Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Wednesday 3 May 1995

The House met at Ten o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wells.]

10.4 am

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the non-proliferation treaty, which was established to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and to find a way foward to complete nuclear disarmament.

This summer also sees the 50th anniversary of the explosion of two atomic bombs on Japan. On 6 August 1945, an atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing more than 140,000 people. Some three days later, another atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing more than 70,000 people. As someone said, in the central square mile of each one of those cities, nine out of 10 people died; and 90 per cent. of the dead were not soldiers or politicians: they were children, mothers and grey-haired old men and women.

The message that came from a recent anniversary of that bombing was, "Step back and learn from us." Those world leaders who are participating in the nonproliferation treaty conference in New York, which is now drawing to a close, have the opportunity to do just that—to step back and learn not just from that tragedy but from many other tragedies that have afflicted our people over the years.

When the British ambassador commended the non-proliferation treaty to the United Nations General Assembly in 1968, he said:

"I cannot prove the nuclear powers' sincerity. An act of faith rather than objective data is required. I accept that when they pledge themselves to pursue negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date, they mean what they say."

The ambassador was summarising article VI of the non-proliferation treaty, which envisages a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons.

Some 27 years later, the United Nations Secretary-General, opening the non-proliferation treaty conference, said:

"The most safe, sure and swift way to deal with the threat of nuclear arms is to do away with them in every regard. This should be our vision of the future. No more testing. No more production. No more sales or transfers. Reduction and destruction of all nuclear weapons and the means to make them should be humanity's common cause."

How does the Government's present proliferation policy stand up against those two comments? For instance, in the debate on the Royal Navy in February this year, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said:

"We all want to work for the reduction and the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons."

That filled me with some optimism, as it complied with article VI of the non-proliferation treaty. But that optimism was quickly dashed because, within seconds, the same Minister said:

"One of the main tenets of our policy is that we should retain our nuclear deterrent while any other country in a position to threaten our security possesses a nuclear weapon or the ability to construct a nuclear weapon."—[Official Report, 16 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 1146.]

That obviously breaks article VI of the non-proliferation treaty.

Some statements, even from those on the Opposition Front Bench, fill me with dismay. Writing about the world's stock of nuclear weapons, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said:

"Until the elimination of these stocks is achieved, Labour will retain Britain's nuclear capability."

Both the Government and the Opposition seem to be saying that Britain will be the last country to give up its nuclear weapons. That is in stark contrast to a decision taken at a recent Labour party conference that we, as a future Government, would, among other things, scrap Trident.

A month ago in Washington, the Prime Minister met President Clinton. The Prime Minister boasted about the continuing closeness of the Anglo-American relationship. He told one journalist:

"If you were to spend a weekend on one of our nuclear submarines, you would find a Trident missile on it. I'm not sure you could travel on anyone else's submarine and find a Trident missile on it".

He emphasised that that was a

"practical illustration of the extent of the closeness of the defence, security and other relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States".

That "practical illustration", however, is also a violation by both the UK and the United States of America of article I of the non-proliferation treaty, which states:

"Each nuclear weapons state, party to the treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipients whatsoever, nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons, or explosive devices, directly, or indirectly."

In a debate in December, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) exposed the detailed way in which the British Trident programme was dependent on United States technical support and equipment. The purchase of Trident—those missiles that the Prime Minister referred to on British submarines—is certainly a transfer of a military weapon system.

The examples highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and, indeed, the Prime Minister are both breaches of article I of the non-proliferation treaty. That is not just my opinion; it is the conclusion of countries such as Mexico, which has expressed that view at the conference that is going on in New York.

What is particularly disgraceful about the continued military co-operation between the United States and the UK is that those countries are two of the three depositary states for the non-proliferation treaty. In effect, the treaty is held in trust by them. How do they show that respect? By breaking the very first article of the treaty.

An argument exists that we should agree to an indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty. I am opposed to that, because it would remove any leverage by the non-nuclear powers to pressurise nuclear weapons powers to negotiate nuclear disarmament.

As if being put in the diplomatic dock over US-UK nuclear collaboration were not enough, the Government have colluded to ensure that this country has also violated the second part of article I of the non-proliferation treaty, which reads:

"Each nuclear weapon state party to the treaty undertakes not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce, any non nuclear weapon state to manufacture, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices".

Article II of the treaty goes on to establish a complementary commitment by the non-nuclear power states not to receive assistance in nuclear weapons manufacture, or otherwise to acquire nuclear weapons.

It is obviously true that Iraq violated its commitment under article II, as the UN special commission's investigation has made clear, but, according to David Kay, one of the team leaders, the role of British companies was vital to Iraq's efforts to enrich uranium for nuclear warheads. Dr. John Gordon, who was head of the nuclear energy department of the Foreign Office from 1986 to 1988—so one would expect him to know something about these matters—argued in a letter to The Independent on 21 November 1992 that the UK Government were complicit with Iraq in breaching article I.

For example, in February 1989, two years before the fighting in the gulf, the private secretary to the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was then a junior Foreign Office Minister, wrote to then Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe's office, stating:

"you may wish to show the Secretary of State the attached papers concerning a potentially politically-sensitive export to Iraq. The machinery in question has legitimate civil uses, but could also be employed in munitions manufacture"—

here is the important and nuclear connection—

"or even in uranium enrichment. Mr. Waldegrave's inclination is to support the recommendation that applications are approved. He has commented that screwdrivers are also required to make hydrogen bombs."

Does my hon. Friend recall that, five months before the Gulf war, the then Foreign Secretary told me, in answer to a request to beef up inspections of the Iraqi nuclear programme, that Iraq was a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty? The Government told me that they had full confidence that Iraq would abide by its obligations and that it was not working to manufacture nuclear weapons. If the Gulf war had not taken place, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons by now.

Iraq would probably have had screwdrivers as well.

I have no doubt that, by now, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons and, in all probability, screwdrivers.

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest, but does not the intervention of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) reveal the flaw in that argument? People can sign the treaty, but it would be foolish for to us abandon our weapons in a one-sided manner while people sign the treaty in less than good faith. The Government have said,

"We would like to, and will, abandon our weapons, but only when everyone else does so at the same time." That is a sensible position. The one-sided argument always goes against the protection of our nation, and is bizarre.

We cannot continue to tell non-nuclear power states or non-nuclear weapons states that they should not have those weapons of war, if, at the same time, this country does not make any effort to negotiate away its own stock of nuclear weapons. That is an act of hypocrisy on our part. It would be an act of naivety on the part of the non-nuclear power states if they continued to accept such an argument.

Surely it would be naive of us to say, "Look. We will give up all our weapons. Now, of course, the rest of world will do so." As the hon. Member for Newport, West rightly said, if we had not gone to war in Iraq, by now it would have nuclear weapons. Does the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) believe that Iraq would not use them?

We had nuclear weapons, but it did not seem to deter Iraq from going to war. I seem to remember one Mr. Gorbachev some years ago taking some important unilateral initiatives on nuclear disarmament, which had a positive effect throughout the world.

The whole point of my intervention was to stress that the naivety was that of the British Government in the 1980s not beefing up inspection under the treaty. There is nothing wrong with the treaty, and countries such as France and China have engaged in disarmament, but the problem is that we need a treaty that is transparent.

By sheer coincidence, inspection was my next point. The shadow Foreign Secretary, writing in New Statesman and Society, argued for a much tougher regime to enforce compliance with the non-proliferation treaty through inspection at short notice of any nuclear installations, whether or not the state had admitted to their existence. He said that Iraq had got away with its nuclear weapons programme because safeguards were applied only to its officially declared facilities.

That is true, but it is not the full truth. If the major supplier states such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland had not turned a collective blind eye to the export of that equipment to Iraq, sometimes through a third country, intrusive inspections of the assembled equipment would be less of a problem or requirement. As the Scott inquiry has shown, some British Ministers even encouraged support for Iraq's nuclear programme.

In relation to the problem of sensitive technology exports, last week I received a comprehensive report entitled "Proliferation and Export Controls" by Saferworld, a foreign affairs think tank that is based in London. The report highlights huge discrepancies between controls imposed on sensitive or dual-use technology. It shows, for instance, that, of the 73 countries designated as "sensitive" for exports by Germany, Japan, the United States and the UK, only 30 appeared on all four countries' restricted list. If the Minister has read that report, will he please comment on those findings?

In New York, the Foreign Secretary announced that the United Kingdom had ceased production of fissile materials for explosive purposes. That decision is full of loopholes, the first of which is that, for nearly 20 years, the main feedstock for new British warheads has been recycled plutonium from dismantled warheads.

Does the Minister agree that the thremal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP—will add tens of thousands of kilograms of plutonium to the stockpile, which at Sellafield already amounts to 80,000 kg? Is not THORP's significant reprocessing capacity bound to add to the safeguards problem? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with an editorial in the Financial Times, which said:

"Efforts also need to be made to curb production of reactor grade plutonium, produced by plants such as THORP, since this can readily be converted into bombs, using modern technology"?

The second loophole in Britain's offer to halt military fissile material production results from the so-called tripartite agreement between Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency. For example, Parliament was told in 1983 that article XIV of the agreement allowed for the withdrawal of civil material from the safeguards for reasons of national security. In January 1994, I was told that the Government had activated that clause 571 times since May 1979, and that 70 of those withdrawals involved plutonium.

We also know, because of an admission by the American Government last June, that reactor grade plutonium has been tested in a nuclear weapon. Will the Minister block that loophole? Otherwise, THORP and Sellafield will remain a huge potential plutonium mine for the military.

The third loophole is provided by the recent extension for a further 10 years of the clauses of the 1958 mutual defence agreement on atomic energy, which allows the United States and the United Kingdom to barter explosive nuclear materials. That loophole allows each country to make up any perceived nuclear explosive material shortfall in the other, and unless it is closed it will undermine the non-proliferation goals of the cut-off convention.

An Indian defence expert said of the non-proliferation treaty:

"Ultimately it comes to a single issue. In today's world do we still need weapons of mass destruction? Should terror be the only way to achieve stability? Do we still need to divide countries on whether they possess destructive weapons and assign separate duties and responsibilities? Would such a division in perpetuity be in the interest of the world?"

Finally, I pay tribute to all the organisations, such as Greenpeace, the Acronym Consortium and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, that are still campaigning for a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons—especially CND, which is continuing the argument in connection with the present non-proliferation treaty conference.

Next week, on 10, 11 and 12 May, not many yards away from Parliament, Janet Bloomfield will fast for a nuclear-free world. I am sure that all hon. Friends and hon. Members will want to give Janet all the support possible, and then to join her and other members of CND in marching to the French embassy to protest against nuclear testing.

In my opinion, nuclear weapons constitute the most important issue that the House could consider. There is an obligation on each and every one of us to ensure that in the months and years ahead something positive comes out of the treaty, so that we can leave to our children a planet at least as beautiful and as safe as the one that we inherited.

10.24 am

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) spoke with integrity and honesty, which one can respect. He has honestly told us that he has not changed his views over the years; they remain the same as they were 20 years ago. I agree with what he said about wishing to pass on a planet and a country as beautiful and as nice to live in as they are now—indeed, I hope that they may be better.

However, the hon. Gentleman has totally missed the point. I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I am spurred to do so by his comments. At no stage did he mention the possibility that the defence of the United Kingdom might be important to its inhabitants. He never said that the odd threat and the odd danger existed beyond the shores of the United Kingdom, and that those threats might not respond to the logic and charm of his speech.

The defence of the United Kingdom is possibly the most important role of any Government of whatever political hue. The defence of the realm has always been stated to be the first business of Government.

The hon. Gentleman implies that, by possessing nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom poses a threat to world peace. History reveals that that is not true. Since we have had nuclear weapons—we have had them for nearly 50 years now—we have neither deployed them nor threatened to use them. We have kept them in the background; we have spoken softly but carried a big stick, which we could use if we were ever threatened.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the possibility of using nuclear weapons. Would he be willing to press the button to start them off? If so, what would be the consequences, and what would be the possibility of leaving our children a safer world than the one that we inherited? Finally, at whom does he think those nuclear weapons would be pointed and fired?

The hon. Gentleman may know that I spent 15 years in the British Army. During that time, my view was that, when nuclear weapons were used it would be time to pack up and go home, because that would be the end of it. The question of first use is interesting, and the Government have been right never to say, "We shall never use nuclear weapons first," because, if one does that, one gives away the whole purpose of having the weapons. Instead, we say, "We have nuclear weapons; I trust that nobody will wish to use them against us."

Would you press the button?

I would not personally be willing to do that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but if I were a Minister I would not be in a position to say that, because Ministers must maintain a bland face and say, "We have nuclear weapons"—

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent only if the other side knows that one is willing to use them. The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that, if he were responsible, he would refuse to press the button, so nuclear weapons cannot be a deterrent. It is as simple as that.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I did not say that I would not use nuclear weapons if I were responsible. I said that, personally, I would not use them at the moment. However, the Government must maintain a bland face and say, "We have nuclear weapons. They are there to be used if necessary." Of course the Government must say that. Otherwise, we might just as well not have nuclear weapons.

The Government have never used nuclear weapons, nor have they threatened to use them. Over the past 50 years, although it may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, we have not been invaded, and we have lived in peace—an advantage that our parents, grandparents and even our great grandparents never enjoyed. Surely that points to some flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument that nuclear weapons cause war and are a threat to peace. We have enjoyed peace partly because of nuclear deterrence.

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about the conference on the extension of the non-proliferation treaty, and the extent to which the world recognises that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a threat to global stability? May I take him back to his experience in the armed forces, and ask him whether, in the multiplicity of civil and regional wars, of which he will have much closer knowledge than I, he can identify one context in which the United Kingdom's possession of nuclear weapons helped to deter or to end such wars?

I am well aware that we are discussing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—that is the point: we already possess nuclear weapons. Nobody would wish to see the spread of nuclear weapons—I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent would agree with that. I wish to see them reduced.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the United Kingdom's possession of nuclear weapons had ever prevented war in regional conflicts. We have not been involved in a war which might have needed nuclear weapons, or called for them to be used, because we have possessed them. It is self-evident—we did not come to blows with the former Soviet Union, despite its evangelical creed of pushing revolution and communism around the world.

The former Soviet Union says so. Documents from the former Soviet Union reveal how generals were planning to invade the west. They may have been lunatic generals, but they were generals in the former Soviet Union. Those plans were never put into effect, because we stood firm and did not say, "Of course we will not defend ourselves."

We had to have nuclear weapons then against a tangible threat. What is the threat now? The hon. Gentleman mentioned proliferation. The threat lies with countries such as Iraq, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which has been working for nuclear weapons for many years. I think that it was in 1980 that Israel bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq for that very reason.

We all wish to get rid of nuclear weapons. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement said:

"We all want to work for the reduction and the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons."—[Official Report, 16 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 1146.]

I agree with that, and, as a soldier, I would certainly have wished to see that. It is not much fun being a soldier in a noddy suit quietly frying away in a nuclear holocaust, any more than it would be for a child in the street.

We talk about reducing our nuclear weapons, and it is right that we should not know the exact numbers we possess—in Britain they amount to a few hundred nuclear warheads. The states of the former Soviet Union and the United States of America have thousands of warheads. As they start to negotiate a reduction in their warheads, it is right and proper that we should look at our numbers. We do not form an entity with the United States of America; we are a separate country—I know that all Opposition Members would agree with that. We must take into account our own interests, which are to protect ourselves.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent showed an astonishing naivety. His speech revealed that, over the past 20, 30, or 50 years, some people have learnt nothing. It is evident that CND has learnt nothing from the recent past. The hon. Gentleman's speech could have been made at any time in the past 30 years; it took no account of the collapse of the Soviet Union or the deployment of cruise missiles.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his friends in CND would and did argue against the deployment of cruise missiles, which, as has been revealed and as history will judge, was one of the factors that led to the breakdown of the Soviet Union as a major and threatening power.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have opposed the Gulf war in 1991—he will correct me if I am wrong. His naivety is again revealed. What would Saddam Hussein have done if he had been allowed to continue invading, and controlled 40 per cent. of the world's oil reserves? He would have built nuclear weapons and used them against us. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may think, Saddam Hussein is not a charming, cuddly teddy hear, but an extremely unpleasant dictator.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Of course I shall give way to the true voice of the Labour party.

I thank that hon. Gentleman for his comment—perhaps the Labour party's Front-Bench team will listen carefully to what he said.

Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 1987 and 1988, when a very small number of Labour Back Benchers, including myself, were actively arguing for an arms embargo against Iraq and were raising the issues of human rights and chemical warfare in Iraq, and the attack on Halabjah and the treatment of the Kurdish people by Iraq? The British Government said that trade came first, and they would not introduce a trade embargo or anything else against Iraq. 'The hon. Gentleman should think a little bit about the history before making facile comments about the current position.

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his integrity over the subject, for adopting an approach that is straight down the line, and for always holding that line. There are many countries with whom we might not have been trading. Perhaps we should never have traded with the Soviet Union as a whole, especially as we hear more awful tales coming out of the gulag. Would the hon. Gentleman say that we must not trade with China, which is employing fearsome and unpleasant tactics? We should not have been arming Iraq, and we did not.

The hon. Gentleman said that my comments were facile. I went to Iraq with the British Army in 1991, and I saw a vast array of weaponry in Iraq and Kuwait that was used by the Iraqi forces. But I saw no British weapons. I saw French Pumas, many MiGs, a vast array of eastern bloc, Soviet Union tanks, but no British weaponry. I know that the supergun was stopped here by the Government. We did not arm Iraq.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) tries to throw dirt at his own country and say that it was our fault. I was injected against fearful things, such as anthrax, which Saddam Hussein might have used. The idea that anthrax could have been used in warfare is so horrific as to be almost unthinkable, but Saddam Hussein would have used it. It did not come from Britain. His chemical warfare potential came not from Britain, but from other countries. Instead of for ever running down his own country, the hon. Gentleman might consider the record of history, which will prove us right.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

There is an endless litany of equipment that Britain supplied to Iraq, including tank tracks, the precursor chemicals for both chemical and biological weapons, radar equipment and sophisticated heat-seeking equipment. There is a range of equipment, that I could list until the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to suggest that Britain did not supply Saddam Hussein with a range of weapons of war.

The hon. Gentleman says that there is a list, I cannot comment on the exact details of the equipment, as I cannot extract them from my memory, but the hon. Gentleman's list in terms of quantity and worth is nonsense. We did not supply Saddam Hussein with the bulk of his weaponry, which was from the eastern bloc. I wish that we could hear the hon. Gentleman condemn the eastern bloc and those countries that supplied Saddam Hussein.

We were discussing nuclear proliferation. I am glad to see that no Opposition Member has denied that Saddam Hussein is keen on having nuclear weapons, that he is difficult to pin down and untrustworthy. That is why I say that the fact that they would have opposed the Gulf war shows great naivety. They would have let Saddam Hussein build up his nuclear arsenal, and would have seen him use it.

I shall go back further than the Gulf war and the second world war, to disarmament in the 1930s. Most people would say that disarmament in Britain in the 1930s acted as a signal to the powers of the Axis that perhaps Britain was not interested in fighting. The House will recall the famous Oxford union debate, where it was said that disarmament acted as a great signal to Hitler that this House would not fight for king and country.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the left in this country, including Michael Foot, were actively engaged in calling for collective security against fascism, and that the Conservative Government appeased Nazism at that time—just as Conservative Governments are inclined to appease brutal regimes such as the Chinese regime today?

I would not accept that. I would say that the hon. Gentleman's reading of history is slightly flawed—very flawed, in fact. I have a history degree, and I can assure him that that is not the way that I read it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has a history degree. However, let us not get bogged down.

Just as in the 1930s those who argued for disarmament were wrong, so in the 1990s those who say that we should one-sidedly, unilaterally, disarm are wrong. Yes, we would all like to see a world without war, particularly nuclear war, but the world is not like that.

How pleasant it would be if, for once, Opposition Members put the defence of the United Kingdom at the top of their list, instead of for ever knocking the Government and suggesting that there must be something wrong because the Government retain weapons that can defend the United Kingdom. I too would like to see nuclear proliferation stopped. I would like our nuclear weapons to be reduced as they are reduced around the world, and if it were possible to abolish them completely, that would be welcome.

Today, we have again seen the true face of the Labour party. I am grateful to Opposition Members for revealing that what we have read about Labour party policy is not the same as that which really dwells on the Back Benches of the Labour party.

10.42 am

I am glad to be able to make a brief contribution to the debate. I will be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on obtaining the debate, and on his speech opening it.

I shall make my position clear at the beginning. I have been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for many years, and I am a member of its national council. I support Labour party policy, as expressed at our most recent conference, on scrapping Trident.

The debate is supposed to be about the non-proliferation treaty, but not very much of the last speech was about it. It seems that the indefinite extension of the treaty is likely to be presented to us as a success. We need to ask whether the indefinite extension of the treaty, without any changes in the policies that have been adopted through the past 25 years of its existence, represents success, and whether we should not instead say that, positive though the treaty has been, we should move forward, to change and develop those policies.

The fundamental problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent pointed out, is the contradiction in the policies of the major nuclear powers, including the UK. We tell other countries who are potential proliferators that they must not have nuclear weapons, that they are not legitimate and unnecessary for their security. Yet at the same time, we pursue policies that say that we cannot have security without nuclear weapons. That is a fundamental contradiction.

As has been pointed out already, in the past few years, we have not merely retained the nuclear weapons we had. Trident itself was proliferation, because it has more warheads and more targets can be hit. Of course the yield of nuclear weapons was higher in the 1970s, but Trident can hit six times as many targets as Polaris. The recent announcements that we will scrap the free-fall bomb and that we will not produce new fissile materials seem to be designed more to persuade some people at the NPT conference to accept indefinite extension rather than as a real change of policy.

What about security guarantees? Why is it that we are not prepared to give unconditional guarantees of no first use against non-nuclear states? The statement on 5 April by the UK and other nuclear powers still contains a long, long list of exceptions. It may be argued that, by guaranteeing security for countries potentially threatened by nuclear-armed enemies, we are persuading them that they do not need to develop their own nuclear weapons. I believe that the only context in which that argument might possibly have been valid was in the situation that existed during the cold war.

Over the past few years, did close relationships with the US or the existence of the non-proliferation treaty prevent Israel or Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons? Why will those states not admit that they are nuclear powers? Why do such states seek nuclear capability? Israel still refuses to admit to such a capability, even though Mordecai Vanunu has spent years in solitary confinement for exposing Israel's nuclear programme. It wanted to acquire nuclear weapons because of its regional and local conflicts.

Consider what the Foreign Secretary said recently about the need to resist aggression having taken this country to war four times this century:

"looking at the world as it is now … I am driven to the conclusion that most of the difficult choices facing us will in future arise not from acts of aggression, hut from disasters within a nation state."— [Official Report, 23 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 773.]

I would suggest that it is not only disasters within nation states but regional conflicts that present the greatest problems.

We can imagine the dangers of proliferation to countries where the potential proliferators are neighbours with long histories of conflict. Iraq has already been mentioned. Iraq was crushed, but, as has been pointed out, if it had not invaded Kuwait, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons by now.

What would be the potential for conflict in Israel or Pakistan if their neighbours had nuclear weapons? That is precisely the sort of situation we may well be faced with if proliferation is not stopped. Mass proliferation has not happened yet, but I do not believe that that should give us confidence that it will not happen in future.

We are dealing with what is now an old technology. There are massive stocks of plutonium and evidence of illegal trading in it. One of the basic flaws in the existing non-proliferation treaty is that its emphasis leads to the export of nuclear technologies for power generation. It is one of the trade-offs of the NPT that countries such as North Korea are told not to develop nuclear weapons, but that we will help them acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

That ignores the very thin dividing lines, if such dividing lines exist at all, between so-called civil and military plutonium. Such dividing lines exist more on paper and in facile arguments than in reality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent pointed out, the US Department of Energy has now admitted that a nuclear test was carried out in 1962 using so-called civil plutonium.

The major weakness of the present approach is the failure clearly to link an extension of the non-proliferation treaty with disarmament. I believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, that we need a limited extension but to attach other targets to it, such as a global treaty to ban nuclear weapons, treaties to halt production of fissile materials, tighter control of existing stocks, better inspections, and the deployment of the nuclear weapons that exist only in the territories of the states that own them.

We should not continue the present double standards and the stance of saying that Trident is not open to negotiation, or is only negotiable when the numbers of weapons held by the US and Russia are down to hundreds. That is saying that we will never negotiate, because by the time that that happens, Trident will probably be obsolete.

At the moment, we do not have from the Government a commitment to negotiate. They are back-tracking from any serious suggestion of disarmament. A tremendous opportunity is being missed in the period in which we are considering the extension of the non-proliferation treaty.

10.49 am

I am pleased to be called to participate in the debate. I am aware that many Labour Members wish to speak, so I shall keep my comments brief.

We are not interrupting.

I shall not take any interventions. Mr. Corbyn: I was not going to intervene.

That is good of you.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on securing a debate on the non-proliferation treaty. There is a remarkable sense of honesty in the debate. I had heard many of his final remarks before: although he did not express any new ideas, his views were are at least honestly outlined. I have been aware for some time, too, of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).

I have believed for a long time that the non-proliferation treaty has been passed by. Discussing it is rather like watching the horse when it has already bolted. I read an article a year ago which said that we must face the fact that proliferation has taken place and is taking place. There is no possibility that we can somehow restrict the possession of nuclear weapons to a small club. In the next five or seven years, that will be shown to be manifestly impossible.

I am fully aware that there is a chain of proliferation, and at its apex are North Korea and China. There is no question but that they have been busily pushing technology out and taking money in. North Korea has been developing nuclear weapons for a considerable time and, to all intents and purposes, it is highly probable that it has at least five nuclear devices capable of being used—not just computer models but laboratory nuclear devices. One definitely exists.

My concern is not simply that such devices stay in North Korea; I am worried about the links with the middle east, Iraq and Iran have been busy funding North Korea's nuclear programme. Iran itself has a nuclear technology programme worth some £500 million a year and has been funding the North Koreans to use that technology.

Another aspect of the problem, which has not been mentioned but which is equally dangerous, is the capability to launch nuclear weapons. North Korea has been engaged in a phenomenal ballistic missile-building programme. It is busy producing a missile called the NoDong II, which will have a range of more than 2,000 km and will probably be capable of being used in the next five years. Iran has a very serious interest in that missile, because it has funded it. I believe that Iran and possibly Iraq have been used as a testing range for some launches, because North Korea does not have a suitable land mass on which to carry out tests.

Coupled with that link is the fact that the old Soviet Union is very unstable. We are not quite sure whether only nuclear weapons have changed hands. Even more devastating is the fact that some of the former Soviet Union's scientists are short of money and underfunded, and are capable of transferring their technology.

There is absolutely no question but that proliferation has taken place. Last year, the ex-Premier of Pakistan admitted that Pakistan had a nuclear device. It was hotly denied, but I believe that it has at least a laboratory device.

The big question is, what is to be done? The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and his colleagues will no doubt say, quite honestly and reasonably, that we should aim for a complete abolition of nuclear weapons. It is a laudable view, which I should support if I believed for one moment we could achieve it. I should be the first to say that that would be the perfect scenario, but it is not feasible.

How are we to safeguard our future? The situation will become more dangerous in the next seven or eight years, as very unstable regimes obtain a nuclear capability and—even more dangerous for western Europe—the capability to launch nuclear weapons. We need to face the fact that unstable regimes will possess nuclear weapons—it is not a question of if or even how, but when. The ladder of escalation needs to be considered. We might accept that the non-proliferation treaty is a laudable and serious attempt to restrict and slow down that process, but it will not stop it.

I have yet to hear any spokesman deal with the problem of what a country should do when it knows that an unstable regime is about to possess nuclear capability or is capable of making a threat. If a country in those circumstances has nuclear weapons, should it make some form of pre-emptive strike? Could it make a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike? Is the possession of nuclear weapons necessary for a pre-emptive strike?

We must consider whether we would go all the way and use nuclear weapons. The Opposition have yet to answer such questions. That is the debate in which we should engage, not a wishy-washy, "Should we or shouldn't we?" but, "When it happens, will we be prepared to use nuclear weapons?" The possession of such weapons is of no use unless we have the will to use them. If we possess nuclear weapons, we must make it clear that we are prepared to use them; otherwise, we might as well not possess them.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent for providing the opportunity to debate this subject.

10.55 am

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, and I shall respond to just two of the points he raised.

First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive move against states that are in breach of the non-proliferation treaty or which threaten to breach it. The answer has to be an unequivocal no. I have never heard anyone, in the House or elsewhere, suggest that the way to deal, for instenace, with Israel's breach of the NPT in acquiring its own nuclear weapons would be to nuke it.

Secondly, we need to deal with the international community's failure to have an interventionist, monitoring regime which acts to halt the supply of information and technology related to the building, development and testing of nuclear materials. We must set the debate in that context.

I wish clearly to outline my position. I unequivocally support a limited extension of the NPT, and I speak unapologetically as a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It is important at least to put on record some of what is being said in the current conference on extension, but which is not being admitted in the House by Ministers.

I am grateful to Greenpeace in particular for its monitoring of the conference. It is worth reading into the record the opening of its latest brief about the state of the negotiations:

"The Nuclear Weapons States, particularly the UK and France, have come in for some heavy criticism at the NPT talks in New York. As delegates debate review language in closed committees, there is growing concern about the high-handed attitudes of the United Kingdom and France, and the fact that they see no need to agree stronger measures for the implementation of their own obligations, particularly under Article VI of the Treaty. These criticisms are not just coming from the non-aligned countries, but also from a number of Western and EU countries."

That is the context in which the real debates in the extension conference are taking place.

The Foreign Secretary did not tell us that a series of other demands were being made, often by European colleagues as well as non-aligned states. For instance, Sweden and Switzerland have been demanding that there should be a timetable for nuclear disarmament. Germany, in the form of comments by Klaus Kinkel, its Foreign Minister, has demanded that something be done about the inclusion of existing stockpiles of civil nuclear materials in the negotiation and treaty framework. He said:

"hundreds of tonnes of spare plutonium must be reliably monitored. I repeat in this context my proposal for an international plutonium regime. Let us seize the chance which will not come again to ban the bomb".

The non-aligned countries are putting a different slant on things. At their recent meeting in Indonesia, from 25 to 27 April, the ministerial group of the non-aligned countries expressed its deep concern about the failure of nuclear weapons states to adhere fully to their obligations under the current treaty. The vast majority of non-aligned states are pushing for an alternative to indefinite extension.

Zimbabwe in many ways expressed the view that is held as a common-sense understanding in the non-aligned and non-nuclear states when it said:

"we should not hurry to immortalise a clearly imperfect treaty … we should seriously consider extension options only after the NPT has been adequately transformed into an action-orientated instrument that will guide us progressively towards total nuclear disarmament."

Those are the views being expressed in the conference which our Government are not reporting, and certainly not supporting.

The sadness in all this is that we are also adopting a position in the negotiations in which we seek to deny or dismiss the criticisms specifically levelled at the United Kingdom. In the non-nuclear world, it is readily understood that the acquisition of Trident is an act of proliferation; that reprocessing, whether of the WE177 warheads or of civil plutonium, is proliferation by stealth; and that the 1977 treaty on nuclear safeguards, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) referred, has specifically identified 70 occasions on which the UK has raided its civil plutonium stocks for military purposes.

It is clear that the Anglo-American mutual defence agreement, on which I managed to get a Consolidated Fund debate, has been used by us as a means to disregard the commitments that we entered into under the original non-proliferation treaty. The 10-year extension for the barter arrangements between us and America is specifically for

"special nuclear material for all development of, or use in atomic weapons."

All these are ways in which we, as part of a privileged club, are totally disregarding the obligations we solemnly entered into.

Yesterday, a paper was presented by the chairman of main committee 1 in the NPT negotiations. He said:

"The conference notes that among States Parties there are variations in the interpretation of certain aspects of Articles I and II which need clarification, especially regarding the obligations of nuclear-weapon States Parties among themselves, and when acting in co-operation with groups of non-nuclear-weapon States Parties under regional arrangements which may have resulted in transfer of nuclear weapons in violation of the spirit of the objective of Article I."

Under the mutual defence agreement, there has been a new development, in which we are actively involved in simulation nuclear testing. The weight of opinion among non-nuclear weapon states is that this is not a standstill or status quo. For nuclear weapon states to shift the basis of their testing to sophisticated, computerised simulation models is regarded as an act of proliferation in breach of the existing treaty.

We need to send the Foreign Secretary back into the NPT negotiations, and to get the United Kingdom to set out four key positions, for which we should argue and to which we should adhere. The first is for a limited extension of the treaty. The second is a commitment to no use of recyclable nuclear materials or current stocks for nuclear weapons purposes.

The third is a timetable for reverse proliferation. That is not a utopian waving of wands, saying that all nuclear weapons would go, but a timetable for reverse proliferation which would head towards such a global ban on nuclear weapons. In that sense, we would all welcome the Labour party policy of banning Trident.

Fourthly, we would have to have a commitment to a broader international regime to assist the movement of states away from dependence on nuclear power. That is the comprehensive framework in which the NPT extension treaty should now be considered.

11.4 am

I shall speak in defence of the non-proliferation treaty and for its indefinite extension. It is important that those who, like me, are critical of the inadequacies of the NPT do not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs took extensive evidence in its inquiry into the non-proliferation treaty from a number of organisations including not only the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but the Atlantic Council.

The people from the Atlantic Council believe that this country needs to keep nuclear weapons for ever, yet they argued the same line, from a completely different perspective, as that of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. They argued not for an indefinite extension, but for a limited extension, because they saw an indefinite extension of the NPT as a measure against the continuation of nuclear weapons rather than as a measure that would facilitate that continuation.

If we have only a limited extension of the NPT, there will be a serious temptation towards proliferation over the next 10 to 15 years. The number of countries that have acquired nuclear weapons over the past few years has been lower than was predicted in the 1960s or 1970s. I believe that the NPT has contributed to that restraint. That does not mean that the NPT is a perfect treaty—far from it.

The obligations under article VI, which have already been mentioned, are not being fulfilled by the nuclear weapons states. Some nuclear weapons states, principally the former Soviet Union and the United States, have made steps towards the disarmament of nuclear weapons. Other nuclear weapon states have got rid of obsolete systems, as our Government have, and have shown no real desire to make a commitment to the process.

Within the NPT negotiations, the British Government's position would be more comfortable if they had shifted their stance on a comprehensive test ban treaty, and if the Foreign Secretary, when giving evidence to our Select Committee a few weeks ago, had not ruled out a complete, indefinite ban on the testing of British nuclear weapons.

It seems that the British Government have stopped nuclear testing only because the Americans have stopped theirs, and because they no longer allow the Nevada test facility to be available. If someone else made a facility available, or if the Americans changed their position, our Government would presumably be prepared to start testing again. Perhaps the Minister will refer to this point. It is important that we get a clear, unambiguous statement that Britain will no longer test nuclear weapons, and that we support an early comprehensive test ban treaty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned security assurances. It appears that, as a result of some international and domestic criticism, our Government have shifted their position slightly over recent weeks. They have similarly shifted their position on the hydro-testing of nuclear weapons. It could be that they are feeling the heat internationally. Good.

Our existing position of saying, "Don't do as we do, do as we say," is untenable and immoral. If, as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, we believe in steps towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, it ill becomes us to be so grudging about including our nuclear capabilities in disarmament negotiations. We should move towards giving guarantees and assurances to non-nuclear weapon states following the end of the cold war.

Other hon. Members have referred to the cold war. If we are honest, we should admit that we all got it wrong. No one, including the advocates of massive arms build-ups, the advocates of unilateralism and the advocates of other points of view, could have predicted in 1986 or 1987 what would happen three years later.

None of us could predict what was going to happen, so it is ridiculous to try to score points off each other based on hindsight. No one predicted the fall of the Berlin wall or the end of the cold war. In such circumstances, it is important that we use a little humility, and acknowledge that the international situation is complex. We therefore need to work together to try to create a safer and more peaceful world.

11.9 am

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on obtaining this important debate covering a number of issues. Let me make it clear at the beginning of my speech that the Labour party is very much committed to the non-proliferation treaty and to an indefinite extension of it. That should be placed on record, because it is a matter of practical fact that the world in which we live is still an extremely dangerous place.

We may have seen an end to the arms race between the super-powers, but it is recognised throughout the international community that there is still danger from existing stocks of nuclear weapons and weapons grade material, from proliferation in new states, to which hon. Members of all parties have referred, and from proliferation in terrorist groups and maverick bodies.

The non-proliferation treaty has been a success—but not an absolute success. President Kennedy envisaged in 1962 that, within a few years, there would be 20 or 30 new nuclear states. The treaty and the spirit which underlies it may have prevented the world from realising that view. For example, Brazil and Argentina have concluded a mutual pact, and Argentina has subscribed to the NPT; South Africa has taken the step to dismantle its nuclear programme; and, with the break-up of the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have acceded to the treaty. Those moves can be counted as real successes of the treaty.

Of course there have also been failures. We have seen the growth of nuclear activity in the middle east. Certainly, the state of Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and Iraq and—arguably—Iran were seeking to go down the same path. There is little doubt, too, that, in the Indian sub-continent, India and Pakistan are nuclear-capable. In those respects, the success of the treaty has been limited. Nevertheless, we should count it as a success. We should recognise the nature of the bargain that underlies the treaty, which is always pointed out; whereby those states without nuclear weapons, which accept that they will not move to nuclear weapons capacity, accept in turn that the nuclear weapon states will take active steps under article IV to begin to dismantle their own capabilities.

Britain could have gone to the 20th anniversary conference of the treaty offering political and moral leadership to the world. Instead, at every stage, Britain has been dragged grudgingly to that conference, and has been forced at a very late stage to make concessions. While we welcome those concessions, they are not signs of a nation in the lead in the debate. Sadly, they are signs of a country lagging behind world opinion.

When the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recently asked the Foreign Secretary whether he foresaw an era in which Britain may not possess nuclear weapons, he said:

"I do not actually see any particular motive on our part to change that situation and I do not feel any particular pressure from others, either other nuclear weapon states or non-nuclear weapon states, to change it either."

Contrast those words with the many comments made at the conference in New York. For example, the Australians said:

"We must press ahead toward the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons",

and the South Africans commented:

"The time may also be right for considering whether the arsenals of the other Nuclear Weapon States"—

they are Britain, France and China—

"should not be included in this process."

The world expects de-escalation and Britain to play a stronger role than we have previously played.

The world welcomes some steps taken by the Government. We welcome the fact that, at the moment, there is a moratorium on nuclear testing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) asked a question to which I hope the Minister will respond forcibly: what is the Government's exact position on testing of nuclear weapons?

We know that, as recently as January, the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to give a commitment to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Let us put the position unequivocally on the record, as of today. Will Britain play a leading and constructive role in the pursuit of a test ban treaty, rather than, as it has done in the recent past, frustrate progress?

Of course we welcome a cessation of the production of fissile material. That is an important step, for which the Opposition have been calling for some time. I do not want to sound negative, but, for the indefinite future, Britain's stocks of nuclear grade material will allow us to provide all the warheads needed for any programme—real or foreseen—introduced by the present or, indeed, any future Government.

We also welcome the decommissioning of the WE177 free-fall bombs, but it must be said that those weapons systems were obsolete, and that, once Trident is fully deployed, the simple truth is that we shall have more warheads at our disposal, and certainly more capacity to target different sites, than we had at the end of the cold war.

Progress has been very limited. Indeed, when it was proposed that the European Union communiqué to be put to the conference in New York should include the words

"The conference welcomed also the significant reductions by France and the UK in their nuclear programmes",

even our close allies—the Swedes, the Irish and the Austrians—were not prepared to accept them. They felt that the progress made by our Government was grudging and not enough.

In the time remaining, I shall describe where the threats to the world lie, what the Labour party wants from this Government, and what a Labour Government will put into practice.

We know that the threat of proliferation is still real. We saw in the case of Iraq, to which my hon. Friends have referred, that the British Government were extremely complacent in the way in which they allowed the development of nuclear systems by the Iraqi regime. It is no good Ministers saying in moments of high hypocrisy that they somehow dealt with that situation. The world was complacent in the extreme, because it was not prepared to fund the International Atomic Energy Agency and give it the capacity by which to ensure that the inspection system needed was provided. We must learn from those lessons.

When the Foreign Affairs Select Committee asked the Foreign Secretary about funding of the IAEA, he said:

"As you know, our general policy towards funding of UN agencies is one of seeking to maintain zero real growth and that remains our objective."

Despite the fact that he went on to say that he recognised that, in the context of the agency's work, it would be necessary to review the situation, we need a guarantee that the agency will be given the funding it needs to do the work that the world demands.

We also need guarantees on the challenge inspection system, which worked in the context of North Korea, to which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) referred. In fact, the lessons of Iraq and the challenge system provoked the crisis which led to a change in the situation with respect to North Korea. We have to recognise—

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way.

We must recognise the need for that tough challenge inspection system and a properly funded IAEA.

We must also recognise another threat. We know that there have been three major interceptions of weapons grade material coming out of the former Soviet Union, so we need to work with our international partners and Russia to ensure that that threat diminishes. We need a regime to begin to control stocks of weapons grade material in Russia, the former Soviet Union and, more generally, throughout the world because the accessibility and availability of such material threatens the world through proliferation to states and maverick organisations.

Let me say clearly what a Labour Government would do. A Labour Government would want to limit the number of warheads on Trident to those on the present Polaris system. We would want to ensure that the world was aware of the situation with respect to warheads. The kind of secrecy that the Government have displayed, which allows the Russians to respond with equivalent secrecy, has no place in the role played by article IV and general nuclear de-escalation. That is a message which the Government should take on board. We want proper security assurances. The Government's waffle words at the New York conference are inadequate. They do not lead to the confidence building which the non-aligned states and the non-nuclear weapon states demand.

A Labour Government would make it clear that there would be no first use of nuclear weapons. Nor would nuclear weapons be used against non-nuclear weapon states. The Minister would do well to contemplate that, and respond with the Government's position.

A Labour Government would ensure that we supported efforts to secure proper international obligations and control over stocks of weapons grade material. We need such international mechanisms, and Britain would play its part by being clear about its stocks. A Labour Government would ensure that we had an International Atomic Energy Agency capable, and properly funded, to do the job that the world demands.

In addition, let me make it clear that a Labour Government would work very closely with countries like South Africa in pushing for a standing consultative committee to ensure that the problems that arise from time to time are brought before that committee on an on-going basis, instead of having to wait for the regular five-yearly review. The Minister would do well to explain the Government's position in that regard, but not in terms of the waffle words of recent parliamentary answers.

In the brief moments that I have had to comment on behalf of the Labour party, I wanted to contrast the incompetence of this Government, who have signally failed in their duty to the country and to the world, and who have failed to give any political or moral leadership at the conference in New York, with what a Labour Government would have done and what Labour says could have been done. I assure the House that, with a Labour Government, the non-proliferation treaty would be in much safer hands than it has been under this Government.

11.21 am

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on obtaining the debate. He maintains an honourable tradition for his constituency in doing so. I also welcome the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who made his first speech as spokesman on this subject. I thought that it was a good outing.

However, from listening to the hon. Member for Stretford after listening to Labour Back Benchers, it became clear that, between them, they revealed the tortured soul of the Labour party on nuclear deterrent issues—[Interruption.] Unless, of course, the hon. Member for Stretford thinks that the Labour party has no soul.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I cannot, as I have only nine minutes to cover many points. I apologise for that.

The hon. Member for Stretford concluded by trying to contrast the Government with the Labour party. He more effectively contrasted the pretences on the Labour Front Bench with the realities on the Back Benches.

This morning's debate clearly showed that nearly all hon. Members consider the non-proliferation treaty to be crucial. Several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), made honest speeches on that. I want to set out the Government's position at this point, just over halfway through the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference in New York. In doing so, I hope that I can answer as many as possible of the questions that have been raised.

By the time the conference ends on 12 May, we hope that we will have achieved our objective of indefinite extension to the treaty, either by consensus or with a substantial majority. The number of states that favour indefinite extension is growing all the time. All states belonging to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—formerly the CSCE—favour indefinite extension, as now do a growing number of non-aligned countries.

Why is indefinite extension so important? Twenty-five years ago, when the treaty came into being, it was widely expected that 20 or 30 states would acquire nuclear weapons. The hon. Member for Stretford raised that point. Clearly, that has not happened. The hon. Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Ilford, South stressed the value of the NPT in that process.

In a world of ever greater risk, the treaty provides a framework of stability and predictability essential to the continued control of proliferation, as well as to further efforts towards disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The hon. Member for Stretford itemised some of the gains, so I will not repeat them, as he made those points very well.

Anything less than indefinite extension could imply termination of the treaty in 25, 15, or even 10 years' time. We have to consider what message that that would convey to a potential proliferator, or indeed—given that they were mentioned so many times by Opposition Members—to Israel, India and Pakistan, whose accession to the treaty we all fervently desire.

It would be much more difficult to consider further steps towards disarmament or to encourage investment in the nuclear industries of developing countries if there was a risk that the constraints imposed by the treaty would disappear within a decade or two.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, as I do not have enough time.

Of course the treaty is not a perfect instrument. It is a major concern, which has been stated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that Iraq—a treaty party—came close to acquiring nuclear weaponry, and that North Korea, another party, has tried to shrug aside its obligations under the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) made a powerful and expert contribution on that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) also made some very good points on that issue.

I highlight how dangerous it is for Opposition Members to pretend enormous foresight on this issue. The hon. Member for Stretford, the present Labour spokesman on these matters, signed an early-day motion back in 1986 which praised the international liaison committee for peaceful and independent reunification of Korea—a North Korean front organisation—for organising a conference

"for the declaration of the Korean Peninsula as a nuclear free peace zone".

That rather makes the point better than anything else I could say.

The treaty provides the legal basis that enables us to summon such states before the bar of international opinion. Work is under way to make good deficiencies in the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Originally, that regime focused only on declared nuclear activity—hence the agency's apparent failure to alert the world to what Saddam Hussein was up to.

Following the experience with Saddam Hussein, there was tightening up, and the agency sounded the warning bell about North Korea, as has been pointed out. The director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency has now made further proposals which, when implemented, will give the agency a greater ability to identify undeclared nuclear activity.

Those proposals include enhanced inspections and more access to suspected nuclear facilities; a requirement on states to provide more detailed information than hitherto; and environmental monitoring, such as soil sampling around suspected sites. We strongly support those proposals, and will work for their early implementation.

Many hon. Members have referred to the bargain which they assert the treaty represents between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. That is a bargain by the nuclear weapon states, undertaken in article VI of the treaty, to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament in return for the non-nuclear states agreeing never to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept safeguards on their nuclear activities. However, article VI does not set a timetable for disarmament negotiations. We do not believe that setting an arbitrary timetable would make disarmament negotiations any more likely to succeed.

All that said, let us consider what the nuclear weapon states have done. Some have claimed that they have not kept the bargain. That charge was echoed by Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Stretford. Those charges betray an extraordinary reluctance to recognise the enormity of the changes that have taken place over the past decade.

Article VI calls for an end to the nuclear arms race. Thanks in part to the NPT, but of course also to the great changes in east-west relations, it is obvious that there is now no nuclear arms race. Indeed, there is almost a race to reduce nuclear weapons. Missile warheads and launchers are being dismantled, bombers are being destroyed and silos emptied.

So why are we building more?

If we had followed the CND nostrums which I hear shouted across the Chamber, we would never have imagined, let alone managed, that enormous achievement.

Under the INF and START agreements between the United States and Russia, thousands of intermediate and other tactical nuclear weapons are being put out of commission and more than 17,000 strategic weapons and bombers eliminated. The US Administration have said that they are dismantling some 2,000 nuclear weapons a year, and the Russians are deactivating their systems ahead of schedule.

What about Britain?

Britain has played a full part in that disarmament process. Although we have always maintained our deterrent at the minimum level commensurate with the strategic environment, we have eliminated our land and surface maritime tactical nuclear capability; reduced by more than 50 per cent. the number of WE177 nuclear bombs carried by our aircraft, and announced that all remaining WE177 bombs will be withdrawn by the end of 1998— I noted the grudging comment of the hon. Member for Stretford—when they will not be replaced by other systems, which is the key point.

The net effect of those changes is that, by the end of the decade, the UK will have only one nuclear weapons system, one fifth fewer warheads, and three fifths less explosive power than during the 1970s. That is a major reduction. Even when START II is implemented, British nuclear forces will be considerably less than 10 per cent. of the total nuclear forces available to the Americans or to Russia.

Our deterrence is truly minimal. If the rest of the world had seen cuts of that magnitude in other types of weaponry, the world might be much safer and its peoples less vulnerable to regional strife. It is no good the Opposition harping on about the replacement of Polaris by Trident. What matters is total capability.

Order. We must move to the next topic.

County Structure Plan (Lancashire)

11.30 am

I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the Lancashire structure plan, but I find it more than a little extraordinary that no Liberal Democrats are present. I am sure that many of my constituents in wards which are represented by Liberal Democrat councillors and are facing significant pressure on the few remaining open spaces in the town will draw the appropriate conclusions in the local government elections tomorrow.

The Lancashire structure plan is still in its consultation phase and there is therefore little that my hon. Friend the Minister can say about its specific provisions, but it is right that Lancashire Members should have the chance to comment on them and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to the more general issues that this and similar plans raise.

Much in the structure plan is commendable. It sets a broad strategic approach which attempts to deal with some of the main problems facing the county. It addresses the need to balance economic growth with a more sustainable pattern of development. It attempts to improve the image of the county so as to maximise inward investment. It looks at how to correct past imbalances in development between the west and east of the county. Those are all laudable objectives and important issues that the structure plan is right to identify.

The devil, however, is in the detail: the aspect of the plan that most concerns me is the damaging effect that it will have on Lancashire's environment and it is that aspect, above all else, that I shall concentrate on today.

There is now a widespread appreciation of the Government's environmental credentials. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in particular has demonstrated his personal commitment to the environment and has won the support and trust of many previously sceptical pressure groups. The Government have addressed with determination great global environmental issues such as climate change and global warming and as a consequence green politics appears less and less to preoccupy the minds of the public; yet still I sense a fundamental unease about the future, a feeling that what people care about—their own local environment—is under growing threat, and that the countryside of England is gradually but relentlessly being worn away.

Sometimes, perhaps as yet infrequently, that unease explodes into passionate demonstrations against plans to bulldoze ancient woodlands or to cover water meadows in tarmac. It is the same sense of unease about which the great English poet Philip Larkin wrote when he was commissioned by the Department of the Environment when it was set up in 1972. Conservative Members know that the Minister is particularly fond of poetry, so he will not mind my quoting Philip Larkin's poem, "Going, Going". He wrote:

"I thought it would last my time—the sense that, beyond the town, there would always be fields and farms.
Where the village louts could climb
Such trees as were not cut down;—
It seems, just now,
to be happening so very fast;
Despite all the land left free
For the first time I feel somehow
that it isn't going to last,
That before I snuff it, the whole
Boiling will be bricked in
Except for the tourist parts—
And that will be England gone,
The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,
The Guildhalls, the carved choirs,
There'll be books; it will linger on
In galleries; but all that remains
For us will be concrete and tyres".

We cannot underestimate the despair, alienation and anger that people feel about the destruction of the countryside, particularly when it is happening in their own backyards on the edges of towns and villages. That is the big environmental issue today. That is what people are really concerned about: the destruction of their piece of countryside, their green lung, their little open space. We cannot underestimate the power of those feelings because we can only guess at the emotions, the memories, the sense of security, well-being and community that are bound up in the land.

I cannot help thinking that, unless we—all of us, the Government and local authorities—decide to stop bulldozing the countryside and look for sustainable alternatives, there will be dozens more demonstrations like the one this week against the M65 in Stanworth valley and hundreds more police will have to be deployed to pull protestors down from the branches and the blossom before, finally, the endless tides of concrete wash over us all.

When Larkin wrote his poem, much less of England had been bricked in and much less had been destroyed. This weekend, we will celebrate the end of the second world war, but I doubt whether many of those who did not return from the conflict would recognise their country today. In the south-west alone, since 1945 the urban area has increased by two thirds. That is an increase of 84,000 hectares. An area of countryside half the size of Greater Manchester has been lost to development.

One third of the north-west is now urban. It is the most urban region in the country; yet Lancashire county council is planning more concrete and more tarmac. Its structure plan—which it calls, perhaps ironically, "Greening the County"—plans to seize for building and industry 3,700 hectares, much of it green fields at the edges of our towns and villages. It plans to drive a new road through the heart of some of the most beautiful countryside in east Lancashire by extending the M65 beyond Colne, and it is planning a further 23 road schemes in the county. That is not greening the county but greying it.

I want to deal with four aspects of the structure plan before discussing some of the wider issues on which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will elaborate.

Before my hon. Friend discusses those four points, does he agree that one of the ironies of what he has been saying is that the same people whom we have seen on television this week—the demonstrators in the trees and lobbying on the single issue—are frequently activists for left-wing parties, but are opposed by the very left-wing Lancashire county council? It is perhaps because of the irony of that conflict—it is the left arguing with itself—that just one Labour Lancashire Member dares to come to the debate; all the others cannot be bothered.

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is clear that the Labour party in Lancashire cannot be regarded as having any credible environmental credentials at all.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am delighted to give way and to have a Scottish perspective on our problems in Lancashire.

I do not want to antagonise the hon. Gentleman, but if it were not for the Scottish perspective and Scottish money, his town of Blackpool would be less prosperous than it is at the moment, as he knows. At the risk of ruining his career and mine, I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed his speech so far: it is nice to hear a speech that does not sound like a desiccated calculating machine when it comes to planning issues.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great risk in trying to portray those who are concerned with the environment as merely on the left, for the sake of making a party political point? The points that the hon. Gentleman makes in such resounding fashion about the quality of life are of concern to people right across the political spectrum and to many people who are not involved in party politics or, indeed, in regional issues.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course I recognise the great contribution made by Scottish people to Blackpool's economy, and I accept some of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I had hoped that, inspired by my quotation from one of England's great poets, he would himself quote Robert Burns.

The Lancashire structure plan rightly concludes that much of the pressure on the countryside results from demands generated in towns, and identifies some of the problems associated with the quality of housing in urban areas. The Government must take those points seriously, and I hope that they will do so, particularly in the context of the assisted area and urban aid programmes. I must say—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) agrees with me—that it is a disgrace that Blackpool, whose town centre has pockets of some of the highest unemployment in the north of England, receives no assistance whatever at a time when some far less deserving cases in the area are inundated with it.

The plan is also right to state that there would be less pressure for rural development if towns were more attractive to residents, developers and investors. That is in line with much of the Government's current thinking. My own concern about the issue has led me to look more closely at what is actually being planned. The integrity of our rural areas is of paramount importance: the countryside is an important resource for everyone, town and country dwellers alike. Once despoiled, a landscape is lost for a generation or more; farmland, once built on, is unlikely ever to be returned to agriculture.

The structure plan therefore rightly proposes putting land use policy on a more sustainable footing. It stresses the need to protect the rural environment—yet it proposes a staggering amount of development, based on thoroughly unconvincing statistics, which constitutes nothing less than an assault on Lancashire's countryside.

The county proposes that Lancashire's districts should allocate land for 66,000 new houses between 1991 and 2006. At present levels of density, that would require more than 6,000 acres—or 2,500 hectares—of land, much of which would be on green fields at the edges of towns and villages. Some of it would inevitably be on the few remaining open spaces in towns such as Blackpool, which is expected to provide some 4,000 extra houses at a rate of 270 units per year. In rural areas, the rate of development would be much higher.

I consider that level of development neither necessary nor sustainable. It is based on a projected population increase of 71,000 between 1991 and 2006, including a migratory element of 35,000. It also assumes a need to house growing numbers of smaller households in similar accommodation because of new social trends, such as greater longevity and the breakdown of traditional family relationships.

Those factors are bound to have an effect on population growth in the county, but I nevertheless believe that the county council is overstating its housing need. Official estimates of population and migratory change—in particular, those from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—are lower than the projections used by the county. That is not always the case in other areas. The OPCS calculates a population increase of only 48,700, with 28,300 net migrations; it also notes the falling birth rate, which the county fails to take into account.

Whatever the true figures, there is little doubt that the county is prepared to surrender green-field sites far too easily, and has not concentrated nearly enough attention on brown-field and recycled land. It is extraordinary that the plan should concentrate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for example, on developing green-field sites around Poulton, without mentioning the possibilities of housing development around the former commercial docks in Fleetwood.

It is also true to say that the type of housing proposed in such areas—mostly three and four-bedroom detached houses on small plots—does not reflect what is likely to be a growing demand for a higher proportion of smaller, low-cost properties built at higher densities for individuals and single parents rather than families. That important issue needs to be examined again, not just by the county council and local authorities but, in a wider context, by the Government. I hope that in the not too distant future the Environment Select Committee may be able to examine it, too; I certainly feel that it should be dealt with more fully in planning guidance.

I also believe that the Government should give much more consideration to the problems associated with migration from metropolitan areas, and the extent to which shire counties such as Lancashire are expected to plan for them. After all, such migrations are a sign of deteriorating quality of life in the cities: they show that life in the cities is becoming less and less attractive to ordinary people. In such circumstances, planned over-provision of land for housing by a county such as Lancashire simply fuels demand; it sends the wrong signals to people in general and developers in particular.

As we all know, the developer is much more likely to focus on areas of greatest demand, where the cost of land is lowest and the market rate for house prices is highest. We should give a much clearer signal to local authorities not to allocate precious land for housing simply to accommodate migration from metropolitan areas as a result of failure to satisfy the expectations of city dwellers in regard to their environment and quality of life.

The other main issue dealt with in the plan is transport. Much of what it says is good. It recognises the problems associated with increased car use. It suggests that there could be an extra 150,000 cars on Lancashire's roads by 2006—a truly horrifying statistic. It rightly emphasises the importance of public transport and the need to site development to reduce dependence on private cars, as well as the importance of traffic calming and management schemes and encouraging simpler forms of travel such as cycling and walking. All those initiatives are good, and the plan is right to concentrate on them. However, it also proposes a significant number of new road projects.

Those projects include what the plan calls a strategic route linking Lancashire with west Yorkshire and the Humber ports, which would mean an extension of the M65 beyond Colne. It also proposes 23 other road schemes. I shall not go into the details of every scheme, but that level of road building suggests a slightly less than "green" approach, to say the least. Some of the proposed schemes would have a severe impact on sites of special scientific interest, special protection areas and Ramsar and county heritage sites.

I believe that the county council is making a fundamental mistake in trying to solve traffic problems rather than transport problems. It also blandly assumes a direct correlation between road building and economic growth. The reality, as I am sure my hon. Friends will agree, is much more complex: sometimes that is the case, and sometimes it is not. Before we commit ourselves to such a vast increase in planned road building, we should be sure of the overall net benefits. The structure plan does little more than guess at those; nor does it estimate the amount of extra traffic that is likely to be generated by such a huge volume of road building.

In fact, most of those road schemes will not ultimately solve traffic problems. They will make them worse. In many instances, they will actually induce increases in traffic, with all the consequences that that will entail in terms of pollution, global warming and reduced quality of life. There is no doubt that in many instances the proposed road construction will seriously damage the environment and countryside and that will be widely resented by local people.

I genuinely welcome much of what the structure plan says about the development of alternative forms of transport, and particularly the emphasis on Blackpool's unique tram system, which has the potential to be developed as a light rail network for the Fylde. I know that many of my hon. Friends are keen on that idea and it should receive the closest possible attention both from local authorities and from the Government. I also welcome the plan's observations about the importance of Blackpool airport, which still has potential for significant expansion of great economic benefit to the whole of the Fylde.

I am concerned, however, about the structure plan's proposal for a massive new rail freight and regional business centre on a green-field site in South Ribble, despite the existence of suitable sites elsewhere. The proposal involves the unnecessary development of a green-field site and will undermine efforts to regenerate derelict sites in urban areas.

All these issues lead to general concerns, one of which relates to the planning process itself. How should the county structure plan fit into the broader framework of national objectives and regional planning? The Lancashire structure plan is being produced outside the context of regional planning and without regard to the general direction of recent Government planning policy guidance. The deposit edition of the structure plan was written before publication of the consultation draft of the Government's regional planning guidance for the North West. That seems very odd. In Lancashire, so far as I am aware, the chicken does not usually come before the egg; however, it appears to have done so on this occasion.

What is the point of producing regional planning guidance if it does not form the basis of county structure plans and if its assumptions are not accepted by county planners, as clearly in this case—particularly with regard to housing—they are not? There seems little point in employing a large number of civil servants to produce plans in Manchester if those plans are simply ignored by an even larger number of county planning officials in Preston. It is little wonder that our planning objectives sometimes appear confused and contradictory.

The structure plan also illustrates another major environmental concern about land use designations. Essentially, we must ask ourselves what price we put on the environmental landscape value of different parts of the countryside. Throughout Lancashire there are valuable landscape and amenity areas with widely differing characteristics which are outside the boundaries of national designations such as green belt land and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The boundaries of an area of outstanding natural beauty are entirely arbitrary, and it cannot be argued that all land outside those boundaries is of lesser landscape value. Lancashire is full of examples of some of the most beautiful countryside in England, much of it in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Much of that land is outside the boundaries of areas of outstanding natural beauty and is therefore without the protection that that designation affords.

I do not believe that the structure plan acknowledges the importance of differing characteristics and the relative values of landscapes. The Government need to give much clearer guidance in this area. There is much more fundamental concern about the Government's response to the threat to the countryside, and I am sure that it is an issue about which the Government, the Secretary of State and Ministers are deeply concerned.

There are two ways in which the Government can respond to the threat: first, through the planning system and, secondly, through measures to tackle the problem where it can be most readily solved—in the towns. The marriage between environmental objectives and the planning system has hardly been a whirlwind elopement. The planning system has begun to acknowledge the enormous pressures on the countryside and the damage that that has caused.

Recent planning policy guidance for town centres and for out-of-town retail developments, for instance, have begun to place a greater onus on developers. I believe that that trend should be extended, so that the onus is on all developers, not just retailers, to prove that their proposals will not harm the local environment or substantially damage the character of the countryside. National planning guidance should seek to play a much greater role in influencing the type, character and design of housing and industrial development in or at the edges of the countryside.

There must also be a clear presumption that rural land should not be released for development if suitable urban or infill sites exist elsewhere. The Government are rightly concerned about the vitality and viability of our town centres. It is the state of many of our towns which, after all, has caused such overwhelming pressures to be placed on the countryside. If our towns become places of ugliness and despair, where crime and vandalism are rife, it is inevitable that people will seek to leave them and move to the countryside.

Other countries—particularly Germany—have addressed the problem and ensured that town centres are vibrant places in which people want to live. We must make towns popular and attractive places again, not only by loading the planning system in their favour but by ensuring that we maximise grants and incentives for inner urban and brown-field development and regeneration. That is the only way to realise the full potential of our towns and cities and restore them to their former glory. It is also the only sure long-term way to protect the countryside so we can pass on our magnificent rural heritage unspoilt to our children.

The next few years will show that this issue, as illustrated by the Lancashire structure plan, is the most important environmental challenge facing this country. I will end by quoting a few more words of poetry, from "The Deserted Village" written by Oliver Goldsmith some 200 years ago. I hope that this will inspire the Minister to ensure that Goldsmith's nightmare vision does not become a reality:

"Even now the devastation has begun,
and half the business of destruction done,
even now, me thinks as pondering here I stand,
I see the rural virtues leave the land".

Unless we determine resolutely to defend our countryside, we shall bequeath a legacy of desolation, drabness, concrete and tyres to future generations.

11.55 am

When I saw that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) had been granted this debate, I wondered what line he would pursue. Like other Conservative Members, he has criticised Lancashire county council but, as a former county councillor himself, he is not quite as hostile to the council as some other Conservative Members.

I share the view of the majority of Lancashire Members of Parliament that we would have preferred a unitary system of local government for Lancashire, rather than the shire county, but I have never attacked the county council because I recognise the good work that it has done.

I found it strange that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) described Lancashire county council as an extremist left-wing county council. I believe that it could be described as a moderate, sensible, progressive or positive county council, because it has tried to address the problems facing Lancashire since Labour took majority control for the first time under the present structure of local government in 1981.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North referred to VE day. I can remember VE day as I was evacuated to Burnley at the time of the V1s and V2s. I can remember having a bonfire just opposite where my grandmother lived in Burnley, and I also remember that that weekend was the first time I ever went to Blackpool. Lancashire is now very different from the Lancashire that existed during the war, and I have no doubt that local government—the boroughs, the former county borough councils or the county councils—has played a positive part in that.

One of the major changes in Lancashire has been in its industries. Burnley was dependent on coal mining and cotton, but coal has completely gone and cotton has almost gone from the whole county. When I was a young boy, I did not believe that the sun ever shone in Burnley. I never saw blue sky or the sun—even in summer—because of the pall of smoke over the town. Local government has played a role in changing that.

Under the structure plan, local government is showing how it believes Lancashire should address the problems that will face the county in the rapidly approaching next century.

I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Blackpool, North said, but I fear that if restrictions and restraints were drawn round Lancashire, as he suggested, it could not attract industry, provide employment and survive in the 21st century.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North mentioned the M65, and I have always been a supporter of that road, which was originally called the Calder valley motorway. At present, a motorway goes from Blackburn to Colne—many local people call it the motorway from Tesco to Asda because it ends in a field and starts in a nonsensical place—and it is outrageous that we still do not have connections to the M6 and M61.

I recognise that people have the right to protest, which they have done and action has been taken against them. I have no doubt that if we want investment, jobs and people to create wealth, so that towns in east Lancashire such as Burnley and Blackburn survive, we must have those connections to the motorways. When people are considering investing they always ask about the communications and whether they can get their goods away from Burnley if they open a factory in the town. Communications are the key.

The M65 has been debated and argued about on many occasions. It was agreed that it should be reinstated in the roads scheme and is to go ahead. I look forward to the day when the westwards extension to the M6 and M61 is open and benefiting the people of my area. I accept that the argument for going eastwards into Yorkshire is very different. I support that proposal and make no apologies for doing so. I always support environmental causes, but one has to weigh the environmental advantages and economic benefits of motorways, as well as the disadvantages. There still needs to be a debate on that issue; I would not necessarily share the view of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North on that.

In referring to the other 23 roads and the M65, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North implied that the county council is obsessed with roads rather than other transport issues, which is misleading. The county council has supported rail development, electrification and improvement and wants more investment in our rail system. Opposition Members do not believe that privatisation will help to achieve those improvements—Conservative Members will probably disagree. The railways should remain in the public sector and investment should be made.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North failed to mention the tragic loss of the InterCity trains to Blackpool, although he must recognise that it is a loss. I am sure that, like me, he recognises that, if the Blackpool line were electrified through to Manchester, it would make it much easier for electrified InterCity trains to continue to Blackpool. I am sure that we would get unanimity on that view, as it is something that we all want, and the county council would certainly support it.

The county council strongly supports Manchester airport and the second runway proposal. It recognises, however, and has never pretended otherwise, the case for development and progress at Liverpool, if the investment could be made on its merits.

What about Blackpool?

The county council has always said that three airports serve the north-west, with Blackpool being the third. Manchester is a major international airport and there is no doubt that it will be developed.

The people of Lancashire will express their view of the Conservative party's policies on many of the issues in the elections tomorrow. I am sure that I will be much happier about the election results than Conservative Members, or the Liberals, who are not represented in this debate.

It is somewhat strange that the debate should take place today because, as hon. Members representing Lancashire will know, consultation on the Lancashire structure plan is taking place in the Dunkenhalgh hotel at Clayton-le-Moors this week. It started yesterday. Mr. Philip Critchley CB, is acting as chairman of the panel and the planning inspector has appointed Mr. Ernest Smith as the second member of the panel.

I do not know how many hon. Members responded to the original consultation on the structure plan. I certainly did so and I am sure that others who responded will have received a similar letter to one sent to me, which said that I would not be invited to take part in the public consultation but that my views would be taken into account. The county is going about the plan in the right way, has allowed people to put their views and is examining the issues that are the subject of the debate.

Among the subjects to be examined during the consultation are the county road network, urban transport, which certainly covers public transport, the trans-Pennine strategic route and green belts, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, North referred—I accept that the latter is very important, as we do not want the green areas of Lancashire to be totally eroded. The list of subjects under examination also includes regional business location, development in central, north and east Lancashire and in the countryside, minerals and waste.

The last two are of great importance. Waste regulation is one of the subjects affected by the Environment Bill, which is in Committee at present. I support the view that waste regulation should be taken over by the environment protection agency. That is not a criticism of Lancashire county council, but a view that I reached while serving on the Select Committee on the Environment some years ago, because I do not believe that one can be a poacher and a gamekeeper.

It is interesting that environmental issues in Lancashire, and the way in which the plan has been considered, have been recognised in Europe and internationally as an example to local government. The new Lancashire county structure plan, "Greening the Red Rose County", is one of the first in the country to be based on a strategy for sustainable development. The county council's pioneering environmental work has achieved European and global recognition. The pioneering green audit of Lancashire was announced at the Rio summit as one of the top 25 local environmental initiatives worldwide. In April, the European Commission presented the county council with one of Europe's most prestigious environmental awards for its green audit, environmental action plan and structure plan, which are all models of sustainable development for others to follow. With Lyon, it won joint first prize in the EC-sponsored European urban and regional town planning awards. The judges commended it very highly and it is important that we recognise that.

As I said, minerals are one of the subjects under discussion at the Dunkenhalgh hotel. As I have told the county council time after time, it should oppose all plans for opencast extraction and the re-opening of former coal mines. In 1995, there is no case for extracting what, in most cases, is low-quality and poor-value coal. Secondly, all my experience is that when any such developments have taken place in my constituency, agreements on aspects of reinstatement work and environmental protection have not been observed. I hope that, within the plan, we will be firm and of the overriding view that we should not approve such development.

Lancashire county council has suggested a sensible and balanced approach and has considered the needs of a county in which we can live, be educated and provided with all the services and all the other things that make for a normal life. The plan is balanced and the council has made a fair judgment of the environmental implications. I do not necessarily agree with every item, but the council's approach is positive and sensible and will lead to a vibrant and successful Lancashire in the next century.

12.8 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on his speech and on attending a debate that is clearly dominated by representatives of the Conservative party in Lancashire. We cannot fail to notice that the hon. Gentleman is the only Labour party representative from Lancashire in the Chamber. His colleagues have doubtless asked him to speak for them and I expect that Liberal Democrat representatives, who are so closely allied to the Labour party, have asked the hon. Gentleman to make their contribution as well.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on raising this debate. He speaks with the valuable experience of a former county councillor with great knowledge of, interest in and commitment to Lancashire. He has done the House a good service by giving us an opportunity to debate matters of concern. Many local government issues have national implications on which we all have strong views, and it is only right that we should deal with them in this way. I hope that we can have such a debate every year. If my hon. Friend pursues such a course of action, I shall certainly attend.

So shall I.

My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt be elevated to other positions on the Front Bench and will not reply to a debate on this subject next year.

As so many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, I shall deal with just one aspect of the county structure plan: the western bypass, an important road in my constituency. This matter will loom large in the debate in county hall next week when the roads programme will be discussed. I started to press for the road when I first became a Member of Parliament 16 years ago. It was then called the M6 link. I noticed that the hon. Member for Burnley called it something else. Over the years, those great ideas tend to change names. One reason why the road is no longer called the M6 link in my constituency is that part of it—the Lancaster to Morecambe bypass, phase 1—has already been built. We now need to complete that first stage by building a link to the motorway. The two options are a western bypass, favoured by the county, and a northern bypass, favoured by others. I shall not discuss the merits of the arguments, which will be considered next week.

I am anxious that the road should be completed. It would be a county road and is currently the subject of an environmental impact assessment. The completed road would link Heysham port and industrial estate to the motorway network. I hope that I can persuade the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North that the road will be of great importance to the county. I hope to take a delegation of local business men to see the Department of Transport next week.

In considering the impact of roads on the environment, it should be recognised that the arguments go both ways. Some reasons for road building are environmentally and economically benign. I believe that the M6 link, as I shall call it, in its generic way satisfies those criteria. The port of Heysham in the heart of the town is a significant but greatly under-utilised asset which, under Sealink's ownership, is developing ever-increasing trade. Over the past 15 years, capacity has been doubled and new trade routes have been opened to Northern Ireland.

I hope that I am not over-optimistic in saying that the trade may develop still further on the back of the peace dividend, which we all hope will succeed in Northern Ireland, and there will be even more trade from the port of Heysham across the northern Irish sea. If that happens, it is unrealistic to envisage that trade continuing other than by means of motor vehicle on to the delivery systems of the United Kingdom. The inevitable increase in traffic pressure cannot be met without relieving the urban centres of Lancaster and Morecambe by completing the motorway link.

The second important and strategic reason why Heysham needs that link to the motorway system is that it has a long-standing industrial estate. A great ICI plant was there and an enormous amount of land is derelict. The city council owns many acres of land on the estate and has allocated the area to building a new industrial estate. It plans to reclaim derelict land and put industrial units in the area. It is environmentally beneficial that that should be the location for new industry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North recognised will be needed.

We must clean up the area. If there is no incentive so to do, the area will not be cleaned up. We must provide sites for industry but we do not want to take new green-field sites for that purpose. That old green-field site has already been rendered derelict and is available to industry. It must be right to build industry in such areas. As the hon. Member for Burnley said, developers who wish to enter an area want to know when roads will be built as road communications are a significant factor in assessing whether to invest in that part of the north-west.

I shall not dwell at length on the third reason, but simply say that terrific stresses are caused in Lancaster and Morecambe by traffic demands on the area. Everyone who visits the city at rush hour and other hours of the day will know that that is so.

In his opening words, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North said that we should make town centres environmentally enjoyable places. I entirely agree. Lancaster is not my constituency but my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) could not be here this morning. I am sure that she wants cities such as Lancaster once more to be pleasant places in which to live. No one could dispute that Lancaster is not an environmentally pleasant place to live because of the enormous amount of traffic generated in the city centre. Traffic must be relieved in such areas. I am reliably informed that the completion of the western bypass or M6 link would relieve traffic that comes through Lancaster on its way to my constituency by some 31 per cent. and would end some of that painful congestion.

It is a national policy to move away from road building. I subscribe to that general principle as I do not want our countryside to be destroyed, but that objective has not been as openly and clearly defined to the House as I should like. I hope that, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister can give us a more precise idea about it. Any policy to move away from the sort of road building that occurred in the post-war period must be qualified in many areas. I can think of only two, but they are particularly germane to the road that I am discussing. The policy should be qualified by recognising that we must, none the less, build roads where congestion has become intolerable. We must have a policy that deals with such congestion. It is no use making the bald statement that we shall build no more roads if we have no policy to deal with appalling congestion.

One aspect of that policy is to build a road as, in some cases, it would be good for the environment to do so. I accept the proposition that we should build no more strategic motorways across the country and that people should travel by rail or public transport, but it is absurd to say that we do not need roads if they could relieve appalling congestion.

That criterion must apply to the road that I am discussing. I recognise that this is a complicated matter and that, every time a road is built, road usage increases, but we still need a policy on congestion.

Roads that have already been started must be completed. Phase 1 of the Heysham to Morecambe road has already been completed and phase 2 would link that road to the motorway. If we do not complete phase 2, we shall invalidate and fail to take advantage of the potential benefits of phase 1. This road goes virtually nowhere. It is by no means over-utilised, so we must build on the investment in phase 1 by completing phase 2.

Both those qualifications apply to the road about which I am speaking and I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister in due course.

12.19 pm

I am grateful to have the opportunity to say a few words in this excellent debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on obtaining the debate and I identify myself with his remarks, which he made based on his deep knowledge of Lancashire over many decades and that of his family over many centuries.

I am a reasonably recent immigrant to Lancashire, but, as a result of my experience elsewhere on planning committees and local councils, I am convinced of the importance of local and structure plans. Certainty is needed to get the planning process moving in the right direction and to allow people to plan for the future. But if we have such plans—my remarks relate particularly to Lancashire county council's structure plan—they must be based on accurate data.

One of the most worrying assumptions for the coming decade in the Lancashire county structure plan is the inflow of population to my borough at a rate of about 850 people a year. Therefore, we should look closer at whether such assumptions are correct. I do not think that they are, in which case all the other assumptions concerning housing are inaccurate. We shall be driving forward a process which is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because one builds the houses, people will be encouraged to live in Lancashire when, without such assumptions in the first place, there would probably be a much better balance involving people in the county, people coming in and the amount of housing and green belt.

It is suggested that my borough will have 6,000 more houses in the next 10 years. I believe that that is totally wrong. It is a large increase. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North said, it is a 66,000 increase across the county. One tenth of those new houses in Lancashire will be built in the borough of Wyre.

My borough council has looked closely at the figures and it says:

"On the basis of the socio-economic trends, the borough council proposes to challenge these assumptions. Perhaps more importantly"—

I emphasise this—

"the borough council does not view the continuation or encouragement of development on such a scale as being desirable because it would seriously compromise environmental and other legitimate planning objectives."

If I have a criticism of the Lancashire county structure plan in relation to housing, it is that it has not taken into account those other factors.

If we analyse the present situation, we do not see in Lancashire, and particularly in Wyre, a huge increase in house prices. Therefore, there is no evidence on the ground that there are not enough houses. Indeed, the opposite happens. My hon. Friend mentioned Fleetwood. For the past four or five years a development site next to the old commercial dock could have been used for residential development, but no one has come along to build houses on it and, most recently, some of the land has been taken for retail space.

If there is a pent-up demand for houses, why has that development not gone ahead? My real point is that we should look less at the predictions of experts at county hall of what will happen to the population in Lancashire during the coming years and much more closely at what is happening on the ground where sites are available but have not been taken up.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am afraid that I cannot because I have only a couple of minutes.

I am convinced that the right way forward is for us to concentrate our developments in towns, as has been said, and ensure that we revitalise towns such as Fleetwood and Lancaster rather than gobbling up green belt around towns such as Garstang and Poulton-le-Fylde and villages such as Knott End, Preesall and Pilling. There is a suggestion that 60 acres adjacent to Knott End should be used for 600 new houses which would increase the village's population by 50 per cent. That would change the character of that village. There is no doubt that that would happen across the borough and the county if the county assumptions on the increase in population during the next 10 years were to be realised. That is unacceptable.

There is much good in the document on the greening of Lancashire, although I rather agree with my hon. Friend that in many ways it could be described as the browning of the county. What is important is that we concentrate on urban areas and do not gobble up any more green belt.

I have been involved in planning and local government for many years and the one thing that is striking is the constant change in the guidance that comes out of the Department of the Environment. I am pleased that such guidance is now in tune with what I have been saying. I am convinced that certainty and encouragement to developers to develop brown lands within towns, rather than green belt around towns, will be to the benefit of communities and have a useful on-going effect because the lack of development will mean a reduction in transport and other needs.

I sincerely hope that the public inquiry into the structure plan comes up with the sort of proposals that my hon. Friends and I have articulated this morning.

12.26 pm

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in the debate. I shall be brief so that my hon. Friends can contribute. It is a matter of enormous pleasure to all my hon. Friends that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) has obtained this important debate. I echo the remarks that have been made about his distinguished previous service as a Lancashire county councillor for the Wyreside ward. I think that I am right in recalling that he was at that time, by some distance, the youngest Lancashire county councillor and one of the youngest ever to have served on the county council. I have no doubt that the experience that he gained during his time as a Lancashire county councillor has been of enormous importance to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) touched on the great historic tradition of the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, unfortunately I do not have that benefit. I am a more recent arrival in Lancashire, but my wife's family has been in Lancashire for generations. In the few years that I have had the honour to represent Blackpool, South, I have acquired some knowledge of some of the problems that arise as a result of the peculiar approach of Lancashire county council, under its current leadership, to these matters. In the short time available, I want to touch briefly on one or two issues that I think are particularly important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North stressed the crucial importance of getting planning policy right by basing it on accurate statistics. I very much share his disbelief, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, in the projected figures for the incoming population in the next few years. As has been said, if they are wrong, the planning policies are wrong. I am sure that we shall not see a massive influx of population into Lancashire and that, therefore, we should not be seeing vast amounts of building.

My constituency is entirely urban. I want proper housing policies to exist which develop existing urban land with good-quality housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North rightly said, unfortunately there are areas of great deprivation in his constituency and mine. Those are the areas where there needs to be new building. We need rejuvenation of the town centres, not more despoliation of the countryside.

I am lucky enough to come from a farming family, and I have seen the destruction of the countryside in other regions. I do not want to see any more of it in Lancashire. Let the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and Labour members of Lancashire county council be in no doubt that, if the daft policy of building vast numbers of new houses is carried through by that council's Labour leadership, they will be blamed by future generations and the people of Lancashire will never forgive or forget that the Labour party came up with that policy.

The problem with the council's Labour leadership is that it thinks that, by producing glossy reports and using titles such as "Green in the Red Rose County", people will not bother to read them and will think that the council believes in green environmental policies because it says so on the cover. I tell the hon. Gentleman and Labour Lancashire county councillors that people are wiser than that; they do read the contents.

I should like to draw attention in particular to another bulky and glossy report on environmental issues recently produced by Lancashire county council's Labour leadership. It was launched at an expensive reception at the Cafe Royal in the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It is called "Public Perceptions and Sustainability in Lancashire". It was produced with taxpayers' money—the people of Lancashire's money. Those people would be angry if they were aware that the bulk of that glossy report—pages 24 to 70, not including the introduction and the appendices—contained vernacular quotations from focus groups. Under the heading "Sustainability and Environment", we have such quotes as:

"Who would actually come up with this term? A speech writer. Political. A slogan. It's too long to be a slogan. Not catchy. Could be used on management courses. You are saying this is not catchy, it's a long word. Is it not catchy because it's too long or is it something else about it? It's quite a good word because when you think about it you know what it means."

Is that the sort of nonsense that the people of Lancashire want their taxes spent on? There are 40 to 50 pages of such rubbish and they cost Lancashire taxpayers a lot of money. Lancashire county council should have a better structure plan and stop wasting taxpayers' money on that sort of thing.

I should touch on a couple of other issues. I agree on one point made by the hon. Member for Burnley. It is crucial that we have electrification of the rail link to Blackpool and that we have proper public transport services. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North rightly says that great scope exists to develop the Blackpool tramway system into a proper light rail system. Plans were recently made by one of our local tourism entrepreneurs, Mr. Michael Taylor, to reopen the Poulton-Fleetwood rail link, which I strongly support and from which we would benefit.

I agree with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about the development of a green-field site in South Ribble for a rail terminal. We need a rail terminal, but we do not want it on a green-field site. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will have his own views on that.

I agree that we need to safeguard areas of outstanding natural beauty much better, and to pay much closer attention to the important contribution that farmers make to the environment throughout Lancashire. Coming from a farming family, I know only too well that it is farmers who have looked after the British countryside. The problem with the Labour leadership of Lancashire county council is that it almost never listens to farmers. That is why farmers have the sense to support the Conservative party and Government.

Some road developments in the county are good. Yesterday, I attended the opening in my constituency of the new Squire's gate link road, 50 per cent. of which was funded by the Government as a result of my lobbying the then Minister with responsibility for roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle).

The Labour party and, in particular, the Labour leadership of Lancashire county council should be aware of one more piece of poetry from the immortal Robert Burns, who wrote:

"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us!"

12.34 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on securing today's debate. Structure plans map out the future of a county for many years ahead. Too often, we leave it to the last minute and then start complaining when it is far too late.

The previous version of the structure plan showed that the bulk of development in the county would take place in what is called central Lancashire. On closer examination, one saw that it referred to the area just around Chorley, Leyland and Preston to the south of the river. That is only a small portion of the county. As we can see from the document, there have been enormous growth rates in my region of Chorley—it has by far the largest urban development rate in the county.

As other hon. Members have said, the number of houses forecast for the next 15 years is far too large. On page 33 of the document, the county council refers to Chorley, saying that it will ensure that the rate of build is below that of market trends and requirements; but when one turns to the actual figures, there is no reduction in the current rate, which has been the largest in the county. That is not good enough. We should ensure that we respond to market trends and do not over-build housing.

In the Chorley, Leyland and Preston area, far too many estates are the aftermath of the actions of the Central Lancashire development corporation. That ended some nine years ago. The Labour Government were trying to bend the process and ensure that all housing was rented. As soon as the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, they stopped that. They allowed only housing for sale to be built. I appreciate that measure and the closure of plans for the central Lancashire new town. Housing trends must be strictly, and only, in line with local people's requirements. We do not want massive immigration, about which hon. Members spoke this morning.

The motorway service areas of Charnock Richard on the M6 and Rivington on the M61 are in my constituency. I am delighted that they are referred to in the development plan, but I would like some transport link route towards Chorley at Charnock Richard. I pay tribute to those farsighted people who on the A43 junction of the M1 near Rothersthorpe have built a superb transport link by the service station. I hope that we can look forward to such a link at Charnock Richard.

I welcome very much the intention to have railway stations rebuilt at Coppull and Euxton, the village in my constituency where I live. That is good news, but, with full resources, it has taken the county council and British Rail three or four years to introduce disabled access to platforms at Parbold, one of the villages that I represent. We need a faster rate of growth and we need those railway stations to be built in the next few years if they are going to make sense in terms of transport links.

12.37 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member or Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on his success in securing the debate. It is an important debate for all of us who live in and work on behalf of the people of Lancashire. I was going to quote from three poems this morning, but they have all been used by other hon. Members, so I shall press on speedily and talk about how important the environment is in Lancashire and, especially, in the Ribble valley.

Like many other hon. Members, I was not born in the constituency that I represent, but I am proud to live in the Ribble valley and I am passionate about wanting to preserve that region. Many people will know my constituency well. It attracts many tourists. When I first came to the Ribble Valley, I lived in Downham, a small, superbly managed village owned almost in its entirety by Lord Clitheroe. Dominating one end of the village is Pendle hill. At the other end, one has the Assheton Arms and the church. From that church, one has a most splendid view over the whole of Downham.

Downham was the village where the film "Whistle Down the Wind" was made in 1961, with Alan Bates and Hayley Mills. I am sure that many people remember that film, which is a classic of its time. The surprising thing is that the village has not altered at all in the 30-odd years since that film was made.

It is a superb region. It is preserved, but not fossilised. It is a warm community. In my constituency, I have many villages such as Downham—I am loth to mention them just in case I miss some out—which are superb and attract many visitors. The problem is that the structure plan is a threat and a warning to those villages. It aims to target a certain area in my constituency—a path stretching from one side of it to the other, which is referred to as a "corridor". It would be a corridor of concrete, and would destroy the peace and quiet and the distinct character of many of the villages.

I know that the cry will go up, "It is only one more green field," but then, there will be "only" another green field, and then one more. Will that continue until there is only one green field left? We must do something about it now. We have the area of outstanding natural beauty, which constitutes 70 per cent. of my constituency, but many areas outside it are equally beautiful, and they should be protected and guarded, too.

That is not a case of "not in my back yard", because we have already given way to much development in the Ribble valley. Clitheroe, Barrow, Whalley, Ribchester, Longridge and many more of my villages have succumbed to some development already. We need to protect the distinct character of the villages so that the Ribble valley's front garden does not become Blackburn's or Preston's back yard, so that one cannot distinguish between some of the villages and the sprawl that would cover many of the areas to the south and west.

I am not against all development. I fully support many developments based on former large institutions—acceptable developments on the footprints of existing buildings. I have already supported one such development in Brockhall, and I shall support another in Calderstones. But that development must take place only on the footprint of the hospital and not on any of the green-field sites around it. Whittingham hospital is another site where development should be allowed on the footprint of the buildings but not on the surrounding green-field sites.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), I believe that Lancashire county council has got the number of people in our area, and therefore the number of houses needed, totally wrong. The figures do not equate. Given the number of people who occupy the houses now, and the number we think will want to live in our area up to the year 2006, we should be thinking in terms of 15,000 houses, not 66,000. Such a move would release a lot of the pressure on the area.

There is much more that I wanted to say, but I shall finish now. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North said about regenerating the towns and cities so that people will want to live there. That would relieve the pressure on the villages.

I do not want future generations to look back on old photographs of our green and pleasant land and have to ponder why we let it go. It is not ours to let go; we are the trustees for future generations. The countryside is their inheritance; it is not for our consumption. How green is my valley? It is very green—all shades of green—and flooding it with concrete will kill it for ever. We must not allow that to happen.

12.42 pm

I, too, begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on securing the debate. I feel rather ashamed that I did not consult the "Oxford Book of English Verse" or the "Oxford Book of Films" so that I could refer to suitable titles and poems, and I wait with great interest to see whether the Minister has his own stock of poems ready to read out—in appropriate accents, of course.

I am delighted to see so many Lancashire Members here, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Another Lancashire Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), has asked me to pass on his apologies, as he cannot attend; he very much wanted to participate in the debate.

I also take the opportunity to congratulate Gordon Johnson, the chief executive of Lancashire county council, and his officers and the members of the council, on their excellent work. Hon. Members have acknowledged that work and, although they have also criticised aspects of the plan, they have generally welcomed what it has said.

Being in local government over the past 10 years or so has not been an easy task, and I believe that Lancashire county council has done its best to provide decent services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said, the county council has been acknowledged as a pioneering authority in several respects. It is required by sections 30 and 32 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, to keep under review matters that might be expected to affect the development or planning of its area, and to update its structure plan.

The structure plan is therefore concerned with resolving major issues facing the county and identifying other issues. It covers the period from mid-1991 to mid-2006, and has four main functions. First, it establishes the level of development that must be provided for if the future needs of the county's population are to be adequately met, while ensuring that the resultant pattern of land use is both efficient in terms of use of resources, including the consumption of land and energy, and consistent with national and regional policy.

Secondly, the plan sets out the county council's long-term policies for development, use of land and traffic management, and provides a strategic framework for local planning and the control of development. Thirdly, it secures consistency between local plans for neighbouring areas within the county. Fourthly, it provides developers with initial and general guidance as to whether major proposals for new developments are likely to accord with the overall planning strategy for the county. That gives developers a strategic context in which to make investment decisions, by giving long-term guidance concerning, for example, the scale and location of population, housing and growth.

The structure plan is therefore concerned with identifying the very issues that hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned. It provides that context as a background for future investment and development decisions by both the public and the private sector throughout Lancashire as a whole, to achieve sustainable economic growth and environmental protection and to take the county forward into the 21st century.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has mentioned the pioneering environmental work that the county council has done, and the European Community prize that it won, with the city of Lyon, for work that, in the words of one judge, showed a pioneering effort to provide sustainable development planning at a regional level.

My hon. Friend did not have time today, and nor have I, to mention the level of jobs and investment that the county council has brought into the area, although I can mention some examples. The council and its economic development agency have brought a clear strategic focus to bear on the county's economic needs. Over the past decade, 22,000 jobs and training places have been created by Lancashire Enterprises, which has invested £15 million in more than 200 small and medium enterprises.

Other notable achievements, as I am sure the House is aware, include the rescue of Leyland Trucks, which is now a prospering manufacturing centre of excellence, the regeneration of the Leeds-Liverpool canal corridor, which has levered in investment of £80 million, and the help for Lancashire's seaside resorts, including Blackpool. I am sorry that the hon. Members for Blackpool, North and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) did not take the opportunity to thank the council for that work.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not give way. The Opposition have been generous to Conservative Members, and have given them all an opportunity to participate in the debate. The Minister also wants to speak, and it would not be right for me to give way when I have several more points to make on behalf of the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North, as we heard, was a member of the county council for four years, and he had several things to say. Echoing Larkin, he chose to speak for England and to describe the despoiling of the countryside. However, I know that he has participated in previous planning debates, so he ought to know that the enormous difficulties with planning have been caused by the Government's guidance.

As the Minister announced during a recent debate on retail planning, a review has been undertaken of PPG6 and PPG13 precisely because the Government's guidance was not clear. On other occasions, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to invest in town and city centres. He was right to do so, but the reason why that investment has not happened over the past 16 years is that Government planning policy has not been clear. That is why so many out-of-town developments have emerged in so many parts of the country—and, indeed, why his own town centre is threatened by such developments. He is right to say to the Minister that it is extremely important that the Government should come up with clear guidance on out-of-town developments.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the fact that so many people—5 million in four years—have left our major towns and cities in Britain. Over the past few years, they have left our towns and cities in such great numbers because the Government have failed to invest in our towns and city centres. Even the new policy of the single regeneration budget has not provided the necessary means by which local authorities and the public and private sector can work together to put forward bids to regenerate the town centres. We need to look at the way in which our urban areas are run. We need to ensure that there is proper investment and that local councils are aware of the importance of town centre management. That is the only way in which we shall obtain effective and sustainable growth in our town and city centres.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport—a subject mentioned by other Conservative Members as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley. Without an effective and efficient transport system which does not require the public to pay vast amounts of money to travel on it, we shall never achieve sustainable towns and city centres. We fully support the hon. Gentleman's desire to see Blackpool airport developed. He will know that the structure plan contains specific points in support of that proposal.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) supports the roads that help his constituents but does not support the roads that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North supports. I do not intend to intrude on the private or public grief of Conservative Members, but the county council has advanced proposals that it believes will alleviate the distress and anxiety caused to many thousands of people in the local area. It has advanced the proposals that it believes will best meet the needs of local areas.

The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said that he believed that local plans and structure plans should provide certainty. He is right. But that is precisely what is not provided at present. That is why the Labour party has instituted a review into the planning process. Unless there is certainty, the private sector and local authorities cannot plan sufficiently and properly. That is why we believe that planning guidance should be considered extremely carefully by Ministers and civil servants before it is issued. There is no point in issuing guidance, then coming to the House and telling the public and private sector that unfortunately the guidance will have to be withdrawn and the ministerial speech will have to be taken as the best example of planning policy. That is clearly not sufficient and the problem must be seriously addressed.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South talked about the need for rejuvenation of town centres. He has said that before and he knows where the blame lies—clearly with the Government's failure to invest in our towns and city centres. The new single regeneration budget does not provide the means to deal with the problem.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South spoilt his contribution by his attack on the leadership of the county council. I throw him a challenge and invite him to let me show the glossy brochures sent to us by Ministers of the Crown. We can compare them with what Lancashire county council has produced to see whether Lancashire has gone over the top in providing information. All local authorities should provide information and whether it is glossy or not is not a serious political point.

The hon. Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) also spoke.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said that he believed that the structure plan provided a sensible and balanced approach. He also said, which may sound obvious, that a consultation process is taking place. I urge each of the Conservative Members and their local councils to participate in that consultation process. If the evidence given to the public inquiry and the consultation process is as good and the points are as serious as most of the points made today, that will help Lancashire county council and the people of Lancashire to fashion a structure plan that will be able to provide a basis for the development of Lancashire into the next century.

12.54 pm

I must add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on today's debate. We have received much good advice and heard some interesting points. As ever, he never misses an opportunity to put in a bid for more finance for his area.

My hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) also contributed to the debate. Even with the contribution of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), it felt as though we were listening to a family debate. There was plenty of excellent advice, particularly for the county council. The comments of the hon. Member for Burnley made me feel young—certainly in the way in which he approaches privatisation and the benefits that it will bring.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) blamed the Government for the failure of Labour councils in the inner cities, which is to be blind beyond belief. One has only to walk across the river to see the incompetence in London and the way in which that is carried through to the inner cities up and down the country. It is not a case of investment, which is being made. The destruction of the inner cities by Labour councils is beyond belief. The only reason why we are starting to make some progress is that the Conservative Government have had the gumption to move in and utilise partnerships to bring in the private sector and bring about a change in the ethos of inner cities which will give us much greater hope of doing something in terms of the countryside and attracting people back into the inner cities.

We have been discussing Lancashire, particularly its new structure plan, which is the subject of a public examination that started yesterday and is programmed to run until the end of the month. Therefore, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, the timing is delicate and it is difficult for me to do more than comment in broad outline.

The county has appointed a panel to carry out the examination in public. It has the job of considering the key issues and objections and to make recommendations to the county council in the light of them. The Lancashire structure plan is an essential component in the overall planning blueprint that will take the north-west of England into the 21st century. But it is only one element: the plan must comply with national policies, which are reflected in the planning policy guidance notes and regional planning guidance.

I should like to draw my hon. Friends' attention to three recent initiatives which seek to enhance and safeguard the quality of the environment of town and country. First, I should like to refer to the recently revised guidance note on green belts, PPG2. The Government continue to attach great importance to green belts. They have been an essential part of planning policy for four decades and are intended to serve several purposes, including separating towns and villages and restraining encroachment on the countryside. The purposes of the green belt policy and the related development control policies set out in 1955 remain valid today with remarkably little alteration.

Secondly, of equal importance is the need to conserve and enhance the environment of town and country. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has initiated a discussion on quality in town and country. That seeks to take a fresh look at our villages, towns and cities and asks how we can best safeguard their distinctive character and future viability—the essence of my hon. Friends' points.

Thirdly, the Government's intention to produce a rural White Paper was announced jointly by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment last October. The rural White Paper will cover the full range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting today's countryside.

The regional context for Lancashire's new structure plan is provided by the Government's draft regional planning guidance for the north-west which was launched recently. The guidance is largely based on advice from the north-west regional association of local authorities in its document "Greener Growth". It outlines a framework for providing new homes and jobs, but emphasises that new development should be located to reduce the need to travel and should be well served by public transport. The emphasis is on sustainable growth in line with the thrust of our national policies—particularly those that I have just mentioned.

The guidance makes it clear that we are planning for prosperity and a region fit for the 21st century, with the aim of maximising the north-west's competitiveness and quality of life without damaging its magnificent heritage. With the next Conservative Government, we shall be able to continue that. We are looking for regeneration and sustainable economic development. We use those as the key watchwords.

Within Lancashire, the guidance proposes allowing for regeneration and modest development associated with the main self-contained towns along transport corridors. As my hon. Friends have emphasised, the county's agricultural land, landscape and natural environment are second to none. For example, Fylde and south-west Lancashire contain some of the best farming areas. We have the forest of Bowland, Morecambe bay and the Ribble estuary. I shall make no comment on green valleys.

The examination in public of the structure plan's proposals is now under way. We have had some excellent guidance and hints today from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the way in which we should approach the plan and move forward. I can assure my hon. Friends that the panel will consider fully all the issues—

Order.

Firearms

1 pm

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again on the Adjournment the question of firearms. I make no apology for returning to the subject. As hon. Members will recall, I have brought to the attention of the House several events that have happened from time to time, of which the Minister is fully aware.

I am prompted today by the recent spate of firearms offences in the north-west. There was yet another theft from domestic premises in Salford only last week. The House will remember that I previously drew attention to the theft of eight hand guns held legally in premises in Greater Manchester. Three of those hand guns subsequently appeared at the scenes of crimes. Tragically, they resulted in three deaths and one serious wounding. That is sufficient reason for the House to turn its attention to blocking off as far as possible one source of weaponry from the criminal fraternity.

I accept that there are many routes by which criminals gain possession of firearms. I also accept that the majority of people who shoot for pleasure and sport are responsible people. However, as in many other walks of life, those who are irresponsible or less than careful tend to compromise the majority. It causes me a great deal of worry that insufficient attention has been given to depriving criminals of weaponry. The spate of incidents to which I shall refer is a truly frightening catalogue.

On Good Friday, a man was shot to death on the streets of Salford while riding his bike. The case has still to come to court. I believe that arrests have been made. The story on the streets is that he was a bouncer in a Manchester nightclub—there might well be a connection there; one does not know.

Since then, there has been yet another armed post office raid in Bolton. Following that, there was another attempted street assassination in Bolton. A man was gunned down while sitting in his car waiting outside a chip shop. Following that, there was yet another armed robbery in Salford in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). A constituent of mine working in a building society was threatened with a weapon. All that took place within a radius of five miles from where I live. I do not live in the inner city. A little further afield, only yesterday, when children were playing in the streets in the warm spring sunshine, there was yet another armed fracas in Liverpool.

Such crimes and their frequency demand action on guns. Therefore, I call on Ministers to consider several measures that I shall suggest this morning.

As legally held weapons easily fall into criminal hands, new gun controls are necessary. I call on the Minister to consider a ban on the keeping of firearms in domestic premises in urban communities. I am aware of the Minister's farming connections. I am not talking about shotguns kept in farmhouses. I emphasise that I am deliberately talking about domestic premises in urban areas.

I make a clear demand to the Minister that there should be stronger sentencing for even the illegal possession of firearms. Leaving aside the use of them, mere possession should attract exemplary sentences. I would also give powers to the courts to confiscate weapons used in crime, whomsoever they belong to. I see the Minister frown, so let me explain.

One of the guns that was stolen a couple of years ago—one of the eight that was eventually used as forensic evidence in a trial—was returned to its rightful owner. I raised that issue on the Floor of the House at the time. If the owner was not sufficiently responsible, and was careless enough to have his weapon stolen in the first place, and his weapon was used to cause the heinous crime of which I speak—the gunning down of a young man who was going about his lawful business as a security guard—that gun should be melted down. I should like the Minister to consider that.

I should also like to see the introduction of a national firearms index. I believe that some senior police officers consider that that is a reasonable route to take. A national index would be used much as the log book for a motor car, to track the movement of firearms that are legally sold and transferred.

When I raised the storage of firearms in domestic premises some time ago, I received an irate letter from a gun dealer in Bolton. He made several points to me during a long correspondence. I suppose that, with our experience of dealing with the public, Members of Parliament quickly learn about people. I felt that there was something not quite right with the opinions that that legal, licensed gun dealer expressed. He resisted any idea of guns being indexed and sold with a log. That dealer is now serving a fairly long stretch in one of Her Majesty's establishments, for illegally transferring guns into the criminal fraternity.

It is now time for strict psychological testing of applicants for any gun licence. In a recent incident in my local pub, a young man with a loaded revolver en route to his home from his shooting club irresponsibly brandished the weapon about among the pub customers. He was arrested. The matter is sub judice, as it has yet to come to court, but that incident alone convinces me that the present vetting system is inadequate. If people on the face of it are responsible and use guns for sporting purposes, we should make absolutely certain that they have the right psychological attitude to using what are now very powerful weapons.

I shall keep my speech brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) wants to make a speech from the Front Bench. I have made three or four sharp points. I have given the Minister what I hope were to him interesting examples of the cause of the problems. Therefore, I hope that he will offer some encouragement to people like me, who wish to reverse the current trend of gun crime.

1.9 pm

It is most important that the Government should heed the words of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Paul Condon, who warned that "we are being driven by events" towards the arming of police officers on our streets. However, the Government would be wrong to treat those words as a prediction—they should be read, as they were intended, as a warning. Unless the culture of violence and the availability of weapons are curbed, the consequences for our society are dire. A cursory examination of the statistics shows how serious that warning is.

In 1979, there was a one in 213 chance of being the victim of a crime of violence. Last year, the figure was one in 64, which means that the chance has trebled. Since 1982, there has been an increase of well over 80 per cent. in recorded offences of wounding, the statistical category that includes the possession of firearms and other offensive weapons. Within that category, the most serious offences of wounding or endangering life have increased by well over 120 per cent. They are massive increases in a comparatively short time.

The number of crimes in which the police recorded the use of firearms has increased considerably in recent years, and the fear and worry about such offences have been illustrated many times by serving police officers.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the statistics also show that legally owned firearms are used in a very tiny proportion of crimes, and that most weapons used in such circumstances are illegal and have never been in legal hands?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) acknowledged, gun clubs face stringent requirements, which have had a positive effect. I have met representatives of sporting interests involving guns and I recognise that there are stringent requirements, but the important distinction is between weapons held by gun clubs or by people whose employment, often in rural areas, necessitates their use, and those held in urban areas on domestic premises.

I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), but the matter needs to be examined with much greater care. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley cited examples which highlighted in human terms and more graphically than statistics could ever do the problems within a five-mile radius of his own home, and he is right to demand action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley also called for tougher sentences. It is only right to remind the Minister that there was nothing in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with weapons, or with drugs and drug-related crime, which far too often involves the use of weapons, until Labour tabled its amendments. I was glad that the Minister reflected on issues raised in Committee and accepted our arguments on Report. Indeed, the Government tabled amendments to deal with many of the points that we made about the level of penalty available for the sale of weapons and for trading in them.

Other aspects of the problem need to be considered. They include mail order trade and the capacity of Customs to deal with weapons coming into this country. The fragmentation of central and eastern Europe has led to a variety of weapons becoming available.

One problem that needs closer examination concerns weapons that fall into the hands of criminals after being held legally by others. I am not sure that the nature of the statistics make it possible for us to be clear about the extent of that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley gave anecdotal evidence that gives rise to concern, but we need more information. It is important that the use of legally held weapons, if they end up in the wrong hands, and illegal weapons is tackled as a matter of great urgency.

As my hon. Friend acknowledged, there are stringent requirements on gun clubs, but we need to re-examine the holding of weapons on domestic premises. We also need to consider how a gun culture and a culture of violence is developing in our communities.

It is fair to say that there is agreement among the parties that we should not accept the easy solution, which would be to arm the police. The Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary have made it clear that they take a more sophisticated view of the problem.

One only has to see what happens in America, where the injuring of police officers by firearms is, unfortunately, an all too regular occurrence, to learn a lesson. One in 10 of the police officers who are injured are shot with their own weapons, so arming the police is not the solution—although, sadly, the ready availability of weapons to police officers to deal with particular situations has been extended as part of the process of responding to events about which Sir Paul Condon gave us a clear warning.

I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say about the analysis of the nature of crime, the availability of weapons, links with elements of organised crime, a subject which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has been investigating, and the specific categories on which action by the Government and the various authorities could have more impact.

It is for the Minister to show us that he has proposals to tackle the problems so graphically illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley. If he can show us that he has set in train a full analysis of the problems, and that he will introduce effective measures to reduce the culture of violence and the availability of weapons, he will receive a positive response from members of Labour's Front Bench and, as proved by my hon. Friend, from Labour Back Benchers, too.

1.17 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on raising this important subject. I must say straight away that the Government are acutely aware of public concern—especially that in his constituency and the north-west in general—about the use of firearms by criminals. We are determined to take whatever steps we can to reduce and eliminate the criminal use of firearms, but it should be remembered that fear of crime is itself a social evil.

We must ensure that fears are not fed by misconceptions or the irrational idea that all criminals on the streets are armed to the teeth and shooting all over the place, because, thank God, they are not. We need to put the problem into perspective.

Although armed crime may inspire many awful headlines, it remains, thankfully, fairly rare in this country, although I accept that it might not always seem like it. When an armed crime happens, it is naturally front page news, and it is front page news because it is so rare.

In 1993, only 0.3 per cent. of all offences in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm, and nearly half of all the offences in which firearms were used involved air weapons. If air weapons are excluded, in nearly 90 per cent. of offences the weapon was not fired. The Government recognise that even that incidence of firearm misuse, small though it is, is unacceptable, but it is worth pointing out that the problem is very much smaller than some people may have realised.

The Government are also anxious to ensure that all possible steps are take to reduce the criminal use of firearms. The controls on firearms in Great Britain were substantially strengthened by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and are among the most stringent in the world. They are designed to ensure that, as far as possible, firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.

The paramount consideration is affording all necessary protection to the public, but the controls also seek to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on those who use firearms legitimately and on the police who administer the licensing system. The possession of firearms is strictly controlled by the provisions of the Firearms Acts.

A person who wishes to acquire or to possess a firearm or a shotgun will, in most circumstances, require a certificate from the local chief officer of police. In deciding whether to issue a firearms certificate, the chief officer must be satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for having the firearm and can be permitted to possess the firearm without danger to public safety or to the peace.

A chief officer must not grant a certificate to any person whom he has reason to believe to be of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or to any person whom he considers for any reason to be unfit to be entrusted with a firearm. I hasten to add that this category does not automatically exclude all Members of this House.

Only when the chief officer is satisfied that the applicant is suitable, and that he has good reason for requiring a firearm, will he issue the certificate. The good reason requirement is more stringent for firearms than it is for shotguns. To obtain a firearm certificate, an applicant must demonstrate his good reason. He does not have to demonstrate that to get a shotgun certificate, but the police must refuse a shotgun certificate if they are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason.

In addition, chief officers will wish to be satisfied that the reason given by the applicant for wishing to possess a firearm is applicable to the particular class of firearm requested, and that, where appropriate, the land over which an applicant intends to shoot is suitable from the point of view of safety for the class of weapon that it is proposed to use.

A certificate for a handgun, for example, will normally be granted only if the applicant has a regular and legitimate opportunity to use the weapon. An example would be target practice as a member of a pistol shooting club. Certificates issued by the chief officer are subject to certain conditions prescribed by the 1989 firearms rules.

Among the conditions is a requirement that the firearm should be securely stored, to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, access to the firearms by an unauthorised person. Any case of theft or loss must be reported at once to the chief officer of police who granted the certificate. In addition, the chief officer is empowered to impose further conditions if he thinks that they are necessary to ensure effective operation of the firearms controls and to minimise the risk to the public.

The sale or transfer of firearms is also strictly controlled. It is an offence to sell any firearm or shotgun unless the recipient is a firearms dealer, has a firearms certificate authorising him to possess or acquire it, or is able to show that he is entitled to possess it without holding a certificate.

A person who sells a firearm must notify the chief officer of police of the transaction within seven days. It is also an offence to sell a firearm or shotgun by way of trade or business without first being registered by the police as a firearms dealer. A chief officer of police may revoke a certificate if he is satisfied that the holder is unfit to be trusted with the firearm or shotgun that it covers.

In addition to the controls on firearms and shotguns, there are some weapons whose acquisition, possession and sale are prohibited except with the authority of the Secretary of State. These include machine guns, and most self-loading and pump-action rifles and shotguns. The controls are effective in restricting legally supplied firearms to those who are suitable to possess them and as a deterrent to casual criminals. They cannot, however, prevent determined criminals from gaining access to illegally supplied firearms. Tightening the controls still further is unlikely significantly to affect levels of armed crime.

We have looked at the matter carefully, and I shall study carefully what the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has said. I believe, however, that the current controls strike the right balance between the primary need to ensure the safety of the public and the need to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on legitimate users of firearms and the police.

I should be happy to place more burdens on legitimate users if I thought for one moment that they would be successful in stopping the bad guys getting access to guns. It is because I am convinced that there are no further sensible controls that we could place on legitimate users that I do not see a reason for further action. The bad guys will still get their guns.

I accept the Minister's last comment to a degree. However, he talked earlier about the fear of gun crime, the level and the figures. In some areas, there is a sudden spate of firearms offences. It is incumbent on us, and especially on Ministers, to accept that we should be scared of any increase in such crimes. We should nip things in the bud, and we should consider that we may be—I hope that we are not—on the escalator to even more gun crime. The Minister talks of headlines. We should get worried before we reach the point when the headlines go away and gun crimes are given 1.5 column inches on page 3 of the newspaper.

The hon. Gentleman is right. Although all gun crime, including crimes in which air guns are used, is 0.3 per cent. of all offences, it is not evenly spread throughout the country. Gun crime will be 0.001 per cent. in some parts of the country and a lot higher elsewhere. Although dealing with illegal firearms is an important part of the jigsaw, it is not the sole part. Police in areas where criminals are using weapons need the general blanket of tight firearms controls, but they also need to target those responsible.

Yesterday morning, 22 police forces, largely in the south, the south-east and south-west of England, took part in the world's biggest Bumblebee-type operation. The Metropolitan police were involved, along with 21 other forces, and the operation targeted people who were involved in burglary. I suspect that the police uncovered a host of other crimes, and I have no doubt that they uncovered weapons and goodness knows what else in the hundreds of raids yesterday.

I quote that as an example to the hon. Member for Worsley, because the solution to burglary is not just better locks—although they are part of the story—and not just registering all one's equipment and videos and putting one's postal code on them, although that is part of the solution. There is also the police response in targeting those responsible. The hon. Gentleman mentioned armed criminals in his area. Part of the response has to be trying to control the weapons they get, but that cannot be the only response.

We all know that, even if we made it physically impossible for any farmer anywhere in the country to have a firearm or a shotgun for shooting rabbits, the bad guys would still get their guns. Part of the response must be targeting. We heard Sir Paul Condon say recently—this is in his latest policing plan for the Metropolitan police—that the police would now target street robberies in the same way as they targeted burglaries.

Before I deal with the increased penalties, I want to say a word on the hon. Gentleman's point about domestic premises. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the pool of illicit firearms is fed by the legitimate market, although clearly, guns that are stolen in the course of burglaries or other events from legitimate certificate holders will sometimes get through, and will be used in crime. However, the controls on the safe keeping of all firearms were substantially strengthened by the firearms rules in 1989.

The safe-keeping conditions in all firearm and shotgun certificates place the onus—it is a heavy onus in some parts of the country—on the individual. A gun cabinet is normally required, for example. The hon. Gentleman may have heard people in the shooting associations complaining vociferously about the cost of installing gun cabinets; that can be a heavy burden. People may complain, but I take the view, as someone who has a gun cabinet, that that is tough luck; it is something that we have got to do.

The cabinet must be put in securely, and the police must be satisfied that it is properly secured. If people do not have a gun cabinet, they must have a gun room with a comparable level of security, a cellar with a lockable steel door or some satisfactory alternative. In addition, precautions must be taken to prevent theft during transit. Again, the precautions will depend on the circumstances of each case.

We have no evidence to suggest that criminals are targeting houses where they think guns may be stored. The hon. Member's suggestion that we should not let people store guns in private or domestic property in urban areas—however we may define that—has the added difficulty that, at the moment, they are stored anonymously. No one has a sign on their door indicating the storage of guns. They may have an alarm system, but that is not necessarily to protect firearms. There is anonymity. Where criminals come across guns in homes, it is a random event because they have been burgling the premises—perhaps—for other reasons.

If we take all the weapons out of such premises, but leave them in rural areas, as the hon. Member for Worsley suggests, we would be clearly signalling to criminals that farmhouses are a better target, because one is always bound to find a gun there. We would also have a big transit problem of urban dwellers going to all the firearms clubs to get firearms. We would need a big increase in the number of available armouries and central storage areas, which would become prime targets.

While the hon. Gentleman's theory seems sensible—

Order.

Broadmoor Farm Business Park

1.30 pm

I am very grateful for this early opportunity to raise the subject of the Broadmoor Farm, Saltash planning application, which should have been considered by the planning services committee of Caradon district council on Wednesday 24 April 1995.

I welcome the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), to the Dispatch Box, but I am sorry that the Minister for Railways and Roads is not present instead, since, as will become clear from my remarks, it is the actions of the Highways Agency to which my questions, criticisms and annoyance really apply.

Broadmoor Farm is a 300-acre site located immediately west of Saltash in my constituency and adjacent to the A38 trunk road. It is a very attractive site for business development by any standards. We all hope that at some stage in the not too distant future we shall succeed in attracting to this prestige business park two or three companies of international standard and reputation. That would represent a major inward investment for the national economy. Given the present state of the economy of the Plymouth travel-to-work area, with unemployment at 8 per cent., the impact of the reductions and changes in pattern of our defence expenditure, the adverse effects of the world recession and the fragility of our regional economy, the prospect of the creation of 2,000 or more jobs at that business park is a tangible and exciting proposition.

In November, I took a delegation from Caradon district council to see the Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss economic activity in south-east Cornwall in the context of the single regeneration budget. At the meeting, the projected development of Broadmoor business park was raised. My right hon. Friend assured us that he would do everything he could to facilitate the development, especially in respect of the A38 trunk road improvements. Indeed, he pointed out the role that the integrated Government regional office could play, since he had decided a little earlier that the office should be located in Plymouth. I shall return to issues concerning the A38 road improvement and the regional Government office in a moment.

Broadmoor Farm business park has been the subject of local discussion for almost five years. Statutory bodies, such as Caradon district council and Cornwall county council, have been involved, as have key players such as the West Country development corporation and the Devon and Cornwall development bureau, now called Devon and Cornwall International, which seeks to attract international inward investment to Devon and Cornwall.

There is widespread local support for the desirability of developing Broadmoor Farm business park. It was always understood, however, that no application for outline planning consent could be considered by Caradon district council—the planning authority—until we knew the Department of Transport's preferred line of route for the A38 trunk road improvement.

The announcement of that route was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the summer and was followed by discussions, informal negotiations and numerous meetings between the various statutory organisations that would be involved in the planning process once a formal application for outline planning consent had been submitted. Eventually, for reasons that are not central to the debate, two similar, but not identical, applications were due to be considered by Caradon's planning committee on Wednesday. One was submitted by the owners of Broadmoor Farm and the other by Caradon district council itself.

On 5 April 1995, to go back in time a little, the Department of the Environment wrote to Caradon district council—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to me at the same time—indicating that if Caradon district council were minded to grant outline planning permission, the application should first be submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow him to consider whether it should be called in for his decision. That direction, issued by the Government office for the south-west under the provisions of article 14 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, was anticipated and understandable.

In other words, a month ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment was safeguarding his and the Government's position. Indeed, the advice of Caradon's planning officers to the planning services committee for its meeting on Wednesday was that outline planning consents were warranted subject to conditions, which no doubt the Secretary of State for the Environment would have carefully examined subsequently.

We now come to the reason why I have called for this debate. Just 24 hours before Caradon's planning services committee meeting, Caradon's director of planning services received a letter from the Exeter office of the Highways Agency directing Caradon to refuse the two applications on grounds of "prematurity". I was not quite certain that such a word existed in the English language. I hope that I have pronounced it correctly.

To say that we were all caught off balance by that action at such a late hour would be an understatement. Annoyance and anger would be a more accurate description of our feelings. On Tuesday, I was chairing the Committee considering the Child Support Bill when I was informed of the action. The Committee's proceedings were very tranquil and orderly and progress was being made. My mood changed pretty smartly when I received information from Caradon's chief executive about the actions of the Highways Agency. To put it bluntly, having got so far in this protracted process, I wondered what was going on.

On Tuesday afternoon before my Committee resumed, I telephoned the private offices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to discover what was happening. As a consequence, on the Wednesday, Caradon's planning committee sensibly deferred the two planning applications.

The Highways Agency's decision raises a number of important issues and I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment the following questions. although I accept that responsibility really rests with my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads.

First, why was there such short notice? It was given just 48 hours ahead of Caradon's planning committee meeting. Is that normal when everyone knew about the planning application as a result of the informal discussions that had been taking place over the previous six months or so?

Secondly, what were the reasons for issuing the direction at that late stage? As I have said, we—Caradon district council, myself and all the interested parties—were always led to believe that once the Department of Transport had made known its preferred line of route for the A38 trunk road improvement between Saltash and Trerulefoot, there was no reason in principle why an application for outline consent could not be considered.

Discussions had been taking place between the applicants' professional advisers and the Highways Agency about road links serving the Broadmoor business park in the event of the business park being developed before the A38 trunk road improvement scheme to which I have referred. The Secretary of State for the Environment had informed us that, before any outline planning consent could be confirmed by Caradon, he would want to see the papers. Surely his actions safeguarded the position.

That brings me to my third question. What was the role of the integrated Government regional office? Among others, the office contains Department of the Environment and Department of Transport personnel. Surely the purpose of the office is to prevent such nonsense from taking place where the right arm of government does not know what the left arm is doing.

Fourthly, does not the Highways Agency realise the economic, social and political importance of the project not only to my constituency and the Plymouth travel-to-work area but to the United Kingdom as a whole, given the inward investment potential?

I am not talking about some tin-shack commercial development proposal. It involves 300 acres with a job creation potential of 2,000 or more in an area that has suffered adversely economically as a consequence of changes in defence, the rundown in our basic employment source, the world recession and from an economy which is still very fragile. The aim is to attract two or three major inward investors to the United Kingdom on that site.

If my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the logic of what I have said, my fifth question is will the Highways Agency now withdraw the direction to refuse? I hope, as do my constituents, Caradon district council and the developers, that we can now get on with this exciting and major project.

I find it somewhat ironic that the Department of Trade and Industry calls itself the Department of enterprise. However, here we have a project from the private sector, supported by the public sector, yet that very enterprise is being stifled as a direct consequence of the actions of the Highways Agency. We want to get on with the job because it will have very positive, beneficial and favourable consequences not only for my constituency and for the region, but for the United Kingdom as a whole.

1.44 pm

I want to respond to some of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads. I will ensure that he receives a copy of the points that have been raised, even if I have to sign the copy of Hansard and send it to him myself.

I understand the concerns expressed emphatically by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) about Broadmoor Farm business park. From earlier discussions, I also understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads is concerned about the matter.

As has been said, the land in question at Broadmoor Farm is an area of 450 acres and is located to the north-west of Saltash on the west side of the Tamar river, opposite the city of Plymouth. Although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East is aware of its position, at least what I have said enables me to get the picture.

The area of land is substantial and it is unique in the far south-west. It lies close to the heart of the sub-region. It is generally free of planning constraints—at least it was—and it is physically capable of development. It is also in a limited number of ownerships. The land lies adjacent to, and north of, the A38. Those are important attributes affecting the potential for development in the future, particularly in that area.

The Government are concerned to secure the long-term prosperity of the important sub-region and have taken positive steps to secure that objective generally, and in relation to the particular site. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East explained, we established last year a joint Government office for the south-west in Plymouth to help to secure an integrated approach to promotion, planning and investment in the sub-region. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the presence and local availability of senior Government officers and officials, who appreciate the interests and concerns of his constituents and of those throughout Cornwall and Devon.

The most important consideration to be borne in mind is that, as my hon. Friend has explained, the site is attractive and suitable for major inward investment. Such a site is at a premium in the sub-region and that gives added importance to the future designation and use of the land at Broadmoor Farm.

The current development plans for the area are the approved Cornwall structure plan, which looks ahead to the year 2001, and the county countryside local plan. However, as my hon. Friend is aware, neither makes provision for development at Broadmoor Farm. The county is consulting on a new structure plan looking to the year 2011 and Caradon district council has placed its district local plan on deposit for objections. Both those plans include proposals for major investment at Broadmoor Farm.

We are concerned that that unique asset should be effectively preserved for a single major inward investment and should not be subject to piecemeal development that could and should be accommodated satisfactorily on other sites already designated for business use or with planning permission. I am aware from my hon. Friend's approach and the points that he made that he agrees with that; obviously, Caradon district council also agrees.

The Government's view of the potential of Broadmoor Farm and its wider economic value is reflected in the decision to realign the preferred route of the A38 improvement scheme, which was announced in November 1994. The Government office registered a strong interest with the Highways Agency in maintaining the integrity of the Broadmoor Farm site following the earlier public consultations on the preferred route. As my hon. Friend is aware, my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads agreed to adjust the preferred route to avoid bisecting the Broadmoor Farm site after full discussion with local authorities and landowners' agents—[Interruption.] From the noises behind me, it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East accepts that that was a helpful response.

The Highways Agency considers that it has had useful discussions with all parties involved, and it intends to continue those meetings as the A38 improvement scheme progresses through the next design stage towards publishing draft line and side road orders. That will enable the agency to remain aware of both the local planning authority's and the developer's plans as they are formulated. Such decisions will provide scope for modifying the design of the trunk road through negotiation, where appropriate.

Although the timing and progress of the A38 improvement is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I am aware that those matters can be affected positively where there is the prospect of a contribution from developers towards the cost of the scheme.

I should now like to refer to more recent events. Last autumn, the principal landowner, W. H. Bond and Sons, submitted a planning application to Caradon district council to develop 260 acres of the 450-acre Broadmoor Farm site. In January this year, Caradon submitted its outline planning application for 395 acres of land within the site. After careful consideration, on 5 April I authorised the Government office to issue a direction under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act General Development Order 1988. That direction requires Caradon district council to submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment any planning application that it proposes to approve affecting land within the defined site. I informed my hon. Friend of that action at that time and of the reasons for it, which he and the council accept.

The House will appreciate that I must be extremely cautious in my remarks, lest I inadvertently prejudice any future planning application in that locality, determination of which falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

The article 14 direction leaves Caradon district council free to consider all planning applications and to reach its conclusions on them. The standing direction relates to the site and remains in force until it is removed. It is necessary to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the wider national and regional implications of any planning applications and whether he should call them in for his own determination.

In parallel with the action by my Department, the Highways Agency has been considering the implications of the current planning applications for the trunk road network in the vicinity of Broadmoor Farm.

In December 1994, the Highways Agency was consulted by Caradon district council on the planning application by W. H. Bond and Sons and the accompanying traffic impact assessment. As the development would have a significant impact on the existing highway network, the Highways Agency commissioned consultants to evaluate the traffic impact assessment, including the likely impact on the trunk road capacity and safety of the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development.

On 25 January, the Highways Agency sent its preliminary views to the director of planning services at Caradon district council. It explained—I think that my hon. Friend will accept this—that the development would cause severe capacity problems at the A38 Carkeel roundabout, and that it was unlikely that any worthwhile increase in peak-hour capacity could be achieved without some form of grade-separated junction, as proposed in the A38 Saltash to Trerulefoot improvement scheme.

In early February, the Highways Agency also met the developer's consultants, who agreed to provide more detailed information on the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development.

On 14 March, Caradon district council consulted the Highways Agency about its planning application for 160 hectares. That development relied on the proposed A38 and A388 road improvements for access and the availability of sufficient road capacity.

In relation to both planning applications, the Highways Agency considered carefully whether the trunk road interests could be adequately protected by requiring planning conditions to be attached to the planning consents sought. Its legal advice, consistent with the guidance given in Department of the Environment circular 1/85, is that any condition which the Highways Agency devised would be invalid. That follows the uncertainties associated with the statutory authorisation and execution of the proposed A38 road improvements. Any conditional consent granted now would be incapable of implementation by the applicant within the normal period of the planning consent.

Consequently, the Highways Agency came to the view that the Broadmoor Farm development applications were premature pending publication of draft orders for the A38 Saltash to Trerulefoot improvement and a detailed assessment of the development's traffic impact. That left the agency with no option other than to direct refusal on grounds of prematurity. The notifications were issued on 21 April. A few days later, the county surveyor of Cornwall county council, as the local highways authority, similarly advised refusal of the applications for the same reasons.

The Highways Agency would have been neglecting its responsibilities for the trunk road network if it had not acted and had left my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment to call in the applications because of their trunk road implications. Such a course of action would also have involved all parties in the unnecessary expense of a public inquiry.

The Highways Agency has made it clear that it has no objection in principle to development at that location, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the highway issues, and that it appreciates the wider economic and social importance of the potential development site. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads has recently and urgently reviewed the circumstances in which the Highways Agency issued directions to Caradon district council relating to the proposed development at Broadmoor Farm. Furthermore, he has been stimulated to put in hand urgent arrangements for a meeting which will involve him and my hon. Friend, along with the developers, the district council and the Highways Agency to explore the possibilities.

It is worth explaining the importance of the site and the concern to bring work and industry of national importance to the area. The Government are seriously concerned. There have been long discussions, perhaps not at public meetings but certainly between officials of the various agencies and the council. Although the notice was short, it should have been foreseen. Nevertheless, the fact that a Transport Minister is calling a meeting with all parties will stimulate a faster and more positive response. The reason for that is that the Government are concerned to secure the long-term prosperity of that important sub-region, of which the site is an important part.

We must recognise the importance of attracting new investment to help to diversify and revive the economy in the area, which, as my hon. Friend said, has been badly affected by the rundown of the defence industry. It is worth touching on some of the constructive things that we are doing to approach the problem.

The Plymouth development corporation is charged with revitalising three key waterfront sites leased by the Ministry of Defence, and it currently has a budget of £40 million.

Before my hon. Friend refers to the generality, I should like to concentrate his mind again on the Broadmoor site—I could have written nine tenths of his speech. Clearly, the Department of the Environment fully supported what we are trying to do locally in the partnership between the private sector and the public sector.

I want an assurance from my hon. Friend. If the Highways Agency will not withdraw the direction to refuse, it must accept that the development in principle at Broadmoor may proceed before the A30 trunk road improvement scheme, provided the necessary arrangements are made to meet increased traffic flows—at the Carkeel roundabout matter in particular—so that the road structure can accommodate the increased flows during the interim period. That is what I am asking.

I thank my hon. Friend for what seems to be an eminently sensible approach. I hope that we can persuade my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads constructively to use the meeting to see whether he, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the developers, the district council and the Highways Agency could improve the chances of speeding up the development of that important site.

It is clear that planning approval for substantial developments on the site depends on the development and improvement of the main roads highway. It turns on the successful completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance. However, I do not see why we cannot expect, as a result of the meeting, a constructive approach from all parties in an attempt to ensure that this key site is used for the benefit of industry in the area—although, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, its national economic importance must also be recognised.

Burtonwood Air Base

2 pm

I must begin by declaring an interest. As well as representing the area, I live next to the northern perimeter fence of the Burtonwood air base, and can therefore speak with real conviction about the problems that face my constituents and me.

Burtonwood air base has an important place in the history of our country, particularly in view of the part that it played in the defence of Britain and the rest of Europe in the second world war. From 1942, it was the depot that received goods flown and shipped in from across the Atlantic; after the cessation of hostilities in 1945, it became a long-term storage depot for the United States army. Another relatively important part of its history was its usefulness during the Berlin airlift, and its immense importance during the cold war.

Until recently, the air base was characterised by its use for long-term storage by the US army, with short vehicle movements into and out of the complex and a good many rail deliveries. That happened for 40 or 50 years, but I should emphasise that no aeroplane has entered the base for at least that time: the term "air base" does not really give an accurate description of what has been going on there.

Over the past 10 years, what has actually evolved at the base is a high-quality residential development. The Warrington and Runcorn development corporation—a direct agent for the Department of the Environment—and, latterly, the Commission for the New Towns, which is also a direct agent for the Department, have granted planning permission to land allocations for residential use to the east, north and west of the base. That completes a residential development around the base—north, south, east and west.

A brochure published in 1987 by Fairclough Homes made it clear that the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation had high expectations for this part of my constituency. The brochure described the area as a

"carefully chosen location with an abundance of trees, bushes and flowers adorning its landscaped gardens and peaceful cul-de-sac approach road, Chestnut Grange offers a tranquil and idyllic setting for this delightful range of elegant homes."

Indeed, it persuaded people to come and buy new homes in this village setting.

What has happened since then? In 1992, the US army air force decided that it had no future use for the air base, and would vacate the premises in the summer of 1993. From that moment on, I have attempted to persuade the Ministry of Defence to engage in a sensible planning approach to the future use of the base. On 15 July 1993, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the development in west Warrington—the MOD site at Burtonwood air base and the Property Services Agency site on Burtonwood road, Great Sankey, Warrington, Cheshire.

The letter was succinct. I wrote:

"The above two Government sites are in my constituency. The PSA site is identified in the Warrington Local Plan for residential and associated development. The Airbase site will soon be left vacant by the US Army Airforce and decisions as to whether the MOD are to put the site to further domestic military use is expected soon. The two sites cover a massive area in close proximity to the Omega site which is ear-marked for large scale industrial/commercial development.

It is obvious that the current presumptions in favour of development of the PSA site and Omega site, together with a continued military use or further development of the Burtonwood Airbase site will place an intolerable burden on the infrastructure in this part of my constituency. Likewise, it would have a major impact upon the environment in this rural suburban area which would not only be detrimental to the locality and its residents, it would also adversely affect the economic health of the town of Warrington.

A positive way forward would be for a comprehensive and integrated approach to future development in this part of my constituency. This should include:—
l) a clear statement on the future use of Burtonwood Airbase;
2) a detailed analysis of the infrastructure needs to ensure that all the proposed development can be accommodated;
3) an environment impact study to ensure that any proposed development is suitable for the area;
4) an appraisal of the current deficiencies in community provision to ensure these are met in any proposed development; and
5) a co-ordinated approach to the development of the three sites in line with the planning framework provided by the Warrington Local Plan.

To take this matter forward in a comprehensive manner, a multi-agency approach needs to be adopted that will give equal consideration to the needs of The Department for the Environment, the Ministry of Defence and Warrington Borough Council. Can I suggest that the Commission for New Towns is given a lead role in this matter, to prepare a fully comprehensive planning brief based upon a full environmental/social impact assessment. This, I am sure, offers a positive way forward of dealing with a potentially very complicated and damaging planning situation."

When I wrote those words, I did not know that we would be faced today with a commercial use of the air base that has resulted in a loss of residential amenities for my constituents. I was disappointed to receive a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, dated 11 August 1993, which stated:

"it is doubtful if the Ministry of Defence will be able to help significantly with those aims".

Part of the air base that we are discussing is Header house, which contains 1.6 million sq ft of warehouse storage space. In the middle of last year, the land agents for the Ministry of Defence advertised to the commercial world that they would let the building at a rent of £1.50 a square foot. Simple mathematics tell us that if the building is completely occupied—as it is—that will mean some £3.2 million in revenue for the MOD. That is the start of the problem.

Without consulting local Members of Parliament, Warrington borough council's planning authority or local residents, the MOD unilaterally decided to let the air base as a storage depot for heavy goods vehicles and trailers. It made that decision overnight.

I know that the Minister is not responsible for the air base, but I ask him to picture Burtonwood road—a narrow country lane, classified not as an A road or a B road but as a C road. It has no street lights and no footpath; in places, the carriageway, if it can be called that, is only 17 ft wide, not wide enough to allow two HGVs to pass each other. Each week, 5,000 38-tonne juggernauts thunder down Burtonwood road on their journey to and from the air base.

Those who have the misfortune to live in or off Burtonwood road are prisoners in their own homes. They must now constantly suffer the noise, vibration, diesel emissions and exhaust pollutants—all the disturbance produced by vehicle movements past their front windows 24 hours a day, seven days a week. My constituents' sleep is regularly disturbed, and local doctors have confirmed to me in writing that the volume of traffic in the road is causing them ill health. Those residents, and people living adjacent to the air base, have lost much of the value of their properties.

Not only must the residents put up with all that; lorries now drive over their front gardens. I am quite sure that those houses will suffer structural damage in the years to come. Local residents who live in properties adjacent to the air base have had what was an enjoyable, tranquil and rural life style completely changed, and their lives have been turned into misery. They have suffered a severe loss of residential amenity as a direct result of the uncaring and insensitive actions of the Government.

The activities on the base are just as bad. Local residents who live all around the base must contend with HGVs revving their engines on the site, the constant gear-crunching which goes with the manoeuvres of the vehicles, the reverse sirens wailing, the air brakes hissing and trailers being dumped to the ground. The diesel exhaust fumes from all the vehicles are building up a public health problem in the area for years to come. Warrington has an above average incidence of asthma, and the fumes will make that problem worse.

A further problem is that the base is a real fire hazard. It is a powder keg waiting to blow—an accident waiting to happen. The chief fire officer of Cheshire fire brigade wrote to me to say that in the event of a serious fire at the base, local residents would be in danger of airborne pollutants outside acceptable levels. He was unable to give me a categorical assurance that the fire measures in place give the most appropriate protection against a likely fire hazard associated with the current use of the premises.

I have been told now that smoke detectors on the site warehouses in Header house have been switched off because the fumes from the HGVs and fork-lift trucks set off the fire alarms. The building does not have a sprinkler system, nor does it have any fire walls within it. Some 30,000 litres of diesel are stored on the site, and liquid propane gas is stored there inappropriately. With the smoke alarms turned off and the current storage of dry consumable goods, the potential for a serious fire is very high. The consequences for local residents of such a fire do not bear thinking about.

Confirmation of the problem has come from two independent sources. First, the north west traffic commissioner adjudicated on an application by TDG to run an operating licence from Burtonwood air base. Commenting on the evidence from local people, the commissioner stated that they all gave evidence of daily disturbance from noise, vibration and fumes—particularly at night.

The commissioner quoted evidence from Mr. P. Woods, the environmental protection officer for Warrington borough council, whose detailed report confirmed that the noise from TDG's night operations exceeded statutory limits. Even TDG's noise experts agreed that there was a problem. It is not surprising that J. H. Levin, on behalf of the deputy licensing authority, concluded that he was

"satisfied that the operations at present carried out under the interim authority are causing such adverse environmental problems that the application for a full licence should be refused."

He said that Warrington council was of the opinion that the activities on the air base were in contravention of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

To make matters worse, the matter has been brought to a head by the Government's intransigence and their refusal to act to protect the interests of local residents, taxpayers and voters. Until now, the Government have refused to engage in a joint planning exercise to determine an acceptable future use for Burtonwood air base. They failed to consult local Members of Parliament, Warrington borough council or the local residents before turning Burtonwood air base into a commercial lorry and trailer park, with the attendant problems that I have described.

On 28 March 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I met the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Henley, to bring attention to the severe loss of residential amenity suffered by neighbours of Burtonwood air base. I followed that meeting with a letter to seek action from the Government to put a stop to the totally unacceptable use of the air base. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence refused. Likewise, my request for a weekend and night-time curfew on lorry movement to and from the base was refused.

Even the request from Warrington borough council for a copy of the report on noise prevention measures compiled by the land agents for the Ministry of Defence was refused. I might add that noise attenuation measures on the base will not solve the problem, nor will moving the problem around the base by using other entrances and exits. All that that would do would be to spread the problem to other areas in my constituency, which would suffer if alternative arrangements for traffic on the site were made.

The only solution is to stop the traffic altogether. The excuse given by the Ministry of Defence for the refusals is that it is in dispute with Warrington council as to whether the current commercial activities at the base are covered by the existing planning permission. The Ministry of Defence believes that it has existing permission to allow the current commercial use at the base. The problem is not the planning permission itself, but it is a clear sign that the MOD is using the planning issue to resolve the dispute in its favour.

If that is the case and the MOD is deemed to have planning permission, it will continue the present use of the base and will sell it on the open market to the highest bidder as a storage facility. That will ensure that the purgatory that has been experienced by my constituents becomes permanent. That is simply not acceptable.

We would like to hear today from the Ministry of Defence that it recognises that it was the Government who brought people to live in this area, and that the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation and the Commission for the New Towns also encouraged people to live there. The Government are directly responsible for the creation of the residential development which now surrounds Burtonwood air base, and are also responsible for changing the nature of that high-quality residential neighbourhood.

The Government have a moral responsibility to ensure that the people who now live in that modern village setting do not suffer a loss of residential amenity as a result of the Government's actions. Clearly, the Ministry of Defence can now ensure that the use of the air base is determined in such a way that local residents can continue to enjoy the quality of life that they have enjoyed since they first moved into the area. To do anything else would represent a severe breach of faith on the Government's part.

It is worth remembering that we celebrate VE day this week. Burtonwood air base played a major part in bringing peace to Europe. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will now play a major part in bringing peace to my constituents.

2.16 pm

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate, as half the base is in my constituency. I also thank the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for being here to listen and to reply.

I hope that the Minister will not hide behind the question whether the Ministry of Defence has planning permission. We realise that Burtonwood was once the largest ordnance depot for the United States army in Europe, but at that time—as my hon. Friend explained—many of the movements were made by rail. Local residents are now experiencing unacceptable lorry movements on the site.

I hope that the Minister takes that fact on board, as the Under-Secretary of State did not do so when my hon. Friend and I met him recently. The Minister should go for an integrated plan with Warrington borough council and the Commission for the New Towns which involves the residents. Life for local people has become intolerable, as we are talking about 5,000 vehicle movements on a road that—by any stretch of the imagination—is not suitable. How much worse will it get if the Ministry of Defence carries on with what appears to be its present plan, and sells the site on the open market as a storage depot? Will the 5,000 movements become 10,000 or 20,000?

Already, life is intolerable for people who, following an agreement with the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation, bought houses in what was a residential area. I never have sympathy for those who buy houses next to a site and then start to complain about what is going on at the site. The area has been completely altered, and I ask the Minister to approach the matter in a spirit of co-operation, and not confrontation.

2.18 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on his success in debating this motion today. Clearly, it is a matter of great importance to his constituents and to those of his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle).

I recall visiting RAF Burtonwood when I was Under-Secretary of State responsible for the armed forces between 1986 and 1988—I cannot recall which year. The impression that I received was of an enormous facility in a leafy area of Warrington. Peace and quiet prevailed because, frankly, it was used for storing items in preparation for conflict, which fortunately never occurred. Clearly, a solution to the problem has to be found and it has to involve Warrington borough council—that is as plain as a pikestaff.

Following the withdrawal of the United States army in 1993, and in the usual way, we considered whether the site could be used for alternative defence purposes. The hon. Member for Warrington, South referred to the apparent delay between the withdrawal of the American army and where we are today. Use of the site as a base for the long-term storage of army vehicles was one of a number of potential uses. After much careful consideration, however, it was concluded that the site could not sensibly be used for defence purposes and was surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements.

I recognise that the Department took some time to reach that conclusion, but that was due to the need to reflect the changing assumptions of the "Front Line First" study at the time and the considerable care that we took to identify alternative defence uses. That is the first step when disposing of defence sites, as the hon. Member for Warrington, South will recognise. We want to find out whether there could be, first, another defence use and, secondly, another public sector use. Finally, we consider disposal, but with the co-operation and involvement of the local authority.

My noble Friend Lord Henley wrote to the hon. Member for Warrington, South on 21 March to advise him of our conclusions and that we intended to dispose of the site on the open market. I must stress that an empty site such as RAF Burtonwood is a substantial burden on our resources. The costs incurred in maintaining and securing empty sites are significant. The early disposal of surplus property is, therefore, a real priority. In the meantime, ways of alleviating the running costs, which now fall to the MOD, but certainly did not previously do so in their entirety, must be considered. In other words, there is another element in this difficult equation—the taxpayers' interests, as they have to pay, through the Ministry of Defence and RAF Strike Command, which is the top-level budget holder responsible for the site.

My Department believes that, under town and country planning legislation, the current permitted use of RAF Burtonwood is for storage and distribution, which in planning terms is referred to as B8 use. On that basis, pending a final decision on the future of the site, and to defray the cost of maintaining and policing the establishment which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is about £400,000 a year, the defence land agent negotiated a number of short-term lettings. I believe that he was right to do so because, as a Minister accountable to this House, with my noble Friend Lord Henley in another place, I have responsibility for accounting for, mitigating and reducing the taxpayer's expenditure. So, the defence land agent was perfectly correct in what he did.

Although we regard the exact income that we are generating from present activities at RAF Burtonwood as commercially confidential, I can advise the hon. Member for Warrington, South that it is in excess of the running costs of the site. I am sure that he will appreciate that that not only removes a not insignificant burden on the defence budget but is of benefit to the taxpayer.

Indeed, our intended disposal strategy was to build up the commercial usage of the site by completing new tenancies of three and five years and to sell the site as a going concern with the benefit of good short-term income, allowing a purchaser time to plan in the longer term for its redevelopment. That strategy presented the opportunity to dispose of the site quickly because of the generated cash flow, while meeting our obligation to maximise the return to the taxpayer. I must stress, however, that we never considered that the site would be used for storage and distribution in the long term. On the contrary, we envisage it becoming part of the sustainable redevelopment that is taking place within the Great Sankey area.

As the hon. Member for Warrington, South said, the problem is the short-term use, as we do not envisage such a long-term use given the road system, which is inadequate by any standards—as I recall, the site is not exactly served directly by dual carriageway or motorway-standard roads. Residential development has been taking place in the vicinity of RAF Burtonwood in recent years, however, and the present level of commercial usage—especially the increase in HGV movement—has given rise to complaints from local residents concerning nuisance and noise, especially at night.

The hon. Member for Warrington, North was frank and correct in saying that, if one buys a house close to a railway station, railway line, road or former RAF-owned but American-operated storage depot, one cannot assume that the usage that existed when one bought it will continue for ever. Although that is a correct and absolute statement, one has to use common sense to ensure that its conversion, certainly within the public sector, is carried out as sensitively as possible.

My Department acknowledges that our commercial tenants have created greater HGV movement than that generated by use by the United States army, which primarily involved the long-term storage of war reserves and hence generated relatively few vehicle movements and little on-site activity. I fully understand the concern of local residents. We have taken positive steps to minimise the disturbance caused by present activities and the local defence land agent has appointed a firm of environmental consultants to advise on possible short-term and long-term solutions to the noise and traffic problems.

The suggested short-term solutions have been passed to Warrington borough council and, although the hon. Member for Warrington, South was somewhat dismissive, include driver training, the introduction of stringent site rules, night patrolling and direction of traffic flow. The longer-term proposals will be available shortly and are expected to include such measures as the provision of sound-absorbing fencing, bunds and landscaping and also the introduction of new access arrangements. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that merely re-routing the same volume of noisy traffic does not necessarily solve the problem, but it is important to consider new access arrangements to find out whether the problems can be alleviated. We are very willing to put our suggested long-term solutions to Warrington borough council, but as yet we have had no response to our short-term proposals.

I hope, therefore, that the next step will be a joint meeting between my officials and Warrington borough council. I am sure that the hon. Member for Warrington, South, as a former leader of the council, and the hon. Member for Warrington, North would be welcome at such a meeting so that their views can be included.

We had intended to enter into discussions with Warrington borough council on the future use of RAF Burtonwood and to try to resolve the present dispute about the existing planning use of the site. Wherever possible, it is our policy to work closely with local authorities and my noble Friend Lord Henley has stressed our preparedness to enter into substantive discussions with Warrington borough council at his recent meeting with the hon. Gentlemen.

Warrington borough council recently sought the consent of the Crown to the issue of enforcement notices against the occupiers of the site. The council believes that the current use represents a breach of planning control, on the basis that there is no legal right to use the site for storage and distribution. As the hon. Gentlemen may be aware, when the Crown has an interest in land, enforcement notices cannot be served without the consent of the Secretary of State. We very much hope that, until the long-term future is established, agreement about use of the site can be reached through discussions among affected parties.

As I said, the Department believes that the established and current use of RAF Burtonwood is for storage and distribution. Nevertheless, in view of Warrington borough council's request that the Secretary of State should give his consent to the issue of enforcement notices against the present occupiers, we felt it appropriate to seek the advice of leading counsel, which we have just received. I can advise the hon. Gentlemen that counsel supports our view that the current established use of the site is for storage and distribution and that that use may be continued by occupants other than the Ministry of Defence.

At this stage, we would not wish to comment further on enforcement notices. I hope that it does not come to that because, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North rightly said, the issue should be solved sensibly, after negotiation and certainly after meetings, and we should not be involved simply in a legal dispute over planning. Rather, we propose to enter into substantive discussions with Warrington borough council on the future use of the site with a view to finding a solution with which all parties are content. In the first instance, I asked my officials to contact Warrington borough council to arrange an early meeting, and a meeting has now been set for 18 May.

In the meantime, and in view of the current level of local concern, we shall ensure that there is no intensification of the current activities at RAF Burtonwood. In addition, we are taking measures to terminate the occupation of those users who have proved to be unsuitable. As the hon. Members for Warrington, North and for Warrington, South know, one of the major occupiers is currently seeking alternative accommodation. Notwithstanding that, we shall also undertake a stringent review to ensure that all tenants comply with the terms of their lease.

I hope that that and other measures, which I shall ask the defence land agent to propose in his meeting with Warrington borough council, will go at least some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentlemen's concerns.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to order [19 December].

Private Business

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill Lords

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers To Questions

Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs

Overseas Investment

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to encourage further investment by British companies overseas. [20411]

How best to succeed overseas is a matter for the management of British companies. The Government's Overseas Trade Services supply information and advice to help companies enter new markets.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Given that, historically, diplomats could not tell the difference between a gadget and a widget, how is the Foreign Office gearing up to offer expert help to companies that wish to extend their exports?

The promotion of trade and inward investment from overseas now uses more resources than any other front-line Foreign and Commonwealth Office activity. Some 30 per cent. of front-line staff overseas now do commercial work. We are creating more than 100 new commercial jobs abroad and opening 14 new posts, some in newly emerging markets in Asia and Latin America. British industry wants and is willing to pay for these services, which the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry jointly offer, and 90 per cent. of those who have used our services say that they would use them again. Export orders and inward investment are often won partly because of those services.

Eu-Us Relations

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the European Union and the United States of America. [20413]

The United States is the European Union's most important international partner. With annual trade between the two sides at more than $200 billion and a total of some $450 billion invested in each other's markets, it is also Europe's most important trading partner. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Clinton agreed in Washington that Europe and north America should work together on new ways of reducing barriers to open trade and strengthening the world trading system. We shall pursue those ideas with our north American and European partners.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is very much in this country's interests to develop a more open trading relationship between Britain and the European Union on the one hand and the USA on the other? What are the prospects for developing that more open relationship within the next few years?

I certainly hope that those prospects will become a reality. The new World Trade Organisation rules require that any such free trade areas should be genuinely free and cover substantially all trade, which would need to include such sensitive sectors as agriculture and textiles, so it will not be entirely easy. We see a useful role for Europe and north America acting as pathfinders, working together on ways of removing non-tariff barriers to trade and extending liberalisation, for example, in financial services.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in this troubled and dangerous world, the finest way to help security would be to develop a free trade area embracing Europe and the north American free trade area? Would that not do more to stabilise conditions than almost anything else?

I agree. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), various steps can be taken and we hope to act as pathfinders in that direction.

Land Mines

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had in the EC about strengthening the UN protocol on the use of land mines. [20414]

We have taken a number of initiatives both on our own and with others since July 1994. With our strong support, on 10 April the Foreign Affairs Council agreed a proposal for European Union joint action on land mines. That includes an agreement on common objectives to strengthen protocol 2 of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention at its review conference in Vienna in September 1995.

In particular, the European Union will work to promote universal adherence, to extend the scope to cover non-international armed conflict, to strengthen restrictions and prohibitions on the use of anti-personnel land mines, to agree an effective verification mechanism, and to include provisions on mine clearance and technical assistance.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern about this issue throughout the country, and especially within the church organisations in our nation. What are Britain's objectives at the convention and what does my hon. Friend expect to achieve at that convention when it meets?

My hon. Friend is right about the concern expressed about the issue, which the Government are to a large extent reflecting in our decisions. Obviously, we support everything that I have outlined in terms of the European Union's objectives. In addition, Britain wants to see strengthened technical criteria which ensure that anti-personnel land mines are detectable—the most dangerous land mines for civilians are those that are non-detectable—and that self-destruct mechanisms are reliable. We also want to see improved provision for the marking and recording of mined areas. All those policy objectives are aimed at creating a workable and effective policy that will protect civilians from hazard.

Has the Minister had a chance to reflect on the reply given to me last night by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that the answers that have been given in the House during the past decade have been inaccurate because the definition used by NATO of what constitutes an anti-personnel land mine is not that which has been used by his Department or by the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? In the light of that, how many mines manufactured from 1986 onwards did not meet those criteria? What objections do the Government now have to publishing the criteria for what precisely constitutes an anti-personnel land mine?

I am afraid that I have not seen the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement last night. For a number of years, we have not exported any land mines under the NATO definition. I shall look at the matter if the hon. Gentleman wishes. As he knows, I take the matter extremely seriously and I will write to him to try to clarify the points that he raises.

Is the Minister saying that the Government would countenance the export of land mines if they were fitted with a self-destruct capacity? If so, does he accept claims that the failure level of self-destruct mechanisms as high as 10 per cent? If the hon. Gentleman is to allow similar types of exports, what research has his Department commissioned which would give any credibility to the suggestion that these types of anti-personnel devices—horrific in their consequences—should be exported by this or any other nation?

If the hon. Gentleman or his predecessor on the Opposition Front Bench had attended the debate in the Chamber some while ago—initiated, I believe, by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—they would have heard me comment on precisely that. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor got the figure wrong when she wrote to me after the event.

The technology for self-destructing or self-neutralising land mines is not very advanced or difficult. Our aim, which I outlined earlier, in the UN weaponry convention, is to ensure that we lay down the standard for a failure level of no more than one in 1,000. Others think that much more is achievable. The technology is not difficult to understand, so it does not require massive amounts of research. Once standards are laid down, the Ministry of Defence, in obtaining land mines to replace the dumb land mines that we have now, will undertake studies to ensure that they meet the standards required.

Middle East Peace Process

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [20415]

The pace of progress has been disappointing, but those involved with the Palestinian track are still edging forward. There is a prospect of agreement on holding elections and the accompanying Israeli withdrawal from west bank towns by the end of June. Mr. Yasser Arafat's moves to clamp down on terrorism have clearly had some positive effect.

Will the Foreign Secretary join me in expressing regret at the death in Shin Beth custody of Abd a-Samed Harizat, a Palestinian from Hebron who, although he had links with Hamas, was entitled to protection under Israeli law while in custody? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that while we are unanimously opposed to suicide bombing or terrorist activities as a way of moving the peace proposals forward, the best way to resolve the suicide bombers' terrorist campaign is to press ahead with the Palestinian elections as quickly and expeditiously as possible so that there can be a genuine democratically elected Government to represent the Palestinian authorities in the peace negotiations?

I am sure that the whole House would condemn all recent violence in these disputes, from whatever quarter. One good thing has shone through: despite all the difficulties and tragedies, both sides have committed themselves to press on with negotiations and not to abandon the peace process. As-the hon. Gentleman knows, the next step is to complete talks on elections and the redeployment of Israeli forces by 1 July. I hope that that will happen.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Hamas murderers who seek to kill innocent civilians, derail the peace process and undermine the efforts of Mr. Arafat to secure peace in the region?

Yes, I would. They are among those who are seeking to sabotage the peace process. They should therefore be opposed and support should be withheld from them by everyone.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it was especially reprehensible that the Israeli authorities announced that 133 acres of Palestinian land in east Jerusalem were to be expropriated for building exclusively Jewish housing projects on the very day when it was announced that the Israeli army were to withdraw from the six Palestinian towns on the west bank? In the past, the Foreign Secretary has condemned Israeli building in the occupied territories. Will he now take firm action to ensure that that point is forcefully made to the Israeli Government, and that serious attempts are made to stop that project going ahead?

Yes. We believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he was there, that all settlement building should be stopped because it is illegal and an obstacle to peace. We are concerned about the decision to expropriate land in Jerusalem. It is contrary to United Nations Security Council resolutions and to the spirit of the declaration principles. We and our European partners have already pointed that out.

My right hon. Friend will recall that, at the time of the agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, many Arab states made substantial promises of aid. Does he agree that that aid, and the economic prosperity that it can buy for the Palestinians, is the best defence against extremism? What assessment has he made of how much hard cash has come from the Arab states in fulfilment of those promises?

I certainly believe that the flow of help for Mr. Arafat, now that he has administrative responsibilities, from his Arab brothers has been disappointing. They still have disagreements with him—as, indeed, do we because of his stance in the Gulf war—but it is important that he should be sustained in his efforts to run the Gaza strip, Jericho and eventually the rest of the west bank in a reasonable and business-like way. We have given him support and help in that, and the Arab world should do likewise.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the economic and financial aid package given in Paris last week to Gaza and to Jericho must be used for specific projects which will produce specific jobs and, therefore, improve the quality of life of people living in that region?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I entirely agree with him. The total European package—which is in addition to the British package, to which we have added from time to time—totals 500 million ecu over five years. It is for specific projects—education, housing, technical assistance, the rehabilitation of those who have been detained, and support for private enterprise in the territories.

Iraq

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether UN sanctions against Iraq should remain in force. [20417]

The United Nations Security Council can modify sanctions against Iraq only when it is satisfied that Iraq has complied with the relevant United Nations resolutions. The Iraqi Government know what they have to do. We look to them for early action. We are deeply concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people. Working closely with the United States and Argentina, and in response to concern expressed in several quarters in the House, we have secured the unanimous adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution No. 986. That would allow Iraq to export substantial quantities of oil in return for aid. We look to the Iraqi Government to accept the resolution and thereby to help to alleviate the suffering of their own people, for which they are so clearly responsible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Iraq's failure fully to comply with United Nations resolution No. 687 on co-operation in relation to weapons of mass destruction and on peaceful intent, together with human rights violations and the failure to agree on small sales of oil to give humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq, mean that the Government should do their utmost to persuade the international community to retain sanctions?

That is the position at the moment. My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the outstanding points. With regard to weapons of mass destruction, I draw particular attention to biological weapons, on which much remains to be done, and to possible nuclear research programmes.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Turkey does not appear to have responded to the suggestion by many informed observers that there has been some sort of understanding or agreement between Turkey and Iraq over the recent incursion by Turkey into northern Iraq, which is said to be aimed not only against terrorism but at the oil facilities there? Does not the absence of an explanation by Turkey or Iraq suggest that more care should be taken before there is any relief of the present sanctions? What information does the Foreign Office have about that?

The hon. Gentleman has been ingenious in bringing that subject into the scope of the question. We have spoken to the Turks expressing our concern about their incursion into Iraq. Turkey has explained the reasons, which have nothing to do with sanctions against Iraq or oil facilities but are concerned with its struggle against the PKK in south-eastern Turkey. Turkey has begun to withdraw and I hope that that withdrawal will be completed as soon as possible.

I accept the Foreign Secretary's description of current events in Iraq, but will he bear in mind what the UN Secretary-General wrote in his position paper presented to the Security Council in early January? He said that the object of sanctions was

"not to punish or … exact retribution",

and that they raised the difficult question whether they were

"a legitimate means of exerting pressure on political leaders whose behaviour is unlikely to be affected by the plight of their subjects."

Surely that is the dilemma that the Government face.

That is indeed the dilemma, which is why we have acted to find a sensible way through it and to show again, more comprehensively—more generously, one could say—that the Security Council is willing to allow Iraq to sell oil even under its present Government, provided that the proceeds are used partly for compensation and partly to feed the Iraqi people and to supply them with drugs and medicine, and not for other purposes. That seems a perfectly sensible way through.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be no question of lifting the sanctions on Iraq until it has complied with all United Nations resolutions? I refer in particular to the resolution relating to the 625 Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons still held in Iraqi prisons after all these years. What progress is being made in that regard?

Not enough. My hon. Friend has taken a keen personal interest in the problem for many years, and she is right that any relaxation of the import embargo will depend on the Iraqi Government's complying with all the resolutions, including those concerning the Kuwaiti detainees still unaccounted for.

Kashmir

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support efforts by the European Union to encourage Pakistan and India to hold direct talks on Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [20418]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

(Mr. Tony Baldry)

We have taken a leading role in encouraging India and Pakistan to resolve their problems over Kashmir by bilateral dialogue, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement. Our line is closely reflected in the position taken by the European Union.

I note and welcome that reply, but what discussions have the Minister and our European partners had with the. Indian Government in an effort to stop the continuing abuses of human rights by Indian security forces in occupied Kashmir? If the Indian Government should attempt to hold elections in that area this year, what criteria would the Minister expect to be observed to ensure that the elections were really free and fair and that the result represented the views of the people of Kashmir?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have repeatedly made it clear that human rights abuses in Kashmir have to stop, as does any support for armed incursions into Kashmir, and those responsible know to whom we are speaking. We have consistently encouraged India and Pakistan to resolve their differences through talks together. I am glad that yesterday India and Pakistan agreed to resume talks on Kashmir, which is good news. The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India met and agreed that outstanding problems had to be resolved through peaceful means and that there was no insurmountable barrier to resuming talks, which is very good news.

Before any such talks can make sensible progress, is it not essential that military terrorism should cease? As we used to say of Northern Ireland, one cannot successfully negotiate under the shadow of the bomb and the bullet. Should not Pakistan be discouraged from training and sending so many young men to a useless death?

As I have made clear on many occasions, for there to be progress on Kashmir there has to be an improvement in human rights in Kashmir, a genuine political process in Kashmir and the clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. Above all, there must he a dialogue between India and Pakistan. It is good news that that dialogue at last seems to be starting.

Notwithstanding the announcement that the Minister made about the discussions yesterday, may I ask him to redouble the British Government's efforts on the issue? It is not a problem of two faraway countries: it affects the very heart of communities in this country. When people from that divided part of the world hear about the constant repression of their families and more distant relatives, it makes for bad community relations in this country. It puts pressure on people, who take a more militant approach because of the diplomats' failure to solve the problem by peaceful means. There is a continuing danger that the matter will continue to fester within our communities in this country unless we redouble our efforts to bring about a peaceful solution.

The hon. Gentleman and the House will he reassured to know that Ministers spare no opportunity to encourage both sides to resolve their differences through bilateral negotiations. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes—that many people in this country have an interest in what happens in Kashmir—is well understood. That is why we wish to see progress made on Kashmir. The only way in which long-standing progress can be made on Kashmir is if the people of India and Pakistan talk and resolve the matter together.

Nuclear Weapons

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet his overseas colleagues to discuss treaty obligations regarding nuclear non-proliferation; and if he will make a statement. [20419]

I spoke to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference on 18 April. For 25 years the treaty has been the cornerstone of our efforts to prevent proliferation and it has succeeded in limiting the number of states with a nuclear weapons capability. We therefore want to make the treaty permanent by agreeing in New York its indefinite extension. That is supported by all states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Europe and north America, and by a growing number of the non-aligned states. To help ensure a successful outcome, we have made a number of moves on security assurances and on ceasing the production of fissile material for explosive purposes.

In the negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty, we have dropped our requirement for nuclear tests in exceptional circumstances—the so-called safety tests. The moves that we have made underline our strong commitment to achieving progress on disarmament and maintaining the non-proliferation treaty as an essential guarantor of international security.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his full and comprehensive answer. Is not the world a far less safe place now than it was 10 years ago? Is it not irresponsible for certain Members of the House of Commons to say, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) did only yesterday, that now is the time for this country to disarm unilaterally? Does that not make my right hon. Friend's job more difficult when it comes to negotiating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and do not such comments demonstrate—following the debate in Westminster hall on Saturday—that the Labour party is just a rabble without a clause?

I will not seek to emulate my hon. Friend. I noticed the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the House yesterday, when he said that nuclear weapons were "expensive, immoral and unjustifiable". That used to be the view of all his party. It is only fairly recently that the Labour party has come to support the Trident programme, as we do.

The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has made some cloudy remarks in the past few weeks which suggest that he is moving back towards his traditional position in line with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the hon. Member for Islington, North. Perhaps in our exchanges here the hon. Member for Livingston will be able to show how far and how fast he is moving backwards.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be far better if the non-proliferation treaty were renewed only for a limited period, to allow the nuclear weapons states the opportunity to decommission and get rid of their nuclear weapons as a contribution towards world peace? Does he honestly think that Britain equipping four Trident nuclear submarines with a total of 376 warheads is anything but a belligerent act in a world that is desperately looking for peace? Would we not be better served by saying that we will abandon the cost and use of nuclear weapons as our contribution to world peace?

We have had an argument on this matter in this country—and rightly so—year after year. I do not say that there is a consensus because the hon. Gentleman is not part of one, but there is an overwhelming feeling that we need to maintain a minimum—and it is a minimum— national nuclear deterrent, as envisaged in the treaty, so there is no pressure on us from abroad from to follow the course that the hon. Member recommends and I would not advise it to the House.

The hon. Member suggests a partial or temporary renewal of the treaty, but a temporary renewal means an uncertain renewal. It means that the risks of proliferation would begin to overshadow the world even more starkly than at present. That is not a good idea.

What success did my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have in their talks with senior Israeli politicians about nuclear non-proliferation? Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was Israel which first secretly introduced nuclear weapons into the middle east, supported by apartheid South Africa, and it will be very hard to have successful disarmament talks in the middle east until Israel is prepared to admit that it has nuclear weapons.

I hope that it may be possible before too long for the Israeli Government to make some move on this. I put it in those terms because I understand the difficulties that the Government of Israel face, just as I understand the criticisms made, for example, by the Egyptian Government of that stance. I am therefore not pressing—and the British Government are not pressing—for the impossible or the unrealistic. However, given the changed circumstances, we think that it would be wise for Israel to indicate a move on this subject.

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the principal problem in getting agreement to indefinite extension of this important treaty is that the countries without nuclear weapons do not believe that the countries with them have done enough to fulfil their commitment to negotiate disarmament, which was a commitment given by this Government—and not a clouded commitment, but one perfectly clear in article 6? Why have the British Government then opposed the modest proposal for a standing committee to keep progress towards disarmament under review? If the right hon. Gentleman is so satisfied that he can defend the Government's strong commitment to disarmament, why is he trying to avoid something as modest as a standing committee to monitor progress towards disarmament?

There will inevitably be continued reviewing and monitoring of progress, as there always has been. I do not think that that is the real obstacle. The real obstacle is not anything that Britain or France do or do not do. It is the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) referred to regarding the middle east—there is a slightly similar, though larger, obstacle as regards India, Pakistan and China—and regional suspicions across the world. That is the real obstacle to the indefinite success of the treaty. We are trying to wear down those arguments and we have made our own moves in order to meet criticism.

I believe—I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will find occasions in the future to make this clear on behalf of the Labour party—that the Trident programme which we have in this country is a minimum. If we are to have a national nuclear deterrent at all—and, as I said, there is something near a consensus that we should—we believe that in the present circumstances what we propose, with the limitations that we have announced in the way of the Trident programme, is the minimum that we can have.

Brazil

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to promote the United Kingdom's diplomatic and trade relations with Brazil; and if he will make a statement. [20421]

We are actively promoting our already excellent relations with Brazil. We look forward to President Cardoso's visit this weekend for the commemoration of VE day.

UK-Brazilian two-way trade grew to £1.4 billion in 1994, when the Anglo-Brazilian joint business council was founded. This year, we have strengthened our commercial representation in Brazil, with the new trade offices which I announced in Porto Alegre and Curitiba. Brazil is also a prime focus of the joint DTI-Foreign Office campaign, called Link into Latin America, which was launched at the Confederation of British Industry by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 17 January, during the conference in London of British ambassadors in Latin America.

Is not the rapid redevelopment of trade between this country and Brazil, which is one of the largest economies in the world, a matter of great satisfaction? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should stress repeatedly that the reason why President Cardoso is coming here for the VE day celebrations, and will be taking quite a prominent place, is that we remember that nearly 30,000 Brazilian troops fought alongside our troops in Italy during the second world war, that Brazil was the only Latin American country to provide troops, and that its contribution to the allied war effort is very much appreciated?

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to Brazil's contribution to the defence of freedom in the last war, especially in this most appropriate of weeks. The last time that my hon. Friend asked me about business and trade with Latin America, my closing words were to the effect that a 21 per cent. growth was not enough. I can tell him that our trade with, and exports to, Brazil went up by some 60 per cent. last year. Having said that, I hope that British business will continue to focus its efforts in Brazil which is our biggest and, I think, fastest-growing market in south America.

As the Minister is so full of praise for our trade links with Brazil, will he tell that country's president that this country does not condone the rape of the rainforests or the killing of street children? Will he point out that trade links will be severely affected if the President and the Brazilian Government do not take steps to solve those two problems?

We do not support trade sanctions and boycotts, but we have been in regular contact with the Brazilian Government for some time and I have raised the matter of street children. We have supported international action on that front, especially with the United Nations. Similarly, we share the concern about mahogany exploitation, which should not be at the expense of indigenous peoples. Those points have been made to the Brazilian Government more than once already.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with (a) the United States of America and (b) EU member states on the role of NATO. [20423]

I often discuss with allies the role of NATO, because the alliance remains the bedrock of European security. Our proposals to enhance European defence arrangements, launched by the Prime Minister on 1 March, are based firmly on this. They also reflect the desire, shared by many of our European allies, that European defence arrangements should remain intergovernmental. The US Government have welcomed our initiative and the desire of European allies to take on a greater share of the burden of providing for Europe's defence.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does he agree that people in Britain will not thank us for mucking about with NATO and risking upsetting our long-term allies in the United States and Canada in favour of some new-fangled defence arrangement under which we may find ourselves relying on countries such as Belgium, which would not help us in the Gulf war, France, which will not let its troops serve under anyone but a French officer, and even Spain, with which, as we know, it is very difficult to co-operate on anything?

I think that General Rupert Smith, who commands French troops in UNPROFOR, might be a little baffled by my hon. Friend's remarks, but I agree with her general point. We have no desire to replace or duplicate NATO. That is why the proposals which the Prime Minister sketched on 1 March are designed to provide a meeting place between the continuance of NATO—enlarged, as we hope, to the east in coming years—and the desire of Europeans to do more alongside NATO, using NATO assets in the humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks which we might want to undertake as Europeans.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell his colleagues in NATO that the queue of serious, democratic countries in central and eastern Europe that wish to become NATO members should not be left hanging around outside the door of NATO for ever? If NATO is to succeed and if it is to have a 21st century role, the countries that want to become part of that club should be admitted, with a clear timetable, instead of being put off for years to come.

There is a deliberate exercise in hand. This year, NATO is considering the how and the why—the rationale and the method—of enlargement. After that, we shall discuss the results with all those who are interested and then we shall discuss the who and the when—who will join and the timetable. It takes time. This is not a matter of signing a piece of paper and clinking champagne glasses. This is a matter of extending considerably further to the east the security guarantees that we undertake to all our NATO allies. The process needs a bit of time and a bit of thought, but it will happen.

Eu Foreign And Security Policy

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with his French and German counterparts concerning the EU's common foreign and security policy. [20425]

I have regular discussions with my French and German colleagues about the European Union's common foreign and security policy. Close co-operation between the United Kingdom, France and Germany, of the three largest countries in the Union, is a key element in ensuring its effectiveness.

At this time, when we are commemorating the end of the second world war, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to stress to his French and German counterparts that our unwillingness to have qualified majority voting in foreign policy in the European Union does not reflect antipathy towards those two countries or a reluctance to co-operate where possible? Will he particularly invite France—perhaps in early discussions with the new French President who will be elected next week—to participate fully in the defence of Europe by joining the military operations and the military wing of NATO? If France does not, there is a danger of over-emphasis on French co-operation for our defence undermining the NATO alliance.

I agree with my hon. Friend's first point; there is no antipathy. I stood behind the Prince of Wales this morning in the big square in Hamburg where he made a most eloquent speech, mostly in German, on the theme of future co-operation, to a big crowd of Hamburgers, exactly 50 years after the British Army accepted the surrender of the city. Anyone who was there would not doubt that the co-operation we are talking about is a reality.

I do not believe in qualified majority voting on foreign policy matters. I do not think that it would improve effectiveness.

The French attitude towards NATO has moved, as my hon. Friend knows, in the right direction—slowly, from our point of view—over recent years. We shall see what the next French President makes of this. The closer the co-operation between France and NATO, the stronger the alliance of the west.

Article B of the Maastricht treaty calls for, as an objective,

"a common foreign and security policy".

The Government may have forgotten that they signed that treaty. Does the Foreign Secretary share the European Union's objective of

"a common foreign and security policy"—

yes or no? The Government signed the treaty.

Of course, and that is what we are building. We are building that policy not on the basis of qualified majority voting, but step by step and area by area. We have already taken a number of joint actions on the basis of that article of the treaty and I hope that we shall continue to take more. As has been said, we take action when we agree. This policy should be built from the bottom up, brick by brick.

Bearing in mind the fact that British forces and their allies in UNPROFOR serving in Bosnia are not there in sufficient strength or with adequate equipment to remain in circumstances of all-out civil war, is it not of the essence that we retain the closest links with the United States, whose role would be crucial in arranging for any safe extraction of allied forces from the former Yugoslavia?

My hon. Friend is quite right in his analysis, and we do so.

In a period of reduced defence expenditure throughout Europe, will not the provisions of the Maastricht treaty in relation to

"a common foreign and security policy"

be underlined and encouraged by economic pressures, such as inter-operability, common procurement and forced specialisation?

I did not entirely follow the hon. and learned Gentleman, possibly because his question is more appropriately addressed to Defence Ministers, but if I find something useful about which to write to him on this subject, I shall do so.

Land Mines

12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with his EC counterparts on formulating a common policy regarding the export of land mines. [20429]

As my hon. Friend will have heard me say already, on 10 April the Foreign Affairs Council agreed a proposal for joint action on land mines. The joint action includes a European Union-wide moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines—identical in scope to our own moratorium—joint efforts to strengthen the UN weaponry convention, and support for demining.

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear answer. The House will welcome the fact that Britain has taken the lead in that matter and that other Governments in the European Union are now following it. In view of serious concern around the country about the export of land mines and in the light of a misleading recent television documentary, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to tell the House exactly what the moratorium covers and why?

My hon. Friend is right about the misleading information. I originally announced our national moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines in July 1994. On 15 March, I extended its scope and it now comprises a total ban on the export of non self-destructing or non-detectable anti-personnel land mines, because those are the most dangerous to civilians, plus a ban on the export of all anti-personnel land mines to countries which have not ratified the weaponry convention.

Intergovernmental Conference

13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to hold discussions with members of the EU reflections group on future IGC priorities for 1996. [20430]

The first meeting of the study group is on 2 June in Messina.

I wish my hon. Friend well in those discussions, as he is our participant. The two Members of the European Parliament who came before the Select Committee on European Legislation last week for the hearing repeated, with emphasis, that deepening—

Another word for federalism.

was very important and would be a leading feature of the discussions—they anticipated that, anyway. I do not know whether the reverse is true, since they also said that that would mean the increasing use of majority voting. Can we show some enthusiasm for that and try to keep up with them?

It is always a nice feeling to know that my hon. Friend is behind me on these matters. No, I cannot agree with him about the views expressed by the two Members of the European Parliament who came to speak to hon. Members last week. Oddly, I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that deepening, to some extent, is a synonym for federalism and, as such, we shall not be supporting it.

Will the reflections group be reflecting on the means of overcoming the democratic deficit, such as increasing the powers of the European Parliament and controlling those of the Council of Ministers? All Parliaments could do with taking powers away from their Ministers.

I do not agree with that last comment. The democratic deficit, as it is described, is interpreted in many different ways. We take the view that the most important action that can be taken is that already outlined by the Prime Minister at Leiden; to try to bring the national Parliaments into a bigger role in the European Union.

Can my hon. Friend reflect on the tremendous wave of support which would rise up throughout the country were Her Majesty's Government's representative at the reflections group to press for the recovery of powers and competencies to this Parliament and to this Government, which we ought never to have lost to Brussels? Above all, can he seek through the reflections group the recovery of the primacy of British law over European law?

What I can say to my hon. Friend is that I am sure that all aspects of the European Union will be discussed at great length in the reflection group. Matters such as the balance of powers between national Governments and the Union will be discussed.

Angola

15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the timetable for the deployment of the full UN peacekeeping force in Angola. [20432]

The British logistic battalion began to arrive in Angola on 16 April. With our assistance, the main United Nations Angola Verification Mission force is due to deploy as from next week.

I welcome that answer. The Minister will be aware that the Secretary-General has said that the infantry contingent of the peacekeeping force will be deployed in stages. Will the Minister assure the House that we will press for it to be deployed quickly so that the Lusaka protocol arrangements do not unwind? Does he agree that the peacekeeping process needs to be underpinned by a reconstruction programme? Who will be representing the British Government? Will we be represented at the highest level at the conference in Geneva in two months' time to discuss the reconstruction programme? Will the British overseas aid programme contribute to the reconstruction programme in Angola?

The whole purpose of having a 600-strong United Kingdom logistics battalion is to help the deployment of the infantry as speedily as possible. Our men there, and the excellent job that they are doing, are much appreciated and valued. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to state that the process must be underpinned by reconstruction. That is why we have allocated more than £24 million of emergency assistance from the overseas development budget to Angola since the UN appeal in June 1993. Angola is now the last remaining country in southern Africa to be brought back into democracy. We obviously trust that the UN operation will help to restore peace and to bring about reconciliation there.

Eritrea

16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Eritrea. [20433]

Our relations with Eritrea are good. We have followed closely developments since independence and have urged the Eritrean authorities to continue to work towards the adoption of a democratic constitution.

After 30 years of war, Eritrea became independent about two years ago. That was a moment of great liberation and hope, not least for the half a million refugees in Sudan. Since independence, some 80,000 of them have been rehabilitated and have returned. What can the Minister do to help the other 480,000 who cannot return because of the shortage of funds to help them to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into Eritrea? Would not one practical step be for the Government to reverse their 30 per cent. cut in British contributions to the European development fund which helps Lomé countries, of which Eritrea is the latest member?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a substantial aid programme. At £2.2 billion, it is the sixth largest aid programme in the world. We also have a very substantial bilateral aid programme. Every £1 that we spend multilaterally is £1 that we cannot spend bilaterally. The way in which we spend our bilateral funds is extremely worth while. For example, it enabled us last year to spend £100,000 specifically on improving port facilities in Eritrea to enable Eritrean ports to cope better with the high 1994 food import requirements. We spent £6 million of our bilateral aid programme on general and specific aid for Eritrea last year, which Eritrea very much appreciated. If that money were to be spent on multilateral projects, it would not be available for us to spend, as we would wish to, bilaterally. I am sure that the House would wish that money to be spent well bilaterally—as indeed it is.

Does my hon. Friend estimate that the flow of Somali refugees to Eritrea, or to other parts of the world, has slowed down or finished as a result of the more peaceful situation in Somalia or is the reverse the case?

Eritrea has had difficulties with Somali refugees and with Eritrean refugees in Sudan. We are ready to help with the process of returning Eritrean refugees from Sudan. I am glad to say that I think that the situation with Somalia has now stabilised.

United Nations

17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total annual contribution of the United Kingdom to the United Nations; and what assessment he has made of the return received on that investment. [20434]

In the UN financial year 1994, we contributed £305 million to the United Nations system. We are satisfied that our financial commitments to the UN are justified by the importance of its role across the entire range of international activity.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that £305 million is a substantial sum of taxpayers' money? Will he advise the House how that sum is allocated to the different United Nations budgets? Will he assure the House that the energy and determination that the Government have shown in reducing bureaucracy and inefficiency in the United Kingdom and within the European Union will be matched by their determination to ensure that that large sum of money is spent effectively by the United Nations not only in our interests but in the interests of the world as a whole?

Yes. The breakdown of the United Kingdom's total contribution of £305 million is £34.8 million as the assessed contribution to the United Nations regular budget, £129.8 million as the assessed contributions to the United Nations peacekeeping budgets, £52.2 million as the assessed contributions to the United Nations specialised agencies, and £88.2 million as voluntary contributions to various UN programmes and activities that we support. Additionally, we spent £120 million in the United Kingdom financial year 1994-95 in respect of British participation in UN peacekeeping operations, of which £50 million has been reimbursed.

We have supported efforts at the United Nations to root out and eliminate fraud and waste. These include the establishment in September last year of the office of internal oversight services, which was mandated specifically to look into that matter. We shall continue to make every effort to ensure, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that those moneys are well spent.

Does the Minister agree that £305 million, in terms of the overall Government Budget or even the budget of his Department, is a relatively modest sum, given the role of the United Nations? What have the Government done to support current UN work and work by UN agencies in Rwanda? What are the Government able to do or to support to prevent a further outbreak of the dreadful killings that we saw in that area recently?

The hon. Gentleman describes £305 million as a modest amount in the context of my Department's budget. As he will know, my Department's budget is about £1.2 billion, including the cost of the World Service of the BBC and the British Council. That is quite a substantial sum of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is quite right; it must be well spent. We have made our contribution in Rwanda, and I hope that, in due course, our contribution will lead to a rather happier future for that country.

Cyprus

18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in relation to the application of Cyprus to join the European Union. [20436]

The 6 March Foreign Affairs Council outlined the circumstances in which negotiations with Cyprus will start six months after the intergovernmental conference.

I do not wish to make a delicate situation more delicate, but does my hon. Friend see any scope in the present circumstances for putting on pressure in certain quarters to ensure that there is an equitable solution to the problem within Cyprus before any application to join the European Union is processed?

Like our partners in the European Union, we believe that the best sequence is for a settlement in Cyprus to be followed by accession, and we shall make every effort to achieve that. The Foreign Affairs Council agreed that accession should benefit both communities and promote a settlement. We support that, too.

As membership of the European Union by Cyprus is clearly in practice dependent upon an internal settlement, and as the recent presidential elections in northern Cyprus have resulted in the election of Mr. Denktash on the basis of a policy of support for the United Nations confidence-building measures, what representations will the Government now make to the President of Cyprus to obtain his support for the United Nations confidence-building measures?

As I have already said, we shall take every possible measure to advance the process. Of course, the confidence-building measures are a large part of that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we all want to see Cyprus within the European Union, it would be a tremendous anomaly—given that the basic principle of the EU is free trade between partners—to suggest that Cyprus should be admitted when the Cypriots do not even trade with one another?

My hon. Friend sees exactly why we consider the best sequence to be settlement of the problem, followed by accession.

South Africa

19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the frequency and subject matter of current Government contacts with the Government of South Africa. [20437]

We maintain close and frequent contact with the Government of South Africa, at all levels and on a wide range of subjects.

I congratulate the South African Government on their first year of democratic all-party government, and celebrate that. Will Her Majesty's Government make it clear, however, that the worst possible scenario during the next few years—while the new constitution is worked out—would involve the coalition parties not only not speaking to each other but reaching such difficulties in their internal relationships that we would risk the breaking up of South Africa as a result of the intransigence of either the Inkatha Freedom party or any of the coalition parties? That is now an increasing possibility.

Clearly, the people of South Africa must make their democratic institutions work, and, clearly, there will be difficulties from time to time. We must trust the maturity of the elected representatives in South Africa, and their determination to make democracy work, to see them through occasional sticky patches in the first few years of democracy. By and large, the maturity that they have shown so far bodes well.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House of what the British Government are doing to help the various communities in South Africa build a team spirit and work together for the future of their country?

We are devoting £100 million of development aid to South Africa—£60 million bilaterally, and £40 through the European Union. We are supporting education projects, small-enterprise business development and sport. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hosted an event at Downing street for an impressive range of United Kingdom companies and others, specifically to sponsor sport and sporting activities in South Africa. Across the board, we are supporting the new, emerging South Africa. We are the largest investor in new business and trade in the country, and we are determined for it to enter the 21st century as strong and self-confident nation.

The Government know full well that the development and sustaining of democracy in South Africa depends largely on the development of its economy, and that of neighbouring countries. Why, then, are they cutting their contribution to the European development fund by 30 per cent., thereby putting at risk the prospect of development in which the Minister says he believes?

First, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to my earlier answer. Secondly, he does not seem to appreciate that the Lomé agreement does not cover South Africa. As I have said, we are giving £100 million in aid to South Africa, £60 million of which comes from our bilateral budget. If we devoted more aid to multilateral spending, by definition that would mean that less could be spent from our bilateral budget: less could be spent on countries such as South Africa. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends completely misunderstand the way in which the Lomé and EDF operate.

Nigeria

20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to persuade the military regime in Nigeria to hand over power to the elected President. [20438]

We condemned the annulment of the presidential elections of 12 June 1993 and the subsequent ousting of the civilian interim national Government. The measures against the military announced in 1993 by the European Union and the United States remain in force. We continue to consult closely with our partners and with a wide range of political contacts in Nigeria. We continue to urge the Nigerian military Government to implement an early and peaceful transition to civilian democratic rule.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that he will agree that Britain is a great friend of the Nigerian people, and that it would be wholly wrong for us to abandon them to their fate.

The Nigerian military Government possess all the dictatorship features of military Governments. They had set up the presidential elections under rules approved by themselves, but they then annulled the result. What more can we do to press the Nigerian Government to allow the Nigerian people to have their elected President in office?

Our position is clear and straightforward. We continue to be concerned by events in Nigeria, where there is an urgent need for progress towards accountable civilian government. We deplore all human rights abuses, which contradict the Nigerian Government's declared commitment to make early progress towards democracy. It is essential that all detainees are subject to due process, and are either charged or promptly released. My hon. Friend can be confident that we will spare no opportunity to press upon the Nigerians the need to have early elections to restore the democratic Government.

Does the Minister agree that Nigeria's population and wealth mean that internal stability in that country is essential to the future of the whole region? When will the British Government press the Nigerian Government to release Chief Abiola from prison—where his medical condition is deteriorating badly—and to endorse him as the democratically elected president?

We have been pressing the Nigerian Government to do exactly that, and also to ensure that political detainees are either brought to trial or released speedily. We also want the speediest possible return to a democratic Government in Nigeria. I cannot believe that there are any differences among Members about the need to achieve that as speedily as possible.

Bosnia

3.30 pm

(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will a statement on the breakdown of the ceasefire in Bosnia and its impact on the UN.

The cessation of hostilities agreement which, as the hon. Gentleman said, provided for a ceasefire in Bosnia, ended without extension on 1 May. There had been a steady increase in fighting and skirmishing between Bosnian Government troops and Bosnian Serbs since 20 March at a number of flashpoints along the confrontation line.

The end of the cessation of hostilities agreement in Bosnia on 1 May has not so far been marked by any new heavy fighting on the ground. The situation has not yet returned to levels of violence or difficulty experienced last autumn. It is true that the gradual deterioration and the restrictions on freedom of movement have made it more difficult for the United Nations Protection Force to carry out its tasks in areas near the confrontation line. There is no fighting in most of central Bosnia, where, the House knows, most of the British troops in UNPROFOR are deployed.

I shall add a word about the situation in Croatia, which has taken a sharp turn for the worse. Croat forces moved into western Slavonia on 1 May, and in two days' fighting have taken control of the central highway and expelled forces of the Krajina, or Croatian, Serbs, who retaliated by launching five or six missiles into Zagreb. The Croatian Government announced on 2 May that they had completed their operations, but the situation remains tense. There were further explosions in Zagreb this morning, and I have just had reports of continued hostilities in Litija in the western sector and at the town of Karlovac, south of Zagreb.

Early on 2 May, the Security Council adopted a statement that expressed deep concern at the resumption of hostilities, demanded that the Croatian Government end their military offensive, and offered full support to the Secretary-General's special representative, Mr. Akashi, in his negotiations to secure a ceasefire, to ensure the safety of the highway and of UN personnel, and generally to bring the situation back to normal. His efforts continue.

What is happening in both Bosnia and Croatia shows again the urgency of the political process. A negotiated settlement remains the only way to a lasting peace, whether in Bosnia or Croatia. No party will win a decisive military victory, and that is as true now as it has ever been.

The Contact Group is continuing its efforts to secure a settlement in Bosnia based on its plan and mutual recognition among former Yugoslav republics. The immediate priority in Bosnia is to secure a further ceasefire, or cessation of hostilities agreement. The Bosnian Government in Sarajevo have indicated that they could agree to that if President Milosevic recognises Bosnia. So, in its meetings this week, the Contact Group is focusing on that aspect.

The House will realise at once that recognition of Bosnia would be an important step, and would signify an end to Serb dreams of a greater Serbia, but it is one element only in a general and overall package that must include recognition of the other republics, settlement on territory and agreement on a constitution of Bosnia that preserves the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The House will share the Foreign Secretary's grave concern about the danger of a deepening war and the simultaneous breakdown of the ceasefire in Bosnia and the renewed conflict in Croatia, and will be determined that troops must not be exposed to unacceptable risk.

May I join the Foreign Secretary in condemning the unprincipled rocket attacks on Zagreb? The deliberate use of anti-personnel bombs against women and children is not a courageous act of war, but a cowardly act of terrorism. There can be no justification, however, for the Croatian Government's military conquest of a UN-protected area. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the easy success of that action may renew doubts about the UN's resolve to defend protected areas in Croatia and its safe areas in Bosnia?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, last month, the UN representative in Bosnia stated that the UN would use air power if civilians in safe areas were attacked? Is he aware that the only use of air power in Bosnia since then was the bombing last week of civilians in Bihac, as the ceasefire deteriorated? Why was there no response to that breach of the no-fly zone, and is there not a danger that, in the absence of any response, the Serbs will conclude that we were bluffing once again?

On the conflict in Croatia, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that President Tudjman of Croatia is due to arrive here on Saturday to represent his country at the Victory in Europe celebrations? Do the Government still think it appropriate that the celebration of peace in Europe should be attended by a Government who have just broken the peace? If so, will our Government take the opportunity to impress on President Tudjman that there must be no further military assaults on UN-protected areas?

Finally, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the European Union is in discussions with Croatia about granting it associated status on trade? Is it not a condition of those discussions that Croatia accepts that UN troops should remain in place in the protected areas, and does not its invasion of one of those areas make a mockery of that undertaking?

Does the Foreign Secretary see any prospect of peace for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia unless the UN can command respect from their political leaders? Does he really believe that we can build that respect for the UN if we give favoured trade status to a Government who are openly challenging the UN's authority?

The hon. Gentleman got the balance of comment right between the rocket attacks on Zagreb and the Croatian invasion of sector west. On the use of air power, I think that he was suggesting using NATO air power not against the Croats in sector west—that could not sensibly be considered—but in the Bihac pocket. Clearly, the use of air power by NATO has proved its good sense, and there have been occasions when it has worked. That is why, from time to time, we have said, "Yes, it is available."

Whether it is sensible to call down air power in particular circumstances or at a particular time must depend on the judgment of the commanders on the ground as well as that of the NATO authorities—that is the dual key—but particularly on the judgment of the former.

The hon. Member is correct about the invitation to President Tudjman, who was invited here some time ago for VE day. He accepted the invitation. We are keeping it under review in light of what is happening, but the hon. Gentleman's second comment may well be right, and it might be a useful opportunity to ram home to President Tudjman the Government's views and those of this House about the risks he is taking and the dangers, he is incurring, for his people as well as for his neighbours.

The same applies to the hon. Gentleman's point about the desire of the Croatian Government for closer relations with the European Union. We support that, but the pace and the way in which it goes ahead must depend on the Croatian attitude to the peace process, as he said. Clearly, that has been put at risk—indeed, it has taken a downward spin—during the past few days.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is now no peace to keep, in either Bosnia or Slovenia, and that therefore the position of our troops doing their gallant humanitarian work must be kept under daily and even hourly review to ensure that they are not exposed to a vastly increased range of risks? Given that the combatants, certainly in Bosnia, will not stop killing each other until they are deterred by each other's strengths, is he still convinced that an uneven supply of weapons to the two sides is the best stance to support at this stage?

There is peace in central Bosnia, where our troops are, albeit a ragged peace, which has been increasingly infringed since March. In Gorajde, there are difficulties of supply but no daily fighting. As my right hon. Friend said, we must ask ourselves what would happen if we pulled our troops out. The judgment of those who have visited the area recently is that, if we and UNPROFOR as a whole pulled our troops out, the present ragged peace might deteriorate rapidly into total war. Obviously, we want to avoid that.

But as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has said, there comes a time when the risks taken by our troops outweigh the benefits they bring. In Croatia, there is not a general war. Fighting has flared up because of the Croatian attack on sector west. It could develop into a general war. We do not have British troops in Croatia, although a number of British staff are employed there in different ways.

On the prospects for peace, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, and have often said in the House, that peace will come to Bosnia not because outside forces impose it but because those doing the fighting decide that they will not gain their way by fighting. An arms embargo is currently applied to all sides. Obviously, it has been breached to a certain extent, probably by all sides.

My right hon. Friend asks whether peace will be enhanced by removing the arms embargo. We think not. Removing the arms embargo would mean the certain withdrawal of UNPROFOR. That is now accepted by most people, and the combination of allowing or facilitating a flow of arms to all sides without inhibition and withdrawing the UN forces would probably be disastrous for all those in the area.

The Secretary of State referred to the Contact Group. Will he give the House an assessment of the extent to which the Contact Group is still unified, and all members of that group are doing their best to put diplomatic pressure on those parts of former Yugoslavia with which they may have had traditional affiliation? In particular, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that Croatia obtained early recognition at the instigation of Germany? What efforts are being made to persuade Chancellor Kohl to exercise influence on President Tudjman to show some self-restraint?

The Germans are doing that. Indeed, they did that yesterday. In the past few hours, I personally impressed on the Germans the importance of Germany, like all of us, playing our part in the control of the border between the Serbs and Bosnian Serbs.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there is now a breach between President Milosevic and the Bosnian Serbs. It is important that we should make the best use of that breach, and do our best to satisfy ourselves that there is proper control and that armaments do not pass between Serbs and Bosnian Serbs. If the Germans, Americans, British and French can build up that control force, it could be very useful.

The Contact Group is in one piece, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is meeting in London today, and, as I said in my statement, is pursuing the idea that, if President Milosevic and the Serbs recognise Bosnia and then, of course, Croatia, that could be a powerful help to bring about a new cessation of hostilities in Bosnia.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the prime responsibility for our remaining on the brink of an all-out Balkan war rests with Serbia and its repeated violations of the United Nations charter and resolutions, including the violations which led to the seizure of Croatian territory?

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, on a number of occasions in the House, I have pressed him and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for a meeting at the highest level of Heads of Government and Heads of State on the Yugoslavian conflict? Does he not now accept that the time has come for the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and the President of France, when elected, to sit down together and seek, as permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, to try to bring about a settlement?

The historical responsibility for the events of 1991 and 1992 rests most heavily on Serbia. The present position is different. President Milosevic has accepted the Contact Group plan—that is to say, he has accepted the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The people who have consistently obstructed that are the Bosnian Serbs, with whom President Milosevic is now in dispute—Mr. Karadzic and the so-called assembly in Pale. Now the situation is complicated by the Croatian attack on sector west in Croatia.

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. He has urged a summit meeting, and so indeed have others—the Russians and the French, from time to time. It may well be that that could, at the right time, bring things to a head. But a summit meeting for its own sake is not magic. The essential is to find a means—the ideas and the pressures—to bring together those who are responsible for ordering and encouraging the fighting, and show them ways in which they can consult their own interests and their own advantage best by a peaceful negotiation. A summit meeting may at the end be part of that.

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the problem can be resolved only through discussion. Will he pass on the thanks of the I-louse to Mr. Akashi for the work that he has already done, and will he take up with the Secretary-General the possibility of intensifying the role of the United Nations in mediation?

I am not always grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am on this occasion. The role of the peacemaker is always easy to mock. Peacemakers, diplomats, get into aeroplanes and hurry about. They are not dramatic or heroic. Drama and heroism have their day, and, by heaven, they have had their day in Bosnia. If the torment of these peoples is to be brought to an end, it will be because of the patience of the peacemakers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the Croats do not accept the present situation, that the Bosnians do not accept the present situation, and that there are very few Serbs who have any intention of giving up any of the ground that they have occupied? In those circumstances, is it not clear that UN diplomacy has failed so far, and we must admit it?

Does my right hon. Friend accept that I am perturbed by the talk that there has been of further concessions to the Serbian Government which, apparently, have done nothing more than bring about the end of the ceasefire? I hope that there will be no more talk of further concessions until we make real progress towards peace.

Certainly the peacemakers have failed up to now, and so have the warmakers. It is the failure of the warmakers that brings this suffering upon the Croats, the Bosnian Government, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Serbs, and has cut off all those peoples from the future of Europe.

All the peoples of the former Yugoslavia except Slovenia are living in a time warp: they are living in the Europe of the first decade of this century and the last decades of the previous century. They are not part of what is happening now in the way of reconciliation, reconstruction and the making of a new Europe. That is what the warmakers have imposed upon their peoples. So the UN has to go on trying. My hon. Friend is right to say that it has failed so far.

No, there is no question of further rewards being given to the Serbs in return for nothing. There has been a temporary suspension of certain sanctions against President Milosevic and his Government, because he accepted the Contact Group plan and because he has gone a long way to sealing his border with the Bosnian Serbs. But if there are to be further concessions, that has to be because of further progress, and I have suggested the lines that we think that that should take.

Accepting that the breach between Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs is an important potential step forward and can be used to make a peace more certain, is it not a pity that, at this stage of the game, the Foreign Secretary and others should be putting forward a proposal to President Milosevic that he should now recognise the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is the Foreign Secretary making a distinction between recognition of the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and recognition of its frontiers?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me too far down a diplomatic path that is strewn with terminological difficulties. If—I shall not try to elaborate the phrase—President Milosevic in Belgrade clearly recognises Bosnia-Herzegovina, that puts to rest a lot of fears. It could lay the foundation for a new cessation of hostilities, and then for discussion about territory within Bosnia-Herzegovina and constitutional arrangements—the sort of links that could exist between the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs in Serbia, just as they could exist between the Bosnian Croats, the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia.

Does not all the discussion of the details of this horrible civil war and all this grand but ineffectual lecturing give the impression that we are responsible for these horrible events? Is it not now time that the Government recognised that a British national interest never existed in the battle in the Balkans, that the British people are not prepared to risk either their treasure or their troops in the Balkans fight, and that the sooner we disengage the better?

As my hon. Friend will acknowledge, I have made it clear over the years not only that we are not responsible, either as Britain or as a part of the European Union, for this tragedy, but that we cannot solve it from outside. I have repeated that again today, although my hon. Friend does not always seem to listen. He belongs, and has always belonged, to the school of "let them fight it out", which is opposed to the school of "something must be done". Over the years, I have had a bit of impatience with both those powerful bodies of opinion.

There are certain things that we cannot do, and should not pretend to do. One of them is to impose a just peace—or an unjust peace—on a particular part of the Balkans. But there are things that we can do, where we can save lives and get aid through, which is what we are doing.

The British have carried more than 20 per cent. of the entire United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' airlift to Sarajevo. Our Overseas Development Administration lorries constitute 25 per cent. of the convoy fleet. Our engineers have provided shelter for 20,000 refugees. There are 350 gas, water and electricity projects. Our engineers have built the bridge connecting east and west Mostar after the devastation there. They could not have done it without the presence of troops to help. To say that Britain should not do the things that it can do must be wrong.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall the sense of outrage felt by people in this country,—as well as, obviously, by people in many other countries—when the capital of Bosnia and other towns were subjected to continuous shelling by the Serbs? Is it not a fact that, to some extent at least, those areas were designated as safe areas by the Security Council because of the feeling of outrage in Europe?

Will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House whether it is the intention to make it perfectly clear to the Serbians that those safe areas are safe areas, and that military means will be used? Otherwise, the Serbs will take the point that they have always taken: if no action is taken against them, they will continue their aggression. I have never been a believer in appeasement.

The hon. Gentleman has not been following recent events very carefully. What has happened, both in Croatia and in Bosnia, in the past few weeks is that there have been attacks on the Serbs—first in Bosnia by Bosnian Government troops since the end of March, and more recently by the Croatians against the Serbs in Croatia. The Serbs have retaliated, disproportionately and brutally, as they have done in the past. That is the situation with which the Security Council and Mr. Akashi have to wrestle.

One supports all the diplomatic work being undertaken, and of course the humanitarian work done by the British forces, but is the Foreign Secretary aware that, if that appalling and tragic mess escalates, there can be no justification for putting even one British service man's life at risk? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give a positive assurance that, if the situation should escalate, British troops will be withdrawn without delay?

That is what the Prime Minister said yesterday. We are not there yet, but obviously there could be circumstances in which the risks to our troops and to other United Nations troops—I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect us to withdraw unilaterally—would become such that they had to withdraw. As my hon. Friend knows, there is NATO planning for that eventuality. Those concerned with ordering the fighting should not take for granted the presence of our troops or of the other United Nations troops.

In view of the invitation to President Tudjman to come to this country to commemorate the victory over fascism, will the Foreign Secretary study an article in a Croatian magazine, called Magazine, by Dinko Sakic, who was the commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp, where 10,000 Serbs died, from 1941 to 1945? That man describes Tudjman's Government as a flowering of Croatian freedom parallel to the Pavelic dictatorship, which was the ally of the Nazis.

I do not think that the parallel between that Croatian regime and President Tudjman's Government is an exact one.

Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's comments about unilateral withdrawal, will he make it clear that the overriding priority is the safety and security of British troops, and that if he comes to the conclusion that that safety and security is in jeopardy, notwithstanding other countries' attitudes, he will bring our troops back home?

Except in circumstances that it is hard to foresee, I do not think that the House is likely to support a unilateral British withdrawal, especially as our troops sit astride the main communications line from Split into Bosnia. However, the position is as the Prime Minister stated it yesterday, and a similar position has been taken by the French and Canadian Governments and others.

We keep the situation under review all the time, but we believe that our troops and the rest of the United Nations force are playing an essential part in preventing the present fighting from escalating, dominating the whole country and plunging Bosnia back into the kind of war that existed before United Nations arrived. That situation might change. As my hon. Friend says, the risks to our forces could increase until they became unacceptable. In that case, they would have to withdraw, and planning for that possibility is in hand.

Does the Foreign Secretary realise that it is not good enough to attack those whose views are different from his as being in favour of a fight to the finish? Does he recall that, about two years ago, when Germany wanted to recognise Croatia straight away, in the initial stages he stood at the Dispatch Box and took a different view, but that then he suddenly changed his mind? Why was there a change?

Some pundits, including Lord Carrington, say that the British Government changed their mind and decided to recognise Croatia, thereby emboldening the people there to take affairs into their own hands, because of a deal on two Maastricht opt-outs. The Government are partly to blame for the mess that we are now in.

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that Lord Carrington made that accusation, he is entirely wrong.

I saw him on the telly.

Lord Carrington would have preferred to delay the recognition, but the suggestion that it was linked to Maastricht comes entirely from the hon. Gentleman's own fevered imagination. There was no such connection.

Historians will argue about the timing of the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, but no one could seriously suggest that it could have been long delayed. No one could seriously suggest that we could have gone on pretending that the old Yugoslavia still existed. We must deal with realities, and the reality was that Croatia existed. Whether it should have been recognised in the autumn, which was what the Germans wanted, or at the end of the year, which is what happened, or a little later, is a matter for dispute, but it is not relevant to the present.

Is not our real problem that we find ourselves dancing on the head of a pin? The war has escalated—it is not a case of when we will make decisions about troop withdrawals. The British troops are situated in the middle of a zone of war. The Croatians have more than $ million worth of arms, many of which came from the former east Germany after the unification of Germany.

The concept of an arms embargo has utterly failed. We now have troops stationed out there who, to my mind, are serving less and less purpose. The food that is shipped out to those areas is mostly being used to feed the fighting troops. We must have a policy of limiting diplomacy; it is now time to say that we shall withdraw by a certain time and that, unless something specific happens, those troops are certainly on their way out.

There are no British troops in Croatia. We are dealing with the position of British troops in Bosnia. The position that we have arrived at after much thought and review is as I have stated. Of course, we look at the position all the time. As I have said, those concerned—who may well, as my hon. Friend said, to some extent profit from the help that we bring to the civilian population—should not take the presence of British forces or the United Nations force for granted.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Nations forces have neither the numbers nor assets in the former Yugoslavia to conduct anything remotely like an organised campaign? The indiscriminate and unwise use of air power, however well intentioned, could lead to circumstances that would make the position of the troops on the ground untenable. Therefore, is it not about time that we began to recognise that history has shown 'that civil wars of that sort can go on for many years, and are rarely resolved by outside interference?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The question is not whether one can resolve a civil war from outside, because one cannot, unless one is prepared to send in an imperial army and impose a solution. No one in this contest has been willing to do that. Those who have talked most about it have tended to do least about it.

We have done what we can, and we continue to do so. We shall go on doing that as long as we believe that our effort is worth while in reducing suffering and preventing a Balkan war from escalating out of control—it is very much in Britain's interest to prevent that.

When will we learn from history? While the United Kingdom clearly has a role in helping the Muslim Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, am I not right in saying that it is the Russians who could intervene to influence the Serbs, and the Germans who could intervene to influence the Croatians? What role is either Germany or Russia playing in the negotiations to bring about a ceasefire? Clearly, from what we read in the press, they are very much taking a back position when they should be taking a forward position.

No, I think that the Germans were the main influence in persuading President Tudjman to accept a renewal of the United Nations force. As I said earlier, they were active yesterday in restraining the Croatians from further military interventions. My hon. Friend's analysis is right—the Russians have been active with President Milosevic. I have sometimes wished that they would be more active. It is correct that both Russia and Germany have been historically, and are now, powerful influences on the Croats and the Serbs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real key to peace lies in Belgrade? Will he urge the Contact Group to extend its efforts to persuade President Milosevic to use his influence on Karadzic? After all, despite the stresses and strains between the two men, there is a strong link. We should not forget that it was Milosevic who encouraged and supported the war in the first place. Can my right hon. Friend possibly tell us when the next meeting with the Contact Group will take place?

As I said, the Contact Group is meeting today. It has been in touch with President Milosevic frequently, not least through our chargé d'affaires in Belgrade, who has a good relationship and good communication with Milosevic. I agree with my hon. Friend: the more one looks at the present situation, the more one asks how peace will come about. I believe that it will come about by mobilising the full pressures that President Milosevic and the Serbs could bring against the Bosnian Serbs, so that there can be acceptance on the basis of the Contact Group plan and real discussions within that plan of territory and the constitution of Bosnia.

My right hon. Friend will know that the deployment and the length of deployment of British troops within the former Yugoslavia has caused problems of overstretch within the armed forces and the appropriate types of armed forces which are sent forward. Does he agree that the Government's decision to start a third armoured reconnaissance regiment, which they promised to base in Dorset, is a welcome improvement? Will he urge his colleagues in Cabinet to get on and fulfil that promise as quickly as possible?

I think that my hon. Friend has asked me to trespass a little. I will certainly pursue his point where it can usefully be pursued.

I should like to add one point which has not yet emerged from these exchanges. Of course, the British Army goes where it is sent. It does not choose where it goes. Right hon. and hon. Members who have visited our troops lately in Bosnia have come to the conclusion that the officers and men have no doubt that they are pursuing an extremely useful and important task in the interests of Britain.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in the event that the end of the ceasefire heralds a further escalation of the fighting in Bosnia and throughout the region—an escalation which ultimately imperils the security of our troops on the ground—prompt authorisation will be given by NATO commanders for the use of air power in the defence of our own troops, if required, without interference or delaying tactics on the part of the United Nations? The certainty of a swift response is crucial in these matters.

My hon. Friend will be the first to acknowledge that General Rupert Smith, the commander of UNPROFOR on the ground, must have a say in that. We cannot have NATO intervening from the air on some sort of report which is not validated by the British general on the ground, when it is the safety of the UN forces which the whole exercise is designed to promote. That is the case for the dual key. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that it has not always worked well in the past. I hope that it is being brisked up now. NATO cannot and should not proceed without some regard to the advice from the ground.

Points Of Order

4.8 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 19 April, I submitted a question for Question Time this afternoon. It was accepted by the Table Office. I put it into the draw, and it was drawn as No. 10. It then went to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Only yesterday, in a letter dated 2 May from the parliamentary relations unit at the FCO, I was given notice that it had been transferred to the Overseas Development Administration.

I find that a matter of concern on two points: first, that it should have taken so long to transfer the question—literally until the day before questions were due to be answered, so that I was left high and dry; secondly, that the content of the question, which related to the Palestine National Authority, should have been treated as a matter solely for the ODA.

On those two issues, I wonder whether it would be possible for you to investigate? I feel that such action should not be taken under the name of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

On the latter point, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is for Ministers to determine whether a question should be transferred. However, I regard it as self-evident that any transfer of a question, especially an oral question, should be made as quickly as possible.

In this instance, I consider that the hon. Gentleman has a legitimate grievance. The transfer of an oral question that has been on the Order Paper for two weeks to be made the day before the question was due to be answered is quite unacceptable. I expect the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to apologise to the hon. Gentleman and ensure that such a practice does not recur.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In a written answer, the Prime Minister has unilaterally announced significant changes in the rules governing the disposal of papers from No. 10 Downing street. He states that private and perhaps political papers may be retained by the Prime Minister when he retires, but that public papers must remain the property of the state.

The Prime Minister's private billets doux will perhaps not command much interest as a lottery prize—

Order. What is the point of order for me?

Given the great public interest in this matter and the interest of historians in full access to all papers from No. 10 Downing street, is it in order for such a decision to have been announced in a written answer, instead of being reported to the House in a statement?

The short answer is yes. The House knows that it is for Ministers themselves to determine how statements are made. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Further to the point about the personal files of previous and present Prime Ministers and others, I should like to announce that, if anyone such as the Prime Minister is interested in selling personal files, there is a car boot sale in Bolsover on Sunday.

I shall bear that in mind; I happen to be free on Sunday.

Coercion In Family Planning (Prohibition)

4.11 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful for any Minister or Crown servant to assist any programme which involves forced abortion, forced sterilisation or coercive family planning.

I had hoped to be making this speech following a trip that I was due to make last week to Hong Kong and China. The trip would have been under the auspices of Christian Solidarity, and was to have been with two United States congressmen. Sadly, although the Chinese authorities granted me a visa, they decided at the last minute—for whatever reason—to withdraw the visas for the two congressmen. However, I hope that we shall be able to make the trip later this year.

It has come to my attention that the short title of the Bill has caused some confusion among colleagues, so I say straight away that the purpose of the Bill is not to argue the rights or wrongs of abortion policy in the United Kingdom, or, indeed, in any other country where abortion and family planning are matters of personal choice. My own stand on such issues is well known in the House, but the issue covered in the Bill should unite those who think as I do on the general issue of abortion and those who take the opposite view. Indeed, a measure such as this was successfully introduced in the US Congress in 1985.

The objective of the Bill is to prevent any financial or political complicity, albeit unwitting, by Britain in compulsory abortion, contraception or compulsory sterilisation. Compulsory abortion, the forced use of contraception and the denial of a woman's right to choose to have children is precisely what has happened on a substantial scale in China over the past 25 years, under the "one family, one child" policy.

That that should happen at all is bad enough, but what is even less acceptable, and what I seek to persuade the House to reject, is that such practices should be endorsed, encouraged or defended by any organisation in which Britain has a participative interest.

The Bill would prohibit British funding for forced abortion and sterilisation in China. It will send a clear message to Peking that British or western support can no longer be used as an argument in favour of the mass abuse of fundamental human rights.

The Bill would not have any effect on family planning programmes based on full information and choice. Indeed, it would not even affect programmes that offer incentives to contraceptive use, whatever my private views on the issue might be. The Bill is concentrated solely on programmes that are based on coercion. I say again that I am interested only in preventing programmes that are coercive and based on the bullying and intimidation of women—the very antithesis of free and fully informed choice which should be the hallmark of every programme to which we as a nation give money.

The Chinese population control programme has already been the subject of all-party concern in the House. Early-day motions were signed by hon. Members of all political views and of different views on abortion. The United Nations declaration on human rights guarantees all the right to

"freely found a family and decide the numbers and spacing of children".

The Chinese are signatories to that declaration, yet Canzinghong, the Chinese Minister for Family Planning, has commented:

"The size of the family is too important to be left to the couple. Births are a matter of state planning".

Since the early 1970s and the first population high tide, the Chinese Government have therefore trampled parents' rights into the ground, and have imposed birth control on women who simply do not want it.

In this country, we often hear of a woman's right to choose. Surely that implies a woman's right to choose to have children as much as a woman's right to choose not to have children. Under Chinese law, couples are obliged to use contraception until they have obtained a strictly rationed birth permit. The permits are subject to a local quota, which is part of a regional quota decided at national level and handed down by Peking. The law insists that, after the birth of the first child, an IDU must be inserted into the woman, whether it is medically suitable or not. Thousands of women suffer pain, internal injury or death when they try to extract the devices without medical supervision.

Women who manage to evade the draconian laws and to have a second child are subject to forcible abortion and forcible sterilisation. The penalties for disobedience are severe. If one woman evades the law, her factory or collective may lose contracts, and all her colleagues may lose their pay rises. The couple will be subject to fines equivalent to a worker's annual wage. Women who evade forcible sterilisation or abortion by hiding when the Government squads come round will be rounded up on a later night and manhandled into the clinics for operations. The effects of the coercive Chinese population control programme are horrific, in every hon. Member's view.

Infanticide has been reported since population control started. The rural Chinese have a strong cultural prejudice towards having a son. I touched on the matter in the House when introducing a ten-minute Bill through which I tried to persuade the House not to allow sex selection. Under the one-child policy, parents have killed their children if they are girls, to qualify for the birth quota and the chance of later having a son.

Desperate women about to give birth to an illegal child have sought help in a hospital, only to have the child killed immediately after birth by drowning or an injection to the head of the infant. The prejudice for having a son has left whole provinces with a massive imbalance between boys and girls, which I drew to the attention of the House in a previous ten-minute Bill.

It cannot be right that there should be even the remotest suggestion of any western complicity in such a catalogue of horror. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure that any moneys given to the poor funds of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN's Population Fund are not used for such purposes. I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on the role of those two organisations, and he has reassured me on a number of points. Others claim, however, that there is plenty of evidence that the FPA has actively supported the Chinese regime.

Nafis Sadik, the executive director of the FPA, said:

"China has every reason to feel proud and pleased by its remarkable achievements in its family planning policy and control of its population growth."

I do not wish to take a quote out of context. She goes on to say:

"Now China could offer its experience and special experts to other countries."

God forbid. I sincerely hope that the Government will forbid it too.

When the organisations were given evidence, they changed the goal posts on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Derek Enright, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Lady Olga Maitland, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and Mrs. Ann Winterton.

Coercion In Family Planning (Prohibition)

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to make it unlawful for any Minister or Crown servant to assist any programme which involves forced abortion, forced sterilisation or coercive family planning: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

Exports

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Dr. Liam Fox.]

4.22 pm

I have an almost infinite capacity to address a empty House when I come to it. I am, by the way, the Minister for Trade and in the past three years I have travelled some 355,000 miles and visited some 40 countries—many of them on three or four occasions. There are two great advantages to being the Minister for Trade: first, no one in the press or in the Press Gallery and very few people in the House of Commons know who on earth I am and, secondly, I do not have to read the demoralising tide of despair about Britain's failings and woes that are heaped from every daily paper on to the breakfast plates of the British people.

I have yet to visit a country where the perceptions of Britain match the image that we seem to be able to portray of ourselves. Certainly, 15 or so years ago, Britain was revered more for its past than its then present or its likely future. Now, wherever I go, everyone I see and talk to wants to know how we have halted the decline of our country and how we are in the process of restoring our fortunes.

The overwhelming majority of countries that I visit are eager to study our industrial relations reforms. Even the developing countries of India, Sri Lanka and China have work forces—well, not so much China, but many countries in the developing world—beset with the restrictive practices, closed shops and union-induced overmanning which work against their ability to attract inward investment from the developed world.

Many of those countries, particularly those in the Commonwealth, inherited those practices from a socialist Britain. That legacy is perhaps the Trades Union Congress's greatest success in export promotion.

I find the historic analysis of the British industrial relations system interesting, but it does not accord with the facts in relation to many of my constituents who are unemployed shipbuilding workers. My constituency has benefited enormously from inward investment. However, I believe that those rundown shipbuilding yards on the Clyde would benefit enormously if they could join the international shipbuilding market. Will the Minister give a commitment to ensure that the European Union's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund will continue beyond 31 December this year? That subsidy is absolutely essential for the European Union's shipbuilding industry, let alone for the industry in Scotland.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that, for several years, as the Minister responsible for industry in Northern Ireland, I was responsible for Harland and Wolff. I am no longer responsible for the shipbuilding industry and I cannot give the assurance that he seeks. However, I am sure that the British Government will do all they can in negotiations with their European colleagues to support the British shipbuilding industry to the utmost.

I take the hon. Gentleman's points about the trade unions' history, but I have recounted the facts as I find them on my visits around the world. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to come with me to learn those facts for himself.

Without exception, all the countries that I visit want to learn about the success of our privatisation initiatives. They look with envy at British Telecom which has cheaper telephone calls than Germany, France and Italy. They look also at British Gas where household bills have fallen 20 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, even including VAT. They also look at British Airways, the world's favourite and most profitable airline, and at British Steel, which is one of the world's most productive steel producers.

The rest of the world is flocking to Britain to learn how to emulate us and how to reduce state subsidies and inefficiencies. In 1979, the nationalised monopolies in Britain cost the taxpayer £50 million a week. They now pay tax of £50 million a week. Opposition Members may wish to sit on the Government Benches and promote British trade overseas. However, they have bitterly opposed every privatisation measure. Indeed, the leader of the Labour party claimed recently in Hansard that the British people are totally fed up with privatisation—I do not know who he means by the British people; he probably means himself.

Against the background that I have described, such comments sell short the achievements of Britain and the companies that I mentioned. Indeed, they do far more than that. They reduce the prospect of Britain's being able to sell its expertise and experience to those overseas who want it. In my judgment, that shows how woefully out of touch the Opposition are on an issue that is greeted with acclaim in almost every other country, whether it has a Conservative, Socialist or Liberal Government.

The world now sees us as a very different place from that when Labour last sat on the Government Benches. The results are there for everyone to see. The money is where the mouth is. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) reminded us, one third of all inward investment in the European Union is made in the United Kingdom. The stock of inward investment stands at £131 billion. In 1979, it was around £14 billion. We attract 20 per cent. of French investment and 13 per cent. of German investment. We attract 40 per cent. of American investment, 40 per cent. of Japanese investment, 50 per cent. of Korean investment and 50 per cent. of Taiwanese investment in the European Union. Not even Mr. Will Hutton, whose words are avidly read by Opposition Members, and the assembled cohorts of economists and commentators from the BBC and The Guardian can stop that ever-rising tide of inward investment. The more they whine, the more it comes in.

I seek some information about the right hon. Gentleman's remarkable inward investment figures. Will he disaggregate for the House fixed investment coming into this country and investment that, in the first instance at least, is simply acquiring shares through companies?

I cannot disaggregate it. I am sure that, in his speech, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted with his own disaggregation. However we take the figures, it is roughly 10 times more aggregated or disaggregated than when the Labour party was previously in office. The amount, compared with what other European countries have managed to achieve, shows that other countries have some confidence in what we are doing, which Opposition Members constantly seek to decry.

Will my right hon. Friend give some figures relating to the number of jobs that inward investment has created? Also, as he has rightly reminded the House of his role in the Government, could he tell us about the trade that is taking place as a result of inward investment?

Forty per cent. of our manufactured exports are as a result of inward investment in our country. The number of jobs created by inward investment over the past few years amounts to 700,000-350,000 since 1986. In Northern Ireland, for which I was responsible, about 45 per cent. of manufacturing and jobs come from overseas companies. That shows the trust and belief in what we are doing.

Of those 700,000 jobs, how many would be lost if the Government adopted the Labour party's policy of involving the social chapter?

I shall come to the social chapter, as my hon. Friend might have realised, rather later in my speech. My hon. Friend is right to say that joining the social chapter could do considerable damage to inward investment.

After a century of remorseless decline in our share of world trade, that decline stopped. Since 1985, our share of world trade has stabilised. We have 1 per cent. of the world's population and 5 per cent. of the world's trade. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Wynne Godley, an economist who has not shown great favour to the Government in the past, said

"that we have a better chance now than in the last 15 years of hitting the gong, is the consequence of the right policies at last having been followed".

The open trading system and the quality and standards demanded by our inward investors are revolutionising British management's attitude to productivity, quality and service. More and more of our industrial base is striving for world quality in world markets.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has only to look at the facts that I have given to realise the truth of what I am saying.

I shake my head because I have read with great interest the speech of the right hon. Gentleman's boss, the President of the Board of Trade, to the Institute of Directors last week, when he averred the very opposite—that in many sectors British companies were not of world quality and that world-quality companies were overseas.

I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman takes such careful note of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I say. Of course there is more to be done, and I shall refer to that matter. Of course we can never be complacent about our competitiveness. More and more British companies, because of the way in which inward investment has impacted through the supply chain, are improving their quality.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. Some 350 companies in this country are now members of the Japanese Electronic Business Association. All those British companies supply Japanese companies—original equipment manufacturers—in this country, and are now starting to supply original equipment manufacturers in Japan. They are also supplying OEMs in France, Germany, Spain and even Malaysia. There is no doubt that the effects of the opening of the world trading system, and of competitiveness, are being felt increasingly as they improve the quality of Britain's industrial base.

Moreover, our share of world trade has ceased to decline. Our share of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development exports of capital goods is some 7.2 per cent., compared with 6.4 per cent. for France and 6 per cent. for Italy. There have been massive increases in Britain's sale of capital goods overseas. The DTI has set up capital sector working groups covering telecommunications, water, power, airports, railways, health and education. Baroness Perry, who chairs the education group, estimated the potential opportunities in Britain's education sector at some £4 billion about six months ago; having examined the position more closely, we now put the figure at £9 billion. The number of students coming to this country from Taiwan has risen from 500 five years ago to 10,000. British exporters from all sectors are achieving measurable success around the world.

The 1980s were a decade of radical change and dialectical debate. The 1990s must be a decade of partnership. We must now capitalise on those radical changes of the 1980s by building a strategic relationship with our businesses that—in a world that is "de-layering"—offers them what the mission statement of the Department's trade side describes as the best service to our exporters offered by any Government anywhere in the world. That, in fact, is exactly what we are doing.

All our major markets now have a country strategy and a market plan. Many of those markets now have campaigns: examples are Partnership Korea, Action Japan, Link into Latin America, North America Now and Spotlight Spain. We are increasing the professionalism of all who are employed in trade within the Department. We have established language training strategies. We are increasing the number of highly trained and committed staff in our embassies, from the ambassadors downwards.

Let me say a little about the overseas services offered by our embassies. Britain has a better Foreign Office and a better commercial service than any other country. I am constantly amazed at the knowledge and experience of our ambassadors and their staff overseas. We may not have used them as well as we might have in the past, for various reasons, but I pay tribute to the superb support and help that the Foreign Office gives our exporters.

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. Will he, however, undertake—with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—to lodge a campaign with, for instance, the Treasury to ensure that we have more representation overseas, and more embassies where at present we have none at all?

Now that my hon. Friend remembers who I am, I can assure him that I shall campaign on his behalf. I do not really need that prod; I assure him that the DTI wants such a development anyway.

The Foreign Office does a very good job in this regard, but does not the role of the embassy change from country to country? In Japan, companies naturally go to the embassy, seeing it as the representative of the United Kingdom; the United States takes a rather different view, and a great deal of work goes out without reference to the embassy.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the roles of Trade Ministers vary from country to country as well. It is clear that Government meetings and missions led by Ministers are 100 times more valuable in some countries than in others. We must make sure that our overseas posts are adaptable and practical in what they do, and that is the case.

To make the service—which must be the best in the world—operate, the route between the Foreign Office posts and the Department of Trade and Industry must be seamless. We must have the right information technology link-ups and databases to enable companies to become involved. We must be capable of spreading the service out to small and middle-size enterprises all around the country.

We have taken on 100 export promoters from the private sector who have real experience and knowledge of the markets of the world. Those people will also get out around the country through business links—a vital one-stop shop initiative which has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—to get the best possible information to companies that are capable of exporting, whatever their size and wherever they are.

Every business that now wants to export can be given immediate hands-on personal advice through the routes which I have just described about what to do, where to go and who to join, and anyone who has a complaint can come straight to me. But all this takes time to build, and it also takes time to build a knowledge of industry among senior officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office. It takes time to change their culture, and to get them to concentrate on their business clients rather than on Ministers or personal secretaries. It takes time to establish the 80 market plans, recruit the salesmen and teach civil servants how to market, sell and promote.

It also requires leadership and imagination, and a dogged amount of devil in the detail. Changing a culture that has been geared only to provide policy alternatives and administrative correctness takes time. But we are changing that culture by changing the role of the Department and by changing the agenda. It is working, which is probably why no one is here today.

It is the Whips' fault that no one is here.

It is good of the hon. Gentleman to say that, and I shall come to him in a moment.

Almost everyone—certainly Will Hutton and his cohorts—thought that, by now, Britain would be faced with an ever-mounting trade deficit. The reverse is the truth. The volume of our non-oil exports has increased by 12.5 per cent. a year. Our engineering exports in the first quarter of this year are up by 21 per cent. on the same period last year. According to all recent surveys, our export growth record is at an 18-year high. UK manufacturers have recorded their strongest-ever improvement in export orders. Those details were given by the CBI on 25 April.

What is happening in this country is almost inconceivable. Our economy is growing because of the strength of our exports, and the strength of our exports is based not on the cheapness of our price but on the quality of what we do.

Everyone welcomes the fact that we have a strong export performance at present. Does the Minister acknowledge that that performance is based on the devaluation since we left the exchange rate mechanism from DM2.95 to DM2.24? Is he sure that the kind of export performance about which he is talking can be sustained without further comparable devaluations? Will not that be the proof of our export strength?

I do not accept that for one moment. The successes in our pharmaceutical, capital goods and automotive industries, and the fact that we export more televisions than we import—an awful lot more than the Germans and the French—do not only result from the value of sterling, although the value of sterling helps. If the hon. Gentleman were in charge of our affairs, he would lock us into European monetary union and would have sterling tied to the deutschmark. I could then pose his question back to him. We have a competitive currency, but the real base of our strength in exporting is the quality of what we produce. The hon. Gentleman knows that the world will not buy rubbish—it will certainly not buy it from a high-cost country such as the United Kingdom.

If the Government know what they are doing on exports, what about the Opposition? I do not ask my first question of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) personally, because I know him well and he knows what he is talking about. I am not absolutely convinced, however, that all those who have been placed over him—wrongfully, in my judgment—know as much as he does. I would not even contemplate bothering the House with the curriculum vitae of members of the shadow Cabinet [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] The Leader of the Opposition was a barrister at Lincoln's Inn and a columnist in The Times; the deputy leader, an author, a steward on Cunard passenger liners and trainee chef; the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), a journalist with Scottish Television; the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), a writer, former journalist on The Times and defence correspondent for New Statesman and Society; the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), an adviser on industrial policy to Albright and Wilson and regional officer of the General and Municipal Workers Union, as was the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw); the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), a solicitor; the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the principal researcher for Granada Television; and, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), a solicitor. I looked in vain through that list of right hon. and hon. Members but could not find one who had done a day's work in any form of business.

Will the Minister give way to an ex-shipwright?

In a moment.

I am not sure whether I would entrust the investable savings of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends to people with such scant knowledge of industry and such non-existent personal experience of it.

This sort of speech is amusing, but many people in Scotland, who are deeply concerned about the loss of oil fabrication orders to Spanish and Italian yards, for example, would like to know whether the Minister for Trade is satisfied that Spanish and Italian yards are not still being provided with hidden subsidies to enable them to compete for those orders. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the European Commission ensures that such competition is fair, square and above board?

Clearly, with the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of industry, he would make a shining example if he moved from his present position to the Front Bench. It is always worth having someone with his experience on the Opposition Benches. If there is any evidence of subsidies that do not comply with European Commission rules, the Government will fight as hard as anyone. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's Euro-fanatic colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench would do the same, if they ever got the chance.

The lack of knowledge of Opposition spokesmen about trade and business is also shown in their inconsistencies. Opposition Members have obviously had some amusement at our expense this week, but we can now have some amusement at theirs. Most hon. Members would accept that defence is one of Britain's vital industries and that one of its most important elements is our ability to sell our aircraft overseas.

The Hawk aircraft is a very important element of the latter. I am glad to say that, about a year or so ago, New Statesman and Society said of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on the subject of selling Hawks to Indonesia:

"As for British Aerospace's proposed sale of Hawk ground-attack planes … to Indonesia, where the military dictatorship is actively suppressing occupied East Timor, Clark is in favour. South-east Asia needs a stronger security system, he says, and Indonesia must be a part of it."

I questioned the hon. Member for Livingston about a year ago in the House, asking:

"I wonder whether the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) would also be prepared to put at risk the most successful training aircraft and the jobs that go with it in this country."

He replied:

"The Minister will appreciate the fact that this is a major humanitarian issue"—

he was talking about Indonesia—

"whether the number of casualties was 80,000 or 200,000. He will be aware that Hawk aircraft have been observed on bombing runs in East Timor in most years since 1984. What assurances did he seek, before giving export licences, that the 24 Hawks that he approved last year would not be used in the same way?"—[Official Report, 11 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 307–308.]

So, there you are. The problem for the hon. Member for Livingston is that bombing runs by Hawks in East Timor have not been observed in most years since 1984. Indeed, bombing runs by Hawks in Indonesia have never been observed. A Pilger film claimed to show a Hawk bombing Indonesia, but it turned out to be flying over Lincolnshire. The message is that such behaviour to please Opposition Back Benchers can do untold damage to our ability to sell overseas.

Perhaps the most depressing aspect of the Opposition's lack of coherence is their lack of interest. I accept that my roadshows are often dull and boring and may be of little interest to hon. Members generally. Nevertheless, when I brought my roadshow to the House of Commons, precisely six Opposition Members turned up, despite the efforts of the hon. Members for Middlesbrough and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) to galvanise their colleagues to come and see what opportunities they could gain in their constituencies. Opposition Members may have been too busy doing other things but, although my hon. Friends are basically used to a life of idleness and sloth, 60 of them managed to come along and listen to what we had to say. That gives some idea of Opposition Members' interest in trade.

The final evidence of that is that a Labour Government's major platform, as I understand it from travelling round the world at 35,000 ft, would be devolution. What on earth will that do for the confidence of investors in our country? What will it do to galvanise people to increase productivity, competitiveness and trade in our nation if the House spends five years considering its navel and trying to devolve its powers to an endless series of institutions around the country, which would then regulate and interfere with business?

Another aspect that I should mention is Opposition Members' naivety. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was kind enough to say in Korea the other day that, were there a change of Government, the Labour party would continue to follow our policy on attracting investment and supporting exporters, but with two provisos: the introduction of a minimum wage and signing up to the social chapter.

Much has been said about the dangers of a minimum wage and its effect on companies' competitiveness, but what concerns me most is the massive burden that it would put on companies' costs. It would wipe out family credit and the basis on which the state currently supports lower-paid people in jobs that companies can afford to give them. It would place the burden on employers and, because of its knock-on effect on wage levels, its effect on profits in many industries could devastate companies' competitiveness and profitability.

What is the point in Opposition Members claiming that greater capital allowances should be set against profits if they then destroy companies' profits by introducing a minimum wage? If the answer is that the minimum wage would be at such a level that it would not matter, why go ahead with it? The effect of frightening the children will certainly be of no benefit when, in this case, the children will be those who consider inward investment opportunities from overseas.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head again. He would soon find that many of the investors from the countries that I mentioned would think twice before investing in his constituency.

This is a wonderful knockabout political roadshow, but it does not have much to do with the motion.

Order. It is entirely to do with the motion. I am the judge of that.

No wiser judge could there be. It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

What are the wage levels of inward investing companies from Japan, France and Germany? Are any likely to equal the appalling poverty wages that are now the cause of the minimum wage debate in Britain?

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by appalling poverty wages in this country? What evidence has he for that? Let me give him an example from an industry of which I have personal experience—the shirt industry in Northern Ireland. Many of the ladies working in that industry have for generations been the breadwinners. [Interruption.] It is not funny.

If a minimum wage of £4 an hour were introduced, as has been demanded by the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, it would have a devastating effect on the Northern Ireland shirt industry. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can come with me and ask those in the garment industry, the multinationals and the local companies. They would have no option but to close their businesses and go elsewhere.

The whole basis of help in low-paid work should be through the family credit system, not putting burdens on the employers which they cannot afford. The hon. Gentleman would have to live with the consequences of a minimum wage. Unless he could find alternative work for those ladies—I do not know what he expects they would do—he would have to live with the unemployment consequences. That can stand up to investigation from any source.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I want to get on.

Is my hon. Friend not rather wasting his breath on this matter? What is the point of berating Opposition Members, many of whom know in their hearts that the introduction of a minimum wage and the social chapter, which they have opposed in the past in discussions that I have had with them, would do great damage? But the problem that they face is that that is a union requirement. In the party that poses as the party of one member, one vote, as has now become clear, at their party conference, the policy-making body, 70 per cent. of the votes are with the trade unions. If the Labour party were to come into power, we would have a union-directed industry and trade policy.

My right hon. Friend is right. That is the trade-off, of course. The trade-off may be fine between the union bosses and the Labour party, but it is not so fine if one happens to be a shirt maker in Derry.

Will the Minister give way now?

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. It is not as if we are short of time.

The social chapter poses the simple question—can we or can we not afford it? The answer is that we cannot.

Yes, we can.

Having heard what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I think that it would be best if he stayed in his present position. Not only can we not afford it; nor can anyone else in Europe.

UNICE, the European Union equivalent of the CBI, said that it was

"widely accepted today that one of the causes of European companies' loss of competitiveness and the persistence of a high level of unemployment arises from the unduly high level and/or extremely rigid character of social and labour regulations inherited from the past."

In the Financial Times in December 1993, the former President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, said:

"a social opt out for Britain would set up one country as a paradise for foreign investment, particularly Japanese investment".

For once, he was right.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I am coming to the end of my speech and the hon. Gentleman can make his points in his own speech.

The problem with Labour trade policy is that it is the bland leading the blind. If it were ever to come about, it would soon undermine everything that has preceded it.

I close where I began. As I have said, I have travelled some 355,000 miles selling for Britain and there is no greater privilege than to be Her Majesty's Minister for Trade, and no greater enjoyment because we have the world's respect and friendship, the right strategy, the right team and the right policies, and because, once again, when we are selling Britain we are selling the best that the world has to offer.

4.59 pm

It is always a pleasure to rise at the Dispatch Box with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair and with the Minister for Trade opposite. It is typical of the incompetence of the Government that they bring their most successful Minister, with the best tale to tell on our exports, to the Dispatch Box on a Wednesday evening before the local elections, with a House that is not empty but less full than usual. That is the difference between the optimist and the pessimist.

The Minister has a good story to tell on exports and trade, and he touched on it in relation to his in-house workings. Those who have followed the in-house workings of the Department of Trade and Industry and who know of its endemic difficulties with Her Majesty's Treasury will understand the progress that he has made in the past two years. That is not just my opinion; it is shared by business men to whom we speak. I do not have the pleasure or honour of flying at 30,000 ft throughout the world as often as the Minister has, but he has a good tale to tell and, as he knows, I am the first to recognise it.

When the Minister talked of a demoralising tide of despair, I thought that he was talking about Conservative Members who are not here tonight, but it transpired that he was talking about the press. He talked about his visits to Anglo-Saxon countries and said that he sought from the Trades Union Congress a legacy of export promotion in relation to the structures that had been left in those countries by British and Anglo-Saxon influence. He will recall, however, that after the last war it was Ernest Bevin who gave the Germans a structure of trade unionism that has lasted for 50 years and served that nation especially well.

The Ernest Bevin model, however, was one of non-demarcation. In Germany, that model involved having one trade union for a whole industry. It was demarcation that destroyed, for example, this country's shipbuilding industry, about which we have heard so much this afternoon.

I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I follow his interventions in our debates, but I was looking forward to one three speeches from now. It has taken a while for us to get our trade union structures to their present position. I shall come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on the influence of trade unions in the Labour movement. The Minister may wish to criticise the legacy of the TUC, but we must remember the legacy to Germany.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has said, privatisation is a good subject for the Government to knock about in the House. When we had United Kingdom plc, revenue and taxes were coming in from British Telecom, British Gas, the water industry and other industries that were doing well. When we sold off those family heirlooms, we lost that revenue. The Minister talks about the enthusiasm for privatisation in other countries. I wonder whether the people to whom he talks look at the pots of gold that are available in share option schemes, the remuneration of directors and the great temptation of turning a public monopoly into a private monopoly, with all the gain that goes with it. We should be cautious when we consider privatisation in the round. Ten years after the event, we should consider the state of regulation of the privatised industries and their need now to be re-regulated and reconsidered in the interests of the consumer. We should be a little cautious before we say what a wonderful success story privatisation is.

The Minister was bullish on the export of capital goods. We are happy that such exports have increased in the past few years, but if there is a distortion in our balance of payments it has been triggered by a surge of capital equipment imports. The country does not have the base to provide the capital equipment to cover growth of 3 to 4 per cent. as we come out of recession. That is not my comment; it comes from the Financial Times, which says:

"The recent strengthening in UK company investment appears to have triggered a surge in imports of capital equipment, which were nearly 5 per cent. higher in the three months to January than in the previous three months."

I am not entirely sure, therefore, that our record on capital goods is as good as the Minister says it is. Yes, we are exporting capital goods, but, equally, imports of capital equipment are off-setting that.

The Minister was again selective in his choice of export figures.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right to say we import certain capital goods, such as machine tools, printing machines and plastic moulding machines, but the point that I was making is that our share of capital goods exported to non-OECD countries is greater than that of France or Italy, which are well known as machine capital good producers. We have many other strengths.

I am grateful for that. I take the Minister's point but, if I may, I shall continue the quote from the Financial Times:

"Investment spending tends to suck in more imports than consumer spending, because Britain"—

these are the key words—

"has a relatively small capital goods industry to satisfy demand."

The Minister was buoyant about exports and bullish about the improvement in our exports. Statistics produced by the Central Statistical Office show that in 1994 exports from this country amounted to £135 billion, whereas imports amounted to £145 billion—a visible imbalance in trade of £10 billion or thereabouts. Fortunately for Britain—we recognise this fact—there was an invisible balance in such items as net investment income amounting to £10 billion, which meant that the overall deficit totalled £371 million.

The Treasury forecasts for 1995 and 1996 are that there will be a surplus of £0.8 billion in 1995 and £0.7 billion in 1996. After 17 years of Conservative government, that is hardly an appropriate balance of trade. The Minister may claim, and I give him, the credit for the important increase in exports, but we are importing more. The 1.5 per cent. increase in exports from December to January was matched by a 6 per cent. increase in imports. That is the balance that we seek to achieve in this debate.

When, in his intervention, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned devaluation, a few Conservative Members dismissively shook their heads. I do not spend much time reading the 1992 Conservative manifesto at 4 am. I always prefer to read "Das Kapital", and possibly in French as that tends to send me to sleep quickly, but the Conservative manifesto can have the same effect. If my memory serves me right, it stated clearly that inflation could be contained only by staying within the exchange rate mechanism. The point made by the hon. Member for Gordon should not, therefore, be dismissed so lightly.

I shall, in modesty, not comment on the credentials of the members of the shadow Cabinet, which the Minister went through with such meticulousness. I often wondered why I was not in the shadow Cabinet, but now I realise that my curriculum vitae does not read as well as those of my colleagues. The hon. Gentleman talked about inconsistencies. May I enlighten him on the fact that one of the things that Labour Members—certainly Front-Bench Labour Members—seek is compatibility of objectives? We recognise the difficulties in opposition, as opposed to the difficulties in government, and we seek to consider our objectives and to make them all compatible. We believe in full employment. Clearly, therefore, we would not wish Lloyd's to be declared insolvent with the loss of 60,000 jobs. That is one example. The same compatibility of objectives would apply to the aircraft industry and other industries.

When we last discussed the subject we had an interesting debate about the national minimum wage and family credit and about the shirt manufacturers in Derry. The Government made some valid points, and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned the trade union connection. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no trade-off between our relationships with the unions and the development of our policies. We shall not develop the idea of a national minium wage as part of a trade-off with the unions concerning the internal reorganisation of our party. We support a national minimum wage because we believe in the social justice of that policy. That is the essential fact.

Why is there so much emphasis on the national minimum wage? I have here some recent statistics produced by the Library that show that the average gross earnings of employees in Great Britain increased by 3.1 per cent. in the year to February 1995. The underlying rate, taking account of staged agreements and bonuses, is estimated to be 3.5 per cent. That increase puts the actual level of the average earnings of full-time employees at about £335.60 a week, or £17,400 a year.

If those are average earnings in our country, who could complain about a national minimum wage for those far below that level, who deserve a better chance than they are getting?

Is that not precisely the point? Those wage increases have been made without the so-called assistance of a national minimum wage, because managers and employees have been able to work out proper rates among themselves. The hon. Gentleman's party seeks to introduce a Government, state-centred imposition. We have seen what happened in Spain and France. How can he possibly argue for a national minimum wage? Will he also bear in mind not only the experience of people in Northern Ireland, whom my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, but those who work in the manufacturing sector in Leicestershire, my county? Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the trade-off involves not the trade unions, because they do not put themselves out of work, but the people upon whom the national minimum wage would be imposed, who would lose their jobs? That would be the trade-off.

I shall briefly repeat my point about the compatibility of objectives. If we believe in full employment, we are not in the business of making people with low wages unemployed.

One relevant factor in the economic debate is the enormous disparity in the United States between the very rich—and even most people who actually work—and those at the bottom. We should say that we shall not allow that to happen in this country, and that as a matter of social conscience and justice we shall have a national minimum wage that assists those at the bottom end, but that will not have the consequences that have been predicted for the shirt workers of Deny or for individual workers in Leicestershire.

There will be no trade-off with the unions, and there will be a proper valid national minimum wage. I shall return to the social chapter in a moment.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for addressing that question, but I do not think that his answer has quite satisfied the House. If employers pay the wage that the job will support and that they can afford, and keep somebody in employment, under family credit the state undertakes to pay the balance. The state takes on the burden of ensuring that people do not live in poverty. If we move to a national minimum wage the employer will be required by law to pay it. The industries that cannot sustain such wages will simply close down and there will be unemployment. I note that, despite all the other assurances in the new clause IV, there is no pledge of full employment.

We have debated that before. The Minister will recall a debate about Derry that followed a Question Time performance by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). We looked into the question of the shirt workers in Derry and the relationship between the national minimum wage and family credit at the time. It was part of the process of debate and dialogue within the party, which will see a national minimum wage emerge properly and to the satisfaction of those who work with it—[Interruption.]—but obviously not to the satisfaction of Conservative Members; we recognise the limits of our powers of persuasion.

The hon. Gentleman seems extraordinarily sanguine about the effects of the national minimum wage. Will he explain why 1,000 German companies have chosen to come to this country, making massive inward investment, to escape being so severely penalised by the minimum wage?

My convictions about the national minimum wage arise out of my 17 years' experience of France, where there has been a minimum wage for many years. Unemployment in France is not caused by the minimum wage.

As for the hon. Lady's second point, I should be grateful if she would send me the evidence about those 1,000 companies that have left Germany to set up here because of the national minimum wage in Germany. I should be glad to read and analyse that evidence, and to publish it and send it to the Labour party's various policy bodies, so that they could take it into account.

The Minister vaunted the number of jobs created by inward investment, and his Back Benchers said, "Hear, hear." Let me remind him, again using the statistics issued by the Library on 1 May—not long ago—that although the work force in employment was 15,000 higher in June 1994 than it had been in June 1993, it was still 106,000 lower than in June 1979.

In our country today there are 106,000 fewer workers than there were when Labour left office. Is that not a remarkable statement? Those statistics put into context what the Minister said about the number of jobs created by inward investment in relation to the totality of the economy.

I am not one of the cynics who believe that such debates are arranged on a Wednesday night deliberately, as a kind of fag-end debate. This will he one of the best debates in a parliamentary week that will culminate in the local elections. When I prepared my speech I assumed that the debate had been chosen for tonight to coincide with the appointment of Renato Ruggiero as head of the World Trade Organisation, and his taking up of his post.

It also occurred to me that the debate might have been arranged for tonight because of the meetings taking place in Vancouver between the Japanese and United States Ministers for Trade, to deal with their multilateral arrangements. Or perhaps the real reason was so that the debate would coincide with the annual quadrilateral meeting between Japan, the United States and Canada to review global trade issues.

As my hon. Friend is talking about inward investment, may I tell him that the more substantial inward investors in my constituency appear only too willing to offer employees reasonable terms and conditions of employment? I shall give two examples, the first of which is IBM, which was brought to Greenock by the late Hector McNeil, the Labour Member of Parliament. The second is National Semiconductor. Those companies are major local employers, and they are perfectly willing to pay reasonable wages and offer reasonable terms and conditions.

May I please my hon. Friend by reminding him that in the 1970s, as a poor lawyer of modest repute, I went to National Semiconductor at Greenock and saw the plant and the investment, and what the company was prepared to do in our country. That was under a Labour Government, and nobody ever told me that National Semiconductor had come to Greenock because the men did not work well, or that it feared the social chapter or a national minimum wage. The company was there because it believed in this country. I shall develop that theme a little later.

As I was saying, I had thought that the debate might have been arranged to coincide with the "quad" meeting, or so that we could discuss the consolidation of the World Trade Organisation. I hoped that the Minister would discuss with us the unfinished business from the GATT Uruguay round. The meetings that will take place in Vancouver will discuss global rules for foreign investment. I am sure that Ministers will have one eye on that debate and conference while keeping their other eye on the House of Commons.

I shall dwell on the issue of trade in an appropriate and proper context that has more resonance with the public at large. The value of our currency has steadily declined from 1981 to what has now become its lowest point. Our exporters require to be buoyed up by a weak rather than strong currency. The French have become the world's fourth largest exporter. We are the fifth largest exporter, but the Minister does not like to dwell too much on the position of the French. The French position has been achieved on the back of a strong currency within the framework of the exchange rate mechanism.

The Government can advance our exports only by keeping the price of our money competitive. I do not entirely understand why they place so much emphasis on the national minimum wage or the social chapter when the policy that they follow is to keep our goods competitive by consistent devaluations of the pound. In order to have those steady devaluations, they need a higher interest rate than necessary.

The country has picked up the fact that a drifting currency reflects a drifting Government who sail along on a wing and a prayer. They balance the loss in value across the exchanges and they attract money back into the capital account with higher interest rates to stem the inevitable rise in inflation. That is a disjointed and unstable policy, which may increase exports by about 1.5 per cent., but increases imports by 6 per cent. so that invisible earnings must balance the equation and reduce the overall deficit. It is remarkable that that should pass for policy.

As we know, however, in the kingdom of the blind, it is the one-eyed man who is king and in the fool's paradise that seems to be Government Departments Ministers are complacent and have a feel-good factor that is not apparent in the rest of the country. The hon. Member for Gordon touched on the fact that people do not feel good. Since we withdrew from the exchange rate mechanism—the so-called black Wednesday scenario—the Conservative party has been unable to get beyond 26 per cent. in the polls. Never in the history of polling have a Government stayed within the same low parameter; never did so much confidence ebb away in a single day; never was there a more stark and blatant example of Government failure. That failure was of such a monumental scale that it could not be disguised, even by this Government.

What is the Labour party's policy on exchange rates?

On exchange rates rather than exchange rate—in relation to the yen, the dollar and those currencies currently within the European exchange rate mechanism—we believe—[interruption.] I want to get on with my speech. [Laughter.] It is clearly the view—

Would the hon. Gentleman like time to think about it?

We think about it all the time. We think about the relationship of our exchange rate with our exports and what we should do within the framework of the exchange rate mechanism. We think about what we should do when there is a movement within Europe to a single currency. We think about what is in the best interests of our country, not our party. It is not a matter that we take lightly, but something that we think about all the time.

Conservative Members clearly do not understand that the strength of any currency is a simple reflection of the medium and longer term of the strength of its economy. We therefore see in our country the falling value of the pound against the mark. If the dollar were not so weak for political reasons—Japanese trade—our exports would not be so buoyant.

I shall make a final point to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). It does not signify a strong economy when the Government cannot countenance or dare to re-enter an exchange rate mechanism with a 15 per cent. margin at either side and a 30 per cent. margin in terms of currency.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I should like to get on with my speech and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can contribute later.

The fruits of devaluation and black Wednesday are dark fruits that turned the entire public opinion against the Government. Yes, there have been rising exports and a rising growth rate, and the Government have been given a happy-hour feeling that will last until inflation and interest rates rise and until other European nations catch up with us, as they are already doing within the framework of the exchange rate mechanism. The Government are desperately anxious to ensure that, as the pound drops in value, interest rates do not rise too much to give us yet another recession. That policy, dressed up in a different garb, has given us two booms and two busts in the past 16 years.

I hate to bandy statistics across the Dispatch Box because it does not get us anywhere very much, but I must challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that exports are rising at 1.5 per cent. and imports at 6 per cent. The volume of non-oil exports is growing at an annual rate of 12.5 per cent. and imports are growing at a rate of 8.9 per cent. That turns what the hon. Gentleman was saying entirely on its head. Goodness alone knows where he got his figures.

I am always grateful for interventions from the right hon. Gentleman. My figures come from the first release of the Central Statistical Office—reference CSO 95.72–13 April 1995, prepared by the Government's statistical service. On the second page it states:

"In the three months to January, exports increased by 1.5 per cent. and imports by 6 per cent."

Is the right hon. Gentleman objecting to the Central Statistical Office? The paper is not a secret document, but is issued by the Central Statistical Office at Great George street. I think that the Government will regret that they privatised that service. We know the Government's policy; we have seen the Government's policy—it operates on a wing and a prayer and does not achieve the sort of base that will endure.

I had a longer speech prepared, but I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute. With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the leave of the House, I shall seek permission to wind up later.

I hope that we have quietly, investigatively and using figures from the Central Statistical Office, shown that the Government do not have a policy. They have a pious hope that the illusion that they have created—that, because we have increased our exports, we have strengthened our economy—will last to the next general election. The Government have been seen through since black Wednesday. Holding the debate tonight simply shows that they are not even competent enough to pinpoint their own exports achievements. I notice that the Prime Minister tried to gain some advantage yesterday in Question Time by basking in the glory of the Minister for Trade, but that will not be enough. Tomorrow there will be another millstone around the Government's neck, but the biggest millstone of all will come at the next general election.

5.28 pm

In introducing the debate, my right hon. Friend said that he was fortunate to be the Minister for Trade. I agree, but I also think that the country is extremely fortunate to have him as Minister for Trade. I was very flattered to be mistaken for him the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who has more hair than both of us put together.

I want to draw attention to one particular British export success both because I think that it is worth drawing attention to in itself and because I believe that it illustrates much wider lessons on the subject of this debate. Apart from anything else, it illustrates the message of partnership in the 1990s, about which my right hon. Friend spoke.

The export success that I want to highlight is that of the British Aerospace airbus. British Aerospace is one of the companies that we denationalised, though most people have forgotten that and do not think of it as a privatised company any more. I hope that that means that it will never be in danger again. By any standards, the success of the airbus has been remarkable and the benefits to the British economy correspondingly impressive.

Airbus accounts for nearly 1.5 per cent. of Britain's total manufacturing exports. That is a contribution of over £1,000 million to the trade balance. It is estimated that in the United Kingdom, some 25,000 people work on the airbus in over 300 different British companies. It is estimated that about 125,000 people in Britain are supported by the airbus programme. It is particularly relevant to this debate on exports to point out that the vast majority—over 80 per cent.—of airbus orders are from customers outside the four countries of the partnership. Over 1,250 airbus aircraft have been delivered to over 120 operators worldwide and Airbus Industrie now holds second place in the world's large civil aircraft market and last year actually outsold Boeing.

As an example of the danger of using part-year statistics, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. 'Bell) did a few moments ago, I recall that at the Farnborough airshow in the autumn, a high official of Boeing dismissed the figures for the first eight months of the year, in which Airbus had outsold Boeing, and forecast that for 1994 as a whole, Airbus would go back down to 30 per cent. of market. Of course, the trend held up and Airbus outsold Boeing—the first time that any company in the world has outsold Boeing in the large civil aircraft market for 50 years.

Would it not be a wonderful example of the strength of the airbus if, as he flies around the world, the Minister could occasionally land in one? Instead, because, I presume, he flies with British Airways, he mainly has to land in Boeing aircraft, because our airline company will not support our aircraft industry by buying the airbus.

Yes it would.

At the same time, it is worth pointing out that when Airbus started 20 or 25 years ago, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas were, with Boeing, the big three in the market. Lockheed no longer produces commercial aircraft and McDonnell Douglas has dropped below 20 per cent. of the market, whereas Airbus has risen and taken McDonnell Douglas' place. Those are impressive statistics and the congratulations and, indeed, the thanks of the nation and the House should go to British Aerospace and the other partners in Airbus.

These days, there is never any time for resting on laurels. Instead, it is important to reflect on how that success has been achieved and hence to understand how to build on it. Aerospace has long been one of those businesses in which Governments are inextricably involved and the sad fact is that, in 1969, the Labour Government withdrew from the fledgling Airbus partnership and for nearly the first 10 years we were involved only through the private sector because of the initiative of Hawker Siddeley Aviation.

That mistake by the Labour Government has cost this nation dear. It is the reason why we have a 20 per cent. share, whereas France and Germany have 37.9 per cent. each. At the time the Labour Government withdrew we, like France, were to have had a 37.5 per cent. share and Germany was intended to have the remaining 25 per cent. The fact that the French have retained their large share goes a little way to explain the success of French exports about which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough spoke.

We benefit from Airbus today because of the private sector involvement by Hawker Siddeley on the one hand and the technological skill of our companies on the other. I believe that it is extremely important, and I know that the Department of Trade and Industry realises this, that the British Government do not hesitate again in their commitment to Airbus.

The statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the future large aircraft last December was very important in that respect, particularly because it said that British participation was conditional on the FLA being under the management umbrella of Airbus. I believe that the Airbus management set-up has been an important contributory factor in its success.

Airbus Industrie itself, the group company, is in a French legal form known as a GIE, or groupement d'intérêt économique, which is required to make no profits and losses but pass them through to partner companies in the four countries. The group company has relatively few employees, most of whom deal with sales, customer services and so on. Partner companies do the manufacturing and most of the basic research and design so that British Aerospace retains for us its full capacity in research and design. Each partner bids for the various blocks of work and carries the costs of the blocks that it is awarded using funds that it provides.

The bidding process—indeed, the whole structure—has proved very effective both technologically and financially. However, the global marketplace, especially in aerospace, remains very tough. The world recession has hacked down airline business and hence orders for airliners. That has coincided with the ending of the cold war, with its effects on military budgets.

The prospects are for a recovery in civil markets because huge increases in world travel are forecast. The DTI forecasts, with a combination of accuracy and very broad margins, a demand for new aircraft of between 14,700 and 18,100 over the next 25 years. The two figures are remarkably precise, given how far apart they are. On any basis, it is a valuable market but competition is fierce, and not only from Boeing. The aerospace industries of Japan, Taiwan and other countries are growing and they are keen to get a share of the market if they possibly can. That is why Britain must make the maximum use of our involvement in Airbus.

We cannot compete in such global markets and keep up our standard of living unless we co-operate with our neighbours. Many countries on the Pacific rim can already compete with us through cheap labour and so on over wide areas of technology and with great skill and determination. The British people will not live better than the people of those countries and have better pensions and social services for the old and unfortunate, better education for our children and better health care for our sick, unless we develop and exploit to the full higher technology industries such as aerospace, where we have the expertise and proven ability to compete.

We have that ability to compete at present but competitiveness is a war that is never over. In the phrase that was used of the Labour conference so many years ago, it has to be fought, fought and fought again. That war must be fought on many fronts—the efficiency of management, the skill and flexibility of the work force, technological innovation through well-directed research and, above all, determination. Those battles have to be fought against overseas competition but also within Airbus because of the bidding system that I mentioned earlier—the partner companies all want larger work shares.

If we falter, as we did in 1969, others will take up the running at once. It is not just a question of thinking that it is a good idea to go for higher technology. If there proves to be a greater determination on the part of Germany and Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, for instance, than there is on the part of the United Kingdom to attain and keep technological leadership, we shall inevitably slip back. Given the frantic pace of technological advance today, any slowing down can quickly lead to a loss of technological leadership and hence an inability to participate in future partnerships.

I know that it is tempting to say, as some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members do, that we might be better off on our own. Many companies thrive as sub-contractors to the big boys, and the argument is that 'we could do the same. That is all very well for some niches, but we must remember that only the partners in Airbus, for example, bid for the main contracts. If we were not in the partnership, we would not be the leaders in wing technology that we are and, if we fell out of the partnership, we should not be in the future.

When the pressures of unemployment are as great everywhere as they are today, the forces of protectionism will remain strong despite the new world trade organisation that is coming into being. It is true that the new world trade agreements, especially that between the United States and the European Union in July 1992, limiting Government support for the development for civil aircraft, make a difference to what Governments can do, but there is no doubt that Government support of every kind remains, and will remain, important.

I greatly welcome the DTI's involvement, with the Society of British Aerospace Companies, in the "competitiveness challenge" and applaud the Government's civil aircraft research and demonstration programme. Launch aid loans have been essential and, incidentally, a good investment by the Government. So far, about 80 per cent. of the launch aid loans for the A320 have been repaid and I am sure that they will be repaid in full with interest and continuing royalties. The Government are also committed to the national strategic acquisition plan for aeronautics.

That all proves the Government's willingness to back the aerospace industry. Doing so is not only desirable for constituencies such as mine in the mid-west of Britain where the aerospace industry is strongest in many respects, but essential for the future standard of living of all our people.

The airbus is a good example of success in international business which can continue. It is a practical example of successful partnership among European countries although outside the EU framework. There is no better example of the fact that Britain can compete in world markets and is now successfully doing so.

5.43 pm

The inward investment programme has been a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was quick to say so, and I agree that we have been successful in attracting inward investment in recent years.

I was surprised that the Minister began by suggesting that, although he would say how well we were doing in terms of inward investment, the Opposition would whine. He implied consistently that inward investment was not welcomed by everyone and that success in this sphere was something on which we take a narrow party political view. I myself worked for a number of years to get inward investment; I therefore recognise success, and I certainly recognise the difficulties sometimes involved in achieving it. The competition is tough. It is amazing that the Minister should say that we wish to decry the investment success that has been achieved.

Clearly, we are the most popular European location for overseas companies. A series of successes has brought other successes in its train, but the task at hand, which has yet to be mentioned in the debate, is how we retain our position. It is not a matter of dispute or party politics—we wish to continue this country's success in attracting investment from Europe, North America and Asia. The parties may see the future differently, but I should have thought that we all want companies to invest in this country. Therefore, to suggest that there is a difference of opinion about wanting to achieve inward investment is not helpful.

The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. I did not for one moment suggest that the Opposition were not in favour of inward investment; I said that their policies would deter it. I know of the work that he has done. However, only four years ago, the Trades Union Congress passed a motion saying that Japanese culture was alien to us. I am pleased to find that that has now been dispensed with. The hon. Gentleman should not gild the lily of what I said.

I shall accept what the Minister says and move on to a different theme.

It is understandable that the Government should laud their own role but they should not downplay that of others. Inward investment is achieved, not by Government policy alone but by a combination of factors and players. Unless the factors and players work together, investment is not forthcoming. Therefore, the way in which we conduct ourselves in the House must be such that it encourages people to work together.

It is also understandable that the Minister uses the success of inward investment as proof of the success of the Government's employment policies. He suggested that the Government's policies were somehow responsible for that success and that those which we have advocated—the social chapter and the minimum wage, specifically—would defeat inward investment and cause us great difficulty. The evidence to support that notion is very slight and, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the Minister could not produce the necessary evidence. I have met representatives of many Japanese companies, none of whom raised that issue with me.

It is absolutely certain that investment in this country is seen as investment in Europe. It is axiomatic that the reason companies come in this country is not only because of the British market but because of the European market. Therefore, Euroscepticism, when pronounced from Southend or Bolsover, is much more very damaging to inward investment. Some companies have become aware in the past year or two of the debate in which some Conservative Members have raised fundamental questions about Europe and shown that they do not wish to be part of the European Union. That is the issue raised by potential inward investors.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman seeks to strike a balance by mentioning Southend and Bolsover, but is not the real cause of worry to potential investors in this country the members of the Cabinet who share the views to which he referred and who are undermining confidence in the Government's policy and shedding doubt on the continuation of the Government's commitment?

That is very much the case. Overseas companies understand and enjoy the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but they worry that Euroscepticism has taken hold in the Cabinet. They are anxious that we should maintain our position in Europe.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that countries from outside the European Union come to the United Kingdom to invest because we are in the Union. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that we attract 40 per cent. of all investment in the European Union, which now consists of 15 nations? I suggest that a minimum wage would deter people from investing in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) more or less accepted that by saying that if Labour were in office, it would set the level of the minimum wage so low that it would not deter investment. The question then rightly arises, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has asked, what is the point of having a minimum working wage if it is so low that it will have no effect?

My experience from working with Japanese companies is that they generally pay a wage that is considerably above the minimum that we have spoken about, or the minimum wage that has been suggested to us as a possibility by Conservative Members. Many of the companies with which we deal are the stronger companies in their economies; that is almost automatically the case if they are thinking of investing overseas. I accept that labour costs are an important factor for them and that they weigh those costs carefully. However, for the companies with which I dealt, especially the major companies, labour costs here were no problem at all. If one takes on investment from a much smaller Japanese company, labour costs may become a factor. I do not believe, however, that the introduction of a minimum wage would have the startling effect on inward investment that Conservative Members suggest.

It is important that we look at the factors that have brought success because they need to be analysed, at the current state of inward investment because it is changing, and at the need for an inward investment service in the future. As my work was done through the Yorkshire and Humberside development association, which is now known as a development agency, most of the past and future examples on which I shall draw relate to Yorkshire and Humberside.

Having accepted that European membership is vital, I have to say that it is impressive that we have gained a 40 per cent. share of inward investment. Why has this happened? One major factor is completely beyond our control. Our language is an enormous help in attracting investment. English is the first overseas language taught in the Japanese education system because it is seen as so important in the world. In much of the far east, the American influence at the end of the war has led to English being a language that is widely spoken. In much of Europe, it is the second language. The Government cannot take credit for the language factor, which is a major influence in inward investment.

The language factor very much outweighs the other factor that we cannot control—our geographical position. In a sense, we are peripheral. The volume of investment that we have attracted is all the more significant when one recognises that we are geographically peripheral in the Union.

We must look at the factors that are within our control—the decisions made. We must ask whether we are organising our attraction of inward investment correctly, what factors are effective and what could be made more effective. We have been successful because we have managed to bring together the role of central Government through the Invest in Britain Bureau, the role of the regions, either through the Scottish and Welsh development agencies or through the regional development organisations, the role of the local authorities and the role of the private sector. For investment to work, all those four players need to be in place. Our successes have been due to the fact that each has played its part.

The IBB has been effective in terms of financing inward investment. The finance for the IBB is a relatively small part of the DTI budget, but it has been effectively spent. The bureau has operated well in terms of its co-ordination of regional development organisations. Over the past 10 years, there have been many discussions about regional development organisations and about whether they are the right way in which to work.

When I was first involved in attracting investment from Japan to Yorkshire and Humberside, the Minister who was responsible for inward investment was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) who subsequently went on to other activities. He twice invited me to the DTI to suggest to me that as a regional organisation, Yorkshire and Humberside development association should spend as little as possible in Japan. He did not believe that one attracted the major Japanese companies by operating on a regional basis. We started off that way.

Subsequently, the policy changed; we were encouraged to spend more time in Japan and that was successful in terms of the investment we brought in. A proper balance has been found between the role of the regions and the role of the centre. That is a matter that must always be kept under review. One has to have co-ordination at the centre—the IBB could do with more opportunity to carry out research—but the marketing must be shared between the centre and the regions. I shall come back to that point.

It is important to involve local authorities actively in inward investment projects. In terms of planning factors, it is true to say that every inward investment which is not achieved by acquisition involves planning factors; that is certainly true of investment on green-field sites. The role of the local authorities is, therefore, important. The regional development organisations have played a big part in getting assistance from local authorities.

All the local authorities with which I have dealt, except one, have been Labour authorities, but there has been no political difference between them in terms of their attitude to inward investment and their willingness to put themselves out, both to meet visitors from overseas and to ensure that where there are planning difficulties, they are ironed out. The role of the local authorities must be recognised; it often proves vital in terms of giving a company the right perception of the area in which they may invest.

It is also extremely important to get the co-operation of the local private sector. In the Yorkshire region, we have managed to get a great deal of financial assistance directly into the regional organisations. We have also managed to get a lot of direct contact between companies coming in to look at the region and the private sector in the region, especially companies on which overseas investors might depend for parts. Most inward investing companies are manufacturing companies so the attitude of suppliers—who are rarely confined to one region—is important.

In many respects, the work in England goes well. We should, however, make a comparison between what happens in the English regional organisations and what happens in Scotland and Wales. The Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency can put together a more comprehensive package when they meet companies from abroad than is possible in the English regions. We should look at the difference between the way in which those agencies work and the way in which the English regional organisations work. The fact that the agencies can usually put together a property package and a training package—and occasionally a venture capital package—gives them greater strength in attracting investment.

After the next general election, I expect the Labour Government to ensure that agencies with such a range of ability are also available in the English regions. They have proved effective. It is often important to be able to bring in property and training matters when one is talking with companies about investing in a region. The ability to put together a broader package is sometimes helpful in winning the investment of companies which are considering locating in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands or Germany.

The availability of regional selective assistance is also very important in determining investment. There is obviously a close parallel between investment in the regions and regional selective assistance and its availability. It is important that there is a level playing field in Europe. We achieve such a proportion of investment without a level playing field because of subsidies. Indeed, we do not always manage to create a level playing field in the UK itself, although there have been some improvements in that direction.

When I first entered the area of inward investment, packages available in Scotland and the English regions were certainly disparate. In terms of money, that disparity has been ironed out, but in the English regions there is still a slowness in arriving at a figure to put in front of a potential investor. One of the things that we want from regional selective assistance is a quicker decision, which would enable us to give companies a very clear idea of what they may expect. That can be very helpful in nailing the investment. The quicker the decision, the better it is.

We also have to face the fact that the scene is changing among players on a global scale. First, European enlargement makes some difference to us, especially enlargement to the east. While trying to attract to the UK a motor vehicle company, for example, or a company manufacturing vehicle components, much of the competition in the late 1980s came from Spain. Now much of the competition comes from the Czech Republic. We may say that our costs are lower than those in other countries, but they are not lower than those in the Czech Republic, which is managing to come up with packages which undercut us and that may influence a number of investment decisions.

When we are attracting companies from Germany—there has been increasing interest expressed by such companies recently—factors relating to unification are clearly quite important. A company in west Yorkshire is considering a major expansion which will create another 1,000 jobs. It is comparing the advantages of investing further in west Yorkshire with investing in eastern Germany. Understandably, the German Government will be encouraging their companies to invest at home.

The changing European scene affects inward investment even more in the case of Japan. The Minister was right when he said that we attract 40 per cent. of Japanese investment into Europe, but he will know that according to recent figures published in Japan, we are ninth in the list of receivers of Japanese investment. Of the eight countries ahead of us, the United States is in third place and all the others are from south-east Asia. China heads the list, Taiwan is second and Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are all ahead of us. Although we still lead European investment, we are well down the Japanese list worldwide.

Japan has shifted in recent years from primarily looking to how it can get into the European market to considering expansion, especially in south-east Asia. That has caused us in turn to look more widely at the Asian market. The particular strength of the yen at the moment has caused some further additional attention from Japanese investors. I am told also, that because a number of motor manufacturers suffered fairly severe losses in the Kobe earthquake, investors have begun to look here again.

We recognise that the United States is still our leading market. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, there has been particular interest expressed in what may be termed call centres. Financial institutions have made inquiries into the setting up of telephone centres to enable contact with clients all over the country. That would create many jobs.

The scene is changing and we need to consider how to react in the future. It is important to maintain a balance between inquiries dealt with by the Invest in Britain Bureau and those dealt with by regional organisations. I note that in Yorkshire and Humberside, 60 per cent. of inquiries bringing visitors to the country are generated by ourselves and 40 per cent. are generated by the IBB. Although both play a significant role, it is important to nurture the local, regional organisation.

Although regional organisations have received a generous settlement, there is an attempt to freeze the amount of overseas representation of regional development organisations. That may or may not be sensible, but it seems to have been decided without necessary research. Although the IBB funds research into the performance of individual organisations, there does not seem to be any across- the-board research. Research into the value of overseas placements for regional development organisations would be helpful in deciding a suitable policy in future. Serious consideration must be given to the effectiveness of marketing the UK as a whole, comparing that with the effectiveness of the separate Welsh, Scottish and English approaches to inward investment.

I want to raise one specific matter with regard to Yorkshire and Humberside: how should inward investment into south Humberside be handled in future? With the change in local government boundaries, Humberside has effectively been split into two: north and south of the Humber. There is no doubt that on any map, Humberside attracts the main inward investment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. I argue that it is important that Humberside and the Humberside estuary continue to be marketed as a whole.

There are several reasons why Humberside should continue to be marketed with the Yorkshire region. First, the present arrangements have been extremely successful for South Humberside. Of 15 major investments into the region in the past four years, six have been in South Humberside. Over the period, there have been 16 inward investment projects there, creating or saving 1,866 jobs and bringing in £312 million of investment. With regard to new investment in green-field sites, eight new investments have brought in 1,339 of those jobs.

Secondly, there is an accepted need, which the DTI recognises, for after-care for inward investors when they first come into the country. It makes sense for those who have brought the companies in to remain responsible for that after-care.

Humberside county council's economic policy was one of its successes. It has demonstrated that there is a great deal to be said for marketing the estuary as a whole. The estuary has a great deal of potential because there is space. In particular, there is space in South Humberside for the chemical industry which is now unwelcome in many parts of the country.

There is also far less synergy between what will now be called North Lincolnshire and the East Midlands than there is between that area and Yorkshire. As the main means of export to Europe, the Humber ports are a very important factor in our regional inward investment policies.

The new local authorities which have replaced Humberside have said that they want to continue to be marketed through the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Indeed, the Scunthorpe authority has a secondee with the development agency carrying out work in the United States.

The Government should make an early decision to leave the marketing area of the Yorkshire and Humberside development agency unchanged. The strength of the IBB should be maintained, but it should be given the ability to carry out the research and marketing necessary to support the work of the regional development organisations. There should be a review of the IBB's approach to Europe because there are suggestions that it is a little limited in its vision and that too much emphasis is placed on France and Germany while other possibilities for inward investment are not sufficiently explored. For example, inward investment from Turkey is proving very successful in Leeds at the moment and there are several investment projects from Switzerland. It has been suggested to me that, surprisingly, no one in that section can speak a European language other than English.

It is very important to stop putting inward investment at risk because of the electoral tactics being used by the Conservative party. It is quite wrong to suggest that inward investment would fade if there were a Labour Government. That suggests that there would be a lack of commitment towards overseas investment, but that commitment would be just as firm under Labour as it is at the moment.

No company to which I have spoken has described the minimum wage or the social chapter as spectres. In general the companies which are going to take the step of investing abroad are strong and they do very much more than meet the standards of the social chapter.

We went through a period when trade unions seemed to have great difficulty with inward investment, but in the region in which I operated, we soon found that the unions began to compete with one another to be the sole union to sign an agreement with a Japanese company. One of the unions that served a company that we have attracted to the region has said that if it could obtain the same conditions of service for their workers in English-owned companies, they would be very satisfied.

6.14 pm

I want to respond to several of the points made by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) about inward investment. At the beginning, he made a fundamental and important point when he referred to the importance of after-care services. We should regard the decision of a company to invest in the United Kingdom as chapter one of a fairly long book. As the world changes, much of our new inward investment will involve second and third decisions by American and Japanese companies which are already here.

I welcome the title of the debate. It enabled my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to make an excellent and entertaining speech. I welcome it also because there is an increasing relationship between trade policy and trade developments and inward investment decisions.

When asked about the Labour party's policy on sterling, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said thoughtfully that Labour was thinking about it. He also said that, with the permission of the House, he would reply to the debate for the Opposition. I expressed the hope that his thinking process might have reached a conclusion by then, because that is a fundamental issue.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly said that the Labour party's only concrete policy is devolution. If there is ever a Labour Government, there would be a Scottish Parliament in the first year of that Labour Government. That would put the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), who are both in the Chamber at the moment, in a very interesting position in relation to inward investment.

They would be able to speak and vote on inward investment and trade matters in this Chamber in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in relation to Greenock and Port Glasgow or Paisley. Those considerations would be the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly or Parliament.

If the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may be able to enlighten us on how he would feel in that situation. He could tell us what Labour's policy would be, with devolution, in respect of two rather important aspects of inward investment—the rate of corporation tax and the level of business rates that would be charged in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and the hon. Members for Middlesbrough and for Morley and Leeds, South, underlined the importance of inward investment. I do not need to add to what they said, except to say that, very often, with an inward investment project, the headlines are about the number of jobs. That is the easy headline.

Very often, it is the quality of the inward investment and how it relates to the local economy that is important. I am not always convinced that we achieve the fullest possible advantage of inward investment projects once they are here. However, there is no doubt that our membership of the European Community is a major factor with regard to inward investment projects.

Opposition Members may say, "Well, what about the Government's position on monetary union?" In that regard, I believe that international companies are looking for a common currency, but not a single currency. There is a significant difference between the two. The common currency concept was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It has resolved a large number of potential problems. It has not featured much in the public debate recently, but perhaps the Minister will refer to it.

When we look to the future, we all agree that our inward investment policies face an increasingly tough and competitive market. There are four reasons for that. First, as the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South mentioned, there is the huge and rapid development of low-cost economies in south-east Asia and mainland China. Secondly, within Europe we have two sets of new challenges. I refer to eastern Europe—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Czechoslovakia—and some European countries, notably France, that have come into the market. They were not in that market a few years ago. For a long time, France did not encourage inward investment, but it is now its policy to do so.

Thirdly, because of telecommunications, India is now a major source of inward investment. One can design software in India as easily as in Orkney, Leeds, the Isle of Wight or London. Fourthly, the Uruguay round is bound to make inward investment more competitive. In principle, it is absolutely desirable to lower tariff and non-tariff barriers, but we must face the fact that many inward investment decisions are made because companies want to get behind the tariff barrier. For all those reasons, we face an increasingly competitive market.

I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South in relation to England. He made a number of general points with which I agree, but in relation to regional organisations, including those for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there is the danger of too many cooks spoiling the broth. It is important abroad that the United Kingdom puts its best foot forward. We do not want half a dozen organisations constantly badgering one company—that would put off that company. That is where the co-ordination of the Invest in Britain Bureau, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is very important.

For obvious reasons, Northern Ireland is likely to do much better in terms of future inward investment, and that will be highly desirable for the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade referred to inward investment as a vote of confidence in the Government. It is true that inward investment can take place as a consequence of a range of reasons, but it is the best possible vote of confidence in the Government and in their policies when international, responsible capitalism from America and Japan—the Japanese take very long-term decisions—decides, as it did last year in relation to Scotland, in record terms to invest in this country.

Hon. Members may say, "He's just come in," but I have been watching the debate on channel 9. My hon. Friend, who has vast experience, has referred to the whole United Kingdom. Is he struck by the absence of smoked-salmon socialist Labour Members, for whom Jopling was invented, whereas many hon. Members who are present have to travel to all parts of the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No doubt Scottish Members who are not here and do not have local elections of their own—

Order$

I am stunned by the sudden interruption by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I am sorry that more Scottish Members are not present. Whatever else they are doing, they cannot be canvassing in the English local elections.

There is consensus in the House on the objectives of investment. There is no dispute about that. The record levels of inward investment that we are achieving are a considerable and meaningful vote of confidence in the Government and their policies.

6.25 pm

We all welcome success within our economy. There is no point in disputing that. The inward investment that we have attracted in recent years has rightly been commented on by the Minister, not just in terms of the share that we are getting but in terms of the dynamic it creates in respect of the spin-off of ideas, the stimulus of competition and the raising of standards. I should not want anybody to doubt that Liberal Democrats welcome that.

However, as for the relative role of inward investment in the total economy, it was interesting to hear the exchange between the Minister and hon. Members about who was trying to run down whom. The Conservative party manifesto of 1979 states:

"At the moment we have the reverse"

of what it was aiming for—

"an economy in which the Government has to hold wages down in order to try to make us competitive with other countries where higher real wages are paid for by higher output."

There is a genuine debate about what a minimum wage, national or regional, might do, what level it should be set at, and what its impact might be. The Minister will acknowledge that the debate about the minimum wage is not central to the attraction of inward investment, because, in reality, companies that are investing here have an agenda of their own in which the minimum wage at any level is not a problem.

I say that as somebody who is not convinced of the merits of a national minimum wage. If there is scope for it, it should be regionally varied. I suspect that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is heading in that direction, as well.

If our country's investment attractions are so great that we are getting that share of inward investment, why are companies that are already here not showing the same enthusiasm for investing and continuing to invest within the United Kingdom? We must consider the quality of management in the United Kingdom, the climate for long-term security, and the fact that, in recent years, the Government have almost institutionalised insecurity in the minds of business people, investors and employees.

Jobs are not secure. Many businesses have had to secure their investment against property that has fallen in value. They have a lack of confidence that the current low rates of inflation will continue to be low. That in itself is a discouragement to investment when interest rates have to go up.

That brings me to my intervention on the Minister about the exchange rate. When Britain was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism, many Opposition Members, together with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, were singing in their baths that they had been freed from a terrible constraint, and that that would transform the economy. That might be true in the short term, but in the long term we must create a foundation of confidence, consistency and dependability upon which people can build their plans for long-term investment.

I repeat my challenge to the Minister: devaluation since we left the ERM, from a pound-deutschmark exchange rate of 2.95 to 2.24 now, is not the basis on which to build the confidence that we have a stable economic policy, or, indeed, a stable economic situation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer postponed his meeting with the Governor—which was to have taken place today—until Friday, for reasons which I suspect we all understand. If you are going to put up interest rates, it may be best to hope that the news will be lost until the day after the local election debacle, rather than ensuring a debacle the day before. The Chancellor acted in the same way after his defeat on VAT, introducing an interest rate rise at precisely the same moment.

The problem is that these creeping interest rate rises are necessary because of the inherent weakness of the economy, and because—despite the benefit of inward investment—the rest of the domestic economy is not performing strongly enough to ensure that we can sustain current levels of growth without inflationary pressures being imported back into the economy. That is the problem, and it is a comment on the underlying failure of the Government's economic policy.

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that there was insecurity in jobs. Does he agree that one of the past weaknesses of our economy was caused by people's promotion into dead men's shoes, rather than through merit? The hon. Gentleman's proposals would return us to that old system, and make the economy weaker.

One of the most interesting features of the debates to which I have listened during my 12 years in the House is the fulmination of Conservative Ministers about the incompetence of the management of nationalised utilities, which—according to them—must therefore be privatised. They have not climbed into dead men's shoes; they have stayed in their own shoes, and increased their pay by 1,000 per cent., with no justification and no return on effort.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. People feel insecure about the property values on which they must base their businesses and the security of their ability to retain employment. The inability of people in that state of insecurity to make the purchases that are necessary to sustain a strong purchasing power in the economy contributes, along with other factors, to the underlying weakness of the economy. We have a recovery from a low base, but there is a lack of deep confidence in the long-term future of this country among companies that are based here. If we are to secure long-term indigenous investment, we must deal with that problem.

Cultural changes are required, particularly in regard to property. I was recently asked to address members of the British-German Business Association—representatives of the management of German companies in Britain, some of them British and some German. We agreed across the table on the cultural difference between Britain and Germany—a difference that crucially affected attitudes to investment. In Britain, the first priority was to invest in property, whether domestic or commercial; in Germany, the first priority was to invest in economically productive output.

We agreed that that explained the sustained success of the German economy and the institutionalised paralysis of the British economy—especially in circumstances in which property prices collapsed after a period of artificial boom, which had created an illusion of growth and success that proved unsustainable. We need to deal with such cultural changes, which must go right through our banking system as well as our business system.

I have just returned from a visit to Siemens in Congleton. The company stressed that the most notable factor in Britain during the past few years had been a massive increase in industrial capacity, accompanied by investment in that capacity by British companies. Having noted that development, the company had increased its dealings with partnership companies in this country.

I am prepared to accept that intervention in the terms in which it was offered; indeed, the Minister for Trade made the same point. There has been a ripple effect from some inward-investing companies: an example is the impact of Nissan on car component suppliers. I recognise that such developments are beneficial, but the figures for the whole of the British economy do not follow through, as it were. The further we are from dealing with pools of inward investment, the less affected we are by them. These things do not happen spontaneously and indigenously.

What factual evidence has the hon. Gentleman?

The Minister need only look at the levels of investment in the British economy across the board in recent years. They have been lower than in most other European Union member states. As commentators have pointed out for the past 12 or 18 months, investment in manufacturing in the United Kingdom has been relatively static for two or three years.

It is rising.

It is beginning to rise, and no one would deny that that is welcome. However, Ministers cannot rely on short-term fluctuations while ignoring the long-term trends. Those trends show—as do the Government's own indicators—a lack of confidence in the long-term performance of the British economy. They show a lack of confidence in the Government's ability to manage and secure growth without inflation that can justify the level of investment that we shall need if we are to maintain the genuine competitiveness that can sustain our current export success without bringing about renewed inflation or a balance-of-trade crisis—both of which have been hinted at as a reason for the Chancellor's attempt to keep the lid on developments, and a concern that the President of the Board of Trade himself has acknowledged.

I submit that the debate is taking place on grounds with which the Government feel reasonably comfortable, but when the economic picture is put together, it looks rather different. It shows that, successful and worth while though the Minister's story may be, it is not enough to justify the Government's claims that a miraculous turnround has taken place. The Minister's opening remarks about the world beating a path to our door to discuss the successes of privatisation may well be justified in his terms, but the Government have not yet considered how, after privatisation, we are to ensure that we have a genuinely competitive market.

We certainly do not have such a market in gas and electricity—although I am happy to put on the record that, as the Minister will know, Liberal Democrats not only support the current Gas Bill but have been calling for it for years. The legislation is 10 years late. I am puzzled about how Labour could make the statements that they have made over the past two or three days, having voted against it. The Government, however, are now in the process of turning out two nuclear companies in one to ensure a privatised monopoly. There are serious question marks over privatisation: has it really delivered everything that was claimed for it?

The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made a passing reference to devolution. I do not wish to dwell on that, but let me point out an anomaly. If the Government are so insistent—as they may be, given the antecedents of the Minister for Trade—that Northern Ireland must have its own Assembly or Parliament to secure its place in the Union, and Scotland must be denied the same to secure its place, that logic will not be easy to sell.

The same question arises: who will be in charge of industrial investment promotion for Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Westminster Government? If the Northern Ireland Assembly will be in charge, why should Scotland be denied the same opportunity to promote its industrial development?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind; I know that he wishes to make a speech.

Let me make two points that are relevant to my constituency. The oil industry is a major employer and source of investment in my area, and accounts for a significant amount of capital investment. That is welcome; it is established; and, contrary to popular belief, it has a substantial future for many years to come. More challenging waters and developments lie in the future, demanding the application of ideas and technology.

All I ask is that the Government remain mindful of the need to ensure the maximum amount of British involvement in that technology. When there is a decline in oil-related activity around our shores in 30 or 40 years, we will need to be sure that we have established our expertise in that technology. That will enable us to go anywhere in the world and have the foundation of an export business in hi-tech, which will be the long-term yield of Britain's offshore industry.

My second point is that we need a recognition of the importance of the whisky industry, both nationally and locally. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I realise that any mention of whisky reminds Members of the cup that cheers, but it is a serious industry, which—the Minister knows—is one of our major exporters. It is also an important source of employment in rural areas, including parts of my constituency.

There is real anxiety in the industry that changes in the tax system have widened the gap between the cost of spirits here and in Europe, and that that has weakened our export potential and threatened jobs on the ground in Scotland. I only ask the Minister for some feedback, as the Chancellor knows my view perfectly well. That view has been expressed by most Scottish Members. Failing to recognise that the home base is crucial if an industry is to be able to sustain its success is no way to treat a major export industry.

I recently visited the J and B malt whisky distillery in Keith. I was interested to hear that, following the downturn in the whisky market in the United States, Spain has now become its number one market, accounting for 24 million bottles a year. The tax changes of this year were causing real concern about whether the firm could sustain those sales in Spain against the onslaught of home-produced Spanish whisky and other spirits.

The marketing of J and B is astute, and it will probably succeed. The company has persuaded the Spanish that J and B is the only up-market spirit, although I find it odd and ironic that an enormous amount of effort goes into the subtle blend of the whisky, and a great deal of effort goes into its marketing for it to be diluted with Coca-Cola. However, if they are buying 24 million bottles, I do not care what they dilute it with.

These are serious issues, and I wholly accept that the Minister has every right to tell his story in the way he does. I agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the Minister is an energetic Minister for Trade, and that he has done a great deal to support the export drive. I am more than happy to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for that, and—whether it is this side of an election or the other side—he will be a hard act to follow.

I hope, however, that the Minister will accept that success in those areas—welcome though it is—does not constitute a total package for the long-term success of the British economy. The Government should eschew the dangers of selectively picking genuinely good news and turning to turn it into the production of an economic miracle. People will not buy that this time, because they want confidence and the removal of insecurity.

6.43 pm

I begin on a rare moment of unanimity with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who praised the Minister for Trade. My right hon. Friend, with his usual flair and dynamism, created a tour de force as he opened the debate this evening. Not only does he travel 33,000 miles high—

No, 33,000 ft high.

My right hon. Friend is not a member of the 33,000 ft high club, I am sure. He has promoted trade in some 40 countries worldwide.

It would be of great benefit to my hon. Friend to realise that, while my right hon. Friend is the Minister for Trade, I am the Minister with responsibility for space. There is a difference in the ways in which my right hon. Friend and I fly around the world.

I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend the Minister on the space shuttle shortly.

When I first came to the House three years ago, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) told me that it was easy to get labelled in this place. I fear that I have become labelled as the media man—spelled "meejah". My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade pointed out the credentials of some Opposition Members and I am pleased to put on record my background, which is not so much in the media as in selling the media, and particularly in broadcast engineering.

Before I came to the House, I helped to set up a company that designed, installed and manufactured equipment for radio stations in the European Union, the far east, east Africa, southern Africa south America, north America and the Soviet Union. My small contribution to the debate is at least based on some practical experience.

There was an interesting league table published in The Times on Friday 28 April of Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry or Presidents of the Board of Trade who have served in the DTI. It was interesting to note that the present Secretary of State has served there for the longest time. That continuity has given the Department of Trade and Industry its strength. The accompanying article in The Times was on the subject of exports, to which I shall confine my remarks today. It referred to the "years of complaining" about why the DTI could not be more like other countries' Industry Ministries, and especially Japan's MITI. I remember talking to Ministers long before I became a Member, and saying if only we could have a Department like Japan's MITI. I encountered firms such as NEC in Uganda, Kenya and Indonesia, and time and time again I found that the Japanese were far more interventionist than we were at the time. The article continued by saying that

"business now rates the DTI's export promotion activities. Mr. Heseltine's assigning of individual officials to specific countries and sectors and making them available to UK industry is judged to have worked well."

I can certainly endorse that from my own experience.

It is important for us not to belittle intervention. Although I am a great believer in the free market, one can only operate in the free market when all other countries are operating in the same environment. Some people advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1980s—we heard some more of that today from Opposition Members—but that was nonsense. It was foolish to suggest it then, as it is now, when other countries still had nuclear weapons.

It is equally foolish to say that we will not intervene to help our industry when our competitors are helping their industries. The Department of Trade and Industry is actively helping our industry. One of the points which I used to make to Industry Ministers before I was a Member of Parliament arose from my experience in the United States. Some Members may know that I studied for my doctorate at the university of Southern California. When I lived there, the governor was one of the most right-wing governors of all time.

Ronnie!

Ronnie Reagan, as the Whip points out. He later became President of the United States.

Oh, that Ronnie Reagan.

As opposed to any other. He was an interventionist, and rightly so because the republic of California—as the state of California is properly known—has one of the largest economies in the world. It certainly has the largest economy of any of the states in the United States. No one could say that Ronnie Reagan was anything less than to the right of the Republican party.

One of the laws which existed in the United States at that time—and still exists today—was chapter 11. Too many businesses in this country have gone under in the past because they have not had a chance to trade their way out of difficulty. I was pleased that in his Budget speech on 28 October 1994, the Chancellor said:

"To give management more time to reorder their affairs, we will introduce a 28-day moratorium binding upon all parties. This will give companies a breathing space to assess rescue prospects and come to an arrangement with creditors.

We are also consulting further on a mechanism to help substitute equity for debt of firms in administration or receivership. I hope that those measures will contribute further to the creation of a rescue culture, discouraging the needless and wasteful liquidation of businesses that could become sound."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1100.]

On too many occasions, I have heard from businesses in my constituency and elsewhere that banks and, dare I say it, sometimes even the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, have acted too soon in winding up companies that could otherwise trade out of difficulty. I hope that the 28-day moratorium will be extended to 28 weeks in due course, but it is a good start.

Could the decision to impose a moratorium be based partly on the experiences of Leyland DAF? Going back a little further, on 2 February 1993, the President of the Board of Trade told the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in answer to a private notice question:

"The Government stand ready to work closely with Leyland DAF, the receivers,"—

it had just gone into receivership—

"banks and other interested parties to mitigate, as far as possible, the impact on United Kingdom jobs. We hope that it will prove possible for all those involved to find a means of creating a business with a long-term, commercial future out of at least part of DAF's United Kingdom operations."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 143.]

We now know that he was successful and Leyland DAF continues to trade. That is a first-rate example of how a United Kingdom version of chapter 11 can operate successfully.

Benjamin Franklin, who is a particular hero of mine, said:

"No nation was ever ruined by trade."

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the difference between a common and a single currency. I feel uneasy about entering into a single currency, not only for the reasons that other hon. Members have mentioned but because our reserves would be required to form part of the general European monetary reserve. That would restrict our possibilities 10, 20, 30 or 40 years hence.

Although I do not believe for one moment that the United Kingdom can operate in isolation—we need partners—in 50, 60 or 70 years, after we are all dead and gone, Britain may wish to have some different partners from those in the European Union.

Interestingly, for the first time in its 220-year history, the United States has recognised that it cannot operate in isolation and that it must make trading arrangements with other countries. It is unhappy about its arrangements with Mexico and I believe that Australia feels equally unhappy about its arrangements with Japan, Vietnam and Korea. These are early days for the North American Free Trade Area, and one wonders whether in years to come there might be a realignment of trading arrangements.

If the Prime Minister's aim is successful—I hope that it is—and the general agreement on tariffs and trade reaches a complete conclusion, all those separate arrangements will become unnecessary. With total GATT, as I like to call it—well beyond the Uruguay round—we will not need any trading blocs as the bloc will be the world, and what could be better than that?

All the Australian political parties—both at federal and at state level—are anxious to strengthen trade ties with other south-east Asian nations.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Australian Government are right to strengthen those ties, just as we are right to try to strengthen our trading ties within the European Union.

I welcome certain aspects of the Maastricht treaty, such as the creation of the single market compliance unit, which endeavours to ensure, for example, that, just as we do not subsidise our airlines, the French Government do not subsidise Air France.

We should never close the door on opportunities, however. In 30, 40, 50 or 100 years' time, who knows what alignments there may be? A single currency would prevent us from ever considering other alignments if it meant, as I think it would, that we had to give up our foreign exchange reserves. That is why I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood on a common currency, which the Prime Minister suggested and which would be a much more flexible operation. I suspect that, in any event, the common currency would be the deutschmark.

In the past 12 to 14 years, things have moved on. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough rightly criticised the Government because, as an Opposition spokesman, his duty is to oppose. I am old enough to remember the 1970s, Madam Speaker, although I am sure that you will say that that is impossible, and expressions such as the "brain drain"—arising from high taxation when some of our most talented people went to the United States and did not return—are no longer in parlance. I went for two years to study in California, but I came back, despite the fact that taxation was extraordinarily high in Britain, with a top rate of 98p in the pound. The point is that the climate in the United Kingdom has been transformed and I would not like to see such high taxes again.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned Aneurin Bevan—

Ernest Bevin.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me.

There is a difference.

Absolutely, and a different spelling too. Ernest Bevin introduced the trade union system to Germany and, as I said in an earlier intervention, it was based on a different system to that existing in the United Kingdom. Many trade unions were competing for the same jobs within the same industry—competition that resulted in demarcation which cost us so many other jobs.

Last year, only 278,000 days were lost through strikes in the United Kingdom. Frankly, it does no harm to remind the House that, in 1979, 29 million days were lost through strikes. Clearly, our industrial relations system has transformed the environment. That is one reason why countries are choosing to invest here rather than in other EC countries; the social chapter is another.

To a large degree, trade unions pay the Labour party for its operations. He who pays the piper plays the tune and I wonder what will happen to trade union legislation in the unlikely event that a Labour Government were ever elected.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason—in addition to the peace dividend—why Northern Ireland is so successful in attracting inward investment is that we have been able to show that we have the least number of days lost through strike action of any region of the United Kingdom?

It was my great pleasure to work for a short while in the early 1970s for the BBC in Northern Ireland and I am well aware that 98 per cent. of the population there want to work and, more importantly, want peace. I found it upsetting when I visited a factory in Newtownards that had been blown up by the IRA. People were deeply moved because the English company that had invested in Newtownards was doubtful whether it would rebuild the factory. I am pleased to say that, in the event, it did.

May I make the following recommendations to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench? First, the 28-day moratorium should be extended in due course and a chapter 11 version should exist within United Kingdom legislation so that more companies are allowed to trade out of difficulties.

Secondly, from my experience of operating in developing countries, I believe that the British Council should fund more grants for educational study in the United Kingdom. It is a false economy to deprive some foreign people of the opportunity of studying in the United Kingdom because people who have been educated in the UK often decide to invest here or specify British capital projects at a later date when they are in a position of responsibility.

Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be aware that we need greater diplomatic representation in some areas, particularly the former member states of the Soviet Union. That would help our international trade, although I note that British Petroleum and other companies have been singularly successful in republics such as Azerbaijan, so we are already well away down that road.

rose—

I give way to my hon. Friend.

I was simply interested in listening to the end of my hon. Friend's speech.

I thought that my hon. Friend wished to intervene. If he is anxious to speak, I shall give way to him as a politeness to the House.

Order. Hon. Members are anxious to speak, which is why they are sitting on the edge of the Benches, ready to take over as soon as the hon. Gentleman has finished.

In that case, Madam Speaker, I take your advice and finish my speech.

7.1 pm

My speech will seem terribly dull, following that of a world traveller, confidante of Benjamin Franklin, best friend of Ronnie Reagan and misquoter of Aneurin Bevan—or was it Ernest Bevin? I cannot possibly follow that kind of contribution.

When hon. Members read the title of the debate, "Exports, industry and inward investment", I ask them to take on board my subtitle of "Work, wealth creation and well-being". It is an alliteration, but an important one in the context of what we have to say.

Everyone has been spraying around statistics of one kind or another. We shall not agree on the majority of them and will have different versions from the same papers, or different figures that have no meaning or relationship. I wish to put into the debate one or two statistics that I have gleaned. I hope that they are not seen as untruths, for they are certainly not. They have all been taken from papers that are freely available to hon. Members. In 1993, there was £9 billion of inward investment into this country. That was excellent. Unfortunately, that sum is dwarfed by more than £18 billion of outward investment. The issue, therefore, is not necessarily how far the Government have encouraged inward investment but how we can tackle the investment gap and reverse the position that we have been in for so many years.

The hon. Gentleman said that there had been £18 billion of outward investment. Does he say that that is dead money that is lost to the economy? Money invested abroad produces profits that can be and are brought back to this country to be reinvested in British jobs and the British economy.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall deal with it in due course as I develop my theme.

I preface my remarks by saying that the current inward investment does not compensate for the financial structures that have led Britain to have a far lower level of investment than our competitors. Just to reach the levels of our German and Japanese economic rivals, we would have to increase our investment by £42 billion per annum.

Earlier, I asked the Minister to give the disaggregated figures for the total inward investment between fixed investment—purchasing goods for production, buildings and so on—and what is, in the first instance, the simple acquisition of shares in companies or parts of companies in this country. My figure is a little out of date: in 1992, 70 per cent. of the inward investment, which has formed the basis of the Government's vindication of their policies, was in the form of acquisitions of existing companies. We may argue about the details of what that means and how it might further develop activity within the British economy but, starkly put and understood for what it is worth—statistics do not always guide us correctly—that is an important point. For instance, BMW's acquisition of Rover was purely an acquisition and so far has led no further. As a west midlands member, I hope that it will lead to considerable development in the Rover company.

It is already.

Well, we shall see. It must come to fruition and time must be given for that. At first, it was thought that BMW simply wanted to acquire more outlets, and it was certainly envious of Rover's four-wheel drive vehicle. We shall have to see how all that develops.

On inward investment and the social chapter, the Japanese External Trade Organisation said about investment in Britain that membership of the European Union is a greater encouragement to inward investment than low wages, and hear, hear to that. It must be so. I take no comfort in seeing Japanese industry in this country overtaking ours, but the majority of Japanese companies pay considerably above what any of us would regard as an acceptable minimum wage and the conditions and quality of employment are often extremely high. It gives a lie to the idea that this country can prosper only with a low-wage economy.

Wynne Godley has written for The Guardian, which might disqualify him in the Minister's eyes. The Government chose him as one of the six wise men—[Interruption.] Yes, the Minister avoided him. Godley said that investment in the UK as a proportion of GDP had fallen to an all-time low.

I shall mention machine tools because we have discussed capacity. I give three cheers—or even four—to the news that exports are growing, and there are now signs that we cannot produce the volume of goods necessary to meet that export demand. That is almost entirely due to the wipeout of British manufacturing, especially the machine tool industry in the west midlands, during the Thatcher years when the need for a thriving, dynamic manufacturing sector was dismissed out of hand. The west midlands felt that like a gale. A third of manufacturing capacity there was lost, along with an even greater fraction of jobs in those industries. As a result, there was a severe loss of our ability to produce the tools to produce goods for export.

I mentioned my subtitle of "Work, wealth creation and well-being". With regard to work, I am talking essentially of employment. Whatever the statistics are, to the eyes of those who want to see, it is evident that unemployment is endemic in many of our inner cities. The figures that I have seen suggest that of the male population of working age, some 30 per cent. are either unemployed, in some way incapacitated, off sick or permanently disabled. In my constituency, at least two of the wards have young male unemployment well in excess of 30 per cent. The chance of young Afro-Caribbeans getting jobs on a basis comparable to that of young white males is slim.

The Government have created a culture in which the idea of personal welfare comes through a girocheque falling on the mat through the front door. Young people seem to have missed entirely the period in their lives when they begin to understand the link between work, wealth creation and well-being. They have now reached the point where they go down to the post office with a little piece of paper which pays a certain amount of money and which, sadly, in many cases, is then supplemented by means which are outside the law.

Having been in Northern Ireland for seven years, where the figures are even more horrific, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. That is exactly my point about the national minimum wage. It is exactly those sorts of people whom a national minimum wage would exclude and preclude from obtaining work. The hon. Gentleman wants to help them. Better to help them through the tax system than to do it that way.

Yes, but the Minister misses the point. People in work can certainly be helped through the tax system, but these people are not in work. Many of them, aged 25, 26 and 27, have never had what we would call a proper job. They do not have that experience. They have not been allowed to grow and mature so that they can then make a contribution to the British economy. They do not understand the link that has to be forged between work, wealth creation and well-being. They simply have no concept of it. Because of the way in which the Government have dismissed value-added production, young people have been dispossessed of their dignity and virtually of their citizenship. That is the tragedy of the years of Thatcherism.

There is an anomaly in what Conservative Members say about social security and the minimum wage. It is perfectly coherent to argue that, because the quality of employment in some aspects in some places at some times is so poor, so hard pressed, in such a competitive market, for such low quality, low added-value goods that a proper wage cannot be paid, support is required through the social security system, but we cannot at the same time then say that the social security bill is too high. We can subsidise employers and look happy about it, but we cannot then grumble about the level of social security payments.

I mentioned the level of unemployment in my constituency, and in the nation as a whole male unemployment is exceptionally high, but we must also consider the quality of work available these days. Often, it is part time. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that one can get two or three part-time jobs and pay sufficient on the stamp to enable one to obtain the benefits to which one is entitled when genuinely unemployed. Often, that part-time employment carries with it no social value whatever in terms of a contribution from the employee or the employer.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the great number of people who take part-time jobs then find that they lead to full-time work?

If the hon. Lady has the evidence for that, I shall be pleased to see it. I have not seen concrete evidence for that statement, although I have heard it made before. Often, part-time work simply leads to more part-time work. The part-time training courses on offer often lead nowhere at all, let alone to full-time work.

The hon. Gentleman somewhat misunderstands the purpose of part-time work. For many women in particular it is a great relief to be able to find part-time work because it fits in with their family commitments.

I do not misunderstand the nature of part-time work for women. The council estate on which I was born was surrounded by a number of factories, among which were Ever Ready, Guy Motors, Henry Meadows, ABC Coupler, Jaguar—all, especially Ever Ready, provided part-time work on the twilight shift. Such work often supplemented the wages of unskilled workers from my council estate in a working class area. I cannot possibly undervalue that work. It was vital to the household income. It paid for the holiday and ensured that there were clothes on the kids' backs and food on the table. Generally speaking, the children of such families developed into good citizens when they grew up.

The part-time work that women are now doing is often the only income for the family. That is the result of a massive loss of employment opportunities. Such jobs cannot possibly be fully replaced by part-time work. We need full-time work with proper wages and conditions so that families can grow and prosper in a way that all hon. Members would wish, particularly the hon. Lady. I know of the hon. Lady's concern for family values. I read of them, I understand them, I believe that the hon. Lady is right and I, too, want them to be developed; but that has to be done on the basis of economic security. Families must feel secure in their employment.

People have been encouraged by the Government—I do not deny it—to buy their own homes, putting them on the first rung of the ladder. I am pleased if people own their own homes, much more pleased than if a landlord owns them any day of the week. However, when such people then find that their jobs are insecure and they cannot see their way through the next few weeks before another part-time job comes up, tension and worry are created within the family, which again prevents them from developing in the way that we would like.

The country does not just need the social chapter, it is crying out for it and that is particularly justified by the economic well-being of the British people and the way in which we would all want people to have a properly developed family life. The social chapter is vital to the future of Britain because it underpins the value of work.

The Conservatives argue for low wages while paying the family income supplement. However, they do not want a big social security bill. We say that it is right and proper that people should have the dignity of a wage for which they work so that on a Friday night they come home with enough money to see them through the week. That is the proper way in which to run our affairs; it is not rewarding people through social security with a giro dropping on the doormat as the only contact with economic life.

Is the hon. Gentleman a member of the Labour party school of thought that says that Governments can create jobs? I think hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree with his sentiments, but he has not said how that can be done.

A difference exists between the Labour party and the Conservative party, or at least the Thatcher Conservative party—as an election draws near, I am not sure what the new Conservative party is doing. You are becoming interventionist—[Interruption.] I get this wrong every time. The Conservative party is becoming interventionist, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It understands the value of Government playing a part in the development of the economy.

The Government create jobs in two ways. First, where it is necessary, they create employment programmes involving useful work, which is paid for by the taxpayer, and from which the taxpayer receives a return, in so far as people are employed, start to buy goods in shops, pay VAT and other taxes and, generally, make a contribution that offsets the total cost to the state of employing them in that way. More important, by intervening in a measured and proper way in the marketplace, the state creates the environment in which companies can prosper and jobs can be delivered. That is my strongly held view. It seems to be part of the philosophy of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I encourage him to continue on that line of thought, as it will inevitably produce jobs that the country needs, for all the people who want them.

To help create wealth, one must have a job, and I hope that I have set out a programme for that. Ultimately, however, wealth creation is a means of achieving the well-being and welfare that we all need in one form or another. Profitable manufacturing companies are returning to the west midlands region and north-west. Indeed, many manufacturing companies are doing much better than they were five or six years ago. At last, some value is being placed on the ability of manufacturers to contribute massively to the economy.

We find, however, that companies are unable to retain their profits for further investment. Frankly, the reason is that shareholders are greedy. They were determined to take more than they should from the company. Consequently, managers are under great pressure to ensure that a dividend is achieved that meets market requirements and demand, because otherwise they face the axe. Managers, whom we value highly, make profits, but instead of being able to use the biggest fraction of profits and retained earnings for further investment, development and job creation, companies are robbed of their inheritance as shareholders demand bigger and bigger pay-outs from their holdings. That must change.

In this country, investment is the epitome of short-termism. It simply means that retained earnings—the best means by which to invest—are progressively taken out of the hands of managers and put into the pockets of financiers. It is not good for Britain or British manufacturing industry. We must get to grips with that problem.

I mention almost in passing that pension funds are revalued on a far more regular basis than is necessary. Often, their fund managers give a monthly or quarterly figure on returns. A sensibly managed pension fund is one that provides long-term returns that equal the pay-outs required by pensioners. That is the way to run pension funds. They have become nothing more than a means of share-dealing, with chopping and changing. It would be reasonable to reconsider stamp duty or a tax on investment churning, which I talked about earlier.

We all know that it does not help British industry if it is in the grip of—in thrall to, as it were—people who have no more interest in manufacturing industry than they can fly in the air. Their interest is in making a fat profit as quickly as they can, whether or not it exists in reality, and turning it over to their shareholders. It must stop.

The country would improve its economic performance by adopting some of the methods that have been employed for many years in Germany, France and our other competitor countries. Their companies have long-term aims and capital holdings. In that way, they are able to plan their production.

It is often said that business people want a settled environment. I am sure that that is true. Planning is always better and of a higher quality when some sureness exists about what is likely to happen next month, next year and the year after. In this country, the way in which the capital markets are played with creates the greatest instability that they face. Measures must be taken to deal with that problem.

When wealth is created, not only do we suffer from a lack of retained profits to invest in the business, but we find that the company's wealth is distributed unequally. The work of scientific-technical people in particular is of great value, as is the intellectual capital that they bring to bear on these processes. We should consider how they are rewarded compared with, for example, lawyers, accountants and owners of capital. There is no comparison.

We have a culture that believes that, somehow or other, the intellectual capital and the skills employed by workers are of less value and importance than that of the wheelers and dealers on the exchanges and futures market, and the people who are into derivatives of all sorts. We seem to think that it is more important to reward them than the people who create the work that we all so badly need. That belief has been a feature of British industrial and commercial life for as long as anyone can remember. It grew to almost its worst during the 1980s.

I hope that we will start to get that matter under control. We must encourage the best people and brains to enter engineering, manufacturing and science-based industries. We must reward them. Some people say that Cedric Brown is worth £500,000, but I know of some scientists and engineers who dwarf his contribution and who struggle along with nothing like such a salary. Many do not earn £20,000. We do not want to create that sort of society. It must be recognised that the main contributors to that wealth should be the main beneficiaries. To get us back on the track to prosperity, we must create that culture.

The purpose of work and wealth creation is to improve our well-being, but what have the past 15 years brought us? It is sad to consider that question. If we have created the wealth, we should have a thriving, healthy, prosperous and well-educated population. What is the truth of the matter? Everywhere, poor people are more ill than those with greater incomes. That is wrong. I take a moral stance about it. In a civilised, well-developed country, everyone is entitled to the best available health care and to the best health. There is no reason why people in a country such as ours should die from curable diseases. We find massive inequality there.

After 16 years of Conservative rule, we hear of teachers being chucked out of the teaching force. We cannot afford not to educate our young people. The Conservatives want to have a great argument about where the money is in education. It is true that some education authorities have not properly played the game, but, by and large, the money under the formula has gone to schools. That is the truth. There is simply not enough money. We must spend more on education. We cannot afford to skimp in that sector. There has been a housing slump of the most serious proportions.

Order. With my usual tolerance, I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would get back to the subject of the debate, but he is going very wide of it.

I always accept your decisions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but without good health it is difficult to hold down a good job, and without being properly educated one almost certainly will not get a job at all. Unless people have a roof over their heads, their health will deteriorate and they will not be able to go to work anyway.

We now have the worst housing crisis that people can remember. In my constituency, waiting lists for council houses are the longest for 25 years. I treat all those matters as relevant to what we ought to be able to see, feel and touch as a result of the wealth-creating activities of our companies. Nevertheless I shall move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because clearly you are not comfortable when I raise such subjects. Personally, I consider that they are of the utmost importance.

What is the prescription for exports? I shall join in the praise of the Minister for Trade. Everywhere I go, industrialists and factory owners say, "He is a good chap, that Needham. He is energetic and he knows what it is all about. He is having a go, and it is a good performance." I simply qualify that praise by saying that the Minister did not have much of an act to follow. By the way, we shall not keep him on after the general election; we shall have someone else. However, there is no doubt that we can see the difference between a Government who are committed to our industrial export effort and a Government who are not—and the Minister is a wonderful improvement on what we saw before.

However, let us examine the real position. We have had to run to stay still. World trade has expanded by more than 8 per cent., yet the expansion in British exports has also been just above 8 per cent.; we have merely managed to hold our own. More effort is required. The French, for instance, are bringing people from all over the world to their country to see what they have to offer. Perhaps we should think about copying that.

We must keep the role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department under review. In many cases it does a good job, but we must be prepared to take more risks in countries where trade is beginning to open up. The Minister may know that I have recently returned from Latin America, where we did a little arithmetic on the ECGD and found that it was less adventurous than may be called for at this stage.

Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the ECGD is now more competitive than, or at least as competitive as, the German system, HERMES?

The ECGD is very patchy; it is a curate's egg. There are indeed some areas of the world where the risk seems small and where there is a little hot spot where it does very well. However, I shall not praise the ECGD in that respect because the word coming back to me from people who use it is that it is patchy. I do not concede the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire.

I commend to the House the development of the small firms sector. Several steps need taking, and I join the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire in calling for a section 11-type moratorium law. I want the Government to be quicker about settling their debts and to give better encouragement for the recovery of debt. Indeed, I should like prompt payment to become part of our culture.

The story that the Minister for Trade has had to tell is a good one, but only by comparison with what happened before. Thatcherism has hurt Britain badly and it will take years to recover our industrial strength. The social furniture is in disrepair and, unfortunately, we have a giro culture. The prescription is: let us work harder and give more encouragement and incentives to our industries. Above all, we must get money into manufacturing industry.

7.33 pm

The last time that I crossed swords, if that is the right expression, with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) we were debating fox hunting. I did not learn much from him then, but I have learnt a lot more from him today, because he has spoken with personal knowledge of his constituency and his west midlands region.

I was interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman had recently been to south America. I hope that he enjoyed himself, and that he learnt on that visit that Brazil is now our biggest export market in the region. We have record exports to that country; they exceeded £0.5 billion for the first time last year. In the first two months of this year, we have already exported £105.2 million worth of goods to Brazil, and increasing Brazilian exports to the United Kingdom created two-way trade worth £1.5 billion in 1994. There are huge opportunities in Latin America, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman played his part in boosting British exports to the region when he was there.

Like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was most generous to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, commending him for - all his hard work and for the worldwide travel in which he engages on behalf of our country. I was going to join in that praise, but the point of what I intended to say was somewhat punctured when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said that he had been there first, been there earlier and been there twice before. None the less, there is no question about the fact that my right hon. Friend is accepted in all corners of the House, and both abroad and in the United Kingdom, as a hard-working Minister. I am delighted to place on record the fact that he is doing such a excellent job.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) seemed for a moment to be suffering from what I might call analysis paralysis. He looked down the kaleidoscope and saw all sorts of interesting segments and colours, but he was not quite sure what the pattern was. He was asked one or two questions so that hon. Members could find out whether there was a thread to his argument, but if there was he did not seem to have hold of it. However, perhaps his hon. Friends will assist him during the debate so that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and replies for the Opposition we shall learn more about the Labour party's economic policy and the work that it wishes to be done on exports, industry and inward investment. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman.

The message from the Opposition is deeply depressing, not only because it is wrong but because they think that it is in the interests of the British people that they should give out that message. The truth is that British businesses are winning in the global market. I use that expression advisedly, because—to add my name to those of the many other Thomas Cook beneficiaries who have spoken—I too have been around the world a bit over the past year or so, and in Korea last October I attended a conference arranged by the Institute of Global Economics. In Korea and in the far east generally, the expression "the global market" is on everybody's lips, and it is right that we should consider our performance as exporters and as attractors of inward investment in the global context.

As I said, the United Kingdom is winning. Output has been rising for three years and is now at record levels—up nearly 10 per cent. since the beginning of 1992. Last year it grew faster in the United Kingdom than in Japan and in the rest of the European Union. In the first quarter of this year output rose by nearly 1 per cent. and was 4 per cent. higher than the figure for a year ago.

I speak as the representative of a constituency that is, among other things, a manufacturing area, and manufacturers are leading the recovery. Not only is output up by more than 4 per cent., but productivity has increased and investment was up by 8 per cent. in the last quarter alone. Jobs are being created at the fastest rate for 17 years. The result has been success in world markets. Underlying exports have increased by more than 12 per cent.

Last year the current account was broadly balanced, showing a £2 billion surplus in the second half of the year. The latest figures show that non-EC exports for March stood at a record £3.5 billion, leading to a better than expected improvement in our visible deficit. According to the Confederation of British Industry that export boom is not a flash in the pan but is set to continue. Export orders are growing at their fastest rate ever, and optimism is at its most buoyant since 1973.

I can confirm those facts from my own constituency, where textile companies and light engineers report that their order books, and even their long-term order books, are filling up. They are taking on new people to work.

The figures produced by Leicestershire county council in its unemployment bulletin for March 1995 show that the unemployment in my constituency—which is not only a rural idyll but stretches up to the borders of the city of Leicester and is partly industrialised—has fallen by 633 since May 1992. It has fallen by 33 in the past month and, as I recall, by more than 25 per cent.—I think the figure is 28 per cent.—in the past decade. Those figures are from the east midlands, an industrial area which is fairly similar to the constituency of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East.

The area has been written off by the Labour party spin doctors and the Opposition doom merchants, but work is continuing. Business men are investing abroad thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. They are not prepared to be waylaid by the appalling and desperately depressing stories that the Opposition would have us believe. Business men are working, investing and making the country a success. They are proud of doing so and want to take people out of the unemployment figures and back into the workplace, which is precisely what they are doing.

I shall not bore hon. Members with statistics from various accountants. I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is already bored with the document that he is reading and desperately trying to understand. Every trend that one cares to look at is improving, week in, week out, in the east midlands—and in my county in particular. The people who work in that region are not prepared to be sidelined by the doom-laden stories that we hear from the Opposition.

There are two ways to approach the success that I have described. First, we can reflect on the achievement. The world of 1979 would be unimaginable in Britain today. Taxes were too high on individuals and companies. Large sections of the economy were run by inefficient, overmanned, state-owned monopolies. The trade unions had more say in running companies than management. Despite the kind words that were heard at whatever conference it was last week, the public can be in no doubt that, in the hideous event of a Labour party victory after the next general election, the unions would be back in Downing street, demanding beer and sandwiches, saying what was going on and saying that they were in charge.

It is all very well for the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who spent 15 years or so in the happy environment of Geneva, and who has returned, possibly out of touch with this country, perhaps he cannot even remember the last Labour Government, but I can. Although I may look a lot older than my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, I remember only too well the appalling state of this country in 1979—all as a result of the Labour party and the trade union barons who fund it.

When the Government first took office, major structural reform was needed. We knew that then and everyone, even, apparently, new Labour—at least, for public consumption—has now come round to our view. For 15 years we have worked to free up the market so that entrepreneurs—business men and women in my constituency, in my region and that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, as well as those in Scotland and the north-cast—can succeed.

We have cut taxes and restored incentives for personal endeavour. We have slashed the cripplingly high top marginal rate from 98 per cent. to 40 per cent. and the main rate of corporation tax by one third. We have privatised the state-owned industries. In 1979, the nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million a week—how many hospitals can be built for that? Privatised industries are now returning the same amount to the Exchequer every week in taxes on the profits that they make. We have reformed the labour market so that managers have the ability to manage. They are no longer defensive and no longer have to look over their shoulders to see what the bully boys in the trade unions are up to.

Manufacturing productivity has grown. faster in the United Kingdom over the past decade than in any other G7 country. That is good news, which the public need and want to know, and which the Government have produced. In the previous two decades, the United Kingdom had been the slowest in manufacturing terms.

The Government have liberalised our markets, brought choice, lower prices and massive injections of investment—£30 billion in the telecommunications industry alone, following privatisation in 1984. The result has been a transformation in our industrial performance—a transformation that we are seeing today in every forecast and every analysis of the figures.

Who would have dreamt in 1979, with car production in this country on its knees, that the Japanese would be building cars here to export back to Japan? Since 1979, the number of cars produced here for export has risen by nearly 60 per cent. Who would have dreamt in 1979, when we were net importers of televisions, that we would reverse the flow of that trade and would be exporting more television sets than France and Germany? Who would have dreamt in 1979, when our labour relations record made us the laughing stock of Europe, that it would now be the envy of most of our competitors? In 1979 we lost 29 million working days to strikes; last year we did not lose 1 per cent. of that figure.

Of course, there have been setbacks. Many people have suffered personal hardship, as I am sure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East will know. Many companies have faced difficulties and some sectors are still affected by the sometimes harsh consequences of the last recession. I know that from my own textilers, who are worried about the low wage economies in the far east, but all of them are prepared to fight for their country, to fight for their jobs and to fight for their companies. They are not prepared to give up heart. Why on earth should they? Everything is ready to improve further the economy not only of my east midlands region but that of the country as a whole.

In the next two years, the export-driven economic improvement will translate itself on to the domestic economy so that those who work in this country's industries but who do not export—those who are in the retail trade—will feel the benefits and realise that the recession is long over. I hope that when the hon. Member for Middlesbrough replies he will change his tune and start singing a happier song. There is so much good news out there—he only has to come out into the country to find it. It is there for the taking.

I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, who I welcome to his duties, will give a good account, not only of himself but of the Government, who have been working so hard to assist this country's economy.

7.46 pm

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but he represented, in essence, the two-nation country in which we live. For him, everything was coming up roses and everything was as good as it could be in the best of all possible worlds. He made passing reference to the moving description by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). Were the hon. and learned Gentleman to come with me to my constituency he would find a different Britain. It is the tragedy of this Government that they have divided the nation down the middle. It is the Labour party's task to reunite it. Inward investment, exports and investments will play a crucial part in that task.

I pay tribute to the sun-tanned, air-miled right hon. Member, the Minister for Trade. I am sorry to say that I understand that his air miles do not belong to him, but are to flow into the pocket of the Revenue. No doubt they will flow out again to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) or whoever—perhaps as another interesting set of papers to sell to the nation.

The Minister called for partnership, supported planning and described the rigour and extent of Government intervention. For a moment I thought that I was listening to the only socialist Minister in the Government. The very success that he has achieved, like the proposals made by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), are based on suggestions that have been made by the Labour party in Opposition. We want Government intervention. We want the Government to fight for industry. We want embassies to help to export for Britain. We are interested in the chapter 11 ideas. I passionately support an increase in education so that more foreigners know about Britain and, equally importantly, more British people can speak foreign languages and know how to sell in other countries.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that intervention is effective only when one intervenes in successful industries to make them world beaters? Does he accept that when the National Economic Development Council existed and there was a Labour Government, the Labour Government intervened on lame duck industries at the greater expense of those industries that could have been successful?

In an earlier intervention, the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), said that one quarter of all our manufacturing exports was represented by Airbus—a consortium led by the state-owned French Aerospatiale company, which is backed very much by Government intervention. He reproached the last but one Labour Government for not having put Britain's state money into a full share of the successful airbus project.

The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. He is exaggerating the extent, impressive as it is, of the exports attributable to British Aerospace Airbus. He is distorting what I said about the Labour Government. The investment which has been made by the British Government over the years, particularly in the A320, has proved to be a good investment. It is a good example of backing success in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned just now. Crucially, the Labour Government also nationalised British Aerospace. That in itself was extremely damaging for a long period. I am glad that we denationalised British Aerospace. Nationalisation is the sort of intervention that we should not have now.

The right hon. Member for Northavon cannot have it both ways. Either he wants Government intervention and praises the lead role taken by the French nationalised aircraft company, Aerospatiale, or he does not. If he reads his speech in Hansard, he will see that he criticised the 1966–70 Labour Government for not intervening as much as he wanted them to. I am simply stressing the point that Government intervention is fundamental in industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East pointed out that for every pound coming into this country in inward investment, £2 leaves the country. Yes, that can sometimes represent rents coming back into the United Kingdom, but at the same time it represents a huge loss of potential jobs. If that money were invested in the United Kingdom, it would create jobs. I was privileged to attend a dinner of unit trust and investment trust representatives last night. The key speaker made exactly the points that my hon. Friend made. They are looking to find ways of repatriating capital so that capital stays in this country.

If we examine the Government's claims that inward investment is the result of recent Government policies, we find that the biggest surge of inward investment from Japan was between 1987, when it was £856 million, and 1990, when it surged to £2.1 billion. That was the period when Britain was in the exchange rate mechanism and was strongly committed to Europe. By 1992, as the clouds gathered over our commitment to Europe and we left the ERM, there was a disinvestment by Japanese investors. Those figures come from the report produced by the Library last October. Overall, Japanese investment in the United Kingdom is less than £5 billion, compared with £5.5 billion from Germany, £8.5 billion from France and £16.5 billion from the Netherlands.

I noticed a lot of cheap cracks about Europe in the Minister's speech. The growing hostility that one can feel seething from the Conservative Benches to engagement in Europe should give those who argue for inward investment pause for thought. The largest bulk of inward investment into Britain comes from Europe. Asianisation—to use the term that the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, often uses in speeches today—may be a supplement, but our main future for both inward investment and exports lies in Europe.

To be part of that Europe, we have to look at our opt-out status. The President of the Board of Trade made a speech on the matter at the Institute of Directors last week. He said that the actual performance of so many British manufacturing companies in so many sectors was seriously lacking. He said:

"It is the averages that count and the UK has a long tail of under-achievers. You know it, I know it."

Why cannot the Government admit it tonight? As the President of the Board of Trade said, Britain's share of many of its top 80 international markets has been taken over, not by low-cost, Asian exporters, but by high-cost, well-paid European, North American and Japanese companies, which compete even with their higher labour or currency costs on higher quality products.

So, as the President of the Board of Trade said, the challenge is

"producing top-quality products that people want to buy".

That was not a speech from a Labour spokesman. It was a speech by the President of the Board of Trade. That message is reflected across the board by every serious examination of our competitive ability these days.

The Confederation of British Industry is concerned that we are reaching capacity constraints. According to the latest CBI survey, our capacity constraint in April this year was similar to that in October 1988, at the height of the Lawson boom. I saw that on a recent visit to Europe's best engineering steel plant, UES Steels in Rotherham. The company is having to take on extra shifts because it cannot produce enough to meet the demands of its customers. That is good news, except in that so little has been invested that steel is now being imported into the United Kingdom because we have insufficient capacity to produce.

The debate is partly about investment. The complaints about under-investment come from every sector. A report just produced by CCN Business Information says:

"There is still no sign that industry is prepared to invest in new plant and equipment. On the contrary, the evidence points to a greater priority on restoring dividends."

That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East.

Richard Freeman, the chief economist at ICI, has said:

"I have no doubt that investment is lagging behind—people are hanging back because they feel uncertain."

In 1960 the gear industry in Britain was twice the size of the German gear industry and there was no real industrial gear production in Italy. Now the United Kingdom industry trails both Italy and Germany in the export market. Mr. Michael Opperman, one of the leaders of the gear industry and a Birmingham gear producer has said that shareholders need to take a long-term view, particularly when it comes to investment.

The investment crisis is a constant problem that faces everyone concerned about manufacturing. Total investment—again, according to the House of Commons Library research papers—is down by 11 per cent. since 1990. That is the Prime Minister's legacy. He has presided over disinvestment in Britain. Money for Cedric Brown, no money for investment. I feel that strongly, as I represent the constituency of Rotherham. The success that Conservative Members have talked about is not visible in my constituency.

We have heard talk about the minimum wage. That is for a separate debate. I have here a wage slip handed to me recently. It shows pay of £1.80 an hour and take-home pay of £99 for a 50-year-old man with a family. That is not a living wage. The top-up from the Department of Social Security is a subsidy from the taxpayer to low-wage, exploitative employers. That is not acceptable. There is a fundamental dividing line between Conservative Members, who offer charity, and Opposition Members, who call for justice in the labour market.

And unemployment.

The hon. Gentleman refers to unemployment. It is interesting that countries such as the United States, which have a clear minimum wage that has increased in recent years—indeed, Mr. Gingrich, the speaker of the Congress, voted for the last increase in the minimum wage in 1990—have a much better record of employment creation than the United Kingdom.

I deal now with exports, with particular reference to Rotherham. Despite the privatisation of British Steel, and despite the Government's claim that we have made a success of exports, the latest figures reveal that this country exports only 2.8 million tonnes of steel. Canada, Poland and even the former Czechoslovakia export more than us. One of the reasons is that we consume far less steel than other countries.

Per capita steel consumption in the United Kingdom is dramatically low. The figures that I am about to cite are kilograms per capita, the standard international measure for steel consumption. United Kingdom per capita consumption is 232 kg. That compares with 477 kg in Germany, 446 kg in Italy, 532 kg in Korea, 319 kg in Taiwan and 384 kg in America. I hope that the House will forgive me for detailing these tedious steel statistics but, converted into plain English, they show that other countries have public-private partnership programmes of investment, whether in new roads, hospitals, the car industry or shipbuilding, and we do not. Until we are ready to take the brakes off investment, our manufacturing capacity will suffer.

We need more than a Minister selling the United Kingdom overseas; we need a policy of demand based on continuing investment, especially outside the Conservative heartland of the M25 region. We need regional investment banks, and we need to encourage our schools to teach languages as opposed to cutting funding for schools.

The Labour party has learnt a great deal. From the disaster of the two-nation Britain it has learnt that new policies based on investment, increased exports and the revitalisation of all parts of our economy are needed. Only Labour can deliver the package to put such policies into effect.

8.1 pm

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on his excellent work in batting for Britain's interests overseas and attracting investment into this country. I am not a bit surprised at the success that he has achieved, because I saw how much he managed to do in changing the face of Belfast while he was a Minister at the Northern Ireland office. Any man who can turn Belfast around can certainly do a tremendous amount elsewhere.

Our track record on inward investment is a great success story. We should be proud that we have a magnetic appeal to overseas investors which is without parallel in Europe. Our trademark is a record of excellence. Many statistics have been mentioned this evening, but I shall state simply that the United Kingdom's stock of inward investment rose from £52 billion in 1986 to £131 billion in 1993.

That was no happy accident; we happened to have the right industrial and economic climate, which attracted thousands of companies from all over the world. The truth is that we worked hard and with great determination to build a nation on Conservative policies which are proven and which have created the right atmosphere for inward investment.

Overseas companies come here because the Government are committed to creating a commercial environment in which business can flourish and grow. We have the lowest strike record in Europe and the lowest main rates of corporation tax in the European Union, and, indeed, among the Group of Seven countries. Our personal tax rates are low, thereby allowing people to work hard and progress. We have low inflation and low rates, and no foreign exchange controls. Could the Opposition ever promise never to meddle and interfere with these valuable elements which guarantee our economic success?

Our labour costs are highly competitive, and we impose no punitive burdens, such as the social chapter. We are the envy of the Germans, who sent hundreds of companies here to escape such crippling sanctions. We need only look to Spain and France, where crippling social burdens have created very high unemployment, especially among the young. It is no wonder that Jacques Delors remarked that the social chapter opt-out makes Britain a "paradise" for foreign investment.

Last June, a Gallup survey revealed that eight out of 10 of Britain's top companies supported opting out of the social chapter. The same proportion believed that Labour's commitment to the social chapter would damage Britain's business.

In short, we work hard to welcome overseas investment. The core of our attitude is that we welcome overseas companies; we do not see them as foreign companies, but, once they happen to be here, as British companies with foreign owners. We are not suspicious of them, unlike the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who seems to have a deep mistrust of overseas companies, as if there was something wrong with their making a profit in this country.

That is not true. I am simply proud of successful British companies and like to see them promoted more than foreign companies. I hope that the hon. Lady shares that sentiment.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when British companies benefit from foreign investment, we are all better off? His attitude to BMW's massive investment in Rover was a case in point. He fails to understand that such investment means jobs, which in turn mean livelihoods rather than the dole queue. He gives the impression of being a dog in the manger.

We must take great pride in our success with trade union relations. We are proud of the fact that we have a low strike record, thanks to our trade union reforms. None the less, below the surface those relations would be volatile and vulnerable if ever there were to be a Labour Government.

We should not forget the trade unions' hostility to foreign investment, which led the Trades Union Congress to describe Japanese firms as "alien" as recently as 1991. Nor should we forget that, in 1987, Ford's plans to build a new plant in Dundee fell through because the unions, including the Transport and General Workers Union, would not accept a single union deal.

Mention has twice been made today to the TUC referring to foreign investment as "alien". It was, in fact, an expression used by Ken Gill, who did not speak for the TUC or for the mass of trade unions or trade unionists in this country. The expression was explicitly repudiated by leaders of the TUC at the time.

I reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion.

Only the other day, Labour promised what I can only describe as a "strikers charter" of new union rights. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pledged to give striking workers a legal right to keep their jobs. He said that he wanted to bring Britain into line with Europe and stop bosses victimising staff.

The truth is that the Opposition are still in the pockets of their paymasters, and confidence in Labour's position on trade unions will come only when the party accepts that the Government's trade union reforms are working. It does not reassure companies looking to invest in this country when they hear the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) call compulsory ballots "scandalous".

There are some very positive benefits from inward investment, especially at the workplace. Inward investment has played an important part in the transformation of our manufacturing industry, and especially management. Workplace habits have also changed. It is sometimes alleged that foreign-owned plants are simply screwdriver operations; in other words, workers use assembly kits imported from Asia, which creates only a small number of low-paid jobs. That is not so.

Japanese companies such as car makers find it worth while to use a high British content in their products, especially as our domestic suppliers have turned out to be more reliable than expected. In any case, it is not viable for the companies to import parts from their own base countries.

Sony is a case in point. It is a Japanese electronics firm which is now Britain's largest maker of television sets. Its two plants in south Wales employ more than 3,000 people, and support about 9,000 suppliers' jobs nearby. The European content of the television sets made there is already 90 per cent., and may rise further.

A study of Japanese-owned plants by the Judge institute of management studies in Cambridge found that the European content of their products increased steadily as they became longer established, typically reaching about 80 per cent. after 20 years.

The Japanese links with local firms have helped those firms to improve the quality of their goods to match the Japanese high standards. Toyota may be tough with their car parts suppliers, but, as a result, the suppliers have re-engineered their production processes to improve quality and cut costs. As an incentive, Toyota gives its suppliers a regular feedback, awarding them marks for QCDD—quality, cost, delivery and development. That is a culture shock indeed.

One firm in Leicestershire, Rearsby Automotive, which makes handbrakes, gear sticks and so on—it may be in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—has said that, as a result of its liaison with the Japanese,

"we were dragged kicking and screaming into becoming a worldclass firm."

I make no apology for telling the good news—the positive news. The benefits to our economy are incalculable. That point needs to be repeated many times, so that we can slay the myth that Britain is a sick and ailing country, a slur eagerly put round by the Opposition. They have the gall to run down this country, suggesting uncertainty, vulnerability and insecurity. They begrudge our success stories, and they begrudge the fact that we have brought scores of jobs to this country, through companies such as Black and Decker, which closed its Limburg plant in Germany and expanded in Spennymoor, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), with 300 jobs on the way.

We all appreciate the successes. Can the hon. Lady tell us, however, when manufacturing production and manufacturing exports will return to the levels that we enjoyed in 1984, when manufactured exports exceeded manufactured imports? With all the news that the hon. Lady brings to us this evening, can she tell the House when that favourable position will return?

Bearing in mind the fact that our economy is booming and bringing benefits all round, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are simply irrelevant today.

I want to return to the remarks made by the managing director of Black and Decker:

"The production cost savings in switching to Britain are far bigger than our total wages bill for a whole year."

The company found that the compulsory social charges in mainland Europe of paying half of every worker's health insurance, unemployment insurance and state pension, and all the company pension, were crippling it. That is why the company came to this country. A Black and Decker machine shop supervisor said:

"Industry is flexible, it has to be—and the Social Chapter isn't."

I now turn to the social chapter, because there are many myths and misinterpretations of it. I did not find it helpful—it will not be helpful for the country as whole—to hear the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) say that Labour believed in the minimum wage, because it was social justice. That sounds splendid in itself, until one begins to examine what the hon. Gentleman means.

The call for a minimum wage will drive away all the jobs that we have created. The Opposition fail to understand that, if they introduce a minimum wage, they will increase wages for some, but the net result will be that the prices of products will increase, profits will go down and there will be an increase in the jobless. I hardly call that new Labour fairness. If we fail to heed the lessons of the social chapter, we shall find that Britain will rapidly lose its attractions, and major companies will relocate. They may go to eastern Europe or to the far east. One thing that is for certain is that they will not stay in this country.

Our strength is that we have a flexible work force who can adapt to the demands made of them and are prepared to retrain where necessary. They welcome the opportunity to work overtime to bring benefits to themselves and their families. People respond to the chance to work, and to bring rewards for themselves.

If we had been stuck with the social chapter, people would have been limited to a maximum of 48 hours a week. Many of our workers are doing between 55 and 65 hours a week, week in and week out. That is their choice. The Government do not have a right to try to limit the hours that people choose to work. The reward is that people have a marked increase in disposable income, which has never been the case under any Labour Government. If we hobbled a company by preventing it from working hard, we would deprive factories of the ability to compete worldwide.

We must consolidate our work in sustaining the right climate for inward investment. We need to support companies that can genuinely show that they will introduce long-term, quality employment. We need to show inward investors that they enjoy the support of a Government who are committed to their success and their business.

However, we should not delude ourselves. International companies would not be willing to locate in the United Kingdom or to create thousands of skilled jobs if this country allowed itself to be held back by the anti-business attitudes so beloved of the Labour party—or, to put it in Labour party newspeak, interventionism, which means denying companies the right to manage.

We should remind ourselves of the statement by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was trade and industry spokesman. He told a Tribune group rally:

"more socialist planning would be the best way to solve Britain's economic problems."

He left the audience in no doubt about where he stood. He added:

"How many people have they heard making the case for socialist planning of the economy? If we can get almost a majority without even trying, just think what we can do if we are confident and really give it a push."

"It", of course, was socialist planning.

I conclude with a word of warning—

It is time you concluded.

I am giving you extra warning—

Order. I hope that the hon. Lady is not warning the Chair.

I would not dream of trying to take your elevated position here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What you say is highly respected.

I issue a word of warning. The Labour threats to interfere, which come from here, there and everywhere, could be extremely damaging. Foreign investors will not invest in an unsuccessful Britain. Labour's business plans for Britain demonstrate that Labour is still wedded to the policies that lay behind our industrial failure of the past.

Mr. Stanley Kalms, the chairman of the Dixons group, was clear about Labour's plan. In a letter he wrote to The Times on 11 February 1994, he said:

"I had an awful sense of having been there before. We went through all this in the 1960s and 1970s, and it didn't work. British business doesn't want a national plan. It wants low inflation, it wants low interest rates, it wants good industrial relations. But some great blueprint drawn up by civil servants, politicians and economists—no thank you."

The Financial Times commented on Labour's policies as follows:

"Labour's corporatist, interventionist instincts are alive and putting the boot into the free market. Those who thought Labour had forsaken the 'profits are dirty, bash big business' mentality of the post-war decade are in for a rude awakening."

The overseas companies are taking a careful look at what might happen if we had a Labour Government. They are well aware of the increasing burdens that could be thrust upon them. Indeed, they will take rapid flight should there ever be a Labour Government.

Overseas companies are aware that they would be threatened with heavy tax increases. They have already taken note of the comments by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about trying to close tax loopholes. Everybody knows that that phrase means increasing taxation, which is crippling and which will drive out all the magnificent inward investment we have brought to this country. I congratulate the Government on their enormous drive to attract inward investment. I have no doubt that this country will continue to support a Government who will keep jobs.

8.19 pm

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has just offered us a remarkable picture of a United Kingdom basking under the benign, compassionate stewardship of a Conservative Government, yet her Government and her party are astonishingly unpopular throughout the country. We shall win the next election. I bet the hon. Lady that her party will—undoubtedly—lose the Perth and Kinross by-election in three weeks.

I shall focus my speech on Scottish maritime industries. If I get the Minister's attention for a moment, I would like to ask him a couple of questions concerning those industries. Before I turn to them, I shall make a comment or two on inward investment. I remind the House that the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to devolution in relation to this motion. The hon. Member for Eastwood, who was until recently a Minister with responsibility for industry at the Scottish office, was understandably modest about his party's current standing in Scotland. His party was humiliated at the recent elections to the new unitary authorities.

As I said, given its industrial and other policies, the Conservative party will undoubtedly lose the by-election in Perth and Kinross. I hope sincerely that the Scottish National party does not win. It will be a close race between the SNP and the Labour party. The SNP has already engaged in a very unsavoury campaign and it does not deserve to win.

My interest in the maritime industries has been lifelong. My father was a fisherman, my mother a fishergirl. At the age of 15 it only needed the experience of one north Atlantic gale to put me ashore for ever, where I served an apprenticeship in a shipyard as a shipwright. Therefore I know something about the shipbuilding industry and the industrial relations in it.

The record of inward investment in Inverclyde, especially in Greenock is good. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will be disappointed to hear that the then Labour Member of Parliament Hector McNeil, later Sir Hector McNeil, persuaded the president of IBM to come to Greenock and establish premises in Spango valley. That was a remarkable piece of marketing for the valley because it was a bog-like area at that time. IBM remains one of the biggest private employers in my constituency and is turning out remarkable profits based on the assembly of personal computers and related software. It offers good terms and conditions of employment to its employees, many of whom are constituents of mine. The same largely holds for National Semiconductor. The setting up of that plant predates what we now know as the Thatcher Government, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) referred. National Semiconductor is also a large employer, pays good wages and offers reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

I mildly criticised the hon. Member for Eastwood a moment ago concerning his blind spot, but I compliment him on playing an important part in bringing the enterprise zone to Inverclyde, for which he deserves some credit. Unfortunately, he and his officials at the Scottish Office designated two problem sites in that enterprise zone, one of which will never be developed. It impinges on a site of special scientific interest and the European flora and fauna directives will ensure that no development ever takes place there. There is no question of transferring or swapping sites in a zone, so that site has been written off.

There is also a problem with the Gourock ropeworks, a derelict, listed industrial building, which I would like to see demolished. The Scottish Office must act much more decisively to bring that demolition about so that, in what is left of the lifetime of the economic industrial enterprise zone, at least the existence of that site may persuade another inward investor to come to Port Glasgow. No inward investor will take over a derelict, listed building which requires many millions of pounds to renovate and conserve. It would be better if it were demolished and the site cleared for another industrial incomer.

I would like to ask the Minister a question or two concerning the shipbuilding industry. I was deeply disappointed when P and 0 ordered two huge cruise liners from German and Italian yards. I was very angry at the time. In fairness to P and O, it has to be readily acknowledged that no shipyard in the United Kingdom expressed the slightest interest in those two remarkable contracts, which I found deeply disquieting. Indeed, there are only two shipyards in the United Kingdom that could build ships of that size: Kvaerner Industries of Govan and Harland and Wolff of Belfast. That is a savage indictment of the way in which the industry has been allowed to run down over the past 30 or 40 years—not the past 15 years. The industry has been allowed to run down to the extent that such lucrative orders go to shipyards where the wages are even higher than those paid in the few remaining shipyards in the UK.

Almost 1,000 constituents of mine are still engaged in shipbuilding at Fergusons in Port Glasgow—two weeks ago, Princess Alexandra launched the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry for services to the Isle of Lewis—at Kvaerner of Govan and at Yarrows of Scotstown. I know that the Minister and his colleagues are opposed to subsidies of any kind, but access to the shipbuilding intervention fund under the European Union seventh directive is still hugely important to Kvaerner, Fergusons and, indeed, to Harland and Wolff.

I understand that the Government want the intervention fund to cease on 31 December. I appeal to the Minister not to allow that to happen as it would have a deleterious effect not only on the few remaining shipyards in Scotland and south of the border but on shipyards throughout the European Union. Throughout the EU, we still find it extremely difficult to compete effectively and successfully with yards in south-east Asia.

I would be grateful if the Minister would take that plea on board and if he and his ministerial colleagues would consider continuing with the directive, because it provides work in areas of massively high unemployment. One has to think only of Belfast and the people employed at Harland and Wolff and of the people employed with Kvaerner and Fergusons on the Clyde to see the directive's importance.

The United Kingdom shipbuilding industry has suffered a severe decline over the past 40 years, brought about by a combination of poor management, poor industrial relations and some very short-sighted trade union policies. I speak as a shipyard worker who, many years ago, argued with union colleagues about the need for our working practices to become as flexible as those in the many European yards. I am glad to say that Fergusons in Port Glasgow, Kvaerner in Govan and Yarrows of Scotstown have superb systems of industrial relations. I can pop in any time to the Fergusons yard to talk to managers and shop stewards. The atmosphere in the yard is very good and quite unlike the atmosphere and ambience in the yards in which I worked as a young man until I came in from the cold. I never did like clocking on at 7.30 am. I decided that there were better jobs than that.

I do not want to take up as much time as some of my colleagues. Having made my plea to the Minister, I want to raise several points about developments in the offshore oil and gas fields, for which the Minister has responsibility following the closure of the Department of Energy.

With the developments in the oil and gas fields west of Shetland, and the very important developments in the Morecambe bay field, there is a future for firms on the lower Clyde. Two rigs are being converted in my constituency at the moment. That work employs the remarkable talents and skills of welders and others in my constituency. Those people will continue to have a role in respect of conversion work to change production rigs to accommodation platforms.

Is the Minister satisfied with the operation of the Petroleum Act 1987? The responsibility for its implementation originally lay with the Department of Energy. That very fine man, the late Alick Buchanan-Smith, piloted the 1987 Act through its Committee stages. He was a remarkably popular Minister. He was also a very fair-minded adversary and remarkably popular with other Scottish Members.

From the moment Alick Buchanan-Smith piloted the Petroleum Bill through its Committee stage, I gave him notice that I would monitor its implementation. Each year since its implementation, I have tabled a batch of questions about its operation. I believe that six questions are tabled for answer on 15 May. However, I would appreciate it if the Minister, with his usual courtesy, would respond to some questions in advance of those written parliamentary answers.

When those platforms and submarine pipeline networks become redundant, they should not be abandoned and lead to the kind of escapades that we saw last weekend in respect of certain members of Greenpeace. They should be dismantled and removed from the sea bed and the sea bed should be swept clean, as is the case in Norwegian waters. That would allow our fishermen, who have readily forsaken those grounds to allow for the development of the off-shore industry, to return to fish those areas. In the main, I am obviously talking about demersal fishermen.

It is wrong to abandon those structures. They should be dismantled and removed. The Minister will confirm that that has always been the objective of Governments in Norway, whatever their persuasion. Wherever possible, they try to clean the sea bed. I know that it is enormously difficult to do that with concrete structures and that it is easier with steel structures. However, I believe that the oil and gas companies are avoiding their moral responsibility to other users of the local maritime environment, particularly the fishermen. Is it now this Government's policy to abandon those platforms and structures rather than to dismantle and remove them?

With regard to the sparse wording of the subject for debate, I believe that the experience and knowledge gained from dismantling those structures could aid us in acquiring such contracts elsewhere in the world. Because of the influence and pressure exerted by environmental lobbyists, the argument for the removal of such structures will become stronger. Abandonment presents safety problems, but that is not this Minister's responsibility. It is a matter for his colleagues in the Department of Transport. The fundamental objective should be the honouring of the obligation to commercial fishermen and other users of the maritime environment that those structures will be removed.

Long may inward investment continue. The hon. Member for Eastwood knows how much my constituency has benefited from it. Incidentally, as he has returned to the Chamber, may I tell him that I recently offered him a rare compliment in respect of his active role in establishing the Inverclyde enterprise zone and initiative? If I remember correctly, he launched that initiative in Gourock. That investment must continue.

The people of the lower Clyde are only too keen to be given work in the range of industries that is coming our way. As the hon. Member for Eastwood is aware, the Royal Bank of Scotland recently set up in Greenock. I sincerely hope that the shipbuilding industry, even in its current shrunken state, will be allowed to compete internationally. It can do that only with the help of the seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund.

As the offshore industries develop to the west, that should have a beneficial effect on our fabrication yards, which are among the best in Europe. It is my fervent hope that the lower Clyde will enjoy the economic benefits of the work that I believe will come our way as a result of the developments in the west with regard to that important industry.

In terms of inward investment, our maritime industries in Scotland must be managed effectively and in the interests of everyone in them. That should embrace the interests of the traditional industries, such as fishing, as well as those of the much newer industries involved in the extraction of oil and gas from the continental shelf.

8.37 pm

With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I want to reply on behalf of the Opposition.

I begin by responding to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who took such a strong interest in the development of our economic policy. I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) yesterday or the day before when we elaborated on that policy and, in response to the questions asked today I want to share some of the thoughts that were expressed.

We fully recognise that industrial and business communities must prosper within the framework of growth and expansion with low interest rates and low inflation. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that she believed only a Conservative Government could deliver low interest rates and low inflation, but at present both interest rates and inflation are rising. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to the meeting between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday, which is not too far away. We await with interest to see what happens to interest rates after that meeting.

At his press conference on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East referred to his "iron commitment" to establishing a stable framework of monetary and fiscal discipline for sustainable long-term growth and an "iron commitment" to macro-economic stability and financial prudence.

I enjoyed the intervention of the hon. Member for Eastwood. He referred to the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I came along to the debate armed and well prepared with a mighty thesis on GATT, the World Trade Organisation and where we go now. Unfortunately, the debate went in a different direction, and we discussed other matters such as the value of currency, which are close to the heart of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.

I was remiss in not congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Harborough on taking silk. From one barrister to another, it was well merited. I have read in "Dod's" and "Who's Who" about his interesting career at the Bar. I am sure that he, his family and those around him will be very pleased at his elevation.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. From an ex-client of mine, they come all the better.

I am very grateful. [Interruption.] As Conservative Members say from a sedentary position, us lawyers stay together.

Sometimes when I cannot sleep at night, I read "Das Kapital" in French, sometimes I read the 1992 Conservative manifesto, and sometimes I read old copies of Hansard. According to Hansard, the right hon. or hon. Member who replies to a debate always says, "We have had an interesting debate." We have had an interesting debate. It has ranged far and wide beyond industry, beyond trade, and even beyond inward investment. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, in an interesting intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), actually mentioned family values, among other subjects. One interesting exchange between the two touched on part-time employment. It reflected how the economy has changed over many years.

As I said to the Minister for Trade, there are fewer people in work today than there were in June 1979. The composition of the number of people in work is different. In June 1994, 46 per cent. of the work force in employment were female. In June 1994, the self-employed represented 13 per cent. of the work force in employment, compared with 10 per cent. in June 1983. Again, in June 1994, 11 per cent. of male employees and 47 per cent. of female employees were part-time, and they totalled 6 million employees. We can see how society has changed in relation to employment.

The national minimum wage has weaved its way through the debate. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the social justice aspect of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was eloquent and persuasive. He made the point—it is often overlooked by the Government—that there is a national minimum wage in the United States of America. We are consistently told how good the United States of America is in respect of job creation. I believe that Newt Gingrich supported the previous rise in the national minimum wage.

Therefore, although there is a tendency to compare the national minimum wage, which will become part of our society under the next Labour Government, with the position in France and Germany, we tend to overlook a comparison with the United States. It is because of the significance of the national minimum wage in terms of employment, the low-paid, social justice and the impact on family credit that we are taking our time. We will come up with a proper, valid minimum wage that is in the interests of the work force of this country. I reject entirely the argument that, because we believe in a national minimum wage—I have believed in it for the past 20 years—we are in hock to the unions.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, in an eloquent intervention of which Lady Thatcher would be very proud, gave the impression of Rip van Winkle. He had been asleep for 100 years, but how many years have Conservative Members been asleep? The world in which we live now is not the world of 1979 or 1978. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was very frank about industrial relations at that time. None of us wants to go back to the 1970s—we cannot. We must

"see how dark the backward stream, a little moment passed so smiling."

It is always nice to throw a little poetry into our debates.

The past is the past. The great failure, if I may say so respectfully to Conservative Members, is that, by banging the drum of the past, they are not in touch with public opinion. They would be better advised to consider carefully how we develop our policies and to be critical of them as they develop, than to try to take us back to the 1970s, an age that is long gone.

The Minister for Trade was somewhat taken aback by my reference to our exports having increased by 1.5 per cent. and imports by 6 per cent. He seemed somewhat flummoxed by that. I was able to read to him from the Central Statistical Office's "First Release". The news is even worse than I thought at the time. It states:

"The value of total exports in January was £11.8 billion (1.5 per cent. more than in December).

Total imports were £13.0 billion in January (2.5 per cent. less than in December).

The latest estimates of trends in the value of trade show little change for exports and an increase for imports.

In the three months to January, exports increased by 1.5 per cent. and imports by 6 per cent."

As for the volume of trade, it states:

"In January, excluding oil and erratics, the volume of exports fell by 2 per cent. compared with December and the volume of imports fell by 3 per cent.

Trends in trade volume (excluding oil and erratics) show a decrease for exports and increasing imports.

In the three months to January, excluding oil and erratics, the volume of exports fell by 0.5 per cent. and the volume of imports rose by 5.5 per cent."

On exports and imports of unit values, it states:

In the three months to January, the unit value indices increased by 2 per cent. for exports and by 3.5 per cent. for imports leading to a 1.5 per cent. decrease in the terms of trade."

The hon. Member for Gordon said that there is a danger for the Government. They consistently fall into the trap that they set for themselves when they have good news on the increase in exports. The Minister referred to the period a year ago in respect of the 9 per cent. increase in our trade. Opposition Members who have been in the House for 12 years know all about selective statistics. It takes us a little while to get to the bottom of them. The Government use selective statistics and seek to build an economic policy around them, so it is hardly surprising that they do not hear the desired echo from the public.

The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), whose contribution seems to have been made a long time ago, talked about the success of Airbus and the Groupement d'intèrêt economique, which had been its framework. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be tickled to know that I lived and practised in France when that framework was brought into effect. I remember, for my sins, being with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing at the Airbus factory in Toulouse when he made a speech. I followed the development of the Airbus.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell)—I am glad that, bearing in mind our time constraints, he is still with us—followed the theme of inward investment and rightly linked it with regional selective assistance. He made the point that inward investment is not simply a matter of money coming into the country; there must be the co-operation and development within the country that make it possible and worth while. In other debates, hon. Members have congratulated many Labour-controlled councils that have worked with the Government to make inward investment feasible, viable and attractive.

In 1993–94, the Department of Trade and Industry spent £90 million on regional selective assistance to support investment that created or safeguarded jobs in assisted areas. During the same period, the Department expected to offer £135 million to support projects involving 30,000 jobs and a total investment of £1,000 million. Notwithstanding some of the statements made by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we have always encouraged the Government to recognise the importance of the principle of regional selective assistance to inward investment.

The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)—who has followed the debate patiently and who, as he knows, has the affection of the House—took us on a little jaunt to the University of Southern California. He mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Benjamin Franklin; I am not sure which of the two was at university with him, although I am sure that one of them was. In any event, he enlivened our proceedings.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about GATT. I am glad to note the presence of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are aware of developments in the world trade community—and the World Trade Organisation—following the appointment of a new director general of GATT, and understand the need for a multilateral trade negotiation that will unite the world. The hon. Gentleman touched on that. He knows, I know and no doubt Ministers know that—because the Uruguay round continued for so many years—there is now a tendency towards unilateral agreements: the United States is looking for such agreements with Japan and South America in relation to financial services.

The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire—this was first-class Labour party policy, in regard to the 28-day moratorium for companies going under—urged on the House and the Government the adoption of chapter 11 procedures. We support such policies, and I found that part of the debate interesting and constructive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East showed great experience of the House. He demonstrated that if an hon. Member is asked about, for instance, women working part time, that hon. Member can talk about Ever Ready, his council estate and the twilight hours, speaking from first-hand experience.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made an interesting speech, but seemed to be caught in a time warp. It is not helpful to return to the past, which may mean talking about what happened a long time ago. He spoke of the global market place; I should have liked to hear someone talk about exports into that global market by Barings, which exported £800 million into Singapore, but no one has done so. No one has pointed out that that is the unacceptable face of capitalism.

I recently made a speech in the north-east of England about how Barings had taken £800 million to Singapore—in suitcases, cheques and used notes; through bank loans; through whatever means they could. I pointed out that Barings had not invested in industry in the north-east, saying that it wanted a return on its investment. That reflects the difference between the Opposition and the Government: £800 million can be swept away, the banking system shudders but does not crumble, and nothing is invested in industry.

If the hon. Gentleman thought that Barings was so important, why did he not mention it in his opening remarks?

I shall let the hon. and learned Gentleman into a secret. I prepared a speech that would have taken an hour and a half to deliver, because when we last debated these issues the House was less full than usual. I am glad to say, however, that tonight we have heard first-class contributions from both sides, and have been able to keep the debate going. I am sure that the part of my speech that I did not make will be delivered on another occasion, and will enliven a later debate.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some of the statistics that I was examining, and expressed a hope that I would understand them. The Government's difficulty is that we understand the statistics all too well, as do the public. It does not matter whether the Prime Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says how well we are doing in exports, or whether the Minister for Trade says how wonderfully we are doing; the figures are there, prepared by the Library of the House of Commons—and they are based on statistics for the United Kingdom balance of payments current account.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that that account was in surplus. The invisible balance, however, tells a different story. There was a deficit of £3.1 billion in the final three months of 1994, compared to one of £1.9 billion in the previous three months and one of £3.3 billion in the final three months of 1993. The deficit for 1994 as a whole was £10.7 billion, compared to £13.4 billion in 1993.

The invisible balance helps the nation out. I am now coming to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Outward investment produces net investment income, which is fortunate—although in times of recession that money has a tendency to flow back into the country. The invisible surplus improved significantly in 1994, reaching £10.4 billion. A slightly lower surplus on services and a slightly higher deficit on transfers were more than offset by a large rise in net investment income—a point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The figure was £11.2 billion in 1994, compared to £1.6 billion in 1993.

The current balance was in surplus by £0.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 1994, compared to a revised estimate of £1.3 billion in the third quarter. The current account for 1994—to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred—was in deficit by £0.4 billion. Those are the statistics; those are the facts. If the Government—on the eve of tomorrow's elections—want a better echo from the public, it is important for them to understand those statistics and then communicate them to the public with a different message from the one that they are sending now.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned Toyota, but even she missed an important point that she might have made. Indeed, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who often graces debates such as these, might have made it for her. Toyota is to invest a further £200 million to double production at its Burnaston plant in Derbyshire. By the time the plant is in full production in 1999, it is expected to create 1,000 jobs directly and a further 3,000 with suppliers. [Interruption.] If the Minister for Transport in London continues to make that kind of noise from a sedentary position, I assure him that he will be here until 10 pm. Sufferance comes in gentle doses, as he knows.

Let me return to what should be, and has been, at the heart of the debate. No doubt the Minister will refer to this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South did. He said that we supported inward investment—the inward investment of Samsung in Cleveland, that of NEC in Livingston, that of Honda in Swindon, that of Motorola in East Kilbride, that of Samsung Heavy Industries in Harrogate and that of Ford in Dagenham, with its £400 million investment.

The truth is that the Government are not anxious to tell us that our own inward investment is part of a trend—the trend of taking in each other's washing in terms of trade, and investing in each other's countries in terms of finance.

My final point—that will please the Minister for Transport in London—is that we must deal with one of the most important points to come out of these debates, and it is one which shows the misconceptions of the Conservatives towards the social chapter. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred to IBM and to National Semiconductor, and described how they located in this country in the 1970s. Following those investments, 36 per cent. of world direct investment in European Community member states was in the United Kingdom, compared with 5 per cent. in Germany, 15 per cent. in France, 11 per cent. in the Netherlands and 13 per cent. in Spain.

The Invest in Britain Bureau commissioned a survey of 200 manufacturing, assembly and research and development companies that had invested in the United Kingdom. When asked their main reason for investing in the United Kingdom, 45 per cent. mentioned the need for a United Kingdom presence; 29 per cent. mentioned the need for a European base; 25 per cent. stated that their market in the United Kingdom warranted local manufacture; 16 per cent. said the English language; 14 per cent. said financial assistance; 10 per cent said labour skills; 10 per cent. said the European single market; 6 per cent. said labour costs.

Nissan said that it was interested in a good technological base in terms of people and the fact that it had a market here was important. Let us lay to rest the idea that companies will not invest in our country because of the social chapter. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that the Opposition were knocking Britain. but no one knocked Britain more than the Conservatives in the late 1970s. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to the brain drain, which was a phrase invented at that time by the Conservatives to damage a Labour Government. Allegations and threats that the social chapter will cost jobs here because it will prevent inward investment are knocking Britain, and not knocking the Labour party.

Conservative Members who participated in the debate are now so out of touch with the people of this country that they will wake up on Friday with a shock that will be more important than they have realised. They will see how the country votes in local elections, in which they will lose thousands upon thousands of seats. If I were them and I had ears, I would hear.

9.2 pm

The debate tonight has been based on quality, if not quantity. I can tell any hon. Member who has not been here tonight to relax, as there will be very little media comment about this debate because it has been about good news. There is good news about the United Kingdom's manufacturing, exports and inward investment, which guarantees that the debate will get no coverage in our gloom and doom-laden media.

May I first pass on an apology to the House from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade? He regrets that he cannot be here for the wind up, but he is the Minister responsible for promoting exports and he is attending an engagement tonight at which he will be doing just that.

I now have the slightly unpleasant task of chiding the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is a big man and can take this type of remark. I must criticise him for taking a highly selective snapshot on import and export figures to bolster a rather dodgy argument. Quoting a three-month variant against a previous three-month variant is rather like quoting turkey sales just before Christmas against turkey sales just after Christmas. I am afraid that the facts presented by my right hon. Friend are more reliable and accurate.

If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough wants to do three-month comparisons, I suggest that he compares the three months he quoted with the same three months of the previous year. That is the fair thing to do. If he did that, he would see that visible exports have gone up by 12.5 per cent, while visible imports are up by only 8.9 per cent. Non-EC exports have gone up by 6.9 per cent., while imports have fallen by 7.2 per cent. That is what the hon. Gentleman should have done, rather than producing his selective figures.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) rightly referred to the success of the airbus. He uncharitably drew the House's attention to the failure of the previous Labour Government to keep us in the scheme, and added that the Conservatives enabled us to take part in a highly profitable and successful venture. My right hon. Friend underlined the need for international partnerships in major products to achieve similar successes in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made an important point about second and third investment decisions, but he knows that those can come only if the first decision is made, and it is important to get that first decision. I shall not follow him down the devolution route, as that could occupy us for a considerable time. I agree that it is important that we send coherent and stable messages to those people who wish to invest in the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) always brings a degree of colour and excitement to our debates, and he correctly referred to the length of service in the Department of Trade and Industry of the President of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend compared that with the shorter terms of his predecessors, and there is no doubt at all that the President of the Board of Trade's tenure in that position has brought stability, positive programmes and significant improvements to this country's export and manufacturing progress. He is to be congratulated on that.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to the consultation paper which is being produced to help companies which are on the brink of collapse, by introducing a moratorium period, and the whole House welcomed that. The only thing which worried me was that I heard that the measure is Labour party policy. We will have to look closely at the measure to make sure that we are on the right lines.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—I add my congratulations to those which have been given to him—was right to criticise the Labour party for its scaremongering. It does not help if overseas companies who wish to invest in this country hear it being run down by the Labour party. He was right to give examples of succesful companies to show how we are winning. As the House and the country know, the proof of the pudding is very much in the eating.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the opportunities in the offshore construction industries. He knows of the successes that are being achieved in supplying the fields in the North sea, and the west of Shetland will open up a completely new vista. I know just how hard the oil and gas division of the Department of Trade and Industry is working to ensure that British firms supply the equipment. He mentioned abandonment policies and, in the fullness of time, I look forward to receiving his letters so that I can reply. In the meantime, I can tell him that policy is under active consideration. I look forward to consultation with the industry on the best way to achieve the environmental balances to which he referred.

The Minister is referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and during my speech I said that IBM had gone to Greenock in the 1970s. In fact, IBM went to Greenock in 1950.

Well done and thank you.

When considering the tone of this debate, hon. Members will come to the conclusion that the Opposition are struggling to come to terms with today's increasingly integrated world economy. They are off stage, desperately congratulating themselves on dropping clause IV. What an achievement—managing to ditch the ideas of the 19th century, just as we are about to enter the 21st.

Conservative Members have clearly won the argument in this debate. We have won because our policies are coherent and the only ones that will produce a thriving business base.

Back in 1979, Britain was in continuing decline. Strikes were crippling industry, we were losing world market share and we had cash-devouring and inefficient state monopolies. I am grateful to the Labour Government because, at that time of 26 per cent. inflation, with the IMF calling us a banana republic, I managed to come to this House as the Member for Workington. It was a time when the Conservative party won by-elections.

Yes, there was a Labour Government then.

There was—I remember that winter of discontent.

I welcome the courage that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) demonstrated by talking about the steel industry. I well remember that industry. It was costing us £450 million a year in running costs. We had already put in £4 billion, but it was still losing money. Today, strikes in the industry are the lowest since records began in 1891. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) rightly drew our attention to that significant and dramatic improvement.

We are gaining world share in manufacturing for the first time. Exports are at record levels, despite the tinkerings of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who was trying to make out that we are not doing as well. Manufacturing investment is up—by 8 per cent. in the last year—output has been rising for three years and unemployment has been falling during the same period. Inflation is under control at historically low rates and there is every sign that those trends will continue. Those are the hammer blows of success that the Opposition can try to spirit away if they wish, but they are genuine and they are being achieved.

The United Kingdom is more internationally competitive than at any time in recent history. We have world-class manufacturing companies and a world-class service sector. How else could we do so well in services in the United States of America, where we are the number one overseas supplier, with 13 per cent. of the market? That is even more than the Canadians, who have a natural local advantage.

The Government have already done much for industry, but there is more to be done. First, I will tell the House what we will not do. We will not turn the clock back; let inflation loose; have punitive tax rates; let the state make decisions that are best left to managers operating under market conditions; or interfere in the pay arrangements of business.

While Opposition Members are holding sterile debates about what happened yesterday, we are taking practical steps to improve further our competitive position and drawing on the strengths of Government and business to create a partnership to develop more world-class firms.

How will the war against inflation be sustained against the background of a falling pound and rising commodity prices? It is all very well saying that the trends are good and that that will continue, but how can the Minister be sure of that? Can he explain why industry is not confident that will happen? That lack of confidence is holding back the investment that we need.

The hon. Gentleman answered his own question, if he only realised it. Manufacturing investment is increasing. That sort of investment in robotics and automatic machines will produce lower unit costs, which will enable us to take more of our market share. That in turn will mean more orders and we will be at the creation of a virtuous circle. That is why our share in world markets is increasing. That is the trouble with the Opposition. They are shaking their heads. They want the country to do badly and yet the figures show how much more—and how well—we are doing.

What else have we got to do? We have to help small and medium-sized companies and boost and support their growth. I would like to spend considerable time talking about what we are doing to help, especially with the business link network, but that should wait for another day and another debate.

By the end of the year, there will be more than 200 business links, giving a single coherent signpost to businesses, to which they can go to get the type of support that they need to expand and develop.

On the international scene, hon. Members should look at how our partnership works on exports. More than 200 business people advise UK companies and more than 100 experienced executives have been seconded by major companies to help the effort. Indeed, major companies are now using secondment to the DTI as a useful part of the career development of their senior staff. I pay tribute to companies that have released well-paid, experienced and knowledgeable members of their staff to come and help UK Ltd. win on the world scene. There is continual dialogue with businesses and their representatives to focus our efforts in each of the United Kingdom's top 80 markets. We have more ministerial visits abroad than ever before. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is not here, but he has been a shining example of what the Government have been doing to help Britain's industry to go forward.

Let us return to privatisation. The Opposition simply have not learnt and we hear criticism of privatisation wherever we go. On the privatisation of British Gas, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that 16 million gas consumers could expect only one result—to pay increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation, for years to come. He was wrong. Domestic gas prices have fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms since privatisation and investment has tripled.

On the Electricity Bill, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that, in exchange for having no choice, we would have the reality of higher prices. He managed to make two errors in 14 words. Although the privatisation was relatively recent, prices have already fallen and will do so again. Every person who lives in the London Electricity area has received a note with their electricity bill, which says:

"Prices are down again. For the third year in a row, London Electricity is reducing its prices. The main reduction will be in standing charges, which will be cut on average by 7 per cent. Unit charges are also going down by 2 per cent."

It is all good news. Since 1990, the number of electricity disconnections has dropped from over 55,000 to just 1,180 last year.

I could go on and on about the knocking of privatisation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garsgadden (Mr. Dewar) said that British Airways would be the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is the world's most successful airline. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said that he had heard that public call boxes could be threatened with extinction, but BT has increased the network by over 50 per cent. to 127,000 call boxes and, instead of only 75 per cent. of them working at any one time, the figure has now risen to 96 per cent. Labour Members may have taken clause IV out of the party's constitution, but it will not erase what it represents from the constitutions of party members.

Even last night on the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, the Opposition had a shining opportunity to say that they would not oppose the privatisation of AEA Technology. Clause IV may not be up in front, but it is still in their hearts and they voted against giving staff members of AEA Technology a chance to run an operation for themselves.

Instead of facing the facts, Opposition Members do not admit that nationalised industries were a terrible drain on the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said in his opening remarks, they were costing the taxpayer £50 million a week in 1979. Now they cost nothing but contribute to the Exchequer to the tune of £50 million a week.

Those utilities were not just ornaments. One has only to look at one or two of them to see how well they are doing. BT's productivity is up by 135 per cent. since privatisation. Prices have fallen by 35 per cent.; a 250,000 waiting list has been abolished; and BT has invested some £22 billion at home. The same applies to Mercury, which has invested 2.7 billion. The list goes on and on.

No wonder the world is queuing up to copy us.

The world continues to try to invest in the United Kingdom. Inward investment is one of our success stories because, flowing from the economic policies that we pursue, we offer a competitive advantage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has already said, that means low inflation. low taxes and good industrial relations. It is an achievement and a success, as the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) admitted through gritted teeth. Investors are looking for a location which will give them the best mix of quality and cost, a stable economic system, a skilled and creative work force and lower cost production.

The Opposition have heard it all before and will hear it again and again. As a result of that inward investment, the United Kingdom has 40 per cent. of United States and Japanese investment in the European Union. Samsung's plant in the north-east will bring 50 per cent. of South Korea's investment to the United Kingdom. We welcome all that unreservedly.

Inward investment will give us even greater growth, but already it is giving us one fifth of manufacturing employment, one fifth of manufacturing output and one third of capital expenditure, while 40 per cent. of United Kingdom exports originate from foreign-owned companies and 35 overseas companies won the Queen's award for export achievements in 1995. But that is not all. We get the new technology and the new ideas, so it is a two-way process. The new companies coming in bring their new technologies and help to enrich the base of knowledge and expertise in Britain.

The Government welcome the debate. We have shown during the course of it that, far from having no policies on industry, exports and inward investment, the Government have a consistent approach based on all the factors that have been mentioned. I commend the Government's policies to the House. Only by the continuation of those policies shall we reap the benefits of the great investment that we, as a nation, have put into reclaiming our business heritage.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bicycle Helmets

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

9.21 pm

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the subject of bicycle helmets for children. I do so for two reasons. First, the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading has set up an organisation called Childhood Injury Prevention Service—CHIPS. It is run by Nurse Angela Lee, a clinical nurse specialist in the hospital who, because of her experience with young people coming in with head injuries from cycling, has started a campaign in support of bicycle helmets.

My second reason is a personal one. When I was a young boy of 11 or 12, my best friend died following a cycling accident. He hit a tree root in a wood, went over his bike handlebars, damaged his skull and brain and subsequently died. Therefore, I have a personal interest in the subject.

There is no doubt that, compared with the rest of the European Community, Britain has a good road accident record. In 1980, the United Kingdom had the best rate of deaths resulting from road accidents per million of the population, at 111, compared with the EC average of 184. In 1990, we slipped to second place at 94, behind the Netherlands at 92. The EC average was 153. Therefore, there was still a downward trend in Britain.

For the age group nought to 14, in 1980 and 1990 the United Kingdom had the best percentage rate in Europe, at 41.9 and 36.1 respectively, the European average being 69.6 and 47.1. Those figures come from the Department of Transport's international comparisons of transport statistics for 1970–90.

The same report also gives comparisons on the deaths of all pedal cyclists. Again, the United Kingdom is doing quite well. In 1980, the figure in the United Kingdom was 5.6 per million of the population, and the EC average was 14 per million. In 1990, the figure for the United Kingdom was 4.7, and the EC average was 9.8.

Other countries, such as Spain, Greece and Luxembourg, seem to do better, but that is probably because of the different number of cyclists in different countries.

In the Adjournment debate on road safety, the Minister who is kindly answering this debate said:

"There are several times more accidents to cyclists per cycle mile"—

the amount of bicycle use—

"in this country than there are in countries where cycling is practised so much more."—[Official Report, 25 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 840.]

Those countries include Germany and the Netherlands.

The Policy Studies Institute makes a similar point. Cyclists in Great Britain account for only 1 per cent. of personal travel kilometres, but for 5 per cent. of road fatalities, so reducing accident rates for cyclists should perhaps be a priority.

Let us consider the number of cyclist fatalities. In 1993, there were 186. Serious injuries in 1993 totalled 3,610. Serious or slight injuries in 1993 totalled 23,574. In the Thames valley area, in 1993 there were seven fatalities and 904 serious or slight injuries.

A chart shows deaths in the various age groups from 1988 to 1992. There were 11 deaths among children aged one to four, 233 deaths among those aged five to 14, and 240 deaths among people 15 to 24. About two thirds of all cycle deaths are due to head injuries, but, for the age group five to 14, 82 per cent. of deaths—about four out of five—are due to such injuries.

As part of the "Health of the Nation" strategy, the Government hope to reduce the death rate for accidents among children aged under 15 by at least 33 per cent. by the year 2005—they want to reduce it from 6.7 per 100,000 of the population in 1990 to no more than 4.5 per 100,000 in 2005. They aim also to reduce the death rate for accidents among young people aged 15 to 24 by at least 25 per cent. by 2005—from 23.2 per 100,000 of the population in 1990 to no more than 17.4 per 100,000. The Government therefore take accidents among children seriously.

In written answers on this subject in June 1992, the then Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic quoted research from the Transport Research Laboratory which suggested that helmets would prevent 11 per cent. of serious head injuries, with a further 18 per cent. becoming only slight injuries. Many other answers were given over various times.

The Australians have spent more than a decade in promoting, educating, and then legislating on, bicycle helmet use. The United States of America has invested resources, and a number of states have introduced laws on bicycle helmets. Canada is taking an active line, and, Sweden has a progressive helmet policy. New Zealand is in its second year of mandatory helmet use.

As a form of head protection, helmets have proved their capability for reducing head injury and severe of brain injury. Time and again, studies appear that demonstrate the benefit of the helmet in reducing the effect of an injury that can have such tragic, and all too often everlasting, consequences for the individual and his family.

The "Helmet Your Head" campaign based at the Royal Berkshire and Battle hospitals NHS trust, led by Sister Angela Lee, is actively promoting the use of bicycle helmets among the under-16s. The initiative has run since June 1992. It started from a purely emotive response to treating a continuous toll of young people with head or brain injuries. A number of those proved fatal, but many more people were left with long-term problems.

The campaign has proved successful. Helmet use has trebled, and the number of under-16s seeking casualty treatment for bicycle-related head injuries has decreased by 45 per cent. over the two-year period.

The helmet programme is educational, and provides the ability to purchase helmets at low cost. The campaign is run by taking into account the teenage group's fundamental concerns. Those were obtained through a questionnaire targeted specifically at the 11 to 16 age range. The teenagers' main concern was "image"—having the credibility to don a helmet, but, at the same time, maintaining their street credibility. The other factor that reduced helmet use was simply the cost of helmets.

Young people understand the benefits of wearing helmets, although they also seek justification to do so. That has been shown, by young persons' support of helmet legislation. The teenager looks on legislation as an endorsement of his use of a helmet—a form of justification to his friends.

We are still, however, a long way from mandatory helmet use in the United Kingdom. The first thing we need is a systematically active nationwide programme on helmet education and helmet purchase schemes, if we are not just planning to pay lip service to the issue.

There appear to be three stumbling blocks in the way of the wholehearted adoption of bicycle helmets. The first is the idea of risk transfer, or risk compensation. That has no scientific basis in relation to cyclists, especially the young person who, because of his youth, is adventurous, carefree and less concerned about what may happen. There is no evidence available for the theory, so it is unfounded and has served only to cause confusion and to distract people from the issue of head injury reduction.

The second cause of delay in the promotion of helmets is the attempt to blame our road system and the motorist. There is a valid argument about road structure and motorists' lack of judgment concerning cyclists, but those factors will persist, especially as decisions on vast expenditure to alter small and overcrowded roads will continue to be a problem, and will remain an issue into the next century. While the argument continues, cyclists will continue to sustain head injuries, unless policy makers stop playing Russian roulette and acknowledge helmets as a form of protection that is accessible straight away, or certainly purchasable within 24 hours.

Thirdly, there is an argument that helmets are designed for limited-impact crashes, and are therefore of little use when the cyclist is involved with a car. However, the current research findings from Australia are that helmets provided protection in most impacts sustained in such collisions. Moreover, even if the protection provided by the helmet is limited, common sense suggests that an impact-absorbing helmet must surely reduce the impact acceleration to the brain more than if the impact were directly on the skull.

Accidents are the major cause of death in young people over the age of one year. About eight out of 10 children ride bicycles, and it is estimated that about 100,000 people under 16 require hospital treatment for bicycle-related injuries every year. That figure accounts for more than half of treated casualties. As more than 50 per cent. of bicycle casualties sustain an injury to their heads—that is, an injury above the neck—in crude terms that means that another child is being treated every 10 minutes.

Helmet campaigns work. The Royal Berkshire hospital's programme is at present the United Kingdom's only co-operating helmet programme centre, as part of the World Health Organisation's global helmet programme. Helmet programmes have been shown to be effective all over the world. Programmes such as those in Australia, the "safe kids" projects in the United States, and the Swedish helmet campaign, all strive to promote helmets.

Such campaigns do not take the place of better cycle paths, nor do they transfer responsibility away from motorists. They are simply an effective method of protecting a vital functioning part of the individual who, in the unfortunate event of his risking a head injury by coming off his bicycle, will have an extra head covering that can reduce the impact acceleration to his head.

As part of the "Health of the Nation" targets, along with the Government's road casualty reduction targets, a more active stance must be taken if we are to move more effectively to promote helmets as a method of health protection. Health professionals have a direct responsibility to advocate their use. A unified display in hospital units, casualty departments, health centres, dentists' waiting rooms and schools could bring about greater awareness and more encouragement of helmet use.

Brain injuries are devastating. Bicycle helmets have a place in their reduction. Any further procrastination will be measured in human loss. Tomorrow may be too late. Therefore, there must immediately he more encouragement by the Government to make people wear cycle helmets.

The Department must also discuss with the Chancellor the problems caused by levying VAT on child helmets. If there is no VAT on children's clothes, perhaps there should be none on child helmets. Finally, in connection with any future road safety legislation or road traffic regulations, the Government must seriously consider making the wearing of helmets compulsory for cyclists under 16.

9.32 pm

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) for allowing me to join in this short Adjournment debate.

Oleg Gordievsky, who played such a remarkable part in drawing the cold war to an end, nearly lost his life when he went through the windscreen of a car in a lane in this country. His life was saved because he was wearing a cycle helmet.

If brave people such as he would appear on children's television—or on parents' television—to say that it is not only fashionable and, as my hon. Friend said, goes with the right image, but that it makes sense to wear a lid when we go cycling, many more people would say, "If you can afford a bike, you can't afford not to have a helmet."

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's remarkable speech, and to Sister Angela Lee of the Royal Berkshire hospital. They have both done a great service. It is sad that, 10 years ago, the Cyclists Touring Club, which did and still does so much to promote cycling, opposed cycle helmets on the ground that it was up to other road users to protect cyclists.

It is right that anyone who passes the driving test should he required to know the answer to the question of when a cyclist is most likely to be injured, which is either when other motor vehicles are turning left, or at roundabouts. There must be an awareness of that. Even so, there will be times when cyclists will come off their bikes because the screw that holds the front mudguard on has worked loose, the mudguard drops on the front wheel and the cyclist goes head over heels—that is where the protection will be necessary.

Nobody in the House could have made a better speech than my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West. He said that, as The New England Journal of Medicine stated about nine years ago, about two thirds of dead cyclists have only a head injury, and about two thirds of those fatal head injuries would not have been fatal had the cyclists worn helmets. That does not excuse what other road users do, and I am not pretending that every cyclist always obeys the highway code, but the wearing of helmets would be a good way of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries.

Much has been done with the help of the Department of Transport and the highway authorities. One example is the bicycle bridge at Cambridge—with the remarkable distinction of the big upturned "V" which holds the bridge across the 16 tracks of railway to keep the cyclists away from the through traffic. There are many other such examples, but whatever else is done, the cycle helmet makes a difference, in the same way that the seat belt makes a difference to those who travel in cars.

About 300 people a year used to die cycling; that figure is now down to about 230. The growing fashion of wearing cycle helmets is part of that progress. My hon. Friend was right not to argue for an instant law stating that cycle helmets would have to be worn. He is right to say that, if we can build up voluntary use and understanding, the trend will grow. There is currently a correspondence in the British Medical Journal about the experience in Australia. One factor that is accepted by all sides is that it is sensible to wear a helmet in case one has a crash on a bicycle.

I wish to comment on risk compensation, or what is otherwise known as homeostasis theory. It was put forward by Mayer Hillman, who received undue publicity with a juicy headline on a press notice about some research that he had carried out. I pay tribute to Mayer Hillman, because he has rightly argued that, if we had common sense time in winter in this country, we would save 100 lives and many injuries.

However, he is wrong to say that we should be careful about cycle helmets. I do not believe that any cyclist would ride more adventurously because he or she was wearing a helmet. I do not think that it is only those cyclists who are careful about their security who wear cycle helmets. Any parent or school that allows children to cycle to school should not only help them to work out a safe route for cycling, but should ensure that they wear safe gear, so that they are visible, and helmets.

During the time that I served at the Department of Transport, I would have given my eye teeth to have the skill of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and to be able to announce that the road deaths were 3,700 or fewer a year. I pay tribute to him for being sensible. I am glad that he is here, and I hope that the reports of our Adjournment debate—even though, when we look at the Press Gallery, we discover that not everyone is there—will show that the issues we have discussed are just as important as British exports or the earlier questions that attracted the glamour and attention.

Nobody wants their child, husband, wife or parent to die unnecessarily in a bicycle crash. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West has described one of the ways of cutting the risk dramatically.

9.38 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) on having secured tonight's debate on what, I agree, is an extremely important subject. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in congratulating Angela Lee at the Royal Berkshire hospital.

As I think my hon. Friend knows, I was a member of the West Berkshire district health authority for some years, and, before that, of the Berkshire area health authority. I therefore have a great deal of experience of the Royal Berks, and much respect for the people who work there and the facilities available. I share my hon. Friends' objective. I too want cyclists to use helmets. The Government actively promote their use, particularly by children.

The issue that I want to discuss this evening is why, none the less, we do not have any plans at present to make it an offence to cycle without a helmet. I say that with the strong caveat that that does not suggest for one second any lack of concern or seriousness on my behalf or that of the Department about the issue.

I have become convinced in the past few years, as I have grappled with transport policy, in the wake of the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) to the Department of Transport, which is still much remembered with great affection and respect, that cycling has been hugely undervalued in Britain. We do about 2.5 per cent. of all our journeys by bicycle. That compares with a European average of about 15 per cent. It includes countries such as Holland, which we think of simply as flat, and therefore rather susceptible to cycling. It also includes Switzerland. Whatever one says about Switzerland, it is not flat.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West made the point that cycle injury rates show that one is about 10 times more likely to be injured in a cycle accident in Denmark than in Britain. I wonder whether that could have something to do with the fact that there is 10 times more cycling in Denmark than in the United Kingdom. The two are clearly related.

At the same time, cycling is a marvellous way to get about, particularly for short journeys. We published some research yesterday or the day before which showed that the quickest way that one can achieve any short journey in London is not by the private car but simply by cycling. Cycling was the quickest mode of transport. Many people in the House and elsewhere are coming to see that as something that they can use much to their advantage.

We are dealing not simply with the problem relating to our present cycle use. In a sense, we want to expand cycling as a means of transport to European levels. That means expanding it by considerable orders of magnitude. If we are to do that, the problem of cycle safety and the issue of how we persuade more people to wear cycle helmets become even more serious and important.

I shall not go over the casualty figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West mentioned. Suffice it to say that we now record fewer fatal and serious road accidents than in any year since records began in 1926. That is the most extraordinary achievement, and one attributable not to parties of the left or right but to dedicated officials and road safety officers, and people such as Miss Lee, up and down the country over the years. We are killing fewer people now, despite a fourteenfold increase in traffic. That is very good.

However, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, 174 cyclists were killed in 1994, about 4,000 were seriously injured and more than 20,000 received slight injuries. The tragedy is that 44 of those fatalities were to children aged 15 or below. There can be little doubt that, if every cyclist wore an approved helmet, those accident figures would be considerably reduced.

Last year, my Department commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to review international research into the effectiveness of cycle helmets. That report looked at more than 50 separate research projects. It found that researchers worldwide were in agreement that cycle helmets could substantially reduce head injuries.

While helmets cannot prevent accidents, research shows that they are worth while. For example, one report concluded that, if all cyclists wore helmets, 30 per cent. of slightly injured cyclists would be uninjured, 11 per cent. of seriously injured cyclists would avoid injury and a further 18 per cent. of serious injuries would be reduced to slight injuries.

Children in particular can benefit from wearing cycle helmets. That is absolutely beyond peradventure. Our hospital-based research shows that 75 per cent. of cycle accidents to children aged 12 and under involved no other vehicle. Performing tricks, travelling too fast or simply falling off are the most important causes of accidents.

Nevertheless, more than 50 per cent. of injury accidents to cyclists involve some form of injury to the head, and the protection provided by a helmet is likely to be particularly effective for the type of relatively low-speed accident in which no other vehicle is involved. Against that background, one can fully understand the calls from my hon. Friend and others that we should move as fast as we can to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory.

The ambition we all share is to increase the wearing of helmets. I think that there would be support across the House for my hon. Friend the Minister's practical approach, which is the most effective one. Very few want to wave the magic wand of regulation. An increase in helmet wearing is what Sister Angela Lee and others have been pressing for.

In the next few minutes, I hope to rationalise the attitude that we are adopting and explain why I think we are on the right track, despite the fact that there are arguments for regulation and, as has been said, considerable arguments against.

There are clear benefits to be gained from wearing a cycle helmet. When introducing measures to protect people from injury—this is as true of seat belts as of cycle helmets—experience shows that there needs to be a high degree of public acceptance and voluntary wearing before compulsion can be considered if it is to be successful.

More than 80 per cent. of motor cyclists were voluntarily wearing helmets before that requirement became compulsory. Countries that introduced motor cycle helmet laws without previously having achieved high levels of voluntary wearing found that the new law was widely ignored, to the point that the legislation became worthless.

It is regrettable that some cyclists themselves are not in favour of wearing a helmet. Some cite civil liberty, which is perfectly understandable, although I think that the safety argument is more compelling. Some argue that it would be a disincentive to taking up cycling if we insisted that people wear a helmet. Both my hon. Friends have in their various ways disposed of that argument. A cycle helmet is now almost a mandatory fashion accessory rather than a great burden that the new cyclist has to bear, so I do not think that we need be detained by that argument.

A stronger argument is that we should not be considering making people dress up in body armour if they want to cycle, but that we should be making the roads safer. That, of course, sounds a very compelling argument, but the trouble with it is that it addresses the wrong issue.

I said that a large proportion of cycle accidents do not involve another vehicle. They do not involve a child being knocked off his bike by a juggernaut or by a car passing at high speed; they involve a child simply falling off his bike. Adults do it, too. The wearing of a helmet is just as important in that type of accident, however.

The risk compensation theory is very simple when one boils it down—I nearly said, "when one reduces it to absurdity", but I should not discredit the theory in that way, because it has some serious adherents, such as Mayer Hillman and John Adams. Basically, it says that one feels so much more comfortable when protected by a seat belt that one is tempted to drive much faster, which means that one is therefore less safe. In other words, the safer one feels, the less safe one is.

The logical deduction is that my job as Minister with responsibility for road safety should be to make cars as dangerous as I possibly can, to abandon all expenditure on road safety and, indeed, to reverse it by introducing a number of chicanes and abolishing most urban speed limits, because, on that basis, we could make life sufficiently dangerous that everyone would drive at a snail's pace and accidents would cease.

That is a fair summary of the theory, and I do not suppose that I need detain the House any further by seeking to analyse it or dismissing it. I just think that it is desperately misleading to pursue that course. We must make people not only feel safer, but be safer. Everyone understands that.

I get letters from parents who ask me to make helmet wearing compulsory because, they say, their children would obey the law whereas they do not obey their parents. There is a real problem with that, as you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker. Making children below the age of criminal responsibility the criminals is not only paradoxical, but almost certainly self-defeating. In reality, one cannot go down that path. If we want to turn large numbers of children into criminals or even to dissuade them from cycling in the first place, there is no better way to do it. That does not mean that I do not think that there is value in compulsion in due course.

The experience of the Australian state of Victoria is rather helpful here. Cycle helmets were made compulsory there in 1990. The state undertook a lengthy, 10-year campaign to encourage voluntary wearing before compulsion was introduced. Nevertheless, it appeared that, during the first year, wearing rates did not exceed 75 per cent., despite a considerable enforcement effort.

Although the amount of adult cycling remained stable, it appeared that the introduction of helmet laws reduced the number of children, especially teenagers, who cycled. Since then, cycling by young people appears to be increasing again, although a not insignificant minority of cyclists continue to refuse to wear a helmet. I say for the record, however, that there is no doubt that the Victoria experiment has introduced greater helmet use, and has therefore reduced the number and severity of head injuries.

We have commissioned further research from the Transport Research Laboratory into cycle helmet wearing rates and public attitudes to helmets, and we shall publish it later this year. It looks as if the overall UK voluntary wearing rate, based on a survey of 10,000 cyclists throughout the country, is about 15 per cent. We shall continue to survey wearing rates over time to monitor the degree of voluntary use.

I want to convince cyclists of the good sense of helmet wearing and to continue to develop strategies to drive up the voluntary wearing rate. To that end, we are also researching attitudes to helmet wearing among cyclists to help us to develop new ways in which to encourage their use.

One of the things that I have found in talking to schoolchildren is that there is still a view that those who wear a helmet are rather sissy. An education programme is therefore necessary to convince children that those who wear helmets are not sissies, but very wise guys.

My hon. Friend makes 'a good point. One of our counters to that view is an initiative, which appears to have been very successful, to apply the cycle helmet rule on a whole-school basis. That makes a great deal of sense. It works on the basis that, if everyone cycling to school wears a helmet, the fear of ridicule tends to be overcome.

Several local authorities have copied a scheme, which was first introduced by Sheffield city council, to promote helmets by making them available to schools at a much-reduced price, provided that rules are introduced requiring helmets to be worn when cycling to and from school. Such initiatives seem to be effective, and they are to be applauded. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point.

For the past few years, the Department of Transport has actively promoted cycle helmet use. The highway code advises cyclists to wear helmets which conform to recognised safety standards. Child cycle helmets are zero-rated for VAT purposes. In 1991, we screened a television advertisement called "Tough nuts are hard to crack," which was later turned into a television filler; it was a very good piece of work.

The on-going "cycle safe" campaign, launched in March 1993 to encourage safer cycling, was spearheaded by a television advertisement, "Brother", which again stressed the benefits of cycle helmet wearing. Last year, "cycle safe" issued four new posters encouraging cyclists of all ages, especially children, to wear cycle helmets. The posters spelled out the message with slogans such as

"Wear a Helmet—You can't recycle a cyclist",

and

"Don't hit the road without one."

Such slogans are sufficiently attractive and catchy to make young people appreciate that they need not feel that wearing a helmet is somehow deeply unfashionable, but that it is something done by sensible people of all ages.

For the reasons that I have outlined, we do not believe that we can yet move to compulsion. We are, however, keen to do what we can to develop our strategy of advertising the benefits of helmets and, indeed, of safe cycling in general. If we are to persuade more people to leave their cars at home and travel by bike, we need to encourage them to have greater confidence in the fact that there is a safe, efficient and environmentally friendly alternative to the motor car. The effect of promotion of the benefits of cycle helmet wearing will continue to be an integral part of that policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Ten o'clock.

Volume 259: debated on Wednesday 3 May 1995

House Of Commons

Prayers

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

County Structure Plan (Lancashire)

Firearms

Broadmoor Farm Business Park

Burtonwood Air Base

Private Business

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill Lords

Oral Answers To Questions

Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs

Overseas Investment

Eu-Us Relations

Land Mines

Middle East Peace Process

Iraq

Kashmir

Nuclear Weapons

Brazil

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Eu Foreign And Security Policy

Land Mines

Intergovernmental Conference

Angola

Eritrea

United Nations

Cyprus

South Africa

Nigeria

Bosnia

Points Of Order

Coercion In Family Planning (Prohibition)

Coercion In Family Planning (Prohibition)

Exports

Bicycle Helmets