House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Nov 1990

The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman desperately yearns for the approval--

Mr. Radice : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : I wish to finish the sentence. I have given way far more often than the Leader of the Opposition would ever dare to give way. I shall continue and finish the argument. Perhaps the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will do me the courtesy of listening.

There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition desperately yearns for the approval of those who are federalists, including the socialist President of the European Commission--who once told the European Parliament that before long 80 per cent. of economic decisions would be taken in Brussels rather than by national Governments. That is not very surprising, because socialism stands for intervention and central control.

The Leader of the Opposition has an uncomfortable suspicion that a majority of people do not want a federal Europe. So the right hon. Gentleman is in a dilemma. He likes to set his policies according to the prevailing wind. But he is not quite sure which way it is blowing. So he resorts to his usual tactic : the less he has to say, the more he says it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to flannel? The answer is yes--I heard it. Why did he flannel, as he did on radio last week, when asked about a single currency? He tried to pretend that we could have it and keep the pound sterling as well. He seems to think that the issue can be solved by having the Queen's head on an ecu whose value is determined elsewhere. Does not he understand that the essence of a single currency is to deprive Governments of the right to issue their own currencies?

Mr. Radice : Will the right hon. Lady give way?

The Prime Minister : Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the value of the single currency would not be determined by this Government or Parliament but by a

Column 31

European central bank, which would not be accountable to the House? The answer is no. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand this essential point, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) put so well in the House last week when he said :

"The mark of a single currency is not only that all other currencies must be extinguished but that the capacity of other institutions to issue currencies must also be extinguished".--[ Official Report, 30 October 1990 ; Vol. 178, c. 875.]

Let no one make the mistake of believing that what emerged from the Rome European Council was a fully worked-out strategy. It was just dates and deadlines.

Mr. Radice : Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Reid : Will the right hon. Lady give way?

The Prime Minister : As the President--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, should be the first to know that if the Prime Minsiter chooses not to give way, he must resume his seat.

Dr. Reid : The right hon. Lady said that she would give way.

Mr. Speaker : The Prime Minister said that she would give way at an appropriate moment.

The Prime Minister : I shall give way at the end of this argument. Clearly, some Opposition Members have not been listening, or they would have known that I was talking about a single currency. Some of the things that have been shouted from a sedentary position show that they have not grasped even that.

As I said, what emerged from Rome was just dates and deadlines. The President of the Bundesbank is reported to have said three days later :

"This outcome is not, in my opinion, a proper basis for such a far-reaching decision as the introduction of monetary union in Europe. In particular the way this communique "

that agreed in Rome--

"describes the second stage of monetary union is almost incomprehensible to me. We do not need a new institution to co-ordinate monetary policy ; we are already able to do that today." Yesterday the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung stated : "However one looks at it, the entire Delors plan plus subsequent text is half baked. At the Intergovernmental conference in December, the Heads of State and Government should not discuss dates for stage 2. They should first seek an answer to the question : what is stage 2?"

The Foreign Minister of the country that will be the next president of the Community, and who will chair the intergovernmental conference, said at the Rome meeting :

"It was a useless Summit and we shall pay the consequences". We are the only country to have put forward a fully worked-out proposal for the way ahead--not for a single currency, but for a common currency that can be used alongside national currencies. We have no bureaucratic timetable ; ours is a market approach, based on what people and Governments choose to do. If use of the hard ecu by people and commerce became widespread, it could, over time, evolve towards a single currency--but there could be no question of giving up our pound sterling unless and until Parliament and people at that time so decided. This Parliament should not pre-empt a choice that should be for future Parliaments and future generations to make.

Column 32

The Government whom I lead answer those questions clearly, fearlessly and coherently, even if that does sometimes mean being in a minority in the Community.

Dr. Reid : I am grateful to the Prime Minister. I shall not call her ducky--I am not that intimate. There is one question that people want answered. If there is such a degree of unanimity, why did the deputy Prime Minister resign? When the former Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned, the Prime Minister said on the Walden programme that she did not know why. Does she know why the deputy Prime Minister resigned, and will she tell us?

The Prime Minister : That question should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East. I am discussing and debating a single currency that we do not want imposed upon us. It was not clear from what the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said in this debate, nor in all his flannel on radio, whether he was for or against it. The Government are for a common currency and Britain is the only country in the whole of Europe which has a fully worked-out strategy for the second stage.

We want Britain to be part of a successful, prosperous and free-trading European Community. We want to work closely with our European friends : all our instincts and our history lead us that way. We want the European Community to be strengthened by being open to all the countries of Europe, including those of eastern Europe as they embrace democracy and as their economies become strong enough. However, we also want to preserve our national currency and the sovereignty of this House of Commons. That, I believe, is what Britain's interests require and what the people of Britain want. It is by setting out clearly what we believe in that we stand up for Britain's interests--as this Government have done over our budget contribution, over agricultural surpluses, over the single market and, most recently, over the GATT negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did a superb job at the seventh meeting. Had we behaved as France and Germany did, we would have been accused of being non-communautaire. We cannot secure the sort of Europe that we want through a policy of always going along with what others propose simply for fear of being left out. Nor can it be secured by the contortions and convolutions of the Opposition. The truth is that they know that our policy is right, but they dare not say so.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision taken yesterday by farm Ministers would not have been taken if she had not been so determined at the Rome summit to spell out the priorities of the common agricultural policy?

The Prime Minister : That is absolutely correct. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I had not insisted on raising the GATT issue at the last Rome European Council and also insisted that it be returned to farm Ministers, there would not have been a satisfactory solution. As it is, it will still be difficult to negotiate at the GATT round, but at least now there must be such negotiations between us and the other groups.

A few weeks ago the House was recalled to debate the situation in the Gulf, brought about by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The Government's strong stand-- both at the

Column 33

United Nations and in the sending of British forces to the area--was supported from all parts of the House. Since that debate the United Nations Security Council has passed further resolutions, repeating that Iraq must withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait and that the legitimate Government must be restored. Sanctions have been further tightened, with an air embargo to complement the maritime blockade. The Security Council has said that Saddam Hussein and those who obey his orders will be held responsible for their treatment of Kuwait and its people, as well as their treatment of the foreign nationals held hostage.

It has also been said that Iraq will have to pay compensation for the unspeakable damage caused to people and property. Britain and others have argued that Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapon capability must be eliminated, so that it can never again threaten world peace.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Will the right hon. Lady give way?

The Prime Minister : Does it concern the Gulf?

Mr. Dalyell : Yes ; it is in connection with the unspeakable damage. What is the Prime Minister's response to the serious statements made by Jordan's King Hussein about the ecological damage that he envisages in the Gulf? I simply ask : what is the British Government's comment on that?

The Prime Minister : It is quite a simple one. If a tyrant is never to be fought in order that freedom and justice may be restored, there will be far more tyrants in the world, and freedom and justice will be extinguished. If we followed King Hussein's argument--to which I listened with the greatest respect--we should never have fought Hitler, and we should not be having this debate today.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : No. I have nearly finished, and I want to pay careful attention to this most important matter, which dominates us during this year.

At the same time, the build-up of Arab and western forces against Iraq has continued. Our own 7th Armoured Brigade--the Desert Rats--is in place, commanded by one of the most distinguished and fearless fighting soldiers in the British Army, whose experience goes back to Korea. I am sure that the whole House will wish him and all our forces godspeed.

However, even though condemnation by the international community grows stronger, even though sanctions are steadily tightened, and even though the people of Iraq are being subjected to unnecessary hardship to satisfy their dictator's lust for power and conquest, there is no sign that Saddam Hussein is prepared to relinquish his hold on Kuwait, or that he will stop the brutalities--the murder, rape, robbery and pillage--that he and his forces are inflicting on Kuwait and its people. He continues to hold our people hostage, in defiance of every rule of law and every standard of decency and civilisation. The tension and anxiety that the hostages and their families must feel weigh on every one of us.

For three months now we have given sanctions and other peaceful pressures a chance. We have given Saddam Hussein the opportunity to withdraw and to end these

Column 34

abominations. Democracies are always reluctant to use force or to threaten it. However, we also know what happens when dictators are allowed to get away with aggression.

Time is running out for Saddam Hussein. The implacable message from the House must be this : either he gets out of Kuwait soon, or we and our allies will remove him by force, and he will go down to defeat with all its consequences. He has been warned.

Several Hon. Members rose--

The Prime Minister : Both at home and abroad the year ahead will be demanding and decisive. We on this side face it with confidence. 4.34 pm

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) rose--[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman wait for one moment, please?

Mr. Ashdown : I start on a slightly unusual note by saying that we have been debating for two hours and I shudder to think what those watching on their television sets will have thought about the way in which the House has behaved during those two hours, including the events of the past 10 or 20 seconds. The House will not have done itself any service by what has happened and by the way in which the two major and important speeches have been listened to by hon. Members.

In many ways, the behaviour of the House in the past two hours only too clearly typifies what we and so many others in Britain believe is wrong with our democratic system. At this important moment, when the country is in economic crisis, when the Government are split and when we face an important set of decisions, for the House to have dissolved into the kind of bear garden that we have seen in the past two hours is a disgrace to all the things that we stand for. Let me comment, as is the convention, on the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I hope that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes will forgive me for starting with him, but his speech amused me greatly. It was an exceptionally witty and funny speech which delighted the House. It is a matter of understandable, but no doubt deliberate, neglect that in his warm words about his constituency in Richmond and its beautiful environment he omitted to mention the architect of that environment, his own council, on which, if I recall the figures rightly, there are 48 Liberal Democrats and four Conservatives--our majority was increased at the last local government elections. But we forgive him that.

I was particularly fascinated by what connected the right hon. Member for Ayr and the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. One complained about too much aircraft activity and the other about too little. It occurred to me that they might do a little swap between themselves, to their mutual benefit. I notice that the right hon. Member for Ayr is nodding.

I was speculating with my colleagues about why the right hon. Member for Ayr had been chosen. Was that a recommendation made to the Whips by the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor? I was interested, because the right hon. Gentleman is the living disproof of the Prime

Column 35

Minister's claim that one cannot have a single currency with a separate pound. His bank issues a pound which does not have the Queen's head on it. He is the living disproof of what the Prime Minister was just arguing. It occurred to me that that might be some subtle hint from the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor to the Prime Minister about the unsuitability of her argument, to which I shall return.

How does one describe the Queen's Speech? It is a sad little programme for the last year of a Government who have claimed to be a reforming and radical Government ; a programme which is definite, precise and active about a number of rather small measures--important but small in the scale of things--but where it should have been precise and definite on the great issues, such as Europe, it is instead confused, opaque and indecisive. On the other great issue--the environment--there is not a word. There is a mention of it in the foreign affairs part of the speech, but otherwise there is not a word--complete silence.

The Queen's Speech is sad because the Government's internal problems have caused them to fail to look to the great issues that we are now facing. We are at a time of enormous change, and it is a profound tragedy for Britain that we have a Government who have run out of steam and vision, and who are widely perceived throughout the country--as we shall see in tomorrow's by- elections--as running out of time.

It is sad for the country that a Government who have been the engine of radical reform now find themselves frozen in inactivity in the face of enormous problems.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown : The hon. Gentleman intervenes early in my speech, and we have already listened to contributions that have taken two hours. Nevertheless, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and perhaps to two or three other interventions, but there must be a limit to them.

Mr. Dickens : If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he would have heard her explain that this Government have a reputation for putting more legislation before the House than they are able to include in the Queen's Speech. By that yardstick, we do not seem to be a Government who have run out of steam. A lot of legislation is with the parliamentary draftsmen and therefore could not be included in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Ashdown : We all understand that there is always a lighter load in the last term of any Government, so that they can keep open their options for a general election. That is not unusual. I am complaining not about the lightness of the legislative load but about the Government's lack of clarity on the great issues that face Britain, pre-eminently in respect of Europe.

The Government claim to have vision, and the Prime Minister has displayed vision in the past. I may not have agreed with it, but I do not underestimate her achievements in Britain or the strength of her personal ability. The truth is that her vision has now run out and the people of Britain know that to be true.

The Prime Minister gave a typically vintage performance. The right hon. Lady is always at her best when she

Column 36

has her back to the ropes and comes out fighting. Like an old fighter, when the bell rings she is able to go through all the movements--but one wonders whether she knows any more what they are for. The right hon. Lady stands at the Dispatch Box and duffs up the Opposition in her usual style, but to what purpose? One of today's national newspapers depicted the Prime Minister as a beached whale, and she does seem strangely out of kilter with the mood and problems of the 1990s.

No one doubts that the right hon. Lady was a voice for Britain in the 1980s, or that she may have been the voice for our country then, even if I did not agree with it. It is odd that the Prime Minister, who was once the great harbinger of change in our country, is now the biggest single bulwark and block against it. She is frightened of changing our constitution, and of the changes that we need to make to deal with the environmental problems that confront us. She is frightened most of all of the change that we must now face if we are to be part of the new Europe.

It will come as no surprise to the Prime Minister that my view, and that of many others, is that the best thing she can do now for her own reputation, the country, and her own party, is to resign--to stand down. I guess that she will not do that. She will not take my advice or that of right hon. and hon. Members on her own Benches--we all know that. She will continue to fight through, but her party will suffer as a result and, more important, Britain will suffer, too--nowhere more so than in the area of Europe itself.

We face in respect of Europe the most important strategic decision since world war two. We have faced that decision twice before in the last half century. Twice before we turned our back on Europe, and twice before we paid a very heavy price for doing so. I believe that we would pay an even higher price in future. The forthcoming intergovernmental conferences are vital for Britain and it is crucial that it plays its full part in them. We want a clear vision from the Government--not a suck it and see, wait to see how it turns out attitude.

So far, the Government have stumbled from one cobbled-together formula to another, to hide their divisions. I noted that the Foreign Secretary found a new formula when he appeared on the Walden programme on Sunday, when he drew an analogy with making a choice of motor car. He seemed rather pleased with it, and congratulated himself, thinking that it was a neat analogy. Ingenious minds will always find new formulas to cover a Minister over a few days or weeks, but the future of our currency is too important simply to draw an analogy between it and the way that fashions are followed in the motor trade.

Another technique that the Government use when they fail to find the formula or words to cover their current divisions is to set up Aunt Sallys of their own making and then proceed to knock them down. The most recent example came from the Prime Minister a few minutes ago, when, in her Boadicea voice, she said, "We will not have a single currency imposed upon us." But who wants a single currency imposed upon us?

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The right hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Ashdown : Of course I do not. There is no question but that the House and this country will decide whether we go along with that, and no one can take that away from us.

Column 37

To pretend that Mr. Delors, any of our European partners, my own party, or anyone else is in favour of the imposition of a single currency is simply nonsense.

Mr. Dickens : Let us see the details.

Mr. Ashdown : If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will hear the details.

The Prime Minister prides herself on facing reality, so I hope that she will face the reality that Britain has embarked on an inexorable process that will take us into Europe, with political integration, economic unity, and a degree of political cohesion that the Prime Minister cavils at. I remind the right hon. Lady of President Gorbachev's words that what one cannot alter one should seek to influence. Of course Britain has a case to argue. Monetary union will not be simple. It is not an easy option. It will be difficult and painful for Britain to adjust to monetary union, but it would be a good idea if the Prime Minister turned her attention to how this country should cope with some of those difficulties.

I do not propose monetary union because I believe that it will be a panacea for all our problems. In many ways, it is the least worst option open to us. But any option that involves isolation or Britain travelling in the slow lane of a two-speed Europe will be much more painful. The Prime Minister ought to be arguing Britain's case with all the verve and zest that she sometimes deploys--but inside the councils of Europe rather than standing outside them, making her arguments by way of insults and abuse from the touchline.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : The right hon. Gentleman used the words "the least worst option." Does he agree that, in practice, that very often amounts to imposition? His party has accepted vast areas of legislation being moved from this House, and, given that his party also favours European monetary union in principle--on which no other party has a mandate--does he not believe that, by the turn of the century, the Crown, Parliament and people of the United Kingdom will be subject to the institutions, and particularly the courts, of what will amount to a new European state?

Mr. Ashdown : The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that Parliament, by passing the Single European Act and in accepting the rulings of the European Court, has already moved in that direction. The question is how much farther we go down that road. I shall return to that point later.

The Prime Minister does this country no good, or its business interests any service, by seeking always to fight against the tide instead of turning that tide--as the other Community nations will do in the forthcoming intergovernmental conferences--to her own country's advantage. The Prime Minister does this country no good by giving the impression--although I know that it is not her real view--to our European partners in particular that she wants to row this country out into a secluded corner of the north Atlantic, where she can go on playing at being Queen Canute for ever. That does her and the country no good.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : The right hon. Gentleman's views, and those of his party, on the future of the Community are well known and he has always been consistent about them. That is not a reason to make a travesty of the views held by Conservative

Column 38

Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the Prime Minister was absolutely right to insist that we cannot possibly take far-reaching decisions in this or any other area of policy without a clear idea of what such decisions involve?

Mr. Ashdown : I shall come to that matter. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we have no idea of where the Major plan, as we now know it, will end up. The Prime Minister is telling us that we might or might not end up with a single currency.

Mr. Spearing : You want it.

Mr. Ashdown : Yes, we do want a single currency. That is exactly right. We are aware that we should like that to be our destination. We may be a minority in the House, but we are in the mainstream of this debate in Europe, whereas the Labour and Conservative parties are isolated on the touchline over this issue.

Mr. Cryer rose --

Mr. Ashdown : I shall give way once more in a moment. I know the Prime Minister's strengths, and I understand what she has sought to do, but I do not believe that she does this country any favours by allowing us to be dragged backwards, struggling and kicking into Europe, deliberately refusing to play any part in shaping the Europe that we are dragged into.

Mr. Cryer : Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that by Europe he means the European Economic Community--12 states out of about 40? Does he agree that it is rather arrogant to keep referring to Europe when the Community represents a minority of European states? Can he confirm that the Liberal party is actively seeking a single western European state?

Mr. Ashdown : That is the last time that I shall give way. The first point that the hon. Gentleman made is a good one, and I accept it. I mean the European Community, although I, my party, and many others in Britain hope that the Community will expand into a broader Europe of the sort that he was talking about. Yes, we believe that there will have to be a political dimension in Europe. We are not ashamed of believing that, and I remind the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that that view represents the mainstream majority view in every other European country, so I do not say it with any shame. I do not wish to detain the House too long. I have given way four or five times and I shall not give way again until I have advanced my views further.

The Prime Minister was talking about a single European currency--it was argued that we must move towards one. If the hard ecu plan is a transition mechanism to the imposition of a single currency, it is a perfectly sensible and practical way forward. However, I think that the way that the Prime Minister has argued her case has blown any possibility of the hard ecu plan being considered seriously by our European partners.

On the question of sovereignty, I was fascinated by the Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Any hon. Member who says that the option is between a single currency and a proud, independent, autonomous, imperial pound is talking nonsense. The truth of the matter is that under ERM, as before it, the choice is not between a single and an independent currency but between a single currency,

Column 39

over which we shall have some influence, and a dominant currency--the deutschmark--over which we shall have none. One has only to consider the situation last year when we put up our interest rates. The faceless men in the Bundesbank took the decision and Britain followed on half an hour later. We are like a cork, bobbing behind the deutschmark. According to the Prime Minister, the choice will be between being a sub-currency of the deutschmark, as she described it to my hon. Friend, or having a single currency, with its institutions, in which Britain will have some influence. That is the truth of the matter.

The question of sovereignty again arises with the independent, central bank. I find something deeply offensive about the comments of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I see that he is not now in his place, and I apologise for mentioning him without warning, but I find that he is particularly offensive on that matter. I have heard him say that if we have a central bank we might as well get rid of elections. What absolute nonsense.

Let me remind the House that most other European democracies--most of which would bear ready comparison with ours and appear better--have independent central banks. It is offensive to say that that is somehow inimical to the operation of a democracy. The Prime Minister put forward the argument that somehow or other an independent central bank undermines the sovereignty of Parliament.

Mr. Spearing : Of course it does.

Mr. Ashdown : Does any hon. Member believe that we have any sovereignty on such a matter, when we know perfectly well that it is not the House that decides on interest rates but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor? The House has been weakened to such an extent that effectively it is a poodle. By having an independent central bank we would be damaging the Prime Minister's sovereignty--we would be diminishing the Prime Minister's sovereignty to reduce interest rates on the eve of the Conservative party conference for the good of her party and not for the good of the nation, and that cannot come too soon. We would be diminishing the Prime Minister's sovereignty over debauching the British economy before an election to purchase votes, for which we would all pay the price afterwards. That is not a type of sovereignty which I am afraid to abandon and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I have no doubt that he complained about the political act of reducing interest rates before the Conservative party conference. I am surprised that he does not object to such sovereignty. To use the words of Sir Leon Brittan--backed up by the Chancellor--when he was in a similar position, an independent central bank, as has been established in Germany and so many other democracies, is a solid rock upon which a genuine counter- inflationary policy can be based. The Government tell us the opposite.

Mr. Spearing : Surely the right hon. Gentleman has got democracy wrong, despite the name of his party. If he wishes to bring a Prime Minister to book, and her party does not do so, it is a matter for the House, in a general election. A central bank, which is what he wants,

Column 40

undermines the Prime Minister's sovereignty, and replaces it with its own. Surely it should be replaced by the sovereignty of the elected Members of the House.

Mr. Ashdown : If, after 11 years in Opposition, the hon. Gentleman believes that he, as a Member of the House and of the Opposition, has any control over the Prime Minister's actions through the House, all I can say is that he is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I agree with what the Prime Minister had to say. It is true that Britain's tragedy is that the two main political parties are equally divided, confused and uncertain about Europe. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cast his eyes over the section of the Queen's Speech that covers European issues. He will discover that the words used by the Government are words that his party could subscribe to. The Queen's Speech says that we will "contribute constructively" to the debate, without saying where they want to arrive. We now understand that the Government want a central bank--a shift of position--but they want it to have the very attributes that would make it impossible, unworkable and unattainable. They want a central bank under total democratic control and committed to beating inflation. We all know that every other nation in Europe would refuse such a central bank for very good reasons, in the same way that they have refused the Prime Minister's own proposals.

The Gracious Speech mentions the USSR and it was right to do so. I am sure that I am not saying anything that is new to the Government, but I stress that the internal problems of the USSR are now such that they must give us grave cause for concern. However much we admire Mr. Gorbachev, in the weeks or months ahead there could be chaos, dissolution and civil war, which would necessarily alter all the cosy perceptions that we enjoy about the east-west relationship. That is another reason why the coherence of the European Community needs to be strong. We must create the unity and stability in the west that will be able to cope with the total chaos that could develop in eastern Europe.

In what I thought was a chilling passage, which worried me greatly, the Prime Minister referred to what we should now be doing in the Gulf. That passage of her speech reflected something that has caused deep concern both to me and my colleagues and, I believe, to many others--a mood for war. It is growing in Britain, the United States and elsewhere. The psychology of war is growing in people's minds. We on these Benches accept unflinchingly the need to take military action. We support the Government unflinchingly. Not to do so would mean that we were prepared to accept that Saddam Hussein should be allowed to hang on to the ill-gotten gains of his tyranny. We do not accept that.

We accept the need to ensure that the military option is kept open. That means that Governments must remind Saddam Hussein and the public that that option is still on the cards. There is no point in surrounding Saddam Hussein with a ring of steel unless it is backed up with an iron political will. That does not mean, however, that war should be entered into precipitately, lightly, easily or as the result of unstoppable public momentum. It must be entered into as a careful and considered act. War is a terrible option. It would result in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of young men. It would also bring to an end

Next Section

Home Page