---

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

That the draft Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Time Limits) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

That the draft Deregulation (Corn Returns Act 1882) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

That the draft Deregulation (Fair Trading Act 1973) (Amendment) (Merger Reference Time Limits) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

That the draft Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Variation of Exempt Agreements) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.--[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

7 Feb 1996 : Column 442

PETITIONS

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

10.16 pm

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): I rise on behalf of hundreds of my constituents who are concerned that the Government are not doing enough to protect sites of special scientific interest. The petition says:

The petition of York Friends of the Earth and residents of York

Declares that we understand that every year between 200-300 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), our best wildlife sites, are damaged or destroyed.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the government to support Friends of the Earth's SSSI campaign by passing tougher laws to protect our best wildlife sites.

That is signed by Guy Wallbanks of York Friends of the Earth and 742 supporters of his cause.

To lie upon the Table.

Fire Stations (London)

10.17 pm

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich): This is a petition from residents of Plumstead, Shooters Hill and the surrounding area. It is backed by a petition in similar words with 30,000 signatures that is being delivered to the Department of the Environment and more than 1,000 letters that I have received from constituents and organisations, including the community police consultative committee. The petition sheweth:

That it is proposed to close the Shooters Hill Fire Station, Woolwich SE18 3BT and that we the undersigned, vigorously oppose the planned closure, which will seriously reduce the fire cover available in the surrounding area putting both lives and property at risk. The danger will be compounded by the closure of the Downham Fire Station in the neighbouring Borough of Lewisham and the removal of a Fire Appliance from the East Greenwich Fire Station in Charlton. These cuts in fire cover are part of a package of proposals which will result in the closure of four fire stations across London and the removal of 22 Fire Appliances from other stations and result from the substantial cut in the resources available to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. Furthermore, categorisation of risks, and the attendance times based upon that categorisation, place a higher priority on protecting buildings than saving lives.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to increase the Standard Spending Assessment for the LFCDA and urge the Home Secretary to conduct an independent review of risk categorisation and for them to intervene to prevent the closure of Shooters Hill Fire Station.

To lie upon the Table.

7 Feb 1996 : Column 443

Libya and Iraq (Sanctions)

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

10.19 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): The United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq have caused the death of more than 560,000 children since the Gulf war, according to a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation study reported in The Lancet. According to Dr. Mary Smith Fawzi of the Harvard School of Public Health,

"Food prices are high, purchasing power is low, water and sanitation systems have deteriorated, hospitals are functioning at40 per cent. capacity and the population is largely sustained by government rations which provide 1,000 calories per person per day."

An editorial in The Lancet states that Governments are now being unrealistic in expecting sanctions to cause Iraqis to rebel and notes:

"Western arms and diplomacy have failed to unseat Saddam Hussein. Why expect a population enfeebled by disease to do so?"

I have asked the Foreign Office to respond tonight to the moving "Thought for the day" that was given by the Bishop of Leicester, Dr. Tom Butler, of which I have given it a copy. He said:

"Five years ago . . . the allied attack started in the Gulf War which drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Hostilities ended with Saddam Hussein still in power, but we are told that his overthrow hadn't been the objective of the war.

An economic embargo was then imposed by the United Nations together with a ban on Iraqi sales of oil so denying it access to foreign exchange. The assumption obviously was that if life became sufficiently uncomfortable for the Iraqi people they would overthrow their leader.

Not surprisingly, this hasn't happened. It is rather like a teacher telling a class of frightened schoolboys to sort out the class bully themselves and that they would all be punished until they did so. Well, the Iraqi people have been well and truly punished and Saddam Hussein is still in power."

The bishop went on to say that, 18 months ago, he and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)

"visited Baghdad on a humanitarian mission to see how UN sanctions were affecting the Iraqi people. We were horrified by what we saw. We paid unannounced visits to modern hospitals staffed by Western trained doctors and nurses now operating in virtual stone age conditions without electricity, drugs, clean dressings or bedding. We saw children dying of diseases usually only seen in famine conditions in sub-Sahara Africa. Once people heard our English accents, they came up to us angrily demanding to know why the West was punishing them in this way.

It wasn't easy to answer for to withhold medical supplies from enemy civilians is against the Geneva conventions but, of course, we are not at war with Iraq and so the conventions do not apply. Neither is the UN totally refusing to allow medical supplies into Iraq but the Iraqi government say that it finds the conditions which would be imposed humiliating. We had several meetings with Iraqi ministers and were angered and frustrated by the way it seems to us that they were prepared to hold their own people hostage to put pressure on the West to totally lift sanctions when, with a modicum of goodwill, modest amounts of medical and food aid could be supplied to the Iraqi people without any great principle being breached.

But eighteen months later sanctions still bite into every Iraqi home and add to the climate of fear present everywhere. Meanwhile the world turns its attention to other trouble spots. In our own country this week there has been a call for a return to the teaching of

7 Feb 1996 : Column 444

traditional moral standards. Well, with the ordinary people of Iraq in mind, let me remind you of some of Jesus's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount


Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God.


Blessed are they that mourn for they will be comforted."

It is not only left-wing Members of Parliament and bishops who take that view. The Saudi prince, who was the joint commander of the Gulf war allied forces, said that the United Nations should look for an alternative to sanctions against Iraq because the punitive measures had not worked. General Prince Khaled Bin Sultan told reporters after meeting Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, that sanctions imposed after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had strengthened rather than weakened President Saddam Hussein's Government.

"The sanctions have not achieved their aim"

said the Saudi Prince

"and we must look for another way. I am not against ending the sanctions on Iraq but they are based on UN conventions and resolutions . . . The alternative must come from the United Nations and from the only world superpower, the United States."

I do not know what the British Government have to say in reply.

Secondly, I shall discuss Lockerbie. At Inverness,at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on5 February 1996, I said:

"May I ask a short question, which could be answered in three words, about the evidence that Law Officers claim to have on Lockerbie? Where physically is the crucial timing device and in whose possession?"

The Lord Advocate replied:

"As members of the Committee know well, it is not the policy of Lord Advocates to discuss in advance of trial any evidence relating to the guilt or innocence of the accused."

He told my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is in the Chamber tonight:

"My position on the matter is clear. A petition warrant has been granted for the two individuals concerned and we are . . . ready to prosecute them in Scotland. The only reason why they are not in Scotland now is because of their actions and those of the Libyan Government. There will be no change of policy on my part to that adopted by my predecessor in trying to bring them to justice in Scotland."--[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 February 1996; c. 6-8.]

I ask some questions. First, would any set of British Ministers, were the boot on the other foot, encourage two Scots whom they believed to be innocent to surrender themselves to a country with whom we had no extradition treaty?

---