and will do so with the full support of Members from all parts of the House, because if ever there was a need for a bipartisan approach in foreign policy, the former Yugoslavia is it. All the crucial decisions on foreign policy should have bipartisan support.
    The settlement must be a proper peace and it must be monitored. An enormous amount of aid will have to be given to Bosnia and, to a lesser degree, to Croatia—one thinks of Vukovar razed to the ground. Massive international effort will be required to ensure the restabilising, if I can use that word, of the Balkans. If we do not grasp the current opportunity, I am afraid that everything could collapse again into chaos. The spectre of a Balkans war has been suspended—it has not been removed. It is still possible that there could be a Balkans war involving Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece—two NATO countries—and the whole cauldron of the Balkans could erupt.
    There is now a real chance that that will not happen, and we must hope and pray that it does not. I wish Ministers every possible success in ensuring that that does not happen—and I even wish my talkative hon. Friend the Whip success in supporting the Government in that effort.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence must accept that we cannot and must not turn back in any way. We have created an opportunity for a real negotiated settlement, but nothing must be done to make those who perpetrated some of the horrors feel that they can get away with them. I am glad that that subject is mentioned in the Gracious Speech, and I have no hesitation in commending very warmly those sections of the Gracious Speech.
    I know that, in the debate on the Gracious Speech, it is possible to move on to other topics, but I do not intend to do so. I am delighted that this parliamentary day has been devoted to foreign affairs. I wish Ministers every success in difficult negotiations at the intergovernmental conference and in all the other aspects that I spoke of during the coming Session of Parliament.
    7.39 pm
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Three weeks ago from yesterday, I returned from a visit to Australia and New Zealand with a section of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. My colleagues on that visit were three Conservative members of the Committee, including the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
    I came away from the visit convinced of several things. One of them was that, in the next 10 years, not only Australia but New Zealand will have become a republic. Incidentally, the discussions that I participated in showed that that had nothing to do with any animosity towards
    196
    the royal family. Instead, the people I spoke to felt that their sovereignty was sometimes questioned by other states when they were represented at international conferences only by a governor-general.
    However, those people also emphasised the importance of the Commonwealth. They regard the Commonwealth largely as their window to the outside world. If one considers that a small country such as New Zealand, with 3.4 million people, is able to have some influence in southern Africa and can influence events in Asia, one understands why, from the New Zealand perspective, the Commonwealth is regarded as more important than Members of the House often consider it to be.
    People were very worried about the French nuclear tests in the Pacific. I believe that my Conservative colleagues on the Select Committee will agree that we had a preview of what the Prime Minister was to meet a few weeks later. I regret very much the fact that Britain, under the present Government, is the odd man out in Europe and has become the odd man out in the Commonwealth.
    I hope that, in the discussions in the Commonwealth on what to do about Nigeria, we shall not be the odd man out concerning sanctions against Nigeria, including oil sanctions, as we were during the entire struggle against apartheid in South Africa. The Commonwealth will continue, I am sure, even though there is a recalcitrant member of it.
    The Foreign Secretary said that, on foreign affairs, there is much bipartisanship between the political parties. He was correct in saying that there was agreement about many of the issues that he mentioned. However, my main criticism of British foreign policy is that it is all too often reactive rather than proactive. We should be proactive, but we are reactive to many of the troubles in the world.
    The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spoke about Yugoslavia, a subject to which I shall return. He and I may disagree about what has happened in Yugoslavia, but he will probably agree that we were reactive to events rather than proactive. In my opinion, the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia should have been upheld and maintained long ago, and more interest should have been taken in that part of the world.
    We are also reactive, not proactive, in the face of militant Islamic fundamentalism. We should consider now the problems that will confront us in the not-too-distant future. Islamic fundamentalism of the militant type is one of the greatest potential dangers in the world today. All the way from the border of China to the border of Algeria and Morocco, it is a potential danger and a cause of much trouble, as Iran has often tried to export its Islamic revolution.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is right that Hamas will now take the democratic road in Gaza, but Hamas has been influenced by the fundamentalists in Iran. They are probably behind the recent explosion at the American base in Saudi Arabia. Even British and German tourists have met Islamic fundamentalism on their holidays in Egypt.
    The answer lies, as it did in the case of the countries of eastern Europe, in the promotion of good government in that part of the world. Saudi Arabia can hardly be held up as a totem pole of democracy, and that lack of democracy will destabilise countries in that part of the world.

    197
    The second answer that is required, so to speak, is massive economic assistance to the poorer middle eastern countries. Obviously, I do not mean Saudi Arabia. In Egypt, 30,000 people live—day after day, night after night—in a large cemetery in Cairo. Obviously, that is the seed bed for the Islamic fundamentalists. In my book, if we are considering giving overseas aid, we should give a very high priority to countries in that part of the world, such as Egypt.
    The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned the future expansion of NATO. I agreed with his cautionary note; probably, I would more than agree with his cautionary note, because I believe that the expansion of NATO—not the European Union, which is a different consideration—eastward to the borders of the territories of the former Soviet Union would be a potential source of instability in Russia.
    It may be considered unorthodox to say so, but unless we take into account the need to secure the boundaries of Russia and of the other territories of the former Soviet Union, perhaps, one day, people will examine the past and say that the demise of the Soviet Union was one of the most tragic events of the last 10 years of the 20th century—not the end of Stalinism, not the end of the tyranny, but the end of the Soviet Union as an entity.
    I agreed with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), when he said that we were now in a world not of the new order, but of the new disorder. If someone had asked me 10 years ago, "Will your nephew"—the nephew had yet to be born—"ever be involved in warfare?" I should have replied, "Almost certainly not," because of the balance between the two super-powers. If I were asked the same question today, unfortunately, I could not answer so positively because of the nationalisms that have been thrown up as a result of the end of the Soviet Union. That is why it is essential to think again about NATO. We need to envisage a new security structure that embraces Russia, the Ukraine and other east European territories beyond the Vistula.
    One fatal aspect of NATO is the dominance of the United States. Many have said that they welcome American participation in Europe, but we should be wary of such domination. The problem is well illustrated by the current arguments about the future Secretary-General of the organisation. The fact that someone such as Ruud Lubbers is not considered fit to be Secretary-General—
    Mr. Mackinlay: Perhaps the CIA has something on him.
    Mr. Wareing: Possibly, but the Independent of a few days ago reported that someone in the State Department had said that Mr. Lubbers is "not up to speed" on Bosnia. We should not be willing to go along with the American idea of what should happen in that part of the world.
    Although the United States is powerful, economically and militarily, the men in the Pentagon and the State Department lack the sagacity necessary for world leadership. I refer, for instance, to the arguments in Washington about a possible US contribution to a peace force in Bosnia. No one can be sure that the President will get his way, because Congress has its hand on the tiller. That is why the United Kingdom must play a much more positive role in Europe. I do not wish to offend the
    198
    Secretary of State for Defence in the aftermath of his dreadful speech—euphoric chauvinism—to the Conservative party conference, but I believe that there will need to be a common foreign and security policy in Europe.
    I want now to refer to Yugoslavia and the conference in Dayton, Ohio. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire said that the peace has come about—we all hope for peace—simply because "punitive action" has been taken, by which he meant the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs. The fact is, however, that ordinary civilians suffered and died; collateral damage is just another name for the murder of ordinary people. If an imposed peace comes out of Dayton, it can never be a permanent peace. If, as a result of Dayton, Bosnia becomes an occupied country, with the possibility of conflict between the occupying armies and the local population, there will be no peace.
    Nor can there be peace if the Serbs in the Republic of Srbska, now recognised as one of the two Bosnian entities, never have the right of secession. If it is right for the Muslim and Croatian populations in Bosnia to be able to join in a confederation, and if it was right for the Croats and Slovenes to leave Yugoslavia, why is it wrong for Serbs living in Krajina, Croatia or the Srbska republic to demand self-determination too?
    Recently, the United States has definitely encouraged the arming of Croatia. The NATO air attacks in Bosnia—it is too much of a coincidence to believe otherwise—were part and parcel of the action that led to the occupation of Krajina by the Croats. People are fond of referring to the Krajina Serbs as rebel Serbs, even in eastern Slavonia. But the rebels are the Croats: it is they who broke up the former Yugoslavia, not the Serbs living in Bosnia.
    The Americans seem quite prepared—I hope that we shall not follow their example—to ignore 200,000 ethnically cleansed Serbs from Krajina. No one suggests for one moment that the Serbs are guiltless—of course they are not, least of all the Bosnian Serbs. But one would have to go a long way to find 200,000 Muslims or Croats who have been dealt with as badly as the Krajina Serbs.
    I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will comment on all this. When we talk about war criminals, where does Franjo Tudjman figure? Security Council resolution 752 states that Bosnia should be cleared of regular Croat troops. What has been done about that? What are the Government doing to ensure that the resolution is implemented? Croatia is probably now the most ethnically pure state in the whole of the former Yugoslavia. The most multi-ethnic state is Serbia itself, with its Hungarians, Croats, Albanians—the Albanians not always as well treated as they should be—and Muslims living together.
    The Serbs in Croatia have been treated deplorably; I am afraid that the outside world is turning a blind eye to that. Elderly folk left behind when the younger people fled have been murdered in their villages, despite assurances from Tudjman that they would be quite safe. The young people fled because they knew what was going to happen, and indeed it did happen to the old people who were left behind.
    The situation was well summed up in a Financial Times editorial of Tuesday 14 November:
    "The Serbs in Croatia are perceived as the guilty party, because of the acts committed on their behalf by the Yugoslav army in 1991. But the fact is they found themselves in an independent Croatia

    199
    without having any say in the matter. The last time that happened, during the second world war, many thousands of them were massacred. President Tudjman made no serious attempt to allay their fears that this might happen again. Instead he adopted the same flag and currency as the wartime fascist state, and named streets after some of its less savoury leaders."
    We ignore those events at our peril. As I said earlier, an imposed peace can never be a permanent peace. Those who are interested can read about what happened following the signing of the treaty of Versailles; there is plenty of literature on the subject. Any solution in the Balkans must be based on an even-handed approach to all the nationalities in the region.
    I also ask the Secretary of State to address the issue of Guatemala. Many people are concerned about what is happening in that country. After 7 December, Alfonso Portillo—I trust that he is no relation of the Secretary of State—may be installed in government. He is regarded as the stooge of Rios Montt, who is a previous dictator of that country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I have visited Belize, and a few years ago the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) asked us what we thought of his idea of withdrawing British defence forces in order to save £9 million. We both replied that we thought that it was a ludicrous proposition. Although the situation in Guatemala looked peaceful at that time and Belize had been scrubbed from Guatemalan maps, the country was basically unstable.
    The British forces engaged in valuable jungle training in south America—one of the few areas of the world where that is possible—and they also performed a useful role on the drug trail from Colombia. My hon. Friend and I witnessed them in action and were present when they discovered some drugs. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the situation, which led to the defeat of the then Prime Minister of Belize at the last election.
    Finally, I repeat my plea to the Secretary of State: for goodness' sake, let Britain have a proactive and not a reactive foreign policy.
    8.1 pm
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I hope that I will not ruin the reselection chances of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)—
    Mr. Wareing: I have already been reselected.
    Mr. Garnier: I am delighted to hear it. I have always had a particular fondness for the hon. Gentleman; I have kept that to myself, but I shall reveal it this evening. He spoke immediately after me when I made my maiden speech in May 1992 and he remarked very kindly about my slight contribution to the Second Reading debate on Maastricht. It was about 12.30 in the morning and he was one of the few hon. Members present in the Chamber to hear me. I was glad that he was there and I was very grateful for his kind comments.
    Hon. Members will be used to hearing references to the "thin red line" in defence debates, but at present I feel as though I am the sole blue dot in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, it is regrettable—although understandable—that few hon. Members are present to debate two of the things that the Conservatives are rather
    200
    good at: defence and foreign affairs. However, every cloud has a silver lining, and I shall be able to speak for more than five minutes before 9.15 pm.
    I shall not try to compete with the travel experiences to which right hon. and hon. Members have referred tonight. The hon. Member for West Derby has been all over the world in the pursuit of knowledge, and he has led many other hon. Members who have travelled to countries such as Nigeria, if not Guatemala. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) has visited Nigeria, and tonight he spoke most eloquently and passionately of his concerns about the state of affairs in that country.
    I must confess that my only connection with Nigeria—although it is not a recent one—involves weapons. It concerns my grandfather, who was injured by a poisoned spear during a colonial skirmish before the first world war. I still have the spear, although it is no longer poisoned. I appreciate the distress of the hon. Gentleman and those who share his views about the export of arms to Nigeria. However, arms sanctions would not have assisted my grandfather in 1910 or 1911 when he served with the 5th Fusiliers as a young subaltern, as I do not believe that we exported spears in those days.
    I shall deal now with the substance of the Gracious Speech and the issues of defence and foreign affairs. Like other Conservative Members, I am delighted to see a reference to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the early paragraphs of the Gracious Speech. Her Majesty said:
    "My Government will encourage a co-operative relationship between NATO and Russia, and will offer further help to countries in Central and Eastern Europe to consolidate democratic reforms".
    We must be careful not to promise more than we can deliver at this stage, and we must be careful not to raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled. Nevertheless, the general principle behind the words in the Gracious Speech should be applauded, and I do so.
    I refer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to a question that I asked of the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions on 2 February this year. I asked my right hon. Friend to confirm the Government's commitment to preserving the front-line strength of our armed forces. I also asked him to contrast the Government's policy with the Opposition's only defence policy, which is to cut and cut again. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister answered in very forthright terms. He said:
    "We are committed to stability for the armed forces".
    He went on to say that he had given that promise during a recent visit to the Camberley staff college. He continued:
    "I made it clear that the big upheavals in the armed forces are over. The level of front-line manpower has been set and we do not intend to reduce it".
    He told me that I could be reassured about the matter. He went on:
    "Nor do we intend to adopt Labour's policy of scrapping nuclear defence, or a fresh defence review bringing uncertainty to each and every area of the defence services".—[Official Report, 2 February 1995; Vol. 253, c. 1215.]
    Those words were a source of great encouragement to me and I trust that all hon. Members will remember them for many years. I am sure that they brought comfort to members of the armed forces.

    201
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), I have enjoyed my service with the parliamentary armed forces scheme. It is a valuable scheme and I commend it to those hon. Members who have not yet experienced it. It provides hon. Members who have no direct military experience with an insight into the way in which our modern armed forces operate. It is instructive for those of us who live and work in the somewhat febrile atmosphere of politics to see that the qualities of loyalty, stability and certainty survive within the armed forces, although we do not often see them elsewhere.
    I can tell you how to make a regimental sergeant major blanch, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have seen a Labour Member of Parliament do just that. When asked what Labour's defence policy will be in government, Labour Members will reply, "We will have a fundamental defence review." Upon hearing that, all the colour will immediately drain from the face of a regimental sergeant major, because the one thing that our armed forces do not want is yet another review that will cause further instability. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm in his winding-up speech that the promise of stability given to the House by the Prime Minister on 2 February will be made again and again.
    May I also echo my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who praised the work of the Foreign Office and our diplomats overseas. They are often the subject of ill-informed abuse, which is unfair and ignorant. The work of our embassy and diplomatic staff at home and abroad, in conjunction with the work of seconded staff to the Foreign Office such as those from the Department of Trade and Industry, is much admired, and there is much to be admired. I recommend that hon. Members who have a chance to go abroad—
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Should do so.
    Mr. Garnier: Indeed, they should do so. Some have done so already. I hope that they made a point of calling on our embassies and high commissioners to see the calibre of the staff. Despite the abuse from those who are less informed, they do a marvellous job. As others have mentioned, their work to encourage investment into Britain is second to none and requires frequent praise.
    The United Kingdom has traditionally taken a somewhat detached view of European affairs, intervening directly only when her vital interests were affected by some threat to the balance of power. In general terms—I stress the word "general"—from the 17th century onwards our trading links have been predominantly with the world beyond Europe where we have left the old great powers of Russia, Prussia, the Austrian empire and France to work things out among themselves.
    That detached attitude towards Europe is best encapsulated by the words of the Marquess of Salisbury, Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in the last years of the 19th century:
    "English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boat-hook to avoid collisions.".
    In uttering those words, Lord Salisbury was guilty of no more than typical English understatement, but perhaps the style as much as the substance of British policy in Europe has led to some of the misunderstandings of what the United Kingdom does and intends.
    202
    The history of Europe is one of conflict. Since the first Roman invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar, we British have been inextricably linked to the European political and diplomatic scene, nearly always acting in concert with allies, though sometimes alone, in the furtherance or protection of our national interests. I use the words "allies" and "interests" advisedly, remembering the words of another great 19th century Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, who remarked that Britain had no eternal allies, but only eternal interests.
    In the past, we have fought alongside certain European powers against others and then alongside our former foes against our former allies, but always with one goal in mind: the restoration and maintenance of a balance of power in Europe because it is through peace and stability that our interests are best served. Some would say "perfide Albion". I prefer "Britannia pragmatica".
    So where does that lead us in considering British policy towards current common foreign and security policy? It is the third pillar of the European Union. Article B of the treaty on European Union states that the objective of the Union is to
    "assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the eventual framing of a Common Defence Policy, which might in time lead to a Common Defence."
    It is important to make a distinction between a common European security policy, which formally came into existence in November 1993 and which perhaps emerged de facto during the 1980s, and a common European defence. The common provisions of the treaty speak of the
    "implementation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy"
    but the framing of a common defence policy is seen only as "eventual"—something that might in time lead to a common defence. There is an awful lot of work to be done before we come anywhere near that.
    Discussion of the effectiveness of the CFSP generally centres on Bosnia. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) wrote in an article in International Affairs in 1994:
    "Bosnia has been regarded widely as a test for CFSP. Indeed, it is sometimes argued the CFSP has been found to be futile because we have not been able to stop the war."
    The failure may be even more damning since the European Community's early involvement in the crisis was heralded as such a success. After the Brioni accords of June 1991, which ended the confrontation between the Federal Yugoslav Government and Slovenia, Jacques Poos, the Luxembourg Foreign Minister and President exclaimed:
    "This is the hour of Europe."
    Within a year, however, much of eastern Croatia had been devastated by war and a new conflict was waged in Bosnia that, to a greater or lesser degree, continued until very recently.
    Numerous reasons have been put forward for that failure. Above all, a peace settlement is dependent on the consent of the warring parties and the failure of independent European action has been shared by the limited success of other institutions such as NATO, the United Nations and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, although with the more active intervention of the United States through NATO, together

    203
    with the deployment of additional United Kingdom and French troops on the ground, there has been considerable movement towards a settlement of the conflict in former Yugoslavia. We all hope that the discussions currently taking place in Dayton, Ohio will lead to a permanent peace. There have been suggestions that I am wrong to be too hopeful, but expressing hope is worthy of repetition. If we remain pessimistic, we may as well give up and go home.
    Those factors do not disguise the persistent problem, which was always visible in European foreign policy making under European political co-operation, and which remains under the CFSP: deep-seated national differences in foreign and economic policy often undermine common European Union action.
    In the former Yugoslavia, for example, European Union policy making has been hindered by the differing historical and geographical perspectives of individual members. For example, traditional German sympathies for Croatia and Greek attachments to Serbia have cut across common positions. Even as war began, Britain, France and Germany were pushing in opposite directions. While London and Paris wished to preserve a unitary Yugoslav state, Germany did not, resulting in much acrimony before the European Union decided to recognise Slovenia and Croatia in January 1992.
    In June 1993, Chancellor Kohl supported President Clinton's policy of lifting the arms embargo on the Muslims in direct opposition to the then policy of Britain and France. At the same time, despite clarifying its constitutional position on the use of force, for political reasons Germany was not able to send troops to join UNPROFOR.
    Others have blamed the European Union's limited impact on Bosnia on institutional weakness and, in particular, on a lack of political will. Certainly, as with the European political co-operation, the CFSP has tended to be reactive, and that refers back to the point made by the hon. Member for West Derby. That may in part be caused by the limited size of CFSP institutions and the bureaucratic consequences of intergovernmentalism. CFSP mechanisms may work well when there is a prepared and long-standing agenda, as for example with the European stability pact, but may prove less effective in producing policies in response to rapidly occurring crises.
    Building consensus among numerous national Governments is often time consuming. Moreover, the fact that the CFSP lacks any significant contingency funding may prove a major disincentive to rapid actions. A further weakness of the CFSP is that it has often depended on the diplomatic resources of the country holding the presidency, although to a large extent the creation of the Troika has overcome that weakness.
    Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but I seek your guidance because my understanding—I hope to be corrected—is that he is the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). [Interruption.] I am sorry to learn that he is no longer the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister, but he is a PPS and it
    204
    seems unusual and unprecedented that a PPS should be brought in to bat because there is nobody else on the Conservative Benches to speak.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Garnier: It is a matter for me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to reply to an offensive remark from an ignorant Member. I am no longer the PPS to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am now delighted to be the PPS to the Law Officers. I have not been brought into the Chamber. I have followed Foreign Office and defence affairs consistently since I became a Member of Parliament. I was elected as secretary of the Back-Bench foreign affairs committee within days of being elected a Member. I have made a point of following foreign affairs since then.
    I hope that I may be allowed to continue. My contribution may not interest the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) but I am surprised that he is offended by it. On other occasions, I have found him to be a rather more reasonable fellow. It may be that, as we come nearer to the election, the gloves must come off. He may have to think of reasons for interrupting and making a nuisance of himself.
    I was about to make a general point before the minor disturbance on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway. It may be easy for national Governments to blame European Union institutions for their indecision. European leaders, fearful of a lack of public support for the number of casualties in Bosnia that might be consequent on large-scale military European action in former Yugoslavia, have shown themselves hesitant to intervene. Perhaps more significantly, with member states faced with budgetary deficits and a desire to capitalise on the peace dividend resulting from the end of the cold war, European Treasuries have been reluctant to finance the cost of intervention. Despite the changes brought by the CFSP, European foreign and defence policies are faced with a large discrepancy between declaration and reality.
    The question is whether the CFSP and European defence co-operation can become more effective or whether The Guardian, which I suspect the hon. Member for Thurrock reads more often than me, was right to suggest in June 1993—
    Mr. Mackinlay: I read The Daily Telegraph.
    Mr. Garnier:—that the very notion of a common foreign and security policy was always a utopian chimera.
    Britain, which has throughout been influential in European foreign policy, has said that it favours limited changes to CFSP structures and improved mechanisms for intergovernmental and interinstitutional co-operation. In his article, to which I have referred, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney considered the future of the CFSP. He wrote:
    "The danger is that we allow ourselves to be side-tracked from the real business of foreign policy co-operation by becoming embroiled in bureaucratic wrangles over minutiae: process not policy. There is the danger too, that CFSP will develop into a complex and cumbersome system bogged down by bureaucracy and doctrine".
    He added that Britain favours development of the CFSP
    "by consent, not by coercion, and with the flexibility to act and react quickly and imaginatively without the legal and procedural constraints of Community practice."

    205
    A strengthened CFSP secretariat, my right hon. Friend said, should include a small forward-planning unit that might, for example, provide contingencies for the council to consider in reaction to a particular event. That would contribute to
    "a flexibility which allows ministers to respond to fast-moving events … CFSP should lead from common analyses through common policy to common actions."
    There is no doubt that defence and security will be important issues at the intergovernmental conference. The review at the IGC should take account of the overriding and continuing importance of NATO; of developments in western Europe since the signing of the treaty on European union that affect the shared interests and common security of member states; of progress in the implementation of economic and political reforms in the countries of central and eastern Europe, including the development of new partnerships with western institutions and the perspective of their enlargement; and of the future potential for instability that might lead to challenges to European interests and to conflict and suffering that European states will wish to prevent or relieve.
    The United Kingdom is irrevocably part of the European Union. We wish to see a Europe that is outward looking rather than introspective, pulling its full weight internationally and acting as a power for good in the world. We want a Europe that encourages and allows flexibility, recognising the diversity of its members rather than trying to impose undue conformity. Its development must be realistic, attainable and supported by its peoples.
    As for defence and security, I hope that we shall carry into the debate a firm view that European nations should develop arrangements for the future that will ensure that, consistent with our NATO obligations, Europe collectively is able to shoulder more effectively its share of the burden of promoting security and stability on the continent, on its periphery and beyond. We shall also want to see arrangements put in place that ensure that the burden is shared equitably among European nations.
    The Western European Union has an important and growing role to play in the development of a European security and defence identity. There is a close relationship between the WEU and the security guarantee contained in the Brussels treaty and NATO with the security guarantee that is contained in the Washington treaty. We have worked over the past decade since the reactivation of the WEU to develop its ability to contribute to the European pillar of NATO, which is the means of enhancing the European contribution to NATO's actions and of taking our fair share, with our north American allies, of the burden of ensuring our common security. The consequence of the decisions taken at Maastricht is that the WEU is now being developed into having a dual capacity, not only as a means of contributing to the European pillar of NATO but as the defence component of the European Union.
    Definition of the European defence policy should start with a proper assessment of what Europeans can realistically expect to do together. Surely it would be wasteful to develop separate and wholly European military structures. Europe should capitalise on the foundation that has been built in NATO so that it is able to continue to provide the basis of our common defence
    206
    and security and we are able to preserve and further develop a basis for bringing together coalitions of European and north American forces for major combat operations as, for example, we saw in the Gulf.
    In that context, the WEU's role should be to act as a more effective European pillar of the alliance. In the new strategic environment, however, military forces are more likely to be used for lesser crisis-management tasks; for peace support operations and in support of those working for the United Nations or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
    NATO structures and capabilities are being adapted to allow the WEU to undertake the new tasks to which I have referred. It would be unreasonable, however, to expect the United States and Canada to participate in every such mission in future. There must be genuine burden sharing. Although we do not doubt the commitment of our north American allies to our common defence, we should not overstrain that commitment by expecting them to intervene in all European security operations. It would be wrong to act on the basis that they will always be here just when we need them.
    The United Kingdom has world-class, highly experienced armed forces, both regulars and reserves. I was glad to read the reference in the Gracious Speech to the Reserve Forces Bill. I think that that measure will underscore the valuable role that the reserves play. When I was with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was fortunate to get to the Falklands, where there was a company of territorial soldiers. That company was taking its part in the roulement—the deployment of a military company in that far-flung theatre. I hope that the Reserve Forces Bill, which we shall debate later in the Session, will yet further reinforce the view that the Government and the public find that the reserves carry out a valuable role that is much appreciated.
    The main vehicle through which Europe should work together is the WEU, acting either on its own behalf or, if it wished, in response to a request from the European Union. I am delighted that, at the beginning of next year, the UK will assume the presidency of the WEU. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will attend its discussions regularly and reinforce the British point of view on the defence of Europe. There is no point in pretending that we can cut ourselves off in political, diplomatic or trade terms from the continent of Europe. It is important, however, that we do not allow ourselves to be subsumed into some wonderful wish-tank in which all difficult and problematical issues can be solved by saying, "Let us all fold the WEU into the European Union and assume that the WEU will provide the European army." Life is not like that. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend, when at the WEU or when discussing European defence matters elsewhere, to ensure that our position is firmly made clear.
    European defence and security will be one of the key issues at the IGC. It is vital. European defence and security is our defence and our security. We must play a leading role in the debate up to, and at, the conference to secure the arrangements that we believe should be put into place for the future—arrangements that are realistic, flexible and command popular consent. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence continues, as I hope that he will, to ignore the abuse that is being spilled at him from across the Chamber, and continues with his

    207
    sensible course of managing the affairs of our armed forces; if he ensures that they are allowed to remain in a state of stability, that they are allowed to be maintained in a state of high morale and that they have the best possible equipment; he will ensure not only that he is held in the highest esteem but that our armed forces, which have been the envy of our allies for centuries, will themselves remain in the highest esteem.
    I am very pleased to have been able to contribute in some small way to the debate this evening. I trust that the Gracious Speech will be as warmly welcomed by others in the Chamber as it has been by me.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Bill Etherington: Last year in the debate on the Queen's Speech, on 29 November, because there was a shortage of hon. Members who wished to speak, I spoke for 32 minutes. On that occasion I was able to pay tribute to certain constructive policies that were being proposed by the Government. It represented some 15 per cent. of what I had to say, but it was 15 per cent. more than I am able to make reference to tonight, because the Gracious Speech is bland in many respects and quite dangerous in others.
    I enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Secretary of State. I wish that I shared his confidence that this will be the last Queen's Speech that I will debate in opposition. I fear that that will not be so because the Government will go the full term. I do not think that an opportunity will arise where they can go to the country and hope to win an election, and that pleases me immensely. That did not seem quite so clear last year, but it does now.
    One of the great pleasures of the debate on the Queen's Speech is that a Back Bencher can speak on any subject providing that he does not stray away from the Queen's speech, or what he thinks should be in it. I have always been grateful for that, because, unfortunately, since the Jopling reforms Back Benchers have not had quite the same opportunities to be free of their party, whichever party that happens to be, to say what they really think and to allow for some fresh ideas on occasions.
    I was a little concerned when I read through the Gracious Speech to read one or two terms. I know that it is easy to be accused of picking out words and putting one's own interpretation on them, and I trust that the House will accept that I am not trying to do that, but there are certain phrases that mean different things to different people, and I have to try to interpret what they mean to me. The term "minimum nuclear deterrent" has been used, as part of the policy of the Government, as has "preventing the proliferation of weapons" and "test ban treaty".
    I am sorry to tread over ground that has already been extremely well trodden in the debate, but I do not see where those particular aspirations fit in with the quite reprehensible attitude that the Government have shown towards the French nuclear tests. No consideration has been given to what our Commonwealth partners in New Zealand and Australia feel about them, or to the people who live in the area. I make the point to the Government that it seems to me that if only two countries were in favour of the tests—every other country appears to be either against them or neutral, but mostly against them—perhaps it is time that we revisited the matter and decided
    208
    that we may well have been wrong. I think that we are wrong, and I hope that as time goes on the Government will appreciate that. We will not move towards getting an effective test ban treaty by taking the attitude that we have over the French tests. It has caused tremendous dissatisfaction among the public, and I hope that that will be reflected when we have a general election.
    Reference is made to the role of NATO and its relationship with Russia. The term "to consolidate democratic reforms" is used. I do not imagine that anyone would argue about that, but I hope that the Government are talking about consolidating democratic reforms and not just about what is pragmatic for commerce, because at the moment in Russia the regime that this Government are supporting and propping up does not seem to have the whole-hearted support of the Russian people. If we really believed in democracy, we would respect what its people are asking for. I am afraid that at the moment that is not happening.
    The Gracious Speech also says:
    "A substantial aid programme will be maintained".
    I have always understood that the word "substantial" means anything above nil. So if one presents somebody with one penny, one is providing. them with something substantial. But that is not the way in which most people will read such a phrase. Most people would assume from reading it that we were giving out tremendous amounts of foreign aid and that that will be maintained. In effect, since 1979, year on year we have seen a reduction in the real value of what this country is paying out in foreign aid. We heard many fine words, not least from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, about the United Nations. If we really had respect for the UN, we would uphold what we had agreed to do within that body. We would also perhaps consider taking a little more notice of some of the International Labour Organisation conventions, on which the Government have an appalling record.
    Mention was made today of the problem of Nigeria. The term used in the Gracious Speech is
    "to strengthen the ties between members of the Commonwealth."
    If the Commonwealth is to mean anything at all and if it is to reflect the sort of life, the ethos, the principles that an advanced democratic nation expounds, there is no place in it for a military dictatorship. There is no place for totalitarian states within the Commonwealth. The question should be whether sanctions will be considered. Another word of warning on that issue. Nelson Mandela states that something serious and substantial needs to be done about the situation in Nigeria. I hope that the Government will take more notice of him than they did when he was in exile, when through the African National Congress he was begging this country to put sanctions on South Africa. I have no doubt that South Africa might have been reformed a lot more quickly had it not been for the support of Baroness Thatcher and her ilk when it really mattered. I hope that we shall see some change in the Pontius Pilate-type approach: waiting to see which way the wind is blowing, before we decide what we are going to do. Human rights are more important than pragmatic considerations of commerce. The Government do not have a very good record on that, but I always live in hope that we can look to better things.
    Northern Ireland is mentioned in the Gracious Speech. The Government say that they

    209
    "will continue to build on the present peace."
    I sincerely hope that the present peace continues, so that it can be built on. Once again, I make a plea to the Government, as I have done on previous occasions, to be prepared to enter into meaningful negotiations with any organisation that is not proscribed by law. If an organisation is considered fit by the Government to stand in elections and to represent people in local government, and, indeed, in the Chamber, should that be the case, it should be recognised and negotiated with. Sinn Fein has every bit as much right to be negotiated with as any of the Unionist factions. I hope that the Government will do something about that, because if the peace process flounders, we will go back not to where we were, but to something that I believe could be considerably worse, and I am fearful of that. I sincerely hope that that will not happen.
    I cannot help but note that small businesses get a mention in the Gracious Speech. I am afraid that they do not do too well out of the market forces that are so beloved of the Government. The reality is that many small businesses rely on their revenue from large businesses, which are often in quite a monopolistic position. It is all very well saying that market forces will prevail, but if one is a small business and wants the bills to be paid, and the people who owe money also keep one in business, one is in an extremely weak position. I hope that the Chancellor, in the Budget, does something about that so that small businesses can deal with the debt that they often face. Banks are not very kind to small businesses; I hope that they will receive a better response from larger businesses.
    I was pleased to learn that the Government are fully committed to the channel tunnel rail link. I have been a member of the Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill since February last year, and do not see the Committee stage ending before February next year; the news gave me some consolation. If such business is not to be dealt with in the Chamber—I fully accept that that is not unreasonable—I hope that the Government are whole-heartedly behind the Bill in its entirety.
    Mention has been made of easing the restrictions on broadcasting ownership. I hope that the Government will not go down that road. Monopoly holdings already exist in the press and other media—which the Government themselves have suffered for on numerous occasions, if they could but see it—and I hope that they will not allow the position to worsen.
    The education proposals are probably the worst aspect of the Queen's Speech. The Government say that they intend to expand nursery education. When the Conservatives were in charge of one or two local authorities, including some counties—they are not in charge of many now—their record was abysmal. The expansion of which the Government speak will not happen when Labour councils that have provided nursery education for four-year-olds are now threatened with a loss of the revenue that would allow that provision to continue.
    I hope that the Government have learnt the lesson of the poll tax, because the nursery education voucher scheme is the poll tax in reverse. It gives out regardless of circumstances rather than taking in regardless of circumstances, as the poll tax did. People will be
    210
    subsidised when they are prepared to pay for private nursery education; others will be subsidised when they may have other arrangements. The net result will be the inability of local authorities to provide such education—I understand that 87 per cent. of it is currently provided by local authorities. The system may bring about a negation of what the Government claim to believe in.
    I am also intrigued by the borrowing powers for grant-maintained schools. The coupling of those powers with selective school admissions will mean the disestablishment of state education.
    The Government say that they will make better provision in the housing sector. If a return to private landlords and people living with intimidation and threats represents better provision, yes—we are on the way to that. Housing provision will improve only if the Government start to take note of those involved, and make some £1,000 million per annum available for the creation of 30,000 jobs in the sector and to enable us to escape from the current continuing decline in housing. That would also help the homeless.
    I note that the Government intend to abolish councils' responsibility for the homeless. We now know that, according to Government policy, the homeless are responsible for their own plight—not unlike the unemployed.
    An important element that is missing from the Gracious Speech is the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. I was appalled to discover recently from an organised publicity campaign by the Body Shop that one in five women suffer from domestic violence at some time in their lives. That is appalling in a civilised society, and we must find a way of legislating against such bestial behaviour.
    I have spoken for 13 minutes. I have not tried to drag my speech out as others have, but I shall sit down to allow two of my hon. Friends the opportunity to speak.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall speak for 10 minutes about foreign and security policy. Incidentally, I think that a time limit should be imposed on speeches in debates such as this, so that all hon. Members can make a proper contribution.
    The theme of human rights is very current, in view of what has happened in Nigeria and many other places. In that context, we must consider the ability of world institutions to keep the peace and ensure justice. That is clearly not being done at present. The British Government have demonstrated their priorities by spending nearly £24 billion a year on defence and arms: that has brought about an enormous growth in weaponry, and a heavy promotion of arms sales. An increasingly large proportion of British manufacturing industry is dedicated to such sales—and anyone who looks carefully at what happens to the arms that are sold will find that they end up in the hands of oppressive and repressive regimes, and are used internally for repressive purposes.
    I have before me an excellent document produced by the World Development Movement, entitled "Gunrunners' Gold: how the public's money finances arms sales". I suggest that the Secretary of State for Defence reads it carefully, and takes note of the relationship between overseas development expenditure

    211
    and the expenditure of arms companies in promoting and propping up appalling regimes. Indonesia is just one example of the way in which British arms have been used to pursue a policy of genocide against the people of a country.
    We have heard strong rumours that Britain's aid budget is to be cut substantially. That is on top of a stated Government strategy of pursuing a trade policy—with the assistance of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the World Trade Organisation—that specifically takes from the poorest in the world and redistributes the money to the banking systems of the richest nations.
    Quite simply, the Government are very much part of a globalisation of the economy designed to reduce the poverty of the poorest to penurious levels—as is currently the case—and to increase the wealth that exists in the richest parts of the world. A quarter of the world's population lives in absolute poverty. Many people do not live to even half the age that we would expect in this country, and millions of children around the world do not live to the age of five. Millions more receive no education.
    It is not as if the situation were improving. In country after country—in sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Asia and parts of Latin America—such is the burden of foreign debt and export-led growth that education and health services have been closed down, and life expectancy is falling as a result. We cannot be complacent in a world in which such appalling things are happening. The real problem is the imposition of a global economy that has led to corruption and support for repressive regimes, provided that they continue with the economic strategies that are imposed on them.
    In the 19th century, colonialism came from British, German and French gunboats arriving on the coast to impose a particular kind of law and order—a Pax Britannica, or Pax Europa. The same principle applies now; the only difference is that a sharp-suited gentleman from the World bank or the International Monetary Fund now arrives to impose policies that will lead to equivalent levels of poverty.
    Many hon. Members have spoken movingly about the situation in Nigeria—in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill). I shall speak briefly on the subject. I must draw attention to the hypocrisy of the British Government: they knew full well of the abuses of human rights that were continuing in Nigeria, and the danger to Ken Saro-Wiwa's life, but they did very little about it.
    There is a direct link between arms sales and Nigeria's economic and human rights crises. Over the past 15 years, the massive arms sales programme of Britain and other European Governments has pushed up Nigeria's foreign debt to more than $30 billion. Nigeria used to be a middle-income country, but since 1981 gross national product per capita has fallen by two thirds. Eleven out of every 100 babies die before their first birthday—the same figure as 30 years ago.
    What has Britain sold over the past 15 years? It has sold 118 Vickers main battle tanks. I am not sure where the external threat to Nigeria is, but I am sure that those tanks will be used on the streets of Lagos and other cities to control people who are trying to demonstrate in favour of human rights and democracy in that country. Britain has also sold Saladin armoured cars, British Aerospace Jaguar ground attack aircraft and Saxon armoured personnel carriers.
    212
    The Government claim that they are not selling any lethal equipment that could be used for purposes of internal repression. Since January 1995, however, they have admitted to more than 30 export licences for non-lethal military equipment for Nigeria. They relate to ammunition, large-calibre weapons, bombs, torpedoes, missiles, mines, vehicles, toxicological agents, riot control agents, military explosives and propellants, combatant vessels, aircraft and training equipment.
    We have heard that sorry tale before, in the case of Iraq. Export credit guarantee support for Iraq went up in the year of the 1988 Halabjah massacre. I hope for a total cessation of all arms sales and a halt to all arms traffic to Nigeria. I hope that that will be followed by strong economic sanctions, including a refusal to buy oil because that is the only kind of language that that military regime will understand.
    In many ways the questions about Nigeria relate to many other places. The Ogoni people, of whom Ken Saro-Wiwa was the best known although many others laid down their lives for them, were attempting to protect their communities, their ecology, environment and land, against the oil industry. Massive demonstrations have taken place in that country and, as a result, people have been gunned down. There have also been demonstrations around the world. The oil companies try to wash their hands and say, "It has nothing to do with us: we are merely looking after our own interests." But they must look at where their profits come from and at the damage that they are doing to people in those countries.
    I could say much about human rights throughout the world but I shall briefly mention two cases. A few days ago I met a group of Makuxi indians from Roraima province in the north of Brazil. They were assured by the Group of Seven industrial countries that the rights of indigenous people in Brazil would be protected and that money would be made available to ensure that. They told me tales about gold mining, pollution, the destruction of their environment, alcoholism, crime, corruption and robbery that are happening to them because they are standing up for an environmentally sustainable life style and system that is contrary to the wishes of international corporations and mining companies. They are suffering as a result.
    Those people came here and they are travelling to other European capitals to plead with people to raise the issue in their Parliaments. I am pleased to be able to do that here and I have tabled some parliamentary questions on the issue. Those people seek environmental sustainability but the World bank model for Brazil, as for many other countries, is to dam the rivers, exploit the ground as rapidly as possible, introduce western farming techniques and then be concerned about the environmental impact of such policies. We must look seriously at what we are doing to the environment of poor people in the poorest parts of the world. I could give other examples but I want to be brief.
    Over the past 30 to 40 years the conflict in central America has been essentially between rich and poor. The richest people own the majority of the land and the oligarchies in every central American country have always been propped up by powerful armies. In Guatemala, the powerful army has been sustained by arms sales from all over western Europe and the United States. The peace that has come to Guatemala is not a happy peace. Human rights abuses continue and people still

    213
    disappear. Anyone who speaks out against human rights abuses is subjected to interest by the police and death has resulted.
    At the moment we are training Guatemalan army officers, and training a few officers is giving no message other than that we support the pre-eminent, powerful position of the Guatemalan army. We should support independent institutions that could do something to bring justice and human rights to that poor country, and as an example of what is happening in other parts of central America.
    All over the world it is not the thirst for market forces, for free market enterprise, that people necessarily seek. They are looking at the environmental consequences of that policy. Everyone has environmental concerns because we all live on the same planet. I have an interesting document produced by the Just World Trust, which is based in Penang in Malaysia. In a book called "Dominance of the West over the Rest" there is an article called "The Metamorphosis of Colonialism" by Jeremy Seabrook. In a part about India it states:
    "The Chilka Bachao Andolan (Save Chilika Movement) for example, comprises two hundred thousand people living around the magnificent … water lake in Orissa, who are defending their way of life against export demand for industrially cultivated prawns."
    Their life style is being destroyed and they are another example of victims of globalisation of the economy and what goes with it.
    Tomorrow the President of Guyana, Cheddi Jagan, will visit the House and speak to members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in a Room downstairs. Last November, shortly after becoming President, he produced a paper and on the issue of globalisation he stated:
    "In the North, the consequence of these disparities has been unemployment, homelessness, urban disorder, increase in crime … the rise of ultra-right movements, strident nationalism and fragmentation accompanied by racism and ethnic tensions.
    In the South, the consequence of these divisions has been the increase in crime and disease, hopelessness, emigration, environmental degradation, the illegal traffic and use of narcotic drugs …
    More alarming, however, is the incidence of increasing poverty across the globe. Poverty atrophies the vigour and initiative of the individual and deprives the society of incalculable human resources at a critical time."
    We cannot go on allowing the world to be impoverished of its resources, consigning a quarter of the population to short lives and terrible poverty and not making anybody very happy in the process. We have to turn our backs on the principle of the free market economy and start to look at global concerns and the rights of people to a humane life, housing, education, jobs and health. They must share in the technological and wealth achievements which ought to be for the benefit of all.
    8.55 pm
    Mr. Mike Gapes: In the time that is available to me I cannot cover all the points that I wanted to raise. I welcome a number of issues in the Gracious Speech. I welcome the belated decision on legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention. I had an Adjournment debate on 24 April and it was clear at that
    214
    time that the obstacle was not in the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but in the Department of Trade and Industry. It was a lack of concern, vitality and interest by the then President of the Board of Trade. Now that he has moved to 10A the legislation is to be introduced and I welcome that.
    It is important to welcome at least some of the references in the Gracious Speech to nuclear weapons. I am speaking about the reference to the comprehensive test ban treaty. However, the other parts cannot be welcomed. The Gracious Speech contains an interesting phrase about the Commonwealth. It states:
    "My Government will continue working to strengthen ties between members of the Commonwealth."
    Can the Secretary of State explain how antagonising 50 member countries of the Commonwealth contributes to strengthening ties and how becoming Mr. Chirac's poodle on defence policy in any way contributes to the integrity and co-operation of this country with other nations?
    The French Government's nuclear test programme in the south Pacific has nothing to do with technical needs. The former President, Mr. Mitterrand, was told by his military advisers that it was not necessary to have further nuclear tests and the socialist Government introduced a moratorium on them. As part of his election campaign Mr. Chirac, in a Portilloesque style, launched a tirade calling for further nuclear tests by his country. When he won the election he presumably felt obliged to carry out such tests although they were not necessary and the advice given to the former Government was that they were unnecessary. He went ahead, although the tests began directly after the non-proliferation treaty negotiations, which had been agreed with some difficulty, to extend indefinitely the life of the treaty on the assumption by many countries that there would be no further nuclear weapons tests. It could therefore be perceived by many people worldwide that the French had acted in bad faith. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister and Government, despite the overwhelming wishes of this country's people and the majority of public opinion in France, have chosen to align themselves with that policy and bad faith towards the non-proliferation treaty.
    Many points have been made about other aspects of the Commonwealth conference, which I shall not go into now, but another matter has not been mentioned: the fact that, for the past few years, the Government have been giving co-operation not just to the military in Nigeria, but with regard to police equipment and policing. I hope that serious attention will be given to that because, clearly, in a repressive society, what a country does with its police force can be as offensive, oppressive and brutal as what it does with its military. We need to consider closely not just the military contracts and assistance to the military in Nigeria, but other aspects of the power of that corrupt kleptocracy and evil regime.
    I wanted to comment on some of the points made about the position in former Yugoslavia, but unfortunately I do not have time. I shall, however, make just one point. If we must choose between an ideal solution based on preservation of the integrity of a state, and a peaceful solution based on recognition that, in elections in that state, 85 per cent. of the people voted for ethnically or religiously based parties rather than unitary parties, and if

    215
    we are realistic, we will have to come to terms with the fact that some form of de facto internal partition will be necessary. If that is what comes out of the negotiations in the United States of America, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of House will recognise that that is the best that is available at this time, accept it and work, manfully, womanfully, all of us together, to ensure that there will be support on all sides for the peace agreement.
    Having seen the United States media and heard some of the comments made by members of Congress in the past few days, I believe that it is highly doubtful that President Clinton will be able to get his 25,000 troops. If that is so, the United States, having sabotaged previous negotiations in the past, will, in this one, have the rug pulled from under its President at the last minute to sabotage the agreement. I hope that it will not come to that, but I am sceptical, given what Mr. Dole and Mr. Gingrich are up to.
    In the past few days, President Clinton has made a positive statement in relation to another sector. I could say that the Government have taken up the words that I pressed on them with regard to chemical weapons in the Adjournment debate in April, but, regrettably, I cannot do so in relation to my Adjournment debate on 31 October, when I called on the Government to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Despite President Clinton's remarks in the past few days that he wishes the United States to go back into UNESCO, our Government have clearly set their face against doing so.
    I regret that, in the 50th anniversary month of the establishment of UNESCO in London, the Queen's Speech does not refer to our country playing its part again in that organisation. That is part and parcel of the overall approach that seems to have come out of the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations and of its press coverage, which hinted that, somehow, he wanted to sweep away and undermine a number of international organisations. It does not look good for this country's future credibility, status and standing in the world if we begin to work to undermine international organisations such as the Commonwealth, the United Nations and of course that nasty organisation based in Brussels, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Union, the Western European Union, whichever it is.
    Another region has not, I think, been mentioned. Two hundred thousand refugees were created in Krajina when Mr. Tudjman took advantage of air strikes to launch a military attack, which has led to enormous suffering. Four hundred thousand refugees have been created in northern Sri Lanka as a result of a military offensive of the past few days. I have constituents who have told me that they have relatives whom they cannot contact, that there is no communication, and that they are worried about humanitarian relief from British organisations not being able to get through.
    What is our Government doing as a matter of urgency to deal with that humanitarian crisis and the problems that will be created? That is a far bigger humanitarian crisis than anything that we have seen anywhere this year. Four hundred thousand people are moving across water and through jungle, fleeing an awful conflict and I hope that our Government will do something urgently to assist.
    216
    It is important that we recognise that many people from Sri Lanka and Nigeria will seek refuge in this country. It will be deplorable if those countries are on a white list of safe countries and people are refused asylum simply because they have the wrong colour skin.
    9.4 pm
    Dr. David Clark: We have had a longer than usual debate because there was no Question Time. Fourteen right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their point of view in a wide-ranging survey of the world. I should like to take up some of those points. It is appropriate that we should spend the first full day's debate on the Gracious Speech discussing foreign affairs and defence. It is right that we debate those topics at the same time because they are related. If one tries to have a foreign policy without a proper security policy, there are difficulties and vice versa.
    My only regret about a debate of this nature is that, on occasion, some aspects of foreign affairs are neglected. I am thinking particularly about the third world and the aid programme. I am conscious of the fact that this an appropriate time to mention that, because all Opposition Members and, I suspect, many Conservative Members are concerned about the reports that there could be cuts in the aid budget. We hope that that does not occur in Budget week. We shall be watching that. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the views of Opposition Members about how we would resent strongly any decision to cut the aid budget. It has been reduced too much.
    We are also conscious of the fact that this is an important year, because the intergovernmental conference will be taking place, in which European and foreign identity and defence and security aspects will be playing dominant roles. We wish the Government well in their presidency of the Western European Union. I believe that on this issue we are at one with the Government. We believe that the WEU should develop into the European arm of NATO, not as an alternative to NATO. We have made it clear that we believe that any European defence identity must be at Government level and must not be part of the European Union or the European Commission per se.
    Mr. Portillo: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support in this matter, but I should warn him that, from the evidence of the WEU meeting in Madrid, there is a danger that he would be isolated in Europe by taking that stance. I thought that it was the Labour party's policy not to be isolated.
    Dr. Clark: I was trying to begin my speech in a consensual manner and I am sorry that the Secretary of State made that point.
    We have already heard the statement of positions by the various Governments for the IGC. We know that there is a wide range of positions, from the Dutch who seem to favour complete integration, to the French position, which is similar to ours, and there is the German position. As the Secretary of State knows, a great deal of negotiation and compromising have yet to take place. We believe that the Government are right on this one and that their view

    217
    will prevail. I believe that our French allies will be good associates in this case.
    There are other aspects of the Queen's Speech, particularly on defence matters, with which we can concur. The opening statement that
    "National security remains of the highest importance to my Government."
    is something that we can go along with entirely. One of the aspects of the Secretary of State's Blackpool speech that offended myself and my colleagues was the way in which he seemed to imply that patriotism was the monopoly of one party. I am sure that, on reflection, he does not hold that view now and that he understands our anger about that point.
    We know what the Government's intentions are—they have made them quite clear—and, in the ensuing year, we shall be trying to assess how closely the Government live up to their lofty statements. I must say, however, that in some of the records of their activities we find a huge gap between their intentions and the actuality.
    It is another point of consensus that Labour has always supported NATO right from its inception. The Foreign Secretary heaped lavish praise on the former Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin. Of course, that view is dear to the Opposition. We have stuck by NATO and believe that it has served not only this country but Europe and the world very well for almost 50 years. It has also shown its ability to adapt to the changed world system. Indeed, it must be a cornerstone of the security of Britain, of Europe and, in a sense, of the wider world.
    Another point on which I hope we agree with the Government is support for the United Nations. We have always been enthusiastic about the United Nations and believe that it needs to be the key player in bringing stability to world security. Of course, we are keen to support further reform of that august body. We accept that it has to change and adapt as it enters its second 50 years. Much needs to be done.
    If there is one lesson to be learnt—I think that we all take it on board—it is that an unsettled world, due to the breakdown of the two-power system and the breakdown of the client—state relationship, means more instability and more areas of military conflict. The role of the United Nations in policing such conflicts and sometimes enforcing the peace will involve military action.
    If there is to be military action, we need the United Nations to be much more professional. I think that the United Nations itself knows that. No Government will commit their young men and women to a peacekeeping role unless they believe that they have a fair chance of coming out alive. We therefore need a controlled system of communications and command. A great deal of effort needs to be put into the United Nations to enable it to handle military situations more effectively.
    Having said that, we believe that there is more to security than the military. Indeed, many of us would argue that many of the conflicts across the world could have been avoided if the economic and social problems of the areas involved had been dealt with more sensibly.
    The architects of the United Nations devised the Security Council, recognising the defence and military role of the United Nations. They also planned an
    218
    Economic and Social Council that would be of equal status, but it is a matter of deep regret to me that the latter, through the actions of the member nations, became an inferior council. I believe strongly that had more attention and more resources been given to the Economic and Social Council, many of the conflicts in the world would have been avoided.
    We also note with pleasure that the Government state in the Queen's Speech that they aim to improve the co-operation between NATO and Russia. That is absolutely vital, and we shall be monitoring the Government's efforts in that regard. Indeed, there is a role for us all—not only the military—to play. We have the "Partnership for Peace" agreement with NATO and Russia, under which there will be military exchanges and co-operation. We have an intergovernmental relationship. If we are to try to help Russia to evolve into a pluralistic democracy, as we understand it, it needs help. We as parliamentarians ought to be using all the avenues available to us to make contact with members of the Duma, to try to explain to them our concerns and beliefs, and to try to break down the prejudice and suspicion between Russia and some of the countries in the west.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does my hon. Friend share my amazement and concern that there is no NATO mission in Moscow? Surely there is a very powerful case for NATO having a separate office and representation in Moscow, so that it can gather information about the domestic situation in Russia as well as convey the methods and intentions of NATO, which are clearly and demonstrably misunderstood and misread there.
    Dr. Clark: I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to make those points, because I have been very conscious of the fact that he has sat through most of the debate and it has not been possible for him to be called. Progress is being made. A small office of NATO is being installed in Moscow—I think that it is in the French embassy—at the moment. My hon. Friend knows that, because he has been to Brussels with me to talk to the NATO Secretary-General. I hope that it will develop into a much more fully fledged office, so that we can start explaining NATO's point of view.
    We must all aim to create the security under which conflict and war between any of the NATO countries and Russia becomes as unthinkable as war between Britain and Germany is today. We must move towards such security.
    The Labour party is also pleased to see the references in the Queen's Speech to efforts being made to restrict the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Labour Members shall be watching the Government very closely on that. We have had some concerns about their approach to the comprehensive test ban treaty. They seem to have been somewhat reluctant to go along with it, but thankfully, with the help of President Clinton, they have acquiesced and now seem to be converts. I shall not say a great deal about the French nuclear tests, except that they were regrettable. I certainly regret the fact that the British Government were not able to express their views against those tests more forcibly.
    We are pleased to see that a Bill is to be introduced to ratify the chemical weapons convention. We have been calling for that for some time. We believe that we need

    219
    to become one of the first 69 nations to ratify that convention. Of course, as we promised, we shall give the Bill a fair wind when it comes before the House.
    We are also pleased to hear of the progress that is being made in Dayton, Ohio. We hope that an agreement on Bosnia will be reached. Certainly—this relates to my view about the way in which to build bridges with the Russians—I am delighted that we have managed to find a form of command structure that allows the Russian forces to work alongside NATO. That is a constructive, workmanlike approach, which is needed and will help to build understanding with Russia. It will also help to build security in the world.
    We on the Opposition Benches are very conscious that we still have about 18,000 troops in Northern Ireland. We hope that further progress will be made and look forward to the day when some of those troops can be brought back to the mainland and deployed, perhaps at other bases. Having said that, I am conscious of the stress on the soldiers in Northern Ireland. I have seen the conditions in which they live, and they are very difficult indeed.
    This is an unusual Queen's Speech, in that it contains two Bills relating to defence. The first is the Bill concerning reserve forces. We accept that the Reserve Forces Act 1980 needs to be amended and, again, we broadly endorse the provisions as we understand them. There has been wide consultation. We have obviously not seen the Bill—it is not to be published until tomorrow—but assuming that it is what we believe it to be, we shall approach it, as always, in a very constructive manner, as indeed we shall approach the Bill concerning the armed forces.
    However, fine words achieve little. I am conscious of the old saying that fine words do not grow a row of beans, and that is certainly the case. The Government's record on defence, as opposed to their intentions on defence, is disappointing. We stand firmly by the belief that, to reduce the defence budget by 30 per cent., as the Government have, without carrying out a fundamental review, but simply resorting to a salami-slice operation, has added to the instability of the British armed forces and led to a reduction in morale. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) described that clearly today when he referred to the RAF.
    Hon. Members often quote the firm commitment given by the Prime Minister that there would be no more cuts in the armed forces. I remember clearly the solemn promise given to the House that the Army would have 120,000 personnel. The figures are not included in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995". That clever, glossy document contains lots of pictures, but not the figures that we need. I am led to believe, therefore, that by next April the trained manpower in the Army will be down to 106,500.
    The Government admit that they have a recruitment problem. Given that 3 million people are out of work, how the Government can fail to recruit men and women to our Army is beyond belief. It just shows how young men and women have lost confidence in the Government's ability to run our Army. I cannot understand it. It is a sorry testimony to the Government's mishandling of Britain's defences that those who loyally serve in our forces are under intense strain at operational
    220
    level. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made that point. If there is peace in Bosnia and we deploy 15,000 men there, half the young men in our Army will be stationed overseas and in Northern Ireland. That seems to present a major problem.
    I am sorry that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is not here, because there seems to be a huge lacuna in the Government's recruitment strategy. They are aware of the problem, which relates to black citizens. Only 1.4 per cent. of those who serve in the British forces are from ethnic minorities. In their "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994", the Government wrote:
    "It is of concern to the Department that ethnic minorities continue to be under-represented".
    Although they know that there is a problem, they seem incapable of attacking it. In its 1995 report on the defence estimates, the Defence Select Committee shared the Government's view, but said:
    "We cannot but feel that MoD has been less than enthusiastic about the whole process of ethnic monitoring."
    I urge the Government to try to deal with that problem.
    I raise another problem on the Floor of the House with a great deal of trepidation because it is a delicate matter, but it has caused me considerable anguish and annoyance. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has also raised the problem, which simply cannot be ignored. It relates to an incident on 10 August this year, when two black women, one of whom is married to a soldier posted elsewhere, attended a social event at Oakington barracks in Cambridge.
    The women were subjected to racial abuse, which included persistent chants of "Nigger, nigger, nigger." At a later stage in the evening, the soldier who had perpetrated most of the abuse disappeared, but he then came back with four other soldiers who, according to witnesses, subjected the women to further abuse, such as:
    "You niggers are only good for swinging from trees and burning. If I had my way, I'd get a white hood."
    I could go on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall spare the House any further examples of such verbal abuse. I know that hon. Members will share my anger and concern. To make it worse, as the two women, now petrified, were leaving, two of the soldiers pointed guns at them. I shall say no more, but plainly such occurrences have no place in our civil society, nor have they any place in the British armed forces.
    I accept that that case is an exception, but because of that, I use it to emphasise my point. I understand that following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East on 23 August, the special investigations branch of the Royal Military Police has begun to investigate the incident. It occurred, however, two and a half months ago, and I ask the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency, although I do not necessarily expect him to be able to reply tonight, to look into it. Will there be a court martial? Why have we heard nothing, when such incidents cause so much damage to the reputation of our armed forces and cause great offence not only to the black community, but to many others in our civil society? Such abuse must be stamped out.
    Another injustice persists. Has the Secretary of State any plans to use the Armed Forces Bill to amend the

    221
    Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987? As he will be aware, certain ex-service personnel, especially those who served in the Royal Navy, were subjected to exposure to asbestos and now suffer seriously from asbestos-related diseases. Their civilian counterparts are able to obtain damages because of similar exposure, but those ex-service men are unable to do so. I wonder whether the Secretary of State can look into that matter, which is of great concern. That injustice needs to be put right.
    Materials are as important as personnel, because in the modern military, one cannot do the job without modern equipment. It is a matter of great concern that we increasingly hear reports that the anti-European stance of the Secretary of State is influencing our procurement orders. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made an eloquent speech on the very issue of orders for American aircraft.
    We now know that the Government have looked into the possibility of acquiring F16 aircraft as a replacement for the Tornado F3. We have had that confirmed in writing by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who made the Government's reasons for that decision clear.
    A much more serious charge relates to another report that the Government intend to order F22s as a cover initially for the Tornado, and then as an alternative to the Eurofighter. I hope that the Secretary of State will try to offer us an explanation of the current strategy, because he knows as well as I do that the Eurofighter project is now progressing well. It has had more than 90 sorties and, recently, an RAF pilot flew it for the first time.
    The Secretary of State knows also that we are at a crucial stage in our negotiations with our partners. He knows that, as I speak, negotiations are taking place in Germany as to the future work share on the production of that very fine aircraft, which Opposition Members have backed from day one. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the timing of reaching agreement on work share is vital if we are to ensure that the memorandum of understanding is signed, as scheduled, for summer 1996.
    I hope that there is no hidden agenda. I hope that there are not people in the MOD who hope by a sleight of hand to delay matters, so that they may reach a position that makes it difficult for our European partners to continue to go along with the Eurofighter development. As the Secretary of State knows, the Germans have included it in their Bundeswehr plan, the equivalent of our long-term costing. If we did not go ahead with it, it would be disastrous for our relationship with our allies and it would probably mean the end of the British aerospace industry.
    Multi-million pound businesses are involved. We are speaking about bags of bucks in that case. I can believe that very many American industrialists want to supply us with F22s to drive the European aerospace business out of business altogether.
    As I said, we agree with a considerable amount of what the Government have said in the Queen's Speech. We agree with many of the objectives. However, I confess that, when we have compared the actions with the words, we have found the Government wanting.
    222
    The Government repeatedly try to wrap themselves in the Union flag and then say that Britain's security is safe in their hands. I submit to the House that Britain's security has never been less safe under a Conservative Government than under the present one.
    9.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) devoted much of his speech to the middle east and paid a generous tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. The whole House joined together in paying further tributes to Yitzhak Rabin.
    It is a clichè to say that for Yitzhak Rabin to make peace required more courage even than to make war, but it is a cliché that none the less I believe to be true. In doing so, he risked absurd slanders from his fellow countrymen—accusations of softness and even of treachery. A man who could bear the blows of his enemies with equanimity must have smarted under such lashes from his countrymen. Eventually, he paid the price of his peacemaking with his life.
    There are not so many outstanding statesmen in the world today, and Yitzhak Rabin was characterised by his vision and leadership. Not only do I feel great sorrow at his loss, but I send to the people of Israel the wish that their wounds may be healed and that reconciliation may spread through their land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    The other topic that was mentioned very broadly during the debate was Nigeria. I cannot add much to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his introductory speech. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) all spoke about Nigeria with considerable passion.
    I simply emphasise what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said. The Commonwealth has made an impressive response. It has marked a new stage in the maturity of the Commonwealth. Prompt action has been taken on an arms embargo, and Britain is willing to engage in discussions with her allies, friends and partners regarding any other possible responses that may be appropriate.
    The hon. Member for Ilford, South welcomed the Chemical Weapons Bill announced in the Queen's Speech. I shall refer briefly to the two other Bills of concern to me directly which we shall place before the House in the present Session.
    First, there will be an Armed Forces Bill to continue in force the single-service Acts—the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957—that provide the framework for the system of discipline in the armed forces.
    The Bill goes through a Select Committee process, and there will be a chance for the House to discuss homosexuality in the armed forces. We have long taken the view that homosexuality is incompatible with the special conditions of service life. The policy has now been examined by the High Court and by the Court of Appeal. I am pleased that both of them found our policy to be lawful. Our homosexual policy assessment team will continue to gather evidence which will be presented to the

    223
    Select Committee examining the Armed Forces Bill, so that its members will have a clear and updated assessment before them.
    We shall also introduce the Reserve Forces Bill that attracted the special commendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). It will introduce a power of call-out for humanitarian disaster relief and peacekeeping tasks, and it will create two new categories of reserves: high-readiness reserves and sponsored reserves. It will also provide an opportunity for reservists to volunteer to undertake productive tasks other than training, including periods of full-time service. Finally, the Bill includes important new safeguards for employers and reservists.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made a remarkable speech of great breadth, in which he understood so well the diversity of British interests. Those interests start with the security of our national territory, of our dependencies and of our allies. But, as he pointed out, they go much wider than that. They include the promotion of free trade and investment around the globe. They include our interest in the spread of liberal, western-style democracies, partly for humanitarian reasons and partly because such democracies are more likely to be peaceful.
    Our world still faces many threats. The prospect of global war has receded, but instead we face increased uncertainty. Regional problems that were for so long suppressed by the super-power stand-off are re-emerging in traditionally unstable areas such as the Balkans, the middle east and the Gulf. In north and sub-Saharan Africa, and even in Asia and the far east, we can see tensions between emerging major regional powers.
    Instability brings in its wake challenges to our interests and our values. Those problems are certainly exacerbated by extremism, by the possession or potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and often by both. Such proliferation heightens regional tensions and may also intensify the scale and nature of future conflicts. We should not ignore the dangers of proliferation simply because it is going on well away from the shores of the United Kingdom. The Gulf conflict provided a vivid demonstration—we saw it on our television screens—of the threat to the armed forces of countries which, like Britain, take an active role in building international security. The proliferation of ballistic missile technology, especially if coupled with weapons of mass destruction, would pose a growing threat to our NATO allies.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) paid particular attention to the importance of developing our intelligence capability. In such an uncertain world, to be able to predict where the crises will occur will be of enormous importance. If we find ourselves involved in conflict, the ability to manage the battlefield through superior intelligence will probably hold the key to victory. The fact that we know what is going on reinforces our deterrent capability.
    For all those reasons, our important relationship with the United States is underlined. In some of the Opposition speeches this afternoon—I am thinking of the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Ilford, South—I still heard a resonance of that old Labour anti-Americanism which can play no part in building up the security interests of the United Kingdom.
    Deterrence was relatively straightforward when there was a super-power conflict. The essence of deterrence is that any potential adversary should believe that one would
    224
    be willing, in extremis, to use one's power and that one would be able to strike with overwhelming force. The current diffuse threats make deterrence much more complicated. It spans a range of capability from special forces, to rapid reaction forces and cruise missiles, up to and including nuclear deterrents.
    I believe that nuclear weapons will remain a vital underpinning of our defence policy. Our strategic deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security. It makes a significant contribution to preserving peace and security in Europe. Our nuclear weapons are a deterrent: their role is to prevent war, not to fight it. The theology of deterrence will need to evolve in order to reflect the changing world, but its fundamental principle remains valid.
    It is premature to think that we can move to complete nuclear disarmament. Of course, with the welcome end of the cold war, we have been able to make sensible reductions in our nuclear arsenal. The flexibility of the Trident missile system also allows us to move to a single nuclear weapon delivery system. However, complete nuclear disarmament remains a distant prospect at best. Nuclear weapons technology cannot be uninvented. In a nuclear-free world, there would always be the risk of a new confrontation generating a ptofoundly destabilising nuclear arms race. The potential for proliferation would always be present. No one has yet found robust solutions to those problems.
    As a nuclear weapons state, the United Kingdom bears special responsibilities. I did not see any evidence in today's debate to suggest that Labour has begun to understand the nature of those special responsibilities.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Secretary of State tell us under what circumstances he would press the nuclear button?
    Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important to understand that this country would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. I have said that nuclear weapons exist because we wish to deter war, not to fight it. However, it is extremely important for any adversary to understand that Britain would, in extremis, be ready to use nuclear weapons. That is the essence of the deterrence doctrine.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, (Sir P. Cormack) and the hon. Member for West Derby among others, referred to the Bosnian question. All eyes are currently on Dayton, Ohio. We hope that the latest chance for peace will be grasped by all the parties and that hopes will not be dashed, as has occurred so often in the past. We hope that hostilities will not recur and that the long-suffering people of Bosnia will not endure further misery.
    In parallel with the Dayton talks, planning is continuing within NATO for a peace implementation force. Good progress has been made, although clearly a number of key issues can be resolved only once a clearer picture emerges from Dayton. I assure the House that the force will deploy only if there is a clear and satisfactory peace agreement to which the parties subscribe fully.
    The force's role will be to implement a peace agreement and it will operate with the consent of the parties who have signed the agreement. The force's principal task will be to oversee the separation of the factions and to provide the stability necessary for an agreement to succeed. The force will be remarkably multinational. The headquarters of the Allied Command

    225
    Europe rapid reaction corps—the ARRC—will play a key role. The United Kingdom has framework nation responsibility for the ARRC headquarters, for which we provide the commander and some 60 per cent. of the staff. Its deployment will provide an important test of its capabilities. I am sure that General Sir Michael Walker and his team will rise to the challenge.
    As the House would expect, the Government are planning to make a significant contribution to the peace implementation force commensurate with our status and responsibilities within the Atlantic alliance. The final size of our contribution, and the force as a whole, will depend on the nature of the peace settlement, if any. It will also depend on the level of contributions from other NATO and non-NATO nations.
    I agree entirely with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it has been an important breakthrough to include Russian troops in the arrangements, and we hope for other troop contributions from beyond NATO, including in particular Muslim countries. I confirm that a substantial United States deployment on the ground will be essential. I undertake that we shall report to the House with further details as and when our plans are crystallised.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) paid particular attention to European defence. There are some clear lessons that we can draw from operations in former Yugoslavia for the defence arrangements that we should put in place for the future. They relate to the value of practical military co-operation, the fundamental importance of NATO and not letting theology or rhetoric get ahead of reality.
    The Anglo-French summit last month marked a development in our defence relationship with France. Britain and France have similar perspectives. The summit recognised the global partnership that exists between us, built on the major contribution that both countries make to security in Europe and wider afield.
    Much of the reason for that improved bilateral relationship lies in our military co-operation in Bosnia. That has brought our two armed forces closer together than at any time since the second world war. Our troops have found their French colleagues whom they have been fighting alongside on the slopes of Mount Igman to be of the highest quality and they have shared a good deal of comradeship in those operations.
    For a long time, France has excluded herself from some of NATO's military activities. I believe that that exclusion by France has been a loss to NATO and to France. I welcome the fact that France is showing a new willingness to participate in the work of the alliance.
    Again it is important to separate theology from practice. Many of the theological questions surrounding France's involvement and integration in NATO remain to be resolved, but it is just as important that, in putting together a practical operation for peacekeeping in former Yugoslavia, France has been willing to rise above those theological questions and co-operate in putting together what I believe will be an effective force. I particularly welcome that. I also welcome France's recent recognition that NATO has a crucial role in meeting the serious security challenges that we may face in future.
    226
    We intend, with France, to draw lessons as we work together over the coming months to build credible European defence arrangements. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary touched earlier on the agenda for our presidency of the WEU which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, starts at the beginning of next year.
    The Government's approach to European defence is a practical one. It is about building defence structures that work. We address the key question: what is the gap in European defence capability that we are trying to plug? I have warned before of the dangers of concentrating on institutional issues and thereby losing sight of our main goal: building militarily credible and effective capabilities. Some talk of a political deficit while others suggest that intergovernmentalism is outdated. I believe that intergovernmentalism works. It has done so for 50 years in NATO. It recognises that defence is a sovereign nation's first responsibility. We shall not meet the challenge of tomorrow by institutional tinkering. Certainly we shall not meet that challenge by submerging our sovereignty and our armed forces into supranational constructions.
    All the talk of political deficit misses the point, for it is not the problem. What matters is Europe's patent operational deficit. The WEU's operational development will be the first priority of our presidency of the WEU. We shall take that approach, however, in a way that complements NATO, not in a way that could weaken it. We have in NATO arrangements and procedures that have been developed in the best possible way, through consensus and practical military co-operation. These arrangements have been built up over nearly 50 years, and they work. We should not try to reinvent the wheel by developing new, separate and wholly European capabilities. That would be unnecessary, unaffordable and undesirable.
    Instead, we shall reinforce the WEU's links with the alliance. The WEU needs access to NATO's assets, capabilities and expertise if it is to be able to mount operations on the scale that we want. Events in Bosnia have proved that point eloquently. We need to be able to demonstrate to the Americans that Europeans are able to do their bit. We need to convince others that even in situations where Americans may not be involved in Europe on the ground, Europeans will none the less have the necessary capabilities.
    We shall carry forward work to establish a WEU situation centre that is capable of monitoring future operations. That is an essential part of the nerve system of any viable defence organisation. We want the centre to be well on the way to being operational by the end of our presidency of the WEU.
    As the structures and procedures that I have described would be mere paper tigers unless exercised, we shall make proposals for a more coherent and progressive exercise policy within the WEU. For the reasons explained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, the WEU, rather than the European Union, is the appropriate body for building up the defence capability of Europe. That was the central theme of one section of my speech in Blackpool. The hon. Member for South Shields accepted that argument and offered the Government his support, which I am pleased to accept.

    227
    There were references, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside to our procurement policy. Our equipment procurement policy must provide our armed forces with the right equipment on time and at the best value for money. Competition, therefore, remains at the heart of our approach. The Government believe that it would not be doing the United Kingdom industry any favours if through our procurement policy we were to protect it from international competition. Competition brings benefits to us and to industry. It promotes keen prices and encourages the most efficient use of industrial resources. It has had demonstrable effects on reducing prices. In some cases it has reduced costs by over 30 per cent.
    Our procurement policies have contributed to making the United Kingdom defence industry healthy and internationally competitive. Last year, United Kingdom defence companies won export orders worth some £5 billion, representing about 16 per cent. of the world market. That was no flash in the pan. Over the past five years, the United Kingdom has been the second largest exporter after the United States. With the strength of a competitive defence industry, we have everything to gain from a genuinely open defence equipment market. We shall continue to strive for open markets, through NATO and through the European defence forums.
    Best value for money does not always mean picking the cheapest solution. We aim for value for money in the longer term. That involves taking account of a range of factors, including industrial issues. We recognise the importance of a healthy supply base in Britain and in the rest of Europe. We wish to maintain our ability to run competitions for future requirements. The defence industry has had to take painful decisions to reduce its capacity in recent years. It is not our business to maintain industrial capacity for its own sake, but we do need to ensure that we do not through our actions lose industrial capabilities that are important either militarily or in the interests of future competition or collaboration.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
    Mr. Portillo: I shall continue for one more paragraph, because I think that it may well help the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The Eurofighter project is a good example of that approach. British Aerospace, our prime contractor, is the leading aerospace company in Europe. Eurofighter will be an excellent product if we are able, as I suspect that we will, to sort out the remaining managerial problems with the project, none of which is to do with the aircraft itself. We have entered into arrangements that we are determined to honour.
    Mr. Campbell: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In the light of the analysis that he has just provided for the House, will he now confirm that the Government are committed to Eurofighter and that there is no intention to lease F16s on a temporary basis rather than embarking on the mid-life update of the F3?
    Mr. Portillo: On the commitment to Eurofighter there is no doubt, and that is why I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to hear another paragraph, so that he could hear it in my own words.
    228
    As far as the F16 is concerned, I am looking at a number of options for what we should do between now and the time when Eurofighter is delivered. I have made no secret of the fact that leasing F16s is one option to be looked at and an upgrade of the F3 is another.
    Mr. Campbell rose—
    Mr. Portillo: If the hon. and learned Gentleman makes it brief, I shall give way to him.
    Mr. Campbell: In view of the answer that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave last week—that the existing Royal Air Force tanker fleet is incapable of mid-air refuelling of the F16—what arrangements does the right hon. Gentleman propose for that?
    Mr. Portillo: All things have their costs and that is one of the costs that would have to be taken into account.
    Dr. Reid: I raise this point lest the Secretary of State be misinterpreted, because we want to be helpful on this. When he says that he wants to get rid of any barriers to competition as regards our defence industry, can we take it that he is not saying that the British Government are thinking of abandoning article 223, our sovereign right in the last instance to make defence decisions that overrule the competition, although, of course, we do not want that to be misused by some of our European allies?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not believe that the abandonment of article 223 will be part of the Government's programme for the IGC. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read carefully what I said on procurement issues.
    I wish to make the point that, in future, where we collaborate with others on a project, competition will be a crucial ingredient. Collaboration can provide useful savings over purely national programmes. Programmes that would otherwise be unaffordable become affordable. But collaboration is not an end in itself. It is worth while where it genuinely offers the most cost-effective solution compared to the alternatives, where it offers the prospect of the best long-term value for money. That must be the basis of future collaborative ventures.
    From hon. Members on the Conservative Benches we have heard a breadth of vision and understanding, particularly in speeches from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and others. By contrast, the speech from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was devoid of principle. In it, he espoused a series of positions that were directly opposed to his positions of a few years ago. He appeared to be guided only by populism, only by the fear of standing alone, only by the wish to be in the majority, with no reference to right or wrong. In particular, he showed no understanding of the United Kingdom's special position and responsibilities.
    We are a nuclear power. The success of deterrence depends on the knowledge that a country's deterrent works, and that that country would ultimately be willing to use it. The French President was advised to test, and he had no alternative but to do so. We would have done the same if we had been given that advice. The question is, would Labour have been willing to do so? It has wriggled on the issue. We would not be prepared to enter

    229
    into an agreement that did not allow us to ensure the safety and reliability of our weapons.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) stood up and admitted that he was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Other Front Benchers do not mention their own membership, and some do not even remember it.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    Boundary Road Junction, Norwich
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
    10 pm
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate an issue that is of considerable concern to a number of my constituents. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who will reply: I have happy memories of canvassing in his constituency during a by-election some years ago.
    I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), the Whip, whose presence increases the attendance at the debate by 50 per cent.—if my mathematics is correct.
    Too often, issues and concerns involving planning, road improvements and so forth are dismissed in the acronym NIMBY—"not in my back yard"—or in a newer term, which I heard only recently. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Minister has heard it before, but BANANA can be translated as "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone". All too., often, however, real problems occur, and people can be seriously damaged by developments and change in their localities.
    In my constituency, the remedial works undertaken by Norfolk county council on the heavily used junction between Boundary road, Cromer road and Mile Cross lane in July 1988 seemed to be only of local interest, but they have wider significance in regard to the approach of local authorities to such situations, and in regard to the current state of the law and practice on compensation. There is no doubt that the traffic volumes at that junction justified the remedial work that was started by Norfolk county council in 1985 and completed on 14 July 1988. I know that the work was justified, because I use the junction regularly when I drive in and out of my constituency at the weekend and the beginning and end of the week. It is a worthwhile and good scheme: that is generally agreed.
    Part of the scheme, however, involved new and much more complicated rerouting arrangements for the occupants of properties on Cromer road. Two of my constituents—Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham, of 12 and 14 Cromer road—were advised by a county council officer to go via Mile Cross lane into Eversley road and then into Mayfield avenue out on to Cromer road and then left on Cromer road, just to get into their own front drives.
    The inconvenience that my constituents experienced getting into their own properties was compounded by extremely disagreeable problems created by the new traffic lights. Mrs. Langham found that she and her family could not eat their meals in their dining room because of the audience outside, and that her bedroom was clearly visible to passengers on the upper deck of buses outside her home. Her neighbour Mrs. Duffield has described to me the effects of living in a house where car headlights shine directly into the property as vehicles turn out of Reepham road into Cromer road, and of the noise, pollution and vibration from which she suffers. It is much more difficult to get anyone to call on them, or to park nearby.
    To be fair to Norfolk county council—which has been very helpful in answering my inquiries during my preparation for the debate—it offered compensation to

    231
    residents adversely affected by noise, vibration, smell, fumes and smoke under the Land Compensation Act 1973. I understand from Mrs. Duffield that the county council's officers advised that no claim for compensation would be entertained until a year had elapsed—the implication being that that was because compensation would be based on nuisance monitored over that time.
    There are some further important points to make about the county council's conduct in this area. It failed to make it clear until October 1994 that it had power under section 246(2)(b) of the Highways Act 1980 to purchase both of these properties within one year of the opening to public traffic of the new road system. That was done only in correspondence to me. It was subsequently defended to me by the county council on 6 April this year on the ground that
    "there is no statutory duty on the County Council to inform people of their rights."
    Surely it is special pleading of a regrettable kind to transfer this obligation to private individuals or their advisers, especially when the chief executive of the county council had claimed that
    "the Authority has no obligation or legal power to part with compensation other than in accordance with legislation."
    That was dated 1 October 1990.
    Unfortunately, the negotiations between the county council and the representatives of Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham did not proceed smoothly. Both my constituents suffered a significant diminution in the value of their homes at a time when the property market was already falling. Despite the fact that Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham live in adjoining properties, Mrs. Duffield received an offer of compensation in September 1990 on the basis that she had the most severe case and could be used as a "test case". Meanwhile, Mrs. Langham's advisers were being encouraged to make an appropriate claim based on the legal circumstances, with the county council's offer to her resting on the decision of Mrs. Duffield. The onus was firmly placed on the residents to accept whatever the county council was prepared to offer.
    Not surprisingly, the settlement of these claims in November 1990 left both my constituents highly dissatisfied. Mrs. Langham's property is now valued at more than £20,000 less than it was five years ago, and Mrs. Duffield cannot contemplate selling. Both feel that they have been shabbily treated by the local highways authority. Their feelings have been aggravated by subsequent decisions by the county council. Traffic surveys in January 1990 and April 1992 showed that many motorists were avoiding the traffic lights that had been installed at the Boundary road junction by travelling along Eversley road to Mile Cross road. Eversley road had become a rat run.
    The county council's highways sub-committee decided to erect bollards to close Eversley road to through traffic. That meant that the route for residents of Cromer road to get into their own properties became even more complicated. Mrs. Langham now has to pass through two sets of traffic lights to turn right into Mayfield avenue and then into Eversley road just to get into her rear drive. Both my constituents have been advised to take an even longer route via Reepham road, Heather avenue and Cromer road past a first school, making difficult turns into heavy traffic flows. I appreciate that the Minister may not be as familiar as I am with the roads in my constituency, but I am sure that he takes the point.
    232
    The alteration to the arrangements that were made in 1988 was made even more unpalatable by the county council's failure to inform residents of Cromer road that the views of the public were being sought about the closure of Eversley road. With the support of the ward members, one of whom lived in Eversley road, the revised scheme was approved despite the balance of opinion among those consulted being against the closure. Once again the county council failed to inform my constituents about the date of the closure of Eversley road although they were the people most severely affected according to the council's own report.
    I hope that the Minister will accept that this is a sorry saga from the point of view of the people affected, who approached me about it. I have no doubt that it has been repeated many times throughout the country and that it will happen again. The lessons are clear. It is quite wrong for highway authorities to pick and choose whether they will inform residents who are adversely affected by improvement schemes of their rights. Simply assuming that their agents will be fully aware of the provisions of the Highways Act rather than those of the Land Compensation Act inevitably puts them in a weaker position. If only a minute proportion of the two properties that I have mentioned had been taken for the Boundary road scheme, both my constituents would have had their properties purchased at market valuation. As it is, they have suffered a considerable devaluation and their access problems have been made worse by the county council's decision in May 1992.
    I understand that local authorities are reluctant to offer compensation on a discretionary basis. The financial implications are clearly important; so too are the difficulties in formulating criteria to ensure that people whose property suffers adverse effects outside the strict definitions of the Land Compensation Act are consistently dealt with. None the less, we all know constituents whose homes have been affected by public works, whose views may have been ruined by new developments, or whose businesses may have suffered as a result of traffic-diversion schemes, but who, under present legislation, are entitled to little or no compensation.
    Local authority officers believe that the Government and Parliament have deliberately sidestepped the issue of compensation in such cases, preferring to leave this difficult matter to the discretion of local government, with the assurance that no action will be taken for financial reasons. I suspect that my hon. Friend may wish to comment on that point. I hope that that belief is unfounded. As my constituents' experience shows, leaving the determination of compensation to a local authority results in the worst possible deal for residents. If Norfolk county council was not prepared to inform them of their rights but instead to rely on a test case involving a resident of Cromer road whose advisers were not fully aware of the legal possibilities, the time for a renewed examination of the problem has clearly come.
    At national level, we need to reconsider these matters. Why are the issues apparently dealt with much more expeditiously and smoothly on the continent? Is it because we are an overcrowded nation that we seem to make such difficulty of planning matters, which drag on and leave everyone upset and unhappy? Is it because—and here I show my prejudices—our legal administrative processes are fundamentally flawed and out of date, which my time in Parliament has convinced me that they are? Is that the

    233
    problem? What can be done to help my constituents? I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some reassurance or advice. How can we improve matters? I look forward to his reply.
    10.11 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on securing the debate and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks. I remember his valiant canvassing efforts on my behalf during my by-election in 1988. If I recall, a large Rottweiler took a significant piece out of his trousers during his canvassing efforts—an event about which he has never ceased to remind me on every occasion that I have met him since. As that is now seven years, I feel as if I have somehow paid for that suit several times over, but I yield to no one in my appreciation of his efforts and I shall be eternally grateful to him. In all seriousness, I have known him for many years and one thing is certain—his tremendous assiduity on behalf of his constituents, as he has demonstrated at this late hour by bringing to the attention of the House a matter that is so important to his constituents.
    My hon. Friend has outlined the dispute between Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham and the local highway authority, Norfolk county council, as a result of the junction alteration and subsequent works for traffic management. He acknowledged that, in practice, the county council was justified in undertaking the works on the junction where Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham live, and it is important that we should place that on the record, but he raises the problems that his constituents have experienced from both the junction alteration and later works for traffic management in the neighbouring road.
    The roads in the case that my hon. Friend mentioned are of course local roads, and that means that their management and development are the responsibility of the local highway authority, which, in this case, is Norfolk county council. I should say for the record, because it bears on his remarks, that, although the Secretary of State for Transport is also a highway authority, that responsibility is limited to the motorway and trunk road network, which, although it carries large volumes of longer-distance traffic, constitutes only 4 per cent. of the road network; the rest is the responsibility of the local highway authority. Decisions are primarily for them. As the House will understand, that is right and proper because they are democratically accountable bodies which exercise their responsibilities in the interests of their local communities.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that, in general, the local highway authorities bring a high level of competence to their work. I am sure that he will agree that decisions with essentially local impact are, rightly, matters for local government rather than for central Government. My hon. Friend was kind enough to suggest that I might not be as familiar with Cromer road as he is. That illustrates the point. The man from Whitehall cannot be expected to devote the same attention with the same degree of knowledge to such localised schemes as a local authority.
    234
    Having established that it is quite proper that a highway authority should be a local authority, I shall turn to the two problems raised by my hon. Friend. The first problem relates to compensation for the effect of the original junction improvement scheme. It might be helpful to the House if I give a brief explanation of the powers that can apply in land compensation cases. A range of powers, some discretionary, are available to a highway authority to acquire land or compensate those owners who are adversely affected by highway schemes.
    Sections 149 to 171 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require a highway authority to acquire land blighted by road proposals as defined in schedule 13 to the Act. Blighted land is, in general, the land required or land that is likely to be subject to compulsory purchase for highway purposes. That is a requirement on the highway authority to buy land needed for the scheme in advance.
    Section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980 enables a highway authority to acquire, by agreement and in advance, land that is not required for a road scheme but that will, in the opinion of the highway authority, be severely affected by it. That is a new discretionary power, which was not available to Norfolk county council at the time of the alterations to Cromer road. It was introduced by section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which followed a full review of highway land compensation arrangements.
    Section 246(2)(a) of the Highways Act 1980 enables a highway authority to acquire, by agreement, land adversely affected by the construction or improvement of the highway. That is a discretionary power which can be exercised only at the time the work is being carried out.
    Section 246(2)(b) of the Highways Act 1980 enables a highway authority to acquire by agreement, land adversely affected by the use of the highway. That is a discretionary power, which can be exercised only once the highway is open to traffic.
    Finally, part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which is the major legislation, requires a highway authority to compensate landowners for depreciation in the value of their property caused by physical factors such as noise and dust.
    As my hon. Friend has suggested, I understand that Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham both received offers of compensation to which they were entitled under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for the loss in value of their home a result of the junction alteration measures taken in 1987 and 1988. Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham were advised by independent professional valuation agents in their negotiations with the council and accepted offers of compensation in 1990. The council also reimbursed them for the fees charged by the agents.
    It seems that the owners were not advised by either their independent professional valuation agents or the council of the discretionary powers in section 246(2)(b) of the Highways Act 1980, which I have just outlined. As I have explained, those powers allow a highway authority the discretion to acquire property, that, in the opinion of the authority, is seriously affected by the use of a new or altered highway. The discretionary power to acquire property in this way can be exercised up to one year after a road has opened or been altered; it then lapses.
    The failure to communicate the full legal options available to the council is disappointing. It does not, however, follow that, had the owners applied for

    235
    discretionary purchase, the highway authority would have exercised its discretion to offer to buy their properties. In this case, sadly, those powers are now lapsed.
    As my hon. Friend said, compensation has already been paid under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. His constituents were compensated for the loss in value arising from the junction alteration and I understand that, whatever their feeling about the conduct of the negotiations, they accepted the compensation offered as a full and final settlement of their claim for the depreciation in value caused by those works. My hon. Friend will understand that I have no locus to intervene in such negotiations.
    I shall deal now with the second part of the problem—the effects on Cromer road of the later proposal to close Eversley road to through traffic. Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham clearly feel that they were not adequately consulted by the council about that proposal. The House will appreciate that it is difficult for me to comment on that as a matter of fact. It is clear that the local highway authority was aware of the likely impact of the measures on properties in Cromer road when it decided in May 1992 that the further measure was necessary. It is less clear whether it did all that it could have done to ensure that those affected were properly informed of what was proposed.
    Although the works in Eversley road have an effect on residents of Cromer road, no further claim for compensation arises as there is no physical alteration to the carriageway. That is based on the well-established and, in my view, entirely correct, principle that existing unaltered roads may be expected to be used to their full capacity. After all, the proposition is that a frontager should be compensated for an increase in traffic levels brought about not by any physical alteration but merely by some other factor outside the direct relevance of the road and the frontager. I wonder what my hon. Friend's reaction might be to the proposition that would, I assume, naturally flow from that, which is that, were traffic volumes to be reduced by, for example, the opening of an adjacent bypass, frontagers should be charged a substantial sum of money to cover the additional value that presumably attaches to their property. In essence, and in the public interest, the general policy—which states that when there is no physical alteration, no claim for compensation arises—is, I believe, a sound one.
    Local authorities have wide powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make traffic regulation orders to regulate traffic on local roads. Those powers are very flexible. Restrictions can be imposed on single streets, or parts of them, or they can apply to all roads within a particular area. Orders may, for example, prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of a road or any part of the width of a road by vehicular traffic of any class. They may have effect at all times or at specified periods or they can be applied to different classes of traffic. For example, exemptions might apply to heavy goods vehicles alone, and exemptions from the terms of an order can be made for vehicles used for particular purposes, such as taxis or delivery vehicles or those belonging to residents or businesses located in the area. If necessary, exempt vehicles may even be identified by permits.
    Such an order is not subject to reference to the Secretary of State. The decision whether to make a traffic regulation order rests solely with the local traffic authority but, in exercising its powers under the 1984 Act, it must
    236
    have regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises. It may, however, be open to the residents who are affected to seek further revisions to existing traffic management arrangements.
    My hon. Friend raises an important point about informing citizens of their rights and possible remedies for nuisance caused by public development. The Government are firmly committed to that principle and to making information available in accordance with citizens charter principles. We have produced a booklet entitled "Land Compensation—Your rights explained". I have given my hon. Friend a number of copies which I hope that he will distribute to his constituents.
    The Highways Agency, which has operational responsibility for trunk roads and motorway schemes, sends such booklets, together with its own charter statement, to people whose property may be affected by scheme proposals. It does that to advise them precisely of the remedies that might be available to them. Local highway authorities, including Norfolk, may well also consider issuing the advice in those booklets to inform owners who may be affected by local road schemes.
    It is one thing for a local authority to point to the fact that it has no strict statutory obligation to inform every person affected of their potential right to compensation—that, after all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a long-established principle that you and I understand in relation to planning law, and it is based on the sensible proposition that a planning consent or, indeed, a road order, cannot be entirely set aside merely because of a failure to inform every single person who might be affected—but it is not satisfactory to suggest that that gives local authorities a right simply not to bother to let people know what their rights are.
    Good practice, and, as I have suggested, practice which is followed by the Highways Agency—certainly in relation to its schemes, for which my Department is more directly responsible—is informing owners of their rights in precisely the form that I have outlined. That does not in any sense prejudge any success or otherwise of any claim that owners may subsequently make. Indeed, one of the advantages of information in such circumstances is that it allows local people to understand that there is a comprehensive system of compensation available; that it will not apply in every case; that it may very well be that, on occasions, a claim will not be successful, which will save potential correspondents considerable time and ultimately wasted effort. I suspect, however, that in a number of cases the information will also suggest to people that the framework for compensation is in fact relatively straightforward and indeed logical in the massive majority of cases. I commend that better practice.
    Of course local authority discretion—dealing with the issue of discretion—is important, and so is the right of individual citizens to be informed about proposals that may affect their property. As I say, I am not in a position to judge whether Norfolk provided all the information that it should have done in this case. All I can say is that Mrs. Duffield and Mrs. Langham clearly do not think that they received all the information that they should have done. I invite the county council to reflect on whether there is a way in which it can improve its procedures to prevent such a problem arising again.

    237
    I commend the principles of openness and consultation to all local authorities. In the event, that process is likely to avoid very considerable unnecessary acrimony, recrimination and, indeed, genuine hardship and distress to people who certainly do not deserve it.
    Mrs. Langham and Mrs. Duffield may—I hope—take some pleasure from knowing that in this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has enabled me to
    238
    put across what I believe is an extraordinarily important point in this regard and one of which many local authorities would do well to take account.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Suspects (Interviews)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the terms of reference for the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres to permit the deputy commissioner to be present at interviews with terrorist suspects in the police offices. [309]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Following discussions with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I have today placed in the Library of the House revised terms of reference for the Independent commissioner for the Holding Centres to permit his deputy to be present at interviews with terrorist suspects in the police offices, subject to certain caveats agreed by both the commissioner and the RUC. The change will come into effect on 1 December 1995.

  This change in the role of the deputy commissioner will further assure the public that those persons detained in the holding centres continue to be properly treated in accordance with their legal rights and the standards required by the relevant codes of practice.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if an addendum to the outline railway safety case for the channel tunnel rail link has been prepared for the additional provisions to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill deposited in the House last week. [4]

  Mr. Watts
  Union Railways has, in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, prepared an addendum to the outline railway safety case for the channel tunnel rail link for the additional provisions to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill that were deposited last week. The addendum covers the additional provisions for the Barking extended tunnel; A13 services diversions; Mardyke Park realignment; and the Eurotunnel railway connection. It also covers a prospective additional provision for access arrangements between Northfleet station and the proposed station at Ebbsfleet. That additional provision may be deposited next month. I am arranging for copies of the addendum to be placed in the House Library.

  Similar documentation will also be prepared for the additional provisions that I hope will be deposited in Parliament next month. I will ensure that that material is also placed in the House Library.

HEALTH

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of the review of the Medicines Control Agency; and if will make a statement. [360]

  Mr. Sackville
  The first evaluation study of the work of the Medicines Control Agency since its establishment as an agency, and the prior options study for its future operation, have recently been completed.

  The evaluation study concludes that the MCA has been successful in safeguarding public health through the effective control of the sale and supply of pharmaceuticals in the United Kingdom. While maintaining the high level of public protection required for pharmaceuticals licensed for use in the UK, the MCA has provided a much improved service to the pharmaceutical industry and is now acknowledged as the fastest licensing authority in the world.

  The prior options study concluded that abolition, privatisation and the contracting out of the MCA's core function are neither practical nor feasible. It notes, however, that some support functions might beneficially be placed on a contractual basis. It confirms the practical and legal requirement for a UK regulatory authority and proposes that UK Ministers should remain responsible for its core work. The work and the workload of the agency are expected to change over the coming years because of the implications of the new European systems for the regulation of pharmaceuticals. Until the impact of these new systems can be properly assessed, the report confirms that the executive agency model operating as a trading fund continues to represent the best organisational framework for the MCA.

  I support the findings of the evaluation study and the prior options study, the results of which will feed into the revision of the agency's framework document which is now in hand.

  I have today placed a summary of the reviews' findings in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Wildlife Law Enforcement
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the Government's response to the report of the enforcement working group "Wildlife Law Enforcement". [1]

  Mr. Clappison
  Following our review of secondary wildlife controls last year, the Government gave a commitment to improving the enforcement of domestic wildlife controls. The enforcement working group was set up to look at what practical steps might be taken to achieve this. I welcome the main recommendations in the enforcement working group's report.

  We are today launching the next phase of our crackdown on wildlife crime by setting up a new "Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime". The first meeting of the partnership's steering group is taking place today. The main task of this new forum will be to provide

  3
  a strategic overview of wildlife law enforcement activity in England and Wales, and to improve co-ordination and communication between all the organisations involved. It will be responsible for following up the recommendations in the enforcement working group report, and by providing expertise, experience and advice, should make a valuable contribution to the development of wildlife law enforcement policy.

  The police have agreed to continue to chair the group jointly with my Department. The group will also need to respond to other interests and opinions. I have therefore invited the founder members to co-opt other members, including those representing countryside and sporting interests.

  One of the main objectives of the group will be to support the network of police wildlife liaison officers, which is the cornerstone of wildlife law enforcement activity. The network has grown steadily since its inception in the early 1980s, with virtually all police forces in the UK now having one or more police wildlife liaison officers. Few of these officers are engaged full time on this work and many are volunteers performing wildlife duties in addition to their many other tasks. It is important for the network to be retained and, where necessary, strengthened.

  DNA testing and other forensic techniques have an important part to play in combating wildlife crime. There have recently been a number of successful prosecutions based on DNA blood sampling evidence, and we will continue to promote and support the use of forensic techniques in wildlife cases.

  The enforcement working group identified a number of weaknesses in the powers of the police to investigate wildlife offences, and sought tougher and more consistent penalties for wildlife crime. We will seek to identify legal remedies which will command general support within the next 12 months.

  I can also make further announcements today about practical actions which I am taking against wildlife crime.

  First, we have appointed the Laboratory of the Government Chemist to prepare practical advice for all police and other enforcement authorities about the application of DNA techniques to wildlife crime. This will include sampling kits, and we expect to issue the full package in May next year.

  Secondly, over the next three years, we shall be sponsoring further innovative research into DNA and wildlife crime. This will be aimed at projects which can establish tests for further species—such as tigers—or for different materials such as feathers and hair.

  Thirdly, my Department is making resources available immediately to finance a practitioners' guide to wildlife law. This is a key recommendation of the enforcement working group, and will be of particular use to the police and other agencies in their fight against wildlife crime.

  Those involved in wildlife crime should be in no doubt that we are determined to do everything possible to ensure that they are vigorously pursued and properly punished.
  4

  Coastal Policy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue the proposed statement of policy guidelines for the coast. [2]

  Mr. Clappison
  Reflecting the importance of promoting effective management of the coastal zone, the Department of the Environment is today making available "Policy Guidelines for the Coast", which draws together in concise form a wider range of guidance and other information on coast-related issues in England. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House, and the guidelines will be extensively distributed to interested organisations and individuals.

  Mineral Dredging
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has come to concerning the review of licensing arrangements for mineral dredging in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [3]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have today published our conclusions on the review. After consideration of all the representations and consultation with other Government Departments, we have decided that the way forward is to introduce statutory procedures to replace the non-statutory "Government View" procedure. The decision follows our conclusions that:a statutory system, which will draw on procedures in the town and country planning Acts, should be introduced, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales as regulatory and enforcement authorities. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be consulted in the decision-making process and will have responsibility for overseeing the monitoring of the effects of the dredging activities;
  the costs of administering the new statutory procedures should be recovered from dredging application fees;
  in general, new dredging permissions should be valid for 15 years with substantive reviews at five-year intervals to determine renewal;
  the statutory procedures should subsume sections 18 and 34 consents under the Coast Protection Act 1949; and
  all areas of the sea bed below the low-water mark will be covered regardless of ownership.
  A summary of the responses to the consultation paper and an outline of the proposed statutory procedures have been placed in the House Library. Until we can introduce proposals for legislation to this House, we propose to introduce similar non-statutory procedures as an interim measure. A further announcement will be made about this.

  We will also be preparing and consulting on policy guidance for marine dredging which will set out the environmental criteria appropriate to the marine environment.

  Rent Officer Service
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change the arrangements for the administration of the rent officer service in England. [971]
  5
  Mr. Curry
  In the light of the scrutiny report published in 1992 and the subsequent work by my Department and by consultants, I have concluded that there is a case for introducing new arrangements for the administration of the rent officer service in England based on a unified national management structure.

  Before making a decision, and following the procedure set out in "Continuity and Change", Cm 2627, I propose to undertake a prior options review, in particular to consider and make recommendations on:

  (i) whether the functions discharged by rent officers under the Rent Act 1977 and orders made under the Housing Act 1988 should continue to be performed in the public sector;

  (ii) the scope for contracting out; and

  (iii) subject to the conclusion on (i) and (ii), the strength of the case for changing to unified management structure; and

  (iv) subject to (iii), the relative merits of achieving this by establishing a next steps agency within the civil service or an independent public sector body, based either on an existing or a newly created organisation.

  The review will be undertaken by my Department in conjunction with the Treasury, the Office of Public Service and the Department of Social Security. There will be an opportunity for interested bodies to submit views.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made by English Partnerships in promoting inward investment and in its regeneration role more generally. [972]

  Mr. Curry
  English Partnerships has played a key role in helping to secure a succession of major inward investment projects during the last 12 months, involving Samsung, Sony, Ford-Jaguar and Siemens. These projects alone will attract over £2 billion of investment into the UK economy and create up to 7,000 jobs. In addition, English Partnerships has been instrumental in other smaller inward investment projects throughout England, which have made positive impacts on local economies and communities.

  It is now two years since the Government launched English Partnerships as the main focus of land and building regeneration in England. In July, English Partnerships published its 1994–95 annual report, covering its first full financial year of operations. Copies of the report are available in the Library. It records that English Partnerships successfully implemented a £225 million regeneration programme, attracting some £300 million of private investment, potentially creating over 13,000 jobs and reclaiming 4,200 acres of land.

  English Partnerships' concern to secure sustainable economic regeneration has been demonstrated through its commitment to major mixed use development schemes to revitalise urban districts such as Hulme in Manchester and Barking Reach, the first major project in the Thames gateway area.

  English Partnerships has also demonstrated a strong commitment to voluntary and community organisations, recognising the importance of their contribution to local regeneration. As well as promoting community involvement in major projects, English Partnerships has established a special fund, the community investment
  6
  fund, to provide capital funding for smaller community-led projects. It is also continuing for a second year its partnership with the Groundwork Trust to promote smaller reclamation projects which improve the local environment.

PRIME MINISTER

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in New Zealand.

  The Prime Minister
  With my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, I attended the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in New Zealand on 10 to 13 November.

  I have placed in the Library of the House the text of the Auckland Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—CHOGM—communiqué and an action plan for the fulfilment of the Harare declaration. Statements were also issued on Nigeria and disarmament.

  Commonwealth Heads of Government warmly welcomed President Mandela, representing South Africa for the first time following the country's transition to a multi-racial democracy; and President Biya, following the recent admission of Cameroon as the 52nd member of the Commonwealth.

  The meeting rightly took issue with those members of the Commonwealth, notably Nigeria, which continue to defy the principles of democratic and accountable government agreed at the CHOGM in Harare in 1991. The Commonwealth's widespread and increasing concern about the importance of an early transition to accountable democratic government in Nigeria, and the Nigerian Government's callous execution of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight associates, following a flawed judicial process with no formal right of appeal and no regard for the basic legal rights of defendants, gave the Commonwealth little alternative but to suspend Nigeria. This was essential if the Harare principles were to carry credibility for the future.

  How long Nigeria remains suspended depends on its own conduct. If the Nigerian Government show themselves willing to abide by the Harare principles, the Commonwealth will be very ready to support them. Conversely, the meeting agreed that if no democratic progress has been made within a time frame to be stipulated, Nigeria will be expelled from the Commonwealth.

  To monitor implementation of the Harare declaration more generally, the meeting decided to establish a standing group of eight Commonwealth Foreign Ministers, in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will participate.

  The United Kingdom and other members differed over the resumption of French nuclear testing in the Pacific. I said that I recognised the strong views of countries in the region. But I also stressed my determination to defend strongly the principles and policies of deterrence which have helped to keep the UK peaceful and free for the past half century. The Commonwealth's statement on

  7
  disarmament was misrepresentative, and in parts clearly wrong on nuclear weapons testing. I was not therefore prepared to be associated with it. At the same time, I underlined that the UK shared with Commonwealth partners the desire for an early end to testing, in the south Pacific or elsewhere. Hence the UK's commitment to concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty and signing the protocols to the treaty of Rarotonga in the first half of next year.

  On Hong Kong, Commonwealth Heads endorsed our view that the rule of law and a high degree of autonomy are important ingredients for Hong Kong's continuing success after 1997.

  Commonwealth Heads agreed to accept Mozambique's application to join, which was championed by President Mandela and leaders of other Southern African Commonwealth states, in view of Mozambique's previous links with the Commonwealth. The meeting also agreed that an intergovernmental group should report on criteria for any future applications.

  I invited Commonwealth leaders to hold their next meeting in 1997 in Britain. This invitation was warmly accepted.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  National Food Stockpile
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards liquidation of the national food stockpile; and if he will make a statement. [525]

  Mrs. Browning
  The national food stockpile originally consisted of flour, biscuits, sugar, fat, yeast, sweets and emergency feeding equipment stored in buffer depots around the country, to provide a reserve to help feed survivors during a recovery period after a nuclear attack. Following a phased reduction of activities after 1991, an announcement was made in March 1993 to liquidate the stockpile. This was possible because an assessment of food supplies in the context of modern distribution and storage practices within the food industry had concluded that there would be ample stocks available to meet any conceivable attack. Remaining foodstuffs have since been disposed of and the last buffer depot has recently been closed.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to divorce and separation; legal aid in connection with mediation in disputes relating to family matters; proceedings in cases where marriages have broken down; rights of occupation of certain domestic premises; prevention of molestation; the inclusion in certain orders under the Children Act 1989 of provisions about the occupation of a dwelling-house; the transfer of tenancies between spouses and persons who have lived together as husband and wife; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell the House when the Bill will be available to us. Normally such Bills are available in the afternoon after the First Reading has been moved. But I understand that the Bill will not be available this afternoon.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding is that the Bill will be available in accordance with the usual rules. I have no reason to believe otherwise. If I find to the contrary, I shall certainly make inquiries as to why that should have happened. My understanding is that the Bill is ready and should be available in accordance with the ordinary system.
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about criminal procedure and criminal investigations. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable local
22
authorities responsible for community care services to make payments to persons in respect of their securing the provision of such services; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the reserve forces of the Crown and persons liable to be recalled for permanent service; to amend the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 relating to lieutenancies; to amend the law relating to the postponement of the discharge or transfer to the reserve of regular servicemen; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Western European Time Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the adoption of Western European Time in the United Kingdom. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In moving the Motion, I should like to offer your Lordships profuse apologies and add my gratitude to the noble Lord who pointed out to me that, unfortunately, there are three spelling errors in the Motion on the Order

23
Paper whereby the word "committees" in lines 1, 2 and 5 has been spelt with only one "t" instead of two. I hope that your Lordships will not feel that that alters the sense of the Motion.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 62 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body not being a Select Committee referred to it by the Chairman of Committees, and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

L. Denham,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Moms of Castle Morris,

L. Richard,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I trust that it is in order for me to welcome the new Committee of Selection as proposed and to raise one aspect of its work very briefly. I refer, as some noble Lords have done in the past, to the composition of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities and its five regular sub-committees.
As noble Lords will know, the primary duty of your Lordships' European Communities Committee is to scrutinise and report on legislation from Brussels. The point that I want to make again, if I may do so without trying the patience of your Lordships' House too much, is that the varying degrees of enthusiasm, or lack of it, for legislation which flows from Brussels do not follow party lines in your Lordships' House.
I know that it is a far from perfect yardstick but I still feel that the best indication of opinion in your Lordships' House about our involvement in Europe remains the referendum vote of 14th July 1993 when 445 of your Lordships voted against a referendum and 176 voted in favour. So some 28 per cent. of noble Lords who voted—or nearly a third—felt that the Maastricht Treaty was of sufficient importance to be put to the people. I am aware that some of the 176 were in fact in favour of the treaty—not many, I believe, but some. On the other hand, it was not exactly a free vote for either of the main parties. As I said, it is not a perfect yardstick but it is perhaps the best that we have.
Be that as it may, at the moment there is only one Member on your Lordships' European Communities Committee who supported a referendum out of a full complement of perhaps 20. There are six vacancies.
24
Turning briefly to the five regular sub-committees, it is my understanding that in effect it is the chairmen of the Select Committee and of those five sub-committees who decide which noble Lords to invite to join the sub-committees, where most of the work is done.
I have had the privilege of serving on your Lordships' European Communities Committee for four years. I should not want to be understood as saying anything to detract from the quality of your Lordships' Select Committee reports, which are justly famous in Europe. Indeed, it is probably not going too far to say that they are the most respected reports on the European scene. Nor would I want to say anything against any of the chairmen under whom I have served and for whom I have the very greatest respect. That is especially true of the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Tordoff. I only hope that what I have said may be of help to the deliberations of the Committee of Selection in the next few days.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, as, I am sure, is the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, my noble friend Lord Tordoff, for his kind, personal remarks.
Perhaps I should say first that I am sure that, generally speaking, considerations of balance are always borne in mind in the course of the consultations that always take place before we approach matters of this kind within the usual channels and elsewhere. I am sure too that those considerations of balance are always brought to mind by Members of your Lordships' House who serve on the Committee of Selection.
Perhaps I may add a point that from time to time has been raised, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will know, within the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House. In accordance with your Lordships' customary practice in the course of the scrutiny work undertaken by the committee and its sub-committees, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, your Lordships always bring to bear an independence of view. Your Lordships probably regard that as the fundamental approach to take in the work of Select Committees, not excluding this one. I hope that that helps to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is whether the Motion, as corrected, be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Denham—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, it is an honour to open your Lordships' debate on the gracious Speech. I look forward in particular to the maiden speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Carew.
This is an important debate. I shall only be able to touch on some of our foreign policy concerns. Those will include the Commonwealth and development. My noble friend Lord Howe will concentrate on defence and security policy.
I begin with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference from which I returned yesterday. The suspension of Nigeria's membership showed the Commonwealth standing up to a government who continue to defy the Harare Declaration on good government. Nigeria's abuse of human rights has been persistent. Her suspension of habeas corpus is unprecedented in the Commonwealth. The execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight co-defendants was a callous act by a government who have repeatedly failed to observe normal civilised behaviour. Nigeria presents a crucial challenge to the whole international community. Britain is therefore consulting closely with partners about how best to encourage fundamental changes in the governance of Nigeria. But there is a long way to go.
CHOGM also took important steps to ensure that Harare principles on good government are applied throughout the Commonwealth. We established a standing group of eight foreign ministers, including Britain's, to advance Harare Declaration principles. That work must demonstrate the continuing value and relevance of the Commonwealth for its members.
In Auckland the conference endorsed the view that the rule of law and autonomy are essential ingredients for Hong Kong's continuing success after 1997. Recent proposals to amend the Bill of Rights caused justified alarm there. The British Government will continue to work with the Governor to encourage China to provide the people of Hong Kong with the reassurance that they need.
Finally, at CHOGM, as elsewhere, much was made of Britain's refusal to join in condemnation of France's current series of nuclear tests. Our position is clear and consistent. We share with France a belief in the continued need for deterrents. We share responsibilities as a nuclear weapon state. We are not prepared to criticise France for a decision which she deemed necessary to fulfil her responsibilities.
Let me turn to Britain's wider role in foreign affairs. It shows our unparalleled ties throughout the world which are crucial in maintaining our position as the fifth largest economy and the fifth largest trading nation. Equally, our membership of all the major international groups, including the Security Council, means we have a wide range of international responsibilities. We respond to those responsibilities with substantial and
26
help. We are the fifth largest development provider in the world and currently the second largest contributor to UN peacekeeping efforts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Owen—whom we welcome to our debate today—will know well, Britain has done as much as any country to limit the fighting in Bosnia and bring help to the victims of that war. Alongside a massive humanitarian effort, masterminded by ODA, we have worked with our allies to push the parties towards peace. The London conference in July highlighted the consequences of any further attack on the safe areas. In August we were obliged to carry out that threat, through the UN's Rapid Reaction Force and NATO airpower.
While the prospects for peace look more promising at this moment than at any time in four years, there is still a great deal to be done. A settlement will demand compromise from all sides. Last weekend's agreement on eastern Slavonia is an encouraging sign; but there are many more tricky issues to be discussed and developed. Implementing the settlement will involve rebuilding not just the shattered economies, but also the shattered lives and shattered trust that one sees as one travels from town to town in central Bosnia and wider; even in Croatia and, I am told, in Serbia. Those tasks will require the support of NATO and non-NATO countries in a military implementation force; the assistance of the OSCE in arranging democratic elections; and the help of the international financial institutions and countries around the world in the job of reconstruction. That job of reconstruction will be enormous. Britain will continue to play a major role in that effort. But we cannot begin until there is peace, otherwise the work will simply need to be repeated.
This House knows as well as any place that Bosnia has shown the continuing need for Europe and North America to work together to uphold international security and stability. The Cold War threat has gone, but the reinforcement of the transatlantic partnership remains one of the Government's highest priorities.
As the world's two largest trading blocs, Europe and North America have a common interest in an open international trading system. Together we must build on the conclusions of the Uruguay Round; together we must ensure a strong, effective role for the World Trade Organisation; and together we must establish a multilateral agreement on investment in the OECD. That way we can lead towards multilateral trade liberalisation by working to create a transatlantic open market, which will benefit all those involved.
A revitalised Atlantic partnership will also promote security in Europe and beyond. The NATO Alliance is central to that work, and US engagement in Europe essential to our security. That is why strengthened defence co-operation between Europeans must reinforce not weaken the transatlantic link. That is the key aim of our presidency of the Western European Union which begins in January next year. We shall work to enhance WEU capacity for crisis management, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations; and to thicken the WEU's links with the alliance.
Britain will support wider partnerships between Europe and North America. That partnership will promote democracy and development around the world;

27
it will fight the scourges of drug peddling and terrorism; and must reach agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty in 1996.
A revitalised transatlantic partnership is not an alternative to European Union membership. Both are vital because we are both an Atlantic and a European nation. Indeed, our commitment to Europe makes our role proactive. We work to improve Europe; to address the needs and concerns of Europe's people; to stimulate economic activity in order to bring more jobs. I know that Britain sometimes attracts criticism for pressing our approach rather than simply accepting other people's without question. When I hear this I often wonder what the critics would prefer. Do they wish us to subordinate the interests of Britain to those of other countries? I think not. Britain must never be afraid to question if we think a policy is wrong, and indeed to fight that policy advance if we believe it not to be in Britain's best interests. That is exactly why we declined to sign the social chapter and reserved Britain's position on a single currency. Today the need for labour market reform is increasingly accepted across Europe; and the difficulties and uncertainties of economic and monetary union are increasingly recognised.
Our approach in the Inter-Governmental Conference that begins next year will be similarly pragmatic. We shall seek reforms that are in Britain's interests and in Europe's: a more effective common foreign and security policy; efficient institutions ready for further enlargement; more emphasis on subsidiarity; and improved co-operation in the fight against drugs and crime. We hope, too, that, through Europe, we shall be able to take that fight against drugs and crime to other nations and help them, because this problem knows no boundaries.
There is a wider common challenge facing Europe and the transatlantic partnership. It is to extend eastwards the security and prosperity we have built over five decades in western Europe. A strategy to meet this goal includes enlargement of the European Union and NATO. But this enlargement alone cannot be a sufficient answer. In the first place, it will be some years before new members could join either body. In the second there will be countries which do not join in a first wave; and some may never join. So we need a wider strategy. In this, three priorities stand out.
First, we must support the efforts of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to build their own future prosperity. Their greatest need is the market access which is within Europe's gift. Secondly, we must build up the network of partnerships available in bodies like the OSCE and the Council of Europe; with NATO through the Partnership for Peace; and regional co-operation such as that around the Baltic and Black Seas. Thirdly, we must forge an even stronger partnership with Russia. We already work together in the UN Security Council, in the Contact Group, and in the G8. But we must now develop more regular and formal consultation between Russia and the North Atlantic Council. We want to work closely with Russia in implementing the Bosnia peace settlement; and in the implementation of the Conventional Forces in Europe
28
Treaty. Today is the implementation date for the CFE. Up to today nearly 50,000 pieces of heavy military equipment will have been destroyed—one-fifth by Russia alone. There is much more to be done, but we shall work together to tackle the problems that remain in order to make this a real success for peace.
In the Middle East the welcome progress over recent years towards peace was tragically disrupted by the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. This is a terrible loss for the people of Israel but it must not be a loss for peace. The Government's firm hope is that all leaders in the Middle East will resolve to take forward the peace process for which Yitzhak Rabin gave his life. We shall now work with Prime Minister Peres, who deserves all our help. I hope he will get it from every nation which believes in peace.
In the West Bank the redeployment of Israeli troops is continuing. Britain is working to support the Palestinian elections due in January. Since John Major's visit to Gaza in March, Britain has committed more than £8 million in new aid to Palestine. We hope to see progress soon on the Syrian track too, so that the benefits of reconciliation may spread still further. But the recent bombing in Riyadh was a further sign of the costs of extremism in the Middle East. That, on top of the tragic assassination, shows that we can never afford to be off our guard.
The aid programme is one of the most vital parts of the web of links of which I spoke earlier. Britain will continue to maintain a substantial and highly effective aid programme. We gain widespread recognition for the valuable contribution development makes to reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development in the poorest countries, especially in Africa and south Asia.
Long-term development depends on creating the right political and economic framework. When providing aid we shall continue to bear in mind recipient governments' determination not only to use it effectively; but also their own behaviour at home; their human rights record, their levels of military spending and their will to tackle international problems such as drugs trafficking and money laundering. The determined efforts of Britain's aid workers, official and through the NGOs, who are engaged in long-term development projects deserve to be rewarded by the active participation of the recipient countries. But they also deserve much more positive media attention in this country for the tremendous job that they do overseas in so many difficult circumstances.
Our emergency aid is always in demand. This autumn saw the most difficult hurricane season in the Caribbean for several years. The ODA provided £1 million to deal with the effects of the hurricanes, and £3 million in response to the continuing volcano threat in Montserrat. These are but small examples of work that goes on all the time, usually unsung and certainly only publicised in disastrous situations.
There were also exceptional rains in Asia. Britain provided flood relief to eight countries, from Pakistan to North Korea—that was only on humanitarian grounds. In Africa there are still substantial needs in the Great Lakes region. We shall continue to respond to

29
such disasters quickly and effectively. The drought is still causing immense problems in southern Africa. We are responding there, too.
Our aid programme is wide and effective. It needs to respond not only to the short-term disasters but to do its long-term preventive work. This year our multilateral contributions have exceeded our bilateral contributions for the first time. Our rising contribution within the Edinburgh ceiling to the European Union means that this trend will continue. That is why we are determined to ensure that all multilateral institutions are as efficient and effective as possible. We are determined that EU aid spending will be as effective as bilateral spending, and that the UK should receive just credit for the substantial contribution we already make and will continue to make over the years to come.
We have a similar determination in the United Nations to gain reform and greater efficiency. Your Lordships will recall the Halifax summit communiquére recently, the Prime Minister's speech at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the UN. He made it clear that the time has come for a thorough review of UN bodies. I can tell your Lordships that Britain is not alone in calling for that. There is a close identity of views on this issue not only among the G7 countries, as might be expected, but in Russia and most recently at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—now with 53 members including Mozambique. Therefore, we know that most of the world sees a great need for greater efficiency in the United Nations, and the United Nations must take a more targeted and a better managed approach in all UN programmes. We in Britain shall be doing our best to help that reform forward because the United Nations must modernise if it is to do the job for which it was set up 50 years ago.
In a short time I have touched on some of the vital world issues in which Britain is involved. There is no way in which I can touch upon them all. Our foreign policy is proactive and it is dynamic. Both bilaterally and multilaterally we are respected and trusted. We remain a powerful contributor to solving global and regional problems. We intend to go on doing so because it is through such a foreign policy that we shall continue to promote the best interests of the British people and when the best interests of the British people are being promoted, it is actually very good for the rest of the world, too.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I too very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Carew. In the search for peace and prosperity in the world, the coming year presents us with many challenges. The progress that has been made in the Middle East must continue without losing its momentum, following the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. The fragile ceasefire in the Balkans must be sustained and a peace must be negotiated. Long-term solutions must be found to the tribal conflict in Rwanda and Burundi and the ethnic strife in Sri Lanka. The pointless civil wars in the Sudan and Angola must be ended before more lives are
30
lost. These are just a few examples of the many intra-state armed conflicts—27 at the last count—in the world today.
Closer to home, the IGC, to which the Address refers, will raise a series of vital questions about our future in Europe. The future role of NATO in a world changed beyond recognition since the end of the Cold War must be resolved under a new Secretary-General. The newly democratised countries of eastern Europe will seek our help in sustaining democracy, ensuring their security and building market economies through the enlargement of the EU. The campaign must go on to put pressure on those countries—and there are still far too many of them—whose human rights records are indefensible. The development of those countries which have been left behind in the material progress that has benefited so many others during the 20th century perhaps poses the biggest challenge of all.
In nearly all these matters the United Nations will continue to play a vitally important part. During this year we have celebrated its 50th anniversary. I fear that few of us will be around for its 100th anniversary, but we must work together to ensure that our children and grandchildren can benefit from a body dedicated to the international resolution of conflict and the eradication of poverty and disease, which is both effective and properly resourced to do its job. The failure to pay their dues on the part of a number of nation states, including the USA, means that the UN is now bankrupt. No new appointments are being made, wages and salaries are frozen and no new research is being initiated. While of course accepting the need for reform in the interests of efficiency and greater value for money, referred to in the Address and by the Minister, the Labour Party deplores the failure of the Americans to fund the UN adequately. Of course, the UN is not always successful and some operations fail, but the world would be a far more dangerous place without it.
In the debate on the Address last year I referred to the need for greater clarity on where and how the UN should intervene in conflicts and the need to avoid muddled mandates of the kind we saw in Bosnia and Rwanda. I also spoke of the importance of creating a more efficient peacekeeping apparatus which is ready to be deployed when needed, and asked whether the Government could not take steps to shift some of the defence budget towards peacekeeping, given the very small part of it dedicated to that activity. Sadly, the Government still seem to be locked into the defence priorities of the past. Another year has passed and little progress has been made. But my noble friend Lord Judd will say more about defence, including the proposals for legislation in the Address, when winding up.
It is not only the 50th anniversary of the founding of the UN. On this very day, 16th November, 50 years ago the first meeting of UNESCO was held in London. Is it not high time that the Government recognised that UNESCO has put its house in order and that the UK should now rejoin it? Is it not an important part of our international obligations to support the education, scientific and cultural work of the United Nations? Eminent people working in these fields from every position in the political spectrum have been calling for

31
us to rejoin. Given that UNESCO has fulfilled the conditions we set it, can the Minister tell the House what is preventing the renewal of our membership? Can the Government perhaps display a little independence in these matters for a change? It may be that they can see a way forward now that President Clinton has indicated that it is a priority for the United States Government.
During the past year we have discussed Bosnia on many occasions in your Lordships' House. We on this side continue to believe that the part the UN has played in trying to ensure a peaceful resolution to the conflict there and in providing peacekeeping troops and troops to ensure the passage of humanitarian aid, has been an honourable one. Failures there have certainly been, but to blame the UN rather than its member states that have sometimes put impossible requirements on it is mistaken. Above all, it is the intransigence of the various parties that must be blamed for earlier failures to end this war. Fortunately, a ceasefire is holding out and there now appear to be better prospects of peace under the American-led negotiations than there have been since the war started. I hope that in the year to come we shall not again need to be called to the House for an emergency debate on Bosnia and that there will be no further need for frequent Statements on that subject. There are at least some grounds for optimism.
Perhaps I may now turn to a happier subject—at least for some of us—the European Union. It is of course not a happy subject for the party opposite because of its deep divisions. At the Conservative Party conference last month we heard one of the most disgraceful speeches made by a senior politician in this country on foreign and defence policy in my memory. Mr. Portillo, the Secretary of State for Defence, treated us to a nationalistic, rabble-rousing rant, designed to stir up mistrust and dislike of our European neighbours as the Prime Minister looked on, smiled and applauded.
It was a speech which saddened many people in Europe and of which Mr Portillo and the Conservative Government that have promoted him to high office should be deeply ashamed. But he showed no shame, nor any understanding of the damage he had done to Britain's standing. The universal criticism of his speech in the responsible press and among people who believe members of the British Cabinet should be above the kind of cant to which he treated us produced only arrogant self-justification on his part. Perhaps the Minister would tell us, when he winds up, whether or not he endorses the views expressed about the European Union by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Perhaps he could also comment on the prospects for sensible co-operation with our European partners on defence matters while we have a Defence Secretary who throws insults at Brussels and seeks to give his opinions an ersatz heroic stature by associating them with the SAS.
The Minister will of course be aware that the Maastricht Treaty commits us, as a member state of the EU, to working to develop a common foreign and security policy and to the development of
"a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence".
32
The Labour Party believes that concerted action by European Union members, with all the diplomatic and economic weight that they represent, should be deployed to promote our shared values of democracy, respect for human rights and the peaceful settlement of disputes. We hope that at least one outcome of the IGC will be the establishment of some form of capability responsible to the Council of Ministers to analyse foreign policy and security matters and to suggest appropriate action. That is a prerequisite to an effective CFSP. It is particularly important that a planning capability of that kind will address the proliferation of intra-state conflicts. Those conflicts not only undermine our security; they also lead to massive human suffering, involving huge numbers of civilians, and to population displacement and all the costs entailed in catering for refugees. A CFSP should be supported by the capacity to undertake preventive diplomacy. Concerted European action on conflict prevention is desperately needed.
We share the Government's view that the IGC should endorse the need for most CFSP decisions to be unanimous. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government believe that it is possible to take action on foreign and security policy in the name of the European Union without the support of all the large member states. Is there a danger that opt-outs by large member states, such as the UK, would undermine joint actions? Can the Minister also tell the House whether or not the Government favour the IGC agreeing to a treaty amendment specifying ways in which the European Parliament should be consulted on foreign and security issues?
The Labour Party is fully committed to NATO remaining the military instrument of collective defence in Europe. However, we should be foolish to ignore the pressures within the USA on the American Government to reduce their commitments to Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union. For those reasons, Europe must work to create a capacity to co-ordinate military operations in support of common policies. We support the Petersberg Declaration on the WEU. While opposing the incorporation of the WEU into the European Union, we hope that the IGC will examine ways in which links between the WEU and the EU can be improved.
The past year has seen the successful enlargement of the European Union. We welcome the further eventual enlargement of the Union, not just to Cyprus and Malta, but also to the new democracies of eastern Europe. We are very pleased that Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting Poland and the Czech Republic. Everything possible must be done to help the countries of central and eastern Europe to play their full part in Europe and to achieve the economic growth which will in turn help to secure long-term political reform there. Their stability is in our interest as well as theirs. However, it is difficult to see how that enlargement can take place without reform of the CAP and the structural fund.
Again, in the debate on the Queen's Speech last year, the Minister said that we must reform the CAP, but another year has passed and the Government have singularly failed to use their influence to make progress on CAP reform. That regrettable fact will hardly surprise your Lordships since our Foreign Secretary

33
thinks it appropriate to accept a loss of influence in Europe, apparently to protect our interests. How he thinks those two goals are compatible is a mystery to the rest of us. I suspect that he, like the Prime Minister, has fallen into the trap of putting the needs of the Conservative Party before the needs of the country. Meanwhile, the CAP goes on with all its attendant waste, environmental destruction and fraud. While on the subject of European Union fraud, I note that the Court of Auditors' recent report severely criticised the UK. In that context, perhaps the Minister could explain why the UK Government have not even taken up their full allocation of EU funds for anti-fraud work.
While countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic work to create the economic conditions that would make possible their membership of the Union, we must work to create the conditions within the Union that would make it possible. Meanwhile we can try to extend the European agreements we already have with them by creating a European political area—rather like the European Economic Area—to allow prospective members to take part in EU deliberations prior to their eventual accession. We also need to try to help and encourage them to work with each other.
What those countries also want, with a varying degree of intensity, is membership of NATO. Understandably they see that as guaranteeing their security. The Russian Government, however, perceive it as a threat in which the barrier between eastern and western Europe is simply shifted to the east and they are left isolated on the wrong side of it. While NATO enlargement must surely be on the medium-term agenda, it is difficult to accept that membership in the near future for Poland, for example, is in the interests of either existing NATO members or the Poles themselves. Given the unstable political climate in Russia with an ailing President, and a presidential election next year in which communists and nationalists will compete in exploiting xenophobia, NATO enlargement to the east poses huge risks by playing into their hands. Meanwhile we must do all that we can to promote and support economic reform in Russia, the only route to the prosperity for which the Russian people yearn.
In the third world there are still millions of people, not only denied the fruits of prosperity, but only just surviving at subsistence levels. In these circumstances, is it not our duty as a rich developed nation to do far more in providing development aid? Can the Minister tell us how she defends this Government's lamentable record with respect to spending on aid? In 1979 we were spending 0.5 per cent. of GNP; today we are spending only 0.3 per cent. Leaks claim that the aid budget is to be cut again. We all sympathise with the Minister in dealing with the Treasury in the context of a Government obsessed with tax cuts as their only hope of re-election. But leaks suggest that many other departments are not going to sustain such proportionately high cuts, so why should the ODA? Altruism, as well as our long-term interests, dictate that it should be otherwise. Is the Minister going meekly to accept a further cut in the aid budget, when four out of five people in this country say they want it to stay the same or even be increased?
34
May I also ask the Minister what, if anything, the Government have done to encourage Britain's defence industries to find alternative markets? Selling arms to poor countries often far beyond what they need for defence purposes is a major source of their debt problems: estimates suggest that nearly a quarter of all third world debt has been incurred by the purchasing of arms. I congratulate the Government on the lead that they have taken in promoting debt-forgiveness in sub-Saharan Africa and on the role they played in formulating the Trinidad Terms. But would it not also be sensible to try to deal with the causes of debt and prevent it occurring in the first place? The excessive sale of arms to third world countries has also helped to fuel some of the most damaging internal conflicts, exacerbating the destruction of housing and crops and increasing loss of life.
The sale of arms to repressive regimes is cause for even greater concern. The Government's duplicity in relation to arms for Iraq has long been exposed and received further confirmation in the recent judgment in the courts on the use of "gagging orders". We on this side of the House look forward to seeing Lord Justice Scott's report, when we shall return to this matter.
Perhaps I may say, however, that I was staggered by the complacency of the Minister's reply in this House the week before last on the granting of export licences for the sale of CS gas and rubber bullets to the Nigerian police. Given the human rights record of General Abacha, I cannot see how the Government can have been so confident that those purchases would not be used by the Nigerian security services for illegitimate, repressive purposes. As the Minister said, the judicial murder last week of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others has led to a wave of revulsion around the world. We strongly endorse the Commonwealth decision to expel Nigeria. By its own actions, Nigeria has condemned itself to pariah status. We also welcome the Prime Minister's call for an embargo on arms sales. Does that now mean that there will be no further UK sales to Nigeria? I hope, incidentally, that in the course of the coming Session we can have a full debate on the sale of arms, in all its ramifications, including human rights.
In looking forward to the coming Session of Parliament, the House will all too often need to be reminded of human rights violations in many parts of the world. We in the Labour Party salute the work done by Amnesty International in fighting to protect the rights of minorities and those in opposition to regimes which pay scant regard to democratic freedoms. In the past, the most common form of human rights violations involved authoritarian governments locking up those who opposed them; today the world is scarred by new forms of violations in which ethnic conflict, accompanied by serious human rights abuses, has grown in the context of weak governments unable to contain it. I hope that we can agree on the need to take a firm stand against such abuses whenever they occur and to support a strong role for the UN human rights machinery.
It is in all our interests to want a safer as well as a more just world. A comprehensive test ban treaty next year is of great importance for the safety of us all. My only regret is that the Government dragged their feet for

35
so long over this measure. Nor can I accept what the Minister has just said about French testing. The Labour Party condemns the Government for the isolated stand they took at the Commonwealth Conference in failing to join every other Commonwealth country in criticising French nuclear tests in the Pacific. The other 51 members of the Commonwealth were right to condemn the testing.
Let me end where I started, with the Middle East, where I believe there is plenty of common ground between us. The peace process must go on, as Yitzhak Rabin would have wanted. Indeed, if following his death it can gather extra momentum, he will not have died in vain. The campaign of hatred, sustained by religious dogma, mounted by extremists on the far right in Israel, must not go unchecked. The vast majority of Israelis want to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours. As they know, withdrawal from the West Bank is a precondition to Palestinian self-rule and long-term peace. Now is the time for action, with renewed negotiations between Mr. Peres and Mr. Arafat. As the Minister said, further dialogue between Israel and Syria is also needed to resolve their differences. I believe that the Government support that view. In the words of Mr. Rabin himself, there has been:
"enough of blood and tears".
3.53 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the two noble Baronesses who have spoken from their respective Front Benches in saying how much we look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who will follow me, and of the noble Lord, Lord Carew. My noble friend Lord Mayhew will speak on defence and my noble friend Lord Redesdale will speak on overseas aid. In the time available to me, I propose to concentrate on Britain's relations with the European Union, and to follow up, rather more fully, the brief comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the curious speech of the new Foreign Secretary, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, a few weeks ago at the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House.
Mr. Rifkind took the opportunity, very sensibly as the new Foreign Secretary, to set out how he saw the role of British foreign policy as we approach the end of the century. It was an interesting speech—I commend it to noble Lords on all sides of the House—and, as one would expect of someone of Mr. Rifkind's intellectual quality, an able analysis. Since a great deal of foreign policy is bipartisan in Parliament, there was much within it that can be agreed. But at its heart, as the noble Baroness indicated, there was, as regards our relations with the EU, an important and fatal flaw. Mr. Rifkind used the words, "In some areas,"—he mentioned specifically a single currency—
"it may be sensible to accept a reduction in our influence in order to protect our interests. Influence can never be an end in itself, and we should not be obsessed with it".
In the immortal words of the grandfather of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to Mr. fain Macleod on a famous occasion:
36
"This is too clever by half".
It rests on the basic fallacy, in relation to our membership of the EU, that the best way to look after our interests is to sacrifice our influence. When will we ever learn about our relations with the EU? Many of the special problems for Britain in the Community (the CAP, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned, is a prime example) arise from the fact that we were not in the Community from the beginning, using our influence to shape policies that took account of our legitimate interests. Mr. Rifkind himself is too intelligent not to recognise that. He conceded in his lecture that our long delay in joining the European Community did in fact do us much damage.
The new emphasis of Britain's new Foreign Secretary surely flies in the face of the Prime Minister's original aim, now largely unfortunately overtaken, of keeping Britain at the heart of the Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for whom I have the greatest respect and whose views on Britain's relations with Europe I have known over many years, called the attitude proactive. It is difficult to see how that description fits what has happened over the past year or two in the conduct of our policies. The view also flies in the face of Mr. Rifkind's own aim elsewhere in his analysis when he said:
"We must build a new partnership between Europe and North America",
That was also mentioned by the Minister in her speech.
Noble Lords may remember that the retiring United States ambassador to Britain pointed out recently that the US saw its principal diplomatic relationships now as being collectively with the EU and not bilaterally with Britain. If we wanted, he said, to influence American policy, we had to do it through our influence over European policy.
The Foreign Secretary's gurus in deciding to go down the strange road of being ready to sacrifice influence in what Mr. Rifkind regards as our interests form a curious collection— Palmerston, President de Gaulle, and the Swiss confederation. I would argue that Switzerland, that splendid, prosperous, small, neutral country, has sacrificed both its interests and its influence by not joining the EU with other EFTA partners and that the obstacle to its taking such a momentous decision, which large numbers of its leaders wished to take, was its excessive devotion to local referenda. I must not, however, be tempted down that lane.
I am certain that Palmerston would turn in his grave at the idea that the UK, with its worldwide interests, its leading role in the Commonwealth, its seat on the UN Security Council, its high quality Diplomatic Service and defence forces, should model its world role on the Swiss confederation. As for President de Gaulle as a role model, the Prime Minister has many engaging and indeed admirable personal qualities, but President de Gaulle he is not!
No one suggests that Britain should not fight its national corner in the Union. Goodness knows, there is plenty that is wrong with the EU, as the report on fraud, in the publication of which your Lordships' House played a leading role, revealed just a few days ago.

37
There is much that needs to be put right, and there are many issues in terms of shaping the EU's future. There is everything to be said for fighting our corner but what matters is the way it is done. Being a wet blanket in the Maastricht reflection group, which is the report that I receive of the British position, is no way to support British interests and being ostentatiously the odd man out at this week's WEU meeting simply diminishes our influence. No one, except possibly Mr. Portillo, believes that a European army in European uniforms is on the cards. Most of us would agree with Mr. Rifkind that a single foreign policy may evolve one day but that we do not have it yet and are not likely to have it in the foreseeable future.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, emphasised, Britain has an influential part to play in developing positive European co-operation in both foreign policy and defence. I do not believe that in creating a European Union Palmerston would have been content to hand over the leadership to France and Germany, with Britain standing on the sidelines. The reality is that for a country such as Britain, it is a major national interest to seek a major influence over European Union policy-making. Sir Leon Brittan, vice-president of the European Commission and a distinguished former Minister in the Conservative Administration, put the matter plainly at a recent CBI conference. He said solemnly, from all his long experience in Brussels:
"The safe working assumption was that there would be an economic and monetary union in Europe by the end of the century. If, as the Euro-sceptics urge, the UK turned its back now on EMU we would certainly lose any further influence over the process of setting it up".
I cannot believe that it is remotely in Britain's interest to put itself in a position in the EU of abdicating the kind of leadership role that it should be undertaking and in particular of getting into a position of supporting competitive devaluations and running a real risk of returning to the beggar-my-neighbour cut-throat and national economic policies which did so much damage and were such a contributory factor to the coming of the Second World War.
I have concentrated on the views of the new Foreign Secretary because the way in which he set them out in the lecture was important; they were considered views. He is not a Euro-sceptic and there is a simple explanation for his new gloss on Britain's European policy. He is using his considerable intellectual ingenuity to try to give an intellectual respectability to the policy that the Government have been developing during the past year or two; that is, of increasingly being the odd man out in the European Union.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said in her final remarks, the purpose of that policy is to appease the minority of Euro-sceptics in the Conservative Party. The Government have become more concerned with influencing their own rebels than with influencing their European partners. They are more concerned with domestic party interests than with Britain's international interest. It is a pathetic fallacy that Britain's national interest may be best served by sacrificing Britain's influence in the European Union. Exactly the reverse is
38
the case. The sooner that we have a government which takes its proper share in shaping the future of the European Union the better for Britain.
4.4 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking for the first time today. I feel quite at home in this debate, having spent most of the past 30 years working mainly abroad with non-government organisations such as Christian Aid, Save the Children and CARE. I know that they are well-known names, but I can confirm from direct experience that they are highly professional bodies which do a lot of valuable work without public acknowledgement.
Over the years, I have seen how small aid projects can transform people's lives. During my last visit to India, for example, I saw how easily savings and loans schemes give the poorest a chance to free their families from the hideous grip of moneylenders or bonded labour. In other countries, such as South Africa, I know how critical the work of the Churches and the voluntary agencies has been, and remains, to the struggle for democracy and human rights.
During the same period I have watched the British Government, as part of a reassessment of their responsibilities to the third world, opening up to the voluntary sector to become more a partner than a post-colonial proprietor. I am proud to say that, thanks to all our propaganda in the 1970s and 1980s, the Government now regard voluntary agencies as an essential channel of aid and development, last year providing £158 million through the Joint Funding Scheme and other programmes to British and local NGOs.
When overseas I have tried to look at Britain from the outside. Diplomats know full well that our most persuasive foreign policy is not through NATO, or the European institutions, or even the corridors of Whitehall. We command respect in the world because of our democracy, our language and our culture, our legal system, our broadcasting and our aid and technical assistance programmes.
We all know that a lot of aid, both government and non-government, is inappropriate. The Pergau and Narmada dams are two widely-accepted examples of official aid going wrong. Non-government aid has many advantages but it also suffers from bureaucracy and other innate problems of aid-giving. Development economics is a sophisticated science, but it does not necessarily teach experts how to manage a good project. This comes mainly from a philosophical understanding of what local people want and need, and with a minimum of outside technical input. Britain is getting better at it, but I believe that we still have a lot to learn.
However, our own world understanding has to come before our desire to adjust other people's lives. I have had a growing conviction that, as a nation, we are relatively uneducated as regards understanding the third world and, indeed, the second world. Very few people have heard of the ODA let alone of the problems that it is trying to solve.

39
Development education is not secondary to our support for other countries; it is a part of it. We need more world awareness in our national life and in our education. We need to promote the longer-term aims of development. Some companies have made major contributions through education, training and sponsorship. The charities, assisted by the media, have worked overtime in order to improve public understanding of aid and the environment and to explain what they have been doing.
I recently helped to produce new teaching materials on India for 11 to 14 year-olds, published by the educational charity Worldaware. I am frequently struck by how little first-hand information and education on developing countries exists in UK schools. And yet young people are continually asking about these countries and a wealth of information exists. It requires special skills to produce this material and not many organisations are equipped to do it well. The best are the various charities which draw on their expertise and on information from projects on the ground.
We are still not doing enough for our 16 to 19 year-olds. The GAP agencies have been very successful in attracting the interest of young people and placing them abroad in temporary teaching and other voluntary work. I welcome the new initiatives taken by the Development Education Association, with ODA support, by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, now part of the British Council, and by Education Partners Overseas to improve opportunities for young people. International links and exchanges are time-consuming and expensive. But when sponsorship is organised and there is a good project link, young people have experiences which they never forget and which are always useful in later life.
I believe that our educational publishers could produce more high quality materials for older children within the curriculum. Through the ODA, the British Council and the DTI, there is a massive export of education and training from the UK, but relatively little import into British schools of the cultural wealth and experience of developing countries, unless a teacher, pupil or returned volunteer has actually been there. We are a multi-cultural society and it is time that we made a bigger national effort along those lines to stimulate that work through the charities.
Let us not pretend that overseas aid is just giving something away to others, as some of its critics say. It means a more equal sharing of ideas, more understanding, advocacy and educational work, and diplomacy through involvement. And of course, it means also more jobs back home. All those who go out to give, find that they return with more. It is the educational equivalent of debt repayment which, like the loaves and fishes, can bring back more than the credits themselves. The NGOs, including their local counterparts in host countries, are well placed to assist with that process, but they should not have to do it on their own.
We all know the moral case for aid but I shall summarise it. The world is becoming richer and more technologically equipped; and yet 1 billion people are
40
beyond the reach of global economic modernisation, and will need other forms of support. Of the 13 to 18 million who are dying each year, according to the UNDP, over 85 per cent. die not in emergencies but because of poverty, ill-health and all the long-term problems that the world has not yet solved.
I do not mean to be controversial but there is some alarm about our Government's present intentions. UK bilateral aid to Africa and the Middle East will decline 16 per cent. in real terms over the four years to 1998, although in July, the Minister hoped that it would be less.
The Treasury is taking a tougher line against aid cuts, more than the Minister had been expecting, possibly as much as 12 per cent. That could mean a bilateral cut of up to 40 per cent. which is equivalent to cutting the whole of bilateral aid to Africa. Ten organisations lobbied in September not for more aid, as one might expect, but simply to ensure that aid remained the same. They are not whingeing; they are supporting the status quo.
There are a number of other concerns but I shall mention only one. Debt, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is still a high priority for the poorest countries, as the Government well know. A multilateral debt facility is needed urgently. One example from Oxfam tells us that Uganda spends only 2.5 dollars per head on health and 30 dollars per head on debt servicing.
For all those reasons, I hope that we can keep the level and reputation of our aid programme, especially its valuable support for the NGOs, and at the same time keep our young people informed and aware of the world around us, because they will be the voters and future taxpayers who will ensure that that process continues.
In conclusion, I should like briefly to thank the House for welcoming back my family which has been represented here for 11 generations. On my father's behalf, I should apologise for a gap of more than 30 years. As your Lordships will know, my father (who was known familiarly as Hinch) made an outstanding contribution in the other place. Many of your Lordships, some of them here present, tried in vain to keep him there when Central Office had clearly had enough!
4.14 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is both my pleasure and my privilege to congratulate the noble Earl on a most distinguished and interesting maiden speech. Odd though it may sound, I actually knew the noble Earl's father when he was a Member of another place and when I was one of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue. We shared many a long night in this House, because at that time another place sat in your Lordships' House and the Government sat where the Opposition now sit. The officials, of whom I was one, sat in what is now Black Rod's Box. Everything was topsy-turvy. But the noble Earl's father had the reputation of a man of great convictions but unfailing courtesy. I am sure that the noble Earl himself has richly

41
inherited those characteristics. He said that we have a lot to learn and indeed we have. We look to him to assist us in that process of learning.
Overseas aid and overseas development is a particularly difficult field because there is a clash between the very limited resources available and the very large demand which exists. Reconciling the two is an exercise requiring great intellectual ability and integrity. We shall look to the noble Earl for advice on those matters in the days that lie ahead.
Technically, this is the second day of debate and not the first day, despite what is said on the list of speakers. Once again we have to discuss the European Union in the same debate that deals with foreign affairs, defence and to which overseas aid was added last year. In some ways, that reflects a position which exists in the European Union itself where the heads of government are accompanied by their foreign ministers to form the European Council, which is the supreme body in the European Community, now the European Union. We have the immense advantage of having my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey to steer us in her opening speech in this debate.
But I recognise at the same time that the main interest will centre inevitably on foreign affairs in the narrower sense of the term. I was astounded when listening to the gracious Speech yesterday—I shall not say I was dreaming but if I had been, this would certainly have woken me up—when I heard the following statement:
"In the European Union, my Government will participate in the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference".
What on earth were they expecting to do? Were they expecting to stay away; in which event, what do they think would have happened? I admit that in some quarters there would have been a sense of great relief, but that is not something from which we should extract much satisfaction. Or does this represent a major change in government policy? Was it that at 11.30 a.m. yesterday morning, the Government suddenly took a major decision that they would now participate?
That is not unprecedented because when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister she tried to veto the inter-governmental conference which led to the Single European Act. Unfortunately, the only allies that she could find were the Danes and the Greeks, and I have always said that if I were going into battle, they would not perhaps be the first allies that I should choose. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, she changed her mind and participated in the debates which led up to the inter-governmental conference and the Single European Act. Thereby, if somewhat belatedly and in repentance, she made a significant contribution to the progress of the European Community as it then was.
Whether that is the explanation for what occurs in the gracious Speech or is it that the Government did not really know what to say and thought that they had better say something? That reminds one of what Fowler in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage described as meaningless words and phrases. It is interesting to see what he added to it. He said that this is a phenomenon more suitable for the psychologist. I am not a psychologist and I do not propose to pursue that path.
42
However, whatever the Government feel about the European Union and the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference, the prosperity of this country is inevitably tied up with our membership of the European Union. About that there can be no argument whatever. Sixty per cent. of our external trade is now with other members of the European Union. As the European Union expands and, I hope, increases in prosperity, our economic link with it will become more and more important. It is vital that we should foster and further that link.
I turn to the Inter-Governmental Conference which is to be held next year. Although I know the Government wish that all these things would only go away, nevertheless the Inter-Governmental Conference will not go away. Unfortunately, at the moment they are going down very much the wrong path. The Maastricht Treaty sets out very clearly the terms of reference of the IGC. They are to be found in Article N(2), to be read in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article B. I explained this matter at considerable length in your Lordships' House on this very day of the same debate last year, at col. 72 of Hansard of 17th November, 1994. I repeated it on 9th January, 1995, at col. 24. On the principle enunciated by the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark, I repeated it once again on Thursday, 30th March, 1995, at col. 1709.
The remit of the IGC is to consider the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the Community. Admittedly, there is a reference to a revision of the policies, but that is specifically tied to the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions. This is not to argue about words; it is of critical importance. Unless one's mechanisms and institutions work properly, one cannot properly and efficiently get one's policies carried into effect. At the moment, the mechanisms and institutions do not work properly and efficiently. The primary job of the IGC is to get that right.
In the years that have passed since the Maastricht Treaty was negotiated everybody of good intent and otherwise has tried to add further items to the agenda. The appalling situation that has resulted can be seen from the interim report of the Reflection Group chaired by Mr. Carlos Westendorp. That is a most horrific document. Quite deliberately and properly, it makes no recommendations. It sets out all of the issues that have been raised and the considerations affecting them. It is an object lesson on the way that matters go wrong. Fortunately, it is reported that the Reflection Group is to produce a final report that is much more focused on what really matters. Let us hope that it does.
If one has a policy and one wants it to succeed, one has to define it clearly. One has to define the steps that need to be taken to achieve that policy and ensure that one advances on a narrow front. The moment one allows all kinds of people to board the ship, one ceases to make progress. This was the battle that I had to fight over the Single Act and the single European market. I had to stop all kinds of boarders who tried to add this, that and the other. Had I not stood firm, ultimately with the support of the Commission and Council, the single market would never have been achieved, because energies would have been dissipated over a wide field. I do not say what the policies should be, because it is a very

43
wide debate. However, as far as the IGC is concerned, every effort ought to be devoted to try to make it do the job that the Maastricht Treaty says it is to do.
Beyond the IGC, the most important issue that now raises its head—and every effort has been made to shuffle it back into the shadows—is the financing of the Union. That issue has been cheerfully postponed until 1999. Just as unless one gets the institutions right one will not be able to go ahead with enlargement, so unless one gets the finances right equally it will block the process of enlargement. I am sure that we all agree on the desirability of enlargement, which appears in the gracious Speech. That issue has to be sorted out urgently.
At the centre of this process rests the common agricultural policy. However justified the CAP was at its inception nearly 50 years ago, when Europe had gone through a period of starvation and self-sufficiency in food was an enormously important objective, it is widely accepted that that was a long time ago and today the CAP serves no real economic interest. It has become essentially a welfare system for the farming community. From the economic point of view, it does far more damage than help. It pushes up the price of food, thereby pushing up the cost of living. The cost of living is a major factor in wage negotiations, and so it pushes up wages. If wages are pushed up, competitiveness is reduced, and thereby the industry of the European Union is damaged. But that is not the end of the story. If it pushes up prices, it pushes up all government expenditure on welfare benefits. That is also a negative aspect.
One also has appalling scandals. Not only have we had the tobacco scandal, to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has repeatedly drawn attention, but also the scandal of vast quantities of wine that never see a bottle but are distilled into alcohol for industrial use. One has large crops of vegetables and fruit—oranges and nectarines—of every description, which are grown only to be bulldozed into the soil before they get anywhere near a consumer. The nearest those crops get to a customer is to draw subsidy from Brussels. All those matters have to be addressed, not just because of the budgetary effect, but because they will be a block to enlargement. They have to be dealt with if we are to go ahead as we wish.
I raise these matters, not in any criticism of the Union, but because I want the Union to be a success. It can succeed only if it works efficiently, is run properly and citizens have confidence in it. At the moment, it is difficult to say that they have at least unalloyed confidence in it.
I conclude with a brief word on economic and monetary union—in effect, the single currency. Whether deliberately or by accident, we have manoeuvred ourselves into a position where the heat and burden of the day are carried by other people and at the end we decide whether or not to come in. Many people would regard that as a most astute manoeuvre. I shall not argue about that. The position is that we wait and see whether or not the single currency is a success.
44
In fact we simply need to make the single currency legal tender. If we did that, it would be totally unnecessary for the Government to do anything else at all because the decisions would then be taken by the market. The Government as a great supporter of market forces ought surely to support that sort of approach to monetary union. Indeed we would be in the position where we had distanced ourselves from the heat and the burden of the day and, at the end, if it was a success, we could come in without having to do anything about it at all, as the answer would have been found by the marketplace. Once the single European currency was made legal tender, it would be the market which would sort out the problem; it would not have to be sorted out by government. I leave that thought with the Government.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on his excellent maiden speech. It was knowledgeable and timely and was based on his own personal experience. I know that we all look forward to hearing him again in the future.
I often ask myself whether affairs in the international field are better or worse than they were, say, five or six years ago. Is the world a safer place now than it was then? Is the third world more content and better off than it was then? Is the United Nations more effective in maintaining world order? Are we as a country doing all we can to preserve world peace and assist the poorer nations?
There is, of course, a limit to what Britain can do. We no longer rule the waves. We must work assiduously through the organisations which have developed over the past 50 years; that is, through the United Nations, the European Union, NATO and the Commonwealth. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to work through these important bodies. The British Government have an enormous responsibility in doing so.
We are fortunate to be members of the Security Council. That gives us the opportunity to promote practical policies relating to all the problems which concern us, from Bosnia to Rwanda. Are we making full use of that opportunity? I am not fully satisfied that we are, although I believe that on the whole Britain has been reasonably constructive over the years.
Then there is the European Union, dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Here, over the years, we have never succeeded in establishing ourselves as a leading nation. That is a tragedy. We have too often appeared to be "the odd man out". This does not mean that we should be trotting along after France and Germany on every issue, but I wish we were a little more skilful in our treatment of major policies. We shall have the opportunity to influence events next year in the Inter-Governmental Conference, referred to by the noble Lord, and we must take advantage of it.
We all hope that the conference will be a success with constructive results. However, I shall be grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will give us some information

45
as to what the Government hope to achieve on this occasion when he replies. The Prime Minister has said that,
"the Government can and should usefully improve the way in which Europe operates".
What does that mean, and what subjects will be discussed? Will enlargement of the Community be one of them, and will the CAP be another? I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said about the failings of the common agricultural policy. The single currency, as he indicated, is also in everyone's mind and one assumes it will also be on the table at the conference. We need to know a little more about the Government's views on these matters. The gracious Speech refers to enlargement. I am in favour of enlarging the Union with membership from eastern Europe, provided the change is most carefully planned and that the leaders across the board understand the implications of such a change which will be profound in so many ways. It will not be the same Union as before with the addition of a number of nations, including the nations of eastern Europe.
All this change has been made possible by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Berlin Wall and the emergence of the old Soviet satellites as independent countries. However, enlargement will bring its own problems. The gracious Speech refers to government action against fraud. We have noted the report published this week by the Union's Court of Auditors which states that £400 million has been lost due to mismanagement and fraud. Some say that the figure is much larger than that. I cannot be precise but perhaps the noble Earl can enlighten us. I hope he can confirm that this matter will be considered at the conference next year. If we are to welcome new members we should make sure in the first place that they are joining a well run and fraud free Union. That should certainly be given priority.
It is sad that criminals should be milking the European Union when so many people throughout the world are dying of disease and starvation. I shall deal briefly with one of those areas. My noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, mentioned the large region of central Africa known as the Great Lakes; that is, Rwanda, Burundi and the neighbouring states. The genocide in Rwanda and the massacres in Burundi have left those countries in an appalling crisis. I shall give some figures. More than a million refugees remain at this moment in Zaire. They have been told that they will be forcibly repatriated if they do not return to Rwanda by the end of this year. In Tanzania acute tensions exist between 700,000 refugees and local people. That may lead to further tragedy.
Ethnic cleansing continues in Burundi and deaths there are estimated at 800 people a month. We are advised that the key priorities in this area, as in others are justice, relief assistance and economic rehabilitation. It is a grim state of affairs and clearly a matter for the United Nations. As noble Lords will remember, that body set up an international tribunal to try those responsible for violations of international law but up to now it has not announced a single indictment. That is a great misfortune. The fact is that the Security Council has passed resolutions calling for co-operation with the
46
international tribunal I have just mentioned but there has been no real response to that. One thing is clear; namely, that there is urgent and acute need for funds for relief and reconstruction in Rwanda, Burundi and the neighbouring countries.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has studied the problem and visited the area and that she has deep sympathy for the communities there. But I am bound to say that there is widespread concern lest the Government cut overseas aid. We are on the threshold of the Budget and we know that the Chancellor and his colleagues have an eye on the election. The gracious Speech refers to the Government's substantial overseas aid programme. But the reality is that the Government are sadly not over-generous in the field of aid. As a percentage of GNP it stands at 0.3 per cent., under half the recommended target of 0.7 per cent. Cuts by Britain now would be a terrible blow at the very time of most acute need in the areas I have mentioned.
I say to noble Lords opposite that if we fail to meet aid targets our country will be denying its responsibility towards poorer countries and damaging its influence in the Security Council, the G7, the Commonwealth and the European Union. I appeal to the Government to think very carefully before they take action which will damage our influence and our reputation.
These are very difficult times, but there are also promising developments which we must not overlook. Apartheid has ended, and we have a new South Africa under a great leader. The Cold War has ended although there are political difficulties and uncertainties on the horizon. The peace process in the Middle East continues notwithstanding the tragic death of Yitzhak Rabin. Is this not the time for the Government to show that they can give a lead by placing principles before contrived policies in the hope of winning an election?
Today the Independent carries an article that we should all read. In it the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that a record total of 27 million people around the world have fled their homes because of persecution and war. Twenty seven million people in the world are suffering terribly at this moment. It is on that that we should concentrate our attention. The Government can be assured of our support if they make a greater effort to help them. They will have the approval of the British people who are as concerned as we are about this matter. They can be assured of our support if they leave income tax as it is and apply our resources to help the world's poorest countries and their suffering millions.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Carew: My Lords, I am most grateful to have the great honour to be able to make my maiden speech in reply to the part of Her Majesty's gracious Speech in relation to foreign affairs with particular reference to Ireland.
I must declare a special interest in that my peerage is one that is both of the United Kingdom and of Ireland. Although my family home has always been in Ireland, I was educated in England, and from the late 1950s until 1965 I had the great privilege to serve in the Royal

47
Horse Guards, the Blues, Her Majesty's Household Cavalry. During my time in the Armed Forces I represented Ireland in international equestrian sports with the full agreement, encouragement and support of my regiment.
My late father dedicated many years of his life to the work of the Royal British Legion and had the honour to be its chairman in 1963. He made his maiden speech exactly 20 years after taking his seat. The subject of his speech was ex-servicemen living in Ireland and the bettering of relations between these two islands. It is that latter object that I should like to make the subject of my contribution to the debate.
My father's speech, which was praised for its brevity, lasted two minutes. He may well have been aware of a comment once made by a 17th century French duke who said:
"No man should speak longer than the period for which he can sustain the act of love".
Although I am several years older than my late father was when he made his maiden speech, I feel able to continue for slightly longer than his two minutes.
Perhaps my speech so far could be regarded as rather egotistic—for that I apologise.
I should now like to concentrate on Ireland. Without question Article 10 of the Joint Declaration of 15th December 1993, signed by both Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government, must be respected. That includes the handing over of arms, or whatever similar terminology is used. There can be no question of a temporary cessation of violence by the paramilitaries to see what the political process will offer.
Throughout the troubled political years the peoples of both the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland have remained firm friends. Family relationships play a large part in that, as indeed do the many sporting activities between these two islands. I remind your Lordships of one special occasion when sportsmanship was seen at its very best—the occasion when the English rugby team came to Dublin to play Ireland at the very height of the troubles. The crowd of some 45,000 gave the English team a six-minute standing ovation as they ran on to the field of play. It was a very moving occasion. The other great sporting occasion—an annual one—is the visit of the British showjumping team to the Dublin Horse Show. The British team is very popular with the Irish public.
I remind your Lordships also of the occasion in 1991 when Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, in her capacity as president of the International Equestrian Federation, paid a visit to the European three-day event championships at Punchestown, some 20 miles from Dublin. There was an attendance of 100,000 people, and throughout the day the Irish crowd continually thanked her for coming to Ireland.
A few months ago His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales paid a visit to Ireland and was warmly welcomed by the Irish people as well as the politicians.
Only very recently Her Majesty the Queen met Ireland's President, Mary Robinson, who was on a visit to London. On her return to Ireland President Robinson
48
said that she felt an extraordinary deepening of relations between the two countries. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will be able to further develop the significant relationships between the two countries and to build on all the links and interests that have recently developed between them.
The ceasefire continues and although the peace process may be difficult and slow what matters is that the final outcome is a lasting peace and that there will be no repeat of the last 25 years of violence. To that end, the greatest possible praise is due for the time, effort and priority that is being devoted to the peace process by both Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government.
In conclusion, I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing both governments, as well as the political parties in Northern Ireland, a successful outcome which will lead to that lasting peace to which the people of both these islands so look forward.
4.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carew, for his six minute maiden speech. The fact that his peerage is of both the United Kingdom and Ireland is an apt symbol of the important theme of his speech, and we much look forward to hearing him speak on that and other subjects in the future.
Like the noble Lord I much welcome the continuing commitment to peace in Northern Ireland expressed in the gracious Speech. Getting where we are now, with more than a year's cessation of violence, has taken a great deal of skill and determination. We cannot take that position for granted. No less skill and determination will be needed for the next phase to make peace permanent. I know that we also welcome the continuing support for the Middle East peace process. As Mr. Rabin's tragic assassination has reminded us, making peace involves not only sophisticated negotiating skills but courage. Indeed, making peace involves no less courage than making war.
It is good too to note the continuing pursuit of a comprehensive test ban treaty and a determination to develop the capacity of the United Nations and regional organisations to prevent conflict. It is easy for people to be critical or even cynical about the performance of the United Nations. But, as its recent 50th anniversary celebrations reminded us, its achievements are both many and significant. If we wish to avoid a new imperialism on the one hand, or endless conflicts on the other, with states breaking up into smaller and smaller entities, there is simply no other alternative. Regional organisations and the United Nations can and must be supported and made more effective in their role of preventing conflict.
There is one point in particular in the gracious Speech that I wish to single out. I refer to the words:
"A substantial aid programme will be maintained, focused on the poorest countries, to promote sustainable development and good government, including respect for human rights".

49
Aid is not a particularly glamorous subject. It is difficult, if not impossible, to get it seriously debated at election time there being a widespread feeling that there are no votes in it. It is therefore particularly appropriate and important that this subject should be one of continuing and crucial concern to this House. I know that we were all particularly grateful for the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. It was good to hear about his personal experience of working overseas. We all recognise and respect the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for her personal commitment to that cause and her desire that aid should be well targeted and of the highest quality. However, the world's need is so vast that quality must not be set up in opposition to quantity.
People are sometimes sceptical about whether aid really does any good. Perhaps I may quote some words of James Speth. Speaking in 1995 to the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, he said:
"Average life expectancy in the developing world has increased by over one third in the last 30 years. More than 70 per cent. of the population in developing countries now has some access to health services. Primary school enrolment has increased by up to 80 per cent.".
Those are profound achievements which should not be downplayed even though aid is only one factor in a mix of elements that has made so much progress possible in so short a time. Looking back, the international movement in support of development may come to be seen as one of the defining features of civilisation during the second half of the 20th century.
Aid is still desperately needed and the job is far from completed. I quote Mr. Speth again; he is administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. He said:
"Some 1.5 billion people live in poverty … The conditions for twice that number are deplorable, with 13–18 million people—mostly children—dying from hunger and poverty-related causes each year. That computes to 1,700 people an hour—with only 10–15 per cent. caused by emergencies. Tomorrow, as on any given day, about 67,000 babies will be born into families earning less than US$7 a week. That's almost 25 million people born into a prison of absolute poverty each year".
Against that background it is utterly dismaying to hear rumours, and more rumours, of savage cuts in the aid budget. I do not believe that income tax should be reduced at the expense of the most vulnerable people in the world.
The other aspect that I wish to mention briefly is debt relief. The Government have been associated with several important initiatives on debt relief, but the problem is still enormous. On 1993 figures, the least developed countries owed 127 billion dollars, amounting to 67 per cent. of their combined GNP. Many of those least developed countries owe an even higher percentage. It means in practice that money desperately needed for basic development, healthcare and schools goes instead on interest payments. The genuine concern of this Government on that issue, and their real achievements, should not blind us or make us in any way complacent about how much more still needs to be done.
50
Perhaps I may give just one example. This year the Jamaican Government will pay back in international debt service four times the amount spent on their health service. At the moment churches are turning their vestries into clinics staffed by volunteers on Saturday mornings. But that is no substitute for a proper health service—and Jamaica is relatively well off. As we have already heard, Uganda pays back in interest about 10 times its health spending.
The main issue of the moment is multilateral debt. It represents a substantial proportion of the debt that is being repaid from 25 or so countries, including Jamaica and Uganda. Currently there is no method of reducing that debt stock. The British Government have taken a welcome lead in pressing the World Bank and the IMF to bring proposals for multilateral debt relief for decision to the spring meeting. That is the right spirit of urgency.
A key problem in multilateral debt reduction is where the resources will come from. Experts believe that some could be found from sales of IMF gold and some from the World Bank's reserves or net income. It is very welcome that the British Government have also pressed for the IMF to sell some of its gold in order to fund its structural adjustment facility. It would be extremely useful if Her Majesty's Government would widen their proposal so that IMF gold sales could be used to fund multilateral debt relief more generally.
As we have heard, there are always competing claims for our attention and many pressures on the budget, but in the scale of human need those 1.5 billion people living at or below starvation level must, I believe, have continuing priority.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Healey: My Lords, I propose to concentrate on those issues which are correctly identified in the Queen's Speech as central to British foreign policy: the maintenance of international peace and stability; the relationship between NATO and Russia; the fight against terrorism, organised crime and misuse of and trafficking in drugs; and of course the United Nations itself. Bearing in mind the advice of the French duke who was referred to recently, I fear that I shall not have time to talk about aid problems. I believe that they have been well dealt with by my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Cledwyn, the right reverend Prelate, and above all in the excellent maiden speech from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. He expressed—rightly in my view—the important role which NGOs should play in those operations abroad and the importance of educating our own people, in particular our children, on the problems with which they have to deal. I fear too that I shall not be able to talk about the Irish problem. I am therefore delighted to find that I share an Irish ancestry with the noble Lord, Lord Carew. I have always felt it a great advantage to be able to dilute my Yorkshire muck with a little Irish magic.
The end of the Cold War has produced a new world disorder. The collapse of the Soviet Empire, like the collapse of all empires throughout history, has led to an appalling series of armed conflicts at a time when the

51
conflicts produced by the collapse of the European empires 50 years ago are still raging in Africa, the Middle East and Southern Asia. Indeed it could be argued that the problems we now face in the Balkans result essentially from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire which started well over 100 years ago.
The problem is that colonial powers have always drawn frontiers of states with little regard for ethnic realities and the feelings of the peoples who compose them. So it is no surprise that at the present time, of the 82 armed conflicts at present in train, 79 are taking place inside national frontiers. Some are appallingly bloody. One million people have already died in Afghanistan; another million in Rwanda; and, it is believed, perhaps a million in the Sudan as a result of civil war and consequent famine. As my noble friend said, the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees just announced that some 27 million people have been driven from their homes across frontiers, or to other parts of their own state, as a result of the type of armed conflicts I have mentioned.
Even in the western world, nation states as they emerged in the 19th century are now threatened both from inside and outside. Internally, minorities are demanding more autonomy: in Scotland; in Quebec; in the Basque country and Catalonia in Spain; in Corsica in France; and in northern Italy, which wants to secede from the rest of Italy because it does not want to pay taxes that go straight into the pockets of the Camorra and the Mafia. The American revolution is a great warning to us all that when a demand for autonomy is made, if it is not met at least half way, it may be followed by secession.
In addition to those internal problems, the authority of nation states is now being threatened by the globalisation of many key activities in all societies. Finance is now globalised. The latest figure quoted is that £1,300,000 million dollars a day cross the exchanges almost entirely in search of speculative profit. These capital flows are far more important than what governments do for exchange rates, the flow of trade, investment and output. I have never been able to understand why so many of my friends in the other House are so exercised by the possibility that Jacques Delors or M. Santer might rob Britain of its sovereignty when George Soros did it in a day three years ago. They did not even seem to notice and nothing has since been done about the problem. I am glad to see that the noble Lord whom I regard as my noble friend in these matters agrees with me.
In addition to the globalisation of finance, there is the globalisation of business. Forty-seven of the biggest economies in the world are not the economies of nation states but those of trans-national companies. There is the globalisation of investment. People now put up new plants wherever the relevant skills are cheapest and closest to the market for their output. There is the globalisation of pollution. We were warned the other day by the European Commissioner for the Environment that there are 100 Chernobyls waiting to happen in the
52
Kola Peninsula alone. We received sombre warning of that in the black farce of the nuclear submarines in Murmansk a few weeks ago.
Crime is now globalised. It is estimated that 1,500 billion dollars a year are laundered as the proceeds of crime, one-third of them being the proceeds of drug trafficking. So far, the criminals are co-operating across frontiers far better than are the governments who are supposed to control their activities. Indeed, it was stated at the conference on crime that took place in Naples last year that the Sicilian Mafia forges dollars for the Russian Mafia, who, as I am sure noble Lords know, spend them to buy properties in Chelsea, Kensington, and even, I hope, Pimlico, where I happen to live.
Most important in some ways is that information technology, which made possible this globalisation, is now undergoing an explosive expansion. Satellite television and the fax are already destabilising governments from Saudi Arabia through Iran to China. But it looks as though the Internet may threaten the stability even of governments in the western world unless some means can be found to control the information spread by it. So far, nobody has even suggested a way in which it might be controlled. These global problems defy all attempts at national or even regional solutions.
For solutions we shall have to turn to global organisations such as the specialised agencies of the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the GATT. We may even have to create new global organisations to deal with some of these problems.
At present all these problems are left to regional superpowers. But that is clearly not enough. We see the total failure of the Russian Government to control the fighting both inside and outside Russia, in the Caucasus area. We see the failure of the western superpowers to control what happens in the Balkans, and even more so in Africa, in which the western world shows very little interest at the present time.
As was said by other speakers, the 50th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations led to a flood of whingeing complaints from representatives of governments all over the world about the failures of the United Nations. However, the fault lies not with the institutions, which have no powers except those given to them by national governments, and whose powers have to be exercised at present through national governments. The fault lies with national governments, and above all in the field of security with the so-called big five, which enjoy the veto in the Security Council.
Bosnia is a very good example, At first, Britain and France were allowed by the United States, Russia and China to take the problem on. They treated it as a problem of peacekeeping. But of course there was no peace to keep by the time that the United Nations, led by Britain and France, began to intervene. When the Security Council decided that UN forces in Bosnia should establish safe areas, instead of providing at once the 35,000 troops that were known to be needed to keep those areas safe, they provided only 7,500, and those very slowly indeed.

53
The noble Lord, Lord Owen—perhaps I may yet call him my noble friend; no, the noble Lord (well, he may come back again, you never know)—with his American colleague, Cyrus Vance, produced a plan to stop the fighting two years ago. I believe that it might have worked if the United States had supported it. But the United States Government deliberately preferred to prolong the war by talking of ending the arms embargo on Croatia and Bosnia and by bombing. In the end, the United States took over from the United Nations under cover of a NATO organisation. To my amazement—I hope that there will be some comment from the noble Earl when he winds up this debate—the British Government agreed to a total reversal of their policy in Bosnia. The two pages of the Defence White Paper which dealt with peace-keeping were simply torn up and thrown away.
The fact is that the United States and its allies intervened in the civil war on behalf of the Croats against both the Serbs and the Bosnians. That is a point which becomes clearer with every day that passes. I hope that when he winds up, the noble Earl will explain why the Government decided to cross the Mogadishu line which General Rose, its very able commander in Bosnia, had insisted should not be crossed in a peace-keeping operation.
In fact, the United States, even before it intervened directly, had been helping both Croatia and Bosnia to break the arms embargo. Croatia now has a massive army which is very well equipped and which is costing 12½ per cent. of its GDP. It has built that army with the help of United States instructors and United States advisers. I learnt the other day that the Croatian Tiger Brigade, when it invaded Krajina recently, were wearing American uniforms.
Surely the British Government should have taken some notice of what was happening. Or did they not know? Or were they not told? What was their view of all that? It is now two years since the Americans wrecked the Vance-Owen plan; and now Ambassador Holbrook, on behalf of the Clinton Administration, is trying to impose an American plan for peace at Dayton, which is far less fair to the Bosnian people than was the Vance-Owen plan. In fact, it is the effective partition of Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia. In the meantime, 100,000 more people have been killed there. The invasion of Krajina meant that there were 200,000 Serb refugees; the invasion of western Bosnia meant that there were 100,000 Bosnian and Serbian refugees; and the invasion of eastern Slavonia, or its occupation even if it happens peacefully—it is far from clear that the agreement which was trumpeted in some of the newspapers the other day was reached—could lead to another 150,000 Serbian refugees.
The hero of that tragedy, applauded by the United States Administration and Opposition together, applauded in Britain by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and—I hate to admit it—by some of my Left-wing friends in the Labour Party in the other place is a man called Franjo Tudjman. He is a former communist general, who, when he became the leader of Bosnia, adopted the flag and insignia of the wartime fascists who fought with Hitler against the allies. He
54
has just demonstrated his contempt for his admirers by promoting a man called General Blaskic the very day after he was indicted at the Hague for war crimes against the Bosnian Moslems at Mostar. Could cynicism go any further? Can the noble Earl, when he winds up the debate, explain why the British Government have done nothing whatever to complain about that? Or did they not even know that it was going on?
The Holbrook plan, nevertheless, despite all that I have just said, seems to be hopelessly stalled in the talks in Dayton and the American Congress has said that it will not allow the American President to send 20,000 American troops to police an agreement, if an agreement is reached. I honestly do not believe that it would be possible to find a clearer condemnation of the concept that we can deal with these new global problems through intervention by regional superpowers, if only because—as has turned out to be the case with Bosnia—American action threatens to revive the Cold War with Russia. General Grachov is saying that he will arrange an alliance with China against the west. I do not feel that we need take him too seriously or that he will be there very long—I am delighted to see that my undercover friend the noble Baroness, Lady Park, agrees with me about that.
The plain fact is that the only answer to these global security problems is the United Nations. The question is: how can we give the United Nations the powers of its own that it needs to do something effective? Certainly it cannot solve all the problems of the world in the foreseeable future.
I suggest that there are two or three urgent steps that could be taken. First, the United Nations, as an organisation, should be given its own intelligence and conciliation machinery, so that where possible it could pre-empt conflict. It should be given a permanent small volunteer force, perhaps 10,000, with the transport to move it in days, to deter military conflict, being backed by forces earmarked by the big five and other members of the United Nations. Those proposals have been put forward very persuasively, in my view, by two exceptionally experienced British people: Brian Urquart, who for most of the post-war period was the main peace-keeping expert at the United Nations itself; and Sir Anthony Parsons, who was one of our ablest ambassadors at the United Nations, having to cover the very difficult period of the Falklands war.
What is terrible is that most of these proposals have been made by the United Nations Secretary General. They appealed to and were supported by many of the smaller countries; but they were vetoed by all five of the big powers. Making progress on those issues is far more important and possible than reaching agreement on reconstructing the Security Council, which I suggest—I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, would agree with me—is more likely to take years than months to achieve.
Meanwhile, there is the risk of the total collapse of the United Nations in the next year or two, if the United States pulls out, as some leading members of the majority party in the Congress are proposing. The central problem—I agree very much with the noble

55
Lord, Lord Cockfield, that it is always the central problem in an organisation and not the final problem—is financing. At the moment, the cost of all the United Nations operations, including peace-keeping, is about 10.5 billion dollars a year. Incidentally, we British spend three and a half times as much on alcoholic drink alone. The members of the United Nations spend 75 times as much on national military forces. So it is no good pretending that the money is not there. What we need to do in the very short run is to redistribute the national contributions so that the American contribution is brought down to about 10 per cent. and the contribution of the rich states which produce very little now—like the Gulf states, South East Asian states and the white Commonwealth—is increased to take up the difference.
If the United Nations takes over some of the other problems that I have mentioned, it will need financing on a very much larger scale to deal with the financial and economic problems, pollution and crime. It will need an independent source of its own. I believe that there is growing support in the world now for the tax proposed by the Nobel economics prize winner, Jim Tobin, in the United States 20 years ago: financial transactions of a speculative nature should be taxed. A tax of only 0.1 per cent. on those transactions would bring in 80 billion dollars a year, which is 10 times the total annual cost of current United Nations operations. If we include taxes or the other activities which add to our problems—polluting activities such as the use of carbons, the arms trade, and so forth—then we could obtain even more.
I am not suggesting that that will be easy to achieve. That is why it is important in the short run to redistribute national contributions. But from now on we must regard the United Nations as central to our foreign policy. It is the only potential answer to the problems which we, in common with the rest of the world, now face.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I do not speak as often as I should like—your Lordships may not endorse that—though I count myself lucky today to be sandwiched between the noble Lords, Lord Healey and Lord Owen. I imagine many noble Lords will wait for tea until after the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has spoken.
My duties in leading the United Kingdom delegations to the Council of Europe and Western European Union keep me away from this House a great deal. Today's debate covers those two subjects and I should like to say something on each of them. But first, I pay tribute to my colleagues in both Houses, especially my noble friends Lady Hooper, Lord Newall and Lord Dundee, and the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Kirkhill, who, outside this Chamber, are also noble friends.
In the Council of Europe—mention of Russia has already been made today—the major issue is Russian membership. She has been a guest member for some time and now wants full membership. There are two courses open. First, we can wait until she reaches the standards of the Council of Europe in relation to human
56
rights and democracy—standards strongly endorsed by the Vienna Council of Europe summit. That may take five or more years.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships as an example that in Russia today, if one is a prisoner, one will be put to work making cane furniture. One will be permitted neither to stand nor to sit; one must crouch. If one is an accused on remand in prison, one may have to wait up to two years for one's case to come to trial. There are no defence lawyers because there is no money to pay them. And one still cannot move freely from city to city inside Russia. It will therefore take at least five years for Russia to attain our standards.
The other alternative is to admit Russia now, when she is far from attaining acceptable standards, in the hope that she will improve. Behind, and in many cases in front of, the scene, governments are urging us to take the latter course of action on political grounds; namely, that it is better to have Russia inside than outside and that, if not admitted soon, she may go off in a huff and withdraw into some other organisation.
If we accept Russia now we will—not may—lower our standards immensely and will not be able to ask any future applicant to hold any higher standards. Our monitoring of countries like Romania and Bulgaria will be useless. Earlier this month the chairman in office of the Council of Europe Ministers—then the Czech Foreign Minister—said he hoped that we would admit Russia as soon as she met our standards. If she is admitted, she will be monitored to ensure that the undertakings she gives are honoured. But what if she fails to keep them? We have the power to suspend or expel a member. But would we dare, once Russia was inside?
Both courses are fraught with peril. I hope governments—I include all governments—will stop fudging the issue and come out into the open and say firmly (if they want it said) "Let Russia in now in spite of her standards, for reasons of politics and security". I ask my noble friend, when he sums up the debate, to come clean on that point and tell us whether or not that is the view of Her Majesty's Government. That will help those of us who will soon have to take decisions in the Council of Europe on Russian membership.
I turn now to the Western European Union which I am glad to say has become, over the past couple of years, the "flavour of the month". It was a Sleeping Beauty until it was reawakened some years ago by my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine, and has now been re-revived as the only sensible defence organisation that Europe can have. It is a vital component of an Atlantic alliance. Whatever may be said about defence in Europe, if we lose the North Americans, we are in real trouble.
How do we see European defence fitting into the new NATO concept? We must retain American support and American forces in Europe. On a recent visit to Washington I found somewhat conflicting views, not merely among members of the Congress, but also between the state and the defence departments. Two separate briefings left me wondering whether I was in the same country. We do not yet know therefore what

57
the Americans want. But I am certain that placing defence under the aegis of the Europe Union, first, will not work; and, secondly, will be wholly inimical to NATO interests.
Somehow security must be given some form of substance and that substance must lie with NATO and the concept put forward 18 months ago at the NATO summit, but which seems to have stalled badly; namely, the combined joint task force. Again, I ask my noble friend to tell us why it stalled. The rumours are that it is because the Americans are blocking it. However, as the American President was part of the summit that endorsed the concept, I cannot believe that he is permitting his generals to block it. I should like to hear from my noble friend because we all find it to be extremely important.
The relationship between NATO and the Western European Union is important because of the recasting of NATO with its Partnership for Peace programme and the concept of the combined joint task force. The Baltic states are desperately worried about their future. They are members of the Council of Europe and keep quoting statements from Russian generals that they are in real danger because there are minorities in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia that some Russians want to embrace ,again. What does that mean? It may mean the end of democracy in those countries.
The Council of Europe is 50 years old and is made up of 38 member states. I have had the pleasure of being a member of its delegation since 1983 and of leading the delegation since 1987. It has now reached a crossroads, not merely in terms of Russia but also in terms of finance. In the light of what some governments said less than three years ago in Vienna, are they prepared to give it the resources it needs? It is the one body that is teaching democracy to the ex-communist states. No one else is doing that. We have brought into membership countries as diverse as Albania and Moldova. They are passionately keen on democracy. In passing perhaps I might say that the only embarrassing occasion I encountered occurred around 18 months ago when I was talking in Tirana to the Constitutional Committee of Albania about constitution making. Someone said, "Tell me, Lord Finsberg, how can you talk to us about a constitution when you do not have one in the United Kingdom?" I fudged my response; but they were very much aware of what was needed.
Two weeks ago I returned from monitoring the elections in Croatia. The noble Lord, Lord Healey, was right about Mr. Tudjman, whom I first met when I monitored the elections some two years earlier. He is not a man with whom I should like to have dinner. He is certainly not a man who should be president of a country whose parliament is trying to be democratic. There is a very real difference between Tudjman and his parliament. At the end of the recent elections I issued a press statement to say that they were basically free and fair in spite of a flawed election law. They produced a reasonably democratic parliament in spite of Mr. Tudjman's wishes. There is hope but the problem is that the parliament does not always exercise its strength sufficiently.
58
When we are looking at these broad issues we have to try to decide where the interests of the United Kingdom lie. Of course they lie in the United Nations; of course they lie in the European Union; but when one comes to consider issues of defence one must not subordinate the interests of this country. I should like to ask one question of the Opposition spokesman when he comes to speak. Do the Opposition support the view that the Western European Union should not become a part of the European Union? That is the view of my delegation, including my Labour colleagues, in Strasbourg. It would be helpful to know so that one could say to Mr. Westendorp, whom I have now heard twice, that in the view of the United Kingdom, irrespective of which government are in power, the WEU should not be subordinated to the EU. I agree very much about what was said about Mr. Westendorp's Reflections document, which has a couple of paragraphs on defence. No member of the Reflections group has any connection with defence. It would be helpful to hear whether the Opposition go along with that view.
If one looks at the whole issue of defence, one is forced to accept that the situation now is more dangerous than when we had the Warsaw Pact and NATO glaring at each other. In our heart of hearts we realise that both feared what would happen if they clashed. What is now more dangerous is having a collection of individual states and in Russia a collection of generals who are gaining more and more power. The elections we shall see in December may give us a duma that will be highly unpleasant and highly dangerous to the concept of security in Europe. As long as we can remain firm, as long as we can try to involve the Russians, as we seem to have done in the "peace" process now going on in Dayton, Ohio in terms of the way in which we have separated NATO command of any Russians going there from the Russians themselves, we may be able to reach the year 2000 without further trouble. But I would say that within a decade, whatever decision is reached in Bosnia, we will have the same trouble happening all over again, because nothing will keep those three disparate parts together for very long.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, when we last debated the former Yugoslavia at the end of May many of us feared that the situation would get worse before it got better. None of us expected it—certainly I did not—to get as bad as it did in July and in August. It is not often recognised quite how much ethnic cleansing went on in the summer months. Fifty thousand moslems were forced out of the eastern enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica in appalling circumstances—very likely savage massacres—and 150,000 to 200,000 Serbs were forced out of the Krajina where they had lived for more than three decades. There has been created over a concentrated period of time a pool of refugees in former Yugoslavia, the worst that we have seen since the war started in 1991. I very much hope that we will see a peace settlement come out of Dayton, Ohio, and I believe that we will. But there will be exhaustion, a map forced by soldiers and a degree of ethnic partition that

59
most of us must—and certainly I must—see as a failure and feel ashamed of participating in anything that has produced such a mess.
However, the story is not all bad. The humanitarian mission remains important and will remain important through this winter. But I wish to try to draw some lessons from the former Yugoslavia because I believe that they are urgent. The most important one relates to NATO, since in all probability it is going to be asked to take the main lead role in implementation. Perhaps I may first say a few words about NATO. It is an organisation which I have supported all my political life. I do not believe that internally it has ever been as fraught as it is today. That a European of such distinction as Ruud Lubbers, 12 years prime minister, a prime minister who actually managed to convince people in Holland of a need to deploy cruise missiles and showed immense courage and loyalty to NATO, should have been treated in such a way is absolutely indefensible. We must ask quite openly how this could have occurred.
In 1978 I remember approaching the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and asking him whether he would consider being the Secretary General of NATO. I cannot believe that things are that different. I did so then on behalf of the then American Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, the then French Foreign Minister, M. Guiringaud and the then German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher. He was not being asked to put his name forward to go for interviews or being asked to put his name forward to have a possibility of a job. He was being asked to take the job knowing full well that if he said yes he would get it. I have to say that he asked permission to go off and speak to his mistress, as he affectionately called her. When he came back from having talked to the future Prime Minister, with a smile broadly across his face, he refused. I said, "I think that means that you have been promised my job if your party wins the election", to which, of course, the answer came with the election. He later served with distinction in the role of Secretary General.
It is a crucial post and people are now talking perhaps of the Spanish Foreign Minister, who is extremely able and whom I would in many ways like to see in that post. But in this present fraught situation, with the United States having real difficulty in Congress over NATO implementation of any peace settlements, surely this is a time for Europeans to say to the United States, "If it would help to have a Secretary General from the United States, let it be done". There is nothing sacrosanct in having to have a European as the Secretary General nor, in the present circumstances, is it vital to continue always with an American General as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. We ought to be thinking very imaginatively and quickly about this situation.
There is a real problem in Congress at the present moment over NATO. Incidentally, many of us feel that a very eminent senator, Sam Nunn, who has announced his decision not to stand for the Senate again, would make an extremely good Secretary General of NATO. I urge the Government and European Foreign Ministers and heads of government not to stay in a trench on this
60
point but to think imaginatively about the Secretary General. It is very important. There are real tensions between the military commanders.
I do not know whether noble Lords have read the article by General Boyd in the summer edition of Foreign Affairs. He served for three years as the deputy American commander in Europe. His condemnation of what has been going on and outspoken criticism are very important for realising the tensions that developed as NATO officers serving in the UN became convinced, rightly or wrongly, that NATO was conniving at breaking the arms embargo in terms of air drops; in breaking the "no fly" zone in terms of landings being made or drops being made on airfields inside Bosnia Herzegovina, and planes coming in under the shadow of NATO planes. These are serious allegations which were widely believed. They began to erode confidence in the integrity of NATO. I really believe that there is no organisation whose authority and credibility it is more important to restore. NATO has done so much in the past and can, in my judgment, do much in the future. On the positive side, it looks as though it will be possible to have implementation by NATO of any peace settlement in Bosnia Herzegovina, which may go even wider into Croatia and eastern Slavonia that also involves the Russian Federation. It will be very important for all organisations to handle the Russian Federation with considerable skill over the next few years. No organisation does that apply to more than NATO in the way it approaches enlargement.
Here again, having achieved Partnership for Peace, and having pursued it carefully, with a great deal of skill shown by the European Union, particularly the Federal Republic of Germany, we suddenly have a change of policy from Washington and we are suddenly into wholesale enlargement.
I believe that we have to listen carefully to the anxieties of the Russian Federation about enlargement. Poland is the crucial geo-strategic country in Europe and it must become a member of NATO. We must explain to the Russian Federation why that does not challenge or threaten its stability but, rather, enhances it, as will be the case throughout the whole continent. I cannot understand why NATO membership should be chosen as the lead item for Poland's stability. I cannot understand why America does not say, "We shall enlarge as fast as the European Union enlarges its membership", and so put the onus on the European Union to find the money and to make the internal reforms in order to make it possible for Poland and the Czechs to join NATO on or before the year 2000. We shall make a great mistake if we do not go ahead with EU enlargement. Under the present financial arrangements it is expensive to do, particularly with the unreformed common agricultural policy, but it is of great geo-strategic importance. It would be far more effective and sensible to enlarge NATO and European Union membership simultaneously, with the addition of those two countries. It will do a great deal to allay the justified anxieties in the Russian Federation that it does not face wholesale enlargement. It will understand if it is done in the context of European Union membership.

61
I now pass to the European Union itself. The noble Baroness gave me every possible support over the three years I was in the former Yugoslavia. I would like to make it clear publicly how much I value that personal support and also how impressed I was that, although she may have had problems with her aid budget, she found money, often at very short notice, for essential UNHCR operations. I always knew that I could come to her and get money. I know also that that is a feeling held by Mrs. Ogata and others associated with the UNHCR.
I now turn to the European Union and how it faces these problems. The noble Baroness used the word "proactive" of the Government's European Union policy. I would like to take her up on that and see an example of it. I make no secret of my opposition to federalism or a United States of Europe. I am a life-long believer in the European Community and now in the European Union. Nothing I have seen in the past three years as a European Union negotiator has diminished my belief in that organisation or in its essential nature in the area of a common foreign and security policy. It is utter nonsense to believe that that will be achieved by any form of majority voting, qualified majority voting, or 15 minus one, or any formula that one likes.
There is only one way in which a common foreign and security policy can be achieved. That is by inter-governmental consensus and a discipline that when governments do not feel very strongly about something they take a back seat and allow the majority view to take place, but also there is an inherent acceptance that a nation, however small, with a vital national interest has to be accommodated if the European Union is to achieve a sustainable, viable common and foreign security policy, over a period of years. There is no bureaucratic fix for a common and foreign security policy, and let us have no more nonsense talked about such fixes. Frankly, I am beginning to believe that the Federal Republic of Germany is understanding this as it develops its own foreign policies, as it has every right to do as a serious, new democratic country in which most of us have total and absolute confidence. I do not always agree with those policies, but the Federal Republic of Germany is entitled to hold them whether they concern Croatia, eastern European countries, Russia or whoever. It stands up for those policies and fights for them, as France and Britain and other countries will.
Therefore, to get a common foreign and security policy it is necessary to tackle the hinge at its weakest point, and that is between the heads of government in the European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council, which is within the treaty. The European Council has been included in the Maastricht Treaty, but it is essentially still an inter-governmental organisation. President Chirac has made an interesting speech arguing for a secretary general to be appointed by the European Council. I do not see that as a threatening move towards a federalist United States of Europe, but as a sensible way of preparing the European Council and trying to develop a leadership role for the heads of government at that level.
62
The powers of the secretary general should be no more than those that we give to the Secretary General of NATO. The task is to try to achieve a consensus. There has never been a vote in NATO and it has not needed majority voting or anything like that. Furthermore, the secretary general should be appointed by the heads of government and not fall within the other institutions of the European Union. He should not be answerable to the Commission or in any way linked to it. He should not be under the European Court and should not be answerable to, or appointed by, the European Parliament. He should be the main link between the WEU and the European Union through the heads of government. I personally would not object if that person was double-hatted and was also the Secretary General of the WEU. If there is to be a secretary general for the European Council, I believe that he should have close links with the WEU otherwise we shall have endless overlaps which we need to avoid.
The other institutional change which must come about is in the United Nations, which others have mentioned. The Security Council makes decisions about the lives of the troops that wear blue berets. It is high time that every single ambassador or permanent representative in the Security Council for that period of rotating membership, knew that the decisions he took could affect troops in his own country. Membership of the Security Council would require a country's commitment that a UN rapid reaction force should be at the disposal of the Security Council when it makes decisions in the first instance to put troops in. That would concentrate the mind of the Security Council wonderfully because it would have to match its rhetoric to the realities on the ground. No decision is taken more carefully or after more thought by the British or French Cabinets or the American President (or however it is done in any of these countries) than the decision to commit troops to risk their lives.
Frankly, the way in which the Security Council makes those decisions is too far removed from reality. One reason for that is that very frequently only three or four members of the Security Council actually have troops involved in the operations on which it is making the decisions. It is that mismatch that has bedevilled the problems of Bosnia Herzegovina. I believe that its decisions would be very much enhanced if there were a direct link between the Security Council and on-the-ground peacekeeping.
Perhaps I may make a final point. There is currently much controversy brewing up around the war crimes tribunal that has been set up in the former Yugoslavia. The London conference asked Mr. Vance and myself to look at the question. We were conscious of the advantages of amnesties in Rhodesia when it became Zimbabwe, in Namibia and in South Africa. Our intention and inclination was, if at all possible, to leave open the possibility of amnesty. We eventually concluded that it was not possible to do that in these circumstances and recommended the establishment of the war crimes tribunal. That tribunal has now been established. I find it very hard to conceive of circumstances in which the tribunal should not continue with its work for at least a period of time. The fact that

63
it was set up by the Security Council allows for political decisions. I have never believed that such things should continue indefinitely; they may need to run for a fixed time, but fixing that time should be a political judgment. That judgment should not be made now.
Some of the people who are subject to arrest orders and who are under investigation should continue to come under investigation. Those arrest orders should be held over, even if the countries concerned will not voluntarily give up those involved so that they can come to the Hague Court. Governments change and time changes, but let those people at least be pariahs in the world, unable to move outside the enclave in which they can have temporary security. Although it is difficult in Dayton and elsewhere to achieve a peace, I do not believe that that peace would be enhanced by abandoning the war crimes tribunal.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will greatly have appreciated the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, particularly as it dwelt on his experiences. I was particularly interested in his earlier remarks about NATO and the importance of the appointment of the next Secretary General. I did not entirely agree with the noble Lord's observations on the European Union. It seemed to me that the noble Lord was falling into the trap into which so many British statesmen appear to have fallen in the post-war period. They have failed to distinguish between the short-term and the long-term interests of this country. It may be that the short-term solution which is so conditioned by reality is often in conflict with the long-term advantages of certain other developments.
I shall not follow what has been said so far, except on the issue of Europe. One looks in vain in the Queen's Speech for any meaningful sign of a "strategic vision" from the Government with regard to this country's future. It was said yesterday that we shall have simply a continuation of the policies of the past 15 years. However, that really means a temporary loitering in a wistful "little Englander" approach while failing to give a lead and positive guidance in the inexorable progress towards an integrated, entwined and interdependent western Europe which is itself the foundation of any real economic progress during the past 25 years.
Let us consider the boasts that are often made about inward investment in this country. The sums are indeed considerable. But how much of that inward investment would have taken place if we were not a member of the European Community—and a fully committed member at that? The belief of the Euro-sceptics, more and more reflected in government pronouncements, that we can tactically achieve a European free trade association in the whole of western Europe while preventing further economic and political integration is just a pipedream. Many of the Government's tactics are widely interpreted in Europe as stances or proposed measures designed to delay real progress in Europe. But for what purpose? To pursue outmoded nationalism and independent nation states when we should be thinking of how we can have the maximum benefits of economic potential and
64
military and political integration while at the same time retaining and devolving as much responsibility as possible at national, regional and local levels.
Subsidiarity is a concept with which we can all agree, from whatever viewpoint we approach the European problem. However, subsidiarity within the European context will also necessitate subsidiarity within the national context. European laws and regulations will have to apply all round, but they will surely have to be administered and applied at the closest possible level to the lives of the ordinary citizens of Europe, including in the United Kingdom. That is why the constitutional issues which the Labour Opposition are now highlighting more and more—and which my party has always highlighted—are so important for our country. They relate also to our foreign policy and to the future of Europe. They are of great practical importance, but scant appreciation of that point is apparent in the gracious Speech.
I hope that your Lordships' House will take the lead in counteracting what I regard as the baleful influence of the Euro-sceptics on the Government. If our European partners called our bluff and put it to us bluntly that the stark choice facing us is to accept the inevitability of the implications of the Treaty of Rome and the eventual integration of the European Union—it will take a long time—or to give up membership and to withdraw from its benefits, there would be a dramatic change in the political climate here. The threat of the inward investment of the past 30 years being dramatically withdrawn would also concentrate the mind on the real foundation of our present prosperity.
It seems to me that aggressive and self-glorifying nationalism is still one of the great curses of our century, as we see to our cost. I speak as one who represents a minority culture. I have always been proud of my Welsh identity and anxious to maintain Welsh culture. All the countries of Europe will have to face the fact that English will probably become the commercial language of Europe. Every country in Europe will eventually face the problem of how to maintain its national culture and language while accepting an international commercial language.
It seems to me that nationalism, even at the end of the 20th century, has an undoubted power and force which, unless controlled and modified, is almost bound to be totally destructive. Therefore, I trust that we shall recognise that we have to dampen down the nostalgic yearnings, so apparent at the Conservative Party conference this year, for a return to the age of nation states in this age when, as the noble Lord, Lord Healey, pointed out, world communications at all levels have made them impossible to sustain. Changes occur every day in our commercial life which show the degree of integration that already exists. International companies are no longer really subject to any national control. We have to live in, and plan for, that kind of world. This is a time to stand back and look at our own institutions and to ask how on earth we can adapt our national institutions for both our international and regional needs in the next century. It is a great problem.

65
I turn to what I regard as two incompatible propositions in the gracious Speech. They have already been mentioned, but not together. The gracious Speech states:
"My Government will continue to pursue the objective of transatlantic free trade in the context of world trade liberalisation".
The very next paragraph goes on to state:
"In the European Union, my Government will participate in the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference and contribute to preparing the Union for further enlargement".
We have been invited to have regard to reality and we should look at the reality of those two propositions. It is highly desirable to have an Atlantic free trade area eventually. No one can dispute that. But looking at the reality of American politics and the economic condition of eastern European countries today, it is impossible, whatever our hopes, to have an enlargement of the EU embracing countries such as Poland, Slovakia and so forth, unless we have an associated status.
It is useless to think that our partners within the EU will change the CAP basically within the next five years. They will not do so. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that the justification for the CAP in the early days was—if I may use the term—entirely social. The policy prevented the migration of millions of people from the agrarian lands of Europe into the great cities, which could have caused an enormous social problem. It still would, even if it were abrogated to a large extent. Therefore, in reality, I do not believe that our European partners will agree to extend the CAP to the eastern European countries.
What approach would the US take if, within the next five years, we were to succeed in having an enlarged EU with all the benefits that that enlargement would bring? How would it envisage a free trade area with that in it? In time, that will come about but it is entirely mistaken to put such propositions forward at the moment. I cannot believe that they are intended seriously. They are a cloak for what is happening in Europe. The enlargement will come about in time. There will be an intermediate phase in the early days to accommodate the eastern European countries. There is hope for an eventual Atlantic free trade area some time during the next century. Those issues are highly desirable.
The real progress that will be made in the next few years will be, first, the European currency. I was much taken, although I had never thought of it, by the solution advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, of leaving it to the market. Whether we like it or not, the European currency, in one form or another, will be achieved by the end of the century. We have to face the reality of that situation. The easy way out for our country may be to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and let the market take over, because it undoubtedly will. Within a short time, the integration of Europe will follow as day follows night.
The gracious Speech fails to show that the Government have strategic aims. I was reminded of a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in his memorable book on Gladstone, which I have recently finished reading. He describes Gladstone's
66
dedication to home rule and his failure to carry the Home Rule Bill which was defeated in your Lordships' House over 100 years ago. I was reminded, when I heard the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carew, that Gladstone failed to get his Bill through. My noble friend Lord Jenkins attributed the failure—I am paraphrasing—to the fact that, for all his determination, Gladstone's tactical dexterity did not match his strategic vision. I have the impression that the Government have any amount of tactical dexterity but no strategic vision.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, when I first read the agenda of subjects for debate on the various days, I had some difficulty in deciding, first, whether to speak at all, and, secondly, what to speak about. There are a number of subjects about which I should like to say something—my interests in housing, health, social security and so forth—but I felt that because of a recent experience I should deal with a problem which is with us, and has been with us for a long time, and which we should look at in depth. I refer to the problems of the island of Cyprus which I visited recently. I had a couple of nasty experiences in the city of Nicosia.
I was heartened to hear previous speakers recognise the problems that exist and the need to support the UN and to strengthen our influence at the UN. At the same time they mentioned the problem of human rights, ethnic cleansing, unlawful occupation, refugees and so on. All those ingredients exist on the island of Cyprus; they have existed for a long time.
The Queen's Speech makes no direct reference to the problem of Cyprus. I do not know why. It is a continuing problem, which should be at the forefront of many people's minds. However, there is mention of the need to support the UN. There are 100 resolutions before the United Nations and the Security Council, and in relation to the Geneva Convention, all of them saying much the same about the situation in Cyprus, all of them condemning the occupation of northern Cyprus and calling for the demilitarisation of the island. The resolutions are repeated annually. Speeches are made. Everyone agrees. Nothing happens. They are repeated the following year. It has been going on since 1974, not quite so long as the situation in Northern Ireland, referred to by one of your Lordships, but getting on that way. It may even be heading in the same direction unless we can put a stop to some of the activities in northern Cyprus.
I mention demilitarisation because that is an important aspect of the whole issue. I was glad to read the other day a speech by the President of the Republic of Cyprus at the 50th plenary session of the UN. He referred to his own proposals for the demilitarisation of Cyprus. He proposed the complete demilitarisation of the Republic of Cyprus, the withdrawal of Turkish occupation forces, the disbanding of the national guard of Cyprus, the handing over of all arms and military equipment to the custody of the UN peacekeeping force, and the placing into the UN account of all moneys saved from the purchase of arms which would be used for infrastructure development projects beneficial to both

67
communities. Unfortunately, that proposal was rejected by Turkey. But it should be and must be endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. It has already been endorsed by the United Nations and the United States.
We talk about demilitarisation but not enough urgency has been given to the proposals made, not for the first time, by President Clerides. His recent repetition of the proposals gave a clear outline of the way in which he sees progress being made. We must respect that because of his close contact with the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carew, mentioned Northern Ireland and the need for some decommissioning of arms before we sit down to talk about peace. It is said that if we do not talk about the decommissioning of arms we do not need to talk about peace.
As regards Cyprus, someone has offered to decommission all the arms, to withdraw, to finance a national peacekeeping force, and to place all the money saved into an infrastructure development project. Why do we not grasp that offer and say, "Obviously, it is an ingredient that we need if we are to get a peaceful solution in Cyprus."? We are being given the opportunity to say, "We believe that that is a necessary ingredient before any peace talks can take place, so let us take it and begin the urgently needed talks".
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, has returned to his place. I had not intended to mention the noble Lord but I wish to refer to his comments about the report from the Council of Europe. When I was in Cyprus I heard many people express concern about recent developments in the Council of Europe. They believe that by going outside the protocol and the organisations that have been set up and by taking almost unilateral action the Council has acted in a manner that is a little off-putting. They also believe that an invitation addressed to the president of the Turkish authorities in the north of Cyprus indicated a recognition of the regime that exists there, which is in opposition to all United Nations' resolutions stating that it shall not be recognised by anyone. When I was in Cyprus I read reports of worries that the Council's action appeared to be elevating the position of those who have taken control of northern Cyprus beyond the wishes of the United Nations and the international communities. Therefore, I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, did not take the opportunity to put the matter right because he must be aware of some of the concerns expressed.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned my name. The actions taken by the Council of Europe were endorsed by every single member other than the two Cypriots. The press reports which appeared in Cyprus were malicious and false.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, that was not what was felt by the two Cypriots who were members and who would know what they were talking about. I believe that the matter could have been put right and should have been put right.
68
If when one is in Cyprus one looks across the buffer zone into what was the beautiful city of Famagusta one sees the dereliction. Huge hotels and buildings have been looted and abandoned and are now falling into decay. One can speak to people who will say, "See that building over there. My father had a small hotel next to it and it was our home and our business. Now it is not ours." Someone else will say, "See over there. My grandmother lived there." When one hears people talking in that way and when one sees the Turkish flag flying over such property, one asks, "Why hasn't more been done about it?".
If the Turks are serious in their intent ever to solve the problem they could solve it now by agreeing to hand Famagusta back to the republic in line with Resolution No. 550. I asked that that matter should be raised by the Prime Minister at last week's Commonwealth conference in Auckland and I am waiting for a reply about any report he may have received. Such action would be a sign of willingness to sit down and talk. Mr. Clerides has thrown in his proposal, among many others, for disarmament. The Turks could quite well throw in their proposal to hand back that derelict area. It gains them nothing; no one is there. They are making nothing from it; they are doing nothing with it; and they are allowing it to fall into complete and utter disrepair. "Ethnic cleansing" is not too strong a phrase to use. They have pushed all the Greek Cypriots from the area. Those people have disappeared to Australia, the United Kingdom and all over Europe. Thousands are still missing. The United Nations has passed resolutions asking for their whereabouts and for information about what has happened to them. The situation would be helped if the Turks said, "We will hand that part of the island back to the Republic of Cyprus as a sign of our intent to do something constructive about the problem".
My first suggestion related to disarmament. My second suggestion was to put pressure on the Turks to consider a constructive proposal. My third suggestion is a further measure of pressure. It is to take whatever steps we can to help to speed up the entry of the Republic of Cyprus into the EC. That would be to the benefit of Greeks and Turks alike and it might well put pressure on those in the part of Cyprus that is occupied by the Turks to reach a peaceful settlement within the European context. I do not say that I have always been a convert to the European Community but I believe that there is a real need, desire and determination to make a go of such membership. It must be viewed with some urgency, together with the other issues I mentioned.
We must inject a new urgency into all our deliberations. It is not good enough to say that we will support whatever the United Nations suggests. That is almost like a trade union branch meeting where one resolution after another is passed deploring, demanding or insisting on something. It merely goes in the bin wherever it arrives but we can always say that we have supported an issue. The same is happening as regards United Nations resolutions. This Government state merely that they will support them and do what they can. But they do nothing.

69
Now the Americans are pulling us by the nose. They have appointed a special representative who states that when he is finished in Bosnia he will make Cyprus his next priority. I hope that he does and I hope that we support him in his efforts because we have made none. If we support him in whatever effort he makes we shall make progress towards a peaceful solution. The northern part of Cyprus is being resettled by Turks. Turkish nationals are being sent to replace Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The figures are staggering. Obviously, that is an attempt to say in future, "Look, it is as good as Turkish now. We may as well accept the situation as it is and partition the island". That is a solution that Britain has used in Northern Ireland, which is a perfect example. It was wrongfully partitioned. It was partitioned originally by settlement mainly from England and Scotland. Ultimately, it was partitioned 70 years ago and we have not yet solved the problem.
Therefore, the situation in Cyprus will develop in that way unless we recognise the problem as it is. It is a serious problem. It is a powder keg in that part of the world. We must do something about it. We must discuss seriously the propositions that I have put forward which are supported by the United Nations and its General Assembly as well as the population of the Republic of Cyprus.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that as a member of the Jewish community, I find it difficult to speak in this debate on any subject other than that raised by the assassination of the late Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin. It was gratifying that in the gracious Speech, there was reference to the desire and intention of Her Majesty's Government to assist in pushing forward the peace process. Indeed, as we know, the present Foreign Secretary has undertaken recently a mission, the ultimate success of which we are not yet certain, to try to bring about a movement on the Syrian front. That would be of considerable importance because if Syria enters the peace process, so inevitably will Lebanon and at that point, Israel will not, at any rate on its land borders, feel the degree of isolation which has been its lot.
Apart from what might be done by a roving Foreign Secretary, who is clearly involved in other important matters, the question is then as to what else the British Government can do to forward the peace process.
It must be admitted that Britain starts with something of a handicap as regards influencing Israeli policy. So long as any of the survivors of the creation of the state of Israel are still around, the memory of Ernest Bevin and his efforts to strangle the nascent Israeli state will not be forgotten.
Therefore, although much goodwill has been created, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the present Prime Minister, in their visits to Israel, it is still worth remembering that it was not until 30 years after the creation of the state that a British Foreign Secretary, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who made such an important contribution to our proceedings this afternoon, visited the country.
70
But I think that there are ways in which Her Majesty's Government could assist the process. Perhaps I may indicate the way in which I approach the problem. It has been said in the press and elsewhere that the problem is now an internal one; that it is a matter of the serious conflict that exists within Israeli society and politics about the peace process and its ultimate possible outcome. Although the fact that the assassination has now been shown to have been the result of a conspiracy rather than an isolated act is very important, it remains the case that one cannot understand the psychological atmosphere in which those rooted objections to peace flourish unless one recollects that even assuming that Israel's arrangements with its immediate neighbours are satisfactorily resolved—and that is a big "if'—Israel is still a country under a major threat.
That is a major threat from two quarters. In the first place, it is under threat from—and various incidents have shown this—those elements in the Arab world among the Arab peoples and the Palestinians themselves who repudiate the whole idea of making peace; who stick to the original wish of the Palestinian national movement that no Jewish state should exist on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.
Your Lordships may say that, as is bound to be the case in a matter of this complexity, there are many ancestral memories, hatreds and regrets. But it should not be impossible to convince those Arab countries which are also threatened by those movements, including, for example, the Gulf states, with which we have close associations, that we do not tolerate that kind of activity in our capital city. It is wrong that Hamas should make London its capital and be able to publish here newspapers which advocate the destruction of a friendly state. It is wrong that another organisation, whose translation is, I believe, the Liberation Party, should take a leading role in trying to dragoon Islamic students on our campuses into a single camp and to threaten the activities of Jewish students and their organisations.
The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to that more than once by the National Union of Students and it is surely within our power to do something about it. I was glad to notice that we set an example by agreeing to the French request that persons involved in planning bombing campaigns in France should not be given automatic asylum in this country and a position from which to further their activities.
But France can survive. France will not be overthrown by Algerian militants planning or plotting from outside the country. Israel feels itself vulnerable in a way in which France will never feel itself vulnerable. Israel is small; it is surrounded; and it has, beyond those movements, two major powers which are dedicated to its destruction. One of those powers is Iraq. We have learnt recently of the role which British forces played in diminishing the threat to Israel from Scud missiles during the Gulf War. But even those brave activities could not wholly remove the threat. Israel was the first country to be the victim of a Scud missile directed from a foreign country with which it has no border. The memory of that is likely to remain powerful.

71
As we know, Iraq is a threat also to certain countries in the region, notably some of the smaller Gulf states which are entering into both economic and now diplomatic relations with Israel. It is important that they should have assurances that we are not thinking of bringing back Iraq into the community of civilised nations.
The threat from Iran is worse. Though Iraq may have planned to have nuclear and biological weapons—from the investigations of the United Nations we still do not know the full truth—Iran is a much larger and more powerful country. Despite its appalling record, internally and externally, it has apparently managed to escape some of the isolation that has befallen Iraq.
It may have passed unnoticed—there were only a few sentences on this topic on the radio the other day—that the German Parliament, which is not the most vigorous of legislatures (as Germany's best friends will admit), has come out against continued toleration by the German Government of the activities of Iranian agents in that country. Indeed, it has questioned the unwillingness that Germany has shown to go along with its European partners in trying to prevent the escalation of Iran's military power. That was one of the reasons why noble Lords, who spoke earlier on more general subjects, were so right to emphasise the importance of improving our relations with Russia, if possible. If under pressure from the west and Russia, Iran will have to cease threatening its neighbours through either subversion or violence. It seems to me that the peace process in the Middle East is closely linked with the general way in which we look at the development of the country's foreign policy.
There is another aspect to it. It is not only psychologically overwhelmingly important that encouragement should be given to Israel to accept that peace will not be dangerous; it is important to help the nascent Palestinian authority. The Minister referred to the amount of money that Britain had already directed to the Gaza Strip. Clearly, there is need for a considerable further infusion of foreign aid of various kinds, primarily into Gaza but possibly into the less fortunate parts of the West Bank eventually. While no one will wish to press necessarily the claims of the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip against those of other countries, whose ill fortune has been so eloquently described by a number of noble Lords, there is a source of revenue, not in this country, but in the Arab world, which with a little prodding may usefully be directed towards assisting the Arab inhabitants of the Palestinian entity. The amount of money spent on house property in London by Arab potentates would go some way to relieving the misery of the Gaza Strip. Although we are in no position to tell Arab potentates how to spend their money, we claim to have influence in the Arab world. I believe that influence in that respect can be exercised to good purpose.
Ultimately, one must hope that the interlocking mechanisms for development in the region, which were outlined at the recent conference in Amman—in which I believe the United Kingdom took a constructive part—will in the end make the inhabitants of Palestine no
72
longer an object of assistance but contributors to the prosperity of the region. I believe that we can assist in the peace process, but only if our analysis of what needs to be done is accurate and our understanding of the circumstances in which it is being carried forward is full.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, the gracious Speech, as has just been mentioned in a splendid contribution, pledged the Government's continuing support for the Middle East peace process. Reference has been made to this in several contributions this afternoon, most notably the speech to which we have just listened. That dealt primarily with foreign policy elements on which I do not claim to be anything like equally competent to comment. Therefore, I speak on the same subject overall but without overlapping what has just been communicated to us.
Unfortunately, I was unable to add a few words to the moving tributes paid in your Lordships' House and in another place to the memory of Prime Minister Rabin on the day of his funeral a week ago on Monday. As President of the Conference of European Rabbis, I had to conduct an urgent meeting of the conference in Zurich that day. Allow me, therefore, to take this opportunity to speak of this awesome tragedy and its traumatic after-effects. In the Jewish tradition anything that disgraces Jews or Judaism is called a desecration of the Name of God. Anything which does honour is called a sanctification of the Name of God. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, particularly because the crime was perpetrated by a Jew claiming to act out of religious motives, was perhaps the greatest desecration of God's Name in Jewish annals. Conversely, the unprecedented honours shown to the bereaved family, the stricken Government and people of Israel at the funeral, attended and addressed by scores of world leaders, constituted an unparalleled sanctification of the Divine Name. The presence of the Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister, the leaders of the opposition parties, the President of the United States, the leaders of virtually all the European countries, and also King Hussein of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt and other Arab leaders, was profoundly appreciated and offered real comfort to a nation still stunned by shock, grief and anxiety.
As happens so often with perpetrators of evil, in the long run they achieve the opposite of what they intend. For the maintenance of civilised life, it is vital that terrorism and acts of violence must never succeed. There are indications that the peace process, far from having been sabotaged, will be given new momentum by Prime Minister Peres, co-architect with Mr. Rabin of the historic agreements so far reached. Very recent visitors to Israel have reported Israeli taxi drivers—usually the best barometers of public opinion—saying that they have been adamantly opposed to the peace process out of fear that the Arabs can never be trusted, but now that they have seen the sincerity of the sympathy expressed at the funeral by some Arab leaders, perhaps past attitudes will have to be revised. For no section of the Jewish people has the blow been

73
more devastating than for the religious community. At the same time no fanaticism is more irrational and more deadly than religious fanaticism.
There is little comfort in the knowledge that other great faiths, too, have manifested murderous fanaticism. In the name of Christianity the Crusaders in the Middle Ages carried out their campaigns of massacre and pillage against scores of Jewish communities, and religion proved the ultimate source of implacable and bloodstained hostility in Northern Ireland. Among Moslems the very term "Jihad" or "Holy War" points to the ingredient of religion in the cocktail of war and violence.
Religious Jews had thought themselves immune until the dreadful massacre of Arab worshippers in Hebron early last year, now followed by that black day 10 days ago. Once again we are warned how easily even people who until recently were held up as the finest examples of idealism, selflessness and moral virtue, can be seduced by a few extremists. I speak not only of the events of comparatively recent times but also of those who have in one form or another condoned the crime. For them the unity of the land of Israel under Jewish control became a supreme article of faith, obscuring the most fundamental teachings of Judaism. The inflammatory attacks on the peacemakers turned into virulent and irresponsible charges of treason, construed by some fanatics as a licence to kill. What fearful power attaches to words when uttered by purveyors of extremism of any kind.
Of course, as in most human conflicts, this is not a black and white situation, with the onus only on one side. The apparent official unconcern with the fate of the settlers certainly generated much resentment. More importantly, the fiercely secularist policies pursued by members of the Israeli Government increasingly alienated wide sections of the Israeli public from all traditional Jewish values. It widened the cultural gulf and accentuated the bitterness within the land.
These ominous tensions might have been reduced had spiritual leaders of the more radical groups not turned to ultra-nationalist politics but instead demonstrated by precept and example the splendour of truly Jewish life; how it could have cemented the unity of the Jewish State by common ideals, reducing the curse of crime, vice and broken homes, thus helping to create a model society of Judaism in action. Such pristine ideals once inspired these pioneers, and one hopes the present tribulations will restore that vision. There can be no Jews without Judaism, any more than Judaism without Jews.
The challenge to Jewish spiritual leaders is now grave indeed. My successor, Chief Rabbi Dr. Sacks, in his resolute Albert Hall address on Sunday, spoke of hanging his head in shame. For my part the resolution which I drafted and which was adopted unanimously at our European rabbis' conference in Zurich proclaimed:
"We call upon Jewish religious leaders and teachers not to tolerate fanaticism and blind intolerance … More important than an undivided Land of Israel is an undivided People of Israel. We appeal to all responsible leaders in Israel and in the Diaspora to maintain the spiritual and moral values of Judaism as the indispensable link binding the Jewish people together and justifying our claim to continued national survival".
74
In an agonised burst of soul searching and contrition, some disciples of the very teachers who began to worship the Land of Israel even more than the God of Israel have turned to me, as to other rabbis, in a quest for atonement. They realise they have been misled on the true priorities of Judaism. Some are even considering a public fast to demonstrate their striving for a faith of which the Book of Proverbs states:
"Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace".
Let this be a warning to all religious fanatics on how easily unguarded speech and inflammatory teachings can lead to the worst sacrilege, turning even the most pious idealists into murderers.
Jews have prevailed over immense adversity in the past. Sustained by our faith and encouraged by our friends, I am confident the present grave crisis will be overcome to bring stability and moral strength to Israel, and to inaugurate an era of enduring peace with all her neighbours through moral rectitude and a passion for justice.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I warmly welcome what there is in the gracious Speech on foreign affairs and defence. There is, for instance, the emphatic statement that national security remains of the highest importance. The Government will continue to support NATO, promote Britain's wider security interests by contributing to the maintenance of international peace and stability and strengthen the effectiveness of the UN in this respect. On that matter I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Healey, in what he said about the UN.
Indeed, Who would question that at the heart of our foreign and, where necessary, an appropriate defence policy, should be the constant seeking after honourable and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, in former Yugoslavia and in Africa, to mention just some of the areas of conflict in this still dangerous world? I was also pleased to see a reference, albeit brief, to the development of more effective European defence arrangements under the WEU, because, whatever may have been implied, or perhaps misunderstood, at Blackpool, we must, if we are ever to match our resources and commitments, have greater co-ordination and harmonisation of our defence policies with our European partners. Nothing else is possible or makes sense.
Of course we do not want, and I am glad to say are unlikely ever to have, a Maastricht Rifles or totally impractical and unnecessary mixed manning; but our research and development and equipment programmes need to be developed on a European basis; we need, through the WEU, a strong European pillar in NATO; and we need some combined command machinery to allow joint operations to take place on a European basis should such situations be judged on either side of the Atlantic, as one can so easily envisage, as being more of a European than American concern. None of that would weaken NATO, which is the ideal machinery for military action if everything is in place, although the command machinery for it may be a bit top-heavy at the moment.

75
I was also pleased to read of the Government's intention to encourage a co-operative relationship between NATO and Russia. That is very important, and we must pick our way carefully because I can see countries in eastern Europe, particularly Poland which has been so badly abused and dealt with in the course of this century, being both considerably alarmed about what may emerge in Russia after the Yeltsin era and also wanting firm military guarantees from the West should they feel threatened. The lesson of history must be that getting the balance of power right is what will produce stability and peace. In the 1920s we got it wrong in one direction and that led to getting it wrong in the 1930s in the opposite direction, particularly after the Soviet-Nazi pact. If the NATO commitment, let alone NATO troops, were ever pushed forward to the eastern borders of Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, I believe that that would be seen by the Russians and Ukrainians as tipping the balance of power too far against them, with some obvious potential dangers of reverting to the Cold War. Some form of mutual guarantees on the integrity of Poland and other eastern states, as perhaps implied in the gracious Speech, may be a better way of dealing with the real anxieties of eastern Europe.
I was delighted to hear of the Government's intention to introduce a Bill on the legislation governing our Reserve Forces. Over the years those forces have provided a significant contribution to the effectiveness of our Armed Forces and continue to do so. Even within the existing legislation reservists are supporting current operations, and I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge their professionalism and dedication. The changing international security environment means that wider powers are now required if the reserves are to continue to play a full part. Those wider powers are welcomed by the volunteers themselves and by all those who care for the Reserve Forces. Therefore, I hope that that important Bill can be enacted as a matter of urgency.
I am perhaps more concerned with what was not in the speech but which is fundamental to our defence policy. History must have taught us that the price of the peace we all seek is not only eternal vigilance but also a clear commitment and a balance of power which is seen to be acceptable. That inevitably requires sufficiently strong military forces to give credibility to our foreign policy and to our good intentions. There are a number of matters which should still be of concern to your Lordships' House if our Armed Forces are to continue to make a contribution to that commitment.
In an era of manpower-intensive peace-keeping and humanitarian operations, perhaps I may concentrate on the very important subject of manpower and recruitment in the British Army, where the chickens are coming home to roost with a vengeance, as so many of us have for so long warned that they would.
The fighting arms are massively under strength. That much-respected defence correspondent Robert Fox, in an excellent article on 21st October in the Daily Telegraph, quoted a shortfall of 8,000 recruits to produce even the planned trained strength for the
76
combat arms. That may be an exaggeration, as I am sure the noble Earl, the Minister, will point out, but the number runs into thousands and the shortfall is steadily rising. There are not enough gunners to man all of even the reduced number of guns in a battery; too few tank drivers to man all the considerably reduced number of tanks in a regiment; and, on average, there are two platoons short in each infantry battalion, whose overall establishment is in any case too low, making it impossible for them, without outside reinforcement, to deploy the fourth company which my experience as an infantry officer tells me is essential.
All that is happening at a time when the Army has already one-third of its barely 100,000 trained strength on operational duties, and when we may be required to provide up to 15,000 men for an indefinite period to monitor peace in Bosnia. That would put the ratio up to 50 per cent. In short, whoever can or cannot tell us to fight, the truth of the matter is that, unless we do something about it very soon, we shall no longer have the strength to make a worthwhile contribution in any conflict situation worthy of the name which lasts more than a few weeks. My own feeling is that we have reached that stage now.
So, to what should we attribute this increasingly serious state of affairs? Are we to believe that we have suddenly become a nation of wimps, in which our young men have no interest in serving their Queen and country and are not robust, enterprising and adventurous enough to undertake the undoubtedly arduous training required? That is not borne out by the performance of our forces in Northern Ireland, the Falklands and the Gulf and, more recently, in Bosnia. Our young men and women, once they are recruited, compare most favourably with any past generation, and their reputation throughout the world with friends and potential foes alike has never stood higher.
No, my Lords, the cause is much more likely to lie in the precise way the Armed Forces have been handled politically over the past five to six years, which have seen, year after year, savage financial cuts and literally scores of studies and reviews following each other in bewildering succession, on every conceivable area of activity (some of them with the most obscure rationale), so that no one in the Armed Forces knows where they stand or what is coming next. The overriding imperative of trying to save money, come what may, is there for all to see, but in all these exercises it has been almost as if the Government did not really know what the British Armed Forces were for. They may not have been alone in that.
First we had Options for Change—in reality "options for cuts"—which, however sensible it may have been in the political climate at the time, with all the euphoria over the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and strong political demand for a peace dividend (even if we were about to embark, with some difficulty I may say, on a full-scale war in the Gulf), manifestly overdid the cuts in Army manpower, with a Treasury imposed shortfall of 7,000 on the Army manpower ceiling below that which Ministers and the General Staff had agreed was the optimum figure.

77
Two years later there was the defence costs study (because the Chancellor required still more). This, under the catchy, but not completely accurate, marketing title of Front Line First, spawned some 30 to 40 more subsidiary studies which, although they produced savings which allowed the services to afford to purchase better equipment than otherwise might have been the case, added to the general upheaval, turmoil and uncertainty, even in the front line which it was supposed to safeguard.
Now we have the Bett Report on the whole structure of the services, among other things, advocating bringing service life more into tune with civilian practice. All the time, these studies apart, every devolved budget was being squeezed and squeezed so as to get down to some entirely bureaucratic perception of what constituted the essential core of defence forces activity.
The problem was that, whereas there were some good points in all of those studies, the cumulative effect has been that the core ethos of what makes a fighting force tick has been inexorably eroded so that few serving in the forces now have confidence in what will happen in the future. For instance, they have seen military music, which although apparently peripheral is in fact very important for morale as well as public knowledge of and esteem for the Armed Forces, needlessly cut to the bone and beyond, as they have the education services which are so helpful in building up usable qualifications, which are a strong factor in retaining people in the services. They have seen the medical services, so vital to the morale of families as well as servicemen and women, brought to a parlous state, particularly in the field of surgery, and unable to function properly in peace or in war. The latter could have very serious consequences if we had to mount another operation like the Gulf. And they have seen so much always considered to be an essential part of man management within the chain of command impersonally privatised or made into agencies, with lines of responsibility becoming blurred. Above all, in the so-called rationalisation of the training machine, many of the links and much of the motivation of the regimental system have been lost, further impersonalising service, which undoubtedly affects commitment and desire to serve, all of which so much depend on loyalty to the regimental family. Sad as it is to say, it is not Brussels which is likely to tinker around, rationalise our cap badges and regimental system, and degrade our spirit of service. It is this Government who have actually done so. The money may have been saved but it is producing totally the wrong climate in which to attract and hold recruits.
What can and should the Government be doing about it? I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be able to tell us some of the steps that the Ministry of Defence is now taking, rather belatedly. But in general it should be leaving the Armed Forces more to their own devices for a period of consolidation. You cannot easily recruit people into a manifestly contracting occupation, which is ever in the news as being cut, here, there and everywhere; and you do not exactly make it easier to persuade potential recruits to take the initiative and make the difficult initial step, first, by rationalising all the specialised recruiting offices and lumping them with
78
the ordinary Jobcentres, which may or may not be interested, and, secondly, abolishing the young soldier units which were always a great source of adult recruiting.
You certainly do not gain recruits when you have insufficient numbers of units for the commitments undertaken, when everyone is so overstretched that spare time and family life go out of the window. If the present commitments, in particular those in Bosnia, continue as at the moment, and perhaps even increase as predicted, we might need more units but we certainly need stronger establishments in the units that we have in order to relieve the internal overwork and overstretch. Moreover, we certainly do not want to persist in the redundancy of those who want to serve merely because of some theoretical and wholly inadequate manpower ceiling figure insisted upon by the Treasury. Indeed, the turning off of recruiting in order to remain within that figure has contributed much to the present position. Experience has shown that once you cap recruiting you cannot easily turn it on again, so the Ministry of Defence has only itself to blame.
Nor do you keep up the strength of your fighting units by excessively cutting such strong runners in the motivation and recruiting stakes as the Guards (with a cut of 45 per cent.) the Gurkhas (with a cut of 65 per cent.), and other regiments which have the potential to recruit very well in the areas to which a healthy regimental system links them.
On 14th July I said in your Lordships' House that it would be madness to make redundant a large number of Gurkhas—well over a thousand—who are trained in a wide variety of skills, including parachuting, when the infantry and the Parachute Regiment are so much below strength. I am delighted that the Ministry of Defence has now decided to retain for three years after 1997 at least 400 Gurkhas who would otherwise have been made redundant. That is excellent news because it provides the most immediate economical and short-term palliative for the strengthening of our front line.
But that does not mean that we should not put a high priority on getting the right number and right quality of recruits for the future. If the Ministry of Defence is to do that, it cannot go on looking at the services as just another occupation in which profit and loss are the primary considerations. What you are looking for, what you need to reward directly or indirectly, and certainly to encourage, is total commitment to the primary role of fighting the Queen's enemies. Those you are looking for are unlikely to engage for peacekeeping duties and nothing else, important as those duties are. In any case, to be good peacekeepers they have also to be trained for more general combat, otherwise they will deteriorate as peacekeepers. General Rose will tell you that absolutely adamantly. As was quoted by Robert Fox in his excellent article, they have to be ready to cross that start line in the cold light of dawn, come what may, and to show the true spirit of the warrior—the will to face danger, the will to take risks, and the will, if need be, to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Morale, motivation and dynamic leadership as opposed to cautious financial management, are the key to success if the problem is to be solved. If it is not, as

79
we approach the millennium, we shall either not be able with confidence and a high morale to meet all the commitments which the country's role as a leading international power (as in repeated White Papers Her Majesty's Government proudly boast) and as a member of the Security Council, invariably places on them; or we shall once again experience the traumas of military defeats and disasters such as we have been able to avoid for the past half century.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is my great misfortune once more to follow a splendid act. It happened in the defence debate in July. I was deeply impressed. I am sorry to say that I shall say a little of the same but nothing like so well.
The noble Lord, Lord Healey—the only Member of this House who calls me "gorgeous"—made an impressive and fascinating global speech. I must continue to stick to my more limited last. I have to say, as I have been saying for five years in this House, that because Russia's leadership and ideology have not fundamentally changed, its instability and nostalgia for the past remain a potential threat to peace. Unless NATO and its members retain the power to deter, the future for peace continues to be at risk. There is a phoenix rising from the ashes which may not be a friendly bird. While I understand the arguments for bringing Russia within Europe rather than excluding it, we have to remember (if I may change my metaphor) that even the most high minded geese rarely succeed in influencing a fox once he has been invited in and that Mr. Churkin is a master of the old Russian tactic of neutralising the enemy. That is one more reason for relief that the ineffably awful Secretary General who was especially vulnerable to Mr. Churkin's undoubted charms should have departed. I may say that I find it disgraceful that Mr. Claes should ever have been appointed. We could hardly have chosen a better way to demean the role of NATO; and I am not ashamed of saying that.
I am therefore not reassured by our present state of defence. Russia has a military strength of 1,800,000 men supplemented by a further 2,250,000 men—the border troops, the MVD and KGB troops, all those charmers who operated in Chechnya—together with heavy equipment and air and sea power. There are in addition the forces of the CIS which is now developing a single air defence system and integrated equipment. The strategic rocket force is the priority. Russia has developed a new ICBM, the TOPOL, a new operational tactical missile, the FAKEL, demonstrated to foreign buyers at Kapustin Yar, a new tank, the T90, and a new SU 35 superfighter. The Russians plan to sell 400 of these. What if the Germans prefer that to the Eurofighter?
In reply to helpful overtures from NATO, no doubt part of our declared wish to encourage a co-operative relationship with Russia, Russia has served notice that she will not adhere to the flank limitation clauses of the CFE treaty if they do not suit her. Forty tonnes of chemical weapons have not been destroyed and are
80
described by a Russian general as "a time bomb waiting to go off"; and Russia continues to make biological weapons. The defence budget has moved steadily upwards from 900 billion roubles in 1992 to 78,900 billion this year, over 17 billion US dollars. The army is demanding over 90,000 billion next year plus extra money for research. Not least, the army is moving into politics with 123 candidates in the election, 23 of whom are generals, all with a defence agenda. General Lebed, the most prestigious, has the support of the Communists, perhaps so far the most potentially powerful group. Russia is selling nuclear arms to China, the Far and Middle East, is now regularly sabre rattling in the context of NATO expansion, and is doing all it can to neutralise NATO from within. Does this all augur a safer world? I do not say that Russia will again be the enemy that the USSR was, but she will often need to be deterred quite as much as she needs to be reassured.
Let us look nearer home where the Treasury's chickens, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, are coming home to roost. It seems that—surprise, surprise—recruiting for the services through Jobcentres does not work. It does not bring in recruits. Abolishing recruitment centres saves money in the short term but something has gone wrong with what our business oriented White Paper calls the customer supplier chain. Would-be recruits have questions to ask about the difficulties as well as the satisfactions of a service career which only servicemen can answer. So a short-term economy has proved a long-term disaster, as has the abolition of the junior leader schemes. Is it true that the teeth arms of the Army are 2,000 short—I understand, again from the noble and gallant Lord, that it may be more—and the infantry 5 per cent, below establishment? I rejoice that one result has been to keep some Gurkhas. But anything less like,
"Stable Forces in a Strong Britain",
it would be hard to imagine.
As for what is laughingly called strategic planning and management of defence, it seems that out of the 50 military tasks defined in the White Paper, task 3.7 (contribution to operations under international auspices)—in this case Bosnia, an open-ended commitment if ever there was one—and task 1.5 (military aid to the civil power in Northern Ireland) between them account for 50 per cent. of our trained manpower of 106,500 men. Bosnia is clearly the larger part of that 50 per cent. No wonder there will be even less time for training an Army whose strength has hitherto been its high professionalism.
However, I am forgetting that invaluable resource of our planners, multiple earmarking. I quote:
"Multiple earmarking is an essential component of our force planning process … to get maximum value for money from the resources allocated to the defence budget",
which are, of course, becoming more and more invisible. The secret is to earmark one man for all, or nearly all, the tasks and hope that they never conflict. Why bother to recruit any more real people, or spend our valuable money on offering bounties to serving soldiers to persuade their friends to join? Would it not be excellent value for money to produce some cardboard

81
cut-out figures wearing appropriate multi-hats? They would not need training and would not be troubled by the constant extension of their tours without rotation.
I quoted the steep increase in Russian defence spending. Ours is expected to decline by 14.5 per cent. in real terms from 1992 to 1997, and down to 2.8 per cent. of GDP. We are told proudly that this is above the average GDP spending on defence by our European allies—the Greeks and the Portugese, I suppose. That is very relevant since they are our allies, not potential adversaries.
"National security remains of the highest importance to my Government",
says the gracious Speech. I should like to believe that; and so, I am sure, would the services. But is it really so? Does anyone understand the problems of morale and the importance of service? I remain to be convinced that the Government truly feel this way. I greatly respect what my noble friend the Minister had to say about Britain's unique influence in the world. But it is not enough to speak softly. One must also carry a big stick. At the moment, if I may say so to the noble Earl who will reply, we are reduced to waving a very small swagger-stick.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Park: she always makes it abundantly clear why it is that I disagree with her. There can be no doubt in the matter. In a situation in which there is a great deal of doubt, it is sometimes refreshing to know where one stands.
The gracious Speech has been given rather a hard time. That is understandable when one considers such blind and bald statements as,
"The United Kingdom's minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained".
That seems to obscure another fact; namely, given its maximum possibility, Trident could destroy much of New York or Moscow, and most of their people, at one stroke. So we have not a minimum deterrent, but a flexible machine with a variety of uses, and that is regarded with considerable satisfaction. I suggest that that satisfaction is misplaced.
However, not all of the gracious Speech deserves to be opposed. It contains some phrases with which I find myself in very considerable agreement. I quote, for example, from paragraph 5 on the first page:
"Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. My Government will introduce legislation to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. They will pursue negotiations on a verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty and a convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes".
There is not much wrong with that, is there? It shows a Government approaching the question of peace.
I want now to complain, not of a matter that is in the gracious Speech but of one that ought to have been included and is not there. I just quoted a paragraph that shows the Government in a peace seeking mode. The most important development in that area is not mentioned at all in the gracious Speech; namely, we
82
could be in sight of a nuclear weapons convention. Last December, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice urgently to render its advisory opinion on the question:
"Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?".
The United Nations Secretary General immediately passed the resolution to the court. Last February the court announced that it had invited states to make submissions by 20th June 1995. Oral proceedings are now being held at The Hague and are, I believe, about to reach a conclusion. The court is expected to give its opinion early next year.
Some 43 governments have made submissions. The rumour is that a clear majority came down in favour of making nuclear weapons illegal. I do not know what the British Government said. Perhaps we shall be informed when the noble Earl replies to the debate—at least, I hope that we shall; I am sure he will say something on the subject. I shall listen with great interest. At the moment, my information is not very good. I understand that the Government are trying with the French to scupper the whole thing. I hope that is not true. If they are, they should bear in mind that opinion polls show that 80 per cent. of Europeans are against French testing, and 76 per cent. of British are of the same mind. So the vast majority of us believe that it is John Major who is wrong, wrong, wrong. Perhaps his listeners thought he was reminiscing.
The leaders of the small minority of nuclear weapon holding states—which, as was pointed out, command the Security Council; I believe that most are nuke-holders—each possess the ability individually to start a nuclear war. Such a war could destroy civilisation, if not life on Earth. The nuclear states are under pressure from the non-nuclear states to support the General Assembly resolution.
Since other, less lethal, weapons are already categorised as illegal, and the Government are about to ratify such a convention in respect of chemical weapons, it seems to be at least possible, perhaps even probable, that the court will agree with the General Assembly resolution and will declare nuclear weapons to be illegal. We shall see. Perhaps that explains the tactic of the nuclear powers, which seem to concentrate not on arguing the impossible argument that such a weapon can be regarded as legal while, for example, a laser weapon, which can only inflict a minor amount of damage compared with a nuclear weapon, is regarded as illegal. So it seems that the nuclear powers, faced with that impossibility, are concentrating on urging the court not to give an opinion rather than argue for the legality of a weapon which is illegal by all previous standards.
If the court decides to give an opinion early next year, which I understand to be its present announced intention, and if that opinion is in accordance with the General Assembly resolution, that would not he the end of the nuclear threat but it might well be the beginning of the end. Surely we must all agree that that would be "a consummation devoutly to be wished".

83
The court's opinion is advisory. It carries no enforcement powers. But a positive opinion might reasonably be expected to bring a fresh urgency and reality to the aim of ridding the world of this menace. While nuclear weapons abound, a future Saddam must eventually acquire the power to terminate a civilisation that he despises. Action which might reasonably be expected to follow a positive opinion from the court is exemplified by the START agreement between Russia and America and, as I said, if there can be a convention outlawing chemical weapons, there is no reason why nuclear weapons should not follow.
What is the Government's position? Will they remove any objection that they may have had to the court reaching an opinion? If, by a declaration of illegality the court condemns the nuclear weapon, will they take part in seeking urgent agreement to bring its testing and deployment to an end? Will they support a convention to ban nuclear weapons, to make them illegal? What is the position of the Opposition? I do not know that either. Will my noble friend join me in urging that course upon the Government? Let us have an opinion against nuclear weapons and then we can all work to give peace a chance. I hope to hear from my noble friend Lord Judd, when he makes his speech towards the end of the debate this evening, that he will join me in making that request to the Government. I need hardly say I hope that the Government will accede to the request But I hope equally strongly that my noble friend will join me in making it.
Let the world agree to lift from the conscience and consciousness of humanity the shadow of extinction by nuclear explosion. We may not get another chance.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the gracious Speech mentions new Reserve Forces legislation and ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I very much welcome those and look forward to debating them in this House.
Tonight, I should like to concentrate on some other important defence aspects which concern our air power capability. Last month there was considerable speculation in the media about the Royal Air Force getting American F16 fighter type aircraft. I was grateful to receive a reply from the noble Earl, the Minister, to my Question for Written Answer on that subject. He reassured me that there were no plans to acquire that well regarded but now dated aircraft. I hope that he can also reassure the House that the potential damage that that piece of news could do to our industry and the Royal Air Force is now better understood by the new team of defence Ministers. If such an order were ever placed, it could decimate and perhaps destroy our own advanced aerospace defence industry. It could threaten to deny the Royal Air Force a high performance air superiority fighter, which it has lacked for over a decade and which will only be put right when it gets Eurofighter.
So much depends on successful completion of the long and protracted development phase of Eurofighter. It is incredible that the Government, despite later
84
protestations to the contrary, should have given even the slightest indication that they were not seriously and wholeheartedly committed to the project. What a slap in the eye for our European partners in this programme! What a chance for its detractors to pull the plug on Eurofighter! What a golden opportunity for the United States' aerospace industry to sell us, as a loss leader, an aircraft which will be no match for Eurofighter when it comes. But would the same supplier be so generous with support costs through the F16s 10 or 20-year life? It does not take a specialist in logistics or training to realise that the costs of support over and above the price of the air frame can amount to very large sums.
There are also serious operational drawbacks. For example, the F16 cannot be refuelled in flight by our tanker aircraft. It carries a different range of weapons from our current fighter, the Tornado F3. Even as a stalking horse attempt to squeeze a lower price out of the Eurofighter consortium, it looks very thin to me.
There will be some in the services who would like an air superiority capability now, which the RAF has lacked for far too long. But they need to be aware of the side effects that such a deal could bring in its wake. It is instructive to ask why the Royal Air Force still lacks the ability to match the air superiority performance of many of today's air forces.
The answer lies in part almost two decades ago. Then the RAF, faced with ever more sophisticated Warsaw Pact air defences, lacked the ability to penetrate them to reach their ground targets. We desperately needed the bomber variant of Tornado. But if we were to get it and retain our industrial place in the development and manufacture of that very successful aircraft, we had to take over 150 of the fighter variant of Tornado. Today's discussions about upgrading the Tornado F3, which is not an air superiority fighter but an all-weather bomber destroyer, need to be seen against that background. It is a salutary lesson about the significant downstream legacy of a major procurement decision taken over 20 years ago.
Nevertheless, much can still be done very well (and even better after their upgrade) with those F3s. In the hands of their highly trained and dedicated air crews they have shown on many occasions in Bosnia and in the Gulf that they are able to operate against opposition which those in other aircraft types find hard to tackle. I hope therefore that Ministers will now concentrate their efforts on the political and international collaborative arena to ensure that Eurofighter reaches frontline service as quickly as possible. It is very disturbing that it is not yet ready for production and appears to be running well over estimates. If he has time, perhaps the Minister can say when a production order will be placed.
I make much of this one issue because it relates to a key ingredient of our national capability to engage in high or low intensity conflict. It is not exclusively an RAF issue. It goes to the heart of the Government's intention to remain a world player in peace-keeping and now in peace-enforcing operations. If we are to do that successfully and not put at unnecessary and morally

85
indefensible risk, the lives of our aircrews, they must be provided with the right aircraft and weapons to undertake their tasks. Fighter v fighter engagements are a battle of wits and tactics and part of the struggle for air superiority. But they are also a battle between the performance and agility of the aircraft involved. If we ask aircrews to engage in a joust to death, we can only honourably do so if they have the equipment which gives them a much better than evens chance of winning the fight. For that the RAF must have Eurofighter.
Some defence commentators still find it hard to accept that the contribution of air power to military and political success has taken such far-reaching strides in the past few years. For many years, going back to the immediate pre and post World War II years, and the writings of Douhet and Mitchell, and many others in the earlier days of air power, aspirations far outreached the technical ability of air forces to achieve what was claimed for them.
Only recently have we seen technology make possible the amazing accuracies now widely seen on our television screens; effectively (in the jargon) putting the "bomb in the bucket". In spite of this, much is still made of the assertion that air forces cannot hold and take ground, as though to infer that they are not really what matters. I agree the assertion; but I strongly object to the inference. That does no credit to the commentator's understanding of modern conflict, nor to the key place in it of offensive air power.
If Her Majesty's Government want to maintain their position as a major contributor to conflict resolution, if necessary by military means, then they must equip the services with the right air power capabilities to carry that out. In agreeing to the mid-life update of the Tornado bomber variant, the previous ministerial team in the MOD clearly understood that and reached the right decision.
Recent experience in the Gulf conflict and in Bosnia demonstrated more vividly than any words of mine what a key role and contribution modern offensive air power now has to offer. The Gulf War did not last just a hundred hours—the hundred hours that it took the coalition ground forces to achieve all their main battle objectives. It was the concentration of force, skilfully directed and applied from the air, which ensured that even the most elite of the Iraqi forces did not have the stomach to fight, even to defend their own country from our attacking formations. They were quickly beaten in the air. Weakening their ground formations from the air took longer, but the swift victory of our ground forces owed much to the air supremacy so effectively won by the coalition's air campaign.
So too in Bosnia: when military advice to use heavy force was politically accepted, we saw the impact of a well directed and flown air campaign. Indeed, it is the combination of wills, of both military and political wills to mount hard-hitting operations which tells the opposition that we are serious, and really mean what we say.
If governments are to make it clear beyond peradventure that they mean what they say, and seek to say so with military forces, then they must have at their
86
disposal not only first class equipment, but also fighting men and women who will ensure through their training, their dedication, their loyalty and their courage, that they are able to deliver what the Government seek. Attempts to provide the second rate, to cut far into uniformed support and sustainability, not only endangers those we expect to fight for us, but also puts at risk the whole strategy that this Government are seeking to follow. To remain a world player in the field of defence is a political aspiration and one which sits well with this country's proud heritage and experience and our own all-professional forces. But it is in danger of slipping from our grasp. My noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall made some telling points about studies and their impact on morale.
Defence ministers seem to have started to heed too many dubious nostrums which would treat our Armed Forces as though they can be run on the same basis as some reasonably successful business or industry. Businesslike and industrious you will find our services; but to be successful in operations they need to be inspired, well led and prepared, if necessary, to put their lives at risk. We do them and our national interest little good if we think on them as just another world-class company driven by a profit motive and cash accountability. Their motivation is ethos, not cash. Their bottom line must be victory, not profit. They must be allowed to keep those worthy and timeless attributes throughout these changing times.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I was hoping to be able to welcome back the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, hot foot back from CHOGM, badly jet-lagged. But, like the aid budget, the Government are putting her under too much pressure.
The reply to the gracious Speech allows me the opportunity to discuss the implications of any reduction in the aid budget. It seems almost certain that although the gracious Speech mentions a substantial aid programme being maintained, focused at the poorest countries, even a minor cut in the aid budget would have a significant effect. The Minister gave no indication that cuts will take place. But it is clear that any cuts that are made to fund the tax cuts bonanza being played on in the press will have to come out of the bilateral budget. As usual, I do not expect the Minister to give details about any proposed cuts. However, I am sure she is aware that there would be an enormous public outcry if money directed to the poorest countries in the world was to be redirected into tax bribes.
When I first heard of the leaked document referring to proposed cuts in the aid budget, I launched a petition against those cuts which I hope to present to the Minister before the Budget. Considering that the petition had little publicity, I was extremely surprised by the response. It is clear that it is an issue that large numbers of people care deeply about. I sincerely hope that the Government are not mistaken into thinking that cutting the Overseas Development Administration's budget would be either popular or go unnoticed.

87
Although the recent tragedy in Nigeria focused many people's minds on the remaining political dictatorships and human rights abuses that take place in Africa, it would be wrong not to mention the remarkable wave of democratisation that has taken place in southern Africa over the past couple of years. It is easy to forget that there is an optimistic mood in large parts of that continent. It is not just South Africa that changed its political landscape; peace and democracy have come to Mozambique, a country which for many years was afflicted by one of the most bloody civil wars. Malawi embraced democratic elections, replacing a one-party state with that rare and wonderful thing, a liberal government. Zambia has moved to multi-party politics along with, most recently, Tanzania. The ODA and the Minister have played a leading role in assisting the process of democratisation. Recently I had the privilege of monitoring the elections in Tanzania as part of the Commonwealth observer group, the first multi-party elections held there in 30 years. Although the election process broke down in Dar es Salaam, the ODA showed its flexibility by having ballot papers printed which will allow the elections in Dar es Salaam districts to be held again this Sunday.
The problem many African countries face now is that these fragile, new democracies inherited a legacy of misrule, corruption and debt. It is now that they need assistance more than ever. To cut our bilateral aid budget now, as I am sure the Minister is only too aware, would be a sad betrayal of the democratic process. However, future development for these countries will rest on private investment and trade to a far greater degree than aid. The major obstacle to development for the poorest countries has to be debt to the multilateral institutions. Reform of the multilateral institutions which would allow them to write off debt is a policy that I hope the Government will pursue with every possible means.
Good governance and human rights can no longer be ignored as they have been in the past. I therefore commend the governments on calling for the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth. The suspension for two years, which could lead to expulsion, will show the military dictatorship in Nigeria the disapproval of the other members of the Commonwealth. However, such measures do not go far enough. Effective sanctions against Nigeria would very possibly have economic implications for Britain. I hope the Government will not use that as an excuse for failing to act against the Government of Nigeria who have shown such contempt for human rights and their political opponents.
While Britain acted promptly over Nigeria at CHOGM it must have been embarrassing for the British delegation that the Government showed implicit support for French nuclear testing in the south Pacific. We on these Benches were extremely disappointed that the Government failed to use their influence to stop those tests taking place and to show support for other members of the Commonwealth. The call for a test ban would have had far greater weight if Britain, as a nuclear power, could have taken the lead in condemning the tests in the south Pacific.
88
Legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention is a welcome measure. However, I would urge the Government again to look closely at their policy on landmines and to take a lead in breaking the deadlock when the inhumane weapons convention resumes in January. Perhaps it is time for the Government to change their position on the issue of landmines and support an all out ban.
I now wish to turn to the Reserve Forces Bill. At this point I must declare an interest. I am currently an officer in the Territorial Army, serving with 103 Battalion, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. As I am paid as a member of TA I suppose that I must also declare a financial interest. The Reserve Forces Bill is a piece of legislation that can be looked at in two ways. If the aim of the legislation is to increase the effectiveness and ability of the British Army to use the talents, knowledge and experience of the Territorial Army, as I believe is the aim of the Bill, then it has the wholehearted support of these Benches. The danger is that this might be looked at as a piece of legislation that will save money or, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, pointed out, the Territorial Army might be seen as a way of filling the gaps left in the Army through its inability to recruit up to strength.
The Army, through the recent cuts, has been reduced to a minimum strength to meet its commitments. This piece of legislation has the danger of replacing regular soldiers with a cheaper TA equivalent. If that danger is avoided the Bill will be advantageous to the Territorial Army, which will be given a new sense of purpose, and will also greatly aid the regular Army in technical and skilled areas such as medicine, mechanical engineering and transport that are always in such short supply during any large operation.
One of the major benefits of the Bill will obviously be that members of the Territorial Army will be able at some point in their career, if they so elect, to perform a role in real operations, such as the humanitarian work in Bosnia. That will give a focus to their training which was difficult when the activities of the Territorial Army were so limited. The benefit of that will surely be seen in the increased retention of members of the Territorial Army which at the moment has such a high turnover rate. I speak from the experience of one who has actually been on recruiting stands around the country.
Areas of the Bill that cause me specific concern are the relations between Territorial Army soldiers and their employers. In the units I have served with I have often come across cases where soldiers failed to tell their employers that they were members of the Territorial Army, believing that it would be detrimental to their promotion prospects. That is particularly the case for people in small companies where replacement of an employee who is called up may be almost unacceptable to a firm. In those cases many members of small companies might feel it impossible also to be a member of the Territorial Army. For the Bill to be a success, accurate and understandable information will need to be available about the commitments and duties of members of the Territorial Army, specifically the high readiness

89
reserve volunteers, so that employers are able to understand the commitments that each member of the Territorial Army is expected to undertake.
Problems could arise if employers, as is often the case, do not understand the varying levels of commitment to which individual members of the Territorial Army are subject. I realise that a large and comprehensive consultation process has been undertaken and that the reactions of many employers have been extremely positive. However, I am sure that this will be the area of the Bill that is most closely scrutinised and I believe that in many areas the legislation will need to be clarified. That is especially the case for self-employed members of the Territorial Army. The Bill has to be far more specific about rights to compensation for losses sustained by their businesses in the same way as happens for large employers. If that is not the case, many self-employed people will feel themselves financially unable to undertake the major commitment that the Bill implies. Considering the skill base of those who are self-employed, that would be an unfortunate loss.
The package of measures unveiled in the gracious Speech has been criticised for its lack of depth and content, although I believe that there is enough here to keep us busy until the next election.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, it is getting late and I shall therefore be brief. I shall concentrate for the most part on the future of the United Nations.
First, I should like to repeat a proposal which I made when the Chamber discussed on 22nd March the 50th anniversary of the UN Organisation. The discussion on that day was for the most part laudatory and somewhat self-congratulatory, but at that time I took the liberty of saying that I was more pessimistic than the majority of those who spoke. I said I did not believe that the present United Nations was capable of reforming itself and that the problems of its future needed intense and merciless examination. I suggested that a modest sized, independent, talented international commission should be set up to plan and recommend how the UN could be made to function effectively and that the conclusions and recommendations of that commission should be the subject of a special meeting and debate by the existing membership.
That suggestion did not commend itself to the House and the noble Baroness the Minister said that she preferred to continue with the existing moves cautiously to reform. I well understood that, but I was disappointed. I was therefore surprised and pleased when the Prime Minister spoke in New York on 23rd October at a full meeting of the membership of the United Nations. His speech received little attention here: indeed, I found difficulty in getting a copy. I would like to know how many Members have actually seen it. The Prime Minister listed very clearly and critically the present state of affairs which needed tackling and proposed that a special session of the General Assembly should next year address these issues.
90
Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that a full session of the Assembly can produce the answers we need without special preparation. I recommend therefore that the commission which I outlined in March should be established as soon as possible and should ultimately produce an agenda that the full meeting of the Assembly, which the Prime Minister proposed in his speech, can consider. I see no better way. I do not believe that our political parties will find it too difficult to agree how the United Nations should be reformed. It will of course be extremely hard to get a measure of world agreement.
However, it is not only the future of the United Nations which must greatly worry us. It seems to me that it is certain that the last years of this century will be profoundly critical for the future of this country. I doubt whether that is fully realised by the average person. What is needed as soon as possible—it may well be quite impossible—is a British foreign policy which is common to our political parties. We should, in my view, all work towards that.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, in view of the recent resolution of your Lordships' House I suppose I should declare an interest although I have declared it before. My wife is Polish and she owns a house in Poland and naturally I do not want her to lose it. Taking your Lordships' resolutions to their logical conclusion, it could be—but I hope it will not—that your Lordships will be allowed to speak only about matters of which your Lordships are wholly ignorant. Then we shall be on a level with much of the press and the media.
As I shall be speaking of central and eastern Europe, I should like to declare no interest in the Polish presidential election. I hope that the best man wins; but it disturbs me that I was told the day before yesterday that the Guardian supports Mr. Kwasniewski. There must be a great deal to be said for his opponent, Mr. Walesa, in that case.
To cover the whole field of global politics and national defence in one day's debate is an ambitious project and one which your Lordships endeavour to achieve at the beginning of each Session of Parliament. It is a pity that we do not have more debates on foreign policy. Those of us who are concerned with particular areas often find that even when these areas become widely reported in the media, there is little opportunity to discuss them here except in the very brief question and answer sessions at Question Time.
The war in Chechnya is a case in point. However, I was fortunate enough last summer to be able to bring that situation to your Lordships' attention by means of an Unstarred Question. The situation in Chechnya was not referred to by my noble friend Lady Chalker or by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, albeit the noble Baroness was eloquent, and rightly so, on the matter of human rights abuses in Nigeria and elsewhere. I have to ask my noble friend Lord Howe, who is to reply, this question: does that mean that this matter of the war in Chechnya is, as many of us feared it would be, to be brushed under the carpet not merely by Her Majesty's Government but also by Her Majesty's Opposition?

91
What I do not understand is why it is that Russia under any guise, Soviet or otherwise, always seems to get away with it, while lesser countries like Nigeria, Indonesia and Burma get it in the neck and quite rightly, as they should. I do not understand why Russia always gets away with it.
I believe that the situation in Chechnya required more attention than it was given in your Lordships' House over the past Session. The whole development of international relations in central and eastern Europe is too often relegated to the sidelines though I can think of no area which is more important to our future. Those of us who are old enough—and that means most of your Lordships—remember all too well that it was in that area that the seeds of the Second World War were sown. The collapse of the Soviet Union has given central Europe a breathing space which in my opinion it is making very good use of.
What we should realise is that it has also given us a breathing space. So far as I can see, we are not making anything like full use of it. Economically—and I speak of Poland which I know—its transformation since 1989 is completely breathtaking. In 1989 Poland looked like a country which had just survived a war and been defeated in it. There was very little in the shops and what little there was attracted long queues. Petrol was hard to come by and the telephone system was a disaster. Now when I go to Poland I have to rub my eyes to remember what it was like. Much remains to be done and there are serious problems, but there are serious problems everywhere. They are rebuilding an economy which was ruined by 50 years of war and foreign occupation; and we all know, to use a trite expression, that Rome was not built in a day.
The future looks bright enough, but there is one cloud on the horizon which we in the west ought to dispel and in my view we ought to act immediately. This question has been raised today already. I am referring to the present turbulent situation in Russia and the frightening reappearance of classical Russian jingoism and xenophobia. The west has, on the whole, preferred to look the other way while the Russian army continued its brutal campaign in Chechnya. They have taken refuge in the comforting legalistic conception that Chechnya is an internal problem, ignoring the fact that Chechnya has never willingly submitted to Russian rule and that it was occupied 700 years later than English-occupied Ireland.
We ignore at our peril the fact that Russian nationalism works on the theory that the whole of the former Soviet Union, including the Baltic states plus at least Poland and part of Romania, are an integral part of Great Russia. Mr. Zhirinovsky has stated that in an extreme form, but his views are not far removed from those of many of his compatriots. The fact is that the invasion of Chechnya is perceived as a threat by all the countries which were formerly occupied by the Red Army. The incompetent brutality of the campaign brings back memories which most people in those countries would rather forget, but they cannot forget them when they see once more the Russian military behaving, as they see it, normally. We have seen on our television sets what passes, or apparently passes, in Russia for a
92
peacekeeping operation. If what we have seen in Chechnya is the Russian idea of peacekeeping, I wonder why the West is so keen to have Russian troops in Bosnia. How many of the Russian soldiers at present deployed, or to be deployed, in Bosnia are veterans of the Chechnyan campaign? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will enlighten us on this.
Furthermore, it is also a fact that the merciless invasion by the Red Army of Poland, the Baltic states, Romania and Finland are still within living memory in those countries. The Russian Government do nut wish us to include the Visegrad states—Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary—in NATO because they say that they fear for their own security. They fear that Russia may become encircled though how you encircle a country that stretches from the Baltic to Japan beats me. But are not Poland and her neighbours entitled to some security, too? There may be disagreements between Poles, Germans, Lithuanians and the rest, but I have found that the one thing on which those countries agree absolutely is that they do not want the Russian military back under any guise whatsoever—and certainly not as peacekeepers.
Would it not be a good idea for the West to stop beating about the bush? As your Lordships may remember, one of Professor Parkinson's laws was,
"Delay is the deadliest form of denial".
Delay in extending the boundaries of NATO at least to the Visegrad countries is the greatest perceived threat to the future of those countries. Three out of four of them were our allies in the last war. Poland, in spite of her terrible sufferings in the common cause, was betrayed and handed over to the rule of a group of vicious Stalinist carpetbaggers as a reward for her not inconsiderable contribution to the defeat of Germany. Those countries are now free and starting to flourish. Do we not owe them something? Something more than we owe to east Germany, which is already in NATO and the EC? I am not against that, but we should and ought to go further.
When I was in Warsaw last September, I met the deputy manager of the Bank of Poland, Mr. Kozinski. I asked him about the problems associated with EC membership for Poland and he replied that he would much rather have Poland in NATO. That is the view of a bank manager and it is easy to see why he holds it. Everything gained since 1989 is at risk should Russia become imperialistic and aggressive once more. As I understand it, there are more Russian troops in the Kaliningrad area than in the entire Polish army. I should like to ask what they are there for. People know perfectly well that if that army were to attack Poland, or more particularly if it were to attack Lithuania, the West would call a meeting of the Security Council and make an awful lot of noise. They might even send humanitarian aid and invoke sanctions; but, practically, they would do nothing.
I am not saying that that is likely to happen—I hope that it will not happen—but I do say that it could happen. The Poles and Czechs in particular deserve more from us than mere expressions of goodwill. Their

93
airmen and soldiers helped to save our liberties from 1939 to 1945, but not theirs. We now have the opportunity and I believe that we ought to use it.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I listened with sympathy to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and my noble friend Lord Jacobovits. I hope that what I shall try to say about the Palestinian people will complement those previous speeches.
The Palestinians remain the key to lasting peace in the Middle East. There are now some 7 million of them and that total is expected to rise to 8 million by the year 2000. As a people, they are fragmented and scattered as a result of wars. Over 800,000 live within the recognised boundaries of the state of Israel, while a further 2 million exist in the occupied territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. A larger proportion still is found outside the limits of historic Palestine, nearly 4 million, of whom some 2 million are in Jordan where they benefit from citizenship and voting rights. The precarious and vulnerable condition of many of the ex-patriate Palestinians can be seen from what happened to them in Kuwait during the Gulf War and even more recently this year to those who were then in Libya. To be a "guest worker" in the Middle East is not an enviable position.
My thesis tonight is that any peace settlement will have to do justice to the Palestinians if it is to be a lasting one. In order to be seen as equitable and fair, it will have to make adequate provision for items including refugees, Palestinians in Israel, the Occupied Territories in the light of international law, the future of Jerusalem, and of land and water resources.
Refugees are those people and their descendants who were driven out or who fled from their homes in Palestine in 1948 and 1967. They have been meticulously enumerated by UNWRA, whose 1993 figures showed a total of just under 3 million. This to my mind is a humanitarian, not simply a political, issue. The most urgent humanitarian point, as so often, is the reunion of divided families. Families living in Israel or the Occupied Territories having a spouse or children outside the former Palestine are believed to number over 100,000 and many of them have not yet applied for reunion. As regards displaced refugee families, in December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly determined in Resolution 194, paragraph 11, that:
"The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so … and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return, and for loss or damage to property".
I suggest that if Jews are to have rights of return (aliyah) to Israel, so should Palestinians to their former homes. In Israel, Palestinians now make up 18 or 19 per cent. of the total population. By 2020 they are likely to constitute a quarter. The Basic Law of Israel of 1985 discriminates against non-Jews. Many Palestinian local communities are not recognised and therefore lack basic services. Much Palestinian land has been confiscated and prospects for the social and professional advancement of Palestinians are poor.
94
The necessary remedies include recognition of the Palestinian community as a national minority, and a new law of citizenship; the participation of Palestinians in all areas of national life within Israel; a review of all land expropriations since 1948 and the allocation of national resources equally and without regard to ethnic origin.
I come now to the matter of the territory occupied by Israel since 1967. The relevant international law is contained in the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was ratified by Israel, Jordan and Syria. The land in question was seized by military forces and has been under military occupation and administration since then, until the beginnings of the new Palestinian authority in Gaza and Jericho. To call the territories, including the Syrian Golan and parts of southern Lebanon "disputed" is an equivocation which sets at nought the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and the principles of the Helsinki Agreements. It follows from the above that all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory are illegal and must be removed unless any of the settlers agree to live under the jurisdiction of the new Palestinian authority. In the interim, all forms of collective punishment of the inhabitants of the territory must cease, and both Israel and the PLO must comply with human rights norms under Clause 14 of the Cairo Agreement.
In November 1947, the UN General Assembly in Resolution 181, which was confirmed by Resolution 194 in the following year, laid down that Jerusalem and its surroundings should be a corpus separatum under permanent UN administration. Resolution 194, in paragraph 8, specifically mentioned and based itself on the association of the Jerusalem area with three major world religions. Both resolutions provided for free access to the holy places in accordance with time-honoured practices. I regret to say that free access is at the moment somewhat hampered by identity card rules imposed by Israel and affecting residents of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, by the closing of borders and by curfews.
It follows from the resolutions already mentioned, from the fourth Geneva Convention and from Security Council Resolution 242 that Israel's annexation of north and east Jerusalem and declaration in 1983 of a vast Greater Jerusalem is wholly illegal. Recent attempts to dissuade visiting Ministers from other countries from calling on Palestinian representatives in Orient House, east Jerusalem, were a flouting of international law. Efforts to establish an Israeli majority in Palestinian east Jerusalem are deplorable and should cease. I very much regret that planning law has been abused to favour developments benefiting Israelis and to hinder or prevent developments for Palestinians.
The UN should lay down principles whereby the City of Jerusalem can be shared as the capital both of the state of Israel and of the Palestinian authority and eventual state. There is ample space for both purposes. Full access to the holy places for all bona fide visitors must continue to be guaranteed.
I have already touched on the question of land. It is inadmissible that the territory of recognised states should be acquired by war. The UN and the great

95
powers should uphold that basic principle. Israel of course has security needs, but if it wishes to protect such needs from outside its recognised boundaries, it should be obliged to compensate the elected Palestinian Government, either in territory or by other means.
Water is another key to peace. In the past, the Sea of Galilee has been dangerously depleted. Israel is thought to be drawing 40 per cent. of its consumption from aquifers in the West Bank. In 1990, Israeli hydrologists themselves warned that consumption was exceeding replacement by 15 per cent. per year. Israel's use of water per head was recently 170 cubic metres per annum compared with only 35 cubic metres for Palestinians. I suggest that it is the duty of the UN and the great powers to obtain agreement on equitable formulas for sharing the water resources of the whole area for the benefit of all its inhabitants.
Your Lordships may think that I have asked a lot of Israel and not enough of the Palestinians. I reply that the founding covenant of the PLO has to be amended to recognise the existence of the state of Israel. Such a move has been promised but must soon be implemented. All symbols claiming Palestinian possession of the whole of historic Palestine should be removed. Any other asymmetry merely reflects the fact that Israel has been in occupation of all the former Palestinian lands since 1967 and that there is no comparison in bargaining strength between Israel and the PLO.
The UN and the great powers, including the EU, have the right and the duty to redress the balance and to ensure that the eventual agreements are just ones. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have shown good intentions by their recent visits. I urge them to use all the means at their disposal to achieve a just settlement—one that can lead to a new era of harmony and prosperity throughout the fertile crescent.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, the debate on the gracious Speech on foreign affairs and defence is rather like Christmas. It comes round with amazing regularity, and it does not change much from year to year. What I mean is, the same people say the same things—well, pretty well so—every year for ever, which is very reassuring in a world of change. Of course, everything in this world being finite, that is not so. But it sometimes seems so. And that is very reassuring.
It is uplifting and humbling to be among the great and the good, as one is in your Lordships' House, or perhaps I should phrase it, "the wise and the wonderful". Either would be true. What is encouraging is the kindness and courtesy with which those of us who do not fit into either category are consistently treated. Which is a third reason why I always try to speak briefly—well, a fourth, if you count that I prefer listening to other people to hearing my own voice. The other two are that I have only one or two small points to make, and that by this time everyone else has said everything anyway.
96
I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble kinsman Lord Carew on their splendid maiden speeches. It was good to hear both speak on subjects of which they are so knowledgeable. It was particularly good to hear my noble kinsman who is in some discomfort after his accident in the United States last June when he punctured his lung, broke several ribs and has since had three serious operations. My godmother and his noble grandmother, Lady Lauderdale, would have been very proud of him.
For all of us in Britain, 1995 has been a year for looking back, for remembering old friends, and for those of us not born then a way of looking back through other living eyes at our past in which, as always, lie the seeds of our future.
I should like on behalf of the War Widows Association of Great Britain to thank Her Majesty's Government for what they have done for it this year, especially my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Howe for their patience in listening to all our representations. We were delighted to have my noble friend Lord Mackay and both our vice presidents, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, and also the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, marching with us at our own service on the 11th and lunching with us over the weekend.
It was a great and proud day of remembrance for all of us present at the Cenotaph this weekend. My husband met a man in a wheelchair who said, "I know your face. I last saw you directing guns as we crossed the Rhine. And you spoke to me." Fifty years on they had both survived and were speaking again. But, as I said, it is not just 50 years ago. Our newest war widow who was with us lost her husband on his second day in Bosnia last year. She was so brave and beautiful when she marched with us; she said that the encouragement and support of the older ladies had given her strength.
The other point I wish to make is a simple and a short one. Ever since I have been in this House, our Armed Forces have been cut and pared. Reliance on part-time or territorial forces is of course historical. No war could be fought before the harvest was in. While I welcome the extended use of the territorial reserves, I only hope that this will not mean the hard core of our services is to be further eroded.
Those of us who have been on defence visits, and those who know the services intimately like the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley, or the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who always speaks so robustly for the senior service, have for long advocated an end to the whittling down of our services—from Options for Change, to Frontline First, or whatever stalking horse the cuts have come under. As the intention to send yet more British forces to reinforce the UN peacekeeping presence in Bosnia demonstrates, there is now, and will be in the future, a far, far greater use for such brilliant, excellent and highly trained personnel than we can yet foresee. We must continue to think and plan for tomorrow, and not for yesterday. There is no peace dividend.

97
As Lord Home of the Hirsel said in a debate on the Queen's Speech in 1989:
"I have no more to say today. I was brought up in the political school which held that if you had nothing to say, do not say it. With that I shall close".
So shall I.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I welcome reference to the Commonwealth in the gracious Speech. Please allow me a brief comment before I turn this evening to my principal remarks. The Commonwealth has shown herself, once again, through actions and reiterations at Auckland, to be a world-class performer with real convictions and usefulness. I commend the Mill Bank plan of action as essential reading. Membership will become increasingly more sought after, and it would be appropriate carefully to consider issues such as future role, admittance and expulsion criteria and the cost and source of funding management. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who is in his place, spoke about getting the EU finances right. The same applies to the Commonwealth, as indeed it does to the United Nations.
Clearly, the Commonwealth must use its influence, as with Nigeria, but where is the line to be drawn before punishing the greater majority for the actions of the very few? The people or the government? After all, is not the Commonwealth all about the ability to choose and are we not assuming that, given the choice, Nigerians would choose democracy? Certainly Auckland, together with Harare, is destined to enter the history books when considering the affairs of the Commonwealth.
It is appropriate to remind ourselves—indeed I believe that we in this country should take pride in reminding ourselves—again of the wisdom of Mr. Arnold Smith, the first Secretary-General, when he remarked,
"A few hundred years from now, historians will consider the Commonwealth the greatest of all Britain's contributions to man's social and political history".
We must all work hard at this legacy and look forward to the next Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh.
Perhaps I may turn now to events which took place earlier this month. The signing in Mauritius of the mid-term review marked the second stage of Lomé IV. This will be a testing time in the life of the convention and it is how those active in the development debate respond that will determine future policy. What is this convention? It establishes the trade and aid relationship between the European Union and 70 signatories of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group. Commonwealth nations make up more than half the membership. It is the most comprehensive—some would say the most progressive—treaty arrangement between groups of developing and developed nations in existence.
ACP states determine national priorities and implement programmes while the EU states provide agreed levels of funding, technical assistance and preferential trade access; shared facilities, shared responsibilities. The long-term future of the Lomé Convention is far from certain. Only a short time exists before successor arguments will be debated; and time moves on.
98
How will the convention be overhauled to address the development philosophy of sceptic members of the Union and countries such as the United States? The individual position of the French, British and German Governments in particular and the regional interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific states will need to be carefully considered. Export losses as a result of the GATT will have to be addressed, as will the conflicting relationship between the GATT and the Lomé Convention. How will taxpayers of donor nations become better educated in order that it be understood that the cost in real terms will be much greater in years to come unless appropriate development policy be adopted today?
Lomé does have its critics though. Future debate will target the effectiveness of the agreement. Is there clear evidence that Lomé has made a special contribution to ACP countries? How effective is Lomé on poverty alleviation? Has the Lomé Convention failed to have a marked impact on ACP exports? From an ACP point of view, Lomé has not, in the face of debt and deteriorating trade terms, been able to boost growth and trade capacity. Economic development is the long-term solution to the difficulties of the developing world. Trade not aid is what is required. How, then, is inward investment going to be encouraged?
The Commission has been criticised for, for example, its lack of transparency, delays in making payments and the difficulty in getting hold of EU documents on development. It has put forward no specific ideas on improving programming in the areas which are critical to poverty reduction, such as rural credit, basic health, primary education or adult literacy. What criteria do the Commission propose by which ACP performance in relation to new priorities be transparently judged? From the Commission's perspective, Lomé has inadequately respected EU priorities in areas such as economic and political reform, human rights and the rule of law.
Since the mid-term review, however, respect for human rights is central to the convention. The European Community can now suspend or terminate development co-operation programmes with governments which fail to respect human rights. Suspending Nigerian development aid illustrates this. Has the time come for the Commission increasingly to bypass recipient governments by funding NGO activities? There are valid questions as to whether there is sufficient focus on addressing grass roots issues; taking Lomé to the people who really need it. NGOs have that ability. If so, how are the activities of NGOs, both national and international, to be co-ordinated to ensure maximum effectiveness? What mechanisms should be implemented to agree strategy and ensure non-duplication?
There are more questions than answers. It is for these essential reasons that national parliamentarians from both ACP and European Union member states should be ready to contribute to the debate. To this end, I have formed an international Lomé Parliamentary Association in order to bring a sense of awareness of the issues and to ensure that the best of Lomé is carried through into a successor agreement. Indeed, my thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who is not in his

99
place, who as president of the EU/ACP joint assembly, generously invited me to attend a recent week-long meeting as an observer. This gave me the opportunity to meet parliamentarians from all regions, and many returned home to set up groups in their parliaments.
Indeed, yesterday I returned from Burundi where, I am delighted to inform your Lordships, a Lomé group has been formed consisting of six members; three from the Frodebu party and three from Uprona. That means three Hutus and three Tutsis working together, illustrating that economic development is a concern that transcends party and ethnic lines. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, spoke about concern for Burundi. I shall not comment this evening on the points raised as the hour is late and I hope to return to the subject soon.
In conclusion, the Lomé Convention might not be perfect but it exists.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, having just returned from a visit to Hong Kong, I was pleased to note that the gracious Speech contained the words:
"My Government will work for the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. In the interests of the Hong Kong people, they will seek to co-operate with China on the basis of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in order to promote a smooth transition in 1997".
I am pleased also that that commitment was underlined today by my noble friend Lady Chalker in her opening speech.
Hong Kong is perhaps our greatest responsibility in the next year and a half, and indeed beyond. Our responsibility to Hong Kong will not end on 30th June 1997. And I am slightly surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, did not mention Hong Kong at all in her remarks. For there now remain only 592 days before Hong Kong is formally handed back to China at midnight on 30th June 1997. On that solemn occasion we shall be handing over not only Hong Kong, its infrastructure, its real estate and its wealth but also its people—nearly 6 million people who look to Britain and China for their future wellbeing. It is those people who matter and to whom we must listen.
I am sure that none of your Lordships needs reminding that under the terms of the declaration, Britain and China promised Hong Kong one country/two systems, a high degree of autonomy, a legislature based on elections and Hong Kong run by Hong Kong people. Those are not empty phrases, mere mantras engraved on a prayer wheel to be spun when the occasion requires. They are some of the vital foundations of Hong Kong's future.
Until 1990, political parties were illegal in Hong Kong. I admit that I find it perplexing, astonishing and demeaning that until very recently the population of the eighth largest trading nation in the world, with a GDP per head higher than our own, should have no say in who would represent it in the future—a future agreed on its behalf between Britain and China.
In accordance with the timetable agreed between Britain and China, elections were held last September which should allow the present legislative council to run
100
on until 1998. Nearly 1 million people turned out to vote in those elections. As we know, the result was a triumph for the United Democrats led by Martin Lee and other independent candidates, while the pro-Peking parties managed to win only seven out of 66 seats on offer.
But China has stated that it will dismantle that properly elected legislative council on 1st July 1997. Why is that and to what end? We must ask how it will be replaced and with what. Long and loud questions must be asked which need clear answers from the Government of China. At present, the legislative council is entirely in line with the agreements reached between Britain and China. It has 20 members returned by geographical constituency. To how many has China agreed? It has agreed to 20. It has 10 members returned by an election committee. How many were agreed to post-1997? Ten have been agreed to. It has 30 members returned by functional constituencies. How many were agreed post-1997? Thirty were agreed to.
It will not be as easy as China may think to turn back the clock to before the 1995 elections. After all, it has agreed to the present number of directly elected seats and destroying a democratically elected legislature is no way to win friends and influence people in the 1990s. The eyes of the world will be on China and Hong Kong in 1997. Thousands of press and television representatives will be there. The International Commission of Jurists has put Hong Kong on the top of its watch list for the next two years. Taiwan too will be watching closely to see what kind of fist China makes of developing Hong Kong as one country/two systems. The commitment is to one country/two systems and not to one country/one system or to one country/one and a half systems.
Why is China so obdurate in its determination to abolish LegCo? But it is not only China's attitude to LegCo which is gumming up the works. In spite of the apparently successful meeting this autumn between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his Chinese opposite number, the fact is that almost no progress seems to have been made in the recent meetings of the joint liaison group on any of the vital matters which need to be settled in the 592 days remaining to us.
Indeed, another spanner has been thrown into the works at that meeting; namely, China's attempt to emasculate Hong Kong's Bill of Rights. That incorporates into Hong Kong law the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and includes such fundamentals as freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. China's objections contradict Article 39 of the Basic Law which provides explicitly for that covenant to remain in force and to be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong special autonomous region.
China's foot-dragging on those matters is to the advantage of no one. It is not to the advantage of China or Hong Kong. Hong Kong is still booming. There is growth of over 5 per cent. per year. More than 500 banks are represented there, and there are 1,000 British companies with investment running into tens of billions of pounds, and it has thousands more foreign companies and

101
investors. Hong Kong represents 26 per cent. of China's GDP, and the Bank of China itself admitted recently that 80 per cent. of its profits are earned in Hong Kong. China has enormous corporate and personal investment in Hong Kong. It will inherit Hong Kong's reserves of some 100 million Hong Kong dollars, which is five limes more than the sum previously agreed. It will inherit the new airport due to come on-stream in 1998. Above all, it will inherit the people of Hong Kong. It is those people who count because if they lose confidence, Hong Kong's position as the world's most successful economy will crumble.
How can we encourage China to be more constructive in preserving Hong Kong's special qualities? Perhaps I may suggest one way which may be helpful. China has introduced recently the special autonomous region passport which will come into force on 1st July 1997. That is a passport designed specifically for qualifying residents of the new special autonomous region who do not hold other passports.
I understand that China may like us to lead in the matter of helping that passport to gain international recognition by granting visa-free access to the UK to holders of that new passport. I believe that we should give that serious consideration because it would be our vote of confidence in what we have done in Hong Kong and in the status of Hong Kong as a special autonomous region of China which is our joint creation. Secondly, where we lead, it is likely that others will follow. Conversely, if we do not give that lead, other countries would be unlikely to offer visa-free access when we do not have the confidence to do that. Thirdly, refusal to grant visa-free access to those passport holders could have an adverse effect on holders of British national overseas passports. I could even envisage a reciprocal situation in which the administration of the SAR would require British citizens to obtain visas to travel to Hong Kong.
underline that that is a no-risk option. We are not—emphatically not—talking about nationality or the right of abode. We are talking only of visa-free access. That will not alter the demography of a single British parliamentary constituency.
Such arrangements could be conditional. If abuses or problems arise, which on past record I believe is highly unlikely, then a visa regime could always be introduced. But let us give visa-free access a chance. By helping China, it would also help Hong Kong.
I should like to make one further point on passports. Recently this House passed, without a dissenting voice, a Private Bill in the name of Lord Bonham-Carter, which would give full British passports to non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. He was supported by two distinguished former governors of Hong Kong, by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who had past ministerial responsibility for Hong Kong, by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who has unrivalled experience of Hong Kong, and by all other noble Lords present at the debate. It also had the support of the Governor of Hong Kong and the Legislative Council. The arguments put forward then still hold good and I urge the Government to take another look at their position in this matter.
102
Hong Kong is nothing if not resilient. When I visited it recently, the cranes and jack-hammers were still as noisy as ever. Acres of land were still being reclaimed from the sea. I met many people with many different opinions on Hong Kong's past and on its future. If there was gloom, it was nearly always from expatriates. The people of Hong Kong themselves are pragmatic, hard-working, able and brave. I am proud to call some of them my friends. In spite of the difficulties ahead, I remain optimistic about Hong Kong's future, because of its people who have made it such a success and who care so much about its future and because of the commitment of its admirably dedicated and independent civil servants. They are the unsung heroes of Hong Kong's success. They are the glue which holds the fabric together. Much will depend on them.
It is a supreme irony that at a time when nations all over the world are discovering that democracy, the rule of law and human rights are directly relevant to economic success, the city state of Hong Kong, the twentieth century epitome of that success, is finding that those values are in danger of being undermined. The prizes are still there for Hong Kong, for China and for Britain, but with only 592 days to go, we must do our very best to make every day count. The people of Hong Kong deserve no less.
8.40 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, in the debate yesterday on the gracious Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the legislative programme as thin to the point of anorexia. However lacking it may be in its legislative programme, I commend and welcome warmly the gracious Speech for its commitment to promoting Her Majesty's Government's foreign affairs policies.
At the outset I join in congratulating my noble friends Lord Carew and Lord Sandwich on their maiden speeches today. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from them in the future.
In my contribution to today's debate I should like to touch on two issues: first, my old chestnut, that being the current developments in South Africa; secondly, the horrendous developments that have been unfolding in Nigeria and the infringements of human rights in that country, to which several noble Lords have spoken today.
Following Her Majesty's most successful and well-received state visit to South Africa earlier this year, I was delighted to hear confirmation in the gracious Speech of the state visit to this country next year of President Mandela. Despite the many concerns before the ANC and the Government of National Unity took office in April last year, what President Mandela has managed to achieve, through his policy of promoting a culture of reconciliation among the peoples of South Africa is remarkable, if not miraculous. Predictably, many of the expectations of the electorate during the election have not been met. Many of them, such as the promise of houses for all, were totally unrealistic in the short term. The much-lauded Reconstruction and Development Programme as the basis of the

103
Government's social and economic programme has been slow in getting into gear. Nonetheless, I believe that it is far more prudent of the Government to have a well thought out, practical and accountable programme than to have rushed into the implementation of the reconstruction and development programme without due planning.
South Africa's largely unskilled labour force is marked by a low level of productivity which has restricted much of the international inward investment. It is only through increased training and the attainment of skills that the position will be corrected. Here, Her Majesty's Government have played an extremely important role, not just in promoting inward investment, but in assisting in many diverse training programmes in both the public and private sectors. It must be emphasised that Britain remains South Africa's closest trading partner.
A major problem that faces the new South Africa is the continuing wave of crime and the abundance of fire arms, mostly held illegally. Burglaries, car hijackings and muggings have increased and the police force has proved to be inadequate in terms of numbers to deal with the situation. The number of police per population is far below that of the ratio in most European countries. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the recent successful local government elections held just a few weeks ago will greatly help the Government's attempts to get to grips with much of the localised crime. The local government elections effectively completed the process of democratisation which started with the elections last year for regional and national government. They will play an important role in social and economic development in the country. The absence of elected leaders at local level and legitimate government structures has been one of the reasons for the stagnation in implementing much of the reconstruction and development programme. I believe that now the local elections have been held, local projects will be more effectively implemented.
A major question mark still hangs over the forthcoming local elections in Kwazulu Natal, where Chief Gatsha Buthelezi has threatened to withdraw local policing if Inkatha does not win those local elections. This is a major problem spot in South Africa where political violence has continued since last year's general election. There have been frequent calls for international mediation in an attempt to reconcile the differences and resolve the situation.
Another issue which has been raised recently is the arrest and prosecution of 11 former South African Defence Force members, including General Magnus Malan, the previous Minister of Defence. This has caused alarm in that it may result in a backlash of Right-wing violence in South Africa. It is my hope, and the hope of many others there, that those prosecuted will see reason and make their submissions to the Truth Commission which will give them amnesty from prosecution.
As the Minister mentioned in her opening speech, a major problem facing Southern Africa is the continuing drought. In South Africa this has accelerated the drift to
104
the urban areas of many families. The rapid process of urbanisation has led to difficulties in terms of social services and accommodation in most of the metropolitan areas. Another concern is that despite the high unemployment situation, South Africa is seen by many citizens of other African countries as a Utopia. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have been streaming into South Africa to look for employment and a better style of life. The figures for immigrants range from as little as 3 million to as many as 8 million. This poses a major problem for the Government of National Unity.
Despite these concerns, the Government have followed conservative fiscal policies. For the first time in many years, inflation is below 10 per cent. and foreign debts are being serviced and paid on time. That is a record of which many other African states cannot boast. It is my hope that South Africa's reconstruction and development programme will be directed not only towards welfare and social benefits but also wealth creation, and that much of the foreign aid which has flowed into the country will be directed towards sustainable development programmes.
It is also worth mentioning that excellent progress has been achieved in the negotiations for a new constitution. Earlier this morning I met Cyril Ramaphosa who confirmed that the first draft of the final constitution will be released next Wednesday. All in all, there is a great deal to be confident and optimistic about for the future of South Africa.
However, these sentiments cannot be applied to the horrendous developments and infringements of basic human rights that have unfolded in Nigeria. The execution last week of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni leaders not only shocked the international community but exposed the sheer brutality and lack of any respect of human rights by the Nigerian military regime. Nelson Mandela said that it put into question the commitment of the Nigerian military regime to the democratisation of Nigerian society. That was a commitment given by General Abacha on 1st October when he set a timetable for the institution of democracy and commuted the death sentences of the convicted coup plotters. General Abacha's statement that the main objective for him is to achieve national unity almost defies belief. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, commented earlier, the human rights record of the Nigerians is totally indefensible.
Apart from my concerns for the plight of the Nigerian peoples, having recently seen the chilling film, Delta Force on Channel 4 and having interviewed several Ogoni leaders, I am particularly worried about the position of the Ogoni people who have been systematically attacked and deprived by the military regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had hoped to speak on this issue today and he particularly asked me to make reference to the recent report by Amnesty International. I wish to quote from one section of the report which in my opinion summarises the position well. It states:

105
"Ken Saro-Wiwa successfully articulated Ogoni concerns in the international arena, reflecting also the concerns of many small ethnic groups in Nigeria but particularly in the oil producing regions of the south east about environmental degradation of their land and their continuing poverty and powerlessness … By killing Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nigeria has silenced one of its most effective critics and we urge world leaders to maintain their pressure on Nigeria in the face of its government's continuing contempt for human rights".
Certainly, I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the principles of the Harare Declaration, and to the need to place increasing pressure on the Nigerian military regime to expedite the process of introducing democracy in the country. Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth and the targets given by the Commonwealth leaders to the military regime are to be welcomed. But do they go far enough? As one who has always believed in the carrot and stick approach to sanctions, having spoken on this issue as regards South Africa for many years when sanctions continually threatened its economy, I have mixed views on the point. If oil sanctions could bring about a quick fix in Nigeria, I would wholeheartedly support them. But would they bring about a quick fix? I am afraid I feel that sanctions busters would invariably be rife.
There are also the obvious fiscal ramifications for Britain in imposing oil sanctions. Last year the United Kingdom enjoyed a £333 million surplus on its visible trade with Nigeria, and total British company investment in Nigeria is estimated at almost £3.5 billion. Many believe that imposing oil sanctions would affect Nigerian civilians worst. That may be true, but I firmly believe that the military would be just as hard, if not worse, hit.
In summary, I believe that the crisis in Nigeria is a humanitarian one and the solution is political. The first phase must be to endeavour to get the military back into their barracks, and the second phase must be to get democratic government installed. There are two elements to this strategy. First, there is already a democratically-elected president in Chief Abiola, who was elected in 1993. He is trusted by the Nigerian people. On the other hand, there is the belief that to get the military back to their barracks, they must not feel threatened. If they continue to feel threatened, they may become even more brutal.
From a recent discussion I had with Chief Abiola's daughter, I learnt that her father believes that full punitive sanctions would not be the most effective solution in the short term. He believes the Nigerian people can only win if the political impasse is resolved through dialogue and discussion, and that in this way a permanent and constructive resolution can be sought. His suggestion and recommendation is that an international mediation committee should be established to endeavour to initiate this dialogue with the Nigerian military. I have spoken for far too long as one of the last speakers in today's queue. My final comment, and my hope, is that at all costs Her Majesty's Government should use all efforts to avoid a civil war in Nigeria. In my opinion a civil war could only result in Nigeria being divided and would result in massive carnage.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friends would want me to start my speech by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Carew, on their exceptionally attractive and persuasive speeches. I knew the noble Earl's father for some years in the other place. In my view the House of Commons was a much better place then than it is now, but even so the noble Earl's father stood out for the independence of his views and the courage of his convictions. I believe that we recognised the same qualities in the speech of the noble Earl today.
One comment I most profoundly agree with was that of the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven. We must stop trying to combine the whole of foreign affairs and defence in a single debate. I particularly sympathise with his view as one who is winding up this debate and who is faced with the possibility of trying to do justice to the huge scope of opinions which have been expressed. Most of the discussion concerned Bosnia, the WEU and NATO but a whole series of other important subjects were touched on by various speakers. A number of speakers mentioned the Middle East. We on these Benches share the sadness and sense of outrage at the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. I particularly noticed the well-informed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who came close to saying something which I believe needs to be said at this time, and that is that not all Israeli settlers are religious fanatics. Many of them chose to live in Palestine because housing was cheap and available. The trouble comes from those other settlers who are violent, racially prejudiced, religious fanatics. It is clear to me that we must not let the peace process be destroyed by those people. Fortunately, their cause is now somewhat discredited and some of the myths on which their cause depended are becoming discredited, for example, the myth that they have a divine right to land which belongs to another people. That is a fairly simple matter, but it is a myth.
The peace process may not have reached its most difficult stage; the stage discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which concerns the future of Jerusalem. However, it has in the meantime made solid progress thanks to the strength and courage of the Israeli leaders, Yitzhak Rabin and Peres, and also the Palestinian leader, Mr. Arafat. Real progress is being made and we look to the Government to do everything possible to encourage it.
There has been mention in the debate of the reference in the Queen's Speech to the need for a comprehensive test ban treaty. If the delegates at the successful non-proliferation conference had known in advance that as soon as the agreement was signed two of the nuclear powers would start testing nuclear weapons, the non-nuclear powers would never have accepted the agreement as they did. Indeed, the whole concept of a comprehensive test ban treaty might well have been destroyed. We condemn the actions of those two nations and we criticise the Government strongly for not joining in the worldwide condemnation of the two testing nuclear powers. Fortunately, in the event, it may well be that the comprehensive test ban treaty has not been endangered. Such has been the scale and intensity of the

107
protest that there is much less inclination now, both among the non-nuclear and the nuclear countries, to stick on the possible causes of delay and difficulty such as the scope of the treaty, the funding, verification and other such matters.
I am told that there is a considerable change in atmosphere in favour of going ahead as quickly as possible to reach agreement on a clean treaty next year. Therefore, perhaps we should not despair of progress. Certainly, we should hope that progress will be made because the proliferation of nuclear weapons is probably the greatest danger facing civilisation at this time. Although stopping testing is by no means watertight prevention, it certainly carries the process a long way forward.
Reference was made to the chemical warfare convention. The Queen's Speech tells us that the Government are ready to ratify the treaty. On these Benches, for a couple of years or more, we have been criticising the Government for delay. The Official Opposition have done the same. I now feel that we were rather misled by the Government. We were told consistently that the only problem was lack of parliamentary time. None of us took that very seriously since we agree with ratification. In September last year the noble Lord, Lord Henley, wrote to me saying that legislation would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permitted. It would have been better if the Government had explained that the real problem was how to ban the chemicals required for chemical warfare while protecting the interests of companies manufacturing the same chemicals for peaceful purposes. That was really the difficulty. Some misunderstanding might have been avoided if the Government had been a little more frank if it was that rather than the lack of parliamentary time which caused the delay.
As a result we shall have to look at the Bill more carefully than at one time we thought necessary. In the Committee stage we shall have to ensure that the Bill will achieve both the aims of preventing chemical warfare and of safeguarding the legitimate rights of manufacturers. We shall also have to ensure that the Bill makes provision for Parliament to monitor what is happening.
I am sorry to have missed the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I am told that, predictably, he spoke eloquently about what is now the greatest problem in our defence affairs, namely the lack of Army manpower. That is something which could and should have been prevented. It is a direct result of government policy. On these Benches we did not oppose Options for Change in principle, unlike many noble Lords who argued that continuing uncertainty and continuing Soviet strength should rule out major defence cuts. However, we attacked specific recommendations in Options for Change. In particular, we attacked the disproportionate cuts proposed in Army manpower. It proposed manpower cuts of 13 per cent. for the Navy, 16 per cent. for the RAF and 27 per cent. for the Army. That was sheer folly. I am told that by next April Army manpower will have fallen to 106,500. That is not
108
enough for our commitments. That is the biggest and most damaging mistake that one could make in defence planning. When the Minister replies I hope that he will tell us exactly what the Government will do about it. I cannot understand why they closed the recruitment offices. What are the Government doing to reopen them and change recruiting propaganda to exploit the possibilities of Ghurka support and long-term re-engagement bonuses? The Government have created the crisis and the Government must find the remedy. In the months ahead in the new Session we shall be watching to make sure that the Government exert themselves.
The main subject of the debate has centred around Bosnia and the European and NATO contributions. There has been a vast improvement in the situation since our last debate. That debate on 15th July coincided with the lowest point of United Nations humiliation and failure. There was talk in the debate of the UN's powerlessness, of the need for withdrawal, of the vulnerability of our forces in Gorazde and the uselessness of air strikes. Ministers went along with that talk.
In the event, as we now see, under pressure from the United States, the Government reacted to the crisis with some spirit. The RAF participated with skill and courage in successful air strikes against the infrastructure of Bosnian Serb forces. Our gunners were sent to help open up the Mount Igman route to Sarajevo and to help lift the siege of Sarajevo. That was a decisive turning-point. I can fairly and properly say that it largely vindicated the advice consistently expressed by my own party on the subject.
Now all our efforts must be directed at making the peace stick. I trust that the Government will exploit to the full the possibility of helping to keep the peace with large-scale and conditional reconstruction aid with strong strings attached dependent on the good behaviour of the recipients.
I hope that the Government will also learn the wider lessons of the Bosnian crisis. In the end the contribution of the United States proved indispensable. Yet all the signs today are of an ever-decreasing interest in the United States in European defence. We cannot wish that away. That fact will remain and we have to adapt to it. Europe must therefore become more capable of handling, and more willing to handle, its own defence problems. It is not a matter of surrendering sovereignty in defence to the European Union. The European NATO members have already pledged themselves to come to the defence of each other. That is the big step as regards sovereignty. What is needed are practical steps to increase the capability of the WEU: joint planning, joint training, joint procurement of necessary but hideously expensive new weapons systems, and perhaps a secretary general for the Council of Ministers. We all listened with particular attention to the extremely interesting and bold speech of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. That, too, should be seriously considered. None of it should bypass NATO but should ensure that Europe can act promptly and effectively in crises where United States participation cannot be assumed.

109
Between them the European NATO countries can call on nearly half a million regular soldiers. They are not conscripts but regulars. The countries are big enough and rich enough to take on those new responsibilities. What is needed is the political will to do so. We ask ourselves whether the Government have the political will to launch themselves in that direction.
Next year we take over presidency of the WEU. Before the Conservative Party conference, in our debate on 14th July in welcoming the noble Earl to his new office, I said:
"The noble Earl's main task will be … to keep his Secretary of State in line with Government policy on matters such as the common European defence policy".—[Official Report, 14/7/95; col. 1951.]
That was his main task. I have no doubt he tried hard; but he did not succeed. He must try again. With the responsibilities for our country next year, it is a tragedy that at this time we should have a Conservative Government so bitterly divided on Europe.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset I must declare an interest. After a short, brief period of service in the Royal Air Force, all my professional work outside Westminster has been in the realm of humanitarian and international affairs, and so it remains.
It has been a good debate. It will make for an excellent edition of Hansard and I hope that it will be widely read. Indeed, some of the points have been so well made that it is clear we need a succession of specialist debates on foreign affairs in the year to come—on Hong Kong, Nigeria, and South Africa—and I hope that time will be found for those.
In post-imperial Britain overseas and defence policies become more important, not less. None of the major economic, social and environmental or indeed security challenges facing us as a nation can be successfully tackled on our own in isolation. We can only serve the interests of the people of the United Kingdom by working for relevant and sensible international co-operation.
That was what was so sad about the recent excesses of the party opposite at Blackpool, to which my noble friend Lady Blackstone drew attention. It was not just the cheap nastiness. It was the aggressive insularity almost designed to alienate the world, to reduce our influence and thereby betray the British people. Of course we must not have illusions de grandeur. We cannot run the world on our own. But it is because our interests are so bound up with the world as a whole that we have no option but to work out the answers with others. That is why the European Union, the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, NATO, the Western European Union, the OSCE, the Commonwealth and the others are so important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and others have reminded us, for historical reasons we have inherited a permanent seat on the Security Council. We have to justify that seat. If we want convincingly to retain it, we cannot dip in and out of global responsibilities. It means that we are positively opting for a lead role in global stewardship. Genocide in Rwanda or Burundi,
110
massacres in former Yugoslavia—the noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke powerfully of them tonight—not least in the safe havens which we ourselves were party to designating, should lie heavily on our national conscience.
The gracious Speech announces the Reserve Forces Bill. We shall also have the Army Bill. I can assure the Government that our approach to both will be supportive and constructive. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, expressed concern about shortfalls in recruiting for the armed services. There are no gimmicky solutions. Indeed, that road is to trivialise the significance of service. What matters most is clarity of purpose, a sense of personal significance and a feeling of belonging, to which he so ably referred.
The purpose of defence cannot be based on memories of a glorious past. It has to be a convincing response to the challenges of the century ahead. What are the real situations, the real crises and the real threats for which we must be prepared? In constructing our responses, we must never forget that no defence system will ever be better than the calibre, professionalism, motivation and morale of the individual men and women of whom it is comprised. That involves being properly equipped and supported. It involves pay and pensions. It involves family housing and job security. But above all it involves that clear sense of purpose and feeling of personal significance and belonging to which the noble and gallant Lord referred this evening. The ship's company, the squadron, the regiment—not least the community-based regiment—have been concepts that we should be foolish to under-rate.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there have been far-reaching changes. Since 1990, Army and RAF presence in Germany is down from 70,000 to 30,000; submarines are down from 30 to 16; frigates and destroyers are down from 48 to 35. In broad terms, front line units have been reduced by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. Altogether, the reductions in force sizes, coupled with other stringent economies, have brought the defence budget down by 18 per cent. (some …4.4 billion) and have reduced service personnel by 24 per cent. and civilian personnel by 20 per cent. This means that defence now stands at a smaller proportion of our national resources than at any time since the 1920s.
The financial savings must give great satisfaction to Treasury Ministers. But they leave one set of fundamental questions totally unanswered. What exactly was the defence analysis that provided the defence case for these changes? What exactly is the defence analysis that brings our defence bill to its current …22 billion? What exactly is the defence analysis that has led to our defence forces being structured in the way that they are?
It is simply not acceptable to base defence policies in effect on the line: "After a lot of haggling with the Treasury this is what we have managed to preserve—now what shall we do with it?". We have the vivid experiences of former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, the Gulf, the Middle East, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Algeria and Nigeria; of Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Taiwan-China and the Spratly Islands; indeed of Ireland.

111
The essential discipline must be to analyse what we see as the risks to world stability and to the security of people, and then, while maintaining flexibility, to deal with the unexpected, to work out what collectively needs to be done to meet those risks and what a reasonable contribution by the United Kingdom should be.
There will of course be special British needs, ranging from support of civil government in Northern Ireland and defence of the Falklands through fisheries protection to ceremonial duties. These may account at most for 20 per cent. of defence spending. When lasting peace comes to Northern Ireland it will be considerably less. But the overriding question remains: just exactly what is the analysis behind the other 80 per cent?
Do the Government, for example, see any future possibility of a revived threat to the European Union and NATO from Russia? If so, in what form? What would be required collectively to meet it; and what would be an appropriate share of the task for Britain? What of central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean? Do the Government see these as primarily a European responsibility, albeit within NATO? If so, what are the implications for our defence policy? As a permanent member of the Security Council, what do the Government see as our defence contribution in the future to global peacekeeping, pre-emptive action, peace enforcement, the protection of humanitarian operations and to humanitarian work itself?
Do they envisage increased special training? Do they see our role as one of self-contained contributions alone; or do they see us also providing logistic support and other specialist services for other United Nations contingents? Already, British personnel of all ranks have won an outstanding reputation for their service to the United Nations, frequently in the most difficult circumstances. It is a record in which the service personnel concerned rightly take great pride.
We on these Benches are glad to see the Government's commitment to NATO undiminished. We are also glad to see the Government reaffirming the importance of the Western European Union as the alliance's European pillar. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, who made a particularly interesting speech, that we, like the Government, are convinced that any European defence identity must be along intergovernmental lines. It is not in our view an appropriate function for the European Union, let alone the Commission.
The Western European Union should take seriously its so-called Peterburg tasks of crisis management, including the full range of activities associated with peacekeeping, such as sanctions monitoring, airlifts and humanitarian support. These could provide a motor for a culture of closer European co-operation, both within the European Union and between the European Union and the candidate countries of eastern Europe. All this can also help to speed up the essential processes of standardisation and familiarisation.
We on these Benches believe that the expansion of NATO eastwards is inevitable and welcome. But Russian sensitivities must never—I repeat, never—be
112
ignored. Every possible avenue must be used, especially that provided by OSCE, to develop understanding between NATO and Russia. Partnership for Peace has a vital role to play. When the noble Earl deals with all these points in his reply, I hope that he will also let us have his evaluation of NATO's rapid reaction corps, which we of course lead and to which we make such a significant contribution.
Steady progress toward disarmament and responsible control of the arms trade are also indispensable elements in global security policy. I am sorry to say that, like my noble friend, I search in vain to find the driving commitment which should be there in government policy. The obstinate defence of the indefensible French nuclear tests hardly boosted the cause of arms control or a comprehensive test ban treaty. Why have the Government sat on their hands for over two years, since they signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, before they introduced the enabling legislation to make ratification possible? It will be a sad day for United Kingdom credibility in these matters if we are not among the first 65 nations to ratify and thereby bring the convention into force. We on these Benches will do all that we can to expedite the legislation but not, I must emphasise, like our Liberal friends, at the expense of careful scrutiny on such a vital matter.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney raised, with his characteristic persistence, the International Court consideration of nuclear weapons. It is by definition, I think he will agree, now a judicial matter. For that reason I believe that we should do well to wait and see what the court has to say.
In the conflicts currently raging in the world, it is conventional arms which are fuelling the slaughter of the innocents. The House needs to know exactly what the Government are doing to promote control and accountability in the international arms trade. Do they see a future role for a common foreign and security policy of the European Union in that respect? If not, why not?
The gracious Speech spells out a determination to work with the United Nations and regional organisations in the prevention of conflict. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone indicated, we applaud that. It is obscene that the world continues to spend 250 times as much on arms as it does on peacekeeping and only a fraction of what it spends on peacekeeping is spent on conflict resolution and pre-emptive diplomacy. It defies rational explanation that we divert development resources to relief and have legions of humanitarian agencies coping with the grim consequences of conflict but that only peanuts are devoted to preventing it. What precisely will the Government do to meet the point made by my noble friend Lord Healey and put enhanced capacity for conflict resolution and pre-emptive diplomacy at the centre of their approach to United Nations' reform? Again, do they see that as a priority to which a common foreign and security policy in the European Union could make a contribution? Will it be on the IGC agenda? If not, why not.
If we want a secure world, we must be prepared to pay for it. In an age of international terrorism, coupled with advanced information technology, that is truer than

113
ever. Fairness and social justice are crucial to global stability. Without them, ethnic entrepreneurs and opportunists get to work. Yet we see aid programmes falling at a time when needs are dramatically increasing. Frankly, despite her own personal qualities, to which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, referred this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has totally failed to stop that rot, with aid down from 0.5 per cent. of gross national product and rising in 1979, to 0.31 per cent. of gross national product and falling in 1995. Worse, aid is increasingly under pressure to give priority to backing trade, even in arms, rather than constantly to prioritise the needs of the poor.
The last DAC report of OECD revealed that for the first time in a generation aid from OECD countries to the world's poor fell from 61 billion US dollars in 1992 to 56 billion US dollars in 1993—a fall of 6 per cent. in real terms. Even if the aid budget is not cut any further this year, the truth is that because of multilateral commitments, bilateral aid will be cut by some 14 per cent. in real terms over the current three-year planning period. However, it should never be a matter of multilateral versus bilateral aid. There is much to be said for good and effective multilateral programmes. It is a matter of sufficient resources for both our multilateral and bilateral commitments.
Where is the post-Cold War peace dividend? Instead of turning guns into ploughshares, the richest nations are shamefully turning their backs on the poorest. And now, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made plain this evening, the Government have meanly been considering taking money away from the poorest people in the world to help finance a pre-election tax cut bribe. But it will not work. The electorate will see it for what it is. They will refuse to be bought off in this sordid fashion.
I sometimes wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, recognises that overnight she could escape from her unenviable role of a warm hearted but thwarted Minister to become a respected major stateswoman of enormous standing, if only she made it absolutely plain that under no circumstances will she ever again be a party to any further cuts in the proportion of our national wealth devoted to aid or diversion of aid from the battle against poverty.
In conclusion I say only this. We would all argue that defence is about preserving peace; but in a sense we have all failed whenever war, with all its brutality, breaks out. But what is peace? The dictionary defines it as freedom from war or strife. Such a course was the peace of Pax Romana or more recently of the Soviet Union and its satellites. I was reflecting on this as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, shared with us his experience and predictions of and for the former Yugoslavia.
In "The Bride of Abydus", Byron puts it well:
"Mark! Where his conquests and his carnage cease He makes a solitude and calls it peace".
Contrast that with the words of Brian Wren:
"Say no to peace
If what they mean by peace is the quiet misery of hunger,
The frozen stillness of fear,
The silence of broken spirits
And the unborn hopes of the oppressed.
114
Tell them that peace is the shouting of children at play,
The babble of tongues set free,
The thunder of dancing feet,
And the father's voice singing".
Why cannot we all take that as our vision for the century ahead?
9.27 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is a privilege for me at the end of such an absorbing and multi-faceted debate to bring today's proceedings to a close. The ground we have traversed over the past six hours has indeed been extensive; from the Middle East peace process to the Lomé Convention; from Rwanda to Cyprus. As ever, I must ask for the House's indulgence as it will be impossible for me to do justice to all noble Lords who have contributed; nor will I have time to reply this evening to every question asked of me. However, those of your Lordships whose questions do remain unanswered may count on hearing from me or my noble friend Lady Chalker before too long in writing.
I should like first to mention two particular beacons in the debate—the maiden speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Carew, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carew, was everything it should have been; concise, well informed and witty. I do not doubt that his theme was one with which we can all identify. I hope that, distinguished equestrian sportsman that he is, he will feel satisfied at having cleared his first fence with consummate ease.
Bouquets of a similar sort are due to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. As an experienced journalist, he amply demonstrated his felicitous way with words; but I believe we heard this afternoon a speech on overseas aid which the House will remember with particular pleasure for its perceptiveness and wisdom. I congratulate the noble Earl and hope that he too will grace our debates often.
Looking at the Session ahead, I realise that it is likely to prove, for me at least, an unusually busy one with two Bills to bring before the House. Quite soon we will see in another place the introduction of an Armed Forces Bill, the legislation which continues in force the single service Acts which provide the framework for the system of discipline in the Armed Forces. Those provisions need to be renewed every five years and we have, therefore, to pass an Armed Forces Act before the end of August 1996 in order to maintain the system of discipline in the services beyond that date. The link between a firm but fair disciplinary framework and the superb qualities of our Armed Forces should not be overlooked. It is a system which serves the Armed Forces well.
I understand that it is the custom in another place to commit Armed Forces Bills to a Select Committee. This procedure illustrates that the five-yearly Armed Forces Bills are not merely about extending the life of the legislation. More importantly, they give Parliament a full opportunity to review discipline issues in the Armed Forces in the round. Your Lordships will have a full part to play in this review. However, I can predict with some confidence that it will be some months before the Bill reaches us.

115
The gracious Speech mentions that the Government will be bringing forward a Bill in the current Session concerning the reserve forces. I am pleased to have been able to fulfil that commitment almost immediately with the introduction of the Bill this afternoon. Like many noble Lords who have spoken, including in particular the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I look forward to an early opportunity to debate its provisions but it may be helpful if I say just a few words about it now.
In essence the Bill aims to bring the law on reserves up to date. It has four main new provisions. First, it has a new power of call-out for humanitarian, disaster relief and peacekeeping operations which will enable the United Kingdom to contribute more readily to the relief of human suffering anywhere in the world. Secondly, it creates two new categories of reserves: the high readiness reserve, comprising individuals who, voluntarily and with their employers' consent, accept an increased call-out liability; and the sponsored reserve, comprising civilians belonging to a contractor's workforce, who would accept a reserve liability to continue to provide the contracted output in an operational environment. The Bill also provides an opportunity for reservists to volunteer to undertake productive tasks other than training, including periods of full-time service, without either being called out or joining the regular forces. This will simplify current procedures. Finally, the Bill includes important new safeguards for both employers and reservists.
We have consulted extensively on the Bill. I know that many reservists have responded enthusiastically to the policy of using reserves more flexibly and that they welcome the opportunities that the new legislation will offer them.
I turn now to the larger themes in today's debate. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, among others, spoke about the desirability of developing closer European military co-operation. We recognise the benefits of greater convergence of membership between NATO, the WEU and the EU. It would help to clarify today's complex network of European security guarantees and relationships, although all three organisations make their own distinctive and valuable contributions. But we should not aim inflexibly at congruence of membership as distinct from convergence. Not least it makes no sense to put new defence hurdles in the path of prospective new EU members. What we cannot do is accept a merger of the WEU into the EU at next year's Inter-Governmental Conference. On practical grounds alone it clearly makes no sense to subordinate a European defence capability to an organisation which includes several neutral countries. We have no intention of taking any step towards subjugating individual nations' defence policies to a supra-national European body.
The common foreign and security policy is a relatively new mechanism. It is making steady progress. At the IGC we will be looking for practical ways to make it more effective. But it must remain inter-governmental, with member states in the driving seat. We do not believe in an extension of Community
116
procedures, in particular qualified majority voting, to the CFSP. As my noble friend Lord Finsberg emphasised, it is NATO which remains the bedrock of our security and an essential force for stability in Europe. It is the only organisation able to back up its security guarantees with an effective structure of political consultation, assigned forces and integrated command and it secures the vital link between Europe and North America in political and military terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke about the desirability of NATO enlargement. Other noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, stressed the need to take account of the concerns of the Russian Federation. A constructive and co-operative relationship between Russia and the alliance is a key element for security and stability in Europe. It is important that NATO's approach towards Russia is long-term and not determined by short-term events. The final form of the relationship will take time to work out. Our view is that at this stage it is more important to focus on its substance rather than on its form. I say to my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton that we need to strike a balance between genuine consultation with Russia on matters of mutual concern and avoiding any suggestion of Russian oversight or veto over NATO's decision-making.
While adverting to Russia, perhaps I may touch briefly on the question of my noble friend Lord Finsberg as to the Government's position on Russian membership of the Council of Europe. In doing so, perhaps I may pay tribute to my noble friend's admirable work in the Council of Europe. We and our European Union partners support Russia's application for membership, and we hope that a final decision can be taken soon. As my noble friend said, it is in the end up to the council's membership to decide. We cannot prejudge its deliberations. We would expect Russia to meet the democratic standards set by the council and to observe its commitments to guarantee human rights and those are solemn undertakings.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield, with all his wisdom and experience in Europe, spoke about the EU Inter-Governmental Conference planned for next year. It is perhaps no surprise that I found much in his speech with which to agree. Let me reassure him, if he needs reassurance, that the United Kingdom has a package of realistic, practical proposals for the IGC designed to enable the EU to meet the key challenges which face it over the next few years.
Our priorities are these: more co-operation in common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs and defence; further entrenchment of subsidiarity; better quality and a reduced quantity of European legislation; better financial discipline and effective action against fraud; a greater role for national parliaments and a fairer voting system in the council. As my noble friend said, the EU has to work more effectively and efficiently. I can assure him and other noble Lords that we wish to see the conference focusing on measures which will further European prosperity and security and rebuild public support.

117
I mentioned just now the important subject of fraud. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked why the UK had not taken up its full allocation of EU funds for anti-fraud action. As she will know, the United Kingdom already undertakes extensive anti-fraud action. The UK draws on EU funds where they can be usefully deployed and we shall continue to do that. That may mean that the UK will not take up its full allocation under every Community programme, but that only means that we do not spend money just for the sake of spending it. There is no question of the Government going soft on fraud. Indeed, the United Kingdom is in the forefront of the fight against fraud and poor financial management. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was instrumental in winning for the European Court of Auditors a key role in this area at Maastricht. Nobody underestimates the work ahead and much remains to be done. The Government look forward to renewed discussions about the fight against fraud and waste at the Madrid European Council.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford devoted much of his speech to the subject of overseas aid, as did many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale and, as I have said, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. At over …2.3 billion in 1995–96, the United Kingdom has the fifth largest aid programme in the world befitting our status as the fifth largest economy. We make a substantial and effective contribution to sustainable development and reducing poverty through our highly praised bilateral programme and the increasingly important contributions we make multilaterally. In recent years about 40 per cent. of total resources were spent multilaterally and 60 per cent. bilaterally. The exact figure varies from year to year. In 1993–94, 45 per cent. was spent multilaterally and 55 per cent. bilaterally.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, both types of aid have their place. Bilateral aid can often be more closely targeted, effective and identified as British. Sometimes it is useful for multilateral agencies to co-ordinate assistance. They can mobilise a critical mass of finance and exercise more leverage in support of an important objective, for example, economic reform. Forty per cent. of our bilateral aid—that is, over …363 million in 1993–94—went to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We also make a substantial contribution through multilateral aid. The EC's aid programme to sub-Saharan Africa for 1990–95 is equivalent to …7.6 billion and the United Kingdom's share of that is ߪ1.25 billion.
The large and populous countries of Asia, whose needs have sometimes been overshadowed by those of Africa, also require substantial aid if they are to overcome the problems of poverty. The largest number of poor people are to be found in South Asia. Some 25 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to countries in the subcontinent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and other noble Lords expressed concern about possible cuts in the aid budget. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the Budget, but we are confident that Britain will retain
118
a substantial and highly effective aid programme. The British programme is internationally recognised as one of the best and it is one of which we can all be proud.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, spoke movingly of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and its after-effects. There is no doubt that the death of Yitzhak Rabin is a grievous blow, but as the noble Lord said, the peace process continues. Indeed, Arab reaction to Mr. Rabin's death—for example, the attendance of Arab leaders at the funeral—is a mark of how far the process has come. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated UK support for the peace process during his tour of the Middle East last week. We can only be encouraged by Mr. Peres's commitment to press on with the redeployment of Israeli forces from the West Bank. It is clear that the Palestinians and the Israeli Government are firmly committed to the Palestinian elections on 20th January. We have every reason to believe that the Israeli Government under Mr. Peres have every intention of following through with the implementation of the interim agreement.
I advise my noble friend Lord Beloff that for our part Her Majesty's Government will do whatever we can to support the peace process. In Gaza my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced several new projects of practical help for the Palestinians. If we look at multilateral aid to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, we see that the total EC package amounts to 500 million ecu over five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred particularly to Jerusalem. Our position on Jerusalem has not changed. It is a matter to be determined in the final status talks between the parties. It is vital that neither side should do anything to pre-empt the final status agreement. With regard to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, we regard all such settlements as illegal and an obstacle to peace. We have raised the issue directly with the Israeli Government.
We listened with great attention and respect to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, on Yugoslavia. I mean no criticism of his untiring and distinguished work in that troubled region if I say that there are now better prospects for peace in Bosnia than at any time since the conflict began. That has resulted from patient diplomacy and determined military action. We greatly welcome the ceasefire that came into effect on 12th October. It is an important step forward and, thankfully, the situation on the ground is much quieter following the ceasefire. Dick Holbrooke and the EU envoy, Carl Bildt, are to be congratulated on what they have achieved. All eyes are now on Dayton, Ohio. We can be cautiously optimistic, I believe, for the future. The door to peace is now open, but there remains much to be done. The region is littered with broken promises and failed ceasefires. I note the pessimism expressed by my noble friend Lord Finsberg, but we can only hope that now, finally, the parties realise that negotiation is the only way forward. On Russian involvement, I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that we welcome

119
Russia's full participation in the peace process and would welcome, and hope for, a corresponding role for Russia in the proposed implementation force.
The noble Lord, Lord Healey, suggested that the UK changed its policy over Bosnia at the start of the Holbrooke peace initiative. That is just not the case. The UN and NATO have consistently made it clear that they were not taking sides. The London meeting in July convened by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister agreed that further attacks on civilians in UN safe areas would be met with a firm and effective military response. The Bosnian Serb army was informed directly of that decision, and the use of NATO air power and UN artillery in support of operations in Bosnia is fully authorised by UN Security Council resolutions and the North Atlantic Council.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill of Harrow and Lord Healey, emphasised the need for reform of the UN. The 50th anniversary of the UN was an opportunity to reaffirm our steadfast commitment to it, but it was also a fitting moment to take stock to see where UN performance can be improved. We want a serious debate on reform. Our aim is to set the UN to work effectively and efficiently. Effectiveness means tackling conflicts earlier and with determination. There should be greater emphasis on conflict prevention in an effort to reduce the number of situations where peacekeeping operations are required. Efficiency comes from the need to reduce wastage and duplication of effort and to see where the work done in the UN might be better done elsewhere. The UN must not fight shy of scrapping unnecessary bodies, as the Prime Minister said at the anniversary. Costs can be cut without affecting performance. In the first few months of a scrutiny of costs, the UN has identified potential savings of about 16 million dollars. There will be more to come as the reform process continues.
I should have wished to respond more fully to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, my noble friend Lady Park and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, about Army manning and recruitment. Let me just say that the Government remain totally committed to Armed Forces which are properly manned, well equipped and supported. We plan to maintain and, indeed, to enhance our front line capabilities. We will also provide the necessary support to allow the Armed Forces to carry out the wide range of tasks in which they are currently engaged. We believe that we have the best Armed Forces in the world. Their professionalism, leadership, training and equipment are second to none.
Equally, I cannot do justice tonight to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I shall just take the opportunity to make a brief comment on the Eurofighter. The Government remain firmly committed to Eurofighter 2000 and our priority is to bring that aircraft into service as soon as practicable. Eurofighter will provide the cornerstone of the RAF's future capability from early in the next century.
120
I should have wished to cover many other subjects tonight—nuclear deterrence, Nigeria, eastern Europe, Hong Kong, and South Africa—but time and regard for your Lordships' patience prevent me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask him to comment on the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Judd that we await the opinion of the International Court on the question which I raised. Have the Government intervened to prevent such a response being made? Will they undertake not to do so?
Earl Howe: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I believe it would be better if I responded to that concern in writing. I am well aware of his concern on the matter. I shall ensure that a letter reaches him.
As I close, it is perhaps appropriate to reflect briefly on our nation's history and heritage as a world power. We are, and must continue to be, a major participant in world affairs, willing and able to lead decisively and not afraid to rise to the challenge, using our assets and vast experience for the benefit of our own people and for the international community.
These are grand statements, but a snapshot of current and recent activities clearly demonstrates the vital part that we are playing in building peace and stability around the world. The tasks which our Armed Forces undertake are now more diverse than at any other time in our history, from nuclear deterrence to counter terrorism, peacekeeping and our assistance to other countries. And wherever our Armed Forces operate they are held in the highest respect. They reflect enormous credit on the United Kingdom.
In the Gulf, RAF Tornados contribute to the no-fly zone operations over north and south Iraq. The Royal Navy continues to enforce United Nations sanctions at sea. The United Kingdom has been a leading contributor to peacekeeping operations in Africa. Earlier this year, British forces joined an international task group to protect the United Nations forces withdrawing from Somalia. A British logistics battalion recently returned from a three-month deployment to Angola where it set up the logistic infrastructure for the United Nations Angola verification mission. On the other side of the Atlantic, the United Kingdom contributed to the United States-led multinational force in Haiti. The Armed Forces also provided extensive assistance in the Caribbean during the summer to local communities in dealing both with the threat and aftermath of natural disasters. And, of course, no discussion of our Armed Forces' contribution on the international scene would be complete without mention of current operations in the former Yugoslavia which has dominated our thoughts and where our forces continue to do such an outstanding job.
We have seen over the past six years a dramatic change in the political context. Our former adversaries are now our partners in promoting stability and prosperity. This has required us to reassess our policies and priorities and we have restructured our Armed Forces accordingly. This, to be sure, has meant some reduction in their size. What it has not meant

121
is a reduction in their quality or in their importance to this country. It is thanks to their professionalism that Britain's reputation as a promoter of understanding, reconciliation and peace stands high.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until Monday next.
122
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until Monday next.
House adjourned at eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  Teacher Numbers
  Teacher Numbers
  "Policy Guidelines for the Coast"
  "Policy Guidelines for the Coast"
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, 10– 13 November
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, 10– 13 November