| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me, as one who is the same age as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), was brought up on the north-east coast, lives there now and is a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, that the problem of natural algae has been known in the north-east for a long time? Is it not odd that, in the previous private notice question, everyone was being clever after the event, but my right hon. and learned Friend is now criticised for being clever before the event? The latter is the way that I prefer it.
Mr. Clarke : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I know that, in 1968, toxin levels were high and there was a serious outbreak of poisoning that led to the illness of 78 people. It is not just a stomach upset, for if people eat the shellfish, they are also prone to a serious paralytic disease.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, had the Departments concerned not worked closely together to issue a prompt warning, we would quite rightly be answering criticisms today about our neglect of our duty and of public health. It is somewhat idiotic for people to scratch about today trying to criticise a prompt response to a worrying problem.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side ; then we must move on to subsequent business.
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : Is the Minister aware that fishermen in my area believe that the dumping of sewage off the isle of May contributes to the poison that occurs in the estuary of the firth of Forth, which contaminates shellfish and other fish? Obviously that is unacceptable. It is all very well to condemn Lothian region or the city of Edinburgh, but the answer is to provide resources so that, instead of a ship depositing the poison
Column 522
into the sea, a fully fledged sewage works is established to handle the sewage from the city of Edinburgh. Will the Minister and his Scottish colleagues ensure that money is made available for the people of my area?Mr. Clarke : Obviously I have respect for the fishermen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Attempts have been made to study previous years to see if there is any correlation between the years when the algae bloomed to produce high levels of toxin and those when nutrients, including nutrients from sewage, have existed at a high level in the North sea. [Interruption.] To those algae, sewage is nutrient. There is no correlation between the two. The algae appear to bloom naturally when certain conditions of temperature, tide and so on occur, as have occurred this year. There is no scientific evidence to link that with any sort of pollution.
I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about sewage to the attention of the Minister responsible. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this country has an excellent record of improving systems for the disposal of sewage and of improving our rate of dumping into the sea.
Sir Hector Munro (Dumfries) : Of course my right hon. and learned Friend is right to give advance warning of problems, but does he accept that such warnings often affect the west coast fisheries, from which supplies are perfectly normal and okay? The public have listened to snippets of information on the radio and read snippets in the newspapers. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would have been better for one of the three Ministries to make the announcement rather than having one make it and the other two follow it up? If we spoke with one voice, perhaps we would be clearer.
Mr. Clarke : Only one Department made the announcement, but I am grateful if the other two Departments agreed with what we said, as they were involved in the decision. We issued a clear warning, which was clear about the geography as well. It is true that the particular alga has never bloomed south or west of the Humber in our history. Our statement tried to make it clear that the problem existed only between Montrose and the Humber. MAFF has continued to monitor other waters in case, for the first time, the alga blooms in other waters, but there is no evidence that it is occurring outside the affected area.
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : In spite of his somewhat blustering response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) the right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that, between the Saturday and the Wednesday, there was a complete dearth of specific information. Attempts to get more detailed information in the interests of fishermen and other marine users was unsuccessful. That is not an allegation but a fact, and the Secretary of State should accept it.
Does he also accept that the failure to give specific information probably contributed to the blanket ban on shellfish from the north-east of Scotland to the considerable detriment of marginal fishing ports in that area and small-time fishermen who catch shellfish? The heavy-handed approach to this matter has depressed the entire shellfish market in Scotland. It is essential for public opinion to understand that most shellfish coming from the east coast are entirely safe and that all the shellfish caught off the west coast, including mussels, are entirely safe.
Column 523
Mr. Clarke : I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the availability of Ministers, officials or information during the time he is describing. Indeed, I am assured that the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were talking to each other on the telephone on Saturday morning and were available, as were all the experts, and that there was no lack of information in our clear statements.
I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks about shellfish from other parts of our shores. This problem does not exist except on the stretch of coast between Montrose and the Humber. Indeed, it never has occurred west or south of the Humber.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concerns of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations that the French are apparently, and perhaps typically, trying to get some commercial advantage out of this situation by imposing additional requirements on imports of crab from other parts of the United Kingdom through additional documentation requirements? Are the Government, particularly through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, taking steps to deal with that situation?
Mr. Clarke : I believe that the French have behaved quite disgracefully on the question of beef, but at the moment I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on shellfish--although I accept, as my hon. Friend says, that apparently there have been difficulties over the export of shellfish to France.
The Minister responsible for fisheries tells me that he has been in touch with the French authorities to try to sort it out. He is able to offer a system of certification to the French giving the source of crabs and other shellfish being supplied to the French market. We are confident that the matter can be sorted out with the active co-operation of the French authorities who, as I said earlier, I believe have had to impose a similar ban on some of their shellfisheries in the estuary of the Rhone.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the disruption that has occurred in the markets for these market-sensitive products? Will he publish the evidence about which he has been talking and which scientists at Weymouth have been producing? How soon does he expect to lift the warning on crab? When he does that, will he give as much prominence to the fact that it has been lifted as to the adverse publicity it received when the warning went on?
Mr. Clarke : I will of course--I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose Ministry carries out the tests, will agree with me --publish the evidence on which it is based. But I issue the warning, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share with me, that, when we publish the evidence, it should not be immediately be seized on by the pseudo-experts trying to claim that the danger extends beyond the point of which we have already warned. That is always a danger whenever my Department or any other tries to issue scientific information about
Column 524
problems of this kind. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall issue the evidence and I believe that it will reassure him about the action that we took.Mr. Kirkwood : When will it be published?
Mr. Clarke : We will publish the evidence as soon as possible ; I am not sure why we cannot issue it more or less straight away. MAFF is continuing to monitor crabs. Low levels of toxin are occurring. As soon as it is clear that there is no risk of high levels of toxin occurring in crabs, the warning will immediately be lifted.
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : We have always said that action must be taken to protect consumers in cases of this kind and that a precautionary principle in matters of food safety must apply in cases of doubt. Having said that, the Minister must be fair and accept that there has been unreasonable delay in dealing with the testing of crabs and in giving out information.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it was impossible to get information out of MAFF until the Wednesday after the bank holiday? Neither I nor the NFFO could obtain information. Does he further accept that crab samples from South Tyneside council were not taken by the Department for processing because it was a bank holiday? One would have thought that, when dealing with a public health matter of this type, some priority would have been given to dealing with such issues.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that independent tests on crabs obtained by fishermen have been ignored? Given all the delays and muddles, will he accept that fishermen deserve an ex gratia payment as compensation for the losses that they have sustained through no fault of their own?
Mr. Clarke : I do not usually face the hon. Gentleman, but the Opposition must decide whether they are shocked by the Government's lack of concern for food safety or by the fact that we take action when there is evidence of danger concerning food. Frankly, Opposition Members are trying to feed a mood of vague public alarm, when we have a perfectly straightforward case of a phenomenon that is familiar in the north-east and over which the Government have acted promptly and thoroughly.
It is not true to say that there was any difficulty in obtaining information. Perhaps in future the hon. Gentleman should consult my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for fisheries about how to communicate on such matters to obtain the information that he requires. We have an effective system for protecting public safety, and it has worked on this occasion. I think that the public are more sensible than either their politicians or the press on such subjects. Most people respect actions of the kind that we have taken, which are based on medical and scientific fact and not on spurious alarms or spurious complaints.
NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law : Michael Carr Esq., for Bootle.
Column 525
Football Licensing Authority
4.31 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Government to make appointments to the Football Licensing Authority on 1 June 1990."
The matter is specific, since today is the first opportunity for hon. Members to raise the matter of the failure of the Government to make the necessary appointments of chairman and eight members of this body by the date set by the Government themselves in a commencement order on 21 March. In a written answer to me on 8 May 1990, the Minister of State, Home Office said that the FLA would be set up on 1 June. I wrote to the Minister on 11 May pressing upon him the urgent need for these appointments to be made. I regret to say that I have not even received a reply to that letter. Now the Home Office has informed me that the appointments have not been made.
The urgency of the need for the FLA to commence operations is clear. Football clubs and local authorities cannot begin work on converting grounds to all-seated accommodation until the FLA, which will have the responsibility for granting licences to clubs to admit spectators, is in operation. They feel that the deadline set by Lord Justice Taylor and the Government for this urgent safety work is tight if not impossible.
The Government cannot argue that they are not aware of the seriousness of the situation. In the aftermath of the disaster at Hillsborough, the Prime Minister told the House :
"I suggest that the House should not delay a legislative measure to enable us to take advantage of Lord Justice
Column 526
Taylor's recommendations for another 12 months, and that it would be negligent to do so."--[ Official Report, 20 April 1989 ; Vol. 151, c. 456.]For once, the Prime Minister was right, but 13 months later the Home Office itself is preventing the implementation of the legislation by its failure to make appointments to the FLA, and that is nothing short of disgraceful. In January, the Home Secretary told the House :
"Those clubs that have not faced up to their responsibility now have a final opportunity to do so ; and if they do not now act, the public will not forgive them."--[ Official Report, 29 January 1990 ; Vol. 166, c. 22.]
The football authorities have been proving that they are anxious to meet these tough deadlines. They have instituted four working groups to implement the Taylor proposals but are being prevented from putting them into action by the failure of the Government to face their responsibility.
If the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister need any further convincing of the seriousness of the situation, they have only to heed the words of the Minister for Sport :
"If we do not have the legislative vehicle in place, we would not be in a position to give clubs as much time as possible to meet the timetable outlined in the report."--[ Official Report, 30 January 1990 ; Vol. 166, c. 257.]
For those reasons, the House should adjourn to discuss this specific and important matter.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, "the failure of the Government to make appointments to the Football Licensing Authority on 1 June 1990."
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, the decision I have to take is whether to give his submission precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the criteria of the standing order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Column 527
Points of Order
4.35 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, for you, Mr. Speaker. So far as I am aware, no Frenchman has ever died as a result of the privilege of eating delicious British beef. However, many of our fellow countrymen have died or been maimed as a result of driving round in their second-rate, badly assembled and unsafe vehicles. Could you, as the champion of this House, tell us what rights the House has to enforce the European ruling that the French should not obstruct the movement of British beef ? Alternatively, what powers does the House have to prevent the flood of European second-rate shambolic imports into this country? If we have no powers, could you--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am afraid that I have no such powers. I wish that I had.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When hon. Members make speeches on a subject in which they might have an interest, it is expected that they declare that interest. In the past several months, incidents have arisen of Ministers making speeches about privatisation and then going on to get jobs in various concerns. I refer to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who took part in the privatisation of British Telecom and--
Mr. Speaker : Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Skinner : Let me finish. Then there was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who took a job with the National Freight Consortium. Then there was the last one--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not remotely responsible for any jobs that right hon. Members might take.
Mr. Skinner : I am just explaining it.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is taking a long time to do it. He must raise a point of order on a matter for which I have responsibility. I have no responsibility for granting these jobs.
Mr. Skinner : In the last case, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) went to a job in British Gas. I propose that, in the future, as a matter of order, when Ministers make statements about privatisation plans, they declare their interest in taking jobs later on.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has abused the process of raising points of order. This has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The sad demise of the Social Democratic party over the weekend brings to light--
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is not a matter for me, either. We have an important debate ahead and I shall have to propose a 10-minute limit on speeches. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to keep any of his colleagues from making a speech in that debate.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Is it a point of order for me?
Column 528
Mr. Banks : Of course it is ; otherwise I would not have raised it.
In a moment, assuming that we can make progress, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will move a ten-minute Bill. I congratulate him on being fortunate enough to be able to use this valuable procedural move to raise an important issue. The point of order for you is this, Mr. Speaker. A week or so ago, the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) combined, in a stand-up, jokey fashion, to abuse the ten-minute Bill procedure. As you know, Back-Benchers treat these Bills seriously. I have managed to steer one towards the statute book, and it will be discussed on Report soon. That shows that it is possible to use this procedure to enact a measure.
I am concerned that we may be about to have a repeat of that exercise of a week ago, in which one Conservative Member will move the Bill, not intent on carrying it any further, and another Conservative Member will speak after him. Together, they will make a few puerile jokes and then the Bill will be dropped. I do not begrudge any hon. Member the use of any device that is available to raise issues, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear that you are not prepared to see the ten-minute Bill procedure abused by hon. Members to such an extent that the Procedure Committee may decide to take it away from us.
Mr. Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman is alleging that, he should draw it to the attention of the Procedure Committee. However, what happened on that day was in order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) rose to oppose the Bill, and that is within our procedures. It is up to the House to decide whether this type of debate--which takes time out of important debates that follow--is worth while. We have such a debate today. As I have said, I shall have to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches--
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : --or a five-minute limit, if I take all these points of order.
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that it ill behoves the hon. Member for Newham, North- West (Mr. Banks) to condemn anyone else for frivolity in the Chamber, I wish to raise the important question of individual Members' rights. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are most solicitous about protecting the rights of individual Back Benchers, both in the House and when they visit other places.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and especially because of your relationships with other Parliaments around the world, will you look into the inability of the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to visit the Chinese People's Republic? As you know, Mr. Speaker, they were offloaded from a bus at Macau on the grounds that they were too left-wing to be allowed into the people's Communist republic. Will you tell your counterpart in the Chinese People's Assembly that if we, as an open democracy, must put up with mad left wingers in our country--
Mr. Speaker : Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with me. Although I hope at some time to meet my Chinese counterpart, I do not think I shall raise that matter with him.
Column 529
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Lothian health board is in crisis because of financial malpractice and underfunding. There is also evidence of corruption involving the "Hibs" football club from Edinburgh. Many people are concerned about the takeover bid by the Tory spiv Wallace Mercer-- [Hon. Members :-- "Oh."]--yes, a Tory spiv.Although the two cases are different, we need the Scottish Law Officers here to explain their legal aspects. We have had that opportunity before, but now it is being denied. What can we do about it? Can we summon the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland? We require them ; they should be here.
Mr. Speaker : As an hon. Member with a football club in his constituency--the Crystal Palace club--I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said ; however, I cannot help him.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point relating to what you said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner)--that you had no responsibility for circumstances in which Ministers who propose legislation and vote for it subsequently become financially involved in the companies that the legislation is designed to create? Select Committee reports in 1974-75 set out a number of criteria that hon. Members must follow, and it is part of your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that hon. Members follow those rules. One of the rules clearly says that hon. Members must declare an interest when they directly have one, or might be thought to have one. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will set an example to the House and call on Ministers to declare any intention of gaining financial well-being. Some hon. Members think that the current standards of behaviour, and the financial malpractice in the House, are beginning to recall the venal practices of the 18th-century Parliaments.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is asking me to divine what may happen in the future. I could not possibly be expected to make such judgment about what any hon. Members, whether from the Front Benches or the Back Benches, might do in the future. I am concerned with order in the Chamber today.
Column 530
National Audit Office (Extension of Powers)
4.44 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of the National Audit Office so as to permit the office, on an application by a national political party, to cost that party's election commitments.
In 1983, the Labour party lost the general election after producing what was described as the longest suicide note in history. In the past 18 months, it has produced a series of policy documents, which can best be described as the longest shopping list in history : a shopping list that is notably without prices.
My Bill would enable the Labour party, through an independent office, to cost its promises. It could cost not only the direct effect of its pledges, but the hidden costs--the knock-on effects on the British economy. The Labour document "Meet the Challenge : Make the Change" would perhaps be better described as "See the charges and count your change". The document lists no fewer than 171 promises, which would cost the British taxpayer and the economy dear. However, only two of the promises have a price tag, and those are priced at £1.5 billion less than the stockbroking firm UBS Phillips and Drew calculates. It calculates that the total bill to date of Labour promises made in the two documents--"Meet the Challenge : Make the Change" and "Looking to the Future"--would be £19.5 billion. The Public Policy Unit, in its report on Labour's plans, says : "It is impossible to estimate precisely how much Labour's commitments would cost and, because it is deliberately vague as to when their policies would be enacted, it is difficult to estimate the scale of the inflationary pressure which would build up." The authors go on to point out :
"Local Government spending, for example, which amounts to £40 billion can impose a terrific drain on Government resources and there is some doubt as to whether a Labour Government could control, or would have the will amongst its ranks to control local government spending."
Labour, as always, remains a high-spending, high-taxing party. It has voted against every reduction in income tax since 1979. Had tax rates remained at 33p in the pound, as Labour wanted, a married man on average earnings would today be paying £20 a week--or £1,000 a year--more to the Chancellor. The biggest con in Labour's proposals is that it promises the earth, yet pretends it will not hurt. Even on Labour's own vague figures, a 50p top tax rate plus a 9 per cent. national insurance would mean that someone earning £18,200 a year would pay more tax, which would lead to higher bills for 3.5 million people.
However, the reality is far worse than the Labour party will admit. The City firm CSFB calculates that a childless couple on £6,000 a year would lose £4.10 a week ; that the freezing of the higher tax rate would drag more people into Labour's new higher rate tax bands ; and that single people, and many couples, earning £17,000 a year or more would have a dramatic increase in marginal rates--for example, a married man on £24,000 a year with two children would be £24.84 a week worse off under the Labour's tax proposals.
The Public Policy Unit report concurs with the CSFB finding :
Column 531
"Not even the most punitive taxes on the better off will raise enough revenue to finance all of this."It continues :
"The results of some of Labour's more punitive tax proposals may well be to cause people to question what point there is in earning extra income if the majority of that money is taken away even before they even see it."
Like the Bourbons of old, Labour has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Under the Government, the reduction of the top rate of tax to 40p in the pound has led to an increase in the percentage rate paid by the top band tax payers, which has risen from a quarter to nearly a third of all tax revenues. Under the Labour proposals, taxpayers in Scotland would face an additional threat from a tax-raising Scottish Assembly.
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : What about the poll tax?
Mr. Bennett : As for local government taxation--the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is a Labour spokesman on local government--we shall wait with interest to hear Labour's proposals. We are not prepared to take any criticism from a party that cannot produce any alternative to the community charge. Labour's proposals for a roof tax would lead to massive increases in taxation.
On Labour's own calculations, the imposition of a national minimum wage at 50 per cent. of male earnings would mean wage increases for 4 million people--one sixth of the work force. Given that about one third of public spending is on wages and salaries, that would have a considerable impact on the public sector. The impact on other groups of workers would be for the newly empowered trade unions to demand wage rises throughout the economy.
Labour's policies would place new and crippling burdens on industry. It proposes a new state bank--the British investment bank--which would offer low-cost, long-term finance to firms unable to raise money from commercial banks. Nor would pension funds be safe, as their trustees would be encouraged by changes in the law to take the interests of their regional economies into account. In addition, there would be a range of regional and, where appropriate, local investment banks for Britain's nations and regions. Those, together with local enterprise boards and something called British Technology Enterprise, would have the power to take shares in existing companies.
Some would call all that a throwback to the 1970s, when Mr. De Lorean successfully conned the then Labour Government out of a cool £80 million. Others have pointed to the late and unlamented Greater London Council-controlled Greater London enterprise board, which so successfully lost ratepayers' money. Frankly, the origins are even older--way back in the 1940s, with the men in Whitehall knowing best. As Sir John Harvey- Jones, the former chairman of ICI, said succinctly :
"Whenever Government directs industry the thing invariably comes to grief Governments which try to pick winners are not very good at it."
Labour's promise to renationalise British Telecom and the water industry, with the gas and electricity industries also in its sights, would not only rob millions of ordinary people who had invested some of their hard-earned savings in the success of those industries of their dividends but, by excluding the dividends, would cause share prices to plummet, enabling Labour to renationalise on the cheap.
Column 532
We must study the hidden costs for industrial relations. Labour would bring back sympathy strikes and flying pickets. It makes no mention in its policy document of the right of trade union members to elect their leaders by secret ballot. The effect on the economy would be absolutely disastrous. As in the past, Labour is in the hands of the trade unions when it comes to industrial relations.The right hon. and learned Member for Monkland, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) have eaten their way around the City of London--and to what effect? The Times Business News on 25 May reports Mr. Roger Bootle of Greenwell Montague as saying :
"The difficult thing for Labour is how to reconcile an anti-inflation policy with its undoubted spending ambitions." Mr. Neil Mackinnan of Yamaichi Securities, an economic consultant to Labour, conceded that the City was probably still sceptical about Labour's taxation and tax policies. All those post-prandial tummy upsets and all the Alka Seltzers, only to be told that. Perhaps those hon. Members should have left it to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He, at least, would have enjoyed the lunches, if not the duty.
The Labour party's proposals include its defence policy. It is many years since the words "Labour party" and "defence" have sat comfortably with each other. Labour is led by a leader who is a committed member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament--an organisation whose constitution begins with the words : "The aim of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is the unilateral abandonment by Britain of nuclear weapons, nuclear bases and nuclear alliances." Labour now speaks of a peace dividend. That is barefaced cheek from people who have opposed all the measures that have brought the Societ Union to the negotiating table. "Looking to the Future" contains no figures for what the Labour party will do, but we know from its last party conference that it is committed to a reduction of £5 billion in the defence budget.
| Next Section
| Home Page |