House of Commons Hansard Debates for 31 Oct 1991

Column 96

happen, but the software audit which is best practice must become usual practice everywhere. When it has, the Companies Acts will need to be changed so that it is as much a matter of the law to have a software audit as it is to have account audits now.

A year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was rightly drawing attention to the huge crimes committed by Mr. Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Whether he should be tried in some international tribunal was discussed by my right hon. Friend and others. Unfortunately, this country has not taken a lead role in the United Nations in establishing an international tribunal of criminal jurisdiction. There is a great amount of ignorance in our universities and elsewhere about the huge progress that has been made in sorting out many of the problems involved in establishing such a tribunal. The United Nations is now beginning to function in something like the way in which its founding fathers intended a generation ago.

I should like the British Government to take the lead in trying to establish, if only on a regional basis to start, an international court of criminal jurisdiction. I commend to the House and to the country the enormous amount of work that has been done on this by Professor Cherif Bassiouni of De Paul university, Chicago. He is the draftsman of the draft United Nations convention on this matter. We could proceed quickly if the political will existed. I should like to see more of such political will from the Government.

As the House would expect, I welcome the channel tunnel link line that has been selected--running through the Thames crossing and east of London. I want to offer another idea for public debate. We all want freight to travel from the regions, from the midlands, the north-west, the north-east and from Scotland, to the channel tunnel. The construction of urban railways, like the construction of urban roads, is the most expensive form of railway building. Houses must often be acquired and pulled down. Tunnelling is immensely expensive.

So should we not also think of bypassing London with a line running from Rugby--connecting into the west midlands, the north-west and the Glasgow routes--across the country to Peterborough--connecting with the Yorkshire and Edinburgh routes--to Stansted airport--thereby integrating, as the French do, airport and rail transport--and then straight down to the channel tunnel? Then, instead of coming into London, freight from the constituency of Macclesfield, say, would not have to pass through all the marshalling yards but could leave Manchester, go to Rugby and Peterborough, underneath Stansted airport and straight down to the channel tunnel. We need to get away from the overwhelming concentration of transport on London.

I have spoken for too long, and I know that some of my hon. Friends still want to speak. I warmly commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

9.11 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) would not expect me to agree with much of what he said. I profoundly disagreed with virtually everthing that he said about the domestic scene. Nevertheless, I agreed with one or two of his remarks towards the end. I wholly agreed with his opinion about the tragedy of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia offers a lesson for

Column 97

some other countries--notably the Soviet Union as it disintegrates. Unless steps are taken to prevent this sort of tragedy from occurring there, such events could take place.

I am absolutely certain that no British troops should be involved in any attempted peace-keeping exercise in Yugoslavia, even though I understand that it has been tentatively suggested in certain quarters.

I also agree that there should be international machinery to bring notorious war criminals to justice. We know that that was done successfully at Nuremburg after the last war and I see no reason why notorious mass murderers such as the one who unfortunately continues to rule in Iraq should not be brought to justice. I hope that he will be.

The hon. Member for Corby began by saying that much has changed in the past year. It certainly has. On the occasion of the last Queen's Speech the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister, cheered on loudly by Conservative Members. One month later, following an old-style, Soviet-type coup, she was gone--and now she is hardly mentioned by the same Members.

We know that if the political climate were different, we would be in an election campaign now, or it would already have taken place. The only reason why there has been no election and why this Parliament, unlike the last few, is going to last five years is that the Prime Minister lacks the confidence--understandably--that he will win it. In the words of the right hon. Member for Finchley, he is somewhat frit about going to the country. He did not go when he was appointed Prime Minister. He did not go in June. He is certainly not going to go in November. He will hold on as long as possible, although there are not many months left before he has to hold an election.

In the meantime, there seems once again to be some bullying of the BBC, if not directly by the Government, at least by Conservative central office and the chairman of the Conservative party. All kinds of pressures have been brought to bear on the corporation. Anyone who knows anything about the BBC knows that the senior executives of that organisation are not all enthusiastic Labour voters. I do not know the voting intentions of the most senior people in the BBC, but I should be surprised if there was a Labour majority. That is understandable because of their background, income and expectations. However, the biggest cheer at Conservative party conferences is when there is an outlandish attack on the BBC. One Tory delegate--if that is the right word--described it as the "Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation", which raised a tremendously enthusiastic cheer. Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North) indicated assent.

Mr. Winnick : The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement. Such bullying should not be allowed and the BBC should understand that the Labour party will monitor the position extremely carefully to see whether such bullying and intimidation has any effect.

Reference is made in the Queen's Speech to improving

"the effectiveness of the health and social services".

It is not surprising that, despite all the speeches that we have heard from the Tory Benches and on other occasions, Ministers cannot persuade the country that the national health service is safe in the Government's hands. They have strenuously denied that they intend to privatise any part of the NHS and some of my hon. Friends have already referred to that today. The Government pride themselves though on privatisation. The Queen's Speech

Column 98

says that, if the Government continue in office, they will continue to prepare for the privatisation of the railways and the coal board. However, the Government are sharp and hesitant about the national health service and deny that they plan to privatise it. If it is right to privatise and if the Government take so much pride in what they have done in the past 12 years, why are they so reluctant--as they claim-- to privatise the national health service? The national health service has not been privatised outright--we have never said that it would be--purely because of electoral fears. There is no other reason. Does anyone imagine that someone with the political philosophies of the right hon. Member for Finchley believes in the concept of a national health service? It goes against the grain for many Tories, especially those with a strong right- wing bias. That may not apply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is an enthusiastic defender of the national health service. I hope that I am not harming his reputation

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : I am not sure whether compliments from the hon. Gentleman will do my reputation any good, but I am none the less grateful for what he said. I am committed to the health service. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have increased the resources to the national health service each year by 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation? Whereas in 1978-79 £7.75 billion was being spent on the health service by a Labour Government, more than £32 billion is currently being spent by a Conservative Government. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about the reforms, surely that shows a genuine commitment to the health service.

Mr. Winnick : I do not accept that the Government have a genuine commitment to the health service. Without wishing to harm the hon. Gentleman's reputation, may I say that we admire his stand? I was a Back- Bencher in the late 1960s and I sometimes found it necessary to rebel against my Government. It is not always easy and the Whips do not always appreciate it. But the hon. Gentleman has shown great courage and that should be said on the Floor of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman should consider the eye and dental tests for which fees are now charged. That is totally unnecessary and even dangerous for reasons that have already been given about the number of people who no longer have eye tests. People have been wrongly deterred from doing so by the charges, which should be abolished.

The Government have now increased prescription charges. How can anyone state that the Government are genuinely committed to the national health service when there has been a real increase--taking account of inflation-- of 594 per cent. in prescription charges? They were 20p when the Labour Government left office in 1979 and they would be about 46p now if the price had simply risen with inflation. I have already quoted briefly from the brochure of a credit card company. I do not think that the hon. Member for Macclesfield was present then, and he may be interested. A major credit card company has written to its card holders stating :

"How would you feel if you or a member of your family needed to go into hospital for a hip replacement and your doctor said that you had to wait your turn--a wait that could be months or even years? You would probably find your

Column 99

whole life affected while you waited and waited to go into hospital. You might suffer irritation or embarrassment from a painful or unsightly condition. You may even be forced to take time off work."

Clearly, the organisation understands that so many people wait months or years for hip replacements and other operations for which they should not have to wait so long. That is hardly illustrative of a Government concerned about the national health service. While some of the figures given by the hon. Member for Macclesfield may have been correct, the demand is such that more and more needs to be done, and most people would accept that the NHS remains underfunded. Last Saturday I saw someone who came to my surgery and said that his wife required incontinence pads. We can all understand what happens to a person who unfortunately and sadly loses control of his or her bodily functions--it could happen to any of us. Apparently, the health authority is normally willing to supply up to four free pads daily, but in this case only two were supplied. The rest must be paid for.

When I made inquiries with the Library here I found that the health authority had no legal basis on which to charge in the first place, and I have taken up the matter with the health authority. When an official from the Library telephoned an advice worker involved with the disabled it was discovered that, in order to keep dry, more than 12 pads daily could be needed. Incontinence is an unfortunate condition. It is not a major illness, but if one loses control of bodily functions, why should not the pads be supplied as required? What will the person do with them--hoard them or sell them on the black market? The person who came to see me said that he was provoked into doing so by something that the Secretary of State for Health said. My constituent said that it was one illustration of what was happening on the ground and he thought I might be interested. I was certainly most interested.

There was no mention of unemployment in the Queen's Speech. The number of jobs in manufacturing fell by almost 7 per cent. between January 1990 and July 1991, which amounted to a loss in manufacturing of 348,000 jobs. Yet again, as 10 years ago, the recession has been more severe in the west midlands, the heartland of engineering, than elsewhere. Between the middle of August and the middle of October this year 32,271 jobs nationally were lost. That happened under a Government who were responsible for a previous recession. In the early 1990s the Government were responsible for the loss of jobs throughout the country and the west midlands was devastated. Ten years later the same is happening. Many of the people--some of whom are my constituents--who were made redundant previously and who were fortunate enough to get new jobs have been made redundant again. People of all age groups who were adversely affected either then or now are in an unfortunate position. In some respects it is worse for those in their fifties or even their late forties who know that the chance of being able to find employment again is remote. People who would normally have another 15 or 16 years in paid employment, be able to earn a living, perhaps make savings and build up some form of pension contribution to supplement their old-age pension will now, having exhausted their 12 months of unemployment benefit, be on

Column 100

income support only. They will have to rely on the smallest of incomes. What do they have to look forward to--the old- age pension in due course? My right hon. and hon. Friends have said time and time again--and to a large extent this philosophy is what the Labour movement was all about from the beginning--that people have a right to be employed, and we should never accept the situation in which someone who wants to work is denied that opportunity. Today, far too many people are denied that opportunity.

I referred to the situation in the west midlands, which affects not only manual workers. That is particularly true of the current recession. I do not suggest for one moment that substantial unemployment is confined to my region, but many non-manual, semi-professional and professional people in the west midlands and elsewhere who never dreamed that they would ever be out of work are now unemployed--in some cases, for a considerable time.

The Government say that the recession is coming to an end and that recovery will take place. Of course, the recession will end--recessions always do. Why should the electorate be grateful to the Government when that happens when, in the course of 12 years, the Government have been responsible for two major recessions? How are the electorate meant to react? Are they supposed to say, "That's remarkable. Thank you very much. We will vote Tory again"? The Government are desperately holding on and in some respects they remind me of the Tory Government of 1963. I was not a Member of Parliament at that time, but I recall that the then Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas- Home--rather like the present Prime Minister--did not want to hold an election until the very last moment. He kept telling the House that the Conservatives would win, but he had little confidence that they would. We all know the outcome.

The present Government are clinging on to office. They have largely lost the confidence of the country and there should have been a general election when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister. In any event, a general election should have been held by now. I am certain that whenever a general election is called the Government will, after 13 years in office, lose. I am confident that many people throughout the country who voted Conservative, with enthusiasm or otherwise, and who in many cases gave the Tories the benefit of the doubt--especially in 1983 and 1987--are clear in their minds that they will not vote Tory again. I hope that most of them will vote Labour, although obviously some will support the Liberals. The fact remains that many people have lost confidence in the Tory party--in my view, with every possible justification.

9.27 pm

Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North) : I will not follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in all his remarks. He ended speaking cheerfully, as other Labour Members have done this afternoon, of the prospects of Labour returning to Government, but deep down inside the hon. Gentleman knows that he is whistling in the dark. He talks hopefully but does not really expect to arrive.

I intended not to say much about the health service but to concentrate on other aspects of the Gracious Speech. However, I am roused to comment about the national health service by the remarks of the hon. Members for

Column 101

Walsall, North and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). There is no bigger deceit in British politics than Labour's claims that it is good for Britain's health and for the NHS. Time and time again, the statistics prove that the health service was more poorly handled by Labour than by anyone else.

Why was it that the new general hospital in my constituency was not built between 1974 and 1979? The answer is that a Labour Government made the country bankrupt. Why was it that for the first time ever spending on the health service in my constituency fell between 1974 and 1979? It was because Labour went broke and could not spend enough money. Why is it that since 1979 the number of patients treated in Bury hospitals and the number of inpatients and outpatients has risen? Why is it that we now have more doctors and nurses, and have not closed a ward because of lack of finance? Why is it that, to my knowledge, no operations have been cancelled in Bury hospitals because of lack of finance? All this is because the Conservative party cares about the NHS and works hard for it.

The Labour party talks more nonsense and deceit, and tells more blatant untruths, about the national health service than about anything else. It does not mind who it scares or frightens, nor does it care what it says so long as it might gather an extra vote. It talks nonsense, and it knows it talks nonsense, but worse than that it talks sanctimonious nonsense. Were there no health service queues when the Labour party was in power? Did nobody ever miss an operation? Where was the hon. Member for Walsall, North when 65 cancer patients were sent home, because of industrial action, in Birmingham in 1979? Which side of the line was he on then? We never hear anything about that in the sanctimonious humbug from the Labour party now. Labour Members should examine their consciences and their past and be more careful.

The truth about the health service is that it is good, but it has problems that need to be solved. Why is it that when anything goes well in the health service, Labour Members say that the staff have done a wonderful job, but when anything goes wrong, they always blame the Government? There are problems in administration. The work of the NHS is patchy and not always as good as it should be. These problems need to be addressed, but nothing serious about how to solve them comes from the Labour party, and we hear nothing about from where the money to live up to its false expectations will come. It is bad news for all concerned.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : As Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, I know that the Committee has undertaken some work into ophthalmic services. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke about dental and eye test charges. He rightly said that, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, I voted against the introduction of charges. However, it is right to support my hon. Friend's argument by pointing out that the evidence to the Select Committee shows that the number of people going for eye tests is returning to the level that it was before the new charges were introduced. That shows that, after the implementation of new charges--after all, the Labour party first introduced charges in the NHS, thereby setting the precedent--there was a period of consumer reaction but the number of people coming

Column 102

forward either for dental treatment or for eye tests is returning to the level that it was before charges were imposed.

Mr. Burt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that so clear. His commitment to the NHS is not questioned by any Labour Member, just as the commitment of every Conservative Member should not be. My hon. Friend may agree that numbers took such a dip because people were frightened by the Labour party talking about charges. Everybody assumed that they would have to pay because the Labour party never spoke about exemptions.

I wonder how many illnesses the Labour party has been responsible for, given the propaganda that it produces. That propaganda is nothing new. In 1979, the Labour party circulated leaflets claiming that the Conservative party would introduce charges for seeing a doctor and staying in hospital. That was not true, and it did not happen. In 1983, it claimed that the Conservative party proposed to cease funding the NHS from taxation. In 1987, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) claimed that the Conservatives would carry out the privatisation of Britain's hospitals. All these claims were untrue--the Labour party scares on health, and continues to do so, but does not back up its claim. The hon. Member for Walsall, North claimed that waiting lists and queues drive people into private health schemes, and are thus part of the move to privatisation. That is the Labour party's weasel way of getting out of what it said about privatisation. I wonder whether he knows that the biggest boost to private health came not during the Conservative Government but at the tail end of the Labour Government. The events of 1978-79 sent more people into private health schemes than anything else.

Mr. Winnick : We have other accusations apart from those about the Conservative Government's behaviour and the charges that they have introduced--charges that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have not been defended by all his colleagues. He may have voted for them but many Conservative Members honourably voted against them. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the Conservative party conference the Selsdon group produced a pamphlet in which it was suggested that the national health service should be privatised? It stated that there should be a sort of framework for the very needy and that otherwise people should pay. Apparently no press conference was held because that was considered inappropriate so near to an election. The production of the pamphlet demonstrates that changes have taken place under the Government to which we are opposed and that there are many Conservative Members and others, such as the members of the Selsdon group and other right wingers, who believe that the NHS should be privatised. There is no such pressure group within the Labour movement.

Mr. Burt : The hon. Gentleman must not charge me with association with the loony right any more than I would say to him, "What about the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)? Where do you stand on what he says?" Members of our parties are entitled to their views. I hold no brief for the loony right in my party, as most of my right hon. and hon. Friends know. I do not know which brief the hon. Gentleman holds within his party for the various sectors of the political spectrum that his colleagues occupy. We all have colleagues who put

Column 103

forward ideas for which the rest of us would not give house room. I have not been submitting anything that has come from a pressure group. I have presented the facts on what the Labour party did to the NHS when the Labour Government had charge of it. The facts are distasteful. The Labour Government ran the NHS poorly and an incoming Labour Government would do that again. We have had enough nonsense about the NHS from Labour Members.

I enjoyed hearing much of what is contained in the Gracious Speech. It has a confident tone of a Government who are progressing and building on the changes that have taken place within the past decade while retaining the base of economic reality, which is the major difference between the Government and the Opposition. In addition, the Government are introducing a more rounded set of policies in the context of society and the community that are better than those that we have seen over the past few years.

I have many reasons to welcome certain parts of the Gracious Speech but I shall concentrate on two. The first is the citizens charter. One of the most striking features of the past decade is that a Conservative Government sought to dismantle barriers in our society that had been in place for too long. It is we, uncluttered and free of the grip of public sector trade union leadership, who have sought to change the worst aspects of post-war Britain, which have caused so much damage and decline.

Such damage and decline are not always measurable in terms of lack of output, productivity or performance, but the consequences can be seen throughout our society, often in ways that cannot be measured. These range from the could-not-care-less attitude that is taken by those who should know better, to the unreasonable demands of those who have forgotten the virtues of patience and courtesy. The citizens charter is part of our progress to a society without barriers. There is much in the charter which sets out the responsibility of those in public and formerly public authorities and the rights of citizens--consumers--to obtain service from them.

The balance of power in our society has too often been with providers of public services, and protection for citizens has not been as great as it should have been. The citizens charter should not become something that puts the boot on the other foot for reasons of vengeance. It is not to become a whingers' charter. It is right to set out clearly the responsibilities of those who provide services, and it is equally right to remind us all that we have our own obligations and duties as citizens in our society. We have no right to demand the unreasonable, nor to pressurise and treat unbearably those who seek to provide a service for us.

The Government have spoken before of the concept of active citizenship. In spelling out the responsibilities of public authorities, the citizen needs to be aware of his or her duties. For example, it is no use requiring hard- pressed health authorities, which through the NHS have created a record second to none for care and devotion, to set targets and maximum waiting times for operations if citizens do not do all that they can to look after their own health. We all have sympathy with those who are made ill through no fault of their own, but too many illnesses in our society contain elements that are preventable. If we expect services to play fair with us, we must play fair with them.

Column 104

The same applies in education. The concept of the active parent has been expanded through the work of the Education Reform Act 1988, but it can be taken further. We can require schools to open up details of their performance, but must back up schools and teachers who resent bitterly parents who take no interest in their children, throw them into school at the age of four or five, prop them in front of the television at night and then expect teachers to do all the work and to take all the criticism if the child fails to perform to the best of its ability. A good society requires the partnership of those who request and those who provide, and it is that type of society that we should seek.

In helping to build such a society I should not wish the citizens charter to be seen merely as an opportunity to criticise those in the public services. The public services contain a wealth of talent and expertise which is at the service of the general community. In the past it has too often been the case that the citizen's frustration in dealing with the public service--owing to the absence of such a charter--has built the wrong attitude between the two. The right type of charter can break that down and establish the correct relationship for the benefit of those who provide and for those who use the services.

The American poet Robert Frost said "Good fences make good neighbours." In his direct way he expressed the belief that what some might regard as a barrier between people was the basis of a relationship of trust, understanding and friendship which enhanced their lives. So should it be with the citizens charter. When dealing with the public service it is important for the public to recognise that they also have a role to play and that their attitude--

Mr. John Lee (Pendle) : My hon. Friend will know that I represent a constituency which has perhaps the highest percentage of people employed in manufacturing industry. About 55 per cent. of employment in my constituency is in manufacturing and, as my hon. Friend knows, I am committed to the private sector and to business, as he is. Does he agree that many of us were perhaps embarrassed during the years of our Administration at some of the excessive attacks on those who work in the public sector and at the implication that those who work in that sector were interested only in working the shortest possible hours or in their inflation-proof pensions? However, throughout the north west and Lancashire and in my hon. Friend's constituency of Bury and in Pendle there are many hundreds--or thousands-- of people who work in the public sector who give genuine service and who try to help members of the public in so many ways. The citizens charter is a two-way arrangement and a two-way relationship. We must acknowledge the contribution of those who work in the public sector as much as we justifiably defend and build up the rights of those who will be defended by the charter.

Mr. Burt : My hon. Friend has waited long and patiently to make that point which I appreciate. He is right--something seemed to go wrong between the Conservative Government and the public service during the past decade. We know that there were problems to be put right and we perhaps made the error of grouping people together, a charge which should never be levelled at politicians. If we get something wrong, we should acknowledge it. Sometimes things have not been right in

Column 105

the public sector and changes must be made, but if we conveyed the impression that the public sector was somehow second class it was the wrong impression. I hope that we can now deal with that problem and ensure that that is not the belief.

Hon. Members who visit the public service in all its guises in our constituencies know the work that it does and we value and appreciate it. I agree with my hon. Friend that the charter should form the basis of a better relationship, one which recognises the public sector's work and which protects those who work in it. Those who work in it must be protected from the unpleasantness, abuse and--worst of all--the downright violence to which they are subjected by some members of the population. People who work in the public sector also have rights. I hope that the charter will acknowledge that fact, and that the Government will work to build a better relationship. The second issue to which I wish to draw the House's attention is that part of the Queen's Speech relating to Europe. The past 45 years are but a tiny proportion of Europe's history but what has been achieved is, I believe, remarkable. The House should never forget the reasons for the origin of the European Community and why there is a different perspective on integration in continental Europe and in these islands. The experiences of occupied and war-torn continental Europe in the first and second world wars were fundamentally different from those in this country. However, our shared experiences easily enabled us to understand why the French and Germans especially wished to create an order in Europe which would prevent their children warring with each other ever again. That is a vision to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. I believe in a Europe in which, unlike generations before them, my children will not have to don uniforms to fight other Europeans and begin the conflagration of another world war. If that goal is to be achieved, I am prepared to put up with a great deal.

Seen in that context, the European Community has done an extraordinary job. It has created a modern day situation in which our young people, as they travel the continent, do not entertain the notion that they might be at war with their continental neighbours. Designed to prevent such an evil, the Community has been a success. However, how do we progress from here?

The key to European development is long-term, patient progress. It is unnecessary to force the pace too quickly within presidential cycles or to limit our options. Politically that would be inept because our political backgrounds are simply too diverse. Nations need time to alter their structures and prepare their people for great constitutional change. The suggestion that such changes might be imposed or driven in some way by people outside their boundaries only makes the process more difficult.

Historically, that pressure is inept. Europe is living proof that national hot-headedness lies always just below the surface in our different races. We cannot view the changes in eastern Europe or the day-to-day events in Yugoslavia without recognising that fact. Those who fail to understand the dangers of a European superstructure reawakening latent nationalistic feeling ignore the most basic and awful lesson of history that Europe has ever taught.

That historical lesson is many-sided. It is just as important to recognise that, while attempts to suppress national identities are doomed to failure, those who have come together in a larger unit voluntarily and for reasons

Column 106

of peaceful co-existence and harmony tend to do better than those who separate. The desire for unification in many European states in the 19th century after the chaos of civil strife of their previous existences proves that point. Accordingly, the best way to proceed is to have some sense of historical patience and allow some time to be taken over the major decisions that we face.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made that clear the other day when he said that there was no blueprint for Europe's future and that the decisions would ultimately be taken by what he called his children. I am old enough to be one of the children to whom my right hon. Friend referred. Perhaps hon. Members of my generation and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) will take the decisions. We will be guided by the wisdom and experience of hon. Members of slightly earlier generations. We have time. We should not be pressed to take decisions in Europe too quickly. When we consider the 2,000 years of strife that Europe has experienced and the 45 years of harmony, it is clear that there are many good things to aim at.

There is more to today's debate than simply an analysis of the Queen's Speech. This debate must be the prime opportunity prior to a general election for the Leader of the Opposition to put aside all doubts about himself, his party and his policies. That opportunity has been comprehensively missed.

This debate was a chance for the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the charges that Conservative Members make about tax and spend ; the lack of an anti-inflationary policy and the folly of a minimum wage and its dramatic impact on jobs identified by union leaders and economic experts alike and the incredible gap between Labour's promises to spend and a lack of commitment about where to find the finances. All those chances were lost.

There is a spirit hovering over the Opposition Benches tonight to which reference has not yet been made. That is the spirit of Thomas Digges, a former Member of this place. It was revealed in today's Daily Telegraph that he invented the astronomical telescope 30 years before Galileo, but the discovery was kept quiet for security reasons and we have all been under a misapprehension ever since. That so-called Digges doctrine is alive and well on the Opposition Benches-- [Interruption.] Indeed, one would need an astronomical telescope tonight to discover any life on the Opposition Benches apart from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who is in his customary position on the Opposition Front Bench.

We have been under a misapprehension about Labour's key policies for many years. The truth has been hidden from us. Of course, the Labour party has been in favour of Europe all the time. The manifesto commitment in 1983 to pull out, the views of the Leader of the Opposition and the 13 shadow Cabinet members who voted against the Single European Act in 1986 were all just a smoke screen. Of course, the Labour party's commitment to personal choice and opportunity is a matter of long-term and deeply held belief. Therefore, Labour Members' votes against the sale of council houses, the open enrolment policy in schools, and their support of the abolition of grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme and their belief in the return of secondary picketing, with its denial of choice and opportunity to work, have all been part of the Digges

Column 107

smoke screen--"Get your policy, hide it from people, and, 30 years later, say that it was your idea all the time." The Digges doctrine will not hold water at the next election.

The debate on the Gracious Speech has been very good and hon. Members have enjoyed the day, but we are very interested in what the next Gracious Speech will say. I venture to suggest that the debate will be equally good and equally interesting. It will come from the Conservative Benches, and it will come from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).

9.50 pm

Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : When Her Majesty delivered the Gracious Speech this morning, I wondered for a moment whether she would tell us when the next general election would be. She could have told us with certainty that the next general election will be held during the first half of next year. However, on a serious note, never having before served in a Parliament that has gone into a fifth year, I believe that the continual speculation in certain quarters about the timing of the election is extremely damaging for the recovery of the economy. I never thought that I would say that I was open to persuasion on fixed-term Parliaments, but that is very much my case now. For parliamentarians to be subjected to weekly or monthly opinion polls is, to say the least, boring. To have continual jibes from the Opposition, taunting us that we are scared to have a general election, is childish and will lead the general public to become more disillusioned with politicians and politics than they are already. Perhaps in Parliaments to come we may seriously consider having fixed terms.

I have always been against the televising of our proceedings and I am still very much of that view today. However, I am glad that the behaviour of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and that of the Leader of the Opposition were seen. It enabled the general public clearly to see the contrast between the leaders of the two main parties. We saw the Prime Minister clearly set forth a positive set of policies around which the country can rally. We saw the Leader of the Opposition make one of the most damning, destructive and negative speeches that I have ever heard. When it came to a point of policy--my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intervened--the Leader of the Opposition was totally floored. He could not answer. Of course, as we saw later, the Opposition are devoid of any policies. I praise the details of the Gracious Speech. Conservative Members have always had clear views on our defence policies. The Opposition parties have also had clear views on our defence. However, in the two Parliaments in which I have served, the Opposition have seemed to change their views or change the goal posts. They were in favour of unilateral disarmament. They were always lecturing us that we were over-armed. They were always urging us to reduce our forces. They were always telling us that there was no nuclear threat and that we should respond accordingly. Of course, once we saw the change in the eastern bloc, once the overall threat was rather diminished, once we had our policy review and we announced changes, what did the Opposition do? As ever

Column 108

over the past few months, if they see an electoral opportunity, they jump on the bandwagon and say that we are reducing our arms too quickly.

My constituency contains GEC Avionics and Marconi is nearby, in Chelmsford. We have always recognised that it is not easy for such companies to diversify their activities. Nor is it easy, if one suddenly has to reduce one's work force by 500, to stand outside the factory and say, "Well, lads, you are just going to have to find other jobs because the country does not need as many arms as it used to." The Conservative party has always said that that is a problem, but the Opposition have simply said, "We do not need as many arms as we used to." The Opposition's hypocrisy over the current defence review has been absolutely appalling. Conservative Members have always had a consistent defence policy, but the Opposition have not. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) mentioned the citizens charter. It is a splendid document that should receive all-party support. My goodness--it contains what the Opposition parties have always asked for. Whatever the problem, we can fix it. All Opposition Members should be rallying round to support our citizens charter. As the Prime Minister said, the citizens charter offers the citizen nothing less than a revolution in the way in which public services are delivered. It will be the most comprehensive quality initiative ever launched. New and tougher standards of service will be set. We will introduce a wide range of mechanisms to ensure that those standards are met to the citizens' satisfaction. It should also point the way to a new pride and purpose for those who work in the public services. All those are sensible things and should unite us. As ever, however, the Opposition appear churlish.

I also support the words in the Gracious Speech about improving education. I am delighted that standards of education in Basildon have improved in each of the eight years that I have represented the constituency. I am proud to be the father of five children. My two eldest children attend a local state primary school. They can read well, they behave reasonably well and they have mastered the basics of arithmetic. Not only are standards of education improving in Basildon, but we also have the first grant- maintained school in Essex, which has been an enormous success.

I am also delighted that the Gracious Speech referred to British Rail. Basildon has the worst rail service in the country, the Fenchurch Street line. Three weeks ago I publicly made a journey on that line. British Rail's representatives did not even turn up to meet me and the Basildon commuter group. When the engine rolled in, it was pulling eight carriages, of which two were locked. Only about one fifth of the people on the platform managed to get on to the train. When we arrived at Fenchurch Street, a British Rail official rushed up to me to apologise for this delay. I was given a card giving 10 excuses for the fact that the train was 20 minutes late. I am delighted to tell the House that on 12 November Sir Bob Reid will be travelling on the 8.34 am train, together with the Basildon commuter group and Essex Members of Parliament.

I conclude with Europe. My hon. Friends and I would like some honesty from the Opposition--

Mr. Burt : They are not here.

Column 109

Mr. Amess : No, there are not many Opposition Members in the Chamber, but we should like some honesty from them about where they stand in relation to Europe. The Liberal Democrats have a firm policy. They are prepared to support a federal Europe and to sell out British interests and British sovereignty. They make no secret of that. But where does the Labour party stand on Europe? We just do not know.

When the general election is called the media will give equal coverage during the three-week campaign to the three political parties--

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Four parties.

Mr. Amess : Four political parties. Then the general public will listen carefully to the policies which the various parties enunciate. I have no doubt that the public will endorse the Government and that the Conservative party will lead us into the year 2000.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) asked about the Labour party's policy on Europe. Look at the time that he asks that question. The debate finishes at 10 o'clock. How the hell does he expect a response from me? If he is here tomorrow, I may have the opportunity to tell him.

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

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Column 110

Dounreay

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

10 pm

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : As I rise to speak to the House on this important matter, I am conscious that it is a complex and difficult subject. It is a farce--indeed, it is tragic--that a matter of such grave concern to the people of Scotland should be raised in an Adjournment debate when time is limited. The matter needs a great deal of exploration. It seems ludicrous that Scottish Back-Benchers do not even have the facility of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to which we could summon Ministers and ask them in detail about the problems that we face.

I wish to place on record my party's stance and my personal stance on the reprocessing of nuclear material at Dounreay. It is our long-held view that foreign spent nuclear fuel should not be sent to Dounreay for storage, let alone for reprocessing, because it breaches what is for us a fundamental principle : that the responsibility for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel should lie with the reactor operators. If the appropriate storage facilities do not exist, that is a problem which should and can be addressed by the reactor operators themselves. The Scottish National party has made its view perfectly clear on many occasions and I reiterate that view this evening : radioactive material, whether it be spent nuclear fuel or waste, should be stored above ground, on site, where it can be subject to close inspection.

There is grave public concern in Scotland about the possibility of our country being used as the world's nuclear dustbin. The Minister may think that that is a strong expression, but I use it carefully. The matter was first drawn to our attention as far back as 1974 when the nuclear industry inspectorate's chief inspector said this about the consequences of developing reprocessing in the United Kingdom : "The price for Britain of building lucrative business world-wide in nuclear fuel services could be that it becomes the dumping place for the world's nuclear waste."

So as far back as 1974 it was spelt out by the industry itself. At that stage the inspector did not mention spent nuclear fuel. Events prove that, in the context of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, his prediction is being realised.

In Scotland during the past year we have witnessed the distasteful spectacle of Dounreay scouring the planet and touting for business as the nuclear prostitute of the world, seeking to sign as many contracts as possible to dispose of other countries' spent nuclear fuel while the clock ticks away towards the 1994 deadline set by the Government when funding for the 250 MW prototype fast reactor will cease.

Dounreay has been attempting to fill a gap in the international market which has appeared since the United States energy department decided in 1989 to ban the import of research reactor fuel pending an environmental assessment. It has been Dounreay's proud boast that it is the only civilian site in the western world which can reprocess the highly enriched uranium fuel used by 50 reactors in 22 countries. According to press reports, Dounreay is attempting to build up its foreign business to £25 million. In that context, what has been particularly difficult for all of us in Scotland to deal with has been the

Column 111

Government's secrecy. What have the Government done and said? As usual, they have been willing to sub-contract these important decisions to the nuclear industry and to stand back, like Pontius Pilate, and say, "This has nothing to do with us." Recently, from a series of parliamentary questions that I tabled to the Secretary of State for Scotland, it became clear that since his appointment he had not even bothered to contact the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to discuss the storage and reprocessing of spent fuel at Dounreay. That is a gross dereliction of duty. Perhaps he has been too busy writing letters to his colleagues in the Cabinet--a matter to which I shall return later.

There has been a conspiracy of silence between the nuclear industry and the Government on providing information about the contracts that Dounreay has signed and about the discussions and negotiations that have taken place or are taking place with foreign reactors. Not only radioactive plutonium has a half-life ; so does the information on these contracts, which leaks so slowly from Scottish Office canisters. Elected Members of Parliament, councillors and others interested have been dependent, like the general public, on press reports and the monitoring activities of groups such as the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace, Greenpeace and the Northern European Information Group. I pay tribute to them tonight for the work that they have undertaken in an attempt to keep us aware of what is happening out there.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I realise that this is a short debate and that I cannot possibly ask the hon. Lady all the questions that I should like to ask. Has she asked the Atomic Energy Authority about these contracts? When I have done so, I have had no difficulty whatever in obtaining full and frank information at all times. The allegation that there has been undue secrecy seems untrue.

Mrs. Ewing : The hon. Gentleman, who has a special interest in this matter, must be aware that the first information on the Iraqi contract came through a leaked letter and not directly from UKAEA. Although Members of Parliament are constantly in contact with that organisation, we do not have the opportunity to explore the matter in detail or to discuss openly what is taking place. We are learning now about contracts because information has been leaked.

It was confirmed in September 1990 that Dounreay had secured its first new contract for reprocessing with the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt research reactor in Braunschweig to reprocess 39 spent fuel rods. So far 20 of them have been sent to Dounreay, with a further consignment due.

We are told that Dounreay has held preliminary discussions with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation about reprocessing spent fuel from the High Flux Australian reactor. However, any commercial negotiations would require Australian Government approval. In February 1991, ANSTO confirmed that talks had not progressed beyond the preliminary stage. With the United States removed, at least temporarily, from the reprocessing marketplace, the possibility of the 450 spent fuel elements coming to Scotland should not and cannot be dismissed. It was

Next Section

Home Page