asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has as to the number of British subjects who have been murdered in terrorist attacks in the Middle East since 1945, and in which countries.

I regret that I do not have to hand the information that my hon. Friend requires. It would take a great deal of time and money to collect it.

Although the world is full of yesterday's terrorists who are today's Prime Ministers, including, of course, the former leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi organisation, does my hon. Friend agree that a man responsible for the murder of hundreds of Britons may not be the most credible source of a solution for peace in the Middle East? Will he therefore pursue a solution that gives both the Palestinians and the Israelis a right to their own nations?

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the past is the past, and that, on the whole, it is more sensible to concentrate on the present and to try to get, both from the Government of Israel and from the Palestinians and other Arabs, a recognition of each other's rights.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) wants to go back all the way to the 1940s, will my hon. Friend the Minister of State remind him that 6 million Jews were murdered in concentration camps, which is why the Israelis are bound to be sensitive on any matter concerning their security? Does he agree that that makes it totally unrealistic to expect them to hand over strategic positions to people who are sworn to destroy them?

I do not mean to accompany either of my hon. Friends into the past. It is recognised that Israel's security needs exist, that they are real and that any negotiation for peace must take them into account. Equally, the Government of Israel must ask themselves whether Israel's security needs are best based on the military occupation of Arab lands.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the visit of the Foreign Secretary to the Middle East.

My right hon. and noble Friend went to Saudi Arabia as President of the 10 members of the European Community to discuss the eight principles proposed by Crown Prince Fahd and other matters of mutual interest. The 10 have welcomed the principles as a positive contribution to the search for Middle East peace, and we regard them as broadly compatible with the Venice declaration, although some of them relate to matters that can be resolved only through negotiations between the parties directly concerned. My right hon. and noble Friend was encouraged by his discussions with the Saudis, who are committed to the search for progress towards a negotiated settlement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best contribution that Britain and the EEC can make towards Middle East peace is to work in total co-operation with the United States, which has achieved the Camp David agreement and a ceasefire in Lebanon? Will he at least give the House an assurance, after the discussions in Saudi Arabia, that the British Government will unconditionally take part in the Sinai peace force, and that there will be no question of a meeting with Arafat until he at least accepts the State of Israel as a real entity?

My hon. Friend has asked three large questions. On the first, we agree with the President of the United States, who said that Prince Fahd's plan was a hopeful sign and an indication of the willingness of the Saudis to negotiate. We have not yet reached a conclusion about participation in the Sinai force. When we do, of course the House will be informed.

With regard to a meeting between my right hon. and noble Friend and Mr. Arafat, my right hon. and noble Friend has always made it clear that he would consider such a meeting only if he thought that the outcome would be a real contribution towards peace.

Has not the European and British position on a contribution to the Sinai force become a black farce? When will a decision be taken? Can the Minister confirm the press reports that M. Cheysson, speaking for the French Government, said that the European contribution should be exclusively in arms and equipment and not in human beings?

I cannot confirm the right hon. Gentleman's second point. He is right about the fact that the decision is taking a long time. We have to reconcile the positions of the four European countries asked by the Americans to contribute, to get the support of all 10 European countries and to reconcile that with the practical requirements of the force. A great many people are involved and a lot of them have strong views.

As neither the Israelis nor the Arab States are terribly keen on our participation, except on terms that would be unacceptable to one or the other, and as only the Americans have asked us to participate, will the Government seek clarity on America's policy on the Middle East before acceding to the request? Does the Minister accept that, otherwise, we shall not know what we are being dragged into?

We are having many discussions, at different levels, with the Americans on that point. They asked Britain and other European countries to help them in this exercise, which would, in their view, facilitate that part of the Egypt-Israel treaty that involves a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Sinai. We believe it right to be cooperative, and we are trying to find the right way to do so, compatible with our previous policy.

Has my hon. Friend noted the statements made by Mr. Sharon and other Israeli politicians alleging that the Palestinian State already exists and is in Jordan? While King Hussein is still in London will my hon. Friend take the opportunity forcefully to repudiate that inaccurate and outrageous claim?

We do not believe that the claim has any validity. The difficulty about arguing that Jordan is the Palestinian homeland is that neither the Government of Jordan nor the Palestinians agree.

rose——

Order. This matter will come up again. We must move on.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he intends to visit Cyprus to discuss progress towards a settlement with the President of the Republic and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that, if he visits Cyprus, it is important that he gets the position right in any statements that he makes? Will he avoid stating, as did his immediate predecessor, that invasions mean different things to different people? Will he also avoid stating, as did a more remote predecessor in the 1950s, Mr. Henry Hopkinson, that Cyprus could never be fully independent? Will he associate himself with Prime Minister Papandreou's statement that the problem in Cyprus concerns invasion and foreign occupation, which is contrary to what the Prime Minister said in Melbourne?

I shall always try to get my statements right, regardless of what my predecessors, near or far, did, although I am sure that they tried, too. The problem of Cyprus is complicated. Territory is one aspect, but there are others. We are all glad that the parties are at least showing interest in the United Nations efforts to bring them together to discuss the matter peaceably. It is a process that we are doing everything that we can to support.

Before he makes any pronouncement about Cyprus, will my right hon. Friend note that the negotiations under the aegis of the United Nations are making progress? Will he give them a chance to fructify before we come in?

I am sure that that my hon. Friend is right. The United Nations is playing a leading part in the matter. It is our business to give the United Nations every assistance, which we are doing.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations of the contact group on independence for Namibia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what contacts he has made with the Governments of the United States of America, Canada, Germany and France, the internal political parties in Namibia and the Governments of neighbouring countries towards facilitating the holding of free and fair elections in South-West Africa and the acceptance of a democratic constitution.

A team of senior officials from the Western Five has recently visited African capitals to present to the Governments and parties concerned a set of constitutional principles as suggested guidelines for the constituent Assembly to be elected under the United Nations plan. Initial reactions to the tour and the Five's proposals were generally encouraging.

What evidence do the Government have that South Africa is negotiating in good faith, since it repudiated in January an agreement that it had previously concluded? What action will the Western powers take to bring to an end the barbaric atrocities that the South African forces are committing in South Angola?

First, we have already seen from the past few weeks' negotiations that have been led by the five members of the contact group that there is a desire on behalf of all the parties to renew discussions on the basis of the United Nations' resolution. As I said, those discussions are proceeding. There has been some progress on the stage that we are discussing, which concerns constitutional principles. Secondly, we condemn violence from all sides, and we recently condemned the incursions of South Africans into Angola.

What action are the Government taking, with the other Western powers, to put pressure on the United Nations to change its extraordinary attitude that SWAPO represents the sole authentic voice of the peoples of South-West Africa? Is my hon. Friend aware that until the United Nation's position is changed the South Africans will not regard the organisation as being a fair arbiter of electoral processes?

The Government have constantly condemned the resolution stating that SWAPO should be the sole and authentic representative, because that is contrary to the principle of holding free elections. There is anxiety that it should be demonstrated that the electoral process will be impartial. Therefore the impartiality of the process is a matter to be discussed by the negotiating team in the forthcoming few weeks.

Has SWAPO commented on the proposals? What attitude has been taken by the front-line States, particularly Zimbabwe? What inducements are likely to be offered to the South African Government by the United States to prevent their scuttling the proposals, as they did the previous lot?

The contact group has completed its tour of the various capitals and also of Namibia and South Africa. We await the comments and suggestions arising from the first set of proposals on the constitutional principles that we put forward. That will take a little time. When we have them, we hope to finalise our proposals on the constitutional principles and move to the next stage.

What was the hon. Gentleman's second question?

The front-line States.

Order. That was enough to get on with.

Will my hon. Friend accept that a prerequisite for the free and fair elections that must take place in Namibia before independence would be a great deal easier to achieve if there were a fully impartial peacekeeping force? Might that not in turn be easier to achieve if the troops involved wore their national uniforms rather than the uniform of the United Nations, as that organisation has shown a certain partiality to one party in this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) explained?

It is important to distinguish between the United Nations' record in peacekeeping, such as its role today in the Lebanon and in other countries, where, on the whole, it has performed a magnificent task, and resolutions of Me General Assembly, some of which have been most unhelpful to the attempt to make progress on a peaceful settlement in Namibia. It was with that in mind, when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that I said that the implications of some of the resolutions will need to be examined as part of the negotiating process.

In view of South Africa's continued illegal occupation of Namibia, should not the United Nations set a date for it to leave that territory and hand it over to the people of that territory?

Following the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Five on 24 September it was agreed that our objective would be to start the process of implementation in 1982. Because the plan allows for seven months of transition, it is expected that it could be completed in 1983. That remains our objective.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in his capacity as President of the European Council of Ministers, the Foreign Secretary has attempted to sound out the reactions of the people and Government of the State of Israel to the Saudi Arabian eight-point peace plan.

We remain in close touch with the Government of Israel on all aspects of the Arab-Israel dispute and are aware of the initial Israeli reaction to Prince Fahd's plan. We are, of course also aware that lasting peace in the Middle East can be arrived at only with the full consent of Israel.

Does the Minister realise that the people of Israel view the plan with alarm, not least because the Saudi Government have disowned their United Nations representative for suggesting that explicit recognition for the State of Israel was contained in the plan? Does it not also lead one to believe that the talk of recognition being afforded by the plan was so much window dressing?

That is not the American President's view and it is not ours. When my right hon. and noble Friend was in Riyadh he was left in no doubt that in the Saudi view the seventh of Prince Fahd's principles includes Israel in the context of a comprehensive settlement. The Saudi Foreign Minister, speaking in Riyadh during my right hon. Friend's visit, said on 5 November:

"There will not be any negotiation between Palestine and Israel unless they mutually recognise each other, and that is the important factor".

Surely this is something that should be welcomed and not denounced.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Prime Minister Begin recently asked the Knesset to vote for outright rejection of the Saudi peace plan, out of 100 Israeli Members of Parliament voting, no fewer than 45 either voted against rejection or abstained? Is not the very narrowness of the vote an encouraging sign that many people in Israel regard Crown Prince Fahd's peace plan as a wise and statesmanlike basis for negotiation towards a lasting settlement?

I had not noted that point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to it. We hope that, on reflection, the Israeli Government will find it in them to welcome what is a substantial move on the part of the Saudis, as President Reagan has recognised, in the direction of a peaceful settlement.

May I press the Minister further on that point? Will Her Majesty's Government take positive steps to impress upon the Israeli Government that Palestinian self-determination is not only a fundamental principle in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, but is essential for peace in the area? Will he press the Israeli Government to recognise that fact?

We shall do what we can, but it would be a help if the PLO, for its part, would make it clear that once there had been some Israeli recognition of the Palestinian rights, the PLO in turn would clearly and unequivocally recognise Israel's right to exist.

Does my hon. Friend agree that clause 7 of the plan, which confirms the right of the countries in the region to live in peace, is significant because it has the support of the PLO?

I think that it is significant as a statement of Saudi policy. We may know a little more about the PLO's attitude towards it after the Fez summit, the Arab summit, next week, which the PLO attends.

Did the Saudis express any reservations or doubts about British participation in the Sinai peacekeeping force?

I hope and think that the basis on which we may participate in that force is increasingly understood by our Arab friends.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will hold talks with his counterpart in the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic regarding ways of strengthening British-Soviet friendship.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate bilateral talks with the Soviet Government aimed at encouraging co-operation and improving relationships between the two countries; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and noble Friend had two meetings earlier this year with Mr. Gromyko, when they discussed a number of internationl and bilateral questions of mutual interest. The Government would certainly like to achieve a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union, but bilateral relations cannot be divorced wholly from the international situation It would improve the atmosphere for future discussions if, for example, the Soviet Union were to take early steps leading to an acceptable and peaceful settlement to the problem of Afghanistan.

In view of the continual reference by the Government to the Soviet Union as being the likely enemy in the event of a nuclear war, will the Minister say whether the discussions to which he has referred have given any hope that the Government's attitude in that regard is likely to change?

If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether the discussions lead the Government to the conclusion that there is a likelier enemy, the answer must be "No".

Will the Lord Privy Seal at least accept that the deterioration in East-West relationships over the last two years is a matter of great concern to the whole world? Will he welcome and support both the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Moscow last September and the zero option proposals which President Reagan is putting forward today?

It is, of course, the Government's concern that relations between East and West should be improved where possible, and that is what we are striving all the time to do. If the visits by leading Opposition figures are helpful in this regard, we naturally welcome them.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the speech which is to be made very shortly by President Reagan. We have not yet seen the text of it, but I understand that it will make clear the importance of the United States' commitment to major reductions in the level of nuclear weapons. This is something that we have been seeking for a long time and to which we wholly subscribe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of strengthening Anglo-Soviet relations would be for the Soviet Union to stop seeking to intimidate the Polish people?

Like the Secretary of State for Employment.

Will he take the opportunity to give his support to the Polish people in their rightful aspirations?

Yes, Sir. It has been a cardinal feature of

British foreign policy, under successive Governments, that other countries should have the right to self-determination, to decide how to run their own affairs, and that they should be able to do so without threats from outside. In so far as there are threats from outside to the aspirations of the Polish people, we naturally deplore them. We shall continue to pursue this policy.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his

implicit rebuke to the Minister of State for describing the outcome of the visit to Moscow by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself as being simply ridiculous chatter. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that.

The Opposition are as anxious as the Government appear to be to have an improvement in Soviet behaviour over Afghanistan and to see a peaceful and happy resolution of the problems in Poland, but will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that these matters will in no sense be treated by Her Majesty's Government as conditions for negotiations with the Soviet Union on the overriding question of arms control?

Now that President Reagan is committing himself to the zero option—which has been the unanimous policy of the Socialist parties in Europe for many months—will the right hon. Gentleman cease the timid, sullen and reluctant acceptance of this concept, which he betrayed in the last debate on foreign affairs, and give it his full support?

If the right hon. Gentleman will study what I said a few moments ago I think he will find that my remarks indicated that visits that were helpful were welcomed by the Government. That does not mean to say that I think that his visit was helpful.

As I said earlier, while we believe that steps by the Soviet Union to bring about an acceptable settlement in Afghanistan would be helpful to our relations, it does not mean to say that we break off relations unless and until they do. But if they would take those steps, I believe that our relations would improve dramatically.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read again what I said in the foreign affairs debate on 5 November on the nuclear position in Europe. We want to have a level of forces at the lowest possible level. If that lowest possible level is zero, so much the better. I have said that to him from the Dispatch Box before, and I say it again. If the zero option can be achieved, no one will be more pleased than Her Majesty's Government and, I believe, the whole House.

I hesitate to intrude again on the private grief of the Government Front Bench. At least the right hon. Gentleman failed, in attempting to protect his hon. Friend the Minister of State, to endorse the offensive and mistaken remarks made on the earlier occasion.

With regard to the zero option, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has gone far enough to satisfy the House. The fact is that the whole of Europe, and world peace in—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Order. We are not debating the matter. We are asking questions and hoping for answers—which of course will, I hope, be forthcoming.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that your desires will be requited, as I hope that mine will, and that we shall get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.

On this essential question of the zero option under which the Soviet Union would dismantle its SS20s in return for a decision by the Western Governments not to proceed with the cruise and Pershing deployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—that this will be the Government's prime objective in the forthcoming negotiations? Nothing less will satisfy Opposition Members.

The right hon. Gentleman is trying very hard. He is not succeeding. Let me repeat that the Government's position is clear. We are for the maximum possible reduction in the level of nuclear weapons in Europe, by mutual agreement. I hope that that reduction can result in what the right hon. Gentleman calls the zero option. That would be the ideal. I have said that to him three times. I hope that he has got it.

Is it not facile in the extreme of the Leader of the Opposition to make himself the advocate of the Kremlin's policy of a nuclear-free zone in Europe, so long as that is on the basis of the Soviets retaining east of the Ural mountains no fewer than 175 SS20 missiles with a range of 3,000 nautical miles, which would enable them to hold every city in Western Europe within their targeting? Could there be any more direct route to war than for that plan to proceed? Will my right hon. Friend, on the other hand, press to the maximum for the Western position of the zero option in the negotiations opening in Geneva?

Yes, Sir. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and the whole house will recognise that the zero option, which we all want, must be genuine, otherwise it is useless. By "genuine" I mean that Europe must be free of the possibility of attack by these weapons, from wherever they are launched.

Those who believe that by withdrawing weapons simply from the soil of Europe one attains that objective are very much mistaken, as my hon. Friend has pointed out.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is satisfied with the progress made in the discussions in Madrid on the Helsinki agreement relating to human rights.

We are working for a substantive and balanced outcome at Madrid, which should include significant advances in the field of human rights. The meeting so far, in particular the review of the implementation of the Final Act, has given us the chance to draw full attention to the continuing abuses of the human rights provisions of the Final Act.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the obvious disappointments in Madrid, will he, on behalf of the British Government, make further representations to the Soviet Government about the very large number of Soviet Jews who are being prevented, by one means or another, from leaving to go to Israel or any other country? This is not an internal matter any more, in view of the Soviets' apparent subscription to the Helsinki accord and the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights. Will my hon. Friend seize the opportunity this weekend to make representations on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, in view of Mr. Brezhnev's visit to Bonn?

My hon. Friend is right about the figures for Jewish emigration. I understand that the figure for 1981 is unlikely to exceed 10,000, which will be the lowest figure for 10 years. This is directly contrary to the spirit of the Final Act and our delegation in Madrid has made our views known, and will continue to make them known, to the Soviet Government.

Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the serious position of one Anatoly Shcharansky, who is now fasting? If an opportunity arises, will he raise that matter as well?

Yes, indeed. We have already raised this case, together with a number of others, and we shall continue to do so whenever we think that it would be useful.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relationship with Canada.

The Government have excellent relations with the Government of Canada.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the recent agreement in Canada between the Federal Government and nine of the 10 Provincial Governments on proposals for constitutional change in Canada is a most welcome development, and that it prepares the way for full patriation of the Canadian constitution and the exercise of the last rights, as it were, of the United Kingdom in regard to the Canadian constitution?

The hon. Gentleman has recently led a CPA delegation to Canada. I join him in welcoming the agreement reached between the Federal Government and nine of the 10 Provinces. I cannot, obviously, anticipate the debate that is to take place in the Federal Parliament of Canada, but we have undertaken to deal with this matter, if we receive a request, as rapidly as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the fact that we now look as though we shall be getting a "Made in Canada" constitution coming to Westminster in a constitutionally proper request will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House? However, does my hon. Friend feel that there might be dangers to Anglo-Canadian relations if anyone in this House were to follow any of the eccentric precedents set by Mr. A. P. Herbert in the 1930s and try to put down amendments to the substance of the package now that it will be coming to us in a constitutionally proper form?

While I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend in his initial remarks, I think that it is a matter not for me but for the Chair with regard to the handling of the Bill and its amendability.

Does the Minister agree that the agreement that has taken place—which we all welcome—has vindicated the views of the Select Committee of this House and the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were very concerned about this issue and are pleased that the outcome is satisfactory? There is one outstanding question: is the Minister concerned about the fact that the native Indian people of Canada were not a party to that agreement and that they have treaties with the Crown which they regard as binding? If they are not looked after, and if their rights are not protected, they will feel that the British Crown, the British Government at the end of the day, and Britain, have let them down. In the absence of agreement in Canada, will the Minister do something to ensure that those people's rights are protected?

I read the right hon. Gentleman's letter in The Times today on the question of the Indians. It is the British Government's view that any responsibility for the aboriginal people of Canada formerly held by the British Government became the responsibility of the Government of Canada with the attainment of independence, at the latest under the Statute of Westminster of 1931. This was a view that was fully endorsed by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier this year.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is satisfied with the arrangements for bank supervision in Hong Kong.

Bank supervision in Hong Kong is primarily a matter for the Hong Kong Government. In the view of Her Majesty's Government the arrangements are satisfactory.

While holding no more brief for the takeover of the Royal Bank of Scotland by the Standard and Chartered Bank rather than by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that if the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank were to take over the Royal Bank, being such a major British bank, this would raise questions about the arrangements for bank supervision in Hong Kong in view of the anomalous position of the absence of any central bank?

As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, this bid is now the subject of study by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and I do not think that it would be right for me to hazard a guess as to the outcome. However, as I have said, I know that there is not a central bank in Hong Kong, but the arrangements for conducting the banking affairs of Hong Kong, which are under the direction of the Governor and the Commissioner for Banks, seem to the British Government to be quite satisfactory. When the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank took over an American Bank, it was inquired into very closely and the same conclusion was arrived at.

In view of the close relationship between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, is there not a very good case for the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank to be regarded, to all intents and purposes, as a British bank? If that is so, is it not also right that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank should be subjected to the same disclosure requirements as British clearing banks?

It is a misapprehension held by some people, regrettably, that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank is a foreign bank. It is not a foreign bank. It is a bank that is incorporated in a British dependent territory and is subject to the rules of that territory and to the supervision of the Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and the present Administration in Turkey.

The Government's relations with Turkey continue to be based on the statement issued by the Foreign Ministers of the then Nine member States of the European Community on 15 September 1980.

Will the Lord Privy Seal take this opportunity to denounce the sentence imposed on the former Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Bulent Ecevit, merely for asking for the right of reply to allegations made against him on the television network? Is he aware that unless he takes action on this and other aspects of Turkish affairs there will be doubts about whether the arms being supplied to Turkey will be used in defence of democratic ideals and what is called the free world?

I have much sympathy with the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and many others about the sentencing of Mr. Ecevit. I understand that the sentence has yet to be upheld and that there is a possibility of an appeal, so I shall say no more at the moment. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about arms, we have no military aid programme for Turkey.

rose——

Order. I shall allow an extra minute at the end of Question Time so that one more question may be asked from each side on this subject.

As both Britain and Turkey are guarantors of a free and independent Cyprus, may I ask what discussions my right hon. Friend has had with the new military Administration in Turkey to try to persuade them to be positive towards the inter-communal talks, in particular in relation to the scaling down of the large number of forces that they still have in the northern part of Cyprus?

As I said in answer to an earlier question, the lead in solving the difficult problems of Cyprus is being taken by the United Nations, and we are supporting them and doing all that we can to help. The questions that my hon. Friend has asked are among those that need to be put to the Turkish Government, who need to be made aware of the difficulties of the present situation in Cyprus and the way in which they can help to solve this difficult problem.

Is not the Lord Privy Seal a little complacent about internal human and political rights in Turkey? Is it not true that the date on which constitutional government is to be restored is being constantly postponed? Is it not also true that the West German Government are threatening to revise their financial aid to Turkey in 1982? What will the British Government do to try to restore constitutional government again in the country of one of our allies?

There is no doubt that the Turkish Government are aware of our anxieties about the lack of human rights and the sentencing of Mr. Ecevit, and of the feelings held by both the United Kingdom Government and the Community. A financial protocol exists between the European Community and Turkey which is the subject of much discussion at present. It is too early to know the outcome. The British Government, like every other Government, should make known our concern and anxiety about the lack of democracy and our hopes for the rapid return to democracy which the Turkish Government have said they intend should occur, and which will help relations between our two countries.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement upon the results of the European Economic Community surveillance of sensitive categories of imports from Japan and upon any conclusions drawn by the Council of Ministers regarding the future of relations between the European Economic Community and Japan.

The Commission does not have United Kingdom import statistics, because of the strike by civil servants, but it has been monitoring information from other sources. It reports that in the seven months to July 1981 there appeared to be no major deterioration in the aggregate figures for Japanese exports to the Community in the three sectors under surveillance. However, within these sectors there were sharp increases in European Community imports of particular products, notably light commercial vehicles and machining centres. Up to the end of August the Community's deficit on total trade with Japan also increased by around 25 per cent. compared with the corresponding period last year. The Commission and member States have renewed their representations to the Japanese Government and have made them to a group of top-level representatives of Japanese industry who toured Europe last month. The Foreign Affairs Council will review the situation at its next meeting on 7 and 8 December.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Will he say what action is intended on those items where damage has been found to be severe? Does he believe that the best way forward is by voluntary industry arrangements, which the Secretary of State for Trade said on Monday had clearly failed, or by EEC Government actions, which the Secretary of State for Trade said would take a long time?

My right hon. Friend said in his answer on Monday that he did not disparage what had been secured by voluntary arrangements. Those voluntary arrangements have stood us in good stead over many years. They preceded our accession to the Community, and they still exist. It is impossible to say precisely what would have happened had they not existed, but the best estimate that I can make is that Japanese imports in these sensitive sectors would have been substantially larger than they are now. However, we are now talking about the future. The Community is engaging in discussions with the Japanese to see how this balance can be rectified. For example, Commissioner Davignon visited Japan for this purpose a fortnight ago. It is too early to say whether what will emerge will be voluntary agreement or something different. The best way forward, in my view, is to achieve voluntary agreements that are adhered to.

Is it not a fact that the negotiations between Japan and the Commission on trade between the two blocs are increasingly taking on the aspect of a fight between a judo black belt and an infant player of tiddlywinks?

I do not believe that the Community, with its size and strength in negotiation, is regarded in precisely the terms that were used by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to attend the European Economic Community Council of Ministers; and what items will be on its agenda.

I expect to attend the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 7 and 8 December. The agenda for the meeting has yet to be decided. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I shall be making a statement later this afternoon about the Foreign Affairs Council, which has just taken place.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that one of the most outstanding questions in the Common Market concerns the West German share of the budget? Does he agree also that any reduction in the West German share is bound to result in a percentage increase in the amount that Great Britain has to contribute? What is the Government's attitude on this matter?

One of the outstanding matters, apart from the West German contribution, is this country's contribution. That is one of the matters under discussion, and I shall refer to it in my statement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his role at these meetings would be made immeasurably easier if there were a general acceptance across the party divide on our membership of the EEC? We could then advance within the Community and my right hon. Friend would not have the constant sniping that he receives in his present role from people who have never accepted anything beyond the shores of this island?

There is no doubt that it would greatly help at these meetings if, as one would expect, one could be confident that hon. Members were behind those who were trying to fight for Britain's interests in the Community.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the Government are now considering, with the other EEC countries, a document that proposes setting up a common defence policy—although it is described as a security policy—and the extension of the powers of the European Assembly? Will he assure the House that that document will not be considered by the Council of Ministers before it is debated in this House?

I cannot confirm that. The right hon. Gentleman can ask me further questions on the matter after he has heard my statement in a few minutes' time.

Will my right hon. Friend let us know whether Namibia is likely to be on the agenda? If so, what is the British Government's attitude, given that our right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary said in a statement to Arab journalists, prior to his visit to the Middle East, that United Nations supervised elections would be very difficult, bearing in mind that the United Nations still recognises SWAPO as the sole and authentic voice of the internal Namibian people? What is the British Government's position, given that the Foreign Secretary has implied that UN supervised elections are virtually out of the question?

Those points were covered earlier, during questions to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I do not know whether that subject will be on the agenda, as the agenda has not yet been settled.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the proposals from the Bonn—Rome axis on further political integration in Europe are put forward at the next meeting he will tell his European partners that there is no mandate for that in Britain and that the British people will never give the Government a mandate to allow foreign Powers more sovereignty over us?

The hon. Gentleman has placed me in a marginal difficulty. He has referred to something that was discussed at the latest European Council and I wish to refer to that in my statement. If I were to answer the hon. Gentleman's question now I should be anticipating my statement and might get into trouble. If the hon. Gentleman is allowed to, will he ask me that question later?

The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) will be lucky to be called a second time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that when the statement is made, you will——

Order. Expectations are never points of order—[Interruption.] Order. We are not having a conversation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is his latest programme for securing completion of negotiations on fundamental reforms within the European Economic Community.

We are seeking to make as rapid progress as possible, with the aim of reaching appropriate conclusions at the European Council later this month in London, in accordance with the decision of the June European Council.

Has not my right hon. Friend inherited a disappointing lack of progress in securing fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy and of the budget? The Government are committed to such reform. Is it not time that the Government found some new political impetus to ensure that we secure those fundamental changes in the foreseeable future?

We are constantly doing that.

Is not the reality that fundamental changes can be made only through unanimous agreement and that because of vested interests in the Common Market—such as France's interest in the CAP—that unanimity will never be reached? Therefore, fundamental reform is impossible and the Government are pursuing an illusion.

I always knew that the hon. Gentleman was a pessimist, but I did not realise that he was such a pessimist. He should not be.

Could not one fundamental reform be to stop dealing with items such as the gas subsidies for Dutch growers at such a snail's pace? Could we not get on and solve that problem as quickly as possible?

Everybody agrees that we want speedy solutions for all the problems that come our way. We seek to achieve such solutions. However, when one has to discuss such problems with people who have other interests, they take a little longer to solve than some people would wish.

Is it not the case that the ill-fated budget compromise in 1980 distinctly excluded all fundamental reforms? Is it not true that no progress has been made because the other countries are not interested in a solution? That shows the folly of accepting that temporary agreement in 1980.

I was interested—as I know all hon. Members were—to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe that decision as foolish, when it has benefited Britain to the tune of £.1·5 billion. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that at the same time the Heads of Government concerned agreed that permanent solutions should be sought. That is precisely what we are doing.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if any topics relating to external security have been discussed in any European Economic Community Council.

The Ten have agreed to maintain the flexible approach that has made it possible to discuss in political co-operation certain important foreign policy questions bearing on the political aspects of security. The clearest example of this is the close cooperation between the Ten at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Madrid over the question of the proposal for a conference on disarmament in Europe. Such questions have also been considered at meetings between Foreign Ministers, and at the European Council, but the Ten do not discuss the defence aspects of security, which are the business of NATO.

Does not the Lord Privy Seal want it both ways? If there is no specific mandate to discuss security and defence measures under the Treaty of Rome, surely it is much more appropriate that they should be discussed entirely within the ambit of NATO, which has such a treaty commitment.

No, Sir. That is wrong. I accept that under the treaty there is no such authority. That is why political co-operation is outside the treaty. Over a period of years it has been found that NATO—which is concerned specifically with defence questions—sometimes feels inhibited when it comes to talking about other matters. For example, I mentioned the CSCE in Madrid—which I know that the hon. Gentleman supports—and that is a matter where the Ten, meeting in political co-operation, have a very valuable contribution to make outside both the treaty and NATO.

As the EEC never was and never is likely to be a defensive unit, would it not be far better if all such discussions were left to members of NATO?

I must give the same answer to my hon. Friend as I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). NATO is concerned exclusively with the defence aspects of security. There are other aspects of a political nature that it is desirable for the ten member States of the EEC to talk about. For example, no hon. Member believes that it is wrong that the Ten should act together in Madrid.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the development of closer co-operation on matters of foreign policy within the European Economic Community.

Yes, Sir. Co-operation in foreign policy matters between the ten member States of the European Community continues to develop. At their meeting in London last month the Foreign Ministers of the Ten agreed a new report on European political cooperation, which incorporates a number of useful improvements, notably in strengthening the commitment of partners to consult on all important questions of foreign policy of concern to the Ten as a whole, and in establishing new crisis procedures. A copy of this report has been placed in the Library. We shall continue to work actively for further improvements wherever we think there are practical gains to be made.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in an imperfect world the steady development of political co-operation in the Community reflects great credit on himself, his predecessor and on our right hon. and noble and much admired Friend the Foreign Secretary? Will my right hon. Friend further accept that if the momentum is to be maintained, and is not to be set at naught by periodic vetoes of member States, it is extremely important to institute effective machinery at Community level for carrying forward the process of political co-operation?

Yes, Sir. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's endorsement of a valuable adjunct to the other relations that we have with the European countries. We intend to carry that process forward wherever we can. The Ten accepted that there was a need for some machinery, However, that machinery must be small and not cumbersome. Therefore, there is a proposal to have a small support staff at the disposal of the Presidency. Two or three officials may be seconded from the Foreign Ministry of the preceding and succeeding Presidencies to provide continuity in thinking. That is valuable, provided that the machinery does not grow too big.

Does the right hon. Gentleman perceive that the closer the co-operation in matters of foreign policy inside the EEC, the less must be the influence of this House upon the foreign policy of this country?

The contrary is true. Foreign Ministers of any country, and particularly of the United Kingdom, are rightly subject to the scrutiny, criticism and control of their respective Parliaments. Therefore, Ministers are answerable to Parliament—as they always have been—for anything that they do. However, when they convince Parliament that a certain course is right, they can act in concert with others and increase the strength of the whole.

Will the conquest of international terrorism be on the agenda of the Ten? Would not that be a suitable subject in view of the supply of arms to terrorist bodies by countries across the Iron Curtain?

Yes, Sir. The conquest of international terrorism has a high priority with all Ministers, wherever they meet.

Will the Lord Privy Seal now give the House the assurance that any documents setting out proposals for a common defence policy, common security policy or common foreign policy, about which we have read in the newspapers recently, will be presented to the House to be debated and voted upon before they are agreed in the Council of Ministers?

Yes, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the actions of Her Majesty's Government are always subject to debate in Parliament. Proposals for action on matters of great moment have always been debated, and always will be. I counsel the right hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.

rose——

Order. We must be fair. I want to call another question because I promised extra time since we were late getting to this part of Question Time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the Government's response to the EEC Commission proposals entitled "A Fresh Impetus for the Community"; and whether he will make a statement.

The Commission has published a series of papers amplifying its report of 24 June on the 30 May mandate, which the House debated on 29 October. We are discussing all the Commission proposals with our partners.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that it would be useful to the House if the Government produced a considered written response to the Commission's proposals and thereafter enabled the House to debate them?

Of course I shall consider that proposition. If the hon. Gentleman's suggestion seems to be appropriate and generally welcomed we shall see whether we can adopt it.

In view of the obvious powerful advantages, are the Government drawing closer now to joining the European monetary system?

That is more a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for me.

Could my right hon. Friend be more forthcoming than he was earlier? Since we hold the Presidency of the Community, is it not possible, particularly under the new impetus that we have just discussed, for us to place some items on the agenda? If so, can one of those items be Namibia? Can we establish the British Government's position, bearing in mind the apparent change of opinion by our Foreign Secretary?

The British Government's position on Namibia is clear and was dealt with during questions earlier today. I shall take note of what my hon. Friend says about placing matters on the agenda for discussion with our Community partners.

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to move his motion, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I must also tell the House that no one who occupies the Chair today, neither Mr. Deputy Speaker nor myself, will plead for short speeches. It is up to hon. Members. If self-discipline is not exercised, fewer hon. Members will be called. I make that statement at the beginning to save us the embarrassment of pleading for short speeches as the debate goes on and thus, I believe, changing the character of the House. I shall call hon. Members as time allows.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the cuts in higher education made by Her Majesty's Government which deny places to qualified young people, jeopardise the existence of universities and public-sector institutions, and condemn teaching and non-teaching staff to costly redundancy; and calls for the provision of access to higher education to those qualified and able to benefit from it, for the strengthening of facilities for teaching and research, especially in applied sciences and technology, and for the abandonment of policies which destroy opportunity and contradict the economic, technological, scholastic and social needs of the nation.

It is my pleasant duty this afternoon to welcome to our education debate two new education Ministers. Most spectacularly and surprisingly—and I think that he will understand what I mean by "surprisingly"—there is the new Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). I express surprise, but I suspect that that is a fraction of the emotion experienced by the hon. Gentleman when called upon to take office. There are, of course, divisions in the Tory Party from which we, fortunately, do not suffer in our party. I know that there are Ministers who agree with all of the Government's policies and Ministers who agree with some of them. We now have a Minister who apparently agrees with none of them. He has a role to play which will be familiar to readers of Charles Dickens. The hon. Member was taken on by the Prime Minister in the same way as Oliver Twist was taken on by Mr. Sowerberry, the undertaker because

"there is an expression of melancholy on his face"

which will come in useful at the assorted educational funerals that he will have to attend if the Government carry on with their policies. Some people have been uncharitable enough to ascribe the hon. Gentleman's assumption of office to ambition. I believe that it was masochism.

Alongside the Under-Secretary of State, we have the distinguished presence of the new Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir Keith Joseph). No problem arises as to the reason for that appointment: it was sadism. In addition, I believe that the Government, given their policies—largely authored by the right hon. Member for Leeds, NorthEast—could no longer afford to have the last of the great spenders at the Department of Industry.

A central and deliberate part of the Government's policies is the wish to depress demand in the economy. That and the particular means employed to depress demand have consciously exacerbated the deep-rooted problems which, as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, exist in the economy. Industries whose size and strategic importance were so great that they could not be allowed to collapse completely even in the sacred name of monetarism were bailed out by the right hon. Gentleman. That imposed further pressures on the Government, who had set themselves utterly unrealistic spending targets.

New sources of savings had therefore to be found, and the easiest target for the Government was education. Education has been singled out for additional amounts of saving because in the short term I emphasise the words "short term"—cuts in education seem to provoke less forceful reaction among employees and users than in the great industries. Therefore, the cuts proposed by the last Secretary of State are being implemented—although we hope to hear better news today—by the present Secretary of State. In the process, the Government not only further depress demand and increase unemployment in their onslaught upon higher education generally and the universities in particular, but erode the civil rights of the people and tear up the roots of economic recovery.

Who could be better fitted for the task of incompetent destruction disguised as agonised deliberation than the Secretary of State for Education and Science? The right hon. Gentleman now occupies a position in the Government in which he may fully indulge his monetarist simplicities and his paleolithic philosophies. I am sure that he is delighted. He can make cuts, and in doing so he can explain how, the deprivation of individuals and institutions alike elevates the moral condition of the people and the standards of the institutions. He has given long attention to this and has long argued that more provision in education inevitably means degeneration in education. He has now been given the opportunity to argue that less provision will bring regeneration. Indeed, that has been his argument so far, in the limited number of public statements that he has made, although these have been crowded weeks for him.

Not for the right hon. Gentleman the defensive rationalisations of the last Secretary of State for Education and Science, whose political passing we all sincerely mourn: we now have a man with a mission to remoralise, rationalise and reorganise education in this country even if, in the words of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, it means

"the extinction for a whole generation of opportunities to enter the profession of research and scholarship."

The right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards the regeneration of education—the elevation of standards by the narrowing of access—is reminiscent of the GI who, surveying the smoking ruins of a Normandy village in June 1944, said "Well, we sure liberated the hell out of this place". I fear that that will be the lot of some of the institutions of higher education in both university and public sectors.

There are, nevertheless, a few people in the academic professions who actually welcome the Secretary of State's approach. They never liked the expansion of higher education in the past 20 years. They always complained of entrance standards falling when, as the testimony of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals shows, standards were actually rising. Those few were always irritated by the characteristics of succeeding generations of new undergraduates whom they saw as ill-kempt, unruly, ungrateful and ungracious, and occasionally even accused them of being ignoramuses.

Although they are very few, those people actually welcome the Government's policies and the attitude of the Secretary of State because they believe, quite wrongly, that the cuts will somehow lead to the purification and cleansing of our universities, no matter what the consequences far the breadth and quality of provision of higher education for the people of this country. For those people to welcome the cuts being imposed upon higher education by the Secretary of State and the Government is like the crew of the "Titanic" giving a standing ovation to the iceberg. In their foolishness, they are inviting disasters which will engulf them, too, because if cuts are made on the scale and at the speed proposed by the Government they will be no respecters of even the most august emeritus. They will destroy much of what people in the universities have valued, even though those few people delude themselves into believing that the cuts can be made painlessly and profitably.

Those hapless elitists are few in number. Even academics who over the past two decades may have been tempted to think that universities would not be such bad places if it were not for the students have been roused out of academic lethargy into protesting to the Government. The remaining university staff—the majority of those who work in universities, who always took a more realistic view of the productive and creative role of higher education—have been stirred to outrage, as we have witnessed during today's lobby of the House by university teaching and non-teaching staff in their several thousands.

When we last debated this matter on 9 July, the then Secretary of State accused me of wild exaggeration because of my description of the damage that would be inflicted on opportunities, standards, employment, teaching and research by the cuts that had been publicised and were being advertised to the various institutions that were affected.

For the sake of accuracy, brevity and incomparable authority, I turn to that most temperate of bodies, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I draw the attention of the House to the letter written by its chairman, Dr. Albert Sloman, on 4 November to the Secretary of State. The House should pay great attention to this letter, because the committee says what has to be said at least as well as, and probably better than, anyone else. It offers a case which has remained unanswered by the Secretary of State. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use the opportunity afforded by this debate to answer it.

The committee said that it was looking forward very much to meeting the Secretary of State on 9 November, but he soon knocked that idea on the head. It continued:

"we believe the Government's current policy towards the universities to be profoundly mistaken and highly damaging. It is a policy which will seriously impair the quality of the work of our universities and jeopardise the very distinctive contribution which they make within our system of higher education. It is a policy which will involve the loss of some 10,000 places for new home students in each of the next two or three years, the very years when the number of qualified school leavers reaches its peak, a reduction in opportunity for young people willing and able to go to university of something like 1 in 7. And it is a policy which, in our view, is likely to save little or no money in the short run since the savings on recurrent grants have to be set off against the cost of compensating staff for dismissal. If so, the damage to the standards both of university teaching and research, in some cases irreparable, and the sharp reduction in opportunity for those born in 1963 or after will, in terms of public expenditure, have been for nothing."

Later in that letter, the CVCP said that the universities were about to suffer cuts of 15 per cent. which would bring staff reductions of that order. That is why people talk of 3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000 university staff being made redundant. Yet, as every study has demonstrated, British universities can in no sense be said to be a failing or overmanned service. If the Government believe that, the onus of responsibility and proof lies with them. We have yet to have proof that the universities are failing or overmanned industries.

Opportunities for qualified youngsters must be a matter of grave concern to all hon. Members, who must face those youngsters and their parents and explain that, as a conscious act of Government, opportunites are deliberately being denied to people who in the recent past would easily have gained access to the universities of their choice. Those hon. Members who will have to explain why things have changed should prepare their arguments, because the scale of that change is vast and terrible.

The CVCP warns:

"A reduction in the number of home students has been imposed which requires a drop in the home undergraduate intake to around 70,000, the level of the intake of 1976–77".

That would be grave enough if we were talking about a population of a size similar to that of 1976–77. The committee continues:

"But since that date, the number of qualified 18-year-olds will have risen by some 15 per cent. and there has been a growing demand from mature students"—

which the DES now tells us account for 24 per cent. of all new entrants into British universities—

"for continuing education particularly in advanced technology.

Surely the worst possible time to impose cuts of this scale and speed is when the number of 18-year-olds is at its historic highest and the higher education needs of adults are at their historic greatest. But this is the very time at which these cuts, certainly the largest since the war, are being imposed. One wonders whether that is acceptable in the context of our international challenges and other such matters of material concern. "No", say the CVCP,

"we are, in comparison with our industrial competitors a sadly under-educated and under-trained society.".

Can the cuts be made without harming the research base in our universitiies as well as our national effort, as the previous Secretary of State argued on 9 July and as the White Paper in March made it clear should be avoided? Once again, the CVCP says "No". It says:

"At the same time both the quality and the volume of the universities' contribution to basic and applied research will be seriously affected at the very time when this contribution has never been more needed or more highly valued by British industries. The opportunities for able young recruits to research will be virtually extinguished for a generation".

It is small wonder that the CVCP concludes:

"These are the reasons why we consider the Government's long-term policy for the universities to be fundamentally wrong".

That is not the editorialising of a Labour newspaper or union newspaper, nor is it the view of the AUT or any of the other unions representing university staffs. It is the view of the CVCP, a highly responsible body. It went to see the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and it appears to have been a remarkably unproductive encounter. The committee said that the Secretary of State had completely rejected its case and

"could not offer any relief whatsoever in relation to the financial cuts, and was adamant in insisting on the inevitability of a reduction in the opportunity for school leavers to enter universities. He recognised that substantial redundancies of university staff were unavoidable, and undertook to study urgently the proposals which had been made for financial compensation to those concerned."

Bloodied, baffled and bewildered but not bowed, the CVCP again wrote to the Secretary of State. We cannot accuse it of not being extremely tolerant and temperate in its persistence. On 13 November, it thanked the Secretary of State for the meeting and added:

"You agreed with us about the paramount need to maintain the quality of the British university system both in teaching and research but you seemed to believe that this could be done within the finanial limits and the time-scale you are imposing. This is manifestly impossible … Cuts of unparalleled severity imposed at such speed are certain to do untold harm to the quality of both teaching and research … You stated that the reduction in the opportunity for school leavers to enter universities was, in your view, inevitable, but at the same time you expressed concern about the quality of the undergraduate entry,"——

that has been a favourite point of the Secretary of State for a long time——

"in particular in the sciences and technology".

Dr. Sloman adds:

"I have to say to you that it is the view of my Committee that the quality of the entry this year is higher than it has ever been and that we are having to turn away students who, only a year or so ago, would have had no difficulty at all in gaining a university place".

The Secretary of State frowned when I talked about the erosion of civil rights as a consequence of the cuts. That is what I mean—the earned rights of qualified youngsters to secure access to higher education which are now being denied as a result of Government policy. The CVCP added:

"You also referred to the attitude of universities to industry and expressed doubts about the contribution which staff and students were making to the industrial life of the nation".

The relevance of universities to our industrial and technological effort is more than a hobby-horse of the Secretary of State, it is a hobby-brontosaurus. By coincidence, the right hon. Gentleman well knows that the CVCP has organised a special campaign on the industrial contribution made by British universities. That will take place next week, and the CVCP has asked the right hon. Gentleman to think again about what it calls

"the appalling wastefulness of the timing of the cuts".

Does that not reflect the fact that the birth rate reached a peak in 1963–18 years ago? That was the highest figure since the post-war birth rate in the late 1940s. From 1963 until the 1970s the birth rate fell steadily, and in the late 1970s it fell more rapidly.

The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The peak of the bulge will be reached in 1983, not in the current year. That is the year in which the cuts will have their greatest effect. Hence the strenuous complaints being made by the CVCP.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, contrary to the general Tory attitude towards education—more means worse—when it comes to demographic trends, more means better. Somehow, the standard of performance of new entrants to universities has risen in conjunction with the rise in the birth rate. That would be difficult to prove arithmetically, but I am prepared to take the hon. Gentleman's word for it for the sake of argument.

The House will note that the CVCP, which comprises reasonable people, wants the Secretary of State to think again. In its letter of 4 November, it said—I believe sincerely:

"Ministers have failed to understand the extent and the depth of the damage which is being done to our universities."

The committee is innocently and fundamentally wrong about that. Ministers well understand the extent and depth of the damage being done to universities. Some will try to pass it off as the unfortunate and unavoidable by-product of the Government's economic and financial policies. However, they understand the consequences.

Others not only understand but deliberately contrive those consequences. They have long believed that there is too much and too great a variety of higher education for too many people at too high a cost and in too many places than is acceptable, in their narrow concept of higher education, and for their narrow purposes of social engineering. That is why Ministers have replaced a number-led higher education system with a cash-led system. The consequence is that human ability and interest are subordinated to the dictated availability of our financial resources.

Such action might look like the thrifty cutting of coats according to the cloth. In reality, it is cutting people to fit the coat, and that is a different prospect altogether. The result is the waste of abilities and the denial of earned rights of those who are able and qualified to take advantage of the facilities and opportunities offered by higher education.

Ministers who support that system—they certainly include the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson)—are not impressed by the factual arguments of Salford, Aston or Bradford, the provision at Heriot Watt, the innovations of Surrey or any of the institutions which have been sorely afflicted by the cuts. Ministers are not listening to the supportive arguments made on behalf of the universities by representatives of business and commerce and of local communities. They do not accept the life and death importance of pharmacological or agronomic research being disrupted as a consequence of the cuts. Nor do they recognise the enterprise and vitality of courses in new subjects and fresh approaches to old problems which are features of development in universities in the 1980s.

Ministers loathe the so-called Robbins principle. They now fully intend to slaughter that principle. They use the argument of national economic imperatives to excuse their political assassinations.

In 1974 and at various intervals the Secretary of State has offered the view that there was never any extra demand for the traditional benefits of university education—the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. As recently as last week he told the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts

"Could it be, perhaps, that in the precipitated expansion over the last 20 to 25 years some areas of higher education have expanded beyond what is justified for the expansion and transmission of knowledge and the economic needs of the country."

That is a long-term belief of the Secretary of State. He now has an opportunity to put those terrible beliefs into practice. He has offered a justification for his rarified view of the modern university's role. He has given the complementary opinion that polytechnics and, possibly, some converted universities, as he calls them, should be the places in which advanced vocational training should take place. There is no provision whatsoever for such reforms and readjustments in the imposed cuts on university funding or in the cuts imposed on polytechnics, institutes and colleges of higher education.

We are left with a general and severe reduction in places, courses, and staff in every institution. The Secretary of State's view, given to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last week, was:

"Some of the people disappointed in achieving university places will then compete for polytechnic places and possibly displace other people with fewer qualifications who would, under past assumptions, have found a place in polytechnics."

Anyone could tell the Secretary of State that things do not, and cannot, work as neatly as that for either institutions or individuals. Anyone could tell him that the consequences of the shift that he envisages are arbitrary and unsatisfactory and will inevitably mean that people who could and would have graduated in higher education—not just entered courses, but graduated from those courses—will now he unable to do so. The right hon. Gentleman would not be impressed by that advice or that acquaintance with reality since, with all the intellectual astigmatism for which he is widely renowned, he followed the sentence which I have just quoted with the deathless phrase "It obvicusly makes sense".

We must ask for whom the cuts strategy, in size and speed, obviously makes sense. Does it make sense in terms of national needs and national interests? No, we cannot say that, because it is more obvious to this generation than to any previous generation that economic development, technological mastery, social stability and democratic values depend not on the brilliance of the few, no matter how worthwhile it is to nurture them, but on the competence of the many.

Any strategy which denies the many from advancing their competence by advanced further education and higher education through an assortment of institutions conspires against the general national interest and the specific individual interest of those with the qualifications, interest and need to give themselves that sophistication of confidence which is a precondition of civilised life in this generation and for infinite future generations.

Does the cuts policy make any sense by saving money? No, it does not. The lowest estimate of redundancy costs of university lecturers alone is £120 million. The CVCP estimated a more realistic £180 million. If account is taken of higher education employees, who do not have a secure tenure, whether they are polytechnic or non-teaching staffs in both sectors of higher education, the cost of making cuts of the size and speed demanded by the Government cannot be less than £220 million.

The Secretary of State told the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that he intended urgently to study the financial compensation. I hope that he will inform us of the findings of that urgent study and whether the Government will find not the £20 million that they have so far offered, but £180 million to £220 million for the various higher educational institutions to meet their legal obligations to those whose employment has been snatched away as a consequence of the cuts.

It is important that we receive an urgent and generous response, because we are now only weeks away from the important meetings of senates and councils that will take place in universities in January and February. It is insufferable for people who feel that they and their occupations are jeopardised—indeed, their future lives and fortunes are jeopardised by the cuts—not to be told at the earliest possible time what assistance will be forthcoming from the Government. Alternatively, do the universities go bankrupt? Must we finalise the destruction before the Government come to their senses and meet their obligations to the people?

Will the cuts produce a better higher education system? That would be a fair justification for them. However, the answer to that question must also be "No". Any necessary reforms to reduce duplication, enrich the curriculum and close the binary division will be hindered, not helped, by a financial regime in which, in every sector, institution or faculty, every employee must look after himself and not distract or preoccupy himself with the need for reform, which is apparent in our higher education system.

Will the Government's cuts make sense for research? Again the answer is "No". The freezing of recruitment imposed by the cuts will discourage development in the newer sciences and technologies. It will produce an aging lecturer and research force. It will prevent higher turnover departments, such as computer sciences, from replacing personnel lost to other work outside the university. It will diminish the time available to dons for research and updating by increasing their teaching obligations.

The effect on students will be a narrowing of the scope and breadth of their educational experience as university departments ossify under the pressure of the cuts. The consequence for further generations of students will be fewer school teachers with the necessary modern qualifications and experience, so that the weaknesses are compounded through generations. The immediate result for the financing of research, according to Lord Flowers, rector of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, who is an old political friend of mine, will be that over the next three years the University Grants Committee will not provide enough money to keep up its end of the dual funding system.

The Government's policies do not make sense for the non-teaching staffs of the universities. They have already suffered reductions through the rationalisations, changes and cuts over the last five or six years. As they and the academics with whom they work will testify, those non-teaching university employees cannot be further reduced without serious effects on the essential work of the universities. Laboratory technicians, administrators, librarians and manual staff are indispensable in the preparation and servicing of the work of a university. Their work will either not be done or be done inadequately so that they are dismissed. The result, at best, will be an immense waste of lecturers' and students' time and, at worst, the breakdown of the primary activities of the universities as teaching and research institutions.

It will be hazardous to life, limb and property if universities are not adequately staffed in the supportive services. If, as a consequence of the cuts, there are the 5,000 or 6,000 redundancies among the non-teaching staff that have been estimated, we shall fundamentally change the nature of universities by depriving them of essential support workers. Where is the "obvious sense", as the Secretary of State put it, in all that?

There is a grotesque logic that conforms with the Secretary of State's educational and philosophical persuasions. It is now about seven years since the Secretary of State entertained the nation with what has become known as his socio-economic groups 4 and 5 speech. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want to be bored, so he will be relieved to hear that I intend to refer not to socio-economic groups 4 and 5 and their mating habits, as he did, but to an earlier part of his speech in which he said:

"Whatever we may have thought 15 years or so back, it is our right and duty to question, in the light of experience, the rapid expansion of the universities, and the belief that by increasing the number of undergraduates we necessarily multiply the benefit either to the young people concerned or to the nation. When young people are taken away from their home milieu, in late adolescence, crowded together in age groups, with diminished parental, and indeed, adult influence, and without the social disciplines which the need to earn a living impose, is it surprising that their late-adolescent rebelliousness should feed on itself, and seek ideological rationalisation?"

That business of being away from home, without responsibility and the social discipline of earning a living comes a bit rich from an old Harrovian. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:

"No doubt many will grow out of it when they leave for the world, but not all. Some will carry on an extended adolescence as teachers in schools and in polytechnics and in universities, helped by the like-minded, where they will co-operate with left-wing gangs."

The right hon. Gentleman said that, even more dangerously, others go into social work and corrupt the youth of this country even more.

There is no evidence for all that saloon-bar philosophy. Seven years later the right hon. Gentleman has yet to give an adequate justification for those sentiments to any of the groups that I believe he utterly misrepresented in their motivation, performance and excellence. When the response of outrage came forth from assorted parts of the community, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had been misunderstood. A short time later he appeared on television applauding the fact that he had received shoals of supporting letters from all over the country. That occasioned the following letter in The Guardian:

"Sir,—A smiling Sir Keith Joseph meets the press to announce that he is delighted with the public response to his recent remarks. But wasn't he the fellow who complained previously that his remarks were misreported?—Yours, Glenys Kinnock."

I have a lesson not only of wit, but of brevity, to learn from my wife. That was a more than adequate response. The importance of the affair to this debate was the long-term evidence that it gave of a man, who I sincerely believe to be a man of compassion and high intelligence, holding opinions for a long time—opinions reinforced by assorted writings, books, magazines, speeches and broadcasts—which have proved banal when tested against any modern criteria.

I hope that in our prolonged acquaintance—at least until the next election; I do not like it when the Prime Minister keeps switching education Ministers, because it spoils my aim—the Secretary of State will convince me of the rationality of his views or concede that they do not have much relationship to realities. However, the system that he appears to want is one in which access to and provision in higher education should be reduced. University places should be available only to those who pursue knowledge for its own sake. The great yoke of publicly-provided opportunities should be lifted from the necks of our oppressed citizenry and replaced by a privatised university system.

Some of that is already occurring. Institutions that lost substantial funds with the imposition of so-called full-cost fees for overseas students are now sustaining themselves substantially by selling places on the international market. As that and various borrowing and lending and covenanting activities are taking place, the Government will reduce the value of student grants yet again, consider the abolition of the maintenance award and again float the idea of loans to replace grants as they cash-limit student awards.

If such a system were brought fully into operation, presumably it would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's perceptions of liberty and his definition of utility. We shall fight and defeat his ideas just as surely as previous generations fought and defeated such ideas when they were laid across those generations' roads to freedom. The right hon. Gentleman thinks of himself and is thought of as a lover of liberty, but the liberty in which he believes requires that people are freed from certain communal obligations and must therefore seek and secure their liberties with minimal communal assistance. The right hon. Gentleman bases his views on the imagined equity and dispassion that he believes exist in the market place. All the legions of history march against that view of liberty. The story of the advancement of the common people in this country and in other countries is one of the expansion of public provision and the retreat of purchased private privilege. Public provision might be the enemy of freedom for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is freedom to me, and I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman why.

Public provision has been the means of my personal emancipation and the emancipation of thousands of my contemporaries and of those who have come from similar backgrounds in the generations following mine. It has given liberty to those generations—liberty that was absent for their fathers, grandfathers and forefathers, who were denied all but the nominal and tenuous freedoms that were easily subordinated by any boss or bully who could threaten and intimidate them with the loss of their homes or jobs, with poverty, sickness and all the insecurity that goes with a market system.

I am the first Kinnock to have received a university education. That is not because I was the first who had the capacity to take advantage of such an education or because I was the first who had the necessary native intelligence, whatever that is. I received a university education because my loving and highly motivated parents could rely upon the anonymous benefaction of millions of anonymous taxpayers—fellow citizens prepared to make subscriptions for the general good and for the emancipation of one Neil Kinnock, and many hundreds of thousands more like him.

That is how we obtained our freedom. That is how we shall keep our freedom. When we fight against cuts in higher education, in universities and in schools, we who depend and will depend upon public provision to give us access to the knowledge of the ages, mastery of technology and the development of our society, are fighting for our liberty and the liberty of those whom we seek to represent and emancipate. We have had the great fortune to be emancipated from the fears and constraints that threatened and controlled our forefathers' generations.

The consequence of the Welfare State is not, as the Secretary of State describes it in various articles, orthodoxy, sycophancy and caution. The consequence of our sort of Welfare State and democratic provision is quite the contrary. It is unorthodoxy, independence and audacity. I suspect that our objectives of using free institutions for freeing the people and expanding, extending and strengthening our freedoms are the bases of the right hon. Gentleman's objections. It is the insolence of our freedom that causes so much trouble to the right hon. Gentleman and those who think like him.

We shall not surrender our freedom. We shall continue to fight for it. We shall fight the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else. We shall continue fighting the cuts and the purposes behind them. At the first opportunity we shall rebuild, develop, expand and change higher education so that it meets the social, economic, technological, scholastic and aesthetic needs of the people in a way that it has never done before.

rose

Answer that.

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"this House regretfully accepts that all sectors of higher education, after a long period of sustained expansion, should contribute to the restraint in the rate of increase in public spending and welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure the effective controal of the resources devoted to higher education as a whole, to maintain the highest possible standards and to adjustments of the university system in favour of science and engineering."

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mrs. Boothroyd) invites me to answer what we heard from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I hope that I shall answer with as much relish as that which the hon. Gentleman displayed when he spoke. I have read the hon. Gentleman's speeches and I have heard some of them. I have always admired the gusto with which he speaks in the House. His speech today was no exception to his normal performance. He was able to lean—he did so very effectively—upon a letter that was conveniently written to me on 4 November by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. In the process of replying I shall take up the various comments that he made.

In 43 minutes the hon. Gentleman never once connected the expenditure of the universities with their revenue. Surely there must be some balance between receiving and paying. The hon. Gentleman would have impressed the House far more if he had dealt with the question of who is to pay for the unlimited expansion of higher education, of which he speaks with ardour and, I have no doubt, sincerity.

The provision of public services, which the hon. Gentleman welcomes and applauds so fervently, depends upon the capacity to bear the cost of those services. Those who work in the public services do not pay the full cost of the public services out of their own taxes. The costs of the public services are paid for to a large extent, directly and indirectly, by those who work in and form the trading base. If we allow too large a public sector to crush, by the burden of paying for it, the trading base, as we have done under successive Governments over the past 20 years, steps such as those that the Government are reluctantly having to take in relation to the universities will become inevitable time and again.

It is not only me, a Tory Minister, who has enunciated this relationship. I have in my hand a list of no fewer than 13 proposals that were set out by Mrs. Shirley Williams when she was Minister of State, Department of Education and Science in the 1966 Labour Government. She proposed taking steps quite as draconic, if not more draconic, as those that the Government now propose to reduce the burden of public spending on higher education that was being placed upon the trading base at that time. The hon. Gentleman weakened a powerfully presented case by failing to refer in 43 minutes to the question who is to pay for unlimitedly expanding higher education.

There must be some balance between the capacity of the community to pay and what is provided. The sad fact that lies behind the set of policies that we are debating is that under successive Governments for two decades, if not more, we have had relative economic failure. We have had a thoroughly disappointing economic performance. No doubt we shall debate on another occasion the causes of that economic disappointment. We have had little growth in output. Compared with our neighbours and competitors, we have done far less well. Even more tragically, we have done far less well than most of us think we could have done. We may have done historically better than in almost any other previous period, but our neighbours and competitors have done dramatically better. There has been little growth in output.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of the failure that he has described may be attributed to our failure to provide as much higher education for as many people as that provided by most of our competitors?

I shall especially enjoy taking up that fallacy at the appropriate place in my speech.

It is not a fallacy.

I believe it to be sadly misguided.

Our economic performance has been disappointing. There has been little growth in output. However, we have expanded public spending as if the economy had been and was continuously successful. That lies at the heart of the matter. Public spending is still expanding. If we are not to crush the capacity of the trading base to recover, if we are to stop taxation rising even higher, and if we are to restrain the growth of borrowing with the higher interest charges that that tends to bring, there is a need to restrain the growth of public spending.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the decisions that he has taken on university spending are related to public service borrowing and to the net cost to the Exchequer. Will he tell the House the difference between the savings that he intends to make in the universities and the cost of paying for those people who will lose their jobs and who will have to be sustained by unemployment benefit because they will not be students at universities?