House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Mar 1990

Column 671

Nuclear Trigger Devices (Iraq)

3.31 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about Government action with regard to Iraq following the seizure of nuclear detonators at Heathrow airport.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : The House will wish to congratulate the Customs and Excise on its successful operation yesterday to stop the illegal export of nuclear material to Iraq. This was an effective demonstration of our commitment to carrying out our responsibilities to stop proliferation and of co-operation between the British and United States authorities.

Three people have been charged with offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. The House will understand that I am not able to speculate on the details of the matter which are now sub judice. The question goes wider than law enforcement here and no doubt that is why the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) tabled it. There are two international instruments which are relevant. Under the non-proliferation treaty, nuclear suppliers undertake not to transfer nuclear devices or technology and the other parties undertake not to receive them. All exports of nuclear material by suppliers who are states parties to the NPT including Iraq, are subject to safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The second instrument is the missile technology control regime which was established in 1987 by the summit 7 countries. The MTCR is intended to prevent the spread of technology that could be used to develop nuclear- capable missiles. Both instruments are important. In Geneva, we are urgently consulting other parties in the western group to the NPT in order to find ways in which to minimise the risk of evasion of the treaty. We are in the forefront of those working to expand the membership of the MTCR. We shall urge our European Community partners and other Governments to join the MTCR without delay. The Soviet Union has similar controls that apply to the export of missile technology and we hope that it too will adhere to the MTCR guidelines.

Iraq is not the only power in the middle east with nuclear ambitions. This episode underlines starkly the dangers for the whole world from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It shows that vigilance pays off. It also points to the vital need to solve by negotiation the wider conflicts in the middle east that undoubtedly acts as a spur to the proliferation of weapons in that region.

Mr. Kaufman : May I, on behalf of the Labour party, congratulate Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the United States authorities on the brilliant success of their operation? The whole world owes them a debt, for what we have seen is the prevention of a crime that would have menaced world security. However, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of his response to my question, that the action that he has announced does not bear comparison with the efficiency and determination of the authorities that detected and defeated the nuclear smuggling ring.

Column 672

There are a number of questions to which the House requires an answer. Why did the right hon. Gentleman's Foreign Office spokesman last night describe the seizure of the detonators as only a "criminal matter which need have no bearing on our relationship with Iraq"?

Is not that a culpably complacent reaction? If our relationship with Iraq is not affected, why did the Foreign Office call in the Iraqi ambassador? Is it a matter of no concern to us that a regime such as that of Iraq has got so far along the road to building a nuclear weapon? If the seizure has no bearing on our relationship with Iraq, why was an Iraqi national arrested on the point of boarding a plane for Baghdad?

If, as the right hon. Gentleman's spokesman said, this is only a criminal matter, why was the decision made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to deport a man on grounds which were :

"reasons of national security and other reasons of a political nature connected with attempted breaches of legislation governing the export of strategic goods from the United Kingdom"?

Why was a decision made to deport the man at all, especially at a time when two British subjects are being held in wrongful imprisonment in Iraq? Why has the man not been held, why is he not to be charged and why has he been sent home to safety and no doubt applause? Given that the whole Iraqi operation was clearly inspired at the highest level in Baghdad, can the Minister say whether the Iraqi embassy in London has been involved? Should the Iraqi ambassador be allowed to remain in London? After the murder of Mr. Bazoft, Opposition Members called for the expulsion of the Iraqi ambassador. Is not such action more appropriate than ever now? If there is concern about possible Iraqi reprisals against British nationals in Iraq, will the Government now advise British nationals to leave that country in the interests of their own safety? Will the Government now place a ban on all technological exports to Iraq that could have any connection with nuclear or any other armaments? Will the Government reconsider their attitude towards export credits for Iraq? As Iraq is now clearly in breach of the nuclear

non-proliferation treaty, to which it is an adherent and to which the United Kingdom is one of the principal signatory parties, will the Government now call for the International Atomic Energy Agency to use its powers under article 3 of the non-proliferation treaty to go to Iraq and carry out an inspection, as it has the right to do under the treaty?

Will the Government urgently consult our European partners and the United States on concerted action? As the Iraqi action is clearly a threat to world peace, will the Government raise the issue without delay at the United Nations Security Council? The Government must take action with the utmost urgency, because the maintenance of international stability and the threat to peace make this an issue of paramount importance.

Mr. Hurd : This is a deeply important matter ; I do not dissent from that. It is a criminal matter, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was right not to press me on that aspect of it.

The Iraqi ambassador was called in so that we could explain our concern, the steps that were being taken and the reasons for them. Which charges were brought is not a matter for me. My right hon. and learned Friend decided to deport Mr. Latif because his continued presence here

Column 673

was considered to be against the public interest. That is a perfectly normal procedure with which the House is familiar. The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned the stance of his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) after Mr. Bazoft's death, but he did not do so wholly accurately. I believe that he was in Sweden at the time. As we did then, we have considered the presence of the Iraqi ambassador and our diplomatic relations with Iraq. There is a considerable risk of damage in breaking off diplomatic relations, with no actual advantage. I do not want to get into the position that we not only leave our citizens, including our two prisoners which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, without protection, but do not have an embassy in the middle east between the Khyber pass and the Mediterranean. We have two empty embassies in two important middle eastern countries, and I do not want to add to that number unless there is a clear advantage in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman has not urged that advantage.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear. We covered the issue of exports during our previous exchanges. Exports of nuclear technology and arms are covered by the restrictions I mentioned. It is clear from yesterday's events that those are effectively policed, and will continue to be.

The right hon. Gentleman urged me to consult our partners and allies, which is absolutely right. I have told the House that we are doing so. I do not exclude action in the Security Council, but I am not, at present, clear whether it would be profitable or lead anywhere. What are important are the two instruments I mentioned--the two international regimes--which are not perfect but offer the best hope of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the missiles which could carry them. We are right to concentrate our international effort in following up this serious event by trying to sharpen and improve the effectiveness of those two regimes, which are designed for that purpose.

Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings and Rye) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the coup effected by the Customs and Excise in London, which the whole world will applaud. However, there are many participants in this unsavoury act who should be brought to account. It is worrying that West Germany, China, France and the United States are involved. Will he consider extending the COCOM net, which already exists for some of those countries, to control the exports of such vital equipment to unfriendly territories, and the need to ensure that the world co-ordinates its efforts to stop the proliferation, rather than rely on existing treaties which simply do not work.

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend is on exactly the right tack. Appended to the NPT is the Zangger list of products. That is one instrument, the other is the missile control arrangement, which I described. We are anxious not only that the original summit seven members should belong to that, but that all our EC partners, and other countries, should join it so that that control becomes more effective. I entirely agree with that, and we shall continue down exactly that path.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the missile control

Column 674

technology regime and the non-proliferation treaty. Does he agree that the effectiveness of both those regimes will always depend not only on the good faith of their signatories, but on the policing available to ensure that they are followed? Having regard to the position in the middle east, and the continuing unrest there, does he accept that it is time for the launching of a substantial political initiative, of which the Government should form part?

Mr. Hurd : There are different middle east disputes. There is the Iran-Iraq war, on which I am in close touch with the

secretary-general, who carries the peace-making banner, and there is the Arab-Israeli dispute, which we have often discussed, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows our stance on that. To answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) which I did not answer, I can tell him that the Iraqis have a nuclear research establishment based on a French- supplied reactor which was inspected under the IAEA procedures in April 1989.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most worrying aspect of the affair is that security arrangements have been so sloppy that people such as the Iraqis could get their hands on such bits of equipment? Surely the most urgent thing of all is to ensure that it cannot happen again.

Mr. Hurd : My right hon. Friend has been in the business long enough to know that such questions arise when one has a success. If the Customs had not been sucessful, the question would not have arisen. The episode shows that there is vigilance and effective co-operation. The shipment was prevented, but that is not a reason for complacency, rather for doing what we have proposed to do, which is to draw more and more people into more and more effective arrangements.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : As the Foreign Secretary said, this is a disturbing incident. What does the attempted export of the nuclear triggers tell us about the advance of the Iraqis towards producing a nuclear device of their own? Can he assure the House that he will give a full report of our findings and exploration into the matter to the IAEA in Vienna so that it can seriously consider taking much more effective action than seemed to be forthcoming having listened to the complacent interview on the BBC at 1 o'clock with the representative of the Vienna authority?

Mr. Hurd : I had better obtain a transcript of that interview. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The specification of the material confiscated yesterday suggests that the capacitors were intended for use in the trigger mechanism for a nuclear warhead, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it does not follow that all the other pieces are in place. No such deduction can be drawn, but that is not a reason for complacency.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the fact that, if any group of terrorists seeks illegally to export such nuclear devices, they can apparently be brought to justice only under a somewhat obscure statutory instrument, the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, which carries the maximum

Column 675

penalty of a £1,000 fine or a two-year sentence of imprisonment? Is that an adequate deterrent to those seeking to blow up the entire middle east?

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend will not expect me to trespass by commenting on the case or what may follow, but I note his point.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if Iraq, with its dangerous regime, were to obtain nuclear potential, it would present a menace to peace? Does he recall that on a previous occasion others who were concerned about that took practical and effective action which was condemned in the House, I believe wrongly? Is he prepared to say what Her Majesty's Government and their allies will do to prevent the need for such action again?

Mr. Hurd : We shall continue to take the action that was taken yesterday. That is the most effective way of ensuring that proliferation does not take place. I would be disturbed if any state proliferated in that way, particularly if it was in an area of a good deal of tension and long- standing disputes. The first thing to do--I am not just talking about the middle east--is to persuade as many countries as possible to join the NPT so that they are subjected to inspection. But that in itself is not enough, as this incident shows, and that is why we need to strengthen the regime and make it more effective.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : Is not the excellent operation yesterday evidence that the best way of controlling international terrorism is by international co-operation? Will my right hon. Friend now ask the Foreign Office to update its previously held view that there is no evidence that Iraq is developing a nuclear capability?

Mr. Hurd : I am not sure about that previously expressed view. We keep a pretty wary eye on threats of proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere. It may prove to be a rather healthy reminder that, as one threat to our security diminishes--the Soviet threat with which we have lived most familiarily--there are other perhaps more sinister threats. We have to be equally vigilant and prepared to deal with them.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I remind the House that we have business questions today and an important debate that has to end at 7 o'clock, so I shall allow two more questions from either side and then I am afraid we must move on.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : While no one in their right mind wants any new countries to acquire nuclear weapons, is the Secretary of State aware of the offence that is felt in the Arab and Islamic world at the assumptions which seem to lie behind such a hue and cry--that it is all right for some countries such as South Africa, Israel and ourselves to have nuclear weapons, but it is somehow fundamentally wrong for Arab countries and other Muslim countries such as Pakistan to have them? Will the Secretary of State amplify the point that he correctly made in his earlier remarks--that Iraq is not the only country in the middle east seeking a nuclear capacity

Column 676

and, thanks to Mr. Vanunu--we should not forget his incarceration--we now know that Israel has a battery of nuclear weapons pointed at countries such as Iraq?

Mr. Hurd : The non-proliferation treaty distinguishes between those who were nuclear powers at the time and the remainder. That is the basis on which 139 countries have adhered to the treaty. It is not a distinction between Arabs and other non-nuclear powers ; it is a distinction between the original nuclear powers and the remainder. I draw that distinction. The hon. Gentleman mentioned South Africa. I hope that all the countries of southern Africa will sign and adhere to the NPT.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath) : May I commend my right hon. Friend for resisting the calls to break diplomatic relations? Are not our troublesome relations with Iraq just where we need diplomatic expertise? Is not the main point to be learned from yesterday's episode that in recent years the arms race has been on the increase in the middle east while the peace process has been on the decrease there?

Mr. Hurd : The peace processes--my hon. Friend knows that we are talking about more than one dispute--are extremely important. There is no doubt that the existence of the Iran-Iraq war--there is a truce and there is no fighting, but there is no formal end to the war--acts as a spur to some of those activities. I agree that we all have a responsibility for urging forward the peace processes. At the same time, we also have a responsibility in that case for preventing the flow of arms and, in all cases, for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Mr. David Young (Bolton, South-East) : Is not it true that Israel and Iraq either have or are about to have nuclear weapons and that the history of both those countries has shown that they will not hesitate to use a pre-emptive strike if it suits their purposes? Is the Foreign Secretary content with that situation, which may mean war, and does he anticipate its prevention?

Mr. Hurd : That is the oldest and I think the emptiest argument in the world. Because one country may have thought of that argument, it takes actions which produce exactly the same feelings among its neighbours. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the only sane answer is that we have treaties in place which may not be perfect and we should work with our friends and allies who see the dangers to make them more effective. The success yesterday showed that they are effective, but we cannot be satisfied, because the incident also showed the continuing need and the continuing danger.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally unacceptable for Israel to have nuclear weapons as it would be for Iraq to have them? Will he confirm that the Government have been as assiduous in preventing the flow of nuclear munitions, or parts for them, to Israel as they would be to other countries?

Mr. Hurd : I have tried not to get drawn into the preferences of right hon. and hon. Members for different states. There is an occasion for doing that, but today is not it. We are talking about a number of non- nuclear states in an area continuously full of tension and bitterness. In my answers, I think that I have covered what we think is the right remedy.

Column 677

Business of the House

3.54 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) : The business for next week will be as follows :

Monday 2 April----Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embrylogy Bill [Lords] .

Tuesday 3 April----Conclusion of remaining stages of the Social Security Bill (2nd Allotted day).

Motion relating to the National Health Services (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations.

Wednesday 4 April----Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.

Thursday 5 April----Adjournment debates.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows :

Wednesday 18 April----Second Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].

Thursday 19 April----Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill.

Friday 20 April----Private Members' Bills.

It may be for the convenience of hon. Members to know how I propose that the House should handle the debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I should make it plain that I put forward these proposals only after having consulted widely in all parts of the House.

I should like to express my thanks to those hon. Members who have been willing to help me, in particular to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

The Bill is an important part of the legislative programme that the Government have brought before the House. In bringing the Bill forward, the Government are responding to developments in human fertilisation and embryology, and their practical consequences. The key issue at the heart of the Bill's provision is whether certain infertility treatments and research on human embryos should be permitted and brought within a new regulatory regime. In addition, I am advised that amendments on the medical termination of pregnancy would be within the scope of the Bill.

These are matters on which there is strong personal feeling, on both sides of the argument, and on which there has been wide public debate. They are matters on which the public have a right to expect the House to reach a clear view, but, equally clearly, there are issues on which the House should reach its conclusions on a free vote, on both sides of the House, as Government and Opposition speakers have made clear on previous occasions.

Against that background, the Government believe it right to do all we can to facilitate the House's consideration of those complex issues. I therefore propose to take certain procedural steps to provide for a structured and orderly debate of the whole of the Bill. Later today, I shall table a motion under Standing Order No. 61(3) to provide for the major issues of conscience on embryology research and on abortion, if and in so far as any amendments are tabled on that subject, to be debated in a

Column 678

Committee of the whole House before the remainder of the Bill is debated in Standing Committee, and a timetable motion covering the Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill. The House will be given an opportunity to consider the motions immediately after Second Reading on 2 April.

I hope that the House will welcome those arrangements, which are entirely intended to enable it to reach clear and orderly conclusions on the important issues within the scope of the Bill.

Dr. Cunningham : I first thank the Leader of the House for his careful and important statement on how we should deal with the controversial issues in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I personally thank him for the care and time he has taken to consult the Opposition about those matters and I hope that whatever the views of individual Members on the particular issues, his proposals will receive a wide welcome, which they deserve. I confirm what he and the House already know : speaking for the Labour party, there will be a free vote on these matters.

I also thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the week after the Easter recess as well as for next week. Can he tell us when the Government will be publishing the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill?

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the survey published today by the BBC of the financial circumstances of the 214 district health authorities? Is he aware that the survey shows that 42 per cent. of all district health authorities are facing debts ; that 24 per cent. of them say that, as a consequence of their indebtedness, they are having to reduce patient care ; and that 57 per cent. say that their financial circumstances are worse now than when the Government introduced their new proposals for financing the Health Service?

As Government legislation now in the House of Lords makes it clear that, after 31 March next year, no district health authority can lawfully operate with a financial deficit, is not this matter now urgent and should not the House hear as soon as possible, preferably in an oral statement next week from the Secretary of State for Health, exactly what the Government intend to do for the finances of the Health Service between now and 31 March next year to avoid an impending catastrophe in reductions in patient care across the country? I urge the Leader of the House to provide time for us to discuss that most critical of matters.

There are about 10 outstanding orders on the poll tax to come before the House for debate. This week we have again seen one of the most callous anomalies of all in the poll tax--the position of student nurses, who qualify for no rebate compared with that of apprentices in the armed services earning similar amounts who do qualify for rebates. I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the editorial in The Times today, which is a damning indictment of the whole barmy idea of introducing a poll tax in Britain--

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : It does not say much about the roof tax, does it?

Dr. Cunningham : If I may reply to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention, The Times said that property taxes should be reintroduced. The hon. Gentleman got it absolutely and

comprehensively wrong.

Column 679

Given the damning comments from all quarters about the poll tax, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate after the Easter recess, and preferably, introduce measures to get rid of the whole ludicrous idea?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : Let me deal with the last point first. There have been a number of opportunities lately to discuss orders in connection with the community charge. There will be an opportunity to do so again later today. The question of another debate on the subject is best left for handling through the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman did not, of course, disclose that the majority of health authorities are proving able to manage their budgets within the resources available ; that must, in the end, be an essential feature of National Health Service management. Even if the resources were to be doubled, and whatever the resources available to health authorities for a given period, a system of management needs to be put into place for managing them within those resources.

One of the purposes of the Health Service reforms is to enhance the quality of management so that the resources that are available, which will and must be finite under any Government under the sun, are managed so as to avoid end of the year problems of that kind. That is the object of the reforms and the hon. Gentleman's analysis was wholly ill founded and astonishing.

Dr. Cunningham : It was the analysis of the BBC.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The fact that it was the BBC's analysis does not make it any more commendable.

The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill will be published next week and will therefore be available some time ahead of the debate that will take place in the week following the Easter recess. Finally, I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the arrangements that I propose for discussing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : When will the House have an opportunity to debate the proposals for the change in the regulations relating to housing allowance for police officers so that it can deliver its verdict on what most people would consider to be a breach of faith with the police?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am of course aware of the interest on both sides of the House in those matters. However, the timing of a debate on the police regulations must be left to discussions between the usual channels.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : When the Leader of the House has dinner here in the House of Commons in the evening and he is sitting at his table being served by staff in the Refreshment Department, does he ever stop to wonder how they manage to live on little more than £100 a week? What does he think about that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I have one thought in that context : I am reminded of the tenacity with which the hon. Gentleman pursues that matter on every occasion--

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Make us pay more for our meals.

Column 680

Sir Geoffrey Howe : If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a second, I will answer him. Of course the matter can be considered by the House of Commons Commission, as it will be in so far as the points that the hon. Gentleman has advanced should be considered.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend share the growing anxiety in this country about the state of the British press? Is he aware that hardly a day goes by without the announcement of a settlement for some unfounded libel and never a day passes without the invasion of the privacy of people who in no sense are in public life? Does he agree that the balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and the rights of the individual is a vital constitutional issue? If he does agree, will he provide time for a debate on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am aware that that is a topic of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it has been the subject of debate before, although perhaps not this year. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise it in a debate on the Adjournment. I have no plans for arranging a debate on the subject.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Has the Leader of the House had a chance to study early-day motion 736, signed by hon. Members from all parties, about the entitlement of fishermen to unemployment benefit?

[That this House views with concern the effects on share fishermen and fishing crews of new regulations, introduced on 10th December 1989, covering benefit payments, which establishes a £43 earnings limit in a seven day benefit week ; regrets that the new rules were introduced without consultation with the industry, and despite the existence of a 42-year-old agreement that higher national insurance contributions would be paid by share fishermen on the understanding that they would be able to claim unemployment benefit for the days they cannot go to sea ; and calls upon the Government, who have now imposed a compulsory lay-up scheme with the intention of reducing catching effort, to amend the Department of Social Security regulations to allow fishermen to claim benefit payments when they are prevented from going to sea.]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is disgraceful for the Government to breach a 42-year-old agreement at precisely the time when they are preventing fishermen from going to sea? Is not it time for an early debate in Government time to discuss that and the other injustices being visited upon the Scottish fishing industry?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question bearing on the more general issues on that topic on Tuesday. On this matter, the Government are aware of the concerns of the fishing industry, and we are monitoring the effects of the changes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : Although I appreciate that there was a short debate in the early hours of the morning a few days ago about the exchange rate mechanism, would it be possible to have a proper debate on that subject in the not-too-distant future so that we may consider how far the Madrid conditions have been satisifed and how far they are still relevant?

Column 681

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I certainly understand the interest that my hon. Friend expresses in that matter. There will be opportunities to discuss it in the course of our regular debates on Community affairs, but I will bear his points in mind.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South) : Is the Leader of the House aware that, at 1 o'clock this morning, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply concerned that Ministers were still trotting out the same excuses that they have been trotting out for the past decade for not paying compensation to nuclear test veterans, and that they did after only a 45-minute debate? So that we can put the case properly and give justice to those ex-service men, such as is being given in the United States and in other countries, please may we have a full debate next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman by acceding to his request. As he has said, that matter was debated last night and was the subject of a long answer from my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Social Security a day or two before. The arguments that were advanced on behalf of the Government still deserve to prevail.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone) : Through the arrangements that he has announced for the Human Fertilsation and Embryology Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend must be aware that he has brought to an end years of wrangling and uncertainty on a difficult subject. Is he aware that that will have earned the gratitude not only of those of us in this place with strong feelings on the matter, but of many people in the country who have wanted to see that wrangling and uncertainty brought to an end, and, indeed, of many other hon. Members who do not have strong feelings on it, but who have been vexed for many years by the wrangling and pressures that have been involved?

Next Section

Home Page