It is an honour to open the Consolidated Fund debate this evening with a debate on Britain's relations with Latin America. At the outset, I must declare an interest. My company, which is listed in the Register of Members' Interests, does business with Latin America.

Owing to the accident of family circumstances, I take an intense personal interest in the region. When democracy was restored in Chile, I was instrumental in restarting the Chile all-party group in Parliament, which I now chair. The cause of improving relations between parliamentarians of Latin America and of the United Kingdom is well served in the House by the various parliamentary groups for the region, and especially by the umbrella British-Latin American parliamentary group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who is an old Argentina hand from his days in Her Majesty's embassy in Buenos Aires.

The British-Latin American parliamentary group holds, in June, an annual parliamentary seminar at Canning house and hosts visits to Parliament of distinguished high officials from Latin America, the next one of which will be tomorrow morning by His Excellency Senor Cesar Gaviria, the President of Colombia, whom we warmly welcomed to the United Kingdom today.

May I heartily endorse my hon. Friend's welcome to President Gaviria of Colombia. The House will recognise that his visit could hardly be more appropriate, following that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia, the first visit ever by a serving British Prime Minister to a south American country.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming proposed visits by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is on the Front Bench tonight, and other Ministers, and, above all, the proposed visit by Madam Speaker during the recess to endorse this country's long friendship with Colombia, its long tradition of democracy and the new constitution that was initiated by President Gaviria?

I am most grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who knows Colombia particularly well. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will have taken note of what he said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who lived and worked in Brazil and travelled through most of Latin America before being incarcerated in this place, organises an active programme of meetings and lunches with Latin American ambassadors, Ministers, parliamentarians and officials.

We have the closest links with the other place, too, through the distinguished patronage of Lord Montgomery of Alamein, the president of Canning house, Lady Hooper and many other Latin American experts, some of whom, like Viscount Torrington, have led trade missions to the south American sub-continent.

The link with Canning house is of great importance to us in Parliament. Canning house is a unique forum for the study of the politics, business, society and culture of Latin America. Less specialist than the International Institute for Strategic Studies and more focused than Chatham house, it is an invaluable source of information about Latin America, fulfilling, above all, a unique commercio-diplomatic role which is of inestimable value to London as a centre of Ibero-Latin American interests.

Ministers, to their credit, recognise this as well. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, whose presence I welcome on the Treasury Bench, made a particularly well-received debut speech to our parliamentary seminar at Canning house on 30 June.

Canning house has been directed by a succession of distinguished former ambassadors to the region, the present incumbent being Sir Michael Simpson-Orlebar, who served as British ambassador in Portugal and Mexico. Funded jointly by individuals, corporate subscribers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it fulfils a quasi-diplomatic role at minimal cost to the Exchequer and represents outstanding value for money to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British business community. As its 50th anniversary approaches, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would do well to confirm that the grant to Canning house is not at risk.

When addressing a theme as broad and deep as Britain's relations with Latin America, it is easy, when describing British policy towards a region that is not given to understatement, to get carried away by the grandiloquent treatment of what are necessarily inspiring themes, like the blue of the Pacific, the white of the snow on the Cordillera and the red blood of the heroes, as symbolised on the flag of Chile.

The heroics of the founders of the independent republics of south America may inspire us, but we must address the future of the United Kingdom's relations with the region in the context of British history and the development of British trade with the area.

From the ending of the Napoleonic wars to the great war, Britain played a key role in the south American liberation struggle with Spain and dominated the development of the Latin American sub-continent economically and, in many senses, industrially. British capital and entrepreneurs opened up the pampas of Argentina, laid down the railways throughout the southern cone and were active in shipping, insurance, banking, mining and the export of wool, meat and a wide range of primary products to Britain. In return, British manufacturers had a predominant position in south American markets.

Today, although the United Kingdom is still the leading European investor in Latin America, our exports to the region have remained fairly static over the past few years at £1·2 billion. However, probably as a consequence of Britain's leaving the exchange rate mechanism last September, which allowed a realistic valuation of the pound, Britain's exports to the region have risen by more than 22 per cent. in the first quarter of this year.

To my knowledge, the Latin American trade advisory group, local chambers of commerce like the London chamber of commerce, and national chambers of commerce like the British Chilean chamber of commerce all do an excellent job in furthering growing trade between the United Kingdom and Latin America, and so do our embassies throughout the region.

Ministers have also played their full part in increasing British awareness of the importance of the region as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) so rightly reminded the House. As my hon. Friend told us, the process began with the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and to the Earth summit in Rio. There were also visits by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Argentina and Chile and by my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to Mexico, Argentina and Chile.

My right hon. Friends made it clear, and this has always been the Government's consistent policy, that there is no incompatibility between British insistence that the sovereignty of the Falklands islands is not an issue and the maintenance of Britain's interests throughout the region. On the contrary, I believe that our presence in the Falkland islands is an important strategic interest which physically demonstrates our concern for the region. It provides a counterbalance to international relationships in the southern cone, it protects passage around the horn and it demonstrates our concern for Antarctica, its resources and for the environment of the southern seas.

However, British exporters must overcome their obsession with markets in the EEC, where we have a trade deficit with all the member countries except Ireland, Spain and Greece, and turn to the growth regions such as Latin America and the Pacific basin. Latin America is well placed to trade with Europe and the Pacific nations. We must ensure that Latin America looks more to Europe, its traditional focus, than to the Pacific basin exporting nations—although we would not think that it did when we see the number of Japanese cars in Santiago

The growth of the leading economies of south America far outstrips that of the EEC nations, although the economies of south America are, of course, much smaller. For example, the rate of growth in Chile last year was 10·4 per cent. For the region as a whole, even including Brazil which suffered recession, recorded growth was 2·6 per cent. last year. Without Brazil, growth rose by 4·3 per cent. There were growth rates of above 5 per cent. in Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela.

An engine for growth in the region has been domestic investment which increased by more than 10 per cent. in six of the aforementioned countries in 1992. Furthermore, net capital inflows to the region from abroad have grown from $8 billion in 1989 to $54 billion last year. At the same time, the burden of external debt has generally diminished.

The regional ratio of interest payments to exports fell from 37 per cent. in 1986 to 20 per cent. in 1992. Only six countries in the region registered increases in inflation last year. In short, with the notable exception of Brazil, most of the principal nations of Latin America, which are significant potential markets for the United Kingdom, saw sustainable growth for the third year running allied to reasonable price stability. Only terrorism remains a nagging problem, especially in Peru and, to a much lesser extent, in Colombia. It is a scourge of contemporary humanity that mercifully appears to be coming gradually under control.

It might be assumed that, with European and north American markets so depressed and with Latin American markets buoyant by contrast, and with no regime in the region seriously out of line from the democratic free enterprise model apart from Cuba, British exporters would be falling over each other to exploit the trade opportunities of the region. Those opportunities are indeed considerable, as I have explained.

We should take into account, especially in this connection, the British experience of privatisation and of financial services and the commercial efficiency of our privatised utilities such as water and gas. Those experiencies enhance the business opportunities for British exporters throughout the region.

When George Canning proudly wrote, upon the liberation of Spain's south American colonies and their emergence as independent states, that:

"The deed is done. The nail is driven. Spanish America is free and, if we do not mismanage our matters sadly, she is English",

we could not have a better example, even 150 years or so on, of the opportunities that present themselves today to the United Kingdom throughout the region—that is, if Her Majesty's Government do not interpose obstacles or impediments to the development of this potentially extremely fruitful trade.

I can list some potential stumbling blocks which should be discreetly removed. The first is the elimination of Portuguese from the GCSE syllabus. That seems crazy. Brazil accounts for 40 per cent. of the Latin American economy.

My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that, following much pressure by Canning house, members of the British Latin American parliamentary group in this House and many others, the London examining board has restored the examining of Portuguese at GCSE level.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that everyone will appreciate his personal efforts in the matter. He is the leading Portuguese speaker in the House and I am sure that he campaigned especially hard.

Another potential stumbling block is the elimination of key posts in British embassies such as that of defence attaché at our embassy in Ecuador or the downgrading and paring of British missions which militates against Britain's interests to strengthen diplomatic and commercial efforts throughout the region. In addition, the process militates against the provision of the maximum assistance to British business men in what is all too often for them still unfamiliar territory. If reductions in diplomatic manpower are necessary, they should occur in EEC countries with whom we are supposed to be moving towards ever-closer union.

We must also consider the malign effects of the European Community's common agricultural policy. I will let others address the current EC banana regime. However, curtailing European imports of Chilean apples seems daft to me as is the CAP policy which militates against our importing succulent cheap Argentine and Uruguayan beef in favour of expensive, scrawny European meat.

However, I regret to say that every now and again a cause celebre erupts out of a blue sky to prejudice years of political and commercial effort and it does so in a way which could seriously damage the normally outstanding good relationships between the United Kingdom and a Latin American country. A case in point is the orimulsion issue, whereby Her Majesty's Government are seeking to impose duty on the import of Venezuelan-produced bitumen transported in suspension with water, and to persuade the European Community to classify it as a mineral oil. Coal and water slurry does not become something different just becasuse a water-based suspension is required to transport coal down pipelines, nor does bitumen lose its qualities as bitumen if mixed with water. The British case is, I regret, disingenuous to say the least. I have seen the minutes of the relevant EEC committee, and the United Kingdom is unnecessarily in the minority of one on the issue.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that orimulsion is considered by many to be an extreme pollutant when burnt in power stations, as is proposed?

That is not the case. It produces more suphur dioxide, but, in every other aspect, the combustion of orimulsion produces fewer noxious emissions than that of oil or coal.

The issue is potentiallly prejudicial to a British-Venezuelan joint venture company, BP Bitor, which makes the product, and to our trade with Venezuela, which the Department of Trade and Industry, following an admirable initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has been a target country for British exporters. The United Kingdom should accept European Community proposals on the matter and come to an accommodation with Venezuela, or I fear that the United Kingdom will risk the widening and deepening of a wholly unnecessary dispute.

I now refer to Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. To his credit, the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), announced an extra £1·2 billion for ECGD cover in his last Budget statement. However, the ECGD's portfolio management systems criteria for local risk and premium pricing do not accord with present south American realities.

Rightly, Chile has competitive ECGD premium rates, under the Government of President Aylwin, as under their predecessor, and the country has maintained essentially sound economic policies. However, in markets of immense potential for British exports, such as Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Argentina, British ECGD premium rates are far higher than those for export credit guarantee cover available to firms in our competitor countries. The matter should be rectified, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do so in his Budget statement of 30 November.

The House has always taken an interest in Latin America. It might be a minority interest, but on occasions it can be of great influence, as was the role of a former Member for Westminster, Lord Cochrane, who was wrongly expelled from the House, from the Navy and from the Order of the Bath, for fraud in 1816 and who went to Chile and founded the Chilean navy. His capture of the Spanish flagship Esmeralda in Callao harbour contributed largely to the independence of Chile and Peru. In the House of Commons of those days, his contemorary, James Mackintosh, said:

"There has never been a major demonstration of judgment, wisdom and action capability than the one demonstrated on that occasion."

Few of us have such a eulogy addressed to anything that we do, but few of us are in Admiral Lord Thomas Alexander Cochrane's league for originality and for courage. However, if we share but half of his love of liberty, we will have served our country well and, I hope, south America, too.

I am pleased that we are debating Latin America, as we seem to do every July. It is a good tradition, because that area of the world is not sufficiently discussed. My problem with the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is that I do not agree with the philosophy behind it. The problem is that, in his heroic moves to liberate Latin America from the clutches of the Spanish, what George Canning was about was liberating people from the Spanish in order to put them under another colonial power. He was not talking about the liberation of Latin America.

Indeed, the regimes that followed the George Canning liberation movement were essentially elitist regimes of the settler community. They did much to oppress the indigenous population. Indeed, many practised wholesale genocide against the indigenous population of south America. The Spanish conquistadors and their move into Peru and what was later to be called Bolivia were unbelievably brutal, but the regimes that followed were also brutal towards the indigenous population. Indeed, that brutality continues today towards large numbers of indigenous peoples living in the Amazonas region, in particular. We should remember that. The reason why it did not become a massive British colony was that the British and the United States agreed on the Monroe doctrine and then calmly divided up that part of the world, largely in the interests of the United States.

The other aspect on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—he will not be surprised, because we have had this discussion many times—is his glib description of democracy and free enterprise as synonymous, equal and mutually dependent. Many Opposition Members simply do not accept that. When we saw the brutality of the free enterprise model under General Pinochet, there was not an awful lot of democracy in Chile at that time. There was great free enterprise. There was also great brutality in the promotion of the free enterprise model, supported by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund in many other parts of Latin America.

Indeed, it is 10 years or so since the great debt crises of the early 1980s, when the Latin American Parliament as a whole voted for a process of refusing to pay the interest on debts, and that sent a shiver down the spine of the United States and world banking systems. That crisis was averted by a series of bilateral deals and buy-offs and, indeed, in the United States nationalisation and subsequent resale to the private sector of some banks by the Reagan Administration to prevent the collapse of that banking system. But the way in which the overseas debt burden has been reduced in Latin America has had some truly horrific consequences.

The debt burden came about basically because of the increase in world oil prices and the underpricing of primary products produced throughout Latin America. The debt-for-equity swaps that have been imposed upon one economy after another have had some horrendous consequences in terms of social infrastructure, privatisation of former state-owned institutions, cuts in public spending and the laying off of state employees, with some truly horrific consequences for the education and health services of the countries concerned. That is not the equality of free enterprise and democracy; that is the brutality of the private sector saying that it is not prepared to spend anything on public services and public infrastructure. We should be aware that many social problems of Latin America are closely related to those issues.

The other general problems throughout Latin America include enormous population movements away from rural areas into the shanty towns surrounding major cities. That is a consequence of changing agricultural systems and practice. In the case of Chile, it is a consequence of wholesale land purchases—indeed, in some cases, by multinational capital to develop high-intensity fruit farming which requires fewer workers than the previous farming practice did—and still higher levels of unemployment in the shanty towns around many capital cities of Latin America. Surrounding every capital city in Latin America is a smoking cauldron of extremely poor, extremely bitter and extremely angry people.

It might be strange for those in western Europe to note that Latin American countries have refused to pay the foreign debt because it is unpayable, unjust and uncollectable. However, those reasons are common parlance among liberal and left-wing parties throughout Latin America. It is a feature of normal political debate.

The development of the Latin American economies has caused some serious environmental and health problems. The frightening spread of cholera throughout Peru just two years ago was a consequence, in part, of the cuts in health programmes and in the development of water purification plants. That was done to please the wishes of the bankers of the north. Serious environmental concerns have been expressed about the extraction of minerals and the construction of roads throughout the Amazon rain forest and the destruction of that forest.

It would be wrong in a debate about Latin America not to mention some of the people who are truly heroic, such as Chico Mendes, who stood up for the rights of indigenous people within the Amazonas region. In effect, he was murdered by the interests of multinational capital; its future for the Amazons region was different from that envisaged by Mendes.

In the past decade things have changed considerably in Latin America. Most of the military regimes are no longer in government and there is a civilian or quasi-civilian regime in most countries. The human rights abuses that took place under the military regimes of Argentina, Chile, Honduras and Nicaragua, as well as in other countries, have not, however, ceased. The disappeared have not returned. The graves of thousands and thousands of people have not yet been discovered. They died because they were not prepared to support military regimes and because they believed in a genuine form of liberty.

Although no one can be happy with the current situation in Peru and Bolivia, there is an economic dimension to the terror. The poverty in many of the rural areas and the lack of decent prices for the primary products produced by the campesinos, particularly those in the Andean region, have turned those people to the cultivation of drugs. Drugs, quite simply, are far more profitable than the returns on maize. It is possible to make a living from growing drugs, but it is not possible to make a living from growing normal crops. Until pricing and poverty are addressed, the attempts to wage war on drugs will not be successful. I do not condone the production, distribution, sale or use of drugs—it is an evil and vile trade— but one must recognise that it has an economic logic of its own which we cannot ignore.

The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to Chile, which I have visited on a number of occasions. In common with him, I have family connections with Chile, but I have no commercial interests in that country, or anywhere else for that matter. The situation in Chile has changed dramatically, but we should not forget that President Salvador Allende was brutally murdered in 1973 —20 years ago this year—for leading a Government who sought to oppose the power of multinational capital. He was assassinated by the forces led by General Pinochet. Some 20,000 people were killed at the start of the coup and, over the next 17 years of Pinochet's total control, 50,000 lost their lives. One million Chileans were forced into exile as a result of the terror that was wrought upon them by that brutal, fascist regime.

That regime had its apologists in Britain. It had its apologists in the House. It was one of the most brutal regimes that the world has ever known. Although the situation in Chile has dramatically improved, it is faced with serious constitutional problems. General Pinochet is still the head of the armed services and members of the armed services are still protected from any type of judicial process taken against them for denial of human rights, murders or for taking part in the disappearance of people. For example, the murder of Orlando Letelier, in Washington in 1980, led the United States authorities to call for General Contreras to be extradited. That cannot happen because he is protected by the constitution, which protects the military. It is a serious matter when someone who is known or is believed to have murdered Letelier cannot be extradited to face the judiciary in the United States.

There are still 80 political prisoners in Chilean gaols, who have been there since the Aylwin Government came to power. Since that time, another 120 people have gone to prison. They believe that they have been sent there for political reasons and that they should be released.

Although six secret prisons and cemeteries have been discovered by the human rights commission in Chile and some state compensation has been paid, all human rights abuses should be uncovered. At least those who have lost family and friends—I know those who have gone through the horror of wondering what happened to a person who was taken away in the middle of the night—would then know what had happened to the bodies of their loved ones after they were murdered by the secret police in Chile during that horrific and vile period.

During that time a Conservative Government in Britain happily supplied arms and traded with that regime. We should not forget that—it is not forgotten by many in Chile.

At the time of the Falklands war it was quite correct to criticise the appalling human rights record of the Galtieri Administration in Argentina and that of previous and subsequent Administrations. Because we are now trading with Argentina and because it was part of the coalition force in the Gulf war, there is now, apparently, much less concern in western Europe about the fate of those who disappeared.

I still receive letters and a magazine from a wonderful group of women known as the abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo. They are the grandmothers of the disappeared of the Plaza de Mayo. Those children were taken away during the Galtieri regime and it is believed that they were given to the families of officers of the Argentine army. It is horrific to think of those women looking for their families. I do not know why the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) seems to find this so amusing.

I do not find it amusing. What I find extraordinary is that, year after year, the hon. Gentleman replays the battles of the 1960s. He seems to have no idea what has happened since then and no interest in what has happened in the 1990s.

I raise this subject year after year and I shall go on doing so.

I will be here.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman will be here to listen. I shall continue to raise this subject because I believe that the issue of human rights abuses does not go away just because a different person is in Government house. If one has lost family, one has lost family. If one does not know what happened to a person, one does not know. It is perfectly reasonable that those people should want to know what happened.

We are, apparently, also concerned about human rights and so we have some responsibility to bear. All that I am saying is that those people should not be forgotten. I am not reliving all the battles of the past, but I have recognised that there is still a need for human rights and human justice. It might be convenient for Conservative Members to say that we are in the 1990s and can forget about the past, but I remember those self-same hon. Members apologising for the Pinochet regime, year after year, in debates on Chile. I intend to keep reminding them of that because that is necessary.

It is worth considering what has happened in Nicaragua since the Chamorro Government took over in 1990. The rate of unemployment in that country is now at an all-time high, as is the level of external debt. Apparently the serious environmental and economic problems are getting worse. The United States promised aid once the Chamorro Government took office, but most of that aid has not been forthcoming. Most of the European Community aid that has been earmarked for Nicaragua has been tied to specific development projects. I understand that only half that aid is now capable of being spent because there has been such a cut in Government agencies that they are now incapable of administering such aid.

Nicaragua is suffering, as almost no other country in the region has suffered, from the type of quack economics that we thought had been forgotten about with the Chicago school. Unemployment is now reaching an all-time high and there is great poverty in Managua and the other cities. We should consider giving more aid to Nicaragua to help those people to get out of poverty. They suffered enough during the civil war from the United States bombardment. If the United States would just spend a fraction of the money on development aid that it spent on bombing the Sandinistas out of existence, the people of Nicaragua would be considerably better off.

Some of us have seen at first hand the horrors of years of conflict in El Salvador. I am glad to say that it is no longer being fought and elections are due to take place. But questions have been asked in another place about the size of the disfranchised electorate, the number of serious spelling mistakes and double entries on the electoral register and the need for vigilance during registration and preparation for the election. The Foreign Office has been asked to send delegations from this country to assist and observe during the electoral registration period and the election itself. If democracy is to mean anything in El Salvador, everyone must have the chance to take part in the electoral process. I hope that the Minister will tell us the British Government's response to these requests.

On 30 August Honduras will hold a commemoration day in honour of the disappeared who vanished under former military regimes, thanks to the secret police. Before we embrace any new Government or regime we should always ask them about their human rights record and about the fate of the many people who stood up for human rights, for dignity and for trade unions and who were murdered or spirited away for their pains.

On Saturday last week the fourth meeting of the Sao Paolo forum ended. It represents more than 100 political movements throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. The last meeting took place in Havana; the first was held in Brazil three years ago. The forum brought together people who are concerned by the fact that the whole continent is in thrall to neo-liberal economics, with its attendant unemployment and obsession with market economics. They believe that there must be a better way of organising society, as do many other people all over the world.

I do not want to enter into a long argument with the hon. Gentleman, but may I point out that Chile, the real forerunner of free market reforms throughout south America, has only 4·4 per cent. unemployment? No ne can say that free market economics engenders unemployment. If organised properly, free enterprise engenders prosperity; and the new Government seek to share that prosperity much more widely.

Granted, economic growth in Chile has been fast by any standards, but I question the basis for the 4·4 per cent. statistic. The hon. Gentleman should ask some of the voluntary agencies working near Santiago and in the poblaciones about the high unemployment there and about the informal economy. There is still serious poverty in Chile, even though unemployment there is not as high as elsewhere. There is also bad housing and had health care —and, in any case, it was never the poorest country in the region.

Today, 26 July, is an historic day for Cuba: an important national day. In 1959 Cuba was one of the poorest countries in the region, with the highest degree of illiteracy and the most serious social problems. Today illiteracy has been conquered and Cuba has a low infant mortality rate and high standards of educational achievement—despite a rigorous blockade by the United States throughout the period. Owing to the break-up of the Soviet Union and the Comecon trading block, and Cuba's inability to trade as before with eastern Europe and the USSR, it faces serious problems, as my hon. Friends who have visited the country more recently than I have can testify.

It cannot be right that the blockade should include food, medicines and fuel, aimed at breaking up the very infrastructure of life. The British Government have always allowed trade with Cuba but never encouraged it. I hope that they will at least recognise that it is wrong to starve the population of Cuba unti they agree to a change of political course. There is not much sign of the people of Cuba wanting such a change; there is every sign that they would like to live in dignity and independence. So I hope that the British Government will bring what pressure they can to bear on the United States Adminstration to lift the blockade so that the Cubans can at least enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

Running through many people's attitude to Latin America is the belief that western Europe and the United States can impose an economic system and way of life on the continent. They fail to understand the anger beneath the surface, not among the political elite of the region but among people who will no longer tolerate the impoverishment of parts of the continent, particularly of those living in the shanty towns around major cities.

I welcome trade with Latin America. We should recognise that, for a long time, many workers in farms and factories there have been grossly underpaid for their efforts. If there is any justice in the world, much more debt must be written off and much fairer trading arrangements with the continent must be agreed.

I believe that poverty, oppression and human rights abuses go together. We should do what we can to alleviate all three horrors, which for too long have been visited on the people of Latin America.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on initiating the debate, which is becoming something of a tradition in the House every July.

This has been a good year for Latin America: democracy has been sustained, despite the pressures sweeping the world. In Brazil, the impeachment of President Fernando Collor de Mello on corruption grounds has been carried out in a constitutional manner with his replacement by Vice-President Itamar Franco. In Venezuela the same progress has happened, with the suspension of President Carlos Andrés Perez to face charges of corruption. He has been replaced as an interim measure by Senator Ramόn José Velásquez.

In Peru the duly elected President suspended the Congress in what has been termed a new process of self-coup. In the face of pressure from within Peru and from the international community he has backed down and the Congress has been superseded by a newly elected Congress, thereby restoring democracy to Peru. That example may have caught on. Indeed, President Serrano in Guatemala did likewise, suspending the Congress and the constitution, following which rapidly applied pressure led to his resignation and replacement by Ramiro de Léon, the human rights ombudsman of his country. So democracy, despite all the pressures, is safe and well in Latin America —with the notable exception of Cuba.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that before and during the election in Cuba last February a widespread campaign organised by Cuban exiles in Miami and by American-owned television and radio stations urged the Cuban people to destroy their ballot papers or not to vote. In the event, 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote came out and supported the regime run by Fidel Castro. The hon. Gentleman should reflect for a moment on the fact that the Government whom he supports have never had the support of more than one third of those entitled to vote. He should be hesitant before decrying Cuba's lack of democracy—it has more democratic legitimacy than this Tory Government have.

I should have been much more impressed if candidates other than those approved by communist party committees had been allowed to stand. I shall return to that issue in a moment.

Will my hon. Friend also invite the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to consider why, if that is the case, at the recent conference in Brazil every other Government leader in Latin America, and the presidents of Portugal and Spain, urged President Castro to introduce democracy to Cuba at last?

The reason is that what is continuing to happen in Cuba—the only unreformed Marxist communist regime in the world, other than one in Asia, I believe —is a blot on the democratic escutcheon of Latin America and is a disgrace.

On the question of economics in Latin America, it is notable that, after a decade of stagnation, recovery is under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood catalogued the impressive growth in gross domestic product throughout the continent. Trade liberalisation has led to far greater activity and markedly increased imports, which has to be good for Britain's opportunities, but only modest increases in exports. The resultant trade deficits could, indeed, cause an economic crisis in Latin America.

The growing protectionism in the United States and Europe is dangerous, which is why this country's efforts for a successful completion of the Uruguay round of GATT is so appreciated in Latin America and is also vital to it. It would be a tragedy were there to be a return in Latin America to the tried and failed policies of import substitution.

It has been a good year for Britain's relations with Latin America. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Colombia. He visited Cusiana, one of the largest oil discoveries of recent years, and he also visited Brazil for the Earth summit and held bilateral meetings with the Brazilian Government. Our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently visited Argentina and Chile, and our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been to Mexico and Argentina and spoke of his impression of the development and sophistication of both countries.

Other Ministers have also visited Latin America in recent months or are due to he visiting it during the recess, joined by Madam Speaker. Ministers have been ably supported in their visits by our embassies. I counsel my hon. Friends at the Foreign Office not to impose false economies by closing or reducing our diplomatic and trade missions in Latin America.

In the other direction, we have been visited by President Lacalle, a splendid anglophile friend of this country. We are honoured this week by the visit of President Gaviria of Colombia, who will visit the House tomorrow morning for discussions with members of the British-Latin American parliamentary group and other right hon. and hon. Members. There have been visits to this country and to this Parliament by delegations of parliamentarians from Mexico and Brazil and countless Latin American Ministers and political leaders.

The greatest credit for the improvement in our relations goes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford Mr. Garel-Jones), who, until his retirement, gave three great years to strengthening British-Latin American relations. His greatest strength has been his natural empathy for Latin Americans, derived from his command of the Spanish language, which greatly enhanced our relations with the Hispanic countries in particular. I wish the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), well in his task, not least in following my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford.

However, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford had a fault, it was his propensity to give to the only non-hispanic major country in Latin America—Brazil—far less weight than it deserves. For that reason, the remainder of my remarks deal with the importance of Brazil.

Of the 24 countries of Latin America, Brazil covers more than one third of the area. It is the ninth largest economy in the world. Its annual GDP is US$500 billion., which is three times that of Mexico and more than twice that of Belgium. The economy of the state of Sao Paulo alone is one and a half times that of the entire Republic of Argentina. We must put Brazil's importance into perspective.

Although concerns are rightly expressed about the high rates of inflation suffered in Brazil, they are not a new phenomenon. Over the decades, Brazilians have learned to live with them and, indeed, how to prosper. In recent years, Brazil has resumed the servicing of its foreign debt and has built up current foreign currency reserves of almost US$25 billion. For many years, it has run a significant trade surplus. Recently, its trade surplus was exceeded only by those of Japan and Germany. This year, it is expected to reach US$20 billion—if only we had such a surplus. Brazil's growth this year is forecast to be 3·5 per cent. which, in real terms, is a very significant increase in such a vast economy.

How is Britain participating in such vast growth? We have a long tradition of co-operation with, and investment in, Brazil, going back to independence early in the previous century. Brazil's public utilities owe much to their British founding fathers. We have long been a supplier of capital goods and technology, but we must continue to participate in great projects in that country.

I draw to the House's attention some projects currently under consideration: the Bolivia to Sao Paulo state gas pipeline, which is worth billions; the cleaning of the Tietê river, which serves the state of São Paulo; the development of the Tietê-Paraná waterway, which links up to the whole waterway system which descends to the River Plate; and the modernisation of Brazil's ports.

British industry's difficulties in competing for a part in such projects is the lack of cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, in competition with cover available to our competitors from their national credit insurance agencies. Companies can compete, as Westland showed by achieving the contract to supply eight Lynx helicopters to the Brazilian navy and to recondition its current fleet of such helicopters. It could only be done, however, with the financing support of the Banco do Brazil. We cannot rely on its being achieved on each and every occasion.

These difficulties are not confined to Brazil alone. The new ECGD criteria are hampering British trade throughout Latin America. The ECGD has announced cover for Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela but, even then, small British exporters cannot obtain access to that cover due to ECGD's need for bank guarantees and the lack of existing lines of credit. In particular, it works against small exporters pursuing credits of between £50,000 and £250,000. There have been too many examples recently of British groups having to source through foreign countries to obtain credit cover. I cite two examples.

The first involves GEC Alsthom. Due to the better deal offered by Coface, the French Government export credit department, its recent project to supply electricity generating units to Mexico had to be channelled through its French associate. Secondly, the project by Biwater at Puerto Vallarta in Mexico had to be sourced from Spain due to the better conditions offered by its Government's export credit agency. High on our Government's European Community agenda must be the standardisation of terms by Community Governments' export credit agencies.

I point out to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that it is indeed true that General Pinochet remains head of the armed forces in Chile and that he has behaved himself in that position. However, Humberto Ortega, the brother of the former Sandinista president of Nicaragua, remains head of the army of Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander.

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to—

Order. Is the hon. Member giving way?

In view of the time, I shall finish my speech.

Due to the shortage of time, my remarks will have to be brief, but I hope to deal with some of the matters that have arisen in the debate. I pay tribute to the chairman, the secretary and the members of the Latin American group for the work that they do on behalf of fostering relationships with Latin America. It is appreciated on both sides of the House. I also pay tribute to the work that is done by and through Canning house to develop business, cultural, academic and social links with Latin America. There is a great deal of cross-party support for, and a desire to restore, our historical relationship with the area. That is why I especially regret the remark just made by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), and I shall return to the point of attitudes towards south America and some of the obnoxious regimes that have existed there.

One of the things that have struck me since taking this job is that so many people in this country simply see the continent of south America as a business opportunity. That is why I am pleased about the work that has been done by Canning house that tries to extend the relationship with Latin America beyond that. The hon. Member for Gravesham implied in last year's debate that the area is simply a business opportunity. He quoted the fact that the ex-Minister the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) had

"emanated a clear vision that Britain is missing out on business opportunities."—[Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 589.]

Business opportunities are important, but I hope that developing south America is not simply seen as that, or even as an extension of our colonial rule, which did not last all that long, thank goodness.

Latin America is in a promising phase. I use that word advisedly because, although the continent holds promise of democratic and economic development, both are fragile and could be easily reversed or eliminated. Labour Members are delighted, as are all hon. Members, to see democracy develop in the region and it was pleasing to see Mr. Ramiro de Leon Carpio, the human rights activist, become president of Guatemala with an absolute commitment to rebuilding democracy.

However, all is not good news in Latin America. Although some economic growth has been achieved, it has varied from country to country. Progress is patchy and sometimes non-existent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the vast debts that were accumulated in the 1970s and 1980s have resulted in a reversal of the policies of protecting industries. Under the instructions of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, countries now have to throw open their economies to encourage foreign investment and expose their domestic industries to foreign competition. That process has been in operation long enough for us to see some of the effects of liberalisation—they are not all good as Conservative Members would like us to believe.

In previous debates, Conservative Members have talked at great length, as they have today, of free-market economics. The right hon. Member for Watford said in a prescriptive mood on 22 July 1991:

"it is the combination of freedom provided by liberal democracy together with market economics that will deal with the cardboard cities and with the appalling poverty"— [Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 858.]

Since then, as hon. Members need scarcely he reminded, the shanty towns of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have not gone away. Only last weekend, we saw the appalling crime of child murder on the streets of Rio de Janeiro.

To try to create the impression that all is well and progressing is fundamentally wrong. As with domestic and European matters, the ex-Minister got it wrong here. To think of Reaganomics and Thatcherism as a solution to the ills of Latin America is as foolish a proposition as it was and is in this country.

The debt crisis is over, but only for the banks. The United Kingdom banks have used the tax laws and financial markets to cut their losses, but the debtor countries of south America still owe what they did before and are still spending one third of their export earnings paying interest on debts. They are still trying to earn more abroad and spend less at home to repay debts. It is wrong and misleading to suggest that all is well and that the debt problems of those countries have been resolved. In addition to putting the market first, Governments have been forced to sell state-owned industries and cut health, education, other domestic needs and import taxes.

Most hon. Members would agree that it is arrogant to generalise on Latin America because each country has its unique problems. The time that the hon. Member for Gravesham devoted to Brazil showed the uniqueness of that country, but some issues apply to many south American countries: the fragility of democracies, the issue of human rights, the exceptional level of poverty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned, and the undue influence and participation of the military, which although not in government is seemingly waiting in the wings.

Although Chile, Mexico and Argentina performed well, in other countries, such as Brazil, reform has juddered to a halt and in Venezuela, partly as a consequence of political crises, progress is intermittent. In Ecuador and Paraguay, the process is only just beginning.

The opening up of economies is likely to boost consumption rather than production, and unless indigenous industry is developed, promoted and invested in, countries will retreat into being primary producers with their people receiving only the trickle down benefits from an elite group of people. in last year's debate, the hon. Member for Gravesham spoke of the republics'

"enthusiastic adoption of the free market system"

giving

"great inspiration, which this House should duly recognise." —Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 589.]

Unlike him, I believe that it is vital that the continent is not left to the mercy of market forces. State participation is essential, and there is a mood among Latin American people for change and for a rejection of harsh market economics.

Although greater economic stability in civilian government has become the norm for most of Latin America, the majority of its people have not shared in the economic growth. The 1992 Economic Commission of Latin America reported that 183 million of Latin America's 450 million people already live below the poverty line. The Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation showed that, of 27 million people in central America, 19 million live in poverty and 13 million live in extreme and abject poverty. That is hardly a success story for free enterprise.

As a result, millions of people have been forced to work in the informal economy. People who once worked together on farmers' and workers' co-operatives are now having to sell sweets and cigarettes in the city, competing with each other just to get enough to eat. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gravesham thinks that poverty and starvation is a laughing matter, but Labour Members certainly do not. Half of Peru's population—12 million people—earn only enough in a week to buy food for two days. Chilean apple pickers received $3 dollars a day in 1987; in 1991, although living costs had doubled, they received the same. That is part of the "economic miracle".

As larger estates expand to produce more crops and beef for export, poor people are forced off the land into either ecologically fragile areas or to the sprawling shanty towns that surround most urban areas.

Government measures to curb inflation and to meet foreign debt commitments have led to cuts in services and high unemployment. People leaving rural areas and moving to the cities face unemployment and inadequate housing and services. They are denied credit. their environment is deteriorating and their incomes are declining because they are paid unfair prices for their produce.

The continent is paying a high cost for free market economics, not only by the destruction of parts of its economy, but by the pollution of its environment, which is under considerable pressure. Although Chile is a success by most neo-liberal standards, and foreign investment has topped £3 billion in the past year, as the world's second fastest growing economy, there are still areas of environmental pollution that need to be looked at urgently.

Coming to my present job from the defence team, one of my first tasks was to read last year's debate on Latin America. One thing that surprised and disturbed me—I was not really surprised—was the way in which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) used what should have been a constructive opportunity to indulge in his partisan rantings about far-left organisations. Such a one-eyed view of the world will never be in danger of disappearing as long as the hon. Member for Gravesham follows on the hon. Gentleman's tailcoats.

The hon. Gentleman described my "partisan rantings". Is he referring to my attack on the Sendero Luminoso, because no other "ranting" took place? If the hon. Gentleman calls that ranting, I accept the charge. Is he seeking to defend Sendero Luminoso? Is that what he is saying?

No, not at all. The hon. Gentleman is using a typical ploy. He tried the same ploy last year against my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I will not fall for it. The hon. Gentleman's prejudices came through. I suggest to hire that he reads his speeches.

The inability of both hon. Members to recognise that terrorism is not exclusive to any side of the political spectrum is disturbing, and we have seen a manifestation of it this evening. Terrorism is utterly condemned by decent politicians wherever it comes from, especially by those who might condemn the right-wing neo-fascist dictatorships, about which the hon. Gentlemen seem to be such experts. Pinochet is one example.

It is important that the opportunity for debating Latin America is not used year after year in the way that it has been in previous years. I hope that what I am saying tonight will stop that happening. People of all democratic persuasions, or even of no particular persuasion, suffer when the generals and their business men colleagues repress, starve, torture and imprison.

The same ordinary people suffer when the so-called liberation movements do exactly the same. There is no refuge for criticism of terrorism. The only decent and proper way to conduct a debate on democracy and human rights is to remember that terrorism is an absolute evil which has no qualification whatever.

One serious concern that I should like to mention briefly—I shall sit down immediately afterwards to be fair to the Minister, as I have slightly overrun my time—is the issue of drugs. It is a problem. We should do more for the people who are being forced into the drug economy because of their inability to sell their products abroad. It is a great shame that economists, for example, in Peru can say that the Peruvian economy is addicted to drugs.

Britain's continued involvement in Latin America is crucial. We must not allow ourselves to be isolated from the region. The all-party group, to which I and most of the hon. Members present belong, has a vital role to play in it, but it has to be a non-partisan, cross-party role. We should support increased human rights, environmental protection and the development of the regions. There is no intrinsic reason why Latin America should be poor. It has immense natural resources and we should all try to help it to achieve its potential.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing the debate and on describing our relations with Latin America with such knowledge and understanding. I believe that the debate has become something of an annual event and, as a newcomer to the job, I welcome that. I hope that I shall take part in many future such events.

Even in my few weeks in these responsibilities, I have become aware that something of a new chapter is opening in our long-standing relations with Latin America. At least some of the credit for that belongs to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I join in the generous tribute paid to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who put on record the energy and enthusiasm that my right hon. Friend brought to that part of his job. His commitment enabled Britain to strengthen her relations with a number of those countries, and the benefits of that will endure for many years.

Latin America has long been regarded as having exceptional potential, both in its natural and human resources. The problem is that, too often, that potential has not been realised, but the recent changes that have been described by many hon. Members justify our optimism about the future. The most important overall fact is that democracy is established in the continent as the normal form of government. There are exceptions, but they are few in number. The most noticeable is Cuba, which has been alluded to by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who is not in the Chamber now, made the remarkable claim that Cuba's democratic credentials were secure because its Government received 80 per cent. of the vote in the last elections there. That was not very difficult to achieve, as no candidate who did not have the consent and support of the ruling party was permitted to stand. I dare say that the hon. Member for Dundee, East would have received 80 per cent. of the vote in his constituency if only the Labour candidate had been allowed to stand; but that hardly amounts to democracy.

The reason why Cuba's economy is on the edge of collapse has less to do with the American embargo and much more to do with the fact that the former Soviet Union has turned off the subsidies and that Cuba is still trying to run its economy along centralised state-run communist lines. That is why the people of that unhappy island are suffering.

Should not the Minister concede that the United States blockade of Cuba from 1959 onwards, and the diplomatic and financial pressure that it used on the whole of Latin America, prevented Cuba from selling its produce—sugar, fruit or anything else—in the region? The only area with which it could trade was the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Is it not time for the United States to grow up, withdraw the blockade and permit the Cuban people to have medicines and food and to be able to sell their goods in the rest of Latin America, as they wish to do?

I am sure that the United States would be willing to review its embargo if Cuba improved its deplorable human rights record and held free and fair elections.

The crucial thing about the rest of Latin America, however, is that those countries are now governed by constitutional means, by civilians, and from that fact all other reforms can flow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham reminded us, there have been political crises in south America recently—in Brazil, Venezuela and Guatemala—but the significant and new fact is that they have all been dealt with constitutionally and not by military intervention.

I emphasise that we take seriously the question of human rights, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I disagree with the rest of the latter's old-fashioned sub-Marxist analysis of political developments in Latin America, but I do not dismiss his concerns about human rights.

Violence, including political violence, is still too common in some of those countries. Some of it is drug-related, some perpetrated by guerrillas or paramilitary groups and, regrettably, in some cases the security forces are implicated. But there is a new determination to bring those responsible to justice. That is true of the President of Colombia, who is visiting this country as our guest at the moment. Colombia is still a violent country with a weak judicial system, but I applaud the progress that is being made by the President and the Colombian Government to counter the drug menace and to bring a number of guerrilla groups back into civilian life.

My hon. Friend referred to the weak judicial system in Colombia. It is worth bearing in mind that the system may be weak because murder threats are made against the judges, magistrates and their families. Our country has supported the Colombian judicial system by providing technical expertise and the like.

I certainly accept that we must recognise the difficulties of enforcing laws in a country where intimidation is rife.

Another new feature is that Latin American countries are pursuing the policies of the open market and encouraging international trade and investment. No longer do they seek state-owned, state-run solutions to all those problems. So in many ways, the government and administration of those countries are improving, and have improved out of all recognition during the past decade or more.

Serious problems remain. I have mentioned human rights. I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda about the drugs problem, which is serious and must be dealt with. We are playing our part. Last year, the Prime Minister visited Colombia and the Home Secretary visited Colombia, Peru and Venezuela to assess the drug situation and see what we can do to help.

Another encouraging feature that has been mentioned is that those countries now seek to play a responsible role on the wider world scene. The hon. Member for Islington, North was rather dismissive about the help given by Argentina during the Gulf war, but Conservative Members welcome the fact that those democratic countries are now willing to make their own contribution to United Nations peacekeeping efforts throughout the world. We wish to encourage them to do so.

I shall now say a little more about this country's relations with Latin America. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the visits—at a political level and to assist in bilateral trade—of Latin American statesmen to this country and of our Ministers to that continent. I mentioned the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and Brazil last year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to Mexico in 1992. and more recently went to Argentina and Chile. I have already spoken about the Home Secretary's visits in connection with the drugs menace.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently visited Mexico and Argentina, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently returned from a successful trade promotion visit to Mexico and Chile. I hope to visit the region during the recess, and I shall make a particular point of visiting Brazil. I know that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham.

I welcome visits to this country. The President of Uruguay came to London last month as a guest of the Government, and President Gaviria of Colombia is here at the moment.

I cannot miss the opportunity in a debate about Latin America to refer to Argentina. It is more than three years since we restored diplomatic relations with that country, and we attach a high priority to returning to as near a full and normal relationship as possible. There are deep and historic links between the two countries that should draw us together, but in discussing political links and developing trade, we must never forget the Falklands aspect. Diplomatic relations were restored only on the basis that we leave the sovereignty issue to one side while discussing other practical matters.

I regret that the Government of Argentina continue to press their claim. President Menem, who has in many ways done much for Argentina, nevertheless repeatedly asserts that the Falklands will be Argentinian by the year 2000. i reject that, as will every hon. Member. We have no doubts whatever about our sovereignty over the islands. I hope that the Government of Argentina will reconsider their continuing claim.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly praised Canning house. In its 50th anniversary year, I am also pleased to pay tribute to the work of Canning house. It was founded during the second world war and was a visionary undertaking at that time. It has become a crossroads and a meeting place in London for Latin American presidents, Ministers, academics, business men and, of course, parliamentary colleagues.

Visiting presidents from Uruguay and now Colombia always make a point of meeting at Canning house. Its reputation remains high because of the quality of its staff and the way in which it has always been led. It makes a vital contribution to British-Latin American relations. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said about his perception of the need for continuing financial support. I hope that all hon. Members will continue to avail themselves of its facilities, and that they will join me in wishing Canning house success during the next 50 years.

Several hon. Members mentioned trade with Latin America. It is too low. We want to increase our exports, and I am glad that last year we achieved a 20 per cent. increase. In 1992, exports to Latin America were worth some £1·3 billion. I expect that trend to continue in view of our continuing efforts.

Some hon. Members emphasised the need for Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. That is under constant review, but it has not been available in a number of countries for some years because of previous defaults on debt. We want to resume cover as soon as possible. Cover in Argentina resumed in June and in Paraguay it resumed in July. I hope that that list will be extended as economic reforms, open markets and a liberal trading system take hold in other countries as well.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gives a great deal of emphasis to trade with Latin America. A number of export promoters have been appointed, and we have two business-led trade facilitation groups, one for Colombia and one for Mexico. The Government's export services have produced a marketing plan for Latin America, concentrating initially on the top six countries.

Aid is also important. In 1990, we announced that we would double the aid programme, though admittedly from a low base. It is focused primarily on technical co-operation, training, health programmes and the importance of encouraging management of sustainable natural resources.

I must emphasise that, although aid is important, the resources released by freer trade are much more important in the long term. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood criticised the CAP. Even so—and despite our continuing efforts to reform the CAP—it is worth noting that 65 per cent. of Latin American exports to Europe enter the Community duty free. We are in the vanguard of member states pressing for a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. If we can achieve success in global free trade, it will release far greater resources than any conceivable aid programme.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Our relations with Latin America are enormously assisted by the presence in the House of a group of hon. Members with knowledge, expertise and interest in that region. If any hon. Members will be visiting that region during the summer recess, they should let the Foreign Office know, and we will endeavour to give them all the assistance and briefing that may be required.

I am heartened by the number of hon. Members who are present and who, presumably, hope to speak during the debate. It is testimony to the intense and continuing dismay felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House at the degeneration of the position in Bosnia, and the continuing lack of international will to do anything about it.

The Minister often claims that there is no political or domestic will in the House or the country. I genuinely think that he is utterly wrong to make that claim. I think that there is a huge groundswell of opinion among ordinary people in the country that the United Kingdom should be doing much more than it has over the past two years. That opinion is widely reflected in many newspapers—certainly among the journalists reporting from Bosnia—and it is widely felt in the House. I have no doubt that the Government could secure a broad consensus in favour of a stronger stand, if they wished to take that initiative.

A number of my colleagues have been most eloquent on this subject for what seems to be a depressingly long time, notably the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I first spoke in the House on this subject as long ago as 13 November 1991, when Dubrovnik and Vukovar were being bombarded and flattened. I called then for military measures to be taken to halt Serbian aggression, but unfortunately, as we all know, nothing was done. Resolutions aplenty were passed but never implemented, or never implemented with sufficient force. The aggression continued in Croatia, as it then was, intensified and inevitably spread into Bosnia, with all the horror that we now know.

I went to the Library to see how many resolutions have been passed. I was given the weighty collection of paper that I have with me—I might almost say, "I have in my hand a piece of paper." The collection happens to be the 41 resolutions that have been passed during the past 23 months. They have been passed but never fully implemented and, in essence, have changed nothing in former Yugoslavia.

I shall emphasise that point by referring to one of the 41 resolutions. It was passed on 6 May this year and concerned safe areas. In the resolution, the UN declared that Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other threatened areas—in particular the towns of Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac and Srebrenica—should be treated as safe areas by all parties concerned, and should be free from armed attacks and from any other hostile acts.

The resolution went on to demand the immediate cessation of armed attacks and any hostile act against the safe areas and demanded free and unimpeded access to all the safe areas in the republic of Bosnia. Since that resolution was passed, 400 people have been killed and 2,500 wounded in Sarajevo alone, one of the supposed safe areas.

The Minister should reflect seriously on the long-term consequences of the debasement of the prestige of the UN, on the currency of international diplomacy and on the prestige of the west— particularly the liberal democracies—by the continued and constant failure to implement and enforce the resolutions the UN has passed.

The Minister has chastised hon. Members for raising inflated expectations of what can be done in former Yugoslavia. The Government, however, have put their signatures to all the resolutions. They have helped to draft all the resolutions, including the resolution on safe areas. The Government have sadly failed to do anything to implement their declarations.

The message that I hope will come out of tonight's debate is that, despite the delay and despite the pattern of appeasement, it is not too late. Europe can still rediscover its will and its conscience. By taking action now, we can still turn back the tide of nationalism and neo-fascism that is welling up in the Balkans and which threatens to spread across central and eastern Europe.

The Government often give the impression that they are playing for time. They give the impression that, if they can stretch out the endless series of resolutions and play out the endless sequence of conferences and negotiations for long enough, the public will eventually become disinterested. Those of us in the House and elsewhere who want to see stronger action taken will also become disheartened and will accept or reconcile ourselves to what Ministers like to call "realities on the ground." That is not what is happening, however. As Sarajevo has teetered on the brink of collapse, the calls for stronger action have become louder and more numerous.

On Friday more than 80 American congressmen signed an open letter to President Clinton calling for a 72-hour ultimatum to lift the siege of Sarajevo and the other besieged towns, and advocated the use of force if it was not complied with. General Morillon, released finally from the leash of his political masters, has called for military action and air strikes to lift the siege on Sarajevo. He made it plain that in his view that was feasible.

Last week several of us listened upstairs in a Committee room to Larry Hollingsworth, the United Nations special representative for humanitarian aid in Bosnia. He stated his view that we should have been firm with the Serbs from the outset of the delivery of humanitarian aid and that if we had been firm and decided that aid should be delivered on our terms without negotiating and compromising with the Serbs, the aid could have been much more effectively delivered. He added that it was time to stop bargaining and negotiating with the Serbs and time to start using force to deliver that aid.

Bit by bit, the Government's claims that all the expert advice from humanitarian workers, the military and the diplomatic corps is against intervention are being shown to be grossly and gravely misleading. A group of us visited the NATO headquarters recently. We left there with the clear impression that the most senior officials in NATO were satisfied that intervention was not only feasible and advisable but urgently required. We received a clear impression that there was intense frustration at the failure at the political level to take the steps necessary to resolve the crisis.

When Ministers search for an excuse for nonintervention, they often say that there is a civil war in former Yugoslavia and Bosnia and that we cannot become involved in a civil war. Of course, communities and civilians are caught up in the war. In that sense, it is civil. Indeed, the main brunt is being borne by the civilian population as it is deliberately targeted and terrorised by Serbian and other forces. However, it is not a civil war in the sense that its primary source and inspiration is internal and domestic—absolutely not.

It is contradictory for the Government to continue to trot out that claim as an excuse for their lack of action. Last December, at the summit of the European Council in Edinburgh, it was plainly stated by the Heads of State who gathered there that, although there were civil aspects to what was happening in former Yugoslavia, the primary responsibility lay with the Serbian Government in Belgrade. They stated that plainly in the communiqué from the European Council, in which they made a declaration on former Yugoslavia. That was in December last year. Paragraph 2 of the communiqué reads:

"The primary responsibility for the conflict, and its brutality, lies with the present leadership of Serbia and of the Bosnian Serbs …The Serbian authorities in Belgrade bear an equal responsibility for fomenting the conflict."

So the argument that it is a civil war in which we cannot intervene simply cannot be used with consistency by the Minister. He can search and grope for that excuse in desperation, but he cannot use it consistently because it has been rejected by the European Council.

Nor can the war be confined to a particular local area or its consequences restricted to the Balkans—another frequent excuse for inaction. Sometimes it seems that it is Government strategy to cordon off the war in Bosnia and to allow it to burn itself out. I firmly believe now, just as I did in November 1991, that that is an utterly false hope. The Bosnians will not stop fighting. In the short term, they may be forced to accept some kind of ethnically based settlement—but that will not last.

A radicalised and embittered rump state in Bosnia will not accept the so-called reality on the ground, any more than the Palestinians have accepted the so-called reality in the middle east since the last war. The Croats will not accept either the effect of annexation of one third of their territory. The recovery of what are viewed as occupied lands will remain the overriding goal of future Croatian policy and of any rump state created in Bosnia.

It is not just the Bosnians and Croats who will not desist in the long term. The more that sanctions threaten economic collapse in Serbia, the more that President Milosevic will be compelled to continue his policy of ethnic cleansing and territorial consolidation. Carving out a greater Serbia is about the only means of economic growth and the only source of political credibility and legitimacy available to Milosevic's regime.

There can be no doubt that when the fighting in Bosnia subsides, Kosovo will be next. As Serbian policy there gradually escalates from intimidation to terror and to ethnic cleansing eventually, at what point will we draw the line—or will we simply wait for a general Balkans war?

I cannot emphasise too strongly that the belief that a carve-up of Bosnia into territorial spheres of influence between Tudman's Croatia and the Serbia of Milosevic and Arkan, with a small rump Muslim statelet crushed between, is a recipe for any kind of stability and long-term settlement in the Balkans is dangerous nonsense and a delusion.

Today's issues of The Independent has an article explaining what needs to be done now. The immediate need is to lift the sieges of safe areas. The wider political objective must he to restore a plural, intercommunal, political and civil society in the whole of Bosnia—if necessary, in the way that the allies reconstructed German society after the second world war.

Two measures are necessary to enable that wider political role to be achieved efficiently. The United Nations must declare the whole of Bosnia as being under its protection. That would be welcomed not just by the Bosnian Government, who have already suggested that possibility, and by the population of that country, but by the majority of the people of Croatia and by many in Serbia as well. The UN must make it absolutely clear that its purpose is to guarantee the civil and social rights of all the communities equally within Bosnia under an impartial UN-administered interim Government.

The second measure necessary to ensure the efficient achievement of the wider political objective is for the UN to delegate to NATO, and primarily to its European members, the military task of lifting the sieges and of disarming the warring forces within Bosnia.

The maximum tactical and strategic freedom should be allowed to NATO forces to fulfil those missions. Anything short of that formula will make the overall task that much more difficult. For example, to restrict the political objective simply to protecting the safe areas is a recipe for a second Gaza and an endless stalemate, while inhibiting the tactical freedom of NATO in its ability to respond to events on the ground will mean having to deploy many more soldiers to accomplish the same task.

The figure of 70,000 to 80,000 troops to implement the Vance-Owen plan, for example, was a deliberate overestimate by NATO commanders, intended to compensate for the variable quality of UN troops, their lack of common training and the lack of an efficient command and control centre at the United Nations. Delegation to NATO would dramatically reduce the number of troops required and increase the efficiency of the operation. That is not to criticise the United Nations, or those involved in trying to implement UN peacekeeping missions. It is not their fault that the member Governments of the United Nations hve not supplied the resources and the wherewithal to allow the UN to carry out these missions effectively and properly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when we visited NATO we were told that all it took to enforce the safe areas strategy was the commitment of 8,000 troops and a change in the rules of engagement? Does he also agree that we were told that NATO had done the work and felt that this was a European responsibility and that European troops, at that very small level, should be committed? Furthermore, does my hon. Friend agree that we were told that, although Bangladesh and Pakistan had committed troops, Europe had not committed enough troops for the strategy to be implemented? Does not all that symbolise a lack of political will?

It represents an appalling abdication of the responsibility of European Governments, as my hon. Friend points out, that they have absolutely failed to fulfil the request for the minimum number of troops required to enforce the safe areas policy.

Of the 23 observers or monitors that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe said that it would be putting into Kosovo to monitor the situation there, I understand that only eight or nine have been put in place and that some of them are Americans, not Europeans. The Serbian authorities are making difficulties and are refusing to co-operate with European Governments in Kosovo over the monitoring of the situation there.

The sad fact is that the entire United Nations peacekeeping budget for 1992, covering its tasks in the Balkans, Cambodia, Angola and elsewhere, was less than the combined budgets of the New York city fire and police departments for the same year. It is no wonder, therefore, that problems have arisen in Somalia and difficulties in Bosnia. The lesson is that the onus is all the greater upon the Governments of Europe and the Governments who comprise NATO to take a lead.

There are now 4 million people who depend upon humanitarian aid in Europe, 3·5 million of whom are still in the Balkans. Half a million of them are now outside the Balkans. Of those 500,000, 300,000 are in Germay, 80,000 in Switzerland, 73,000 in Austria and 40,000 in Hungary. In Britain, there are only 4,424. We do not need to look much further for an explanation of the British Government's complacency regarding the position in the former Yugoslavia. They have repeatedly insisted that British interests are not directly involved. There is no doubt that we should not be adopting that attitude if we, like Germany, had not 4,000 but 300,000 refugees living among us.

It is deeply ironic that a Government who have spent more than a year of parliamentary time on ensuring the ratification of the treaty of European union still, apparently, have no idea, no concept, of the significance of that to which they spent a year trying to persuade us to put our signature. The treaty of European union should at least signify or recognise the existence of a new Europe: a Europe without barriers and of common citizens. It should recognise a Europe in which Britain is no longer an island apart and a Europe in which Germany's refugee problem is also our refugee problem.

Right up to 1940, British Governments considered the fate of the Low countries of the Netherlands and Belgium as being of vital national interest to Great Britain. The trouble with the Foreign Office is that it still thinks that way. It has still to adjust to the new Europe which was created after 1945. The Balkans are to the European Community today what the Low countries were to British Governments in the past—an area of vital and immediate interest and importance on which British Governments simply cannot turn their backs.

Sadly, we can have no great expectation that action will follow this debate. Most of us in the Chamber today are just junior Back Benchers and we are ranged against a Government who claim to have the weight of diplomatic and military opinion on their side—and they claim that falsely, I would add, for the reasons that we have been given by the Government.

We will not accept what the Government try to tell us is now inevitable. We will not accept the extinction of a democracy and multi-cultural civilisation in Bosnia. We will never accept a settlement that is based on the principle of apartheid in the middle of Europe.

The American Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. has described Bosnia as a problem from hell. He is wrong. Bosnia is a problem not from hell but straight from the pages of European history. The way to solve the problem can also be found in the history books. The lesson to be learnt from the history books is something that we should all have learnt 50 years ago: one cannot pacify aggression by appeasement. The only way to stop aggression is to stand up to it.

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) who made an excellent speech and who outlined with controlled passion and lucidity the situation that we are debating this evening. I simply regret the fact that the Chamber is so empty even though, for a Consolidated Fund debate, I acknowledge that it is quite full.

The contrast between last Thursday and Friday and tonight is stark, yet the relative importance of the subject discussed, if we think about it for a moment, is also in stark contrast. What we are discussing this evening is, in its far-reaching consequences as well as in respect of its own intrinsic importance, a far graver situation than that which exercised us last week.

I have been a Member of the House for 23 years. During that time, I have felt, as every hon. Member feels from time to time, frustrated, elated and bored. However, until this past year, I have never felt deeply ashamed. I do feel ashamed about what has happened in the Balkans and about the lack of will and resolution displayed, particularly by the European powers, in the face of this catalogue of misery, crime and depravity. Two hundred thousand fellow Europeans have been slaughtered in Bosnia in the past 16 months, about 40,000 women have been raped, about 750,000 people have been wounded, many of them children and many of them badly mutilated, and 2 million of our fellow Europeans have been displaced —uprooted from their homes. The monuments and buildings which symbolised their culture have been wantonly destroyed or vandalised.

That is an appalling catalogue of desecration which impoverishes and shames us all that it should have happened. That it should have happened as the first great repercussion of the end of the cold war makes it even more shaming and shameful.

For a long time, the hon. Member for Western Isles and I have been involved in seeking to draw attention to those problems and to urge action. He and I were among those who, when Dubrovnik, a world heritage site, was being shelled—that alone was a reason for the rest of the world to take an interest—urged that a naval patrol and an air patrol should be put in place. I firmly believe, although I could never prove it nor could anyone disprove it, that had resolute action been taken then, we would probably not be having this debate tonight and many thousands of people would still be living in Bosnia in peace, accord and amity. as they had lived for generations.

I recently stayed with some friends. The wife was a Serb—from Mostar—and she said to me that in her childhood there was no more peaceful society. People got on well together, they lived side by side, they enjoyed each other's company, they respected each other's cultures, and they had a common culture, too. The word "multi-ethnic" is often tossed around without much thought or regard, but Sarajevo was a multi-ethnic city. Its mosques were among its most glorious monuments, but its churches also were revered and respected by people of all persuasions and name, yet in the past 16 months we have seen a city and a country destroyed.

What makes it so appalling is that Britain recognised that country as an independent nation. Last April. about 65 nations recognised Bosnia as an independent nation. It was given and still has a seat in the United Nations. That country was not a Muslim country but one with a united presidency—Muslim, Croat and Serb—which it still has, and with a Government who reflected those three cultures and symbolised the one that Bosnia was. We recognised it and we have stood by while it was being destroyed.

Of course, I yield to no one in my admiration for the bravery and skill of British troops. I do not gainsay for a minute the value of the humanitarian aid and the enormous courage that has been needed to take that aid to people, nor do I deny that many tens of thousands of people would have died of starvation and malnutrition had it not been for the aid that was taken to them, but we must not shelter behind praise for the troops because there has been a political vacuum.

I do not say these things easily. I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate. I kept him up in the small hours in December 1991 during the Consolidated Fund debate, when we first debated the former Yugoslavia. I called for action at the time when Dubrovnik and Vukovar were attacked.

The west, collectively, has failed, as have the institutions that we created to guarantee the world order. What has happened in the former Yugoslavia is an indictment of the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and every other institution to which we have all paid, from time to time, enthusiastic lip service. Above all, it is an indictment of the failure of NATO and the European Community to respond.

There is no point in saying that the British public did not want action to be taken. What sort of leadership is that? "Those are the people, I will follow them because I am their leader." If the Prime Minister had come to the House and said that a fundamental British and European interest was involved and that it was necessary to take certain action, what would have been the response? I suggest that it would not have been dissimilar from the response at the time of the Falklands war or the Gulf war. British people are not slow to recognise national and international interests.

In this country and other European nations there has been a craven refusal to measure up to the enormity of the challenge. I am ashamed.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that this is a European failure, but does he agree that two nations, Britain and France, take supreme responsibility? They are the two European members of the United Nations Security Council and they have the armed forces capable of taking action. Those countries, of all countries, are the most guilty. The evidence of opinion polls reveals that, way back from the time when Lady Thatcher first spoke about the need for action, the majority of British people have called for action.

The cannon should be pointed at Britain and France, and at Germany, too, because its precipitate action in another context is also responsible for the failure.

It is much more responsible.

I note what my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs says. Be that as it may, at no time, either individually or collectively, did we convince the Serbs that we were prepared to take action.

I have talked to soldiers, diplomats and journalists. I do not want to break confidences or embarrass people, but suffice it to say that I am not persuaded—how shall I word this carefully—that what has been said in the House entirely reflects the advice that I am told has been given at a lower level. Perhaps that advice has not permeated to the top and, if that is the case, there is something wrong with the system. There is an appreciation among diplomats and those responsible in NATO and elsewhere that there is something that should and could be done.

Nobody in the House who has taken close interest in this subject has, in irresponsible and gung-ho fashion., recommended vast ground troop involvement.

We should pay tribute to the bravery of the journalists in Bosnia, among whom Martin Bell is perhaps the most outstanding. He said at a meeting in the House a couple of weeks ago that he was convinced that the Serb gun positions could easily have been taken out. They were not as mobile as some would have had us believe. If just a quarter of the resolve to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson had been applied to Bosnia, we would have turned the Serbs back. The technique of precision bombing is not restricted to one part of the world.

When we say these things we are told that there would be civilian casualties, but have there not already been tens of thousands of those? We are told that some soldiers would be killed, possibly British ones among them. I am reminded of the visit that I paid in April to the young men of the Staffordshire regiment who were celebrating their reprieve. They asked the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and me, "Why do you think we joined the Army? What is the Army for? Of course we have to go into action sometimes."

Had there been any resolve or determination the Serbs would have backed down. As Martin Bell reminded us, Karadzic recently signed the Vance-Owen plan because he thought that at long last the west would take action. When it became apparent that we would not, he reneged.

So much for the sorry history of the conflict. What of the future? If the end of this terrible episode is the extinction of a sovereign nation from the map of Europe, that will be a dire portent for the next century. If the message goes out that, having recognised a state, we were neither prepared to defend it nor to give it the means to defend itself so that it vanished in carnage from the map of Europe, that message will be heard in the former Soviet Union.

I do not want to be told that there are many other conflicts in other parts of the world. We do not refuse to help our neighbour just because we cannot help someone who may be in even worse trouble in a far-flung land. And we are talking about the centre of our continent; our neighbours.

If we finally fail—we have failed badly enough hitherto —and this nation disappears, that will be a most damning indictment. Today I was glad to see that The Independentdevoted the whole of its front page to a call to save Sarajevo. Colleagues may have seen and read it. I am persuaded by those to whom I have talked in the military and elsewhere that even at this late stage it would be possible to save Sarajevo, that great European city—to employ black humour at its most grotesque—whose citizens have been reduced to conditions worse than those suffered by people in the middle ages. Sarajevo is still there; it has not fallen. It need not fall and, if we are to rescue any vestige of honour from this appalling catastrophe, it must not fall. Even now, it would be possible to halt the Serb aggression by delivering an ultimatum, as suggested by the 80 congressmen to whom the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred.

Let us not balk at placing the responsibility where it belongs most—with the Serbs. In recent months, awful things have been done by all the communities involved, but, as was said at Edinburgh where we also held a Bosnian summit, which the hon. Gentleman and I attended—not that it did much good—the prime responsibility lay with the Serbs. They started it and they fuelled it from Belgrade, literally and metaphorically. Although we criticise some of what Croatia has done, we should not forget that, in defiance of some of those 41 United Nations resolutions, vast tracts of Croatia are still occupied by the Serbs. A couple of weeks ago, a senior diplomat said that, if we started by enforcing those resolutions, in Croatia, we would send out the right signal.

We cannot allow the situation to continue. If we do, it will not end there. Sooner or later we shall be sucked in anyhow. Will the Serbs end with Bosnia? No. Will they end with Kosovo? No. Unless this rampant belligerent aggression is halted, and unless the Serbs who believe in democracy—many do—are given a lifeline, we shall have in the Balkans the smouldering beginnings of a war which could become a conflagration at any time and could involve not only Bulgaria and Albania but Greece and Turkey. Two NATO nations could be fighting each other.

Let us also consider the signals that we are sending to the Muslim world. Some in the Muslim world are already beginning to show their disfavour in quiet ways. Do we want to enter the next century not only in a Europe in which a cancer has taken hold but in a Europe in which we are regarded as enemies by those in the middle east? Do we want to enter the next century with a Europe which, if it is not a cohesive continent, will not be in a strong position when the balance of power inevitably moves from the Atlantic to the Pacific? This debate covers all those problems.

You, Madam Speaker, have done the House a service in allowing three hours for this debate. The hon. Member for Western Isles has done us a service in choosing the subject matter. A number of us did likewise and we are grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for recognising its importance. I wish, however, that the debate could have been awarded a full day and a full House because if, when we return in October, Sarajevo has fallen and Bosnia is no more, we shall have written one of the most appalling chapters in European history and we shall reap the consequences. What is worse, our children and our grandchildren will do so, too.

The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) ended his excellent speech by saying that he wished that this debate was not being held with such a limited number of hon. Members here, although among those present are many, like him, who have been committed to the issue for a long time. He thought that it would perhaps have made a difference. Sadly, I do not think that it would. Like the hon. Gentleman, I read the front page of The Independent this morning. It caused me to look back at my papers and read:

"In Sarajevo, people are in their cellars without electricity, water or food. If you have children, think what that would be like. Soon, those who have escaped the shells will starve. Only force can be understood, and force should be used, and we should also give air cover for food and medical supplies. We can, of course, also do nothing and just let people die."

That was a broadcast that I did on Channel 4 on 10 June 1992—a year ago. I mention that not to say, "Look how clever I was saying that on 10 June 1992", but to say to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that I am afraid that we have been looking at the present situation for a very long time. The situation has simply become worse, but intrinsically it has been very bad for a long time.

I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about NATO. I remember visiting the headquarters of Action Rapide in Paris about a year and a half ago. During the briefing, the general was asked specifically what he thought about the military implications of lifting the Beige of Sarajevo and he more or less said,"If you give me proper notice and 36 hours, I will do it". I do not think that the head of Action Rapide was given to exaggeration. It was possible; what was lacking, as has been repeated several times, was the will.

Two or three nights ago, a scrap of news on the television showed a man sitting behind an enormous gun, which appeared to have an enormous number of shells. He was just pumping them out into the air towards Sarajevo —to whatever it may have hit. We allow that to happen and we say that we cannot take any risks. Without some military action from the west, Sarajevo will ultimately fall and all over Bosnia there will he some sort of Srebrenica defeat. I am not looking for a military solution—none of us is—but without the threat and almost certainly the use of some military force, and with a threat of more, negotiation will not succeed. That is essentially what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said.

The hon. Members for Staffordshire, South and for Western Isles concentrated on Sarajevo and on the particular problems of Bosnia. Since many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall spend a little time on other related questions in the former Yugoslavia.

The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South was right to say that the Croats have problems with the occupied areas in Croatia, but what they are doing at Mostar is indefensible. They are clearing out all areas on one side of the river, preparatory to doing it on the other, with a view to making it the capital of Croatian Bosnia. I gather that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 Muslim men in camps on the edge of Mostar with a view to being transported goodness knows where.

I should like the Minister to say what action the Government have taken with the Croatian Government. He may find it difficult to answer all the questions, so I hope, therefore, that he will answer in writing. I ask questions only because I want to know the answers: that is what these debates are supposed to be for.

There is no doubt that economic sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro have been a considerable success. One needs only to look at the position of the dinar to realise that the collapse of the currency is nigh. I readily accept that it is an exceedingly difficult issue, and I am not being critical.

The question is, what are we trying to do with sanctions? Presumably, we are trying to put maximum pressure on Milosevic so that he, in turn, will do the same to Karadzic and General Mladic. That is the straightforward position. I understand that, when Lord Owen was here, he was saying sotto voce—rumour goes around in the House—that Milosevic was being quite co-operative, and we should be thinking in terms of progressively reducing sanctions. I would not wish to do that without four things —first, an agreement in Bosnia; secondly, an agreement in Kosovo; thirdly, an agreement in Vojvodina, which we must not foget, as it has a substantial Hungarian population; lastly, we have to look at somehow disarming Serbia. It is an enormous military power squatting in the region.

We have to face the fact that some in the House will say that sanctions are bad. I listened to the views put by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Iraq. They say that our sanctions there are punishing women and children and making the population poor. If that argument can be applied to Iraq, it can easily be applied to the former Yugoslavia. That is a difficulty which all of us who think that sanctions are an effective and relatively peaceful way to bring pressure to bear have to face up to.

Is not the problem with sanctions that they are put forward as an alternative to engaging in military action? The hon. Gentleman has already spoken of the devastating economic effects; sanctions work in Kosovo as well and cannot be doing anything to help the situation there.

Supposing I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman says, what else can one do? There is only the military action that we have been talking about, but there is a lack of will to do that.

Owen is wrong on Kosovo. I heard him say in the plenary session of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg that he thought that the people of Kosovo ought to accept that they are part of Serbia, and that should be the end of the matter. I understand that he has said that elsewhere as well. However, that cannot be the end of the matter.

There is a population of 1·75 million, which is relatively homogenously dispersed in a compact geographical area, 90 per cent. of which is Albanian. It is all very well saying that there was a great battle in 1300-odd against the Turks which was lost and the area is now part of the soul of Serbia. I understand that and I understand nationalist feelings, but, in the 20th century verging on the 21st century, we cannot listen to such an argument.

We must look at the disarmament of Serbia—I have mentioned Vojvodena. That is a major issue, to which sufficient attention has not been devoted. Even if we got peace in Bosnia and an agreement in the areas that I mentioned, we would still be left with an embittered population. Milosevic could still be in charge, and we know what he did with the opposition within Serbia. If he has to hand powerful military forces, he may well use them.

I have two short specific questions that have not yet been properly mentioned. If the Minister has a proper opportunity to reply, I hope that he will. First, what is going on with the war crimes tribunal which was proposed in the United Nations? What has happened about the inquiry into the rapes which was instituted following the summit in Edinburgh with Dame Anne Warburton, who produced a report? What has been the follow through to that and how does it relate to the war crimes issue?

Secondly, the economic situation in Macedonia for a period was awful, because she was obeying sanctions and there was a problem with Greece. Of course, Macedonia has no forces of her own, but I understand that there are some American forces there. What is the up-to-date position about Macedonia? I think that the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke about CSCE monitors in Kosovo. I think that they have all been cleared out. Did not the Yugoslavs say that, because they had been put out of the CSCE, all other CSCE monitors were to be put out?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to interbene. The position is unsatisfactory. The Government of Servia have stated that the mandate of the CSCE to keep the monitors in Kosovo has been withdrawn. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. Some of the monitors are still there, because some are on leave and have not had their visas renewed. We are seeking to persuade the Government of Serbia to agree to a renewal of the mandate.

I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. It clarifies the position which, as he says, is highly unsatisfactory. We need a firmer basis.

I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that this has been a test of European will and our humanity. We have shown some humanity: our troops and French troops have done enormous good. General Morillon and people of other nationalities have done well within the narrow confines of the United Nations mandates under which they had to operate. The lack of will and the absence of any capacity to take risks have been saddest. Neil Ascherson who writes so well in The Independent on Sunday described it some months ago as

"a policy of non-intervention disguised as humanitarianism."

So far, the outcome has been to our shame, but, as the hon. Member for Western Isles said, it is not too late; it is never too late. If we begin by lifting the siege of Sarajevo, all things can become different.

The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has rendered the House a service by introducing this debate at this late stage just before the recess. The situation will grow much grimmer and much worse, and before we sit here again many more terrible and dangerous things will happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has also done the House a service by articulating his views with great eloquence.

I do not totally agree with the analysis or the conclusions of hon. Members who have spoken. The issue has dark and expanding consequences for us all. That cannot be in doubt for a moment, although some people think that it can all be shut away in a box and put aside as it is happening in far away countries of which we need know nothing, and that it has nothing to do with us.

I join with as much feeling as I can muster those who praise the humanitarian work of the relief workers, the non-governmental organisations, the UNHCR and our troops who are protecting those relief workers. They are offering a superb and abnormal degree of protection. No words are adequate to praise what they are doing, and I hope and pray that they will not be forced to withdraw because conditions have become impossible. That threat is always present, but we have the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that if the risks become too great or the mission impossible our troops will be rapidly withdrawn. I hope that that will not happen.

The humanitarian operation is right. The conscience of the world is rightly outraged by the horrific medieval atrocities that this terrible saga has revealed. It would be impossible, uncivilised and equally barbaric for us to stand back and say that we can do nothing. It would be impossible for us to say, "Leave them to fight it out, starve and die." My right hon. and hon. Friends have acted positively and constructively throughout in recognising that something must be done.

On the politico-diplomatic side, however, it is far less easy to see the positive aspects—the good that has been done by the policy-making efforts of the European powers. It may be said that we are now in such a miserable situation, with Sarajevo about to die, that to look back is to rake over the ashes and to cry over spilt milk; but I do not think that that is entirely right. Unless we can trace the way in which we got into this quagmire with more precision than we sometimes use in the emotion of the moment, we shall not find a way out of it, or guard against falling into equal chaos in the next crisis.

That applies particularly to Macedonia. People remember the parts of history that they choose to remember, but it is worth remembering that Macedonia is behind the present circumstances, which began to unfold when the Turks withdrew about 120 years ago. The motives born of that moment still drive the present horror. In the 1870s, Macedonia was the boiling point—the potential Bosnia, or killing field—that led to the Balkan crisis of the time. It is waiting to fulfil the same role, and it will do so unless we learn our lesson and do not follow the same miserable path.

Why is the world so critical of what has happened on the diplomatic front? The source of the beginning of failure is clear. At the outset, when it became clear that the old federation was going to break down in the familiar slaughter and the ancient ethnic quarrels would all be raised again, there was a choice for the international community. It was between saying, "We will not intervene in military or political terms; we will help relief workers, and intervene in a humanitarian context, but we will not intervene in a decisive policy way", and saying, "We will now embark on this operation, fully aware that one thing can lead to another; fully aware that we may have to intervene with increasing decisiveness, commitment and force. We are ready to do that, so that, from the outset, our threats will carry credible weight: they will have behind them the threat of full intervention".

The international community's first act was to step aside from that choice. It did not follow either of those routes, although either one of them might have led to greater coherence and less bloodshed; I do not say that either could have prevented what has occurred. Instead, the international community chose the option of uncertain, wavering half-intervention, adopting a number of dangerous options, each of which has made the horrors worse and prolonged miseries, dangers and, probably, the incidence of death. I believe that, looking back; some commentators, including hon. Members, think the same, looking forward.

First, we said that we would not intervene militarily but we had some diplomatic solutions to the problem. That was a dangerous first step. Again, a study of history would have shown—here I disagree with some hon. Members who have spoken—that no outside influence could ever have stopped the wish of the Serbs to regain their lands, after all those hundreds of years of being suppressed by Turkish and Ottoman rule. Any idea that that could have been stopped by plans, arrangements or diplomatic solutions was absurd vanity—unless, as I say, people were prepared to support it with massive military intervention.

The first half-baked semi-intervention, which has done more harm than good, was the attempt to impose diplomatic solutions, or detailed maps, on the unfolding agenda of greater Serbia and the greater Croatia—which were there and remain there—and on the hope and belief, now dashed and destroyed, of the Bosnians, including those sometimes called the Bosnian Muslims—

They are not all Muslims.

As my hon. Friend says, they are by no means all Muslims—that they would have a whole area of Bosnia which they could rule.

Once the international community began to say that it did not accept that and had some better ideas, maps, plans and diplomacy, we began, even at that early stage, to fly in the face of, instead of working with, mitigating and redirecting the unfolding reality. We pretended that we did not understand that reality. We did not have the historical insight to see what would happen. That was the first of the fatal interventions. I shall come to the others in a moment.

I listen to the right hon. Gentleman's argument with increasing incredulity. He has made two assertions—one about greater Croatia and the other about greater Serbia. He speaks as if those nations had existed within a known time scale. But then he dismisses Bosnia out of hand. If he looked a little more closely at Balkan history, he would know that Bosnia existed as an independent state 500 years ago. Most of its current borders have been internationally recognised for the past 120 years. If that is the case, why does he go along with the appeasement of Serbia, and to a lesser degree of Croatia, at the expense of Bosnia?

That is the danger of mixing analysis of what is happening with what the hon. Gentleman would like to happen. He draws certain lessons from a particular point in history. One could go with a microscope over the history of the area and draw different lessons. We all try to draw the best lessons to see that we do not make mistakes in the future. I am not saying what I want to unfold; I am merely describing what is happening. I am not saying what I wish or plan it. I am not saying what I would impose on the area if I was king of the world. I am merely describing the unfolding reality. When politicians and diplomats plunge into a situation and try to defy it but deny themselves the force, machinery and equipment to do so, they end up in some sticky situations. As my argument unfolds, the hon. Gentleman may understand more what I am trying to say.

The second half-baked intervention was the diplomatic act of recognising Bosnia at the beginning of last year. It was against the advice of the Badinter commission, which said that Bosnia did not satisfy the conditions for an independent state. It is ironic that Mr. Badinter said that Macedonia qualified and yet we did not recognise Macedonia as a state. Bosnia, which he said did not qualify, has been recognised.

My right hon. Friend said that we had not recognised Macedonia. By voting for the admission of Macedonia to the United Nations, we have accorded recognition to Macedonia.

We have recognised it now, but all last year, when the Macedonians sought recognition, they were told that they were not on the list because of the Greek problem, with which we are familiar, whereas Bosnia had passed through the hurdle and become a recognised state. Many people said that that act of recognition would lead to more hideous bloodshed. The renewed intensity of the horrors, the adjectiveless killing that took place, and the new and ugly drive of the Serbian Bosnian forces as they moved against the Muslim strongholds was a terrible and predicted sequence. Recognition was not the only reason why the events that followed unfolded, but it was a diplomatic intervention which made the situation worse.

The third intervention was the decision to continue maintaining the embargo on the movement of arms in a way that discriminated against one of the combatants. Whatever else one says, clearly that was intervention. I must be careful in saying what might be the way forward. Some argue—and we may be close to this—that the answer is not to give more arms to the area to foster more killing but to reduce, if this is realistic, the arms available to the other combatant forces. Others say—as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the other day—that if we cannot see any other way forward, we may in due course have to consider lifting that arms embargo. There are those in the Washington policy-making machine who think that that point is near.

Whichever way one slices the argument and goes from here, the international community has intervened by holding the situation as it is. Whether one likes it or not, true non-intervention, and true military and political stand-off—and I am totally against humanitarian stand-off, because involvement there is right—would mean a lack of consistent and pursued implementation of the UN resolution that in effect denies the Bosnian Muslims the means to defend themselves.

The big lesson of half-intervention, the implications of which some of us in the Select Committee tried to set out in our recent report on the UN's expanding role, is that when the United Nations or a more regional grouping, such as the European Community, seeks to move into and grasp some horrific situation of conflict, it should first pause and ask itself a basic question.

It should first accept—and this is the theme of the Select Committee's report—that one thing will always lead to another, and that the smallest toe in the water of involvement in intervention is likely to lead to greater things. When it does, all the intervening nations or parties concerned must have the political will, resources and equipment to see the matter through. If they do not, they should not get involved in the first place.

I may be too idealistic, but that seems a necessary line of reasoning and test, to ensure that we do not see again the half-intervention—the realisation that it will lead to more promises, the raising of high hopes of intervention, backing down, a feeling of betrayal, bitterness, and the increasing sense that the international institutions have lost their authority.

In the Bosnian Muslim case, the disaster is wider—as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South warned. The signal has been sent to the ever-sensitive and rather divided Islamic world that moderate Islamic leaders who believe that co-operation with Europe, the west, the Christians—whatever term one likes to use—is the right way forward in bringing stability to the whole Islamic world, in the middle east, have got it wrong. It will be said, "Look at what these people have done. We put our trust in them, and that trust has been belied, undermined and destroyed."

Extremist, subversive and terrorist Islam—in total contrast to the moderate, wise Islam with which we need to work closely and befriend—has received an almighty boost. There are further sinister developments to come. The idea that the system would settle down under a greater Croatia and Serbia and a crushed Muslim Bosnia and that there would be equilibrium is false. It is more likely that we shall see an increasingly agitated Islamic interest. There has already been an offer of 10,000 Iranian troops to save Sarajevo or to maintain another area, and of Pakistani and Malaysian troops. Other countries have raised the banner of Islamic military intervention. It has not happened yet. I shall be fascinated to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who struggles nobly and with vast skill with these issues, whether that was just a straw-in-the-wind suggestion, or faint bravado, or whether that plan is going forward. Either way, it is exactly what policymakers said at the beginning must not happen.

Would not the spectre that the right hon. Gentleman raises be laid to rest if Britain, France, Germany and other NATO countries said today, "We are prepared to put in sufficient forces to lift the siege of Sarajevo and to give full protection to the so-called protected areas"?

That is a solution one can come to, but I am not sure that I have sufficient confidence to think that it is happening. In the past, there were many suggestions that it might happen but it did not, and that led to an even worse situation. I see no sign that the NATO powers are prepared to act in that way. If they were, it might have a beneficial effect on the Islamic attitude, but at the moment I see no sign of it.

We on this side of the House are listening with bated breath to find out what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is the solution to this terribly complex problem. As he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we treat his views with particular respect. He has been speaking for nearly 20 minutes, but we still do not have a clue.

The hon. Gentleman says that, because I am the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I must have a wonderful solution that rises above the efforts of diplomats and all the others who have failed to find a solution. I cannot do that; I cannot deliver a miracle. I can only suggest that if we analyse what has happened clearly, we may, just possibly, be in a better position to halt the still downward slide and prevent the war spreading into, for instance, Macedonia, where at least we have taken the first right move. Preventive diplomacy has been followed by preventive deployment.

There are now, which I greatly welcome, American soldiers there—only a few hundred of them—but I hope and pray that, this time round, preventive deployment, or the beginning of intervention has behind it a credible threat: that there will be no question of ever withdrawing those troops, should they be attacked, should borders begin to be messed about with and should we begin to see the horrors in Bosnia translated on to the Macedonian map. I hope that that is what it means. It is important that we should make it clear that that is what it does mean so that we do not see Macedonia going the way of Bosnia.

No, I cannot at this late stage produce wonderful solutions out of a hat. I can, like every other right hon. and hon. Member, speculate on whether Sarajevo can be saved and whether that can be done either by some NATO force, which I do not believe will be forthcoming, or by—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I am about to end my speech. I have kept the House too long already.

Alternatively, we can speculate on whether Sarajevo can be saved by strengthening the Bosnians, perhaps even with the support of those Islamic forces, and by weakening the endless Serbian drive, incentive and determination to try to smash Sarajevo which at present the Serbs feel is necessary because they do not understand any other settlement and can see no prospect other than that, somehow, they must seize Sarajevo.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I am about to finish.

That is the grim prospect that we face as the House goes into recess. I do not offer cheap solutions or, indeed, expensive ones. The dangers are very great. It is possible to save Sarajevo if there is a whole combination of measures, not just the pouring in of NATO troops. That is what may occur. However, I see nothing other than blood and misery following on from the errors of the past. I pray and hope that those errors arc not repeated on the Macedonian scene.

The former Yugoslavia is one of the greatest challenges that faces not only the United Nations but each and every one of us.

Various reasons are given as to why we cannot intervene. We are told that it is a civil war between neighbour and neighbour and that it is a war with no front line. It is a war similar to that in which guerrilla-trained people defeated Hitler and put him to flight.

When we hear all the reasons why we cannot act, I sometimes wonder whether it is time to consider some reasons why we should act. Perhaps action would have occurred long ago if Bosnia had oil. We find that action occurs quickly from surrounding countries in respect of oil-bearing states.

What perturbs me is that ethnic cleansing smacks of the holocaust. From our not too distant history, we know the penalty that was paid by ignoring the slaughter of the Jews in Germany. Reasons were given then for why we could not act.

No one is entirely guiltless in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. However, the Serbs—above all—have consistently thumbed their noses at the United Nations. Yesterday, only seven minutes after a truce, the United Nations forces were attacked. I do not argue easily for the engagement of British land forces. However, if we are to abide by the United Nations, we must act together with a United Nations force. In respect of this issue, the United Nations has acted too little and too late.

Let us consider the growing request of the Muslims to be allowed to be armed. That would not have come about had there been an attempt to make an even playing field from the start. However, sanctions were never implemented enthusiastically and no thought was given to the point made by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that if we could not supply the Muslims, we should effectively have disarmed the Serbs.

There are many Bosnian Muslims in my constituency. One Muslim said to me, "We appreciate your food and we appreciate the bravery and dedication of your soldiers in getting it to us, but are we just going to be kept alive so that eventually we can be raped and butchered?" That is the challenge that we in this House face.

Will the United Nations eventually secure peace only on the aggressor's terms—the terms of a raped Bosnia and a butchered Bosnian Muslim population? If that is the case, the United Nations will be the principal loser—a latter-day League of Nations. Is the United Nations going to stand by while its authority is flouted and its troops attacked?

Also, we can and must embrace more enthusiastically the problem of former detainees and refugees and the sick and injured. We said that we would accept 1,000 ex-detainees and their relations. Germany agreed to take 2,000 and France agreed to take a meagre 385. Little Switzerland agreed to take 1,500. However, we have not yet taken a quarter of our promised quota. We can hardly set ourselves up as a world leader on humanitarian issues if we cannot, even now, fulfil that quota.

The situation is too fluid, too dangerous and too unstable to talk just about quotas. We should produce a policy that will react enthusiastically and quickly to the situation. As the slaughter continues, the casualties will increase and there will he a greater need for medical help for those who are injured: it calls for a policy of humanitarian support for our Bosnian neighbours.

It worries me when we consider what the United Nations did in the middle east, yet it is only now considering taking in only 300 ex-detainees. It is by one's deeds, not one's words or resolutions, that one is eventually known. There is growing evidence that the aggressors are determining play in the war. The League of Nations failed because its policy became one of appeasement. The United Nations is on trial. It is a test of every member country.

If the Serbs and other warlords win, the ideals of the United Nations will have been sacrificed, and the United Nations will founder on the rock of appeasement, just as the League of Nations did many years ago. The principles of the charter of the United Nations will be flouted if we do not act. The rising nationalism throughout the world will regard the conflict in Bosnia not as the end but as only the beginning of a world holocaust.

This debate is an emotional affair, principally because of my own Serbian background. It might be assumed that, because of that background, I could be enormously supportive of Milosevic and try to excuse him or take a deeply critical and horror-struck view of all that has gone on in the name of so-called Serbia. Milosevic might be their leader, but he does not represent all his people.

Interestingly, during the election in December, despite the enormous, one-sided campaign that Milosevic conducted against his opponent, Milan Panic, who had been scorned and derided and had not been allowed access to the media, people who heard Milan Panic's message turned out to vote. It is remarkable that, despite enormous pressure—for example, names slipping off the electoral roll, jobs being lost, double registrations, and no registrations—34 per cent. of the electorate voted against Milosevic.

I say that with tremendous feeling for that beleaguered community. If there is any chance of bringing the terrible slaughter to an end, we must do everything in our power to back the opposition.

A few weeks ago, Vuk Draskovic, the leader of the Serbian Renewal party, was savagely beaten. It was interesting to note that the outcry that followed put more pressure on Milosevic than anything else that the international community had done. It shamed him. I was proud of the fact that our Prime Minister sent a letter of protest—quite right, too. The way in which Madame Mitterrand went to Belgrade and badgered Milosevic was also impressive, and quite right, too. It was interesting to note that, ultimately, he yielded to the pressure where it hurt, because, frankly, he was made a fool of. He did not like the reality that, at long last, some opposition had risen up. He did to the opposition the only thing that the butcher of the Balkans could do—he wiped it out. He closed down the Serbian Renewal party and made it impossible for other parties to function.

We can learn many lessons from that incident—and I hope that we will—because, for once, Milosevic had been challenged on his territory and he backed down.

I share the anguish expressed in the Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on initiating the debate. I also support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).

I have watched the events of the past year with horror. I have tried to put my point of view to our Government. I accept that they are genuinely anguished and it is unfair to accuse them of complacency. I do not believe that that is right. The Government could protest, quite rightly, that they have spent more man hours on this issue than on many other topics and with less clear answers. I am sorry that the Government have encountered that difficulty.

I do not put all the blame on the British Government, because I accept that they have made a positive contribution in terms of humanitarian aid. The fault lies with international dithering—I use the word international deliberately. The European Community has failed. I believe that the countries that make up the UN have failed. The crisis over Sarajevo confirms that. Even as we speak, the shelling, the mortars and the sniping continue. That is the result of non-intervention. I find it humiliating that yet another ceasefire has been turned into a mockery after seven minutes.

It is humiliating to learn of the shelling of the French UN protection force in Zetra, just outside Sarajevo—a Serb snub if there ever was one. Mercifully no one was killed in Zetra, but 38 people were killed elsewhere. I find it depressing to read in the newspapers today of Barry Frewer, the UN spokesman, who said of the shooting:

"It is not being respected by either side. It is very disappointing."

I find it disappointing that we seem to have difficulty accepting that defenceless people have a right to protect themselves. We should reconsider the whole question of lifting the arms embargo. I am encouraged by the fact that the Foreign Secretary has not ruled out the idea. At present these people are using what few weapons they have to hand; we are offering them no human protection. We are thereby exposing them to far greater dangers, because they are so vulnerable.

What is the definition of a safe area? In these areas residents and security forces alike are being killed. Spanish forces, for instance, are under fire from the Bosnian Croats. The other day two Canadian UN soldiers were wounded. And the British aid convoys are continually under fire.

The United Nations has said that it will launch air strikes if its troops are fired on. When will the allies take such action? What is the breaking point? If we continue to do nothing, it is hardly surprising that we are never believed.

There are dangers associated with inaction, too. The United Nations is no longer respected as a world authority. That could have dangerous repercussions across the globe. It sets a precedent. I am worried because the authority of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe process has been grossly diminished, even though it has been instrumental in activating monitors.

Scorn has been heaped on all the declarations of the past 50 years designed to improve the lot of the beleagued human race—the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, the 1950 United Nations human rights convention, and the 1960 United Nations covenant on civil and political rights. Is it really right to ignore them all? I believe that we ignore them at our peril.

I feel uncomfortable when I hear that this is not our war, or that we have no interests at stake in it. I do not accept that. Bosnia is at the heart of Europe and it is no good pretending otherwise. Greece is regarded as a healthy member of the European Community. Italy, Austria and Germany, all near Yugoslavia, are of course regarded as European nations. After all, where is the heart of Europe? Some people might not regard the Shetlands as exactly at the heart of Europe, but they are certainly part of it.

Yugoslavia and Bosnia are our prime responsibility. I do not accept the argument that we should exercise our responsibilities in Cambodia or Somalia but not in Bosnia. Certainly, if we can afford to send our troops there, we should do all we can—but surely not at the expense of a country and a people who are our own kind.

I do not condemn the Vance-Owen efforts, or those of their successors, to find a solution.

I know that the Minister has spent many hours meeting the leading personalities in the Balkans and I know how difficult and frustrating it has been. None the less, I do not believe that we should back off because of the difficulties. I do not believe that appeasement has ever paid; I cannot think of an example of where it has done so. The price will be tomorrow's account of bloodshed. It could begin in Kosovo. We could see the inexorable spread of a war that no one bothered or had the heart to stop in time. The danger now is that it has become unstoppable. Territorial ambitions may almost have been satisfied in Bosnia. Regrettably, Greater Serbia has come about and the Serbs could now turn their attention to Kosovo.

I was in Kosovo last December as one of the monitors of the election. It was eerie and uncomfortable to be in that silent town, with a people cowed, knowing that a bombshell would drop at some stage although they could not tell when; it was like the silence before a storm. Do people realise that all the schools there are closed, that children are not being educated? Do they realise that the people there are not getting jobs? The town is already under siege. I saw for myself that the warlord Arkan had his camps in the vicinity. It is hard to believe that anyone could say that it was hard to take action when the camps were so visible.

Undoubtedly, Milosevic will feel that he has unfinished business. I was disappointed to find that, in the mind of the socialist party, there seems to be a question of Kosovo being allowed to return to the 1974 constitution established by Tito. To give that autonomy seems like common sense when one is sitting in this country, but, regrettably, I found that the socialists and Milosevic take a wholly different view. That is why I fear that reason will, yet again, go out of the window.

As soon as Bosnia has been cleared up, the Albanians, then the Bulgarians and the Greeks will become involved. The Macedonians will also be under tremendous pressure. I congratulate the United Nations on deciding to put in a token force as a deterrent which, I hope, will be increased. Nevertheless, a widening of the war to embrace Turkey is a possibility. Anything could happen. We have a moral responsibility to decide when we should do something other than our very important humanitarian aid—although I do not denigrate the marvellous aid, which has saved many thousands of lives.

I have a particular interest in our aid convoys because they were organised through the Crown Agents, which are based in my constituency in Sutton. They told me about the morale of the drivers. They are not military men, trained for war; they are civilian truckies who decided to offer, at great risk to themselves, to carry out the important driving work. They sent a message back to the Crown Agents saying that, if the British troops are withdrawn because of fears for their safety, they will carry on driving because they believe that they should. I am proud of them for taking that action.

I am proud of our British troops. I have not heard a word of complaint about the dangers to which they have been exposed. They are a highly professional fighting force with a job to do. If anything, we hear of their frustrations at being unable to do more or to respond as their instinct tells them. I wonder to what degree they give debriefings to Ministry of Defence officials; and do officials listen and learn from their lessons?

We must take great care about the future of the Muslims in Bosnia. The Geneva talks get going yet again this week and some unsatisfactory partitioning will take place. If a viable area of country with access to the sea is not given to the Muslims, the price that we shall pay will be a Palestine for the next 40 or 50 years.

Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, we must watch the Islamic community. The Arab world is intensely following events on television. It is remarkable that they have not been more involved, but if in the long term the Muslims, or what is left of them, are left besieged and hopeless, they will turn to guerrilla warfare, aided and assisted by Islamic fundamentalists, and we shall be helplessly at their mercy until land is given to them. If the Geneva talks do not define clearly the Muslim territory and put in United Nations forces physically to protect them from the Serbs or Croats trying to take an extra bite, the price that we pay could indeed be terrible.

Ultimately, the real challenge and, I believe, the only way to bring this terrible war and fighting in the Balkans to an end is to concentrate more on President Milosevic. He is the inspiration for Serbian expansionism. The buck stops with him. The warlords do not act alone; they are sustained by Belgrade, where they return for more assistance. Milosevic is rightly known as the butcher of the Balkans. I find it difficult to accept that he is regarded by the international community as the only means to peace. I do not believe that we can achieve peace by accepting every word and promise that he makes, because since these terrible tragedies began he has been empty, cold and calculating. He has broken promises and has been determined to mislead and to try to get away with it.

Let us look again more closely at this man. The one moment when he was under genuine pressure was at the Athens summit because the Americans supported the concept of air strikes, which he believed were imminent. That is why he buckled down on Karadzic, went off to Pale and pressured Serbs by saying, "You must now accept a peace deal". What happened? We all suddenly leant back with a huge amount of relief and said, "Great, the deed has been done; we can now relax our vigilance." That may not have been the message that we intended to convey, but that was the impression that Belgrade got.

We had fine words from Milosevic. He would close the frontier; no more vehicles, assistance, weapons, oil or armaments would go from Belgrade to Bosnia. That did not happen. One or two roads were closed and eight remain open. The no-fly zones are continually breached. From a parliamentary answer, I discovered that of the 800 breaches, the allied forces had been able to intercept about eight, because of all the short helicopter flights ferrying personnel, the wounded and weaponry.

In his own land, Milosevic is tightening up his totalitarian rule. He is becoming a more skilful, intelligent and charming Saddam Hussein, who seems more acceptable but who somehow or other manages to have his hideous way. He sacked the president, Cosic, the man with whom he had worked closely, because he dared to question his methods.

Now, we must give all the support that we can to the opposition parties. We must assist Studio B so that it can extend its transmissions to the rest of Yugoslavia with the message about the kind of man that its leader is. If the hope of the international community is to rely on internal dissent, we must facilitate that and encourage the people who have the means and the will to stand up to him.

We should bear in mind just how Milosevic is tightening the ratchet in his country. Some 1,000 journalists were sacked from the state radio and television for daring to be politically incorrect. People in leading jobs —whether in universities, in medicine or the arts—lose their jobs if they are not politically correct and their places are taken by socialists at Milosevic's behest. We should also bear it in mind that he is taking action to purge the army, for the second time, of any leadership about which he feels doubtful. Some 40 officers are due to go within the week, to be replaced by younger officers who are compliant and who will assist Milosevic in his terrible work.

We are seeing a country that is moving dangerously towards a totalitarian state that will push wherever it can. I urge the international community to seize the political will and follow through UN resolutions by saying that if those resolutions are broken, we shall take action—and then do it. The Serbs are cowards when they are attacked, as we can see from what happened when Vuk Draskovic stood up to Milosevic. We have reports about cowardice in the field. They are not the great fighting men that people believe them to be. They just have heavier weaponry.

We should not be so awed by the Serbs. It is important that we take stock and realise that this Balkan monster will never stop until he is challenged by the will of the international community.

It is not every day that I find myself on the same side as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—at least, I think that we are on the same side. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) not only on his initiative in obtaining this debate but on acting as an unofficial Whip to those of us who have a clear idea of what should be done in such a terrible state of affairs.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on a very fine speech—as fine a speech as I have heard in some time. I do not say this in any party political sense, but I am only sorry that more of his colleagues were not here to hear it. However, he can have the satisfaction of knowing that he and his colleagues outnumber the members of the Press Gallery, to which we are not supposed to refer. Whenever we discuss something of great importance, the Press Gallery is empty.

The House and the country have been badly misled. From the outset. we have been told that nothing can be done about anything in Bosnia. We have been told that the terrain is impossible, that the people are impossible and that the experts are against doing anything. No doubt those same arguments were rehearsed in the 1930s. However, I think that we have been misled and that the experts, of all persuasions, have been saying something different. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said, for some unaccountable reason the message has not reached those in high places—or if it has, it has been suppressed.

I hope that the Minister will say something about that, because I am genuinely puzzled about what has happened. The more we learn about what the people on the ground have been saying, be they journalists or whomever, the more puzzled we become. A number of distinguished journalists who have spent months in Bosnia have visited us in the House. The opinion of all those whom I met was unanimous. Indeed, not only did they speak for themselves, they spoke for many of our diplomats and military men with whom they are personally acquainted. For a long time, they have held the view that military intervention has been and is feasible, but it is getting less feasible by the hour. I remain puzzled why word of that, if only to rebut it, has not reached the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

From time to time, colleagues meet British diplomats in Yugoslavia, NATO or the United Nations. We are surprised to learn that they, too, feel that the Government's policy has been what one described recently as

"a diplomatic and strategic disaster with major implications for western security."

One of the Government's own diplomats, with close knowledge of the position, felt so frustrated that he made that comment.

Another diplomat who spoke recently to some of my colleagues referred to the need for an ultimatum to the Serbs to be followed by military action. He was asked whether he had made that clear to his political masters. He said that he had. He was asked whether he had met them during his visit to London. He said that he had not because no one at the Foreign Office had asked to see him. They knew he was here, but no one asked to see him.

I am sorry to say that I am not really all that puzzled because I understand what is happening—we are being misled. The biggest surprise was to learn that there are senior people in the military who take a similar view about military action. Of course, we must always be cautious when talking to soldiers who say that a little strategic or surgical bombing, as they like to call it, will do the trick. Anyone who followed the various pronouncements of the military men during the Vietnam war will know that they got it badly wrong. Therefore, I do not suggest that politicians should always take what the military says as the absolute truth. However, it is surprising to hear very senior military people talking about policy to date as having been too little, too late. The word "appeasement" is openly used, and one now hears the former French commander on the ground, General Morillon, saying that the siege of Sarajevo should be lifted by military force if necessary.

However, the puzzle continues, and on 12 July the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles that no advice had been received

"either from senior diplomats or from military figures that a solution could be imposed by military force."—[Official Report, 12 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 682.]

I should be surprised and amazed if what those of us who are not that well connected in the relevant circles had been saying—or at least a flavour of it—had not reached the Prime Minister. About a dozen of us wrote to the Prime Minister—I think that the letter was dated 14 July—and we have not yet received a reply. We put to him, in words which I think that he will understand, our firm view that the country is being misled. I hope that we shall receive a detailed explanation, if not from the Minister present tonight, perhaps from the Prime Minister later—I should prefer to hear it tonight.

The position is more complicated than it is being made to seem. Our diplomats and military personnel have been misled by Ministers about the state of public opinion and, perhaps, the state of opinion in the House. I think that they have been told not even to contemplate anything that involves military action, because the British public will not wear it and Members of Parliament will not support it. It is disappointing that some of the same people who whipped up hysteria over the Gulf war and the Falklands war—I do not want to be diverted by those quite separate issues—have been less straightforward about telling the public and the military the truth about Bosnia.

I am puzzled. I believe that the feeling from the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Brussels is that military intervention is feasible. If that is true, is my hon. Friend implying that that advice from the most senior military personnel was never given to the Prime Minister or his senior colleagues, or does my hon. Friend feel that, for some reason, despite the Government assuring the House that no such advice about the feasibility of military intervention was given, they felt that it would be unwise to pass that advice on to the House?

I cannot pretend to know what the position is but there is a serious problem. However, what most hon. Members present this evening have been hearing from those in positions of authority who brief Ministers daily is different from what Ministers say that those experts are saying. Perhaps the advice that those experts have given Ministers has been hedged around with qualifications—perhaps the experts have said one thing to us and another to the Ministers. I do not know what the explanation is, but I should like to hear the Government's version of events from the Minister.

Military intervention by ground troops would be practical and honourable. Plans for it exist already, but we lack political leaders capable of rising to the occasion. Our soldiers in the field—there are many of them—have been badly let down by the Government.

The answer might be that military personnel are not entitled to say what Britain should do politically; they can give that answer only if asked the question. If asked whether limited military action to stop the aggression and the destruction of multi-ethnic Bosnia can be taken, the answer is yes. But it is said that military action consists of political objectives secured by military means, and if the politicians will not ask the question, the military are not allowed to say, "Yes, we know how to do it if you want to do it."

That is one possible explanation. I do not know what the explanation is, but I should like to hear it. The evidence that my colleagues and I have seen and heard does not accord with pronouncements of the most senior Government members.

Our soldiers on the ground in Bosnia have been badly let down. They have been placed in the humiliating position of having to negotiate—if that is the right word —with drunken gunmen in some cases. They have witnessed unspeakable atrocities without being able to do what they want to do and are capable of doing—intervene and put a stop to them. Soldiers who say that they are entitled to expect a clear objective from politicians are right. We should be giving a clear objective and grasping the nettle.

A number of suggestions have been made in the past which have become an excuse for not doing much. One suggestion was that there should be an air exclusion zone. That bore absolutely no relation to the problem, because everyone knew that the main problem did not come from the air. Others suggested that we should do a bit of bombing as a substitute for doing something of lasting value. That is no good, either. People who talk in vague terms are not grasping the nettle. I grasp it unequivocally —as I and others have done previously—and say that I am in favour of using as many troops as necessary for as long as necessary to bring this tragic state of affairs to an end.

I recognise that that is a large thing to say, but it is not an impossible thing to say. Frankly, it is a smaller objective than defeating Saddam Hussein and driving him out of Kuwait, liberating the Falkland Islands, which are 10,000 miles away, or using thousands of troops to maintain that not very perfect regime in South Korea for 40 years. It is feasible and we should do it.

The casualties are much more than simply the unfortunate people of Bosnia. The United Nations has been let down by its most senior members who are unable or unwilling to enforce its resolutions. We should be told clearly now—I thought that we already understood this —that negotiations without credible threat of force behind them do not work. The Serbs are laughing at the United Nations. They are not only doing that—yesterday, they were shelling the United Nations. On the 9 o'clock news tonight, I was pleased to see that United Nations soldiers in Bosnia have been given permission to shoot back when they are shot at. I agree with that. However, it is not the solution. There is an urgent need to restore the credibility of the United Nations. That can be done only by a calculated ultimatum to the Serbs, backed up by the threat of military action.

We must start somewhere. The situation has deteriorated so much recently that intervention is getting more costly, more dangerous and more difficult by the hour. The obvious starting place is that suggested by the 80 or so congressmen—to lift the siege of Sarajevo by whatever means are necessary. From there, one goes on, hopefully, to lift the siege of the other so-called United Nations safe areas and remove the artillery that threatens not only Sarajevo but one or two other places. Heavy artillery is fixed. It cannot be moved easily, but it can be destroyed easily—and should be. I remember Martin Bell, who knows something about the situation, telling us that clearly when he came to see us the other day. Unless someone tells me otherwise, that is what I will continue to believe.

Finally, I ask the Minister whether there is any level of atrocity in the former Yugoslavia that could cause us to support military intervention. If so, what is it? If there is none, will he say so clearly?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing this debate and on his comprehensive speech.

For the sake of brevity—as a number of colleagues wish to speak—I begin by asking the Minister several questions relating to the refugee crisis. As he and the House will know, in October-November 1992 the United Kingdom Government agreed to take 1,000 former detainees and 3,000 dependants. The latest figures reveal that, so far, we have received 250 ex-detainees and 424 dependants. I am grateful that the quota for ex-detainees has been extended to cover those who are deemed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will shortly consider increasing the quota of 1,000 to enable Britain to take more of the people who have suffered as a result of this horrific war in Bosnia.

Secondly, will the Minister assure us that the Government stand ready to receive more medical cases? So far, we have taken 68 and I am advised by the UNHCR that there is great urgency about persuading countries, especially those in the EC, to take medical cases. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are sympathetic and will take more such cases. As we have heard in the debate, Sarajevo is in crisis. Hon. Members have mentioned Mr. Larry Hollingsworth, the UNHCR Bosnian representative.

I listened to the last two speeches, and I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. I have noted the almost studied indifference of Ministers. Would it hurt Ministers to listen to the speeches on this important subject?

I consoled myself by noting that the Minister was taking notes of my questions, and I expect to receive detailed replies.

Mr. Hollingsworth recently met hon. Members from all parties and stressed the great urgency of funding to enable his organisation to purchase plastic sheeting, shelter and other necessary items to protect the people of Sarajevo in the coming winter. Those purchases need to be made now, but they are not being made. Will the money be made available?

At the meeting in the House, Mr. Hollingsworth repeated the words that were reported in The Guardian on 20 July. That report stated:

"The head of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' humanitarian operation in Sarajevo criticised the UN's programme as ineffective yesterday and called for military action to break Serbian blockades,…

Speaking in London at the launch of a Refugee Council appeal for Bosnia, Larry Hollingsworth, a former colonel in the British Army, called for military force to allow aid convoys to reach Sarajevo and the besieged enclaves of Gorazde, Zepa and Srebrenica."

My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles said that a broad-based alliance of senior British diplomats, senior military commanders and senior aid workers holds the unanimous view that military intervention could and, indeed, should be taken, not only to protect the so-called safe areas, but to halt the aggression in Bosnia, which would, we hope, lead to an effective and sustained ceasefire. Hon. Members have confirmed what my hon. Friend has said.

A military commander recently said that rapid response military forces needed rapid response politicians. The central charge of the debate is that politicians, especially those in the European Community, but also those in the UN, have singularly failed to ensure that the aggression, genocide, rape, atrocities and horror of Bosnia should he halted. We believe that that can be done only through effective military intervention.

I hope that the Minister will not recite the usual catalogue of excuses for not engaging in such intervention. I hope that he will seriously consider the military-intervention options now available, which are mentioned regularly by the alliance of diplomats, military commanders and aid workers to whom hon. Members—including myself—have referred. I also hope that we can engage in a mature and sensible debate about the military options; many of us believe that now is the time to adopt them.

It is very unfortunate that the problems of Yugoslavia should have prompted so little interest years ago, long before the present crisis. In 1990, I went to Whitehall to tell the Minister of State—he will remember the occasion—that a crisis was looming. Precious few people wanted to know about the crisis then and for that reason many have not studied its root causes.

To a large extent, the crisis was caused by the over-decentralisation of the old Yugoslav state under President Tito. Not long after the end of the communist system in Yugoslavia, even Croat, Slovene and Montenegro communists thought of themselves as Croats, Slovenes and Montenegrans, rather than as Yugoslavs. When the nationalists in Croatia pressed for Croatian independence, the British Government at first adopted an even-handed approach. However, on 26 June 1991—when both Slovenia and Croatia declared independence—between 500,000 and 800,000 people in Croatia were members of the Serb ethnic group. Many lived in very compact areas, in particular the area around Knin and Krajina. In Serbo-Croat, "Krajina" means borders or frontiers. There was a substantial Serbian majority in many parts of the large frontier area between Knin and central Croatia.

When Croatia became independent—or was declared independent—in June 1991, non-Croatian citizens were immediately "ethnically cleansed". Serbs were immediately declared not to be citizens and were refused passports. They were driven out of their homes and jobs through intimidation. After only a few months, 60,000 Serbs were refugees in Serbia, having fled from Rijeka, Zadar and Zagreb itself: indeed, it is now said that about one third of the Serb population of Zagreb has been ethnically cleansed and driven away. Important people in particular were intimidated by the Croatian regime.

At the beginning of May, I visited the mass grave of Serbs and Muslims who had been massacred by the Croats between November 1991 and March 1992. Hon. Members should mark the dates, which include part of the period before Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised as an independent state—the period when it was still within the state of Yugoslavia that was recognised by the international community. The Croatian army had invaded and taken over Bosanski-Brod and Deventa and massacred large numbers of people. I shall never forget seeing bodies exhumed from the grave at Bosanski-Brod. The first to be taken out of the grave was a woman. I know that it was a woman only because of the blue skirt and white spots. I saw 38 other corpses laid out. I remember the stench. The interesting thing is that that area was designated under the Vance-Owen plan to the Croats.

I might be accused of being pro-Serb. I remind the House that I was the first person to mention the names of Šeselj and Arkan. In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 1 November 1991, I warned of those dangerous neo-fascist nationalists who are now undoubtedly war criminals following events in Croatia.

We must bear it in mind that many of us are being hoodwinked. Not only the Government are being hoodwinked. Indeed, to a large extent, I congratulate the Government. I thank God that there has been no military intervention by British or United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia. It would have made the situation a million times worse. So many of the people who talk of military intervention have never been to the former Yugoslavia and seen the situation for themselves. They have certainly never been under fire. They do not know what it is to be bombed. Military action certainly does not make for a retraction of effort on behalf of those who are accused of aggression.

The public relations firms have come into their own in the Yugoslav crisis. The Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, led by a Muslim fundamentalist in the shape of Izetbegovic, who wrote the Islamic Declaration in 1970, reprinted in 1990 in Sarajevo, have said that a majority or even a substantial minority Islamic population cannot live at peace within the political and social systems of non-Islamic communities.

It is false to imagine that the Muslims have been exclusively victims. We often hear people and sometimes Government spokesmen say that all groups have perpetrated atrocities. Yet the only ones which we hear about in the media are those committed by Serbs. Undoubtedly, atrocities have been committed. How many people in the Chamber tonight have referred to Muslim atrocities? They have certainly taken place, but the Muslims are running a good PR operation, especially from New York. [Interruption] I have listened quietly and I have not interrupted anyone.

Hon. Members should look a little further than their noses. If they picked up the 16 December 1992 edition of Epoca, the Italian magazine, they would see an illustrated article about the torture of Serbian prisoners by Muslims in Sarajevo. If hon. Members read the edition of the weekly German newspaper Die Zeit published at the end of last week, they will find that a Muslim commander in Sarajevo has been sacked by the Bosnian Government because 28 Serbs were massacred in a mass grave just outside the centre of the city of Sarajevo. Those hon. Members who cannot read German should have that article translated—but they should not claim that the Muslims are totally innocent because they are not. I was told by an Italian and French journalist in Bosnia that the Europa and Zagreb hotels in Sarajevo arc used as brothels by Muslim soldiers, who force Serbian women and girls into those hotels. It should not be suggested for one moment that all the atrocities are committed by one side.

It is suggested that British soldiers should be sent into Bosnia to fight on behalf of people who are committing atrocities, but that is not something that I should want to see. It is interesting that many of my hon. Friends are keen to see British troops withdrawn from Northern Ireland and rushed to Yugoslavia.

Sanctions have prevented the Serbs from putting across their case. Ian Greer and Associates acted for the Serbs at the beginning of the conflict but they are prevented from doing so now because of the sanctions. That is also true in the United States. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can heckle as much as they like, but Major General Mackenzie —the United Nations commander in Yugoslavia until last November—was quoted in a Los Angeles magazine as saying that every ceasefire that he negotiated was broken by the Muslims. General Waldren, who recently gave up his command in Yugoslavia, said the same about the recent ceasefire negotiated at Srebrenica. Hon. Members should study the details, and not believe the propaganda that appears in our newspapers.

I will not defend Milosevic, Tudjman or any of the other leaders. None of them is a true democrat. Tudjman's Croatia is no more democratic than Serbia—it is to a large extent less so. At the time of the election to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) referred, Mr. Micunovic, leader of the Democratic party, told me that Belgrade television was controlled by Milosevic. When I asked about the press, Mr. Micunovic said that the press was on the side of the opposition. I said, "I wish that had been the case in our last general election. We might just have pulled it off."

I accept that paramilitary excess exists on all three sides—perhaps more heavily on some than on others. What is to be done about three groups that are at each other's throats when at least one of them has far more military power than the others?

The important thing is that human rights should be respected in Croatia and Bosnia. International pressure must be brought on them both to ensure that human rights are respected on their territories. If a solution is to be found for Bosnia, it must be acknowledged that it is not a state but a province. It was a province under the Austrians and Turks and in the former Yugoslavia. The human rights of all Bosnia's ethnic groups must be respected in any solution—and that solution cannot be imposed on the significant Serb minority. If we forget their plight, no lasting solution will be found.

I am grateful for having been called to speak at this point. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has been squeezed out. I shortened the time of my wind-up speech on behalf of the Opposition in the hope that he would be able to speak.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), though the word "congratulate" is not perhaps the most appropriate word in the circumstances, on obtaining this debate, which is in relatively prime time by Consolidated Fund Bill standards. He spoke with conviction and authority. Although, as he knows, I do not agree with every word he says, I respect the strength of feeling that he expresses. My hon. Friend was joined in the passion of his speech. as on so many previous occasions, by the hon. Member for Staffordshire. South (Mr. Cormack). What they say brings a dimension to the thinking on this most worrying subject that should be heard. Those who urge caution over the former Yugoslavia would find, were they here, that they were in the minority at this evening's gathering of right hon. and hon. Members. Perhaps that is why they have stayed away.

I, too, recognise that the tragedy that we see unfolding in the country that used to he called Yugoslavia, or in the conglomeration of new countries that used to be called Yugoslavia. must affect all of us. Those who watched the news this evening saw the choir of schoolchildren that used to travel the world. The realisation that those children are hiding in buildings that are being bombed every moment brings home the awful reality of the situation.

It is difficult to escape feeling emotional when watching something that is happening in a country that for so many years was the holiday destination of many citizens of this country. The killing, the destruction of property, the outrage of mass rape and the effect that the war has had on so many innocents, including the millions of children in that country, is not something from which any of us can easily walk away.

I do not underestimate for a moment the depth of the tragedy, but it is important to recognise that there have been two successes. The first—I accept that it is a limited success—is that, contrary to all the predictions of the last two years, the conflict has not yet spread largely outside the areas where the fighting initially took place.

Not yet.

My hon. Friend says "Not yet." I accept what she says. However, there has been some limited success in containing the conflict to that area. I shall turn later to why I believe that it may continue to be contained.

Secondly, the humanitarian effort has been successful. I refer not just to the troops under the United Nations flag who have protected the convoys. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, civilian truck drivers have gone to that area and stayed there, notwithstanding the dangers. Non-governmental organisation people have served there, as have civilians who work for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organisations. This huge operation has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise would have died of starvation or cold during one of the nastiest and bitterest winters in that part of the world. We should not forget that they did an enormously successful job. The number of casualties, high though it already is, would have been much higher had they not gone to the area. We must not underestimate, either, the difficulties involved in assisting in this bitter conflict.

It is easy, in the security of this Chamber, debating this issue in a civilised manner according to rules that have been formulated over the years, to talk about putting troops into the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), whose views on previous wars and conflicts I have listened to with interest in the past, said—as if this was easy—that he would send in as many troops as it would take for as long as necessary.

Indeed.

The Minister confirms that; and I wrote down what my hon. Friend said. That is easily said, but not so easy to do.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will give way briefly, but I have only a limited time.

I quarrel about the word "easy". I did not say "easy" and of course it is not easy and one accepts that. I was talking about the same degree of determination as that displayed in the Gulf and Falklands wars. That is what I was talking about.

I know that my hon. Friend did not use the word "easy". I am ascribing "easy" to his comparison to what was done in the Gulf war and in the Falklands war. Those wars are not comparable, and my hon. Friend said that himself. Even if there was the political will, the physical logistics of the area might make it extremely difficult to attempt anything of that nature.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not only some Members of this place who are advocating that course? Larry Hollingsworth, who has been in charge of the humanitarian aid effort in Bosnia for many months now, has said that force should be used to try to deliver that aid. It is not just the armchair theorists who are saying that; it is also being said by the people on the ground.

Some people on the ground say that, but others do not agree. Cedric Thornberry was in the House only a few weeks ago and he argued the opposite view. He said that if we start to impose military personnel in any kind of peace-making capacity, we would close down the humanitarian effort almost overnight. Even before we could start to deploy the limited troops available, we would stop the humanitarian effort which has created such life-saving capability.

I do not want to enter that argument too deeply. My party and I believe that there are serious problems in respect of the involvement of an open-ended commitment of a military peace-making exercise. I would like to leave the point on that parenthesis as I believe that there are other things that Governments could do and should be doing at the moment. The fact that they are not doing these things is assisting the degeneration of the conflict.

First, the international community in general should recognise that serious errors have been made in the conflict. Those errors include the way in which recognition was given prematurely to Croatia, and perhaps also to Slovenia, and the poverty of will that characterised the way in which mandatory economic sanctions were first imposed on Serbia. For 10 months, the Serbs were able to get around the potential of economic sanctions by setting up dummy companies and the like.

Had we implemented the sanctions with the vigour and force that we are now deploying, perhaps a greater impact would have been made on Mr. Milosevic at a time when that might have mattered very much in relation to the fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

It all matters not just because we are outraged by what we see on our television screens, but because that wave of refugees coming way beyond the borders of Bosnia, Croatia and even Slovenia will be a problem for the nations surrounding that benighted part of the world and also for many other countries, including our own. Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that, despite the Government's initial offers to take in refugees, especially those who were former inhabitants of the detention camps, we have not even reached the miserable level that the Government originally offered.

The problem matters also because the credibility of the UN and of international institutions is at stake as a result of what is happening in that part of the world. Of course, the fighting need not necessarily stop even with an agreement, if an agreement were to be reached in the next few weeks. That endless fighting will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world.

We must recognise that the Washington agreement was a disgraceful watershed for which our Government, along with others, share responsibility. In one fell swoop it destroyed the Vance-Owen plan and left no real political objective in its place. It was an open invitation to the Serbs and Croats to move quickly to partition what was left of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The constant loud reference to the ending of the arms embargo that we heard from the Americans simply gave greater impetus to the Serbs and Croats who wanted to grab as much territory as possible before that eventuality occurred.

The agreement claimed that there would be safe areas, but they were in no way to be made safe. Has that not been vividly displayed since then? It claimed that the borders of Bosnia would be sealed to the supply of arms coming in from Serbia, but there was no way in which they would be sealed. It said that there would be threats against further action from Serbia and from Croatia, but there was to be no back-up to those threats at all—not even the possibility of limited air strikes on supply routes which might at the time have had and might even yet have an impact on the fighting that is taking place in Bosnia. There was to be no action, and there is still no action, taken against the land-grabbing of the Croats who are still engaged in aggression in that part of the world.

What should we do? I make a few limited suggestions, because the House wants to hear the Minister's reply to the many points that have been raised. First, we must make safe areas safe, as was promised. That means a British commitment to supplying the 7,500 troops that the United Nations Secretary-General said were necessary to carry out that promise. All those troops have been promised, but they are certainly not in place. I understand that they are short of the logistic and technical support that would allow them to be deployed to the former Yugoslavia, and to Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular. The British Government could make available that logistic support, and they should do so immediately.

It is right that there should be troops from Islamic countries, but I go along with the Government in their resistance to the use of troops from Iran. Islamic troops are an important signal to the Muslims in that part of the world.

Secondly, we must be much tougher on Croatia, and we must be tougher immediately. Although they have taken large numbers of refugees—of course, there is a worry that they would move them out of their territory—what is happening on the side of the Croatians in the south of Bosnia is as unacceptable as what the Serbs are doing in the north.

Thirdly, we must make it clear that any three-way partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a long-term solution for that part of the world. Indeed, it is a recipe for long-term violence in that area. We need to escape from the mentality that keeps people in small ghettos without any passageway, especially to the sea. We must cut off supply routes to the Bosnian Serbs where they are still using force.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am afraid I cannot give way. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend answer a fourth question?

I have a couple of points to make before I finish my speech.

We must cut off the supply routes and we must be prepared—

Will my hon. Friend answer a fourth question? What would he do about Sarajevo?

I apologise to my hon. Friend because I am in the last few seconds of my speech. I cannot curtail the Minister's time for replying to the points that have been made. No doubt the Minister will take my hon. Friend's question on board.

We must also consider the long-term future of the refugees in the area. We must do something about the recognition of Macedonia, and we must do more about deploying more troops to the area. Kosovo's guarantees and observers must be maintained in position because it is extremely important that it is protected.

That list of items is the minimum that we can do and the minimum that we need to do at this time. We must do what is necessary and what is possible, and we must do it right away. To wait any longer is to court real disaster.

The hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate would agree that its tone has been measured and concerned. By the standards of the House, the debate has been remarkably free of party rancour. That is how it should he, because we all accept that what is happening in the former Yugoslavia is the greatest tragedy that Europe has seen since the end of the second world war. It is not just the greatest tragedy; it is a tragedy that was precipitated and carried forward by crime and wickedness on the part of many of those who are participating in the leadership on all sides.

I agree with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who said that all sides have a responsibility to bear in the matter. I think that the Serbs are the most guilty, but all the participants —Serbs, Croats and Muslims—have been guilty of crime and wickedness in the war.

It is also true that our concern is greatly deepened by the fact that we have 2,400 troops in Bosnia and many people from the Overseas Development Administration, the Royal Air Force and other service men on the ground, all of whom are engaged. All of their lives are at risk.

The debate has been treated with the gravity that it deserves. I find it somewhat odd, however, that among those who are most prominent in calling for military engagement are many who opposed British involvement in the Gulf war. As the hon. Member for West Derby also pointed out, many of those who are most keen to see British military engagement in the former Yugoslavia are those who want us to withdraw from Northern Ireland. It is difficult to reconcile those opinions.

When people talk about public support for military intervention, I believe that they are wrong. When I look round the Chamber, I accept that, probably, the majority of those present are in favour of military intervention, to some degree. I do not believe that that represents the majority view in my party and I suspect that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) does not believe that it represents the majority view in the Labour party. I have made it my business to try to determine where political views lie and I do not believe that they lie in deepening military engagement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that the issue was about leadership. He said that one should go to people and say, "These are the issues: support us." That is an important point. but I should like to reply to him in something like the language used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I do not believe that one commits oneself to military action unless one is prepared to suffer all that is required and to go on for as long as may be necessary. I do not believe that one can do that unless one's effort is truly underpinned by national will. I do not believe that that will exists in this case.

In common with me, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has heard the leader of his party speak on Yugoslavia on many occasions. We know that, for many months, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has called for a forward policy of military engagement. It has taken many forms, but the right hon. Gentleman has always pressed for that policy.

I was in the Chamber on 11 June when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces reported to the House on the occasion when British troops had been engaged in action and had killed certainly one Croat and possibly two. At that point, the right hon. Member for Yeovil responded by saying that we should now consider withdrawal.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), sitting in front of him and referring to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, said:

"I have never heard such a two-faced statement in my life. The right hon. Gentleman wanted more troops before. Now he wants them out."—[Official Report, 11 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 559.]

I believe that the Liberals' policy is unsustainable and that it varies: it is difficult to identify. Secondly, when the body bags start coming back, the public support will fall away—

rose—

No, I want to make progress.

It is important to stand back and identify the chief elements of the the war and of our policy. Bosnia's is essentially a civil war. It is perfectly true that Serbia and Croatia are involved to some degree, but the principal participants in the fighting in Bosnia are the people of Bosnia. And what are they fighting about? They are fighting about the character of the country in which they live. This is essentially a civil war, not a war between independent states.

It is primarily this fact which distinguishes Bosnia from the Gulf. In the Gulf there was a clear act of aggression by one sovereign state against another. The political objective could be clearly defined: the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. But the political objective in Bosnia is an agreement between people who have been murdering one another for two years—an agreement to live in harmony. I do not believe that we can bring about such an agreement by the application of external force.

We are content to continue as long as we can with a policy of delivering humanitarian supplies. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my hon.

Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) were right about that. Not only soldiers and RAF men are involved; so are the ODA drivers and many others. Two thirds of the population of Bosnia now depend on external aid and there is no provision for the forthcoming winter. So, unless they are inevitable, we must not take measures that put at risk this aid. If we do, when the winter comes, there is a risk—perhaps even a probability—that people will die in their tens of thousands.

rose—

No, I want to make progress.

We are also pursuing a policy of sanctions. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber asked why. He was good enough to admit that the impact of the sanctions on the Serbian economy had, in many respects, been effective. We are pursuing this policy because it is the only way of putting continuing pressure on Serbia and Serbia is the only power capable of bringing the Bosnian Serbs to heel. We will continue the policy until an agreement that is honestly implemented is in place—

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise what he has just said? He has said that this is the only way of putting pressure on Serbia. Does he really mean that? Is that now the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

If I have time, I shall deal with other questions of military action.

A further point about the structure of our policy is that we are seeking to create the circumstances in which the three parties to the conflict can come to an agreement. Whatever agreement they are likely to reach will certainly be associated with misery, disappointment and word eating. We know that, but there is a chance—even a reasonable chance—that the three parties to the war will come to an agreement. That is why I welcome enormously what Lord Owen and Mr Stoltenberg have done and the presence of all the relevant parties at Geneva. We cannot make them come to an agreement, but we can create the circumstances in which they are capable of coming to an agreement. We can create the mechanisms and the international principles that will guide our approach to the outcome of such an agreement, but we cannot compel people to come to an agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that he is ashamed of the failure of Europe. We have to face the fact that there are many conflicts in Europe that will not be solved by international action because conflicts that are in essence civil wars can be solved only be agreement between those engaged in them. It is a great error to suppose that the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO or any other such body can, by the application of external force, put an end to such conflicts.

Something else to which I take grave objection is the way in which people condemn what the British Government have done. We have been at the forefront of the international effort: we convoked the London conference; 2,400 British troops are now—

Order. Time is up.

I hope that, before I start the new debate, it will be in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on instituting a successful debate in which many hon. Members spoke with great conviction and from the heart. It was also one of the best attended late night debates that we have had for a long time, although I think that some hon. Members should perhaps have spoken not from the heart but with the head. It was a pleasure to listen to it, but I do not necessarily expect the hon. Gentleman to stay to listen to this debate.

Although the debate refers to the Northern line, London transport goes much wider than the underground and includes buses. My hon. Friend the Minister will expect me to say something about the proposed deregulation and privatisation of London Buses. I greatly welcome the proposed privatisation, which has of course been preceded by the usual scare campaign. We are used to such campaigns before privatisations. Before British Telecom was privatised, we were told that payphones would cease to exist and that rural telephone services would be ignored. In fact, since the privatisation of BT, there are many more payphones and they work, which they did not do when they were owned by the state. There are also better services in town and country. Wherever we look, privatisation has led to increased investment, dramatically improved productivity and improved morale in the industry involved. I believe that there will be similar benefits for London Buses. As soon as London Buses is removed from the public sector, investment will be increased, and the same will be true of the underground.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, the refugee from the police.

On the contrary; I am not a refugee from the police, who acted in exemplary fashion. We had an interesting discussion, during which I learnt a great deal about how much the police dislike the Sheehy proposals. However, that is by the by.

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about scare stories. I do not want to spoil his yarn, but it was the Select Committee on Transport which warned of a disaster on London's buses if deregulation is pressed. As he well knows, that Committee is Tory dominated.

We have often heard of Select Committees being Tory dominated. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) used to be Chairman of the Health Select Committee, which we were told was Tory dominated. That was a surprise to the Whips and to the House. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows, most of the scare stories originate from Labour Members and we have seen similar campaigns before.

I have experience of bus deregulation in a rural and semi-rural area. Many early morning works journeys and uneconomic services were lost and passenger numbers declined, even though in some cases bus mileage increased because of competition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Research Laboratory studied bus deregulation and found that, in many instances, services had severely deteriorated?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there has been an increase in car ownership outside London, which is why the number of passengers has declined. He also knows full well that the number of passengers was declining before deregulation. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that the Select Committee had produced a wonderful report. The Select Committee pointed out that there has been an increase in bus miles, a fall in operating costs and a fall in public subsidy. Given the record of bus deregulation outside London, I am willing to say that it will be beneficial within London.

Until we had competitive tendering for bus routes in London, the service was very inefficient. Across the system, competitive tendering has led to a 20 per cent. reduction in costs, which surely emphasises the role of competition in achieving a more efficient service.

We must also consider the quality of the service in London. Before tendering, 92 per cent. of buses ran and 8 per cent. did not. Today, 98·1 per cent. run on the tendered routes. Instead of 8 per cent., only 1·9 per cent. now do not run—a much more efficient service.

I do not believe that deregulation will lead to hundreds of extra buses running down Oxford street, but there will be more mini and midi buses in the suburbs, we will have new routes and a more innovative service, which will be to the benefit of everyone in London.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to nail the wicked lie that is being put across London: that deregulation and privatisation will lead to the end of the concessionary scheme for senior citizens. All too often, those who want a few cheap votes in London go round frightening elderly people by saying that the concessionary fares scheme is at risk. I believe that the scheme, which is the linchpin of Government policy, will remain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to underline that commitment.

The Department of Transport has a limited budget to invest in London Transport and in road improvement in London. The budget should therefore be spent in a way that is most likely to relieve congestion. That is the best solution for individuals and commerce, but if we are to relieve congestion in London we must seek different solutions for inside and outside London. Outside London, improving the M25, London's bypass and industry's archway to Europe, must be a major priority. The M25 succeeded in taking traffic off many London roads. The need to widen it so soon after its completion is a tribute to the lack of foresight of traffic planners and the excessive preoccupation of the Treasury in the 1970s with the short-term and not the long-term needs of this country.

Within London, the emphasis must be on public transport and on improving buses, Thameslink and London Underground. We must recognise that 83 per cent. of people in central London move around by public transport rather than by private car.

We shall never secure the objective of eliminating or reducing congestion within London by tinkering with our road system. Such a strategy would be prohibitively expensive, divisive—because most people do not want big new bits of concrete and tarmac within London—and counter-productive, because, as the experience of Los Angeles confirms, urban roads are wonderful examples of Say's law that supply creates its own demand. All that new urban motorways do is entice more people into motor cars.

Any preoccupation with the private motor car will fail to solve the basic problem of London—the need to enable millions of Londoners to travel to work in the City, to the west end and to the suburbs, and to preserve London as a centre of employment for millions, a major retail city and the centre of a major international airport. The key to the survival and prosperity of London is a decent public transport system.

The problem of the 1990s is a legacy of the locust years of the early 1980s. After the change of control in the GLC in 1981, the emphasis within London Transport was not on the quality of service or investment in the future, but on the level of fares. When my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was a member of the GLC, the emphasis of the then leader of the GLC was on subsidising fares for American tourists, rather than on producing a better metro system for Londoners to enjoy in the 1990s.

We are today reaping the whirlwind because on many routes in London the level of investment in the early 1980s was far too low to give us a decent service in the 1990s.

The Tory Government stopped it.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. In the 1980s, the Government allowed local authorities to reinvest the proceeds of any capital receipts. The GLC was awash with unnecessary capital investment, as was shown by the way in which the London residuary body was able to flog assets all over the place. If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had not had a pathological desire to own large tracts of London, regardless of the use to which he could put those assets, the GLC could have invested much more.

We were not allowed to.

The hon. Gentleman, now that he has been released by the police. has a desire to speak from a sedentary position. I was, at that time, chairman of a London borough finance committee and I can confirm —no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister can as well—that local authorities were allowed to spend their capital receipts and to reinvest them. If the GLC of the day had been willing to sell assets, it could have reinvested those receipts.

If the hon. Gentleman had been chained to the door for as long as I have been, he would realise that it is necessary, at my age, to make sedentary interventions. As he has forced me to my feet, let me just tell him that although the GLC had proposals for capital investments and for giving substantial revenue support to Network South East, we were told by the Government that we would not be allowed to put them into effect and that anything that we gave to Network SouthEast would merely be deducted from the central Government grant. What would have been the point in those circumstances?

It would have been perfectly in order for the GLC to top up its capital programme by selling assets. The real trouble was that the then leadership of the GLC knew that it had assets that it was not using, but had a pathological desire to cling on to them. There was a sort of machismo—one had to maintain one's assets. It did not want to sell them, to flog them off, to use sites to create homes or jobs; instead it wanted to keep them in the public sector. Without that approach from county hall, the level of investment in the underground system would have been substantially higher.

In recent times, there has been a substantial investment in modernising the Central line and I thank my hon. Friends in the Department of Transport for the money that they have spent on that. Elsewhere on London Underground, we all know of stations with defective escalators, platforms in need of a lick of paint and clocks that do not work, and of the fact that on many routes the rolling stock is old, uninviting, frequently graffiti-ridden, and often rather dirty. In fact, if the first impression of London for overseas visitors was based on the Northern or District lines, they would not return to, for example, the United States saying that London was the most modern city in the world.

The objective shared by all Conservative Members is the need for a decently modern metro. During recent years there has been great emphasis on the Central line, the Jubilee line and crossrail. However, by putting emphasis on those three main routes there has been inadequate investment in other parts of the core service.

In the autumn statement the Government gave a commitment to funding the Jubilee line provided that there was also some private sector funding. More recently, the House gave a Second Reading to the Crossrail Bill, but it has been made quite clear that there should also be significant private sector funding for that project. I welcome the Government's determination to get private sector funding for part of both those projects.

There is no doubt that the Jubilee line extension will lead to a dramatic increase in the value of Canary wharf. It will convert what looks like a white elephant into a very valuable asset. That was recognised by the Reichmanns with their original commitment to help fund the extension. It would be wrong for private gain to be financed solely by public funds. The autumn statement underlined the need for private funding and the tardy reaction of the bankers is to be condemned. They know that jobs and the viability of their own projects are at risk. I hope that they will be somewhat more aggressive in providing the necessary funding in future. Indeed, if they had been as slow in funding some property developments as they have been in funding the Jubilee line, they might be in a much happier position today.

Crossrail will also be a major bonus, not only to the private sector but to many people in London. Once the Paddington to Heathrow extension is funded, it will be possible to go from the City to Heathrow in 35 minutes. It is to be a joint private sector-public sector project, which is the way in which many of our routes will be funded in future.

In 1988 Sir Keith Bright, the then chairman of London Transport, described the Northern line as an abomination. Little has changed since, except that the rolling stock is five years older. The rolling stock is too old and the trains are graffiti-ridden, dirty and colourless. The stations are often dirty and they need modernisation. Those of us who use the Northern line, as I did this morning—or yesterday, to be more precise—and pass through Angel station have a reminder of what a modern station should be. We can rejoice for the people of Islington that they have a very expensive, modern station. Those using other stations on the Northern line wish that they could also have equally good stations.

At Hendon Central, my station, the clocks do not work and the dot matrix system, which was once at the forefront of technology, is now hopelessly out of date. Many stations still lack automatic ticket barriers, despite the fact that they are self-financing. It is not unknown for escalators and lifts not to work.

The Northern line requires a major overhaul—modernised stations, new rolling stock and improved track. It has been estimated that there will be an 18 per cent. growth in the number of passengers using the line over the next nine years. Once the modernisation of the Central line has been completed, the southern aspect of the Northern line will be the most congested route in the whole of London. The mere replacement of the signalling and control systems on the line would lead to a 28 per cent. reduction in the time of the average journey and a 25 per cent. increase in the line's capacity. Given the anticipated increase in the number of passengers who use that line, those statistics show the need for improvement.

In the 1992 autumn statement, the Government confirmed approval for the conditional expansion of the Jubilee line, but cut investment in the core services in London Transport. Before the House returns in the autumn the public expenditure round will be well under way. The message that we must give to the Government is that we need a substantial commitment to modernising London transport and the Northern line. In my constituency, the decision not to maintain the grant to the core services at the previous promised level meant that the modernisation and refurbishment of Hendon Central, Golders Green and Brent Cross stations did not take place. Trains need to be refurbished and emphasis should be placed on passenger security measures.

I have two suggestions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, in last year's autumn statement, the Government allowed British Rail to lease £150 million worth of rolling stock. If it is all right for Thameslink to lease rolling stock, why is it not right for London Transport to do so? Secondly, in 1992 there was a substantial reduction in the planned investment in the core services of London Underground—will my hon. Friend the Minister restore part of that cut? Such a move would be warmly welcomed across London.

My hon. Friend has already become a popular hero due to his decision over the Oxleas wood. I should like him to become a doubly popular hero by deciding that more money should be spent on London Underground as that would benefit all Londoners and would he warmly welcomed, not least in my constituency.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his choice of subject and its selection for debate. However, his resounding support of bus deregulation in the context of a debate on investment in London transport seems bizarre when viewed in the light of the well-reported hiatus in bus investment in London. That hiatus results directly from the joint threat of bus privatisation and deregulation. Investment in London transport, the sensible purpose of the hon. Gentleman's debate, is of fundamental importance to the future prosperity of our capital city, and the condition of the Northern line is of particular and vital daily concern to many thousands of Londoners.

I declare my interest in the debate. Hundreds, if not thousands, of residents in the Clapham and Balham districts of my Streatham constituency rely on the Northern line stations of Clapham Common, Clapham South and Balham for their day-to-day travel needs. In addition, I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on Transport, which was much maligned in the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South. Only last week it published its own highly critical report on London's public transport capital investment requirements. I shall refer to both my interests during my speech.

The background to the Select Committee report is that of a persistent long-term decline in the quality and efficiency of our transport system in London. Gross overcrowding on our British Rail and underground lines and at our railway stations has been the normal daily experience of all London passengers for as long as any of us can remember. Since 1989, the Government-induced economic recession has brought an unanticipated, and hopefully temporary, relief to the unfortunate London commuter. There are simply fewer Londoners with jobs to travel to now, but if and when—as we all pray—the recession lifts, without drastically increased levels of investment, a future of yet more overcrowding in a decaying public transport still beckons us.

Londoners have long been familiar with the observation that traffic on our roads now proceeds at a slower pace than in the days of the horse-drawn carriage. The health costs of environmental pollution resulting from slow-moving, stop-start traffic are almost certainly reflected in the appalling growth of bronchial illness, especially asthma, and particularly among young children, in London's population recently.

But congestion and an inadequate public transport system bring formidable economic costs as well. In the late 1980s, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that £10 billion was the yearly cost to the London economy of late deliveries, missed appointments, cancelled meetings and stress-related illnesses associated with the chronic congestion and overcrowding of London's transport system.

The implications of that neglect of our transport infrastructure for London's already precarious economy are both dire and well attested. In May 1990, the Corporation of London published a report entitled "London's Transport: A Plan to Protect our Future". It should still be the bedtime reading of every Transport Minister, especially the Minister for Transport in London, and not merely because it identifies the extension of the Northern line to Streatham as an important scheme worthy of consideration. On the basis of extensive consultations with more than 20 major City financial institutions, the report concluded:

"There is an immediate crisis of high congestion and low quality of the transport system. What is at risk is not just the City as Europe's premier financial centre. It is London as an international capital, and as such one of the UK's greatest assets."

In other words, it is not only environmentalists and long-suffering London commuters who are saying that things cannot go on as they are; the Government's friends in the City are warning that London's future is now at risk. Certainly nothing has changed in three years since that report was published, unless it is to get worse.

It will not be good enough for the Minister to argue —as I expect he will—that, at £2 billion out of the Department of Transport budget of £7 billion, London already gets a disproportionate slice of the cake. The truth is that London's role in the national economy is unique, and its transport problems are also unique. With less than one seventh of the population of England and Wales, London produces almost one fifth of the gross domestic product, yet it has been uniquely ravaged by the current economic recession. That comes on top of a prognosis for the London economy that was already highly dangerous.

A major source of the threat to London's economy is the inadequacy of its public transport system, yet Londoners are uniquely reliant on public transport for their travel to work. For 30 years, Governments of all political shades—I fully concede that—have systematically starved London's transport services of the necessary investment.

The hon. Gentleman was characteristically generous in attributing blame for past sins to Governments of all complexions. He seemed to be developing the argument that insufficient capital funds were expended on London. I ask him to expand that in one of two possible ways. Is he suggesting that, of the £7 billion currently spent by the Department, more than £2 billion should be spent in London? If so, can he indicate which parts of the Department's programme outside London he would cancel? Alternatively, is he saying that the whole budget should be bigger? If so, does he have policy clearance from the Labour Front Bench for that assertion? We are in dangerous territory, unless he is capable of substantiating both of those propositions.

With his usual prescience, the Minister anticipates precisely my proposition that, in the allocation of resources in the existing transport budget, more funds should be transferred to London. If he will have patience, that is precisely a point that I will address in my ensuing remarks. I have argued that, because of that history of neglect, there is a powerful case for sustaining higher investment. That was precisely the recommendation in last week's Select Committee report.

It is undoubtedly true, as the Minister will again undoubtedly argue, that there is record investment in the early 1990s, but two or three years of high investment following the lowest ever level of investment in the 1980s is a small swallow, and the summer has been remarkably short-lived. In its report, the Select Committee states:

"We received evidence from both Network SouthEast and London Underground Ltd that the absolute level of investment is insufficient to maintain or improve the system. The danger is that the speed, frequency and reliability of passenger services will decline rapidly if the railways' infrastructure continues to deteriorate."

Such deterioration is inevitable on London's underground and, as London Underground's evidence to the Select Committee made dramatically clear, it is inevitable on the Northern line in particular. That is because London Underground was the special victim of the investment cuts that flowed from the autumn statement. Those cuts jeopardise the short-term upgrading and the longer-term modernisation of the Northern line.

When the Secretary of State for Transport appeared before the Select Committee, I asked, half in jest I confess, whether he had recently used Clapham Common tube station on the Northern line. He replied that he was sure that he had, but that it had not been recently. I suspect that that was something of an understatement. I also suspect that it would be helpful for Transport Ministers occasionally to discard the ministerial limousine and see London's public transport as it really is.

The first time that I asked to use the tube as part of my ministerial duties, London Transport was kind enough to provide me with a train of my own. Thereafter I have used the system incognito, which is a far better way to find out what the system is really like.

I am pleased to hear that. If the Minister has been to Clapham Common tube station—

I went last month.

In that case, the Minister should be ashamed of himself for allowing its present deplorable condition to continue.

I regularly travel on the Northern line to and from my constituency—I did so today—and it is not an agreeable experience. At the southern end of the Northern line, the passenger walks through dank, dark and dingy corridors to the gloomy caverns of platforms at the end of those corridors. Stained plaster bulges on walls that do not appear to have had a lick of paint for decades. The stations are bereft of staff, which is the result of another of the forced economies on the underground. No wonder women are so reluctant to use the underground outside peak times.

That is no way for commuters to have to travel at the end of the 20th century. Yes, trains do keep running—just about—but passengers travel in antiquated, overcrowded and rickety rolling stock, which at the age of 35 years is rapidly approaching the end of its useful life. It is a miracle that the system runs at all. It is a triumph of managerial and engineering ingenuity over lack of financial resources, and it cannot continue for much longer.

In the 1992 autumn statement, London Underground's capital budget was slashed by a massive 30 per cent. A direct and immediate consequence of that cut will be the delay until 1998 of the full upgrading of the stations at the southern end of the Northern line. More alarming still is the fact that the cuts in the London Underground investment programme for this and the next two years will mean a delay in the total modernisation of rolling stock, track and signalling on the Northern line until the year 2005—more than 10 years away. Northern line commuters face another 10 years of train, track and signalling breakdowns, failures and delay—that is, if the modernisation ever takes place.

As Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe, managing director of London Underground, made graphically clear to the Select Committee, for London Underground to embark on a project involving £1 billion worth of investment—a massive proportion of the underground's budget—would require a level of confidence in the Government's commitment of resources that would be difficult to justify against the backdrop of the recent wild fluctuations in funding for the underground system. What a way to run a railway!

It goes without saying that the Minister will plead the necessity of cuts, in the light of the Government's £50 billion budget deficit. Let us leave aside the obvious comment that the London commuter is being forced to pay the price of the Government's economic mismanagement. Even within the constraints of the overall budgetary deficit—here I come to the point made by the Minister in an earlier intervention—the Government have made a clear decision to disadvantage the underground passenger.

The truth is that, wherever else the autumn statement cuts may have fallen, they did not reduce the overall transport budget: that remained stable. In the autumn statement, the Government made a conscious decision to shift transport spending away from public transport in London—and London Underground in particular—into road-building projects outside the capital. They could have chosen to sustain investment in London Regional Transport; they chose not to do so. The London commuter will not forget that act of discrimination in a hurry. Nor will Londoners lend any credence to the Government's pleas of poverty for London Regional Transport, in the light of the decision—announced last week, and much lauded by the hon. Member for Hendon, South—to devote £144 million to the lunatic creation of a 14-lane M25. That was an act of massive despoliation of the green belt, which will suck yet further resources away from London.

The Government still have an opportunity to make amends in their next autumn statement by committing a stable, sustained and higher level of funding to both British Rail and London Underground to permit the maintenance of services through infrastrcuture renewal over the medium term. I hope that they will heed the advice offered unanimously by both Conservative and Labour Members of the Select Committee:

"If no such funding is granted, passengers in London will inevitably experience a rapid decline in the speed, reliability and frequency of their services, which would seriously affect the quality of their lives and the competitiveness of business in the nation's capital."

Those are sombre words which the Government ignore at their peril—and at the peril of London as well.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on choosing this subject for debate. After his customary out-to-lunch bit, he made a number of useful points. Having noted the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), I felt sufficiently humble not to speak; after all, he can make a much better speech than I can. Then I looked at the Minister and thought, why not?

Few would deny that London's transport system is in a poor state. That is not to talk the system down; it is merely to acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, it has been underfunded for years. Let me point out yet again to the hon. Member for Hendon, South that, when the last Labour GLC declared its intention to invest heavily in capital projects in London Transport generally, the Conservative Government of the day used various devices to block our aim. That is the truth of the matter.

One needs to look at the position today in terms of capital investment decisions and take it on a little to show that the Government have let down Londoners badly. There was a time when we thought that perhaps the Government had changed their mind and saw how important it was to invest in an efficient transportation system for the capital city; it would be to the benefit of not merely London but the whole national economy. Just before the 1992 general election, in the 1991 autumn statement the Government made a commitment to provide investment to meet the target of a "decently modern metro"—the term which comes up time and time again —in 10 years.

In autumn 1991 the Government promised £633 million towards London Underground's capital investment in the core system mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South—that is, in trains, structures and services of the existing network. The hon. Gentleman referred to new projects such as crossrail and the Jubilee line extension as if they were already up and running. They have not even been started. Those new projects are subject to separate ring-fenced funding. Such projects are often prayed in aid by the Government when they talk of record sums of investment for future years. As we know, construction has not yet commenced on any of the projects.

The Government safely won the election in April 1992, having promised such capital sums as I have mentioned and, I might add, not to increase value added tax or to cut public expenditure. They managed to renege on all those promises. The 1992 autumn statement is crucial to what is happening now to London underground in particular but to London transport in general. In the 1992 autumn statement the Government allocated only £416 million to the core system in expenditure year 1993–94. That was a shortfall of £217 million, or 34 per cent., on what was promised.

The Minister has always been very open and he admitted that the amount allocated in 1992 was less than was promised. But the investment is crucial. The Government said in the previous autumn statement how much was needed. To reduce the amount in the subsequent one seems like reneging on a firm promise. How can one expect London Regional Transport to plan adequately given that uncertainty?

In November 1991 the then Secretary of State for Transport pledged the necessary investment and said that by 1993–94 London Underground investment in the existing railway should be more than £700 million a year taking into account the Monopolies and Mergers Commission statement that that amount was needed to provide an adequately modern framework. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that was a London Regional Transport figure, but it was accepted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. One must assume that both knew what they were talking about. The same statement was then emphasised by the Minister for Public Transport on 17 February 1992.

So one could have expected Londoners to believe that Ministers were speaking the truth and that London Underground and London Regional Transport could proceed in the full expectation of getting what they were promised. Of course, it has not worked out that way. In 1991 the Government promised London Underground £571 million for 1994–95. In 1992 that was revised to £343 million. That was a shortfall of £229 million, or 40 per cent. In the 1991 statement the Government promised London Underground £585 million for 1995–96. In 1992 that was revised to £425 million, a shortfall of £160 million, or 27 per cent.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, that is no way to run a railway. I have heard the Minister say that, when one compared the position in the 1992 autumn statement with that in 1991, the Government could not proceed on the original basis because the circumstances looked bad. Yet the allocation from the Treasury to the Department of Transport remained virtually unaltered between those two years.

Then Ministers decided to change the allocation between the different transportation modes for which they are responsible, giving greater emphasis to roads than to London's transport system. By comparison with 1992–93, the total roads budget for 1993–94 increased by £125 million, or 4 per cent., but London Regional Transport's share fell by £132 million, or 30 per cent. The situation will worsen in 1994–95. The total roads budget is set to increase by £194 million, or 31 per cent.

It is not a question of pleading a shortage of money. The sum allocated by the Treasury seems to remain the same between those years, but the Government's priorities changed in 12 months, and that is something that the Minister must address.

I presumed that the hon. Member for Hendon, South would concentrate most on the Northern line—and rightly, given that his constituents suffer a poor service on that misery line, as do many other commuters. I believe that it has one the longest tunnels in the world, extending 17 miles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, keeping that line running is a triumph of managerial and engineering expertise.

I remember travelling on exactly the same trains that run today when I made the journey from my school—Archbishop Tennyson at Kennington Oval—to Tooting. The stations also seem remarkably the same.

It could not have been all that long ago.

The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I wish that it were so, but it seems a long time ago to me.

Trams were running in those days. I do not know whether the Minister is old enough to remember trams and trolley buses. I was only a babe in arms at the time, but I still remember them, and much deplore their passing. Trams had their guaranteed road space, and no one got in the way of one of those great clanking vehicles. Introduced in their place were unenforceable bus lanes—but now Croydon is considering a tramlink, and there are trams in Manchester and Sheffield. Trams are making a comeback. They never left some continental cities. I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South that the Government got transport planning badly wrong, and London and other cities have suffered as a consequence.

The Northern line also has been affected by the change made between the 1991 and 1992 autumn statements. Some of its stations have been refurbished—London Bridge, Borough, and High Barnet to East Finchley inclusive. Refurbishment was to be undertaken at eight stations this year, but that work has been cancelled because of the 1992 cut in Government grant. The planned £56 million package of refurbishment of 10 stations at the southern end of the Northern line has been postponed until 1998.

The hon. Member for Hendon, South mentioned Angel station, but Mornington Crescent will remain closed until further notice. It cannot be reopened until its lifts are replaced. Because of the cut in the 1992 budget, London Underground does not have sufficient funding for that work.

As to passenger security measures at the southern end of the Northern line, it was planned, as part of the 10-station modernisation project, to replace the life-expired equipment at Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South, Tooting Bec, Tooting Broadway and Balham stations and to install equipment at Oval, Colliers Wood, South Wimbledon and Morden. Those proposals also have stalled, and that work will not be undertaken in the current financial year. The money that London Underground was clearly promised by the Government before the general election is being cut.

Call me an old cynic if you wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot believe that there was not some connection between the general election and London in the promises that were made by the Government in the 1991 autumn statement. If indeed, as the Minister for Transport in London said, it was because the situation looked a lot worse in 1992, perhaps the Government did not know enough about the way the economy was functioning. The Government do not show up in a particularly good light either way. Either they misled the electorate, or they did not know what was going on in the economy. Neither possibility reflects credit on the Government.

I hope that the Minister has studied the report produced by the Centre for Economic and Business Research. Its title is "The Economic Impact of the London Underground Core Investment Programme"—not what one would consider to be a particularly catchy title, but certainly it is a vital piece of research. We all want a "decently modern metro." As the report finds, that programme would deliver passenger benefits worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year. It would deliver an improved quality of life in the capital, enhance the availability of skills for employers, boost the economy and employment in both London and the rest of the United Kingdom, and offer value to the United Kingdom well in excess of its cost to Government and pay for itself in 10 years.

The Minister knows a good deal when he sees one, and he has concluded one or two in his time: he has the gold watch to prove it, I understand. That seems like a good deal to me. I cannot understand why the Minister does not reach out with both hands and grab it. There is a difference between borrowing money in order to fund current expenditure and borrowing money in order to invest for the future. One has to draw a distinction between those two aspects of expenditure. We are debating investment for the future. Unless we have a properly funded London underground and London transport system—not just properly funded but at a sustained and predictable level, for it is the unpredictability that tends to throw costings and plans up into the air—we shall not get London's economy right.

It is not just a question of pleading for more money for London—London Members obviously do that—but investment in rolling stock and new buses for London means jobs for people in cities outside London, because Greater London has lost most of its manufacturing capacity. Investment, therefore, means jobs for people outside London. That, again, must surely be what the Government want to achieve. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept that to borrow money for investment in public transport is completely different from borrowing money merely to sustain a budget deficit, due to revenue spending problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned the two Transport Select Committee reports, in both of which he played a most conspicuous part. The first, on the question of capital investment, stated that London's public transport system is being crippled and, with it, the future of the city. It said that London Transport needs both a higher and a sustained level of investment, the very point that I made earlier.

These are not the ramblings of some wild-eyed Trot —the kind of person whom the hon. Member for Hendon, South seems to see all around him. This was the considered view of a Committee of our colleagues, with Conservative party Members of Parliament in the majority. The Committee was not in the hands of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is seen as a bit of a loose cannon on the Tory Benches; it was in the very safe hands of the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I am sure that the Minister would not put him in the category of being a wild and unpredictable maverick within the ranks of the Conservative party.

The second report—the hon. Member for Hendon, South touched upon it—deals with bus deregulation. It was even more damning. I went to get a copy, for greater accuracy. It says that deregulation, which already presents something of a gamble, could prove to be a disaster for London.

The Select Committee went on to make several recommendations to the Government. It said that they should not proceed with deregulation and should try something else. I have seen no response yet from the Government. Perhaps the Minister can give us a clue to encourage us in the belief that that Select Committee report will not be shelved and ignored like so many other Select Committee reports.

If he does not mind my saying so, the hon. Member for Hendon, South was very selective in his quotes from the Select Committee report when he referred to deregulation elsewhere. With regard to deregulation outside London, the report states:

"While bus mileage has increased, so have fares in real terms, and while operating costs are down, so is the level of patronage. Similarly, whereas in places like Oxford and Inverness, passengers have experienced genuine improvements in the quality of services, in larger cities such as Sheffield and Manchester deregulation has led to considerable problems of congestion and unreliability. This inconsistency is mirrored in the sharply contrasting views of passengers surveyed in different parts of the country."

The report then refers to the lessons for London, and makes the very good and obvious point that

"There is no other city in the United Kingdom comparable in terms of size or population with London. That alone does not mean that the experience of deregulation in the rest of the country is entirely without relevance to what might happen in the capital. The fact that London is at least six times larger than the next biggest city in Britain implies that the problems to be tackled in introducing deregulation are of a different order of magnitude, but not necesarily unique in nature."

Those are strongly-worded warnings from a Committee that considered deregulation very carefully.

The Minister will receive slavish and adulatory support from the hon. Member for Hendon, South in his role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and member of the payroll vote. However, most people who look at the matter objectively are unhappy about deregulation. The experience outside London is not consistently happy. That being so, one would have expected the more cautionary Conservative Members to say, "Let's halt for a while. Let's look at it carefully once more. After all, she's gone now and there's no need to prove ourselves as ideological loonies. We don't have to run around deregulating and privatising. Let's have a look at this one because if we get it wrong it could be hung around our necks at the next general election."

Far be it from me to pass on good advice to the Minister, but were I in his place, as I hope to be one day soon, that is the kind of thought that would have passed through my mind. However, the Minister can give us his initial thoughts about the report on bus deregulation in London.

I will conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. He can probably guess some of them, but I might as well use this occasion to raise them. The hon. Member for Hendon, South referred to the Jubilee extension and to what it is going to do. It can do a lot of things, but it cannot do anything unless it starts. Will the Minister tell us the latest situation in respect of the Jubilee line? It is becoming rather tedious waiting for the final announcement that everything is okay and that it will go ahead. I would like the Minister to make that announcement in the House and not during the recess so that he can receive all the praise that I know that he feels that he thoroughly deserves.

What about the Crossrail Bill? The Government say that they support that, but we still have not seen the key reports on the scheme's viability or the potential for private sector support. We have heard that the private sector is interested, but we heard that about the Jubilee line extension. We need to see some of the old ackers up front, to put it in the crude parlance that the Minister and I fully understand.

Through London First, the private sector has asked the Government to give a clear commitment to the amount that they will invest in the scheme. One needs to know exactly how much the Government will pay towards the funding of crossrail. The Chelsea-Hackney line is safeguarded, but there is no clear commitment to proceed with the line. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.

Of course there still remains considerable uncertainty about the channel tunnel rail link. Again, we would like a commitment from the Minister in respect of the finance to be provided for the central London station and the importance of intermediary stations. He knows—I have thrashed this matter around for a long time—that my borough of Newham is working hard, hoping that we will get the international station at Stratford as part of the Government's strategy for the east Thames corridor. Given the amount of money that the Government are putting into Stratford, for which we are extremely grateful, it seems that that investment could be greatly enhanced by a decision on Stratford as an international channel tunnel station. Of course, there is also the east London line extension, again approved by London Transport but without the funds available to enable construction to go ahead.

London Transport recently published its report entitled "Making Vision into Reality"—and there is also the report entitled "The Economic Impact of the London Underground Core Investment Programme". The company is seeking a commitment to £900 million per annum investment and a total investment of £6·4 billion to generate employment and additional revenue to the Treasury and London Underground's operating costs. It can be shown, not by me in this debate but by those who have carefully studied the matter, that investment in the public transport system in London can pay for itself in all the ways that one could imagine.

I hope that the Government will join the Opposition in declaring themselves to be fully in favour of giving London the public transport system that it needs. We could then hold up our heads and point to our transport system in the capital city as being the envy of the world, as it certainly used to be. Of course, that does not happen by wishful thinking. It happens as a result of sustained work, sustained investment and commitment. We will gladly join the Government in that spirit of common purpose if only they drop some of their ridiculous ideological fixations about transport and start to realise that Londoners deserve a far better system than the one they have at the moment. When they have such a system, they may be prepared to look carefully at the Government's credentials when they put themselves forward at the next general election, but I would not count on it.

At the conclusion of this enjoyable debate, I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on raising this subject which is important to those who represent London, London's commuters and. dare I say, all right hon. and hon. Members who, along with millions of our fellow citizens, experience public transport in London as part of their daily lives.

I shall start with one of the ramblings of that well-known wild-eyed Trot, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to as a hugely critical report on London's public transport capital investment requirements. The quote is the first sentence of the conclusions of the report. It states:

"There is no doubt that in the past few years investment in London' public transport has been at a significantly higher level than in previous decades."

I merely wish to record that point to underline one assertion which I might be entitled to make. That is, contrary to a lot of very misleading nonsense that I have heard—although not from the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—there is not a low level of investment going into public transport in London. On the contrary, in comparison with the investment made in the days of the Greater London council, we are now spending twice as much on London transport—in comparison with certain years, we are spending three times as much as the GLC.

Not all the difference can be accounted for by the assertion of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that that is all due to the dastardly Tory Government trying to deny the right of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to spend Londoner's money on his grandiose ideas for improving London transport.

One such gem of an idea was the Westbourne Park bus garage, which won an award from the national brick council, or whatever it was. That extraordinary creation is a wondrous celebration of the joys of the brick—if one can think in those terms at this hour of the morning. Its slight problem is that it cossets buses on the assumption that they must be kept in cathedral-like splendour overnight when not in use—presumably to keep their engines warm or to stop the rain falling on them.

What is wrong with that?

No private operator in his right mind would spend that amount of money on the simple job of garaging a bus fleet. It sums up the difference between the Opposition and the Government that, when I point out the ludicrous waste of money on that particular edifice, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West says, "What is wrong with that?". There is not a bus operator worth his salt in the country who does not know precisely what is wrong with that. What is wrong with that is that it is a gratuitous waste of taxpayers' money. What is wrong with that is that it represents a ludicrous misappropriation of scarce resources in a manner that is little short of crass. I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, whose thirst for the battle has not been the slightest assuaged by his recent experience at the hands of the Metropolitan police, is dying to leap to his feet.

Before the Minister goes into orbit on the question of the bus garage, may I tell him that many contractors now store buses in the open. That is not a good practice. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the standard of bus cleanliness is deteriorating rapidly. That is in part due to the fact that many buses are stored in the open because when some people get hold of bus operations they sell off the real estate, which makes them a nice bit of profit.

The hon. Gentleman is normally a reasonable chap, but he is wrong on two counts.

First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that there is anything wrong with the idea of leaving a few buses out in the open. These days they are built to withstand the odd night of rain or even snow. Secondly, he is wrong about whether buses are cleaner than they were. He will be aware that the cleanliness of the service is one of the indicators of performance that London Transport is keen to see customers determine, not some statistician with a clipboard. On that basis, London Transport's stock is reckoned to be consistently cleaner now than in the past.

I do not want to labour the point about Westbourne Park bus garage, although it is a gem of its kind. I merely stress that, in the past few years, substantial investment has been made in transport provision.

The hon. Member for Streatham said that things got a lot better in the early part of the 1990s. He should appreciate that things are likely to get better in the middle years of the 1990s, after the return of the Conservative Government. I have no doubt that things will then go on to get even better in the late 1990s.

There is much evidence to back the Select Committee's statement that current investment in London Transport is significantly greater than that made in previous decades.

We are in the process of completing the £800 million renewal of the Central line, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will know from his constituency interest. A £300 million programme is under way to refurbish a great many of the trains. I shall also run through some of the other projects that have been mentioned, so as to provide the answers for which I have been asked.

The Jubilee line extension will begin when the agreement with the private sector is in place. I make no apology for using that tried and tested form of words. The hon. Gentleman will know that putting the agreement in place with the Olympia and York administrators was a difficult and complex business, but it is worth fighting hard to secure a private sector contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, that contribution of about £400 million towards the cost of the scheme will compensate the taxpayer for the immense benefit that the private sector developer of Canary wharf will derive from it. I hope that we will be able shortly to make an announcement that will please the House.

The hon. Gentleman knows that crossrail is funded for the next three years, which is as far as the public expenditure survey extends. By contrast, there is no expectation of any significant expenditure on Chelsea-Hackney during the next three years. Such expenditure as is necessary will be subsumed in LRT's general vote. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out, however, that the line is safeguarded. There is no question but that the scheme should follow on after we have completed the Jubilee line extension and crossrail.

I take this opportunity to tell the House that London Regional Transport is securing agreement to the proposals for the northern extension of the east London line, and is negotiating with local authorities and others. The extension has been universally welcomed. Subject to the availability of finance, LRT would then hope to turn its attention to the equally important southern extension of the line.

The channel tunnel rail link will continue as a joint public-private sector proposition, the precise details of which are yet to be established, but the underlying principle of which is clear. To build the line, it will be necessary to seek large amounts of both public and private sector money, because the private sector can then enjoy the benefits that the line will bring.

I cannot help the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on the prospects for Stratford, because the work undertaken by Union Railways and others to refine the route and the positioning of the stations is still in hand and it would be wrong to anticipate the findings of the studies. I am not yet in a position to say what they may be, although I often have discussions with Newham council, whose interest in the matter I shall bear in mind.

I accept the Select Committee's later conclusion that larger investment in the system would be desirable and that it should be consistent. I do not come here with trite words that turn night into day; I do not suggest that reductions in LRT's capital spending were desirable, or that variations over two or three years were helpful. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that when the Government became aware of the urgent need to deal with the public sector borrowing requirement, it would have been wrong to exempt this area of expenditure.

There is a straightforward explanation for the apparent imbalance in the distribution of the "pain" between the various aspects of the programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of the road programme is committed some time in advance, which means that there is a need to devote a proportion of the Department's total resources to the continuance of that programme in order not to frustrate work which has already begun. In the case of London Transport, it is true to say that the decision to reduce the level of grant affected its ability to invest, but, in historic terms, it still left it substantially above its baseline of only two years ago.

I have also read to the McWilliam study to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall not make a detailed critique of it, but it is the only point at which I can refer to my gold watch. The House will know that the hon. Gentleman has yet to make a speech as my shadow—long may that continue to be the case—without making an overt, or covert, offer for my watch. It is an unremarkable item and I am perfectly happy to negotiate with him. What has prevented him from turning his expressions of interest —as we used to call them in the trade—into anything more positive is that he cannot put up the money. I appreciate that his extensive television career is now accruing large royalties and that Mrs. Banks is probably constrained as to how they are dispersed, but the point that he has frequently made is, to put it crudely, that he cannot afford it. In Professor McWilliam's report, affordability is an even more important criterion than desirability.

I draw a veil over my bungled and feeble attempts at humour to underline the serious point, which is that it is not enough for investment to be desirable to enable schemes to stand on their own when, in the public sector, they have to queue behind so many other calls on the public sector. Affordability becomes the key criterion. That is and always has been the fundamental advantage conveyed by privatisation, as proved by British Telecom, British Airways, the British Airports Authority or even the current proposals in the Railways Bill.

There are innumerable propositions for investment in Network SouthEast, which would lead to a positive cash flow in five years but which are not entertained because the resources are not there. As long as British Rail is in the public sector, it calls on the Exchequer's liberality, along with London Transport, roads, hospitals and schools. In the private sector, the situation is entirely different. If a scheme is good and will bring a positive cash flow within three to five years, no bank will refuse to finance the investment. Once investment is made, the quality of service is improved, the public purse is relieved and we all gain. Even at this stage, I urge members of the Opposition to recognise that privatisation is not a matter of dogma; it is a matter of recognising one of the great truths, which is that, however much money is available to a Transport Minister, of whatever party, there will always be more demands than funds to meet them. In those circumstances, we should be tapping the private sector market, which after all is the only other real source of capital available to any Government beyond that which they can raise by taxing, borrowing or printing. Regardless of which party is in power and how much the Chancellor gives the Secretary of State for Transport, there will be more demands on the public purse.

The hon. Member dilates on the advantages of the private sector, but the blunt truth is that, in the Government's spending programme for 1993–94, London Underground lost precisely £300 million. That went to Government spending on the roads programme. Which roads programmes benefited from London Underground's loss in the 1993–94 capital programme?

The hon. Gentleman knows that, even if I wished to, I could not answer that. If he has any pretensions to assuming office in this Department, he would do well to recognise that well over 90 per cent. of goods and people are transported by road. It beggars belief that Opposition Members can treat the road programme as if it were entirely dispensable—as if there were no value in relieving city centres of the appalling problems of pollution and of asthma among young children, which they are keen to allege but not so keen to see relieved by a bypass. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about assuming that all the shortfall in public transport expenditure could necessarily be made up merely by massive transfers from the road programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South did the House a service by raising the subject. I emphasise the positive aspects of the work of Denis Tunnicliffe of London Underground Ltd. and of Clive Hodson of London Buses. LUL's company plan led to the rationalisation of more than 1,000 pay and grading agreements, which previously created a climate of jobsworth that made any management improvements on the underground almost impossible to achieve. The company plan, which was not an easy task, rationalised those pay and grading agreements into an intelligent managerial structure. That has allowed London Underground to make huge leaps in quality, although I recognise that much investment is needed in the Northern line—a case that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South prosecutes assiduously on behalf of his constituents.

I share an interest in the southern half of the line, which is where I live, and I know the stations to which the hon. Member for Streatham referred, running from the Oval down to Morden. There is, none the less, clear evidence, to which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission referred in its 1991 report, of the way in which management action has transformed the quality of the line. My hon. Friend will know that we now receive few complaints about the line compared with only two or three years ago. That has been achieved not by large investment but by tremendous management effort. I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who are involved in the management of the Northern line because they have done a superb job. On present form, it looks as if the refurbishment of the line will now he completed before 2003, not 2005. I accept that that is too long away for any of us to take great pleasure from, but the programme is there and we plan to take it forward. I know that if there is any opportunity to do so, my hon. Friend will urge me to urge, in turn, LT to give that scheme high priority.

The management improvement means that, in the second year of the LT customer charter, we see standards improving across the board, and those standards being monitored not—I am sorry to use the analogy again, but it is important—by a man with a clipboard, but by customer reactions, obtained live by independent survey. They are a serious sign of whether we are getting the system right.

Both the hon. Members for Streatham and for Newham, North-West spoke of bus deregulation. On the evidence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is entirely right. I accept that the trade unions, many Labour local authorities and, I am sorry to say, normally quite intelligent Labour Members of Parliament all hate it, for obvious reasons, but bus deregulation has achieved exactly what my hon. Friend has said—a great deal more bus miles run.

If one wants to get people on buses, the first thing that one has to do is run a bus. That is a simple proposition, but it is one that even Labour Members should be able to get their minds around. Once one has done that, it also makes sense to try to get the operating costs of the buses down, and they are down by about a third. Far more importantly, the subsidy required from the taxpayer has been reduced by half. That is the experience of deregulation outside London.

I congratulate on behalf of other hon. Members the hon. Member for Streatham for his part in the work of the Select Committee, which produced a rather helpful report on bus deregulation. I know that it is a matter of great political importance, so it imported a note of potential danger, which is perhaps understandable, in suggesting that unless certain steps were taken, there could be dangers in bus deregulation in London. I accept that proposition. It would be irresponsible to introduce any significant change into a market as sophisticated as London unless one were entirely clear what the changes were designed to achieve. One should take account of experience elsewhere —whether in Sheffield, Glasgow, Oxford or Bristol—the good and the bad, the advantages and the disadvantages.

I welcome the opportunity to tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that the Department has not yet formally responded to the Select Committee's report. I want to take some time to give it the attention that it deserves. I can say now that I think that it was right to point out that we need to know clearly what we shall do about the extra buses that are the happy consequence of bus deregulation. I am convinced of the need to ensure, by legislation if necessary, the continuation of, for example, the travel card. The concessionary fares scheme will continue, and continue to be funded by the boroughs as now, and it will apply across the board, not simply among selected operators in selected areas.

I give those commitments for a straightforward reason. If I were not to do so, it would imply that I did not understand what the market for public transport in London was. I hope that the House will give me credit for at least understanding that. Anyone who bothered to examine what makes London's public transport tick would understand why the travel card is important. It is the key to the willingness of people to use the system and to their ability to use it. I want to see it developed with such things as stored value ticketing. That is not available at the moment, but technology is bringing it forward, and it will open up a whole new market.

I believe that about 85 per cent. of routes will be run commercially in London. That has been the experience outside and the London bus executive will be funded to secure those socially necessary routes that are not profitable. That would again be a necessary part of the deregulation process. If, with those caveats, we can move forward, it is with one signal proposition as our banner —that deregulation does not mean no regulation.

I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will take some comfort from the fact that I do not foresee deregulation as meaning a free-for-all. It is important to learn lessons from elsewhere in the country and from our experience of the workings of the 1985 Act. I believe that, in general, the experience has been good, but it would be crass not to open our eyes and look at experience elsewhere.

Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South on giving us the opportunity to have this useful debate. If I may say so without incurring the wrath of the Whips, we enjoy each other's company in these debates. At least, I do; I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. God knows, his taste is so eclectic that I have no idea what he enjoys, but I am prepared to make my statement on a unilateral basis—

See me afterwards.

I will indeed see the hon. Gentleman afterwards. I hesitate to think what, at 2 o'clock in the morning, he has in mind. Still, with his rather eclectic tastes I have no doubt that we can think of something amusing.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the Government"s response to some of the points that have been raised. I believe that the future of public transport in London is exciting. It will involve more commercialisation, more private initiative and investment and an awareness of the need to achieve yet better and better standards. I hope to take that work forward through the interesting days that lie ahead over the next 12 months.

I am glad to have this opportunity to say something further about my Energy Conservation Bill, which was first presented to the House as a ten-minute Bill on 24 February. I shall begin by briefly reiterating its main provisions. Its core provision is to require district and borough councils, after extensive public consultation, to draw up energy conservation plans for all domestic properties in their areas with the aim of achieving energy savings of 10, 20 or 30 per cent. The plans would assess the estimated reduction in fuel bills, the resulting reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and the cost of implementing the plans.

The relevant Secretary of State would set a date for the completion of the plans, which would be sent to him. He would then, at his discretion—I emphasise that—publish a timetable for the implementation of the plans and make arrangements for the funding. Local authorities would ensure that the works to bring about increased energy efficiency were carried out. Almost inevitably nowadays, they would do that in their role as enablers rather than as providers.

From that focused programme of activity, a whole range of benefits would flow. First, there would be environmental benefits. Under the Rio accord, the Government are committed to stablising carbon dioxide emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that that target will not bring about a stabilisation of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. To achieve that, the United Nations estimates that we need a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the near future. I repeat that the Government's commitment is to stabilise by the year 2000.

With 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom's CO₂ emissions deriving from the domestic sector, a programme activated through my Bill could make a useful contribution. Of course, there would also be reductions in sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Other instruments will have to be brought into play, as well as the one proposed in the Bill. The Combined Heat and Power Association advocates a target of 6,000 MW from combined heat and power—treble the present level—by the year 2000. Will the Minister say tonight whether the Government would be prepared to adopt that target? However, I say that merely in passing, and I shall now return to my Bill.

In addition to the reduction in atmospheric pollution, health gains would result from the elimination of cold and damp in homes, and there would be subsequent savings in social security expenditure for health authorities. Landlords, both public and private, would gain through reduced maintenance costs, which would slacken the upward pressure on rents. Newark and Sherwood district council has made an efficient attempt at quantifying many of the savings.

The quality of life, especially for poorer families, would be significantly enhanced. Their energy cost savings would release additional spending power. Another important consequence of the measure would be job creation—in manufacturing, distribution and installation. That would, in turn, result in an improved tax take for the state and a reduction in unemployment and social security benefits —a virtuous cycle.

Order. At this hour, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that, as a general rule applicable to all substantive motions for the Adjournment, the subject to be discussed must not involve legislation, except by incidental reference. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in reminding the House, at this early hour, of the exciting prospect of his future legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I was not aware of that rule, but I shall studiously avoid reference to legislation from now on.

There has been massive support for the proposals in principle—there is room for modification. A total of 110 district and county councils have expressed support for them, and the range of other organisations to have done so is truly impressive. It includes environmental organisations, ranging from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, through to the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

Other supporters include the Institute of Housing, the Trades Union Congress, the National and Local Government Officers Association, the Gas Consumers Council and the National Housing and Town Planning Council. Significantly. the list also includes groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Age Concern, Help the Aged. the Disabled Living Foundation and the Right to Fuel Campaign. In addition, more than 350 Members of Parliament have registered their support for such proposals. either by signing early-day motion 1483 or by letter to me from organisations that support the measures. There is wide-ranging and impressive support for such proposals.

Both because of the programme's intrinsic merits and the overwhelming support. the Government must take seriously the proposals and the topic. That is particularly true in view of the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel—a measure announced after I presented my ten-minute Bill. The proposals have suggested that funds for energy efficiency programmes and works should be through a levy on electricity and gas bills. I am sure that such a provision would rightly be regarded as inappropriate. as domestic fuel is to be taxed.

The Government presented their proposal for VAT on domestic fuel partly as an environmental tax. Now, it is a sine qua non of environmental taxation that it should be recycled in some form to correct the environmental phenomenon that the tax is supposed to address. If a proportion of the VAT proceeds are recycled to meet the cost of a domestic energy efficiency programme, the Government's claim that VAT is an environmental tax would gain some credence and some of the hardship that VAT on domestic fuel will impose on the less well-off, the elderly and the disabled would be mitigated. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Government have no plans for any major environmental legislation in the next Session.

I turn to some of the comments made by the Lord President of the Council in his reply to me and some of the supporters of my proposals. He referred to some of the Government's energy efficiency schemes and suggested that more could be achieved by encouragement than by introducing a mandatory requirement for the drawing up of schemes. I say two things in reply. First, some of the Government's schemes, especially the home energy efficiency scheme—HEES—are laudable enough but too limited in scope. That is recognised by the managers of the HEES Neighbourhood Energy Action whom I have met and who support my proposals.

Secondly, the plans that would be introduced under my recommendations would provide a source of information and data that would maximise the effectiveness of, for example, HEES, whether at the existing expenditure level or an expanded version of it. In 1992, HEES incurred Government expenditure of £45 million. In the same way, schemes introduced by the Energy Saving Trust, which is one of the Government's instruments for bringing about energy savings and environmental improvements, would find the framework provided by the comprehensive plans envisaged in my proposals invaluable. Clearly, there is a need for a comprehensive account of the need for energy, the scope and opportunities for it and the means to bring it about.

The support of many local authorities does not indicate an unwillingness to accept mandatory responsibility. Local authorities accept that it is something that they can undertake as long as financial provision is made by the Exchequer to meet costs. The core of my energy efficiency suggestions is the information-gathering process. Plans involving information would enable the work to he prioritised according to social need and environmental impact to achieve maximum efficiency. It is acknowledged that that is lacking in the haphazard collection of schemes operated by the Government at present.

Once the plans have been drawn up and are in place, the Secretary of State could timetable their implementation according to what is realistic in budgetary terms and in keeping with the Government's policy and priorities. My proposals would not commit the Government to a massive investment programme from the beginning of the process, although a substantial investment would be more than justified and bring about great benefits.

Suggestions for modifying the proposals would be welcome, and some organisations have already committed themselves on them. For example, regional energy boards have been suggested. Perhaps that would be a superfluous tier, and other details of that suggestion have been criticised. The Government may have reservations about strengthening local authorities and giving them a more prominent function in the development of energy efficiency. However, housing and environmental health departments are uniquely qualified to carry out the kind of survey work involved in preparing plans. They would have a crucial role, but not necessarily as providers.

Contractors who currently deliver the home energy efficiency scheme for Neighbourhood Energy Action, would be well placed to carry out installations. Organisations such as TECs could stimulate interest and carry out the training programmes that would be necessary to implement such ambitious proposals.

There is no problem about making changes, but comprehensive provision for a radical improvement in domestic energy efficiency is crucial for environmental, social and economic reasons. My proposals attempt to describe how such provision might be made.

I welcome the debate, but not the hour at which it is taking place. One of my colleagues who is no longer in the Chamber said that the best contribution that we could make to energy conservation would be to turn off the lights and go home. There is something in that, but our strange procedures require us to be here at this hour.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on the immense amount of work and commitment that he has put into the issue of energy conservation. Labour strongly favours such a policy, and many months ago we published our policy document on energy efficiency for the environment and the economy. It contains detailed proposals for a scheme for household energy conservation which would have an enormous number of benefits, and, unusually in social policy terms, they could be obtained at limited cost.

Such a policy would contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We gave a commitment on that in Rio that must be met by the Government. I see in today's issue of The Times—today is still yesterday under the funny rules of the House—that the Secretary of State for the Environment is apparently about to announce proposals to increase energy conservation measures in business. I do not know whether the Minister will tell us anything about that. That is the first objective that would be met by Labour's scheme.

The second benefit of our scheme is enormously important at this time, because it would create thousands of desperately needed jobs that would enable people to cease relying on benefits and start making a contribution to their communities. That would also enable them to regain their independence and not have the humiliation of having to live on benefits.

Thirdly, it would help to solve the enormously serious problem of fuel poverty. Far too many of our citizens struggle from week to week to keep themselves and their children warm and to pay their bills. A serious programme of energy efficiency and conservation in households would help to relieve that poverty.

Fourthly, under Labour's proposals, the details of which I shall shortly present to the House, there would be no cost to the Exchequer because the scheme would be funded by requiring gas and electricity providers to invest in energy conservation measures and put on all the households that had been so improved a cost that would be less than the amount that was saved. In the long term, that would pay for the measures and create an incentive for energy providers to invest in energy efficiency. That would be better than their current incentive, which is to try to sell as much energy as possible, despite the damage to the environment and to people who suffer from fuel poverty.

Labour's proposals differ somewhat from those of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. He said that he was interested in any proposals that might improve on his. I hope that he has read our document: I feel that it has some advantages, although we have exactly the same objective.

Let me tell a story about my constituency that encapsulates the enormous benefit that can result from this kind of social policy. The Ladywood ward of my constituency contains many maisonettes and tower blocks that were built in the 1960s. They are very badly insulated, with underfloor electric heating which was installed at a time when electricity was very cheap and was provided very inefficiently. Those blocks are now riddled with cold, damp and black mould; people often come to my advice bureaux bringing items of clothing covered in mould, and telling me about the number of times children suffering from asthma have been in and out of hospital. Evidence I saw a few years ago suggests not only that damp and cold heighten suffering from asthma and bronchitis, but that the spores in the mould damage children's lungs in the long term. The same story is told up and down the country.

In one block, Beale house, the tenants banded together rather than taking legal action individually against the local authority over the provision of unfit housing. They found a local solicitor, and acted collectively against the local authority—as citizens are entitled to do under existing housing legislation—on the ground that it had provided inadequate housing. They cited the damp and mould. They won their case in the first court: the local authority was ordered to improve the block and provide insulation and better heating.

Birmingham city council then had to decide what to do. It knew that if the case was upheld it would be bankrupt, given all the blocks and maisonettes in the city that were in a similar condition: much as it might have wanted to improve the heating and insulation in all those blocks, it had not the resources to do so. It told the Beale house tenants that it would appeal against the ruling, that the tenants could act collectively against the local authority, and that it would honour the victory of the tenants of that particular block.

The council got together with the Midlands electricity board to launch a programme of insulation in the block, and to install off-peak electrical heating. The results were truly wonderful. At that time—some years ago—a "hard to heat" allowance was still provided under DSS regulations; all the tenants receiving benefits received the allowance—which, of course, cost the Exchequer money.

The net result was the provision of jobs in an area of high unemployment. The block was insulated and equipment was installed—equipment that had been built in the west midlands. People's bills were reduced significantly. People were warmer, and had more hot water. Moreover, the Exchequer saved money because the "hard to heat" allowances were no longer required. That superb social-policy move brought benefits to the environment and individuals: it ended fuel poverty, and improved the health of my constituents' children.

The Labour party—and the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which we are not allowed to mention, but we can mention the suggestions that he has made tonight—proposes the adoption of such a policy on a national level. We should change the regulations controlling the providers of gas and electricity. The appointment of a regulator for the gas industry since deregulation has introduced some sensible provisions—for instance, the E-factor, which seeks to encourage energy efficiency in gas providers. However, there is no similar control on electricity providers.

As I said earlier, funding such investment through a premium on bills that was smaller than the saving that would come to individual citizens if we went for big packages of energy insulation would mean that the poor would be better off, no bills would go up, people would be warmer, there would be less fuel poverty and our carbon dioxide emissions would go down.

There would be no cost to the public sector borrowing requirement because the investment would be funded by private borrowing by the domestic fuel users. It is a wonderful scheme that would benefit everyone and would overcome many of the problems that the country faces.

It is shocking and surprising that the Government have not seriously considered the scheme and gone for it. In contrast, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, the Government propose to impose VAT on fuel. That is an enormously unpopular proposal which will probably cost the Government the Christchurch by-election, and rightly so. Yet again the measure will bite most heavily on the poorest people in our country. That is the record of the Government since they took power in 1979.

The Government claim that the reason for the measure is protection of the environment. That is a bogus claim. Anyone who has scrutinised the proposal objectively knows that the imposition of VAT on fuel is a tax-gathering measure at the cost of some of the least well-off people in our country. Other measure are available to protect the environment if the Government were really interested. The remedy is energy conservation.

In case the Minister intends to repeat the disreputable allegations made by the Prime Minister about current Labour party policy on energy, let me say that we are, have always been and continue to be opposed to the proposal to impose VAT on domestic fuel. We are currently engaged in a consultation about our environmental policy. We have asked members of our party to consult with local communities about the current European Community proposals for a carbon energy tax. As the EC is putting the proposal to all the countries of the Community, and the proposal appears to be favoured by most countries except Britain, we have asked for the views of members of our party on it.

The Prime Minister misuses that consultation to suggest that the Labour party is in favour of VAT on fuel. That is simply untrue. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to pursue such disreputable and not entirely honest allegations at this late hour of the night.

We in the Labour party welcome the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and his proposals for an improvement in energy conservation. We recommend to him, to the Government and to everyone else the Labour party's scheme as being slightly preferable, more efficient and less bureaucratic than some of the details of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I do not say that in a negative spirit. We have the same objective. It is a question of how best to achieve it.

We deeply regret that the Government have gone for VAT on fuel. That will hurt those who are fuel poor in our country who are not in a position to and will be even less in a position to invest in energy-saving measures. We further regret that the Government, in their great programme of deregulation, propose to reduce the standards for insulation contained in the building regulations rather than improving them. We suspect that that is partly because the committee which is examining deregulation for the Government includes representatives of the building industry who, of course, give funds to the Tory party. We regret that.

Even at this late hour, I suggest to the Minister that the Government should take up proposals for energy conservation and energy efficiency which would benefit all of us at little cost to the Government.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has given us a useful opportunity to discuss energy efficiency.

I wondered how long the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) would speak before she came clean on the Labour party's proposals for VAT on fuel. I thought that she sought to get her retaliation in rather early to explain away the most recent Labour party briefing which recommended an energy tax. The hon. Lady's protestation that Labour had never contemplated value added tax on energy would carry more conviction if it were not the case that a Labour party document published in 1990, "Looking to the Future", stated:

"Proposals by the European Commission to remove the zero rating from Value Added Tax would impose new burdens on the poorest in our community."

The House ought to take careful note of the next sentence:

"Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children's clothing should remain as an essential part of the VAT system."

No mention there of VAT on energy or domestic fuel. I have no doubt that Labour's draftsmen chose their words very carefully—just as the hon. lady did this evening, in seeking to claim that suggestions for some form of energy tax, as proposed in Labour News recently, were part of a wider consultation exercise among constituency parties.

At least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up for this debate—unlike hon. Members of other parties.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry that, at 2.30 in the morning, the hon. Gentleman repeats dishonest allegations made in the House by the Prime Minister. The Minister knows very well that an old Labour party document stating, "We don't support"—

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady—

I am sorry, but the Minister did give way.

Order. The Minister has given way.

For the Minister to suggest that an old Labour party document saying that we did not propose the extension of VAT to items "such as" means that we were in favour of imposing it on domestic fuel is unreasonable and unworthy of him. The document to which the Minister referred is part of a consultation with party members as to their views on current EEC policy. May we please have an honest debate, not dishonest and misleading allegations?

That was not worth giving way for, so I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady again. I have no doubt that in the run-up to the last general election Labour party draftsmen chose very carefully the words to appear in "Looking to the Future". However much the hon. Lady protests, she cannot disguise the fact that that document specifically excluded any reference to VAT on energy. She cannot deny that Labour's most recent consultation document recommends that party members should use

"Chris Smith's article to help you discuss the following questions: Economic Policy—In what ways can economic policy he developed to encourage environmental protection? You might consider Taxation Policy (e.g., energy tax…)".

Most people would rely on a reasonable interpretation of those words, and most people can understand plain English.

As I said, at least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up to explain her party's policies—unlike Liberal Democrat Members. I am sad about that, because I wanted to ask them a few questions. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) are in their places. Liberal Democrats have been scurrying around parts of the country saying how monstrous it is that we propose to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. That is surprising given that only recently the Liberal Democrats produced a paper entitled "Costing the Earth—Liberal Democrat Policies for an Environmentally Sustainable Economy". All good stuff, one might think. It states:

Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy."

I wonder whether the Liberal Democrat candidate in Christchurch is explaining that to the local electors. The document goes on to say that

The United Kingdom is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible",

say the Liberals,

"to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward, but phase them in at lower levels than otherwise—for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel."

If a Liberal Democrat Member had bothered to turn up in the House this evening, I imagine that he or she would have sought to argue, as did the hon. Member for Ladywood, that that means something other than what it means in plain English. But in plain English, to end the zero rate of VAT on fuel means no more than that.

Will the Minister address the suggestion that I made—that part of the proceeds from VAT, granted that that imposition is to be made, should be dedicated specifically to financing energy efficiency programmes?

I noted the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I shall turn to it in a moment. First, however, I want to deal with the question of VAT generally and the policies of the Opposition parties towards it. The hon. Gentleman made his policy very clear.

The Liberal Democrats go on to say:

"we also recognise that the poorest income groups usually lack the capital required to invest in these items."—

meaning energy efficiency appliances.

"Although we are clear that this problem must be addressed, we are equally clear that this must not" —

the word "not" is in italics, so that we all clearly understand that the Liberal Democrats mean "not"—

"be achieved through granting exemptions to particular target groups; everyone must face the same incentives to use less and cleaner energy."

The Liberal Democrats do not even intend, therefore, to mitigate the impact of their VAT proposals for fuel—

Will the Minister give way?

No, I am not going to give way.

They do not intend to mitigate the impact of those proposals on the most vulnerable members of society.

Will the Minister give way?

No. The last time that I gave way to a Labour Member it was not worth doing so. I want to make some progress.

What is clear, therefore, is that the Liberal Democrats propose to introduce VAT on fuel and that they do not intend to grant exemptions even to the more vulnerable members of society. I hope that that is being explained throughout the country.

It should not, of course, come as a surprise to people in Dorset. As long ago as 1990, Liberal parliamentary candidates in Dorset made that clear. I have here the Dorset Evening Echo of 3 December 1990 in which the Liberal Democrat candidate for Dorset, South proposed that there should be VAT on domestic fuel.

I hope, therefore, that it is clearly appreciated that the Opposition parties would, if given the opportunity, impose VAT on fuel and that some of their protestations—

Will the Minister give way?

—are unwarranted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that the Labour party had no intention ever of so doing, he will simply repeat what his hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said. If he wants to make another point, I shall gladly give way to him.

I am surprised that the Minister did not give way before, but we have to be grateful for small mercies at this time of night. Can the Minister tell me where it is said in the Conservative party manifesto that the Conservatives were going to put VAT on fuel?

It did not say in the Conservative manifesto, in terms, that we were going to do that. However, the point that I am making is that the Opposition parties made it clear that they intended to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. It does not lie in their mouths to deny that, to oppose VAT on domestic fuel or to suggest that, if they had the opportunity, they would not have introduced VAT on fuel as an energy efficiency measure.

The Opposition parties make a suggestion and they simply attack it when the Government introduce the proposal. It would be more honest and straightforward if Opposition parties and Opposition candidates on the hustings made clear where they truly stand on such proposals.

I do not intend to take up much more time because I sense that the House would like to make progress. I should like to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North because he asked about energy policy.

The debate is timely because, in the past few days, the Government have published a consultation paper that sets out proposals for a national sustainable development strategy and proposals for completing the programme to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made those proposals clear in an announcement today.

Our sustainable development strategy will consider the state of the environment now and how it might change over the next 20 years on present trends. It will consider the way in which development in different areas of the economy can both harm and benefit the environment and ways in which we as individuals can promote the principles of sustainable development.

As I said, last week we published a consultation paper setting out our proposals on sustainable development. Indeed, we have led the field on sustainable development for several years by monitoring and reporting on our environmental policies. Since 1990, when we published our White Paper "This Common Inheritance", we have had an annual progress report on our environmental policies.

The key to our success has been in setting ourselves specific targets. Last year's report listed nearly 500 separate environmental commitments from Government Departments and other public bodies. We have already acted on the great majority of them and have committed ourselves to further action.

We have been at the forefront of international action to tackle the threat of climate change. We played a major part in brokering the framework convention on climate change in Rio last year, and we are committed to producing a national plan, setting out in full how we will meet our obligations under the convention by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced today our proposals for completing Britain's carbon dioxide programme. As no one referred to this earlier—perhaps because hon. Members had not realised that the Government had moved forward in that regard—let me briefly set out, for the benefit of the House, the elements of our proposals for completing our carbon dioxide programme.

We intend to strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office programmes of information and advice, to stimulate additional savings from industry, and to reinforce the work of the Energy Saving Trust to encourage households to use energy efficiently. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North called for that to happen, and it will happen through the Energy Saving Trust and we expect public sector bodies to provide a lead.

In addition, we intend further savings to be achieved in transport emissions and a further increase in the target for combined heat and power to 5,000 M W. That is a substantial increase. It may not be quite as much as the Combined Heat and Power Association would have liked, but it is a substantial move in that direction.

Earlier this year, we discussed widely our carbon dioxide programme. The issues that were discussed included the types of measures that the Government should take as part of the programme, and the role of other organisations and groups outside Government. Our view has been that an effective and efficient national carbon dioxide programme requires a partnership approach. We believe that our role is to provide the right fiscal, regulatory and financial framework for our programme to tackle carbon dioxide and to help to disseminate advice and information on the many actions that can be taken to achieve savings.

Decision makers in business and each and every one of us in our own homes throughout the country can take the action that will lead to lower emissions. We are looking to business groups, trade associations and voluntary and consumer groups to act as channels of information and encouragement.

Several measures have already been announced. They include those announced in the March Budget to increase the price of energy in domestic transport sectors, which I have already discussed, the establishment of the Energy Saving Trust to provide financial incentives to energy efficiency, and an increase in the objective for renewable energy. Taken together, those measures are expected to stimulate savings amounting to two thirds of our national target.

Last week my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced his proposals for further renewable energy orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation in pursuit of the new objective for renewable energy. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a trial of local energy advice centres being conducted by the Energy Saving Trust, with finance from the Energy Efficiency Office—again, a measure that I hope will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and other hon. Members who are keen for energy efficiency to be promoted.

We have considered what additional measures should be taken to complete the programme. We have concluded that we should take further action to help business to make energy savings, so we shall strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office's programme of advice and information aimed at business, and we will discuss with business groups how to obtain the maximum response. Significant additional savings can be achieved in that sector. We recognise that public bodies should provide a lead, so we will be setting further targets for the Governments estate—that is, buildings in our control—which should take energy used by central Government down to well below 80 per cent. of 1990 levels by the year 2000, and looking to other public sector bodies to adopt similarly stringent targets.

We will also continue to provide information and encouragement to households to use energy efficiently, and we will increase the resources devoted to that, working with the Energy Saving Trust to reinforce the impact of the trust.

Concern has been expressed about the prospect of increasing transport emissions. We believe that it is reasonable to work towards further savings by the year 2000 over and above that which is expected to be saved as a result of the fuel duty increases that were announced in the March Budget. We also take the view that energy should be produced and delivered in a way that keeps carbon dioxide emissions at the lowest cost-effective level. consistent with our other environmental goals. That is primarily the responsibility of the energy industries. We will be working towards the achievement of 5,000 M W of combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000—an increase of 1,000 MW on our previous target.

The framework of our carbon dioxide programme is now in place. Many organisations have indicated their willingness to participate in the programme. We are substantially ahead of our international partners in meeting our programme for carbon dioxide emissions, and we look forward to their joining us so that, together, the international community can meet its obligations.

I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will consider the measures that we have already had in place for some time. For instance, I refer to the £60 million that we have been investing in the greenhouse demonstration programme; the best practice programme of the Energy Efficiency Office, which has been going on for many years; the home energy efficiency scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute, and which provides grants to help to provide basic insulation measures and advice to low-income households; the promotion of the take-up of home energy labelling; our consultations on proposals to strengthen provisions in the building regulations which set standards for the insulation of dwellings; and the setting up of the Energy Saving Trust, in partnership with British Gas and other energy providers to develop programmes designed to promote the efficient use of energy.

I hope that the House will accept that those measures, taken together, represent a comprehensive programme to promote energy efficiency in a manner that ensures that we can meet our international obligations and, at the same time, ensures our competitiveness.

I welcome the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the further development of the programme for providing efficient, up-to-date helicopters for our armed forces. Many hon. Members believe that they are crucial to the effective defence of our country. The debate refers specifically to support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.

I do not believe that I need to spend too much time arguing that it is necessary for us to provide such helicopters. Every indication suggests that modern warfare is increasingly becoming a matter of quick, positive response. Helicopters are an essential part of that reaction.

Whatever reductions it may be possible to make in our defence budget and that of other nations, there is no evidence that any power, major or minor, has decided that it is possible to reduce the requirement for and dependence on helicopters.

We have had experience of warfare in the south Atlantic and more recent experience in the deserts of Arabia. We pray not, but we could have experience of warfare in the mountains of Bosnia. Those theatres of conflict are immensely different, but it would not be possible for us to maintain our national interests in each one if the helicopter did not act as a main element in our operations.

We can move on from deciding whether we need to increase and develop our helicopter capacity for our armed forces to considering what kind of helicopter is needed for the support role undertaken by the RAF. We need a utility helicopter that is capable of a multiplicity of roles. If possible, we need a helicopter whose design relates closely to those used by other sections of the armed forces. That immediately brings to mind the decision of the Royal Navy to choose the Merlin version of the EH101 helicopter, which is built by Agusta of Italy and Westland of the United Kingdom.

I should declare an interest—and speak with pride—about the fact that my constituency is home to the Westland subsidiary of FPT Ltd. It is at the cutting edge of technology in the use of laminated substances for self-sealing petrol tanks and other containers that need to survive the kind of treatment to which they are subject in war.

The United Kingdom headquarters of IBM is also in my constituency. It is good to see the commercial expertise of that great international company involved in collaboration and co-operation with a British defence manufacturer. I take pride in that, too.

The EH101 is the only truly modern helicopter being developed in Europe which will be available within the period of need to our armed forces. That is why I suggest that the Minister puts it at the top of his procurement list for the RAF. This is not just another helicopter that one could purchase off the shelf anywhere else. It is designed for the needs of today and of tomorrow. It has the potential to meet the needs of our armed forces for many years to come.

I shall not go into the details of the aircraft's technical advantages over its most obvious rivals, but it would be sensible at least to list them for the benefit of those who examine these matters closely. Apart from its Anglo-Italian design, the EH101 has certain technical advantages over all its competitors.

First, the design of the rotor blades is remarkable. That is the key to the technical efficiency of the helicopter. Nothing else flying either in Europe or America offers the same efficiency.

Secondly, allied to the efficiency of the rotors is the increased capability of the EH101 due to its built-in active control of vibration. Vibration is a major cause of wear in helicopters, leading to problems of maintenance and repair, which are in turn key factors in the immediate availability of an aircraft in wartime. The EH101 can measure and counteract the development of vibration, thanks to its careful original design.

With any aircraft being used intensively in war, there is a need to check on its efficiency and safety, both for the success of an operation and for the safety of the crew. Such monitoring of safety and usage has been applied later to some helicopters, but the EH101 is the first to have had the monitoring system built in from the start. The idea was that this is an essential: it should not be a boll-on afterthought.

I referred earlier to the different theatres of war in which our forces might be called upon to protect our interests. The EH101 has an enormous advantage over its potential competitors in that it has an all-weather capacity that is unsurpassed—indeed, unequalled—by any similar rotor aircraft. It means that it is an aircraft which can be used in weather in which helicopters would usually be grounded. Such arguments must be taken into account when we make a final decision.

We have a British product which is well ahead of its nearest competitor and which is already likely to be a world beater. When the Royal Navy announced that it would opt for the Merlin version of the EH101, Canada followed and placed an order for the naval version but also ordered some of the utility versions, which we are recommending for the Royal Air Force. It is clear that other countries are watching closely the decision to be taken by the Ministry of Defence. They are looking to see what decision the British take on British products. If we show confidence, the product will he a world beater in not only the military but the commercial sense. It will be something that we can promote with great enthusiasm.

I stress that the EH101 is not an expensive aircraft that we are trying to persuade the Minister to buy; it can be sold on the basis of value for money. If the Royal Air Force follows the Royal Navy and if, at some later stage, the Army also decided on a compatible helicopter to allow for flexible operations and the exchange of aircraft and spares in an emergency, not only would this helicopter remain excellent value, but its unit costs would be reduced. If the EH101 were the helicopter chosen across the armed forces, we would be getting an extremely good bargain. That should surely be kept in mind in the present economic circumstances.

I have sought to establish that we need a decision that the EH101 is the prime choice. The final question is, when should an order be placed? The answer is tonight. A decision should be taken here and now. We need a commitment that the EH101 is the Government's choice. We need the decision to be taken quickly so that it is possible to continue the development of this fine aircraft and move on rapidly to its production. We need immediate confirmation, which will itself convince potential customers that they can place their confidence where we have placed ours.

We must express our confidence in the EH101 project. A great deal of money has already been spent on it. It is not an untried proposal but an aircraft available as the basic helicopter for our armed forces well into the next century. It is the ideal choice as a support helicopter for the Royal Air Force.

Even at this very late hour, I am pleased to take part in this important debate on support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on initiating the debate and on the way in which he set out the arguments for the EH101 utility helicopter to fulfil our defence forces' requirements for support helicopters.

I thank other hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, who signed the motion and therefore enabled this debate to be extended to three hours.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his long-standing interest in the project. He has many potential subcontractors for the EH101 project in his constituency and he would have welcomed the opportunity to be here to participate in the debate, but unfortunately he has to visit the glorious Gloucester Regiment, which faces amalgamation. I believe that he must be there in time for reveille, so he is unable to be with us.

I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), whose constituency is the home of Westland, on supporting the EH101 project throughout. The saying that a politician's mind is conditioned by the state of his seat certainly applies to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have some difficulty in reconciling his support for the project with his views on the social chapter and his party's views on defence expenditure.

I put that point to him during our debate last Friday afternoon, but I was not satisfied with his response. He could not say which would cause the most damage to Westland's workers: the social chapter, with the additional burdens that it would impose on Westland as employers —Westland is very much against the social chapter—or the 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure that his party advocates. He did not say, and probably could not say, what the answer to those questions was.

He is not here now.

As my hon. Friend says, he is not here to answer, so we will continue to put such questions to him.

I have forgotten how many speeches I have made on defence matters, but in each I have made a plea for more helicopters. In April 1987, I thought that at last the Government had got the message, when the then Secretary of State announced that the Government would order 25 utility EH101 helicopters. We all cheered, but we are still awaiting confirmation of the order.

I note that the full title of today's debate is "Support helicopters for the Royal Air Force". I cannot boast a great constituency interest in the manufacture of the EH101, although I dare say that few constituencies do not have some aerospace content, but the Army Air Corps is just up the road from my constituency and down the road from my home. I am well aware that it would dearly like to be flying support helicopters for the Army. That, in a sense, is another debate, and I do not think that we want today's debate to be side tracked into a discussion about who should fly support helicopters. Let us just accept that our armed forces need them and, for the sake of the debate, that the RAF will be providing the pilots and the air crews.

Each time I have made my plea for more support helicopters the circumstances have changed and the need has become more urgent. We saw the collapse of the Warsaw pact in 1989, and the so-called new world order, which has developed into new world disorder. We saw the peace dividend lead to the previous Secretary of State's introduction of "Options for Change". We saw the creation of new military structures—smaller but better is the new basis for our armed forces.

We are seeing a far greater role for United Nations operations, following the Secretary-General's paper "The Agenda for Peace" with more peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building operations. There are 17 United Nations operations around the world, and 25 potential flashpoints where hostilities could break out at any moment where our troops may need to be deployed.

As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom should be ready to participate where Britain's national interest is identified—anywhere in the world. In the new NATO structure, in which we are privileged to lead the rapid reaction corps, we have an important role to play. Under the new-look NATO structure, a British-dominated rapid reaction corps totalling between 70,000 and 100,000 men will train for quick deployment. That means having an air mobile division made up of British, German, Belgian and Dutch units, and a southern region division, probably under Italian leadership.

We must have the equipment to meet our new role, and our new obligations worldwide, and that means greater flexibility for our armed forces, and far greater mobility—two important principles of war. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his introduction to the recently published White Paper on the defence estimates for 1993, said:

"improvements to our amphibious capability and the Army's anti-armour capability, and further investment in transport aircraft and support helicopters"

were proposed. He at least has at last got the message.

There is no doubt that, in trying to meet our obligations in providing peacekeeping and intervention forces, the United Kingdom is not adequately equipped. The fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence for this Session homes in on the problem of mobility and helicopters. It draws attention to the fact that a number of capabilities have been prioritised in the focus on intervention forces, the principal ones being helicopters, which are playing an increasingly important role in support and combat.

Our report goes on:

"A number of important choices remain to be made, notably on the choice of a support helicopter to replace the present fleet of ageing Wessex helicopters, and to complement the heavily stretched Pumas and Chinooks."

It draws attention to the fact that the RAF operates a fleet of 140 aircraft in all—Chinooks, Pumas and Wessex support helicopters. It concludes:

"It is, however, doubtful whether MoD has sufficient helicopters to be able to perform the increased role that they envisage, and we are concerned at the apparent prevarication and lack of urgency with which the Minister is addressing this point."

That is the Select Committee's conclusion this year.

We can go back to 1989–90, when it said in its third report:

"MOD's consideration of the requirement for support helicopters, and the way in which such a requirement should be met, stretches back to the mid 1970s and the matter needs urgent resolution."

And so we say again this evening.

Our report concludes:

"We consider that the Ministry must face up to the fact that delay and inaction is becoming costly both in financial and effectiveness terms and that a decision on the way forward must be made immediately."

I do not think that I need to say more, but I shall none the less.

In United Nations operations, especially in Bosnia, there is a great need for support helicopters. The United Kingdom has had to send Sea King helicopters to Bosnia, presumably because we have run out of support helicopters. We have none to spare; they are all far too busy in Northern Ireland, where almost half of all our helicopter hours were flown in 1991–92 in support of our security operations.

No one disputes the case for more helicopters. We could probably manage with fewer tanks, but that is another debate. The question is which helicopter should the Ministry of Defence order. Apparently, we have to consider three options. I wonder whether that is genuine or whether there is really only one that we must consider seriously. Currently, the force consists of 32 Chinooks, 42 Pumas and 64 Wessex, making a total of 138 support helicopters. That includes those undergoing repair, modification or refurbishment.

There is certainly a case for commonality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said. However, I should have thought that we could eliminate the Pumas —not because they are French, but because they are a very old design. They do not have the lift capability and they are too small. They carry only 12 men fully equipped; perhaps 16 not fully equipped. They do not have an adequate performance—the range is inadequate and they do not fly fast enough. They are a fair-weather aircraft, and my hon. Friend made the important point that we need a helicopter with all-weather capability.

The performance of the Chinook is not that bad. It certainly has good lift capability, and can carry 42 men in all. It has old technology and is not especially reliable. Indeed, it is notable that Chinooks are no longer used in support operations for North sea oil and gas exploration. It is certainly a costly aircraft—not so much in its unit cost, as Boeing Vertol have cut that to the bone to try to get orders, as in its life cycle costs, on which the MOD now rightly concentrates.

Even having got rid of all the amortisation, it still costs between £2,000 and £3,000 an hour to operate. That compares with £750 an hour for an EH101. It is obvious that the EH101 has a cost advantage. In fact, it only costs —I say "only", but it is still an expensive aircraft—about £12 million. One should also bear in mind the fact that the Chinook is an old design—30 years old—and needs midlife updates, which can be extremely costly. Those costs are presently estimated at between £4 million and £5 million.

We must not forget that all that expenditure occurs in the United States, so we pay for it in dollars and the work goes to American factories and workers. It has been the British Government's policy for many years to try to make the so-called two-way street of reciprocal sales and purchases with our American allies across the Atlantic more evenly balanced. The exchange is still 2:1 in favour of the United States of America, and to order Chinooks for the RAF would only make that two-way street more out of balance than it is already.

We might he able to justify the purchase of some Chinooks as so-called attrition buys to replace those that we have lost for one reason or another. We cannot justify buying a 30-year-old design when a new, modern technology aircraft is available. The RAF would not take that action were it considering the purchase of fixed-wing aircraft, so why does it even consider doing so when considering the purchase of helicopters?

Tonight we are considering the utility version of the EH101—EH stands for European Helicopters, which is a combination of Westland and Agusta. The commonality issue, which has been raised, is valid. The Ministry of Defence has already ordered 44 of the helicopters—the Merlin version—for the Royal Navy. It is important to have commonality with other countries within the rapid reaction corps, which I have mentioned.

The Italians, who belong to that force, are joint manufacturers, with Westland, of the aircraft. The Dutch, who are also in the unit, are keen on the project and have already, as a matter of defence policy, quoted a preference for buying more helicopters and fewer tanks. The all-weather capability is important in relation to the EH101, which does not ice up. That means that the big capability gap in helicopters has at last been closed.

We should not forget that Her Majesty's Government have already spent £1·3 billion on development of the aircraft—the air frames, the avionics and the engines. In all defence procurement it is important to consider the impact on Britain's industrial capability. There is no doubt that the helicopter would bring many jobs for British industry. It is estimated that 3,000 jobs would be created by the order for only 25 of the helicopters over three to four years.

The RTM322 Rolls-Royce engine is made jointly with Turbomeca of France—half the development goes to each country—which may improve the chances of the French looking to the aircraft as a better support helicopter than the Puma, as it has greater capability. That engine is already flying in the fourth preproduction aircraft.

The technological lead has been mentioned, and there is no doubt that the anti-vibration development—the active control structural response—means that the aircraft has great potential for civilian use. Those of us who have travelled in helicopters appreciate that vibration is one of the hazards. Undoubtedly, with a military version, the lack of vibration will have a significant bearing on the length of time that equipment on board lasts.

The sales potential of the EH101 is good. The Canadians have already ordered it for their navy, as well as the utility version. The middle east is certainly a big potential market. Japan is also a potential market. It is estimated that the market for the EH 101 is probably about 750 aircraft, so eventually there will be many jobs for British workers if worldwide sales achieve that target. We await the stamp of approval from the British Government for the utility version of the EH 101. Surely that will be a great encouragement to other countries to order it.

Paragraph 122 of the defence White Paper, which is the section on the RAF's air transport and support helicopter fleet, says how vital the EH101 is to strategic and tactical mobility. It says that the RAF Chinook helicopters

"are already the subject of a modernisation programme which will extend their lives well into the next century. We have been reassessing our requirement for support helicopters in the light of the changed strategic circumstances. We have concluded that, in view of the need for increased flexibility and mobility in the new operation environment, there is a need to procure additional support helicopters to supplement our existing assets. We are urgently considering how best this significant enhancement to our operational capability can be achieved."

Once more, we say "hear, hear" to that.

Timing is absolutely crucial. The Government cannot prevaricate any longer. We need to confirm the order for 25 EH101s and order a further 25 without delay.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I would join him in support if it did not disqualify me from my debate, which is next on the Order Paper. He explained why the Government had been prevaricating. Why has there been such a delay? Is it that the defence procurement budget cannot sustain such an imaginative and long-awaited approach, or is somebody on the military side in the MOD sticking the knife in?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that interesting intervention. As far as those who take a special interest in defence matters are concerned, somebody in the Ministry of Defence seems to have it in for the EH101. I will not name names this evening—perhaps another hon. Member will be brave enough to do so. There is no doubt in the minds of those who have investigated the matter that the preference of the Royal Air Force is for the EH101 helicopter, so probably only one person is standing out against it at present. Perhaps if it were someone else in that position, it would be a much easier decision for the Secretary of State to make. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position.

I hope that this is my last speech on the subject of the EH101 helicopter. I hope that the Minister has received the message loud and clear, and will appreciate that the order for these aircraft is one way to ensure that, in the words of the White Paper, we defend our future.

It must be well over 10 years since my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and I started to raise the subject of the EH101 in the House. Most Conservative Members have been ardent supporters of the home-grown product, and in that we have had Opposition support.

This is a unique occasion because there are no fewer than six Conservative Members in the Chamber who all have a direct interest in the EH101 and the Westland factory. It is sad that the person with the greatest interest in Westland—for obvious good reasons—is not here to support his constituents. I speak of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. Perhaps he has other fish to fry elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, the right hon. Gentleman has always supported the cause, and perhaps it falls to me to speak on his behalf and on behalf of his constituents.

Westland has about 7,000 workers, and probably well over 1,000 of them live in my constituency. The Lords Commissioner to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is in his place on the Front Bench, could probably lay claim to 700 or 800 of those workers. Other hon. Members who are present for the debate represent a substantial number of people who are directly employed by Westland.

However, that is only part of the total number, because all over the country and in—dare I mention it?—Christchurch, hundreds of subcontractors look to Westland for orders and, in particular, to the order for the EH101.

Over the years we have all shared a sense of frustration. I was with the management of Westland in Yeovil on the night that the agreement with the Italian Government was signed. We waited anxiously in case there was any slippage, and we wondered whether our Secretary of State for Defence had signed up and whether anyone would renege. There was a great sense of relief when, as a result of pressure, the agreement was finally signed. The co-operative agreement between us and the Italian Government and Agusta is unique.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, there was an agreement in 1987 to purchase the utility version of the EH101. We are not dealing with a public inquiry on the channel tunnel or Twyford down or with a bypass for Dorchester. We expect such inquiries to be long-winded because of the unbelievable democratic process. Public inquiries can go on for ever, but we are not discussing a public inquiry but an internal Ministry of Defence matter. It is almost unbelievable that we and the Westland work force are still waiting some six years later.

I accept that delicate balances sometimes have to be struck. I am reminded of the recent battle between Rosyth and Devonport. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is to reply to the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to strike a balance and make a political decision. Day after day, they were bashed and bullied by those on both sides of the argument: the Scottish parliamentary lobby spoke for Rosyth, while the vociferous west country group spoke for Devonport.

There is no such conflict with the EH101. It is a straight choice. The EH101 is first and foremost a British product, built in conjunction with the Italians; it is a modern, well-designed, superlative helicopter that will see us well into the next century. There is nothing wrong with the Chinook, but it is a bit clapped out in terms of design.

I made my last parachute jump from a Dakota. I loved the Dakota—it was a marvellous aircraft—but it was designed in 1937–38, and we were still parachuting from it in 1957–58. That does not detract from it, but when we have the opportunity to buy a really modern helicopter, for God's sake let's get on with it. There is 100 per cent. support for it in the House and the country. If my hon.

Friend the Minister told the House, "We have made this political decision", he would have the wholehearted support of hon. Members and the country.

Westland holds a unique place in the affection of our people. I have known and worked with the company for just over 20 years; it must be said that some 20 years ago it was not quite the company that it is today. What has happened to the work force and the factory over the past seven or eight years is almost unique: it is now a lean, fit company, producing a magnificent helicopter. I can only say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside suggested, it is high time we recognised that. By placing this initial order, we could trigger a potential order for 750 aircraft.

There has been some mention of where the opposition to the order lies. I do not know, and I do not much care; what I know is that we cannot pretend for much longer that we have a genuine air-mobile capability if our air-mobile force does not contain enough helicopters to warrant naming a brigade or division as air mobile.

This is not the time to discuss relative helicopter strengths. However, whether we look at the United States, the Germans or the French, we find that every country that has adopted an air-mobile role has provided sufficient helicopters. Only two weeks ago, in the debate on the estimates, I said that it was time for us to face up to the conflict—not that there is a conflict any longer—between the tank and the helicopter. We all know that the number of heavy battle tanks will be reduced dramatically: we must move to an air-mobile role, and we cannot do that without the EH101.

I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to stand up and, diplomatically—as I know he will—make it clear to the isolated pockets in the Ministry of Defence that may oppose the placing of the order that we will not put up with that any longer. It has to be a political decision. It would be welcomed by everyone in the country. The sooner that that decision is made, the better it will be for the work force at Westland and for everyone on this side of the House.

I join in the congratulations given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on his success in securing the debate. I also confess a touch of nostalgia to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer). I am perhaps a little older than I look, but my first flight was in a Dakota and I have a great affection for that aircraft.

I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, work at Westland. They are represented at all levels, from the chief executive, who is my constituent, to the shop floor. My hon. Friend mentioned the social chapter. There is deep anxiety about the effect that the social chapter would have on Westland's costs. It is worth passing that message through to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I concede that he has been a great supporter of the EH 101 project, but I hope that he will bear in mind some of the comments that have been made in the House about the social chapter.

The continuing success of Westland group is important to the south-west, which has seen a great contraction in the defence industries. That has served to heighten the impact of the recession throughout the region. As our armed forces seek to take their support helicopters into the next generation, Westland has produced in conjunction with Agusta the next generation helicopter, which is the only one of its type.

Already the Government have ordered the Merlin variant of the EH101 for the Royal Navy, but there has been overlong delay in implementing the original decision of Lord Younger when he was Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the Royal Air Force.

I should like to dwell on the jobs aspect and the technological advantages of the EH101, which I believe are clear. It has a unique all-weather capability and long-range operational potential, together with innovations to remove vibrations from the cabin. That demonstrates its advance over the present generation and places the aircraft at least seven years ahead of any possible rival. It fits precisely with the requirement of "Options for Change", namely, rapid reaction capability, which is so vital in this era of flexible response.

The EH101 would be an asset in not only military operations but humanitarian exercises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. The requirement to take part in humanitarian exercises is increasingly prevalent, as we were reminded by the United Nations Secretary-General's "Agenda for Peace". It is perhaps no coincidence that an earlier three-hour debate in the Chamber this evening was about the former Yugoslavia. The Sea King helicopter is playing a significant role in that very operation. If we look to the future, we can see the EH101, with its adaptability, playing an important humanitarian role.

I have no doubt that recent international events have served to highlight the fact that the Government's decision in 1987 to support the EH101 project was correct. The only competition in sight seems to come from overseas, either in a possible lower capacity helicopter, which is only on the drawing board at present, or in old technology aircraft such as Chinook or Puma. Replacements for old technology aircraft will inevitably be sought sooner or later by their producers, but with some considerable delay compared with the availability of the EH101.

In this efficiency-conscious era, it is important to seek commonality across our helicopter fleet, and the EH101 provides an opportunity to do that. With the Royal Navy using anti-submarine warfare, airborne early-warning and commando helicopters; the RAF using support, combat, research and rescue helicopters; and the potential for the Army and the Royal Marines to perform a variety of functions with a support helicopter, standardisation of the United Kingdom defence force fleet would bring obvious and varied advantages.

Cost is an important ingredient. The price for the utility EH101 is more competitive now, bearing in mind the technological advances that it embodies and the reduction in through-life costs that it offers compared with previous generations of helicopters. Also, I understand that Westland has offered to reduce the initial procurement price of both the Merlin and utility variants if the RAF order is placed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind. I thank him for his forbearance in recent weeks. Although I am new to this subject, I cannot help feeling that when my hon. Friend sees me coming down the Corridor, he thinks, "My goodness—here comes another support helicopter."

The EH 101 adds up to a convincing case for a British product which will be at the forefront of technology, and which can succeed in the intensely competitive overseas defence market. Success depends on winning overseas orders. The RAF order confirmation would not only add to the Government's seal of approval but would be a welcome fillip to the overseas saleability of both the military and civilian version.

Continuing indecision has made the battle to win orders more difficult than it might otherwise have been. The time must be right to put an end to that uncertainty. The estimated worldwide sales potential for 750 aircraft has a consequential spin-off worth at least £8 billion to this country—apart from orders that could develop in the United States.

Westland has a unique product that can exploit a considerable gap in the world market at a time when other manufacturers are not ready to fill it. The RAF needs support helicopters. When it comes to exports, success at home breeds success abroad. So there is common purpose, and one that will provide much-needed jobs throughout the south-west.

The necessary decision should not be further delayed. It would be welcome in not just Somerton and Frome but Christchurch, where there is a Westland facility that would benefit from the order. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do his best to ensure that a decision is made at the earliest possible opportunity.

I thank the large number of my hon. Friends who signed an application to the Speaker for this debate, and I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) who interrupted his holiday plans to introduce this debate on precisely the right note, which was maintained by my other hon. Friends.

We are here to endear ourselves to my hon. Friend the Minister at 10 minutes to four in the morning, and I hope that our diligence will be rewarded. I know that the Minister will not want us to speak for too long, as he has other things to do. It was good of him to come here to answer the debate, which I hope he will find persuasive.

I, as a matter of principle, support the theory that it is not for politicians to support one product or another when it comes to its adoption by the armed forces. However, for various reasons, that has become the practice in recent times, when the items concerned are competing domestically within the United Kingdom for the attention of the procurement division of the Ministry of Defence.

As has already been pointed out, this is not one of those occasions. It is not a question of either Rosyth or Plymouth; it is a question of our helicopter being, without any doubt, the item. There is no technical rival to it in the world. It is clearly a question of money and of subversive pressure being exercised within the Ministry of Defence, which we must ask our Ministers to overcome by the sheer logic of the argument.

For many years there has been a fundamental flaw in the acquisition of support helicopters for the British Army. They have been provided by the Royal Air Force. During the short time that I was in the Ministry of Defence, I sought to make that point. Subsequent to my departure, an inquiry was conducted. I am afraid that the lobbying and politicking that went on resulted in no change to that basic policy but, as has already been said, this is neither the time of night nor the place to go into that matter.

If we give one service responsibility for another service, inevitably that service will put its own service requirements and its own service priorities before those of the other service. Once again, this has been shown to be the root cause of the difficulty.

Nobody has suggested that the next fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force should be a 30-year-old design, or that the RAF should consider buying second-hand aeroplanes from the French, so why should the RAF do that when it comes to helicopters? The truth of the matter is that the RAF does not care. The helicopters are not for the RAF; they are for the Army. This is clearly seen to be a matter of prejudice within the RAF. I hope that the Minister will either deny that allegation or deal with it in due time.

I heard a rumour that, despite the obvious decision, the RAF had said, "Let us re-write the specification." After all this time, that is so obviously and clearly a deliberate delaying tactic that I hope it will be seen for what it is.

The cost of the original item is an important issue. No one has suggested that the EH101 is a particularly cheap aircraft but, as has rightly been pointed out, it is a reliable one. Those of us who have used machinery, in whatever way and in whatever form it may have come, know that it is no good having something cheap if it does not work and that it is worth paying for quality, design and a modern device.

The fact that the Royal Navy has already ordered this aircraft, though a slightly different version, leads me to believe that there must be huge cost benefits in getting together with the Royal Navy, in terms of both spare parts and training, but I am far from convinced by what I have heard that these cost benefits are being taken into account, because there is no machinery for so doing. Each service does the costing for its aircraft. That, too, will, I hope, be taken into account. The aircraft's all-weather capacity, for example in respect of the former Yugoslavia, is also important. We have sent troops into the former Yugoslavia and we have apparently had to borrow Royal Navy helicopters because there are simply not enough RAF helicopters. That is an appalling situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), in an excellent speech in which he covered all the technical points that apply to the argument, said that he had been making speeches about helicopters for many years. I have been doing the same. For year after year, we have pointed out the absolute requirement for more helicopters, and particularly for those of a general purpose and utility nature.

I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats have been unable to field someone to participate in the debate. However, it is acknowledged that there is all-party agreement on the issue in the House. When my hon. Friend returns to the MOD, I hope that he will take a very clear message from this debate. Although I have a Westland plant in my constituency and most of us have some interest in Westland and its sub-contractors, there is a basic defence argument that promotes this helicopter beyond all others. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that must be the parameter on which defence equipment is chosen.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to put down very swiftly the counter-arguments that have been raised for entirely the wrong reasons. I hope that he will acknowledge that this is the best helicopter for the armed forces, that it should be purchased, that that purchase should start forthwith, and that that message should go out to our friends and allies who will also consider purchasing the helicopter when they see the confidence that should so rightly be placed in it by the RAF.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on securing this debate. He said that it was the Adjournment debate. Unfortunately, it is not. I have the Adjournment debate, which will take place at 8 am. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I am brief.

I have just come from the Tea Room, where we saw one of the famous Westminster mice. However, before that, I smelt a rat. It is a pity that the Liberal Democrats were not here to see it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) pointed out the Christchurch factor. I will be the first person to congratulate the Minister tonight on announcing the order for the 25 EH101s.

Many of us have been involved in politics for a long time. I recall the Labour party once being accused of building the Humber bridge in order to win a by-election. I think that that accusation was made by Conservative Members. I am sure that the Minister is going to announce the project tonight. It is not often that we have such a noble array of knights of the shires on the Conservative Benches at 4 am. They know, and I know, that the Minister has decided that two days before the Christchurch by-election would be a good time to announce the project.

The EH101 is an excellent aircraft which has always been supported by the Labour Benches. It is a pity that it has taken the Government more than six years to confirm that it is to be built. According to my notes, Lord Younger was only Mr. Younger—he had not even received his knighthood—when, in April 1987, he announced his intention to replace the Pumas with 25 utility versions of the EH101 in preference to the Chinooks. He said:

"The choice will build on the investment that we have already made in the naval version, and reflects our policy on European helicopter collaboration."—[Official Report, 9 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 470.]

That was the position in 1987. It has taken a by-election in Christchurch to announce the project. We are pleased that a sinner repents, and I am sure that that will be welcomed in the west country.

In the spring, I went to the Westland factory at Yeovil. It is an excellent facility. The craftsmanship was fine, the management were fine, and there was great co-operation between the trade unions and the management. I was very disappointed to hear tonight that they were against the social charter. It would not seem to have an effect on such a good employer as Westland. Perhaps that is more to do with politics than with industrial relations.

As hon. Members have said, the situation with regard to support helicopters is desperate. It is not just one person in the Ministry of Defence, even if that person is suspected of being high up in the chain of command. I have talked to several senior RAF officers over the past 18 months. There is no doubt that they are lukewarm about the helicopter.

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned that the pilots also fly helicopters for the Army. That situation is not satisfactory, and it has to be tackled. That is why we are in such a plight with our helicopters. In the past, the Army wanted more tanks, the RAF wanted more Tornados, and the number of helicopters suffered. Now, in the new ball game, we do not need as many Tornados or tanks, and we do not have any helicopters. That is nonsense. The Conservative Government have been in office for the past 14 years, so they must take the blame for the present situation.

The Minister's announcement will save jobs. I record my disappointment that no Liberal Democrats are present. They are probably in Christchurch gathering votes. The Minister is in the Chamber gathering votes We will welcome the Minister's announcement. It is a pity it has taken so long.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on his good fortune in securing this debate, which the House and the Government regard as a subject of prime importance. My hon. Friend said that support helicopters are essential to the future of our armed forces. I certainly concur in that judgment.

I recognise that this nocturnal debate, polite and even-tempered though it has been, symbolises the rising political temperature of the subject. I am aware that a large number of hon. Members have signed the motion which led to the debate. I am aware also that, in recent months, many more hon. Members have tabled parliamentary questions, written letters on the subject, and even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) said, forcefully buttonholed Ministers in the corridors. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) summed up the matter when he eloquently spoke of his feelings of "frustration" at the seemingly endless twists and turns over the long delays that have characterised this matter. I understand his and other hon. Members' strong feelings.

The saga of support helicopters for our armed forces has been Wagnerian in its length and Shakespearean in its complexity. Many of my hon. Friends would like the saga to be brought to a glorious conclusion tonight, with the equivalent of the crashing chords of the entry of the gods into Valhalla or the speech of Henry V at the siege of Harfleur. In commercial terms, that would mean the announcement of an order. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said that he was expecting an order tonight.

That phrase seems to have sent the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) into orbit. In his political excitement, he has smelt a by-election rat. He thinks that it is the Tory card to win the Christchurch by-election. The hon. Gentleman's sense of smell is characteristically misplaced. What we have heard tonight is the familiar sound of the Labour party harking up the wrong tree.

This is a serious and important subject. I understand the impatience that has been expressed by my hon. Friends, and I recognise the formidable political pressure that has been exerted by all parties on this issue. I noted in particular the telling quotations from the Defence Select Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) reminded the House.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), a former Defence Minister, reminded us, this is, above all, a defence issue. Such issues are always subject to careful consideration and deliberation. I am sorry to say that tonight I will not announce an order for helicopters, but I will signpost the way ahead and give my hon. Friends some encouraging and hopeful signs in response to the good points that they have raised.

As my hon. Friends reminded the House, the starting point for the debate was the announcement in 1987 by the then Secretary of State for Defence, my noble Friend Lord Younger. He declared that the Government had an intention to place an order for 25 utility EH101 support helicopters. He made it clear, however, that that was subject to the resolution of contractual and other issues.

Since 1987, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the strategic environment. The Warsaw pact has collapsed and the former Soviet Union now belongs to the history books We have made great progress in establishing mutual trust between ourselves and our former adversaries.

At the same time, the release of tensions previously restrained under the old cold war structures has made the world, in some respects, a less stable and less certain place. We must now look beyond the possibility of a static conflict in the central region.

We now require a much more flexible approach. That word was used in many speeches tonight and I accept its importance in relation to support helicopters. The linear battlefield has become a thing of the past, and we must look towards equipping our armed forces so that they are adaptable and mobile.

Against that background of change, it was only right that we should reassess our requirement for support helicopters—just as we have had to reassess our requirements for all aspects of our defence capability. "Options for Change" remains the foundation for such assessments, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in the 1993 defence White Paper "Defending our Future", it is important that we retain the ability to respond and adapt to a fluid strategic situation. Accordingly, my right hon. and learned Friend announced in "Defending our Future" that we plan to introduce a number of additional support helicopters to our existing fleet.

A great deal of work has been necessary to establish the new requirement for support helicopters. We have in particular been looking at the nature of the tasks that our future support helicopter fleet is likely to perform. I am conscious that this process has taken some time. Some of my hon. Friends would say that it has taken too much time. I am pleased to say, however, that we have now completed our reconsideration of the requirement. We are now addressing the next step—the procurement strategy.

The main conclusion is to confirm that our current support helicopter fleet is not large enough to carry out the tasks that will be assigned to it under the concepts of operations which are being developed to meet the defence roles of our forces. The Army's new role in the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps is just one of the developments which has led to an increased demand for support helicopter capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside was right to draw attention to that dimension of the argument. We have therefore assigned support helicopters a high priority within the overall defence programme, and we have made substantial financial provision within the forward programme for the procurement of additional helicopters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North referred to the fact that this is the age of peacekeeping. The field Army's requirement in this new age insists on greater mobility and flexibility. The requirement for support helicopters can be broadly broken down into two areas. First, we must look towards meeting the requirement for more helicopters to support field Army, providing it with the increased flexibilty and mobility that it now requires. Secondly, we need to address the problems posed by the limited performance and capabilities of our existing Wessex fleet.

I will not go into detail here about the options for the Wessex. It would be helpful for the House, however, if I set out the considerations facing the military strategist and planner in the new strategic environment of the last decade of the 20th century and beyond.

First, there is likely to be a requirement to project force over greater ranges. Ranges between points of disembarkation and the forward operational area may be considerable, and sometimes much more demanding than previous central region logistic requirements. For example, during the Gulf conflict, the distance from A1 Jubayl to the field force maintenance area in Saudi Arabia was 300 km, with the tactical assembly areas a further 150 km beyond. Or, as another up-to-date peacekeeping example, it is a day's journey by road or track from Split harbour and airport to the base of the British UNPROFOR battalion in Bosnia, but only one hour by helicopter.

Secondly, Army operations may be conducted in areas with a much less developed communications infrastructure than was the case in the central region. Thirdly, operations on a more fluid and less dense battlefield will require greater support helicopter mobility and reach.

A more capable and versatile support helicopter force is therefore needed for military activities across the spectrum of conflict, which may range from peacetime support operations to major ACE rapid reaction corps deployments and high-intensity operations.

A support helicopter may seem a fairly straightforward piece of equipment at first sight, but the view of support helicopters as the airborne dumper truck of the battlefield is an over-simplistic one. There are, in fact, a great many operational, technical and contractual matters that have to be resolved in order to get the right kit into the hands of our forces. Needless to say, this has to be done in a way that achieves best value for money—not only for the taxpayer, but also for the forces themselves, so that they derive the maximum capability from what is inevitably a finite defence budget.

Because these calculations are so important, we must be sure that we get them right. With the best will in the world, this takes time. It may therefore help the House if I give an insight into some of the factors that we have to take into account.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Member for Carlisle shakes his head, as though these things did not matter, but they are serious, and I am sorry that he is not interested in them.

The Government have had since 1987 to make these calculations, yet the Minister comes here to tell us of more delay.

The hon. Gentleman is still excited about the Christchurch by-election. Like Harold Wilson, he is a man whose vision is limited to tomorrow's headlines. I am trying, at this thoughtful nocturnal hour, to take the House into the Government's confidence and to outline the factors involved in reaching the decision to which all thoughtful people want to move quickly—but it must be the right one.

First, there is the straightforward question of lift. There are some loads that, either for physical or operational reasons, cannot be broken down beyond a certain size. Indeed, some, such as artillery pieces or Land Rovers, are so large that they have to be carried as underslung loads. We thus have an unavoidable requirement for a certain minimum number of very large helicopters—I shall return later to the way in which our present fleet meets this requirement. But most of our loads are divisible and are thus liftable by a number of different helicopter types.

At first sight, one might be led intuitively to suppose that the most economical way of carrying this balance would be with a smaller number of larger aircraft, much as it is cheaper and quicker to move house with a single large removal lorry rather than with innumerable car loads. If lift were the only concern, this analogy might have some validity. But for support helicopters, there are other considerations: flexibility, survivability, maintainability and through-life costs. Flexibility, for example, is of particular concern. This is achieved largely through having a greater number of helicopters. It may in some circumstances be operationally advantageous to have a larger number of smaller helicopters, even where that results in lower overhaul lift for a given investment. Needless to say, this greater number of smaller helicopters would be an economic proposition only if the smaller helicopter were significantly cheaper than the larger helicopter.

We also have to consider the configuration of the helicopter itself. The ability to carry underslung loads is significant, although it is preferable from the point of view of agility and vulnerability to carry loads inside wherever possible. The capacity to carry fully-laden troops and bulky internal loads is important, as is the ability to load them on and off quickly. For this, a rear ramp is essential. That is one advantage of the EH101. Another factor is the aim of not having too many eggs in one basket. A balance has to be struck between the attraction of retaining operational coherence with large loads and the operational consequences of losing such a load.

The survivability of the helicopter depends on three factors: first, the ability to fly with sufficient agility close to the ground to avoid being seen; secondly, the size of target that is presented, both in conventional and radar and infra-red terms; and, thirdly, the ability to withstand a hit through, for example, the duplication of certain essential flight systems. Clearly, most of those factors are influenced by size, although others could be expected to feature more strongly in a modern design.

Reliability is another important factor in operational and financial terms. The consequence of breakdowns during operations is self-evident, especially in the later phases of a prolonged battle. Reliability also influences the number of aircraft needed to maintain a given establishment in peacetime. The more reliable a particular type, the fewer helicopters we have to buy to maintain a particular establishment size.

The final factor is ease of maintenance and low through-life costs. We see great attractions in the latest form of health and usage monitoring system, known as HUMS. HUMS monitors wear and tear on a continuous basis, thus enabling just the right amount of work to be done at precisely the right time. When taken with the ease of access and the maintainability of modern designs, it clearly contains the cost and deployment of spares and support staff.

I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the complex analysis which has to be undertaken to find the best way forward. Some of the debate has centred around the two main contenders, the Chinook and the utility EH101. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said. It is a difficult comparison as, to some extent, the Chinook and the utility EH101 are like apples and pears. They are two very different aircraft, with very different virtues.

The Chinook clearly has the larger lift capability and there are therefore some tasks that only the Chinook is capable of performing. Our Chinooks have given excellent service, and the fleet is now undergoing a mid-life update which will increase its viability and extend its life. We expect to gain many more years of service from this helicopter. However, the Chinook will never match every feature of a newer generation helicopter such as the EH101.

So far, my Department has invested about £1·4 billion in the development of the EH101. It is primarily in support of our procurement of the Merlin anti-submarine warfare variant, but it included the airframe which is, of course, the essence of the utility version.

We are well pleased with the progress of the Merlin and we have no doubt that the utility version will be a thoroughly reliable modern helicopter, possessing all the features that one would expect of its generation.

Several of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, mentioned the fine technical qualities of the EH101, such as its vibration control, the advanced design of its rotor blades and its unsurpassed all-weather capacity. They and a number of advantages that have been so well championed by its manufacturers, Westland, will of course be taken into account, as will the industrial factors of which some of my hon. Friends spoke so eloquently. We shall also bear in mind the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North to the effect that Westland held a unique place in the affections of his constitutents and many others across the country.

One or two of my hon. Friends mentioned the export potential of the EH101. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome spoke of an £8 billion export potential. I assure my hon. Friends that I am very conscious of the EH101's considerable potential in that respect, and I congratulate Westland on its success last year in winning an order for 50 EH101s from the Canadian Government. My Department, and specifically the Defence Export Services Organisation, will continue to give the company every support in pursuing other export prospects.

There is currently an export prospect in Holland. I have had constructive and comprehensive discussions with my Dutch counterpart, and the two Ministries of Defence have exchanged detailed information about their requirements. At a recent meeting, I took my Dutch counterpart through our thinking in some detail. Hon. Members will appreciate that those discussions on a Government-to-Government basis must remain confidential, but I can assure my hon. Friends that we have done our best to be helpful in this and all other export cases.

I have tried to summarise the wide panorama of points and interests that this helicopter decision encompasses. I hope that I have fairly summarised the nature of the decisions that we face. There is no doubt that we have a requirement for additional medium support helicopters. The characteristics that we seek are varied, reflecting the range of operational scenarios that we now face. The world is certainly a different place from the days of 1987. We need the flexibility, familiarity and dependability of a proven aircraft and the benefits of reliability and survivability that are promised by a modern design. We need lift capability and agility.