Tag: David Steel

Below is the text of the speech made by David Steel, the then Liberal MP for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, on 15 May 1978.

I beg to move,

That the Town and Country Planning (Windscale and Calder Works) Special Development Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 523), dated 3rd April 1978 a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be withdrawn.
I intend to be mindful of your statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This motion is in an updated form. The Prayer was signed by more than 50 hon. Members on both sides of the House earlier this year, and there is no doubt that some hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate will have more fundamentalist objections than I have to proceeding with the reprocessing plant at Windscale. Therefore, in my brief opening speech I do not propose to deal with either the financial or the technical arguments, which no doubt other hon. Members will wish to deploy and some of which were aired in the debate in March, although I have read the recent reports from the United States which cast doubt on the wisdom of proceeding on both the financial and the technical grounds.

In my view, the arguments on both sides are finely balanced and contain many uncertainties. It is because of that that I believe the burden of proof ought to lie quite firmly on the side of those who are pressing this order and who argue that we should now be taking this firm step into the plutonium economy.

In fact, I disagree entirely with the conclusion, although I agreed with many of the arguments, of this morning’s leader in The Times which, rather surprisingly, concluded:

“The overwhelming importance of keeping the widest range of options open in the coming world shortage of power resources amply justifies going ahead at this stage. The relative novelty of the technology is itself a reason for pressing on, since success or failure will to a great extent define those options in future. But the project is a venture into political and technological waters that are very incompletely charted, and it is important that it should be kept under genuine and fundamental review as it develops, and that today’s vote should not be seen as setting it on an inflexible and irrevocable course.”

My first argument is that, unhappily, in this Parliament we know that these matters too easily get set on an inflexible and irrevocable course. Perhaps I may take the mind of the House back to the discussions that we had on the Concorde project. I question seriously whether, if we knew in 1962 what we know today about the costs and the effects of the Concorde project, the House would ever have given approval for it. I have looked out the figures. In November 1962, the House was told that the project would cost us £150 million to £170 million. The latest figure, given earlier this month, was £1,137 million, not to mention the annual operating cost losses to British Airways of £8·5 million, none of which takes account of the small number of orders for the aircraft or the write-off of the capital costs.

I say that merely in passing because, if one is to take The Times argument that we should not regard this vote as irrevocable—

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland) rose—

Mr. Steel

I hope that I shall not be pressed to give way, because I know that a great many right hon. and hon. Members are waiting to speak.

Mr. Jopling

Will the right hon. Member give way on that point?

Mr. Steel

Other right hon. and hon. Members can counter my argument in the debate. I promised to curtail my remarks as much as possible. We have only three hours. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) knows that usually I give way in debate, but this is ​ a debate of a rather special nature and I must proceed with my speech. If any hon. Member wishes to challenge my figures, he may do so later in the debate. However, I obtained the figures from the Library.

Mr. Jopling

They are wrong.

Mr. Steel

The first reason why I oppose this order is precisely that I think that it is not possible, once we are past this stage, easily for Parliament or future Governments to review it and draw back.

My second reason is that I think that public opinion is increasingly concerned about the way in which we push forward technology at the dictates of the expert without adequate thought of safeguards given by the layman. On occasion, that concern turns into outrage when matters go wrong. I give three examples. There was the accident at the Seveso plant in Italy. Afterwards, a great many articles were written about it in which people said how tragic it was and what precautions might have been taken there.

Then there was the crash landing of the Russian space satellite in Canada, which happened in an unpopulated part of Canada but which nevertheless caused concern about the release of radioactivity. Then, coming nearer home, we had the wreck of the “Amoco Cadiz”. Leaving aside the effects on tourism, which are temporary and ephemeral, the destruction of a total environment in part of the world surely gives rise to considerable public concern. Increasingly, people are asking what it is that we are doing to a world of which we are simply temporary trustees. I believe that the magnitude of the decision that we are asked to take today is greater than any of the examples that I have given.

It must be said that the record of safety of our nuclear industry is excellent. In the course of my visit to the prototype fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay and when I was at Windscale, I was immensely impressed by the record of the nuclear industry, and it is right to resent implications that it is less safe and less scrupulous than other dangerous industries.

Having said that, however, we are lucky in that we have never had a major incident in our nuclear industry. No one ​ can guarantee, no Government can, and no hon. Member can, that there might not be some incident in the future. The fact that 10,000 people were prepared to go to Trafalgar Square peacefully on a Sunday—[Interruption.]—and 3,000 to Torness on the South-East coast of Scotland—[Interruption.]—is an indication of growing public concern. I know that the groans coming from some of the Benches indicate precisely what alarms me, which is that these people are written off as cranks or political misfits. That is a wrong attitude to what is a genuine growth of public concern about these issues. A Parliament which is arrogant and sweeps these people aside is adopting entirely the wrong attitude.

That is my second reason for suggesting we should think again about going ahead with this project.

My third reason for opposing this order is that we still—and the evidence is in the Parker Report—require further investigation into the safety and security of nuclear materials both on site and in transit and of waste storage and that the information that we have so far on all these is inadequate.

It was accepted by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his speech during our debate in March—and it was accepted by Mr. Justice Parker in his report—that there is no case for domestic reasons related to a future fast-breeder reactor programme for pressing ahead now with the Windscale reprocessing plant. Indeed, in its evidence to the inquiry, BNFL said that it could withstand a further delay of up to five years without its affecting the CFR programme.
So we should not be pushed by arguments of urgency into agreeing to this order tonight. On the safety and security questions we should pause and consider what was said by the Flowers Commission. It said:

“The unquantifiable effects of the security measures that might become necessary in a plutonium economy should be a major consideration in decisions on substantial nuclear development. Security issues require wide public debate.”

In the debate in March there were many criticisms of the perfunctory manner in which the security question was dealt with by the Windscale inquiry and the Parker Report.

In the Written Answer which the Secretary of State for the Environment gave earlier this month in the Government’s official reaction to Mr. Justice Parker’s recommendations, the right hon. Gentleman said:

“The Government accept the principle that security measures at Windscale should be checked by an independent person not involved in their design or operation, and will examine how best to put the recommendation into effect (No. 1). There are, however, wider security implications which need further consideration before detailed arrangements can be worked out.”—[Official Report, 8th May 1978; Vol. 949, col. 337.]

Bearing in mind the perfunctory way in which security matters have been dealt with, and considering the statement that there is still quite a lot to be worked out, there is a case for examining the matter further. I suggest, whether we proceed with the order or not, that the Government should consider the appointment of a Select Committee to consider these matters, because I accept that we are limited in the degree of public debate that we can have on them.

If I may cite a precedent, the Select Committee on Services, of which I was a member a few years ago, which deals with security in the Palace of Westminster, is a model of how a delicate matter can be dealt with by private Committee. I believe that we would all be willing to trust our colleagues to look more deeply into these questions.

It is not simply a question of holding material on site. There is also the question of the transporting of nuclear material to and from Windscale. The Parker Report recommended that the majority of the transport should continue to be by rail. No doubt that will be the case. However, there was a report earlier this year that some material was being ferried by air from Windscale to Dounreay. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can confirm that. This gives rise to some anxiety.

When I visited Dounreay I was struck by the fact that if we are to have a commercial fast-breeder reactor in the future, and if it is to be at Dounreay, which appears to be the most favourable site, there is a case for examining again the Windscale project and for arguing that purely for domestic reasons the reprocessing ​ should be carried out where the material is to be used. This casts doubt on whether Windscale is the right place if, in the future, for domestic reasons, we want to have a commercial fast-breeder reactor programme.

I suggest that we should have a Select Committee, whether or not we proceed with the order, to consider all the questions of security.

There is still doubt about the method and location of storage. The Flowers Report says:

“We are confident that an acceptable solution will be found and we attach great importance to the search; for we are agreed that it would be irresponsible and morally wrong to commit future generations to the consequences of fission power on a massive scale unless it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that at least one method exists for the safe isolation of these wastes for the indefinite future.”

I notice the very careful words used by the Secretary of State in March when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). The Secretary of State replied on this point by saying:

“The vitrification process has been subject to a great deal of research and pilot demonstration. I believe, again, that the evidence is clear that it offers a promising solution to the problem.”—[Official Report, 22nd March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 1544.]

That does not strike me as being beyond reasonable doubt. We have yet to reach the stage at which we have on the necessary scale proved vitrification as a satisfactory process.

There is also the question of the location of storage. Here I am slightly critical of the Atomic Energy Authority. It has been seeking planning permission and in some cases engaging in the boring of test holes in places such as Cornwall, the Scottish borders, Northumberland, the Highlands and the Orkneys. It appears to have made a tour of Liberal constituencies for that purpose, omitting for some reason Rochdale—a much more likely candidate.

I believe that the authority has run slightly ahead of both Government decisions and public opinion and has needlessly stirred up much resentment and concern about the location of future storage, particularly when the method of storage has not yet been proved. I hope that this process will not be continued. ​ The public require much greater reassurance about the safe handling of all these materials, both active and waste, before we press ahead with the project.

My fourth and last reason for opposing the order is that if we go ahead with it we shall be giving an international lead in the wrong direction. Even the Parker Report, which came out in favour of the project, said in paragraph 6.2:

“A nuclear bomb can be constructed with the grade of plutonium recovered by reprocessing. A country, which had in its hands such plutonium, could produce a bomb or bombs more rapidly, and with less risk of its actions being detected in time for international diplomatic pressure to be exerted, than if it had no such plutonium.”

Paragraph 6.6 says:

“At present the system for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is founded on a number of agreements … and … the system of safeguards which they contain or for which they provide is essentially one of reporting and inspection. This system was acknowledged by everyone to be in need of strengthening and improvement.”

The reason why we ought not to proceed with the order now is because of the international evaluation programme being conducted on the initiative of the United States. It is interesting to note that this is a bi-partisan policy in the United States which runs directly counter to what appears to be a bipartisan approach in Britain. President Ford initiated the programme in October 1976, when he said

“The United States should no longer regard reprocessing of used nuclear fuel to produce plutonium as a necessary and inevitable step in the nuclear fuel cycle.”

He went on to say that

“the avoidance of proliferation must take precedence over economic interests.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), when speaking in the debate in March, quoted Mr. Justice Parker’s version of President Carter’s updating of that initiative of April 1977 when he talked about the

“indefinite deferment of commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium.”—[Official Report, 22nd March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 1598.]

President Carter said

“Increasing United States capacity to provide adequate and timely supplies of nuclear fuels to countries that needed them ‘so that they will not be required or encouraged to reprocess their own materials’.”

He then announced that what he was wanting was ​

“an embargo on the export of equipment or technology that could permit uranium enrichment or chemical reprocessing.”

He said that he was pursuing discussions on

“a wide range of international approaches and frameworks that would permit all countries to achieve their own energy needs, while at the same time reducing the spread of the capabilities of nuclear explosive development.”

When the Government refer to the INFCE they do so in strange terms. The Secretary of State for the Environment in March told the House:

“We hope, however—and we shall work for it—that INFCE will recommend better safeguards with perhaps greater international participation, for sensitive nuclear plants and movements of nuclear materials.”—[Official Report, 22nd March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 155.]

The Foreign Secretary said that after INFCE he hoped to convert the Carter Administration

“to our view of reprocessing on non-proliferation grounds.”

In that speech he argued what I thought was a completely false piece of logic when he said:

“If we need to reprocess fuel irradiated in the United Kingdom on grounds of better use of our energy resources and better waste management, and there is a case to be made for that, it is only right that we should offer the use of the plant to other governments who share our view that reprocessing is a necessary part of the nuclear fuel cycle. In this way I believe that we shall reduce the need for other governments to build their own reprocessing plants. In offering our services to other governments we hope to satisfy their, and our, concern about the possible misuse of plutonium.”

The emphasis must be on the word “hope”. That is a non-provable assertion and I should have thought it much more likely that, if we have an international evaluation programme involving 40 nation States, and if we decide to go ahead regardless of that programme. we shall simply encourage others to follow suit.

The House has a straight choice between looking at the longer term results of a decision that we take tonight against the undoubted economic value of the Japanese and other contracts which we could acquire. I believe that the onus must lie heavily on the Government, who have brought forward the order, to persuade us that we are wrong. If they do not persuade us beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be right to vote in favour of the order being withdrawn.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Steel, the then Leader of the Liberal Party, in the House of Commons on 16 April 1986.

No one can be in any doubt that the decision taken by the Prime Minister and her colleagues was very difficult. The argument that I wish to deploy is that, although it was very difficult, it was the wrong decision. In a sense, I am relieved that the briefings from the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday showed that there were senior Ministers who expressed doubts about the action that was taken and they included the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chairman of the Conservative party and the Home Secretary.

The Leader of the Opposition quoted what the Secretary of State for Defence forecast with remarkable accuracy on his local radio station. Here I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. The Foreign Secretary said that he did not know of the decision when he met his European colleagues. That in itself is a comment on the way in which the decision was taken, and it will leave the Foreign Secretary extremely exposed among our European allies when he meets them in the future.

In arguing that the decision was wrong, the easiest way to come to that conclusion is to draw up a balance sheet of the gains and losses which have been incurred as a result of the action taken. The first loss is that a great many people were, unhappily, killed and that the act of revenge was out of proportion to the terrorist acts from which the United States suffered. It is a great mistake for the Prime Minister to slide, in her natural and right condemnation of Libya, into the assumption that all of the terrorist acts somehow have been inspired by Libya. Unhappily, that is not the case. They have come from other countries, too.

It is doubtful whether the action taken was legal under article 51 of the United Nations Charter. I do not think that ​ there is much point in going on in a debate, but at best it is a narrow balance of argument. It is clear from the words used by the Prime Minister both yesterday and today that in giving her consent to the use of British bases she did not seek to limit the attack to military targets, but included the severe risks and results that we saw in the centre of Tripoli.

The second item on the debit side is, I believe, that the action has now exposed Britons both in Libya and Britain itself to further terrorist attacks. I think that the Prime Minister has misunderstood the nature of terrorism. Before you have a terrorist, you have to have a fanatic. In order to breed terrorism, you have to breed fanaticism. My great fear is that this action in the last 48 hours will breed more fanaticism, not just in Libya itself, but throughout the Middle East. That is a more accurate forecast.

Mr. Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

With regard to breeding more terrorists, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could comment on the American action the week before in the gulf of Sirte when they crossed that line. Does he believe that that would breed more terrorism? Would he like to comment at some point on the comments made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who said that he would like to have seen British ships alongside the Americans, going across that line?

Mr. Steel

The hon. Member must not take out of context what my right hon. Friend has said. He has argued for the case to be taken to the United Nations and for collective action to be taken against Libya by the Western powers, and that is a view with which I agree. I shall return to the question of the gulf of Sirte in a moment.

The third item on the debit side is that we have angered our allies. This is a time when European unity is important. We have 11 fellow members of the European Community, and not one of them has supported the view that we have taken on this matter. Several of them are rather closer to the situation than we are.

I was at a meeting with the Italian Defence Minister, Mr. Spadolini, in Sicily when the fleet began the exercises which led to this attack. I know that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are aware that no one would doubt Mr. Spadolini’s commitment to the NATO Alliance, but, as a result of the stationing of NATO bases on Sicily, and throughout the mainland of Italy, the mood in Italy is nervous. They, unlike us, are in line and within target range of Libyan missiles, so the weight of European opinion is important in this matter.

The fourth casualty in this exercise has been the postponement, rather than the cancellation, of the meeting between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Shevardnadze. The Soviet Union is wrong in asserting that this attack was part of a strategy to torpedo the Geneva talks. This has been an inadvertent casualty of the whole peace process, and I hope that it will be resumed as soon as possible, and that the Foreign Secretary will lend his weight to the resumption of these important talks.

The fifth casualty on the debit side is the effect that it has had—

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose—

Mr. Steel

No, I shall not give way.

The fifth casualty is the effect that it has had in boosting Colonel Gaddafi’s position both internally and externally in the middle east. His 16–year-old reign in Libya has been ​ a catalogue of misdeeds and malevolence. He is detested, and rightly so, by Westerner, Arab and African alike. He has invaded Chad, and tried to overthrow the neighbouring Government in Tunisia. He has meddled in Syria and Algeria and sponsored numerous acts of hijacking and terrorism, including the attempt to murder some leaders in Egypt. In Britain we too have suffered with the incident in St. James’s Square. Elsewhere in Europe, the terrorists that he has trained, sheltered and equipped have murdered Libyans in exile, and any foreigners who anger the colonel. The man is a menace, and is widely regarded as such. I fear that what this action has done is to boost his power, authority and status within his own country, and in the Arab world as a whole. All of this is on the debit side.

I come to the second point, which is the matter of the gulf of Sirte. These opinions that I give on Colonel Gaddafi’s status in the Arab world are not my own. During the Easter recess, I was in the Gulf States and every Government told me in relation to the action in the gulf of Sirte that surely we could have had more influence with the United States not to act unilaterally, that it would have the effect of boosting Colonel Gaddafi. That view must have been put to Vice-President Bush when he went round the same countries three days later. It appears that the United States has paid no attention to that particular argument.

When one looks at the fact that Jordan and Egypt are traditional friends, and have now joined in criticism of the action which we and the United States have taken, one must add all that together and then look at the credit side. The Prime Minister says that it will have helped to check terrorism. I am afraid that that must remain a hope, and not anything for which there is any evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, I think that there is every reason to believe that, far from stopping terrorism, this particular action will have boosted terrorism from Libya and elsewhere.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that it is not so long ago that he advocated bombing a very much less aggressive leader? Does he not remember Liberal policy to bomb Zimbabwe?

Mr. Steel

The hon. Member’s memory is faulty. Firstly, it was certainly not anything that I ever said and, secondly, the proposal was to damage the railway line carrying oil supplies across the desert.

The real argument which has been produced in favour of this action is that it has taught Colonel Gaddafi a lesson. That is undeniable. I believe the great powers, the great civilisations, do not enhance their reputation by giving vent to their frustrations in terrible acts of indiscriminate revenge, and that is how it is seen in the rest of the world.

There are three short lessons from this episode. Firstly, the United States Administration is right to complain of an inadequate European response to terrorism and to the acts of Libya. That is why I believe, and my party and our alliance believe, that the Government should take the evidence that they have both to the European Community and to the United Nations, and seek a collective response to Libya’s actions. Europe should act more unitedly, both against terrorism, and I believe, in the longer run, on the wider issues of the Middle East problem, on which Europe ​ has done nothing since the days when Lord Carrington was chairman of the Council of Ministers. I think we ought to revise those initiatives.

The second lesson is that we ought to look at the arrangements for the use of American bases. The Attlee-Truman accord is very much out of date. It was never published, and it should now be revised, published and approved. If damage is not to be caused to the NATO Alliance, there must be no doubt as to the conditions under which American bases in this country are used. The Government made a severe error of judgment. I believe that the British people will share that view and that they would rather see a Government with a broader view of British interests in the world and a Government who will think that it is conceivable, occasionally, to say no to the occupant of the White House.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Steel, the then Leader of the Liberal Party, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1986.

I happily join the other party leaders in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Loyal Address.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) is a respected senior colleague and a former Minister and we greatly enjoyed his references to his previous constituents. I noted with particular enjoyment his reference to Tony Hancock and the episode in the “Blood Donor”. The hon. Gentleman might have regaled the ​ House with the line that I remember best from that episode. Tony Hancock was explaining to the attendant at the blood donor centre why he had been motivated to go to the centre. He said that he felt that he had to do something for his country and it was either giving blood or joining the Young Conservatives. I believe that Tony Hancock made the right choice, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hall Green agrees.

On a more serious note, the hon. Member for Hall Green was surely right to make a plea to the Government to invest more in our decaying cities and less in the green belt. His view finds an echo on the Opposition side.

I have a warm affection for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone). The leader of the Labour party gave a less than complete biography of the hon. Gentleman whose contribution to the alliance began not with his defeat in a by-election by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), but in the 1979 election with his defeat by me at Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. The hon. Gentleman is a unique embodiment of how much the Liberal party and the SDP have in common.

Again on a serious note, we not only enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s self-deprecating humour and appreciate his obviously genuine devotion to Aberdeen after sojourns in the Borders and Glasgow, but I strongly agree with him that the success of the Government will be judged by how they manage to reform our industrial base. On that proposition, we can rest content and we shall see what happens in the next year or two.

There is no doubt that the whole tone of the Queen’s Speech follows closely the tone of the Conservative party conference. The whole emphasis was on the presentation of policies rather than on the policies themselves. Any criticism was of the presentation, not the substance.

Great emphasis is placed on presentation, so much so that, during the Conservative party conference, The Guardian reported:

“It is a week in which presentation … is the name of the game.”

It reported a particular and, I believe, significant episode:

“Mr. John Patten, the new Minister for the Environment, may have gone too far presentationwise. An advance handout of his speech winding up a local government debate began: ‘This has been a marvellous debate.’ It was distributed some two hours before the debate began.”

That is the sort of presentation that we are becoming used to and we find echoes of it in various phrases throughout the Gracious Speech. For example, we are told that the

“Government will continue to work for progress in arms control and disarmament negotiations”.

Continue to work? What efforts have the Government made in arms control negotiations? Not only did they refuse to count in the Polaris missile system during previous East-West discussions, despite almost semi-public prodding by Vice-President Bush to do so, but they have made a lukewarm response—to put it mildly—to Mr. Gorbachev’s alternative suggestion that there could be direct discussions to see whether reductions on both sides could be achieved between Britain and the Soviet Union.

The House has debated many times the effect on the Budget in general and on conventional defence spending in particular of the Government’s commitment to the Trident missile programme. We do not concentrate often enough on the fact that that commitment represents a major escalation of nuclear fire power by this country at a time when we hope for greater optimism in East-West ​ relations. An increase from a targeting capability of 64 to 896 is not working towards arms control and reductions; that is working positively for a major escalation of nuclear fire power. There is a gap between the presentation and the reality.

In the next paragraph of the Gracious Speech we are told that within the European Community the Government

“will work for improved decision taking”.

They could have fooled me. Where have we found Britain in recent Community discussions? We have been in company with Denmark and Greece in resisting the political and constitutional reforms that are necessary to end stagnation within the Community. That will be an important issue as Spain and Portugal join the Community. I hope that it signals a major change in the Government’s attitude to the Community.

The Queen’s Speech states that the Government

“will continue to seek more normal relations with Argentina.”

I hope that that will be so. I was glad to see published for the first time in yesterday’s press a fact that I reported privately to the Foreign Office a couple of weeks ago following my discussions with President Alfonsin—that the Argentine Government are ready to join in a multilateral effort to secure agreements on fishing. It is a small step, but it is welcome, and I hope that the Government will build on it.

My basic quarrel is with the Government’s negative stance on the future of the Falklands. We tend to forget that, proud though we all were of our great victory in the Falklands, we not only brought liberty to the Falkland Islands but we were also instrumental in bringing liberty and democracy to Argentina. We have not built upon that, nor have we built upon the good will generated there.
If the Government were willing to negotiate the future constitution of the Falkland Islands with a military dictatorship, it is not unreasonable to ask two democracies to come to an agreement on this long-standing dispute. We should be looking forward in this Session to the lifting of the protection zone, the cessation of hostilities, and a return to normal diplomatic relations. If no other argument appeals to the Prime Minister, she should listen to the many British business men who are complaining bitterly about the loss of trade and export potential.

The Queen’s Speech continues:

“My Government will work for peaceful and fundamental change in South Africa with the European Community and the Commonwealth”.

I hope that the emphasis will be on work, not just hope, because “peaceful and fundamental change” is what we are after.

The Government’s record is not good. At the European Community meeting the unfortunate Minister of State took a negative stance and, even in the tiny sanctions agreed by the other Community countries, following the Prime Minister’s performance in the Bahamas, we held out to resist any international pressure on South Africa. That does not give us hope that the Government intend to work constructively to ensure a peaceful change.

I asked someone who was in the Bahamas at the time whether the atmosphere was as bad as it appeared to us at home, and I was told that it was worse. I was told, “You do not understand. Your Prime Minister treats other Heads of Government as if they were members of the Dorking Conservative association with the same narrow, blinkered view of the world perspective.” I appreciate that a growing ​ part of Conservative philosophy is to believe that everyone else is wrong and that the Tory Government are right, but I hope that the Government really intend to work for that change and that it is not mere presentation.

The Government promise to

“maintain a substantial aid programme.”

No one could honestly use the word “maintain” in relation to the Government’s aid programme. Our contribution has never reached 0·7 per cent. of gross domestic product—the United Nations target. When the Government took office our contribution was 0·52 per cent., and it is now only 0·33 per cent. Our contribution is in decline. When we came back after the summer recess we were treated to a warm demonstration from the World Development Movement. It was one of the most impressive demonstrations outside the House for many years. I remember asking the Leader of the House, who was standing in for the Prime Minister, why we gave only $25 a head to overseas aid when the Americans gave $37 per head and the French $47. He said that one had to consider the relative strength of resources. That is fair, but the Canadians gave $65 per head and the Danes and the Dutch $88. That has nothing to do with the strength of resources, but more to do with strength of will—or the lack of it. Maintaining “a substantial aid programme” must be more than presentation; it must become a reality.

Similar phraseology is used in relation to domestic matters. We are told:

“Legislation will be introduced to facilitate funding by the industry of agricultural research, advice and related services”.

That is a euphemism for cutting agricultural research along with medical, scientific and engineering research. The words “facilitate funding” seem to bestow a benefit upon agricultural research, but no one in the farming world will believe that for a second.

The Gracious Speech says:

“Measures will be brought forward to reform the operation of Wages Councils”.

If the Government intend to make it easier to bring young people into the labour market without plunging straight in at adult wage rates, they will get some sympathy, but we suspect that this proposal might open the door to a return to sweatshops for young people because the Government intend to abandon the International Labour Organisation code. Why do they intend to do that if reform is their genuine aim?

In Scotland legislation is planned

“to improve legal aid arrangements”.

The legal profession in Scotland knows what that means. It means cutting legal aid access; it has nothing to do with improving legal aid arrangements. That is another example of presentation which has nothing to do with reality.
The most brazen piece of presentation is contained in the paragraph which says:

“Legislation will be introduced … to promote the professional effectiveness of teachers.”

This Government have done more to undermine the professional effectiveness of teachers than any previous Government. I met union members yesterday, so I know what I am talking about. They reinforced my view that the issue is not just about the current pay dispute, but about the Government’s attitude to education. We must take note of the Audit Commission report on the universities published yesterday. We must take into account what has happened to school books and buildings.

Of course, a problem is caused by falling school rolls, but the Government have given the figures as expenditure per head, which conceals the decline in morale in the classrooms.

The Prime Minister referrred to the powers of the police in combating disorder. We shall give our constructive support to any legislation designed to combat public disorder. However, we must be careful that we do not turn our police into a buffer to deal with problems which politicians and society have failed to tackle. I say that retrospectively with reference to the miners’ dispute and to the inner city problems. It is no use piling all the responsibility on to the police if we have not tackled the root of the problem.

The crime record under the present Government is appalling. It reveals a glaring gap between presentation and image and reality. The Government claim to be the Government of law and order. The people believe it because Conservatives constantly make speeches about it, but their record reveals something different.

All reported crimes are up 40 per cent. Crimes of violence are up 20 per cent., robberies have doubled, and burglaries have nearly doubled since the Government came to power. Crimes against property have increased, and I believe unemployment to be the root cause. People who are not part of the criminal fraternity are turning to crime almost as a way of life. We must tackle that problem immediately.

We shall support any Government moves to tackle drug addiction. The increase in drug addiction is also related to some extent to the feeling of helplessness in our inner cities—[HON. MEMBERS: “Rubbish.”] Hon. Members may doubt that, but one of the most depressing conversations that I had during the summer was when I spent a week in Liverpool. I met members of the Merseyside drug council and talked to drug addicts. One addict commented to me, “What is the point of coming off drugs? What is it for?” When there is that feeling of frustration, helplessness and hopelessness among some of our young people, we have an obligation to be aware that it exists. We must tackle that as well as the problem of drug trafficking, although I welcome what the Prime Minister had to say about that. To ignore that atmosphere, to say that it is all a question of going after the pushers, is to ignore what life is really like in our inner cities.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not have time to see the Rev. Jesse Jackson when he was here, although I do not criticise her. He saw the other party leaders individually and voiced important opinions about the effect of black consciousness in the inner cities and the American experience. He gave one very good piece of advice to the black community in this country, which deserves wider attention, about recruitment to the police force. It is undoubtedly true that while only 300 of our 20,000 Metropolitan police are black, the tensions that Lord Scarman highlighted in his 1981 report will continue. The Rev. Jesse Jackson said that the attitude of blacks boycotting entrance into the police was wrong, and we must all endorse what he said. We must try to recruit more black people into the police and integrate them—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) would not interrupt from a sedentary position and make such ludicrous remarks. I object to those who, on political grounds, say that they are ​ not interested in entering the police force. I am not saying that there should be different qualifications for different people; only that we should recruit more black people.

Surely we want people to help themselves. I say to the leader of the Labour party that one of the problems of the Labour council in Liverpool is that it believes that it can find the people to do for Liverpool people what they should be doing for themselves. It appointed as a race relations officer a member of Militant Tendency—a surveyor in London. Yet there is a perfectly good black consciousness movement in the city capable of generating its own leadership, and it should be encouraged to do so.

This summer I also visited Handsworth, some time after the riots had occurred. Again, there is a lesson to be learned. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary—

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

The right hon. Gentleman is telling the Labour party what it should be doing, yet the Liberal party was in control of the city of Liverpool for 10 years, during which time it stopped the building of council houses, slashed student grants, sacked 4,000 workers from the Liverpool corporation and refused a grant to Toxteth community council almost immediately after the riots so that the bill had to be met by the Labour-controlled Merseyside county council. The right hon. Gentleman’s remarks are rich indeed.

Mr. Steel

I shall happily send the hon. Gentleman the 66-page document that we have prepared showing how false are the statements being made by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Hatton and others—[Interruption .] I am sorry that I have been diverted from my speech, but I wish to deal with this point. During the Liberal party’s period of control in Liverpool, there was a switch from council housing to co-operative and other forms of low-cost housing. In a city that has thousands of empty council houses, to talk about building more and giving people what the Labour party thinks is best for them is quite the wrong attitude. If the hon. Gentleman had dared to talk to the Eldon housing co-operative, which has many good Labour party members, he would have learned a great deal about what should be done for housing in the city, and at much less public expense than the Labour party’s proposals.

Birmingham gives us an important lesson in the way in which money has been spent in the cities. The Prime Minister was right to say that a great deal of money has been spent in those areas—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Mr. Steel

I shall not give way. Although I am usually willing to give way, I have now moved from Liverpool to Birmingham. This will not be the last time that we discuss the problems of Liverpool, and I look forward to returning to them in future.

There is an important lesson to be learned from Handsworth. I accept that money has been spent there, but one of the complaints of the people of Handsworth is that it has gone to outside national contractors which have brought in outside labour, carried out the work, and taken away the profits. We must look for better ways to spend the money.

A specific complaint is that projects put forward by the community following the 1981 experience have not yet been processed. I could not believe that and asked that the details be sent to me. The other day I forwarded to the ​ Home Secretary one specific example of this problem. A self-help project was proposed by the Afro-Caribbean group. It was dated 11 September 1981, but has still not been processed by the city council and the Manpower Services Commission. The project would involve young, unemployed blacks in restoring and repairing houses in the area. Surely that is the sort of project that we should be encouraging. Rather than throw money at the problem, we should use money to help people to help themselves.

What I have said about the inner cities is true of the general housing position. The Government’s house-building record is appalling. We hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will succeed in persuading his Cabinet colleagues that the house repair problem is serious. It must be tackled more imaginatively. More could be done by turning local authority estates and new council housing into housing co-operatives. That is the way for the future, and it is one means of building communities rather than simply building houses. The Government should concentrate on that.

Finally, and most important of all, my quarrel with the tone of the Gracious Speech is that it offers nothing towards changing the Government’s economic direction. It refers to

“improving the efficiency of industries”

and to certain privatisation measures. Some of those measures may be acceptable, but we will have to wait to see the legislation. However, none of that is relevant to the central issues. The sale of assets, whatever the merit in spreading share ownership, is simply Treasury creative accounting. What will the Government do after the next election when there is nothing left to sell? What will they do in five years when there is no oil revenue? They have raised billions of pounds of capital from the sale of public assets, but pumped nothing back into the investment and infrastructure of our country.

It is significant that during the past few weeks other people—usually sympathetic to the Conservative party—have made that same criticism. Reference has already been made to the House of Lords Select Committee report. Not only was the report all-party, which is unusual; it was signed by people who are not theoretical economists, but have major experience of the industrial and commercial life of our country. In the report they said:

“Unless the climate is changed so that steps can be taken to enlarge the manufacturing base, combat import penetration and stimulate the export of manufactured goods, as oil revenues diminish the country will experience adverse effects which … constitute a grave threat to the standard of living and to the economic and political stability of the nation … Urgent action is required.”

The Association of British Chambers of Commerce said that there should be a much more positive Government approach to manufacturing industry and that the Government’s decision to reject the House of Lords report had been “rash and unwise”.

The Confederation of British Industry spoke about the Chancellor

“tying British industry’s shoelaces together”

with a combination of high interest rates and an overvalued pound.

The president of the Chartered Institute of Building said that the Government must act; they have got it wrong. He said that the Government seemed devoid of meaningful ideas, yet rejected serious initiatives from industry. He ​ said that the harsh, unpalatable fact was that Britain was spending a much lower proportion of GNP on superstructure and infrastructure.

This autumn the alliance published its detailed budget proposals, designed to stimulate the economy, to obtain some growth and to create jobs. They were tested on the Treasury model. The Government may disagree with them, but they cannot doubt their validity. We should concentrate hard on improving our manufacturing and economic base.

This is fundamentally a tinkering Gracious Speech; it does not go to the heart of the problem. It is all presentation. The Government, in rejecting all those other people’s views, remind me a little of a Victorian embroidery that I recall seeing on a wall in the home of an elderly couple in my constituency. I can imagine the Prime Minister saying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

“All the world’s a little wrong save thee and me, and even thee’s a little wrong.”

That sort of attitude will not carry the Government through. The editor of the Spectator was correct in his view of the Government’s presentation when he commented:

“it is a waste of time for anyone to try to alter the Prime Minister’s political persona. You may be able to persuade her to raise her voice or lower it, but it will still say the same things.”

That is true, and, because of it, the Government refuse to listen and to change and they are leading us to disaster in the long run. Because the Government will not change, we must change the Government.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, David Steel, made as a tribute following the death of Donald Dewar. The speech was made on Friday 13th October 2000 in the Scottish Parliament.

This is not a meeting that any of us would have wished to hold. The news of our First Minister’s death came with such devastating suddenness, after we had all assumed that he had come safely through his serious heart operation.

It is cruel how Scotland has been robbed in recent years of so many able politicians in their prime: John P Mackintosh, Labour; Alick Buchanan-Smith, Conservative; Allan Macartney, SNP; John Smith; and now Donald Dewar. Donald, however, at least had the satisfaction of leaving behind the completion of what he described as first a hope, then a belief, then a promise and then a reality – the restoration of Scotland’s Parliament after 300 years.

He questioned the title “father of the nation”, but he was without question the father of the Parliament. Under his leadership, this new Parliament had already found its head, its energy and its skills. Today, as it meets to mourn his death, it has found its heart.

Over the past two days, hundreds of tributes have been paid to Donald Dewar, so many that it is difficult to find anything new to say about him. We do not need to find anything new to say, because what is remarkable about all the newspaper coverage is that the same words keep leaping out from different pages – decency, integrity, trust, dignity, scholar, service and commitment.

Tributes have been coming in from all manner of people. He visited the Irish Parliament a few months ago. Its Presiding Officer wrote to me:

“Having paid tribute to the integrity and proficiency of such a fine politician, the members of the Dáil rose in prayerful silence.”

In May, we had a visit from the President of Malawi. Donald’s heart trouble had already been diagnosed and he had cancelled most of his engagements prior to his operation. However, he was due to give a dinner in Edinburgh castle for the President and he told me, “That is one I am going to keep”. He not only gave the dinner, but he spent the evening showing the President round the castle and over the honours of Scotland, revelling in expounding our history and discussing Scotland’s links with Africa through David Livingstone and others. On Wednesday evening, within hours of the tragic news, I was astonished to receive a telephone call from the President of Malawi himself, expressing his sadness and conveying his condolences to the Parliament. Those two tributes show how Donald touched and impressed those whom he had met but fleetingly. How much more painful, therefore, is his loss to those who knew him well.

However, tributes have come not just from the great and the powerful, but from every walk of life. One Scottish organisation wrote:

“While we and he had not seen eye to eye on every aspect of policy, it had been a comfort to know that the Executive was headed by a man who personified the highest possible standards in public life.”

I add the words of two typical individuals, which I have chosen at random. One said that he

“was not a supporter of his party but, like many others, knew him to be a great ambassador for Scotland and a genuinely good man.”

Another stated:

“Yesterday should have been a day of celebration for me – it was my 40th birthday. I had never met the man, but when I heard the news of his death, I simply had no stomach for a party.”

Furthermore, one entry in our condolence book contains, alongside the signature, just one word: “Thankyou”. That is what we come together today to say. However, Donald would not forgive us if we turned this into a greetin meeting, because there was one other characteristic of Donald’s that I have not yet mentioned – he was always enormous fun to be with. I am going to miss our tête-à-tête dinners dreadfully.

Let me tell you about two episodes with Donald, which both – like all good Donald stories – involve food. More than 40 years ago, a group of Scottish university students visited the Soviet Union. Donald was one, I was another and the Deputy Presiding Officer, George Reid, was also there. We spent a week in Moscow and a week in Leningrad, and the food – especially student food – was of disgustingly poor quality; indeed, a few of us, including Donald, were quite ill.

On our arrival in Kiev for the third week, we sat down to lunch. Suddenly, plates of cream buns appeared and Donald more or less led a standing ovation. He inquired hopefully whether, by any chance, any of the rest of us did not like cream buns and generally displayed such excessive enthusiasm that, to his delight, our host produced cream buns again for dinner. He also produced them for breakfast the next morning, and again at lunch, and for every single meal during that week. I blame Donald for the fact that I have never since then been able to face a cream bun.

On Monday evening, the night before he died, I formally opened the new visitors centre at Holyrood. I spoke of the progress on our new building and of the importance of public access to its development. I paid tribute to architect Enric Miralles, whose widow was with us. I had just finished my speech when Donald shambled into the room. I had not been expecting him and mockingly scolded him saying, “You’ve just missed the best part of the evening”. With a withering look, he said, “Your speech? Oh, I don’t think so. These look like excellent canapés.” He added, “As a matter of fact, David, I think I have just demonstrated for you yet again my impeccable sense of judgment and timing.”

Donald Dewar elevated the profession of politician. As an occupation, politics is too easily derided, but to be a politician should be the highest and noblest calling of all – involvement in the responsible and accountable governance of people’s lives. In a television interview about a decade ago, Lord Hailsham said:

“Nobody I think who knows enough about politics really wants to be a leader. Only a fool would want to stand in that position when you are exposed to the whims of fortune and chance and all the rest of it.”

I do not agree. Of course leadership involves taking knocks and Donald had his share, both personal and political. However, it also provides an opportunity to point a course, to stamp a platform and to gather others to one’s cause – Donald used his qualities of leadership to do all of those.

Now that he is gone, where does that leave us? I commend to you lines by Archbishop Darbyshire, who wrote:

“Not names engraved in marble make

The best memorials of the dead;

But burdens shouldered for their sake

And tasks completed in their stead.”

All of us in the chamber have tasks to complete in his stead.