House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Nov 1990

Column 213

Europe ; the Labour party's hacks have some convincing to do of their own supporters that they have the best policies on Europe. That is not surprising when we read carefully what the Labour party has said, some of which was read into the record by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). We find that the only clear policy that Labour has on Europe is a proposal to transfer certain powers from this House to the European Parliament and that is the only proposal on Europe that the British people are dead against--all generations, all voters, and all groups in all parts of the country. That is the only thing that the Labour party has and the British voters are against.

My own worry is that there has been too much emphasis on "What is Europe doing for us, the British?" and on what Britain is getting out of it. I am quite certain that we have to be in. There is nowhere else for Britain to go. It is a very cold world outside. If one were to think about the Commonwealth, for example, being a group of equal partners, one has only to come with me to Bangladesh on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit soon and see how unlikely that is.

I should like us to see what we can do for Europe, to paraphrase John Kennedy's inaugural speech in 1960. We have a huge part to play in the creation of a free, democratic and prosperous continent. I am all for freedom of trade, but we will not get it unless Britain keeps nagging about subsidies and invisible barriers to trade. Every time we have nagged, our partners have huffed and puffed about it, been rude about the Prime Minister and then given in, as they did again this week.

I am against bureaucracy wherever it is found, whether it is in Whitehall, in Derbyshire county council at Matlock, in Brussels, in Strasbourg, in Geneva or wherever. We can show the people of the rest of Europe how to govern without excessive state interference and without taxing people to the hilt. We have a much clearer idea about what government is and is not for and about when Governments should leave people to make their own decisions.

For those reasons, I feel that our role in the European Community should be positive. That does not mean that we should agree with everything or that we should swallow all the tripe that comes out of the Commission as if it were gospel. It means that the future of Britain inside that strong community of nations is a rosy future, and I, for one, am content with that.

9.19 pm

Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel) : Next week, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and I leave for Libya. That begins part of a process of Inter-Parliamentary Union fact-finding missions which, over succeeding weeks, will involve hon. Members of all parties in visits to Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen. The visits are designed to establish three things. The first is to explore the attitudes of those who seemingly are supporters of our position on the question of Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, but who oppose the presence of western forces. It must be part of our mission to ask those countries exactly what is their own argument and how they will seek to enforce the United Nations resolutions.

Column 214

Secondly, we wish to express solidarity for those who are part of the 25 nations that are joined in making a contribution in the Gulf. Thirdly--this is most important--we should recognise the sensitivity of, and the need for understanding towards, some of the countries that have special problems in this situation, such as Jordan. If I had more time, I would expand on that point.

However, in the context of the Gulf, I should like to deal with one or two other bilateral relations and it may surprise hon. Members if I turn first to Argentina. It should be recognised that Argentina is part of the community of nations that is committed to joint action in the Gulf. Like other hon. Members, I recently visited Argentina, and should like to remind the House that no fewer than 2 million Argentines are of Arab extraction, led by their president. We welcome the fact that Argentina is playing this role in the new world order, and that should be part of the recognition we accord in the trade and investment talks in the week beginning 26 November, when the Argentine Foreign Minister is to visit this country. That trade and investment agreement will be significant in opening up all kinds of opportunities.

Those of us who recently visited the province of Misiones know that the opportunities for British trade and investment and for two-way trade should lead us to urge caution upon all those with influence in these matters. In our fisheries negotiations, while recognising the sensitivities of the Falklands, this country and Argentina, we should also recognise that those trade and investment agreements are crucial confidence-building measures which I hope will lead us to a more fruitful understanding of the relationship between our countries. In the brief time available to me, I turn next to central and eastern Europe, to which part of the activities of the

Inter-Parliamentary Union have traditionally been directed but have, to some extent, now been put on the back burner. I urge my right hon. Friends to think of what might be done to assist not only Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, but other areas in special need, such as Romania.

Many hon. Members will also have received a desperate appeal from Bulgaria. I talked today to the Bulgarian charge d'affaires, and wish to place on record the appalling situation in that country. Its cries from the heart should make us think again about the need for Governments, the voluntary agencies and the United Nations to think about disaster relief in new ways, and not just in the traditional third-world terms.

I conclude by regretting that I shall not have a chance to develop my argument about the importance of the work to which hon. Members of all parties are committed in connection with the forthcoming visit of the Chinese Speaker, Mr. Wan Li, the week after next. That will be an important stage in beginning a new dialogue with China, which can not only cover trade and investment, science and technology, and the environment, but in which the question of Hong Kong will be critical. It is an opportunity to reach a joint affirmation of our commitment to secure the future of that colony. I know that the whole House is engaged with those matters. I commend those who are assisting in that process and look for further support from those right hon. and hon. Members who are present.

Column 215

9.23 pm

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan) : Today's debate has focused primarily on Europe and the Gulf. It has had a topical nature few recent Gracious Speech foreign affairs and defence debates have had. The fact that it is in what might be regarded as prime time rather than tucked away on a Friday is evidence of the significance that the House attaches to the subject this year. However, in some respects it is unfortunate that we did not have the debate tomorrow because, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, it is the anniversary of an event that has transformed so much of our thinking in the past 12 months.

In some respects European issues have been diminished by our understandable preoccupation with the Gulf. Speaker after speaker this evening divided their remarks into two sections--first Europe and secondly the Gulf. Certainly there is a fair degree of consensus on the Gulf crisis, although there are some areas of division. Some hon. Members foresee the need to use arms earlier than others. Some would argue that we should delay, perhaps indefinitely, and others among us take the view that military action will come and that when it does we will have to use the force of arms with care but with some regret because we sought a peaceful solution.

When the crisis emerged the Labour party called for an economic embargo and applauded its creation. We advocated naval and military deployment and we shall continue to support it. If additional deployment is deemed appropriate to sustain that presence the Labour party will look sympathetically at what forces commanders deem necessary. We have all marvelled at the vigour and strength of the United Nations in responding to the threat to peace in the Gulf. The Opposition believe that there is still time for sanctions to work and that the liberation of Kuwait and the freeing of hostages may be achieved by means other than the force of arms. Indeed, it is ironic that several Conservative Members said that they did not want to sustain sanctions because they might work and inflict the damage that everyone recognises was the case for introducing them in the first place. If those hon. Members believe that the suffering of folk in Iraq is less appropriate than the carnage that would ensue from force of arms, they should stop and think about the troops being massed on both sides of the border and the damage that could be inflicted not just to the buildings and infrastructure of Iraq and, indeed, that which remains in Kuwait. We must bear in mind the nature of what war in the raw will create. The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who graphically related his experiences as a war correspondent, demonstrated that danger. We still have time. We have heard imaginative speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave an interesting prescription. The House will want to read his speech in Hansard tomorrow because it was detailed. It showed that people are giving thought to diplomatic options. But all the signs are that there is little likelihood of the Iraqi authorities expressing any interest in a negotiated settlement.

It is fair to say that if we realise our objectives by peaceful means but do not at the same time secure either the dismantling by treaty or the destruction by force of arms of Iraq's nuclear and chemical capabilities, any

Column 216

solution that we achieve will be a pyrrhic one. The long-term security of not only the Gulf but the middle east will be guaranteed only if a degree of legitimacy is afforded to the settlement. That meets the point that we must carry the other Arab and Muslim states with us. If we cannot achieve that consensus, what is the chance of our being able to require Israel to look at its nuclear capability? We cannot require some countries to give up their capabilities if others in the region will not. I am not arguing for linkage. This will be a staged resolution. It will not happen simultaneously. It will not be achieved by a process of diplomatic mirrors. There will be a lengthy, tortuous period of negotiation after what may be an overlong period of war.

We must remember that we need to sustain the consensus. It has been a unique feature of the past nine weeks. The American presence and the Soviet acquiescence are not necessarily inseparable, but without one, the other is meaningless and, if not meaningless, it is profoundly dangerous.

Tonight's debate has focused largely on the Gulf. We have not given as much attention to "Options for Change" as we perhaps should have done. Operation Granby, as the Ministry of Defence calls it, is preoccupying many people. I hope that at a later stage we can consider the MOD response to the Defence Select Committee's report on recent events in Europe. There is much of it that many of us would like to consider.

The references in the Gracious Speech to further negotiations in Europe should enable all of Europe to obtain greater cuts in the form of verifiable measures. If we delay following on the success of the first round of CFE negotiations, we could end up with reciprocal unilateralism-- the tit-for-tat disarmament which, although welcome, falls way short of agreements that can be subject to guarantees of inspection and verification. Those security problems are both in Europe and out of area.

Some argue for a European out-of-area role. The prospect of fulfilling such a role without United States participation is hard to imagine. The constructive role played by the Soviet Union in recent months shows its willingness to be involved. Europe cannot afford to alienate either of those great powers because the consequence of isolation from either one or the other is all too evident to and easily understood by those who have read our recent history. Some say that we do not need to worry ourselves about that and that we need only build up talks on the security dimension for the European Community. We in the Labour party approach that with great caution. Existing NATO members, such as France, have only a semi-detached relationship with NATO's military structure. Germany is prohibited by its constitution from participating outside the NATO area and any prospects of change in the constitution will be confined to United Nations matters, assuming that those constitutional changes can be made.

Within the European Community, Ireland has maintained its neutrality throughout its period of membership. The Austrian and Swedish applications could be jeopardised if we challenged their long-established view on security. If Sweden and Austria were to be frightened off, the participation of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland would be long delayed. We

Column 217

must recognise that the idea of a European answer to the world's security problems creates problems for traditionally neutral countries and the Soviet Union.

Our objective must be the establishment of a common security system from Vancouver to Vladivostock. Its initial tasks will be to oversee and arbitrate on the inspection and verification procedures established by disarmament treaties, to establish means of resolving territorial and ethnic-based disputes, to seek agreement on future levels of armaments between states and to explore ways of securing joint procurement so that we have a means whereby we can defend ourselves at far lower levels of expenditure than at present. Such work will not be completed in the next 12 months, but it must be started. We all wish our representatives well when they meet in Paris next week. The search for a new security framework for Europe, the United States and the Soviet Union must go on.

Today's debate, which some have called the alphabet soup debate, has almost become a creature of those who remember the meanings of the acronyms. The devotees of an institution tend to argue that it is the one with the answers. I believe that our ambitions should be far more modest. Instead of talking about a new architecture for Europe or thinking in terms of reinforced concrete structures, we should seek what I prefer to think of as a scaffolding that can be assembled, changed and taken down as and when it is appropriate to do so and not become wedded to a simplistic idea.

The Labour party has advocated the mutual dissolution of the Warsaw pact and NATO, but the pact has disintegrated. When Soviet military might stopped backing eastern bloc regimes, the whole thing fell apart. The new Governments have for the most part turned their backs on the old military alliance. It is ironic that they have not shown any marked apprehension about the continued presence of NATO forces in Germany. The size of such forces will be reduced drastically, but there is still a job of organisation and co-ordination for NATO forces on the southern flank, in the North sea and in the Atlantic. The work involved in achieving arms reductions in those areas and the organisation of central Europe gives the lie to those who say that NATO no longer has a function.

NATO uniquely is equipped to participate in the work of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe--not to dominate it or to alienate, but to help fill the gap in the CSCE process by way of bureaucracy. One of the great mistakes that people make is to attribute to the CSCE process properties that it does not have. The fact that it does not have a telephone number is evidence of the absence of any bureaucracy. There are obvious gaps in the chancellories of eastern Europe and the new democracies, and the bulk of the responsibility to find a new structure may fall on NATO members and some neutral states in Scandinavia and elsewhere. This may be the last Queen's Speech before the next general election. As a result, the legislative programme will not be too heavy. I am told that we are to have 15 Bills this year. Last year we had about 45. There is one major item of legislation from the Ministry of Defence--facilitation of contractor operation of the atomic weapons establishments. There are four

establishments--Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness--and there have been

Column 218

problems with the management of the operation for a long time. There is difficulty about construction of the A90 facilities. There have been terrible problems with recruitment and retention in the Aldermaston and Burghfield area. Those plants are in an area of low unemployment where there is a high demand for skilled labour and it is difficult for the Ministry of Defence, with its present salary structure, to attract and retain workers. The Government have tried to meet some of the problems. Management consultants have been introduced to assist with management of the plant--to stop it bleeding to death, as someone said --and to prepare for the contractorisation programme.

As I understand it, the work is being given to a group of managers from Hunting-BRAE Ltd. They have to assist in the short-term management of the plant, and to prepare for contractorisation, which will be going out to tender, so there will be some competition. It seems rather strange that the management consultants who will be preparing the brief will be potential contenders for the contract. The work force has expressed a number of anxieties, and I know that the Secretary of State was good enough to see them before the announcement of the intention to legislate.

The Opposition which will emerge to contractorisation will be different from the campaigns waged over the dockyards and the royal ordnance factories. The Rosyth dockyard makes the argument for contractorisation, whereas the Devonport dockyard experience makes the argument against.

The unions have expressed a number of concerns, which we shall raise with the Minister on Second Reading. But there have been clear indications from the work force that they do not want to indulge in the trench warfare which was the hallmark of the previous contractorisation of defence establishments. There is a willingness to work on an agency arrangement and to search for compromise, but there is a desire to stay within the civil service. There is also a desire to afford managers the opportunity to try our new forms of operation and to establish a new pay structure, which could operate within an agency arrangement.

I make that point because this establishment is radically different from the dockyards. It is a unique facility and there is no prospect of diversification into other activities. There is a sole client and customer- -the Government. The materials used are extremely dangerous and it is feared that profit may not be compatible with safety. Privatisation of this type of activity in the United States has brought about terrible environmental problems and safety difficulties.

As I said earlier, the light legislative load this year may give us opportunities to debate foreign affairs and security matters. We must recognise that the Government have so far failed to respond to the Defence Select Committee's challenges on the failure of forward defence as it is now organised, and its relevance to the alliance, and have failed to identify how we can have a flexible response, without flexibility in the form of the renewal of different weapons systems.

Every hon. Member has referred to the prospect of further fighting in the Gulf--a war which may prove easier to start than to finish. Nevertheless, the Labour party in opposition recognises its responsibilities and will continue to support our troops, the allies and the Government, so long as they are seeking to secure the liberation of Kuwait

Column 219

and of the hostages, and the establishment of a security system in the middle east. We hope that we shall not have to return to this matter in a future debate on the Queen's Speech because we hope that it will be resolved, but if it is not, we know where our sympathies lie. We believe that the Government and the Opposition are largely of one mind on this issue. However, we repeat that our support, although fulsome of our men and of our needs, is not a blank cheque. As the Opposition, we reserve the right to question, to query and to challenge where appropriate. That should not be seen as anything less than backing for our men, who are ready to do an unpleasant job under some of the most difficult and trying conditions in the world. 9.43 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King) : A wide range of subjects has been covered in the debate. In the time left to me, I am afraid that my response will have to be extremely flexible. I have to disabuse the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). He is more naive about these matters than I had appreciated. He has found only 15 Bills in the Queen's Speech ; therefore, he thinks that as we dealt with 45 Bills in the previous Session, this will be a much shorter one. I must remind him that the previous Queen's Speech contained only 15 Bills but that we had no difficulty in expanding that number to 45.

Whatever one may think about the quality of today's debate, it has been much easier to hear the speeches. There is no harm in that. The Government appreciate very much the note upon which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) opened the debate and the note upon which the hon. Member for Clackmannan ended it. We appreciate the support of Her Majesty's Opposition at a time of great national difficulty when our forces and our people, many of them detained against their will, above all look for that united voice. The few passing criticisms that I shall make are not intended to detract from the deep thought that has been given to these matters. Occasionally the right hon. Member for Gorton criticises the Government for what he disapproves of, but when he approves of what we do he says that it was his idea in the first place and that we are merely following his policies. Since we have initiated one or two of those ideas ourselves, we find that a little difficult to take. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say also that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary opened the debate with an absolutely outstanding speech. He spoke genuinely and drew support from both sides of the House.

We are living in a time of tumultuous change and grave challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) rightly said that tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the Berlin wall coming down. It is three and a half months since I stood at this Dispatch Box and announced "Options for Change". It is 99 days since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to that amazing upheaval as nine months of good news and three months of much more sombre and unattractive news. The right hon. Member for Gorton was uncharacteristically unfair to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he criticised what he described as my right hon. Friend's inactivity over South Africa. I thought that

Column 220

that was absolutely incredible. During the past four to six months more has happened than ever before in South Africa to change the awful face of apartheid. As the right hon. Gentleman and the House know perfectly well, the United Kingdom is not only talking to all the parties but is trusted by all the parties. If the negotiations are carried to the successful conclusion that we all hope to see, the United Kingdom may yet have an important role to play.

[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), to whose speeches I have listened over many years, knows perfectly well that three weeks ago President de Klerk carried through the repeal of the Separate Amenities Act. Two years ago people would have thought that that was impossible. He says that nothing has happened, but that is unfair.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : But the Government have done nothing.

Mr. King : The right hon. Member for Gorton referred to the speech made in Colorado by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which she talked about a European Magna Carta. He said, "That has disappeared, hasn't it? We haven't seen much sign of it." I ask the right hon. Gentleman to contain himself for another 10 days. The conference on security and co- operation in Europe summit is soon to take place. There will be a final document that will include a section on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. At that gathering in Paris there will be 34 nations. Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of worship and peaceful assembly, freedom of movement and freedom to own property will be enshrined in that document. The initiative was taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, yet the right hon. Member for Gorton has the nerve to say that it has disappeared. It will be triumphantly displayed in 10 days' time. I hope that then he will recognise it for what it is. I appreciated what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Clackmannan said about the future of NATO. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that it is important that NATO should continue. It should not disintegrate into disarray, as is happening with the Warsaw pact. It must evolve and change. We all recognise its importance. The hon. Member for Clackmannan sends me letters saying that we are not spending enough on weapons or that we may not be placing some contract for tanks or frigates. The Opposition enjoy this activity. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that the next Labour Government will play an active and constructive role in NATO. What with? What are they going to use when the Labour party conference resolutions will slash their defence expenditure? I say in the kindest way, there are many pious words but there is little to back them up.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He said that he would read what I have to say so I shall say something so that he can read it. I say to him and his hon. Friends that there are different views about whether the Irish Government could or should do more in different ways to improve security and whether they could improve their co-operation with Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, anybody who believes that we are likely to do better in tackling the real problems in Northern

Column 221

Ireland without trying to work in harmony and understanding with the Republic of Ireland is living in total ignorance of the real circumstances.

It is sad that people of ability and courage such as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone continue to bash their heads against the same old brick walls instead of starting to do something more positive and constructive.

This incredible year will be marked by the signing of the conventional forces in Europe treaty at the CSCE conference in 10 days. The year has passed so quickly that many of its events have been overtaken by subsequent developments. I remember the shiver that went through London in February when the news came through that the Americans were thinking of doing a separate deal on manpower numbers and that they were going to come down to 195,000 on the central front and 30,000 outside. People wondered whether it was wise or dangerous. We have gone way beyond that now. The question now is whether the number will be in six figures.

The most recent development on 12 September was the treaty on final settlement with respect to Germany. What an amazing title that is. It was marked by the departure of the British commandant from Berlin. We are no longer part of the four-power arrangement. We now see the unified Germany as a full member of NATO. The final settlement also agrees the total withdrawal of Soviet troops by the end of 1994. I have been in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Polish Vice Minister of Defence has been here this week. They are all desperate for closer contact with the west. We see the Warsaw pact dissolving before our eyes. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) referred to the break-up of the Soviet Union.

There was a startling and interesting intervention from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). It is extraordinary to talk now about access for the Baltic states to the CSCE. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been talking to the Estonian Foreign Minister. All that underlines the extraordinary changes that we are seeing. They have great implications for us. I have talked about the NATO strategy and "Options for Change". There will be reductions. The House heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer today and will have had a chance to study the figures. They will gradually gather momentum and we shall be able to achieve savings through rationalisation and some reductions in our armed forces, particularly in Germany where we shall see significantly lower force levels, in not only the front line but the support areas. Hon. Members will appreciate that those reductions will mean pain and the loss of jobs in some industries that are used to defence equipment orders. They will perhaps mean changes in some bases, but everybody understands that that is an inevitable consequence.

We must obviously maintain adequate defences. I spoke in my statement on "Options for Change" of the threat of the unexpected and of the need for flexibility and mobility. I did not know that within eight days the need would be so clearly demonstrated. As I speak tonight, we have some 17,000 men and women committed to the Gulf from the Army, Navy and Air Force. The move of the 7th armoured brigade involved 40 ships, 4,200 vehicles and

Column 222

40,000 tonnes of ammunition and stores. It was an amazing achievement. [Interruption.] I am sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) criticise it. It was an amazing logistical achievement. I am going to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf on Sunday. I look forward with much interest to seeing everything that I have heard about the excellent morale, the good performance of the equipment and the work that has been done.

Important issues are still to be tackled. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East spoke of the integration of command and control. I am satisfied with our arrangements, but he rightly referred to the 28 or so countries that are involved, some of which are involved only at sea, but a significant number are involved on land. It is important to ensure proper command and control arrangements.

It is also important to ensure the welfare of our people in the Gulf. I do not want to go into detail about the issues of free mail arrangements, better telephone arrangements, rest and relaxation and entertainment, to which we attach importance.

We see ourselves as part of a force of 28 or so countries, of which Czechoslovakia was the last to make a contribution. Some of the work has been done under the auspices of the WEU to develop the European pillar to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs referred.

President Bush has announced that he is sending further substantial reinforcements to the Gulf. I spoke this evening to Secretary Cheney, who confirmed that although they are substantial reinforcements of additional heavy divisions that will provide an adequate offensive military option, they mark no change in United States policy because it still seeks to resolve this difficult conflict by peaceful means. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East exercised their minds, as we do constantly on these difficult issues, about how to ensure that the aggression and the awfulness of what is happening in Kuwait is ended at the earliest possible moment by peaceful means. It must be done by the most effective application of the embargo and the ruthless application of the sanctions regime, backed up by a credible military option. It must be backed up by the reality that if peaceful means are not achieved, force will be used. We are conscious that in the modern world of communications, with Cable News Network and other channels, everything that we say is listened to, perhaps more in Baghdad than anywhere else. We must be careful what we say. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East is a distinguished former Secretary of State and has held two major offices of state, but listening to his speech I wondered--I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said this--what impact it would have had in Baghdad. We must choose our words carefully.

What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and the way in which she put it, is more likely to settle this by peaceful means without conflict because, from her words, there will be no question but that there is a military option which, if the aggression is not ended, will be used.

Column 223

Mr. Healey : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King : I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I am saying this in the kindest possible way. I should like to quote the words of someone from Kuwait to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not know whether the House knows that "John Smith" who wrote from Kuwait also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and said :

"I belong to no political party and have never voted for the Conservative Party. Nevertheless I am sending you a copy of my recent article as I think that you have most accurately represented the feelings of British civilians caught up in the situation, and I would ask you to continue with the views and opinions that you have expressed."

We want the situation settled by peaceful means. We are determined to see the aggression end. We are determined to see that one way or another Saddam Hussein will go. If he does not go peacefully, he must face the consequences.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BROADCASTING, &c.

Ordered,

That Sir Geoffrey Howe be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c., and that Mr. John MacGregor be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Sackville.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,

That Sir Geoffrey Howe be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), and that Mr. John MacGregor be added to the Committee.- - [Mr. Sackville.]

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,

That Sir Geoffrey Howe be discharged from the Select Committee on Privileges, and that Mr. John MacGregor be added to the Committee. -- [Mr. Sackville.]

Column 224

Car Crime

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

10 pm

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise, during the week of the debate in reply to the Queen's Speech, the growing problem of car crime. The stealing of cars, the stealing from cars and joyriding in cars are becoming a plague. It is a danger to the public, including the people who own cars, and often a menace to the people who joyride in them. The problem afflicts the whole country and has special application in my county of Leicestershire, where, unfortunately, in the first part of 1990 the number of these offences increased by nearly 50 per cent. What is more, nearly half those offences are known to have been committed by lads aged between 13 and 17.

This morning, I went to two schools in my constituency in Beaumont Leys, which is comparatively new and includes a series of estates where a tremendous number of good citizens live. It is also an area in which crime of this kind has been growing enormously. I talked to and listened to the children at Buswells Lodge and Barleycroft schools. I was told that, during the past year or so, 38 of the 50 families of the children in one class at Barleycroft school suffered from the theft of a car or motor cycle at their homes or outside them. The children told me what happens to those vehicles. Sometimes they are dumped in a field. Sometimes they never reappear. Sometimes the joyriders set them alight--on one occasion, they drove a car into a school car park and set it alight.

This picture of car crime has spread throughout the country. It is scarcely recognised and is certainly not dealt with. It is, of course, part of a much wider picture of crime which is growing more than ever before. We have a picture of violent crimes against the person, of burglary, of robbery and of constituents--old and sometimes young--afraid to go out at night for fear of attack. Some of them are even afraid to stay in at night for fear of attack.

When we bring this to the Government's attention, the result is always the same. There are statistics to show that, theoretically, more money has been spent on the fight against crime. However, that is a wholly inadequate admission of the extent to which the plague of crime in general, and of car crime in particular, has afflicted our society. Successive chief constables of Leicestershire have begged for an adequate number of policemen on the beat and for more resources so that they can increase the number of police who are visible and available. That would mean that there was less temptation to crime, because there would be a greater chance of criminals being caught.

However, time after time the Government, who are meant to be a Government of law and order, have replied, "Sorry, we cannot afford it." We cannot afford the level of crime that has been reached, we cannot afford the misery that it has caused and we certainly cannot afford the high cost that this country has to bear as a result of car crime.

It has been estimated that car theft costs Britain approximately £1 billion a year, with car-related crime now accounting for more than one quarter of all reported crime. For the year ending June 1990, thefts from vehicles have increased by 13.1 per cent. and thefts of vehicles have increased by 20.6 per cent. Crime overall went up by 12.6

Column 225

per cent. over the same period. It is true that statistics on crime, like all other statistics, have to be treated with a certain amount of caution. However, while more crimes are being reported, many are still not reported. It is estimated that, of thefts from cars, only 30 per cent. reach the statistics.

Crime is increasing and the clear-up rate for theft remains low. The figure for thefts from vehicles is 23 per cent. and for thefts of vehicles it is 27 per cent. In Leicestershire, thefts of vehicles and joy riding increased by 25 per cent. in 1989 and, I repeat, in the first half of 1990, car thefts and joy riding jumped by 47.3 per cent. Up to September of this year, car crime represented 44.2 per cent. of all reported crime. Over the past 10 years in Leicestershire, thefts of cars increased by 79 per cent. and theft from cars increased by 223 per cent.--a massive and wholly unacceptable increase.

That increase affects everyone who owns a car, a motorcycle or a van, but there is also danger to the youngsters who commit the crimes. On 16 April this year, for example, a Leicester couple who had six children were killed by a 16-year-old joyrider. Not only did the man and woman suffer, but the joyrider and his 16-year-old passenger were killed. Four people died in the same joyriding accident.

How are we to deal with such crime? We must recognise the facts and what is being stolen. In the past, most stolen cars were Fords and small cars. Small cars were mainly involved because many of the youngsters who stole them could not steal big cars because their feet could not reach the pedals. Now that has changed, and they have learnt to move the seats--and there are bigger cars. I have been told by the police, both nationally and locally, that the move is away from the ordinary car to the souped-up vehicle--the more powerful car, which is more dangerous when on the road. It is dangerous to others and to the individual, but it is a car that is regarded as more fun to drive.

We look for some response to the problem. What do we find? In 1988, a Home Office working group on car crime outlined four broad areas for action. It wanted

"further study of potential solutions."

That has got nowhere. It also wanted

"improved statistics."

Perhaps the statistics are a little better, but they have not brought any joy.

Another requirement was

"programmes to divert youth from taking up car crime."

That is extremely important. Earlier this evening, I was fortunate enough to have a conversation with Sir John Dellow, deputy chief commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Let me pause to say how much I--along with all hon. Members I am sure--regret the illness that has been suffered by Sir Peter Imbert, the commissioner, and how glad we are that he is making such excellent progress. We all hope that he will be back at his post very soon.

I talked to Sir John about this debate. It is not an easy task to say to a leading police officer "What can you do?" He told me, for instance, about some initiatives that he and fellow officers had been pursuing in various parts of London : they have been setting up operations separate from normal police work. In those operations, youngsters who are besotted with cars and want to learn to drive--

Column 226

and to take cars apart and put them together again--are encouraged and helped to do so. The schemes are flourishing, and they are certainly worthy of compliment.

This morning I was taken to Boswells Lodge and Barleycroft schools by a police community officer, PC Parker. He is working with the youngsters and their families to try to change the atmosphere. However, it is a difficult task, because the position of ordinary folk is becoming more difficult. Disadvantage is growing, and resources are fewer. When local authorities' resources are cut, everyone suffers. In this case, it is the youth service, the youth clubs and the places where youngsters can be helped to make the best of their talents, and kept away from the temptations of joyriding and theft. Given the cuts, it is difficult for local authorities to create alternative programmes to divert youth from taking up car crime.

Finally, the Home Office working group recommended

"design improvements in car security by manufacturers." I raised this matter with Ford, because so many of its cars were being stolen as a result of inadequate security arrangements. I am glad to say that it is aware of that and is taking the appropriate steps.

However, the sad fact is that it is impossible to prevent people from stealing a vehicle if they are sufficiently determined. They can smash the window and get in, and then attach wires to bypass the ignition. Members of the public, however, must make it more difficult for car thieves. We must try to deter people by locking up cars--if possible, in a garage--and by ensuring that they are locked in the street. We should use visible and invisible devices to immobilise cars in the hope that they will not be stolen. Of course, the thieves may go off and steal someone else's car, so that is only a start, but, if it gets hard enough for the thief, with a bit of luck the deterrent will work.

Meanwhile, it is fair to ask the Government--as one would any Government-- whether they have recognised the growth of car crime. Do the Government know about the serious problems that this type of crime is creating? Do they recognise that the people who are creating the problem tend to be young men or boys who can find no other recreation that they will enjoy?

I have outlined the problem. I want to pay tribute to my assistants, David Ramsden, Brian Silver, and Michael Fertleman, who have been kind enough to help me with this brief. I wish that I had had more help from the Government with finding ways to deal with the problems which, for my constituents and for many people throughout the country, give rise to alarm. Car crime is a plague of misery that requires immediate and active attention.

10.14 pm

Next Section

Home Page